U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69–978 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

H. RES. 596, H. CON. RES. 404, H. RES. 577,

H. CON. RES. 397, S. 2682, S. 1453,

H. CON. RES. 414, H. CON. RES. 382, H. RES.

588, H. CON. RES. 361, H. CON. RES. 410

MARKUPS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 28 AND OCTOBER 3, 2000

Serial No. 106–196

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

[VACANCY]

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel

MARILYN C. OWEN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

SEPTEMBER 28, 2000

Markup of H. Res. 596, affirmation of the United States record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Part I) ...................................................................... 1

OCTOBER 3, 2000

Markup of H. Con. Res. 404, calling for the immediate release of Mr. Edmond

Pope from prison in Russia for humanitarian reasons, and for other purposes ...................................................................................................................... 42

Markup of H. Res. 596, affirmation of the United States record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Part II) ..................................................................... 45

Markup of H. Res. 577, to honor the United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees (UNHCR) for its role as a protector of the world’s refugees,

to celebrate UNHCR’s 50th anniversary, and to praise the High Commissioner Sadako Ogata for her work with UNHCR for the past 10 years .......... 85

Markup of H. Con. Res. 397, voicing concern about serious violations of

human rights and fundamental freedoms in most states of Central Asia,

including substantial noncompliance with their Organization for Security

and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) commitments on democratization and

the holding of free and fair elections .................................................................. 88

Markup of S. 2682, authorizing the Board of Broadcasting Governors to

make available to the Institute for Media Development certain materials

of the Voice of America ........................................................................................ 93

Markup of S. 1453, the Sudan Peace Act .............................................................. 94

Markup of H. Con. Res. 414, relating to the reestablishment of a representative government in Afghanistan ......................................................................... 107

Markup of H. Con. Res. 382, calling on the government of Azerbaijan to

hold free and fair parliamentary elections in November, 2000 ........................ 110

Markup of H. Res. 588, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives

with respect to violations in Western Europe of provisions of the Helsinki

Final Act and other international agreements relating to the freedom of

individuals to profess and practice religion or belief ........................................ 113

Markup of H. Con. Res. 361, commending the Republic of Benin ....................... 123

Markup of H. Con. Res. 410, condemning the assassination of Father John

Kaiser and others who worked to promote human rights and justice in

the Republic of Kenya .......................................................................................... 126

WITNESS

The Honorable Robert Pearson, United States Ambassador to the Republic

of Turkey ............................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Concerning H. Res. 596:

The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the

State of California ............................................................................................ 129

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Florida .......................................................................................... 130

The Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Massachusetts .............................................................................. 130

Page

IV

The Honorable Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from

American Samoa .................................................................................................. 131

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the

State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations,

concerning H. Con. Res. 397 ............................................................................... 132

The Honorable Cynthia A. McKinney, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Georgia: letter concerning S. 2682 ................................................. 133

The Honorable Benjamin Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the

State of New York, concerning H. Con. Res. 382 .............................................. 133

The Honorable Benjamin Gilman, concerning H. Res. 588 .................................. 134

The Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, concerning H. Con. Res. 410 ........................................................ 134

Bills and Amendments:

H. Res. 596 ............................................................................................................... 137

Amendment to H. Res. 596 offered by Mr. Tancredo, a Representative

in Congress from the State of Colorado ...................................................... 148

Amendment to H. Res. 596 offered by Mr. Lantos ........................................ 149

Amendment to H. Res. 596 offered by Mr. Burton, a Representative

in Congress from the State of Indiana ........................................................ 151

Amendment to H. Res. 596 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher, a Representative

in Congress from the State of California .................................................... 153

H. Con. Res. 404 ...................................................................................................... 154

H. Res. 577 ............................................................................................................... 158

Substitute Amendment to H. Res. 577, as reported by the Subcommittee

on International Operations and Human Rights ....................................... 161

H. Con. Res. 397 ...................................................................................................... 164

Amendment to H. Con. Res. 397 offered by Mr. Gejdenson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut .......................................... 173

S. 2682 ...................................................................................................................... 174

S. 1453 ...................................................................................................................... 178

Substitute Amendment to S. 1453, as reported by the Subcommittee

on International Operations and Human Rights ....................................... 195

Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Menendez, a Representative in

Congress from the State of New Jersey, concerning page 11, after

line 15 ............................................................................................................ 215

Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Menendez, concerning page 2,

after line 5 ..................................................................................................... 216

Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Menendez, concerning page 11,

after line 23 ................................................................................................... 218

Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Campbell, a Representative in

Congress from the State of California, concerning pages 7–8 ................... 219

Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Campbell, striking all previous

amendments and returning the bill to its original form ............................ 220

H. Con. Res. 414 ...................................................................................................... 221

Amendment to H. Con. Res. 414 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher ...................... 224

H. Con. Res. 382 ...................................................................................................... 225

Substitute Amendment to H. Con. Res. 382 offered by Mr. Smith, a

Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ....................... 231

H. Res. 588 ............................................................................................................... 237

Substitute Amendment to H. Res. 588 offered by Mr. Salmon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona .................................... 245

H. Con. Res. 361 ...................................................................................................... 252

Amendment to H. Con. Res. 361 offered by Mr. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ............................................. 255

H. Con. Res. 410 ...................................................................................................... 256

Additional material submitted for the record:

Letter to Chairman Benjamin Gilman dated October 2, 2000 concerning H.

Res. 596, signed by former Secretaries of Defense, former Joint Chiefs

of Staff, former Allied Commanders, former National Security Advisors,

and others ............................................................................................................. 259

The Washington Post newspaper article dated September 6, 2000 entitled,

‘‘Armenia Pins Economic Hopes on Peace,’’ submitted by Mr. Burton ............ 262

Page

V

Letter from Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen dated October 12, 2000, concerning H. Res. 596,

submitted by Mr. Lantos ..................................................................................... 266

Three letters from religious leaders (Joseph K. Grieboski, et al; the Holy

Eastern Orthodox Archdiocese of the Americas; and the Religious Action

Center of Reform Judaism), concerning H. Res. 588, submitted by Mr.

Salmon .................................................................................................................. 268

(1)

H. RES. 596, AFFIRMATION OF THE UNITED

STATES RECORD ON THE ARMENIAN

GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee on International Relations

meets today in open session.

H. RES. 596—AFFIRMATION OF U.S. RECORD ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

RESOLUTION

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee is meeting today pursuant to

notice, to take up several legislative items. We will first consider

H. Res. 596, relating to the way the foreign policy of our Nation

reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity relating to the

Armenian Genocide.

Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

Clerk will report the title of the resolution.

[A copy of the resolution appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Res. 596, a resolution calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects

appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide documented

in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and

for other purposes.’’ Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, a first reading of the resolution will be dispensed with. Without objection, the Clerk will

read the text of the resolution for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Resolved, Section. 1. Short Title. This resolution

may be cited as the ‘Affirmation of the United States Record on the

Armenian Genocide Resolution’.’’ Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich,

as the sponsor of the resolution, to introduce it to the Committee.

Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I do have

a 4-minute video I would like to play before the hearing if there

is no objection.

2

Chairman GILMAN. Is there objection?

It will be part of the gentleman’s time.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I was in consultation with my staff. What was

the——

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman repeat his request?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. I requested that I play a 4-minute video

before the markup, if I may.

Mr. BURTON. I have no objection.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has made a unanimous consent request. Is there any objection?

If not, the gentleman may proceed, but bear in mind it is going

to be taken from your time.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman like to speak on the

measure while we are waiting for the equipment to be put in place?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would be happy to.

Mr. Chairman, today I am introducing a new bill regarding the

affirmation of the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide. As the

sponsor of this resolution, I have carefully followed all of the testimony and communications from proponents and opponents. I note

that some Members—— Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will withhold while the video

is being shown at the present time.

[video shown.]

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, might we have an opportunity to

see the video from the beginning?

Chairman GILMAN. Gentleman’s requested that the video be replayed from the beginning.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Please proceed with the video.

[video shown.]

Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for bringing up this bill today. I am introducing a new bill regarding the

affirmation of the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide.

As the sponsor of this resolution, I have carefully followed all of

the testimony and communications from proponents and opponents,

and I note that some Members have expressed concern with the

training component of this former bill, H. Res. 398—specifically the

complexity of implementing the clause.

I also note that during the Subcommittee hearing Ambassador

Grossman testified that the Foreign Service Institute already includes the Armenian Genocide in its training program. This was

later confirmed by a State Department spokesman.

Therefore, taking into account the concerns of some of my colleagues and the statements of the Department, and with the support of Chairman Smith, I submit this new bill. All references to

training have been removed, and I trust that this change will enjoy

the support of this Committee and will also make expedited floor

consideration possible.

H. Res. 398 enjoyed the bipartisan support of more than 140

Members, and I rest assured that H. Res. 596 maintains the intent

of my original bill. The new resolution also enjoys the support of

3

the Speaker, the House Minority Whip, the Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member of this Committee, as well as the Chairman and

Ranking Minority Member of the International Operations and

Human Rights Subcommittee.

I thank all for their support and cooperation.

Chairman GILMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired. I am going to

have to keep a tight time control, since we have 10 measures and

we will be interrupted by the proceedings on the floor.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would request that my statement be—— Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the full statement will be

made part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Before recognizing Mr. Burton, Mr. Gejdenson will be recognized.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I join with, I think, the majority of my colleagues in urging support for this resolution. It is clear that these kinds of acts didn’t

end in the early 1900’s or in the 1940’s, but we face them today

in many places in the world. Not but a few days ago in this hearing

room Mr. Royce had a hearing on what was happening in West Africa in seeing children with their arms cut off and legs cut off and

ears cut off, and many others killed.

I think that our action here today has to speak very directly on

this outrage against humanity that occurred so long ago, but is still

not recognized by all too many. It is clear that this is not directed

against the modern Turkish Government, except the modern Turkish Government makes the mistake that it feels it needs to defend

the actions of a predecessor regime.

I would suggest to the Turkish Government that they take their

lesson from the German Government. They would recognize the

mistakes of the past and follow Germany, which now moves forward and holds its head high among the civilized nations of the

world who participate in trying to make this a world with less barbarism in it.

The vote here today is not a vote against Turkey. It is a vote to

recognize history and to clearly state that this Congress and these

American people that we represent will not let history be forgotten.

So many have warned us about forgetting history and the consequences of that. What we have just seen on television has been

told to us by many survivors and their families.

There are always debates about the complexities of an issue, but

what is clear here is that innocent civilians in large numbers were

massacred and starved to death. Our own officials at the time recognized this. The historic evidence is clear; we need to move forward and pass this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have watched that

Peter Jennings report before, and I think anybody that sees it

would say that their hearts go out to the people who suffered those

kinds of atrocities.

But I would hate to think that the Congress of the United States

is going to be swayed in any way by watching—violins in the background when somebody talks. I mean, the lady who was talking,

4

could you hear the violins in the background? That was designed,

that is what we call ‘‘advocacy journalism,’’ where they are trying

to put forth a position on an issue by swaying the audience with

what they see.

Now, there is no question that genocides occurred and there is

no question that a lot of people died in that conflict. But the fact

is, I hope nobody is swayed just by that report.

Now, let me just say this: Three million Turks, three million

Turks died, many of them in what is called a genocide during the

conflict we are talking about back in 1915 through 1920. There is

no question that Armenians died as well, but the fact is, this happened 85 years ago.

There is a divergence of opinion. I have debated this issue over

the past 18 years. We have gone to the floor with huge copies of

books, volumes of books on both sides that explain what happened;

and there is a divergence of opinion among historians about what

actually happened back then and whether or not there was an Armenian Genocide or a Turkish Genocide. And the fact is, because

of the difference of opinion, the Turks have never said that this actually happened. They haven’t owned up to it, and I don’t think

they should.

Now, the second thing I would like to say is this: Turkey has

been an ally of ours through thick and thin. During the Iraqi war

we used their bases to stop Saddam Hussein. We might not have

been successful had it not been for their very help. They lost billions of dollars by cutting off the oil supplies that were coming from

Iraq into the coffers of the rest of the world, into the tanks of the

rest of the world, and they lost billions that they have never recovered. They have been ally of ours time and time again.

This is a major issue. It is all over the front pages over there in

Turkey, and what are we going to do today, we are going to kick

our friends right in the teeth one more time about something that

allegedly happened 85 years ago.

In war, horrible things happen.

I am going to talk about the amendment in a minute, Mr. Chairman, which talks about the Armenian forces and what they have

done in the last 10 years to the Azerbaijanis. They forced people

out of their villages. There have been massacres, but nobody’s talking about that. We are going back 85 years.

The only thing I want to say is that I protest this, and the other

thing I want to say is that this bill was going to be jointly referred

to my committee. I went to the Parliamentarian and asked, because of the retraining mechanism in this bill, if I had jurisdiction.

They said, yes, and it was going to be referred to my Committee.

So what happens after it goes through the Subcommittee? They

changed the bill in the middle of the night with the help of the

leaders on both sides of the aisle, and now they are taking that section out so I won’t have joint referral.

So I want to tell you, this thing is on rails. I think everybody

knows it is on rails. It is going to fly through this Committee, and

it is going to go to the floor; but I want you to know, I object strenuously to the tactics that are being used and for kicking our friend

for years and years right in the teeth when they have been with

us day in and day out, year in and year out.

5

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you Mr. Burton.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as the only Member of Congress ever elected who

is a survivor of a holocaust, I yield to no one in my concern for

human rights, past and present, but I think it is appropriate to

ask, as we deal with this issue in the waning hours of this congressional session, as to why this issue is before us today.

We all know why this issue is before us. It is before us because

a Member of Congress who is in a very close congressional race

persuaded the Speaker to put this on the agenda for political reasons. We are not dealing with a human rights issue. We are dealing with a partisan political issue which has been defused by the

fact that the Democrat in that race also supports this legislation,

which enables us now to deal with the merits of the issue rather

than with the politics of the case.

This is not a partisan issue anymore, so we can deal with the

merits.

Now, there is little doubt of the incredible amount of suffering

of the Armenian people during this period, and in recognition of

that suffering, the President of the United States annually issues

a powerful statement recognizing that suffering and paying tribute

to the victims. This is as it should be. But of course, serious statesmanship always compels us to look at all the ramifications of legislative measures, and one of the ramifications is, of course, the U.S.

national interests—not 84 years ago, but in the year 2000.

It is self-evident to every single Member of this Committee and

of the whole Congress that U.S. national interest compels us to

vote against this measure at this time. There is a long list of reasons why our NATO ally at this point should not be humiliated. It

will be counterproductive to Turkish-Armenian relations. It will be

counterproductive to Turkish-Greek relations. It certainly will be

counterproductive to Turkish-U.S. relations.

It will be welcomed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein will be

the prime beneficiary of this legislation. Before my colleagues take

the politically easy road, they should ask themselves whether, in

fact, by taking the politically convenient road they really want to

benefit Saddam Hussein, against whom our policies could not be

pursued with anywhere near its effectiveness without Turkish support.

My feeling is, Mr. Chairman, that there is always room for honoring and recognizing past tragedies, but the manner and the

mechanism need to be cast in the context of U.S. current national

interests. This piece of legislation at this moment in U.S.-Turkish

relations is singularly counterproductive to our national interest.

I am all in favor of the President’s annual declaration. I have

spoken on countless occasions, memorializing this tragedy. I will

not be party to diminishing U.S. national interests to participate

in what was intended to be a political ploy in a congressional district in California. That political ploy has now been defused by both

the Democrat and the Republican favoring this legislation.

Therefore, the merit of the legislation is now before us. On the

merits, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you Mr. Lantos.

6

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on September 12th, I received a letter and I will

just quote it briefly:

‘‘I am writing you to urge you, Chairman Smith and Members of the International Operations Subcommittee, to speak

and vote in favor of the Armenian Genocide Resolution. This

resolution is to come on Thursday September 14th,’’ which it

did.

‘‘It is my hope,’’ the author writes, ‘‘that the House will go

on record calling upon the President to make sure that all U.S.

officials dealing with human rights are educated about the

memory of the Armenian Genocide and also urging the President to incorporate into his April 24th address a statement

calling on our Nation to remember the Armenian massacres. It

is crucial that the President provide appropriate materials’’—

and he goes on.

That was signed by Elie Wiesel, the quintessential humanitarian

and a Holocaust survivor, asking that this legislation be passed

into law or be approved by the House of Representatives as quickly

as possible.

I don’t know if Elie Wiesel is a Democrat or a Republican. I have

no idea. But he is a humanitarian who I think speaks with incredible, impeccable standing and has said, pass this resolution, which

has been introduced by Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Rogan and Mr.

Bonior, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, in 1915 there were about two million Armenians

living in what was then the Ottoman Empire, a region they had

inhabited for 2,500 years. By 1923, well over 90 percent of these

Armenians had disappeared. Most of them, as many as one and a

half million, were dead. The remainder had been forced into exile.

The United States Ambassador to Turkey at the time, Henry

Morgenthau, accused the government of the Empire of a case of

‘‘race extermination.’’ The British, French and Russian Governments accused the young Turk Government of ‘‘a crime against humanity.’’ Even the government of the Republic of Turkey, the successor state, tried and convicted a number of high-ranking young

Turk officials for what the Turkish Government called the ‘‘massacre and destruction of the Armenians.’’

When the term ‘‘genocide’’ was invented in 1944, its author

Raphael Lemkin illustrated the term by saying, ‘‘It was the sort of

thing Hitler did to the Jews and the Turks did to the Armenians.’’

Unfortunately, memories seem to have faded. The government of

the Republic of Turkey and some of those who apologize for it, or

at least try to downgrade the idea that it was a genocide, suggest

that it never even happened. I would just point out—when we held

our hearing just a few days ago—Ambassador Aktan made the

point—and I think this doesn’t pass the straight-face test—that

Turks have never harbored any anti-Armenianism.

I have held four hearings and briefings in the Commission on Security and Cooperation on current use of torture in Turkey. Every

time we wanted to schedule a hearing and talk about what was

going on in Turkey, there was an enormous amount of protest

7

about even having the hearing because it might injure this delicate

balance between ourselves and Turkey. But we need to speak the

truth to power.

You know, you look at the Country Reports on Human Rights

Practices today, not 1984 or 1985 or years ago, and human rights

monitors say that security officials increasingly use methods of torture that do not leave physical traces. This is talk about torture,

such as beating with weighted bags instead of clubs and fists. Commonly employed methods of torture reported by Human Rights

Foundation treatment centers include systematic beatings, stripping and blindfolding, exposure to extreme cold or high pressure,

cold water hoses, electric shocks, beating on the soles of the feet

and genitalia, hanging by the arms, lack of food and sleep; and you

get the idea, and it goes on and on.

That is current and that is today. Yes, and thank God, some in

Turkey have spoken out against that kind of abuse.

In this case, we have a situation where the overwhelming body

of evidence clearly points to a genocide. And I remind Members,

read the Genocide Convention, which defines the term as the extermination of a group of people whole or in part. This clearly is what

has happened, and I would hope that we would be very clear in our

statement and not shrink from calling genocide a genocide.

At our hearing, Dr. Melson from Purdue University testified, and

I quote, ‘‘The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust are the quintessential instances of total genocide in the 20th century.’’ He testified,

‘‘In both instances, a deliberate attempt was made by the

government of the day to destroy in part or in whole an ethnoreligious community, an ancient group that had existed as a

segment of the government’s own society.

‘‘In both instances, genocide was perpetrated after the fall of

an old regime and during the reign of a revolutionary movement that was motivated by an ideology of social, political, and

cultural transformation and in both cases genocide occurred.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. SMITH. I urge support of this resolution, and I do have several other instances backing this up, and I hope Members will back

Mr. Radanovich in his resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This resolution is supported by 126 Holocaust scholars, including

Elie Wiesel. The facts are obvious if you just look at current demographics. For 2,500 years Armenians lived in eastern Anatolia, and

now they are gone. Are we to assume that they just vanished?

The fact is that over a million, million-and-a-half were killed in

the first genocide of the 20th century. No wonder our Subcommittee passed this resolution, and this Full Committee should

do so as well.

But let me confront what I think is the most repeated and least

acceptable argument against the resolution, and that is that it is

inconsistent with America’s current geopolitical convenience. Yes,

Turkey is a NATO ally and a powerful one at that; and yes, it

played a role in Desert Storm and Desert Shield. But let us look

8

at how powerful Germany is, a NATO ally that has play ed a critical role in winning the Cold War and in winning Desert Storm and

Desert Shield.

Today, the German Government recognizes the Holocaust, but

what about 10 or 20 or 30 years from now? A new government may

rise in Germany that demand s for U.S.-German relations we

march down from this hall and dismantle the Holocaust Museum

brick by brick. If we are going to ignore the Armenian Genocide because it meets our geopolitical needs today, then we will tear down

the Holocaust Museum tomorrow because some future German

Government or some future Austrian Government insists upon it.

I think the power of America is not in whether it moves pawns

and pieces on the chessboard of the world, but whether we are respected for our commitment to human rights and our commitment

to ideals. And if we reject this resolution because it is bad for basing rights, then what credibility do we have in the world? And if

those who say it is important to our geopolitical convenience that

we ignore this genocide, vote against this resolution, then are we

also prepared to whitewash the Holocaust if, in some future decade, that becomes politically convenient or helpful for basing rights

or for our relationship with some NATO country.

I think that history speaks for itself, and we do America proud

if we stand up for human rights and for what really happened.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues, we see the emergence of the Armenian Genocide resolution from time to time, and in part—and I emphasize ‘‘In

part’’—it is driven by California politics. Over the last 20 years,

this Committee unfortunately has evolved to the point where we

focus an extraordinary amount of our time and effort on condemning and commending by resolution instead of being focused on

our authorizing responsibilities.

I don’t think that much that will be said here today by Members

will influence this vote one way or another. Hope springs eternal

that it might, but I don’t think that will be the case. I am fortunate

to follow our colleague from California, Mr. Lantos, who speaks

with tragic, cogent authority on a subject like this.

Few people who argue against this resolution argue that there

was no genocidal action. The only question is who and how much

and which sides and who was responsible.

I think we need to be reminded always about what our responsibilities are to our national interest. I am sure all of you have

been contacted by people from the State Department, the Defense

Department, the National Security Adviser, not only of this Administration but the Carter Administration, the Bush Administration,

and the Reagan Administration saying that the passage of this resolution is very much contrary to our national interest. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, has explained very eloquently

some of the many reasons why that is the case.

Sometimes I think there should be a big banner across the back

of this room reminding us to ask the question, ‘‘What is our national interest?’’ so that we are focused on it time and again.

9

This is not a matter of geopolitical convenience, I would say to

the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. This is a matter of

our national interest. We are being advised by the best minds that

have served this country over the last 20-plus years that the passage of this resolution is not in our national interest. Therefore, I

will not vote for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

and the Ranking Member for bringing this measure before our

Committee today.

This is not an easy decision we make today. I am extraordinarily

mindful of the role that Turkey plays in securing America’s interests around the world, and I want to begin my remarks by thanking the Republic of Turkey for all that they do for our country and

for all of our allies around the world. There is no question that

Turkey is an important friend of the United States and a strategic

partner in NATO. But we are here today not to talk about modern

Turkey. We are not here to talk about the importance of Turkey

to our military alliance. We are asked a question today, do we acknowledge the truth or not. Do we acknowledge the truth or not?

Now, maybe many of us would rather have not had that question

asked of us, but we now confronted with it and certainly when it

comes to the issue of genocide, the question becomes probably a little easier, certainly for those of us who remember our history and

who have perhaps a personal stake in never forgetting history.

We are here today to mark up a resolution that honors the memory of 11⁄2 million human beings. Should we do that? Should we

recognize the truth of their slaughter or should we say it didn’t

happen? I would like to read from a letter that Robert Jay Lifton

wrote to Congressman Smith on September 13th, my colleague

from New Jersey, who I am proud to sit with.

And by the way, let me say this, I have read everything submitted to me from every side from the Turkish Government, those

who support the Turkish Government and all those who support

this resolution.

Dr. Lifton wrote, ‘‘Genocide is ignored at a terrible peril. Whether in the case of Nazi genocide of Jews during the 1940, the Cambodian genocide of the late 1970’s or the Turkish genocide of the

Armenians in 1915, confronting the causes and human effects of

such systematic mass killing is crucial to the world at large. The

failure to confront these events contributes to a false consciousness

to the effect that murderers did not really murder, victims were not

really killed and all evidence of such killing should be ignored,

glossed over. This kind of psychic numbing encourages, indeed invites, repetitions of the original crime.’’

When Hitler asked the rhetorical question to his SS generals,

‘‘Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’’

he was invoking a deadly dynamic in which unimposed genocide

begets new genocide.

Resolution 398 interrupts that dangerous dynamic and asks instead that we and our diplomatic representatives acknowledge and

learn from the events of history, however painful. In this way we

10

serve the historical truth, our own integrity as a Nation and the

overall human future.

If we believe that unrecognized genocide contributes to future

genocides, don’t we have an obligation to assure that our diplomatic staff and those who advise our leaders learn about this history, learn about this genocide?

This is an excruciatingly difficult choice that we are asked to

make today. I understand that, my friends and colleagues. Turkey

is an extremely important ally and friend of the United States. But

this has nothing to do with the whether we acknowledge that fact.

It has to do with whether we will speak the truth or say the truth,

say that these events never occurred.

I am not prepared to deny the truth, certainly not to deny the

truth of this slaughter of 11⁄2 million people, and I will be supporting this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you Mr. Rothman.

Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this room

recognizes that there probably was a genocide that occurred according to this resolution we have here, but let me ask a question. How

many genocides do we—how many resolutions do we need in this

Committee to go back over genocides?

I mean Rwanda, Tibet under Red China, Russia and the gulags,

Cambodia, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In each of these is something that most people would recognize, and I have one that actually occurred in my own home State of North Carolina.

I don’t know how many of you remember the Trail of Tears

where the Cherokees were forced by Andrew Jackson with an Army

to move all the way, the ones that could move alive, all the way

from North Carolina to Oklahoma.

Genocides are horrible, and I realize that basically nobody wants

to recognize that we did all these various and sundry things, but

we have done them many times, and I think we have been somewhat hypocritical to pick out one amongst many.

In my own considered opinion, the Turks are our friends. They

have been our allies through the years, and in my considered opinion, we need at least to avoid embarrassing this government, which

was not even in existence when this occurred, and so I plan on voting against the resolution.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALLENGER. Sure, fire away.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger. I just wanted to

state that during the Subcommittee hearing of H. Res. 398, the

offer was made to those who had opposed the bill to not only include the Armenian Genocide, but to include other genocides that

had happened throughout history, and no one took me up on that

offer. So we were open to including that type of language in the

bill, but nothing came forth.

I yield back.

Mr. BALLENGER. Nobody asked me. I will be glad to.

Mr. BURTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALLENGER. Sure.

Mr. BURTON. I did talk about that. I talked about a number of

genocides, and I have some amendments today which will go to

11

that issue, and I know the gentleman and everybody else will support those as an addition to the bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express

some concerns about the resolution and also offer them in the form

of questions to those Members of this Committee that are trying

to encourage those who have not made up our minds to vote for the

resolution.

The first, very basic question in my mind in this resolution is,

what are we intending to accomplish by adopting this resolution.

I think it is fair to say that every Member of this Committee stipulates that what occurred in history was a terrible thing for which

the Turkish Government and its leaders share immense culpability. It seems to me today that a lot of the debate centers over

the choice of words and the label ‘‘genocide.’’ The only specific references in the bill as to what we intend to accomplish are contained in the declaration of policy, and I haven’t heard anything to

convince me that this is not already the policy of the United States

Government as far as the President’s decision to speak on April

24th to condemn what occurred, as far as the information that is

provided to our Foreign Service about what occurred.

I know there is legislation pending in the California legislature

that is intended to set up a compensation system, and perhaps that

is what ultimately we are debating here today, and if that is the

case, let us go ahead and discuss it openly and honestly.

But I would just conclude by saying, I join those Members who

support and oppose the resolution in condemning what occurred.

But I remain perplexed about exactly what we are trying to accomplish today; and without a clear and convincing answer to that, I

do not intend for vote for this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to express my strong support for this resolution, and

I want to commend its author, Mr. Radanovich.

I want to address one objection in particular that we have heard

and that is the issue of will this undermine our strategic interests.

It has been said that passing this resolution could hurt our relationship with our good ally Turkey. Turkey is an important ally,

there is no doubt about that, and is strategic in terms of that alliance, and I am glad that Turkey has taken the action it has to support America. But I think we need to think about what it means

to be an ally.

Underlining some of the statements that we have heard is the

notion that Turkey is America’s ally, and it has taken these actions

out of some sense of gratitude. Well, the fact is that nations are

in NATO or are otherwise allies with the United States for one reason and one reason alone, because it suits their interests. International politics runs deeper than flattery. It is about nations acting on their own interests, and we are fortunate enough to share

strategic interests with Turkey. That is why Turkey is an ally.

12

Now it has been suggested that the Turkish government will

have a harder time managing public opinion and maintaining its

commitment to NATO if we pass this resolution. So a sense of the

House resolution on a genocide committed 85 years ago by a previous government—we don’t even mention Turkey in this resolution, we say the Ottoman Empire—is going to undermine the strategic interests we have—that we have with Turkey and have had

for 50 years, I don’t think that is true. I am confident that Turkey

and our security relationship is stronger than that. And for those

Members who may wonder, why risk it, why pass this resolution

if there is the slightest risk of undermining our relations with Turkey, I would say because there is genocide denial in Turkey. That

is what this is about.

There is another reason. We have heard it suggested that the extremists in Turkey, who would use this resolution to attack Turkey’s relationship with the United States should we pass it, might

do so, but there is another way of looking at it. If the extremists

who are the biggest deniers of the Armenian Genocide defeat this

resolution, then we are siding with them.

Now, for some years German Americans have kept a running

dialogue with my father because, unfortunately, he was at Dachau

and took photographs which, frankly, are the most horrific pictures

I have ever seen in my life of people dead and half dead. They continue to insist that the Holocaust never occurred, and every year

there is a new book out about how it never occurred. Unfortunately

for them, there are many people around just as there are Armenians around who I am sure have talked to some of you about how

they survived this genocide, how perhaps they were the only one

in their village, out of a village of 1,000 people, to have survived.

For us to aid those who deny a genocide is a mistake, my colleagues. You know, 3 years ago during debates on the Foreign Ops

Appropriations bill, more than 300 Members voted to withhold economic assistance to Turkey until it acknowledged the genocide, but

that provision was removed in conference. That was 300 of us. We

are not talking about withholding economic aid here. We don’t

want to do that. We are not even talking about Turkey. We are

talking about a fact that occurred in the Ottoman Empire, and we

should go forward and for the record be prepared to say it.

That is my feeling, and I hope I have conveyed——

Mr. SMITH. Will you yield?

Mr. ROYCE. I will certainly yield.

Mr. SMITH. I thank my good friend for yielding; and I think you

have answered in part, maybe in whole, Mr. Davis’ question, a very

legitimate question.

You know at our hearing Ambassador Aktan from Turkey said

the crucial question is why the Armenians are not content with the

word tragedy or catastrophe, and insist on genocide. It is because

of this aggressive, persistent, pervasive effort over the years to

deny that a holocaust actually occurred. And if you apply that, just

lift it and apply it to the Nazi Holocaust that occurred in the Second World War, while this was in the First, you get the same kind

of reaction. We need to call a holocaust a holocaust.

13

If you read the U.N. Genocide Convention, it defines the term as ‘‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to

bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’’ One of our witnesses—if the gentleman would continue yielding—Dr. Smith, the Professor of Government from William and

Mary, pointed out that as early as July 1915 the German ambassador reported to Berlin—the Germans were obviously allied with

the Ottoman Empire—and I quote, ‘‘Turks began deportations from

the areas which were now not threatened——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. I commend my colleagues for their speeches. I

think there have been some very interesting comments made in the

course of this hearing, and you might think that we get together

every week and try and unravel tragedies of the 20th century,

evaluate carefully and consider these matters. In fact, we don’t operate like that at all. This is a highly unusual forum that we are

having today; and I think it behooves us to ask what is going on

here, why are we doing this.

Well, I looked for some answer to that question in a memo written by the Center for Security Policy. Now the Center for Security

Policy is a Republican-leaning think tank in town. Among others

included in this outfit are former National Security Adviser Brent

Scowcroft, and they write as follows—and I am going to offer this

into the record of this hearing this morning. I quote, and I am

going to quote for the next few minutes, reading from it:

‘‘It is no secret that control of the 107th Congress hangs in

the balance since the days before the November election slips

away . . . Speaker Dennis Hastert and his colleagues have

been in the unenviable position of having to accept terms from

raising the minimum wage to new entitlement programs to

busting the budget caps that would have been unthinkable

under other circumstances. Whether their constituents welcome the November reward or punish legislators at the polls

for such behavior remains to be unseen.

‘‘What is far less predictable, however, are the repercussions

of allowing this strategy to leech into the foreign policy arena.

If the full House of Representatives approves an Armenian

Genocide resolution scheduled to be marked up today by the

House International Relations Committee, U.S. relations with

Turkey will suffer serious and possibly irreparable harm.’’

I quote, continued from the memo,

‘‘There is little doubt that among the repercussions will be

the alienation of the pro U.S. Government in Turkey, undermining its support at home for its policies, and a shot-in-thearm for Turkey’s anti-Western Islamic opposition. This is all

the more regrettable because it should not fall to the Congress

to adjudicate the arcane and bitterly debated question of

whether the undisputed murder of hundreds of thousands of

Armenians was a centrally planned and systematic act of the

Ottoman Turk government that would, therefore, meet the definition of genocide or, alternatively, was it the result of widespread but uncoordinated ethnic warfare. It is hard to believe

14

any of those legislators who will shortly be asked to render

judgment on this matter have done their homework. ‘‘The Speaker feels impelled to take such a course out of an

understandable desire to help a valued and endangered colleague, Jim Rogan of California, whose role as an impeachment

manager has made his defeat this November a priority for the

Clinton team and its allies. Saving Mr. Rogan takes on an additional importance as the two parties battle for every single

seat in the hotly contested and increasingly desperate struggle

for control of Congress . . . As compelling as Speaker Hastert’s

considerations are for pursuing this Armenian Genocide initiative, they risk a potentially serious, if gratuitous and unnecessary, rupture with one of its most important strategic partners,

Turkey. ‘‘A stable, secure Turkey closely tied to the West is an indispensable counterweight to these and a number of other worrisome developments. It behooves the House Republican leadership, therefore, to find ways to secure a renewed mandate

without jeopardizing vital national interests.’’

Now, if this is not in our national interests, as some experts

again from a Republican-based think tank would have us understand, then let us consider whether it is in the interest of the parties themselves, the parties in the region that live together, that

live side by side and face the ongoing risk from inflamed circumstances.

Speaking to this point is the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul, virtually the spiritual leader of the Armenian community continuing

to reside in Turkey. Some would say he is essentially a captive in

Turkey and, therefore, not to be trusted. Others would say he is

a critical figure representing one of the leaders of the minority, Armenian minority in Turkey today.

He writes, it is unhelpful to see resolutions affecting Armenian

and Turkish relations adopted by third party parliaments—it can

be no doubt he is talking about us here. However, it is our expectation that this sort of interference will be sustained as long as the

current unsatisfactory status quo prevails and the two parties do

not engage in fruitful dialogue to resolve significant issues. Good

point.

We do not think that the third party parliament action is a positive substitute for dialogue. Above all, utmost caution should be exercised so that this issue is not exploited for the benefit of a variety

of political interests. Nor do we think the present situation is helpful at all. On the contrary, it is harmful to Turkish and Armenian

relations. Any undertaking which hinders dialogue, peace and

friendship is regrettable. We pray for the Armenian—— Chairman GILMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me, in regard to Mr. Pomeroy’s remarks, my Democratic colleague’s complaining about election year politics is like

Madonna complaining about promiscuity. There is not much substance there.

Secondly, let me tell you, while I oppose this resolution, I greatly

respect Mr. Radanovich and I believe this is something he feels

15

strongly about in his heart. The Republic of Turkey has been one

of our strongest allies. They have fought with us in every major

challenge. They are the only Muslim secular democracy with a free

market economy. They have an excellent relationship with Israel in

which it has overlapping security, economic and political interests.

Here the question is not do we acknowledge the truth but which

historic version do we endorse. In reading the materials and listening to the disputed testimony and recognizing that the archives of

Russia, France and Armenia remain closed to date, I don’t feel

qualified as a Member of this Committee to endorse a version. This

is an issue that the historians should address, not Members of Congress.

As to Mr. Bereuter’s question, is this in the U.S. interests, is this

in America’s interest, he is correct. This does not contribute to

peace and stability in that region. On the contrary, it harms us. As

the Armenian patriarch said, this is harmful to Turkish and Armenian relationships. This does not make this region more stable, and

it is not a positive substitute for dialogue between the two nations.

Finally, recent news stories have alerted us that the tension between Iraq and Kuwait is increasing once again. I think it important to remember the last time a similar resolution was considered

in Congress it was in February, 1990. Senator Byrd strongly opposed it on the grounds it would damage our relationship with Turkey and U.S. security interests. Several months later, Iraq invaded

Kuwait; and we relied on the Turkish government to cut off the

Iraqi oil pipeline, station Turkish groups on the border with Iraq

and to permit the use of their bases. Had the resolution passed in

the Senate, no Turkish government would have been able to be as

forthcoming as it was in 1990. None of us know the security

threats we will face in the future.

I recognize this resolution is important to our Armenian friends,

but this is not the American interests which is our job and obligation as a Committee, and I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield real briefly?

Mr. BRADY. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. I would just like the say, Mr. Chairman, we have

the new U.S. ambassador to Turkey here with us today; and I

would urge the Chairman to allow Mr. Robert Pearson to address

the Committee because he is very much aware of being on the

scene of the problems that this might create.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Brady has the time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Brady, would you yield?

Mr. BRADY. Yes, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SHERMAN. I just want to comment on this idea that only

those who are in support of the resolution are benefiting from any

political impetus. Let us remember the power of the oil companies

that are pushing against this resolution, the defense contractors

that have been lobbying against this resolution, and let us realize

that if any votes are swayed on this resolution to vote in favor of

it, because of the input of Armenian Americans in California and

throughout this country, that is I think at least as legitimate, I

would say more legitimate than those votes that are swayed by oil

cuts.

16

Mr. BRADY. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman, let me

just commend my friend from California on the record amount of

soft money contributions and PAC contributions he received this

year and give him that praise.

I yield the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Let me remind our Members before we go to vote that there will

be a number of amendments. There will be rollcalls. We have a

number of measures to be taken up when we return.

We have had a request by Mr. Burton to have the ambassador

speak, which we will do when we get back, by unanimous consent.

The Committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, before the break I referred to our

new ambassador to Turkey and asked that Mr. Pearson be allowed

to address the Committee, and so I ask unanimous consent that he

be allowed to address the Committee at this time.

Chairman GILMAN. By unanimous consent. Any objection?

Mr. LANTOS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. I think Mr. Burton’s suggestion is an excellent one.

No one is more qualified to discuss more authoritatively U.S. national interests vis-a-vis Turkey than our ambassador, and I join

Mr. Burton in——

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

I will now request Ambassador Robert Pearson to come up to the

Committee table to speak. Ambassador Pearson was very recently

sworn in as our representative in Ankara. I might note that before

becoming U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Ambassador Pearson served

as Deputy Chief of Mission at NATO.

We appreciate your willingness to make yourself available to the

Committee as we debate the measure. Mr. Ambassador, I now give

you the floor.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT PEARSON, U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY

Ambassador PEARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very

happy to be here and very happy to answer questions from the

Committee.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ambassador, the question has arisen

with regard to the Armenian resolution. We would welcome any

comments you may have on it.

Ambassador PEARSON. I have just come from Ankara, Mr. Chairman. I flew in last night, had a chance over the last week to talk

to a number of Turkish officials about this issue.

I think if you look at a map of Turkey you see on its frontiers

are countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran. Of course, Armenia is a neighbor of Turkey, the Black Sea, the countries bordering the Black

Sea, all of southeast Europe, Greece, the issue of Cyprus.

I think that I can state authoritatively to you, Mr. Chairman,

that if a vote is taken in the Committee and this resolution passes

17

and if it passes the floor of the House there will be a strong Turkish reaction to it.

The Turks provide the base from which we fly over northern

Iraq. That permission to perform that monitoring exercise under

U.N. Resolutions comes up for debate in the Turkish Parliament

every 6 months, and the next debate will be in December of this

year.

We are, of course, very much involved and have been for years

with the Turks concerning—trying to find a resolution to the issue

of Nagorno-Karbakh. Relations between Turkey and Armenia are

very important to finding a peaceful solution to that issue. I think

that passage of this resolution could affect that process harmfully.

The Turks have been working with us, of course, on the issue of

Cyprus. Turkey and Greece have been very heavily involved in a

joint exercise to lower tensions and to build stronger relations between those two countries and also, of course, concerning issues in

the Aegean.

Turkey provided the bases for us in the Kosovo campaign. They

took in 19,000 refugees during that period of time. It is ironic that

they were there just last year to help all of us in a campaign

against ethnic cleansing to face a resolution like this one today.

There are, I will simply add, something like two-thirds of a billion dollars worth of agricultural trade between the two countries.

Before I left, I counted something like 19 major energy projects in

which American countries are involved. We have a very large contract for provision of new energy to Turkey through gas pipelines

and oil pipelines in the caucuses. So I think my contribution today,

Mr. Chairman, will simply be to say that there is a lot on the table.

Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador Pearson, thank you.

Beyond that, I have understood that Turkey is playing a more

positive role now in the Caucasus region, even informally with Armenia, and I wonder if you could address its role in the Caucasus

country.

Ambassador PEARSON. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

They are playing a more active role in the Caucasus. Former

President Demirel made a number of trips to the Caucasus. The

new President, President Sezer, is planning a major trip to the

Caucasus at the end of October.

We have been working very closely with Turkey, as I mentioned,

on oil and gas energy in the Caspian region. Turkey is a partner

in the process called the Minsk process to try to find a resolution

to the Nagorno-Karbakh issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan;

and, of course, Turkey is in favor of improved relations with Armenia.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ambassador, can you respond to the Radanovich

resolution, section three, declaration of policy? Do you agree or disagree with the second clause which says, ‘‘calls upon the President

in the President’s annual message commemorating the Armenian

Genocide issued on or about April 24th to characterize the systemVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
18

atic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of the United States’ intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.’’ Is that an accurate

or an inaccurate characterization?

Ambassador PEARSON. Mr. Smith, I, of course, am here to talk

principally about my perspective on the relationship from Ankara

and not to characterize the events in the resolution. I think the Administration has stated its position on that point.

Chairman GILMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired.

I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Ambassador be

granted an additional 5 minutes for questions for the Ambassador.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, I would like to explore with you the internal

ramifications of the possible passage of this resolution. Those of us

who have followed developments in Turkey closely for a long time

know that there are strong pro-U.S. elements and strong anti-U.S.

elements within the political firmament of Turkey. Which of these

elements would be aided by the passage of this resolution, the proU.S. forces or the anti-U.S. forces?

Ambassador PEARSON. Mr. Lantos, one of the last things a senior

Turkish official told me before I left Ankara was that one of their

chief concerns was that people who wanted to drive a wedge between American and Turkish relations would use this issue specifically to that effect.

There is a lively debate in Turkey about how to deal with this

issue. One can look at the press even over the last 3 weeks and

see that there is a great deal of open debate, but I think that the

general feeling there is clear that this is designed to make TurkishAmerican relations and the working out of the issues we are both

trying to work on more difficult.

Mr. LANTOS. If I may follow up, there is a strong Islamic fundamentalist force within Turkey and there is a powerful secular

force in Turkey. The passage of this resolution, in my judgment,

would powerfully assist Islamic fundamentalist forces and diminish

the influence of the secular forces. Do you agree with my assessment?

Ambassador PEARSON. Well, Mr. Lantos, rather than try to specifically characterize individual groups inside Turkey, I would just

say that people who are committed to the long-term benefits of this

relationship would suffer as a result of the passage of this resolution in the Committee and in the House.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, this has been a very, very difficult issue for

many of us for a lot of reasons. I think one of the rhetorical questions that has been asked today is why are we doing this now. I

love to study history. In my bachelor’s and my master’s degree I

did quite a bit of studying of history and world religion history. I

have always been fascinated by it, and I think that if there is a

reason for addressing a resolution and if the reason is to affect the

here and now, then it is a good point, but some have raised the

specter of why here and now.

19

We talk about the atrocities that man has committed against

man over the ages. I look at the Spanish Inquisition, and yet I

don’t see us sponsoring some resolution to condemn the Catholic

Church or the Roman crucifixion of Jesus Christ. We don’t have a

denunciation of the Romans right now. And in more recent history,

just over a hundred years ago in our own country, my people, the

Mormons, were chased out of Missouri; and the governor signed an

extermination order that they could be killed if they didn’t leave.

Yet I have never seen a resolution denouncing Missouri.

I do believe that history is valuable as long as we are using it

at this present time for some great good, and so my question would

be, after all is said and done, obviously, the motive must be to impact current relations between Armenia and Turkey, what will passage of this resolution do to the relationship between Armenia and

Turkey? What is your opinion?

Ambassador PEARSON. Thank you, Congressman.

Of course, I understand the sentiment in the resolution. I think

all Americans understand the sentiment in the resolution. The passage of this resolution, however, would make Armenian-Turkish relations more difficult.

There is a closed border today between Armenia and Turkey, and

there have been efforts, as I have recounted, in the past few years

to try to improve those relations. Turkey has, in an attempt to further this process, opened an air corridor, a limited air corridor. I

think there are some limited visa provisions that have been put

into effect that are helpful. There is a common—let me say there

has been a common commitment to try to work toward a resolution. When I talked with Turkish officials prior to coming here yesterday they all repeated their desire to find a way to work more

effectively with Armenia. So I believe that this would specifically

set back or risk setting back a lot of hard work that the United

States has engaged in for a number of years and, frankly, not just

us but a number of other countries in the region as well.

Chairman GILMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired.

I am going to ask consent to extend the time for Mr. Gejdenson’s

question, and then we will close the opportunity for the Ambassador.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to briefly state that I think it is a mistake to place

this as either you tell the truth or you attack the present Turkish

government. The reality is that the present Turkish government is

an important partner in the region. The present Turkish government is one that is not just serving American’s interests in the region. We have mutual concerns in the region where our own individual national interests coincide.

Turkey and the United States work together on a regular basis.

I have worked with the Turkish government on a number of issues

that are important to both of us. This Turkish government is making important efforts in the relationship with Greece, starting to

address issues on Cyprus. There are lots of things we agree with

them on. I don’t think it is acceptable that we simply say, because

of these things, we are not able to recognize an outrage in history;and I think it is important to look at the German experience.

20

You know, if you look at the German experience, my father’s

family, without exception, was exterminated in World War II. He

is the only member of his family to survive. My mother lost most

of her family. We have dealt with that. The German government

has recognized what happened. Israel and Germany have a very

positive relationship. We deal with the German government because of our mutual national interests as a democracy.

So I think there may be people that vote on different sides of this

issue today for lots of reasons, but I don’t think anybody who plans

to vote for this resolution does so thinking that we should in any

way diminish our relationship with the Turkish government.

It is an easy thing to argue against recognizing history. Turkey

is an important ally. Turkey does cooperate with us because it is

in our interest, it is in their interest. We need to work more with

the Turkish government. They have got to work toward democratizing their society. It is the only course for all of us.

So it seems to me, Mr. Ambassador, with the greatest respect for

the present Turkish government and the Turkish people, for the

many great things they have done throughout history and the contributions they have made to civilization, there is this issue that

needs to be addressed. This is all this is about, not to condemn the

present Turkish government, not to insult the present Turkish people. We don’t insult the German people when we recognize what

happened in World War II.

Chairman GILMAN. We now conclude the Ambassador’s time.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I want to thank you

and Mr. Gejdenson for bringing this resolution to the Committee

for full discussion and debate. We are here participating in, it could

be said, a history lesson, but that history also is, as we have heard,

highly contested terrain.

During the First World War, millions of people were killed or

made homeless, and the deaths of some one and a half million Armenians must be viewed within the context of this larger human

tragedy. I would certainly support efforts to educate Americans, especially our diplomatic representatives, about the complex events

that occurred during this tragic period in world history, including

the losses suffered by the Turks and others in the Ottoman Empire.

It is not the intention of this resolution to offend the government

of Turkey or damage an important international relationship which

I believe our Ranking Member just laid out very eloquently. Nor

is it the intent to minimize the heavy losses suffered by other

groups during the Ottoman Empire during World War I or, for that

matter, those in Russia, France, Germany, Japan or any other

country.

It is my belief that Americans will benefit from learning more

about this period and the tremendous loss of life on all sides and

that such education will help all of us avoid such conflicts in the

future, and I agree that such education efforts should be framed

within their full historical context rather than in isolation.

This resolution does not preclude such an approach. As we seek

to confront the violence and tragedy of our own country’s past, we

21

must also seek to more fully understand international events as

well. History lessons are neither easy nor painless, and it is imperative that they be looked at from all sides, but we all benefit from

looking at the past.

When I was in the California legislature, I cosponsored legislation to require that our schools’ curriculum reflect courses that reflected a study of the deplorable institution of slavery in our own

country, which our own country still has yet to apologize for. We

also required that this curriculum study the inhumanity of the Holocaust and the horrible inhumane treatment of our Native Americans. Awareness and education regarding crimes against humanity

must always be remembered so that they will never happen again.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

Mr. King.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to

Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I thank the gentleman from New York for

yielding. I would like to take a moment to address an argument

that persistently comes up regarding this resolution.

Each time this body attempts to come to closure on this subject,

opponents usually ask, why now? They may even say that the interests—the intent of the resolution is commendable, but the timing is inopportune. Mr. Chairman, unless the Turkish government

ends its ongoing campaign to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide, the only time acceptable to our ally is never; and I regret to

say that our State Department readily concurs with Turkey.

Why now? Because later accomplishes nothing. Turkey remains

adamant in its denial, and its reprehensible tactics of threats and

coercion are rewarded. Why now? Because the passage of this resolution today by this Committee and subsequently on the House

floor will end denial which, expressed differently, is the killing of

truth. At least one branch of my government will say categorically

to all deniers that they have failed.

I implore my colleagues here today to understand that this resolution is a Sense of the House resolution regarding the United

States’ record. Despite all the threats emanating from Turkey regarding U.S. bases, U.S. contracts, jobs, et cetera, this resolution

is not an assault on the Republic of Turkey. Furthermore, I reject

Turkey’s presumption that it can impose its views regarding the

American response to the Armenian Genocide on this Committee.

If we bow to Turkish pressure over a House-only resolution regarding our record, there is no telling what else the U.S. will be called

upon to give in to the next time Turkey threatens a dooms day scenario.

I believe that this is a matter of principle. Congress must not let

any foreign government dictate what legislation, especially legislation affirming America’s record, it can or cannot adopt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. King’s time.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr.

Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman I just wanted to ask the Ambassador

one question if I could.

22

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ambassador, would you take the witness

table again?

Mr. ROYCE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, one of your tasks as ambassador is explaining

American perspectives. This is a House Resolution with over 100

cosponsors, and I am sure you have anticipated that it may pass.

How have you been explaining to Turkish authorities that this is

not about the government of Turkey today, this is about the Ottoman Empire which you know committed a genocide but did expire

in 1918? How have you done that, if I could ask?

Ambassador PEARSON. Thank you, Congressman. I think that is

an excellent question.

I have tried and explained in great detail what this resolution

says and its terms and so on. I have to tell you quite honestly that

people in Turkey regard this as directed against them. They understand that this has in it the words referring to the Ottoman Empire, but it looks to them as if it is referring to them.

Mr. ROYCE. And you have explained to them, though, that this

is about something in history, that this is not about the Turkish

government, this is about a genocide that occurred under a prior

regime?

Ambassador PEARSON. I have.

Mr. ROYCE. And that this is part of our democratic process here

of passing resolutions in the House.

Ambassador PEARSON. I have indeed, Congressman, but they

firmly see this as directed against the current state of Turkey, and

they see it in the context of a firm alliance, and that is why they

find it so difficult to comprehend. But I absolutely have explained

this resolution in detail to them.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. King.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. King.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me to

take a moment to address the Armenian Genocide resolution before

us.

I commend Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Bonior for bringing this

matter before the Congress. The tragic occurrence perpetrated

against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1925 by the Ottoman Turkish Empire is of great concern to me and to members of

my constituency. During this relatively brief time frame, over 1.5

million Armenians were massacred and thousands more were

forced into exile. Unfortunately, the Turkish government of today

has not recognized these brutal acts of genocide committed by the

Ottoman Empire, nor is it willing to come to terms with its participation in many of these horrific events.

Prior to the Armenian Genocide these brave people with a history of over 2,500 years in the region were subject to numerous indignities and periodic massacres by the sultans of the Ottoman

Empire. The worst of these massacres prior to 1915 occurred in

1895, when as many as 300,000 Armenian people were murdered,

and those who survived were left completely destitute.

23

Despite these events, Armenians have survived as a people and

culture throughout Europe and the United States as well. The

present Turkish government needs to come to terms with the past

and work toward improving the future.

I have taken the time to hear the perspective of Turkish groups

who remain strongly opposed to this resolution. Their contention is

that the historic account of these events is flawed and inaccurate.

They suggest that since Turks were also killed at the time, it

should not be considered a genocide. Obviously, there is some conflict as to the definition of genocide.

I want to make sure we are all talking about the same thing.

Genocide, as was mentioned by Mr. Smith, it is a systematic

planned annihilation of a racial, political or cultural group. Did it

happen to the Jews and others in Germany? Yes. Did it happen to

the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire? It certainly did.

I am well aware of the importance of Turkey as an ally in an unstable region and a front line NATO State. While we do not hold

the current citizens of Turkey accountable for what their grandparents and ancestors did, that does not mean we should not commemorate and honor those who are slaughtered during this campaign. A vote against this measure will send the measure to Ankara that the U.S. is willing to look the other way as long as those

who have committed acts of genocide hold a strategic position in

our foreign policy.

I believe by failing to recognize such barbaric acts, one becomes

complicit in them. For that reason, I must vote and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution that is before us today.

I too have concerns about our national interests and the message

we send with this Committee. What message will we send to those

victims, the human rights victims if this measure is defeated.

Was it in the national interest of the United States to involve

itself in the affairs of the Irish people in northern Ireland? I don’t

think there was any national interest at stake, at least not by definition that has been brought out today. To involve ourselves in the

affairs of our greatest ally, Great Britain—and by the way, I believe the State Department also opposed our involvement in that

affair as well. But even Great Britain’s leader, Tony Blair, saw that

he had to recognize the abuses of the British people by its past government, although the exact same government in terms of tradition

exists today in Britain, to recognize the ills perpetrated on the

Irish people before they can move forward with their peace process

and come to terms with their own past.

So, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse and support this

measure, and I will be voting in the affirmative. I yield back the

balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Crowley.

Mr. Wexler.

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would very

much like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Bereuter

and Mr. Lantos and Mr. Davis.

Heaven forbid anybody on this Committee or any American, in

any respect, ignore or minimize or deny the deaths of hundreds of

thousands of Armenians during the period of World War I. That

would be an extraordinary tragedy. We in this country, each and

24

every year at this point on April 24th, commemorate Armenian Remembrance Day, which allows the President and other officials and

all Americans to pay proper tribute to the graveness of the tragedy

that occurred some 90 years ago.

It seems to me, in light of what Mr. Bereuter said, in terms of

what is our national interest and ought to be our guiding principle,

the question we must ask, not of just this resolution, but any resolution, is what is the specific purpose of the resolution? What does

it accomplish? And it seems to me, although in some ways not particularly specific in terms of why this resolution would, in any way,

change America’s foreign policy, it is essentially a very basic goal

that our foreign policy reflect appropriate understanding of the sensitivity of the issue concerned.

It would seem to me if we were debating today whether or not

America should build a museum or a place of learning regarding

this tragedy, that would be a very appropriate debate. If we were

debating whether or not America has any role to play with respect

to reparations of the families who were the victims of this tragedy,

that to me would be a very appropriate debate; but to debate

whether or not our foreign policy should reflect a sensitivity related

to the human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide documented in

the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, I

would respectfully suggest I see nothing in our own foreign policy

behavior to suggest that we don’t already do that.

With an issue that seems to have presented so much controversy,

and like our ambassador says, with so much on the table, it is almost unfathomable to me that with so much controversy, that almost in the uniform position the best experts from the Reagan,

Bush and Clinton Administrations all agree that this is not in the

best security interests of the United States uniformly, from a variety of different political perspectives.

So what are we gaining if we pass this resolution? It seems to

me we are gaining language that doesn’t, in any significant way,

affect the current Administration in Turkey. So what are we losing

potentially? That argument has been made over and over again,

and whether or not you think it is a justifiable loss or not is almost

irrelevant. I think it can be uniformly concluded that there will be

a grave result in terms of U.S. and Turkish relations, Turkish and

Armenian relations, and what have the Armenian people in America gained by this? Do they have a museum so that hundreds of

thousands of people can march through it and learn and children

can learn of the tragedy? No. Do Armenian families in America get

paid reparations for their grave losses? No. They get fluff language,

and I don’t mean to denigrate it. It is extremely important. But we

are not changing our economic relationship with Turkey on paper.

We are not creating museums. We are not creating learning. We

have a day of commemoration.

So it seems to me it is, in fact, an appropriate analysis to ask

what do we potentially lose and what do we potentially gain? Going

back to Mr. Bereuter’s original comments, what is in the national

interests of the United States? It seems that those that I will defer

to in term of their extraordinary expertise in both the Reagan,

Bush and Clinton Administrations all agree that the equity is in

25

the side of not passing the resolution, and Mr. Chairman, that is

why I will choose to stick with that position.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wexler.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. I

just want to pick up on a point made earlier, I think, by my colleague from California, Mr. Royce. I am a supporter of this resolution and intend to vote for it. This resolution creates a problem for

our executive branch, I recognize, but in and of itself, that does not

justify opposing the resolution.

Nations, as people, work themselves into curious states of mind

about different actions. Entirely different kinds of issues have come

up recently, which have resonance with me in terms of the Administration’s response on this issue.

China has a view of Taiwan. China is very important to us. China’s view on Taiwan is so deeply felt that, because of China’s importance to us, we here do not do what seems like common sense

things with respect to Taiwan. If the duly-elected democratic leader

of Taiwan is coming to the United States and wants to talk to a

Congressman, we will be massively undermining U.S.-China relationships by doing this. China’s position is fundamentally irrational. It is not based on policy. It is deeply felt. It is understandable, but in the end, it can’t sustain itself.

And while I recognize that support for this resolution puts a special burden on the executive branch, the State Department and our

diplomats in particular, it is going to have to be your job to communicate to these people the reality of what we are saying rather than

the atmospherics and the hysterics that they have come to believe.

I heard a quote from the gentleman from North Dakota about

the patriarch of the Armenian Church, saying that third party resolutions are a poor substitute for dialogue. That is true. But in the

end, sometimes third party resolutions, after a period of anger and

reaction, become the basis for the dialogue. That dialogue has not

taken place. The denial is not being confronted, and sometimes we

have to do things which other people perceive in a certain way that

we do not intend. But once the acceptance of that becomes a move

forward and a move up, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. It is historically valid, it is true. It is not an effort to destroy

or undermine our relationship with Turkey or a slap at modern day

Turkey in any way; and because they feel it is, does not make it

so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. I appreciate your

being brief.

We now recognize Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. I would just like to associate my words with the

words of Mr. Ackerman in that I basically put myself in the same

camp because——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I have not spoken. I think you mean Mr. Berman.

Mr. SANFORD. I apologize. Thank you very much.

Mr. ACKERMAN. But I will, if the Chairman recognizes me.

Mr. SANFORD. But I think you get to the very valid point, which

is, a lot of us have struggled on what to do on this thing. I am just

26

most pleased that the Committee took out the proactive language

asking State Department to do certain things, because I think we

have a real problem in this country with foreign policy by congressional district; and my concern overall with this original amendment when it came up was that we would, once again, have foreign

policy driven by a given congressional district.

Now that that language has come out and now that, as I understand, Tancredo is going to offer an amendment that would further

make clear this is not a slight against present day folks in Turkey,

but simply recognition of something that happened in history, I am

going to be able to support, and again, I would associate my words

with Mr. Berman, my colleague.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sanford.

Mr. Meeks. Mr. Meeks is not present.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend

you and Ranking Member Gejdenson for bringing this resolution

before us, and Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Ms. McKinney for favorably reporting it out of their Subcommittee, and of

course Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Bonior for their authorship.

This moment is a long time coming, not only for myself but for

the 139 other cosponsors of the resolution. Many of us have worked

on this issue for years and years. It is a long time coming for the

31⁄2 million citizens of Armenia and the millions of Americans of

Armenian descent here in this country. It comes too late for the 11⁄2

million Armenians killed in the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. It comes too late, too, for the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

I won’t spend time making the case that we are indeed talking

about a genocide. The resolution, through its numerous findings,

does that admirably and convincingly. I implore anyone who still

has a doubt to read the findings of the resolution and check their

original source or go back to the New York Times pages of 1915

and 1916 as I have. Though it is never too early, it is also not too

late to educate ourselves about the Armenian Genocide, and that

is what this bill aims to do.

As with the Holocaust, we have a responsibility to society to recount for history of the Armenian Genocide so that we do not forget

its victims and so that we remember man’s capacity to destroy others who differ in their opinions based on race, religion or ethnicity.

Genocide is the most egregious crime. It is not a crime of passion

or revenge, but rather of hate. Its innocent victims are guilty of

only being born to a different mother.

To those who continue to resist the truth, I say shame on you,

and I can only believe that those who have chosen to ignore the

cold, hard facts have done so in order to indulge their shame. Denying the genocide, like denying the occurrence of a holocaust, does

not erase the tragedy, restore the lives lost or compensate those

driven from their homeland. Indeed, it makes reconciliation harder,

longer and more costly.

Look at our relationship with Germany. In pressing the Germans, we strengthened their commitment to ensure that another

holocaust would never occur again, and we strengthened, not weakened, our relationship with Germany, a significant NATO ally.

27

Yes, Turkey has been an important ally. We recognize that. But

that does not mean that Turkey has been an unconditional ally,

and it must prove its commitment to the principles of international

law, democracy and human rights. I believe the United States must

be willing to stand up even to our closest allies when they are

wrong and when, as in this particular case, we are not saying that

modern Turkey, in fact, is responsible. What we are saying is that

this time in history needs to be remembered because what has

passed is often prologue, and failure to remember, failure to recognize, sweeping under the carpet of history is a mistake that ultimately we are doomed to repeat time and time again.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had not originally

intended to speak on this resolution, but I feel moved to do so by

some of the questions that have been raised by our colleagues during this discussion, which I find important as well as intriguing,

questions such as what do we lose and what do we gain and what

is in our national interest?

It seems to me when we talk about genocides or holocausts, that

even the survivors do not completely survive, that those of us who,

either ourselves or our parents have gone through such a thing,

feel and understand it ever so deeply. Some of us should also note

that when we as well as others said things like never again, we

should not only be talking about the future, but we should not be

pressed by historical revisionists to also say never before.

The question of what is in our national interest, I think it is in

our national interest to speak the truth. I think it is in our national interest to do what is right. I think it is in our national interest to lead by example. And I think it is in our national interest

to be or become the moral leaders that we think we are. I think

it is also unfair to say that victims who fight back because they

fight back should also be counted as aggressors.

As to what we gain and what we lose by doing this today, by

speaking the truth to our friends, I think we strengthen them and

prove our friendship. I think we make them better for it. I think

when they confront the realities and admit that things happen that

were not within their immediate historical control and can also express their regrets about it that we can all move on. And what do

we as a Congress stand to gain, or what we might stand to lose

by either doing or not doing this today, I think the answer might

be our integrity.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just pick up on

that last word that Mr. Ackerman just spoke on integrity, which

to me becomes tremendously important. I don’t know, even as I sit

here at this late hour, which way I am going to vote on this bill,

but integrity is tremendously important, and integrity to me also

starts at home.

When I think of a bill that recently was circulating in this Congress, just asking this Congress to apologize to African Americans

28

for slavery, and when I looked at the number of individuals who

signed up on that bill, it was minuscule.

Integrity. Integrity starts at home. When I think of what has

happened to the native Americans in this land, and yet we do not

teach it in the manner that it should be taught. When I look at my

children’s classes and my young daughter, who is now 16 years of

age, and every year in this country they have what we call Black

History Month, and during that month, she has come and said,

Dad, I am tired of learning the same thing over and over again

about black history, and the only thing that they teach me, and I

know, I respect his role in history, is Dr. King and the civil rights

movement, but they never acknowledge and teach me about the

middle passage and what happened to millions of Africans being

brought over here in chains in the hulls of slave ships.

Integrity. Integrity is when, in New York City, from which I

come, we try to have a curriculum of inclusion to include everyone

and that was denied. Integrity. So it gives me a problem and I understand history, and we have got to make sure that history is

known so that it never repeats itself. And so, it should be that I

should have no hesitation in regard to this bill, but the hesitation

is because of the credibility or the integrity of the body that is trying to say it to another body, when yet we don’t do it at home to

ourselves. If we did it to ourselves, then it is easy to say we have

and stand on the moral ground to do it for someone else.

And so I don’t know which way I am going to vote, Mr. Chairman. I know that we do and we must acknowledge genocide wherever it is so that it never repeats itself, but I also know that we

as a body, and sometimes we—and this is a moral issue in my

opinion—have to forget politics. Politics is playing a role in this because I don’t know how we got where we are today, other than it

has to be politics, but we have to, as a body at some time, decide

that we are going to do the right thing ourselves and acknowledge

the wrongs that we have committed to other people. Then I think

we can stand on the high moral ground to tell everyone else that

you have to acknowledge the wrong that you have done.

I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. We will now proceed

with the amendments. I recognize Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment

at the desk.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo, page eleven, line 17, strike ‘and.’ Page 11, line 24, strike the period and insert ‘and.’ Page eleven, after line 24, insert the following, three,

‘calls upon—’.’’

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment will be considered as having

been read. Without objection. Mr. Tancredo is now recognized for

5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think I will

take that much time. The purpose of my amendment is to simply

help clarify the intent of the resolution. If the purpose of the resolution is, as has been expressed often, to identify the sense of the

Congress regarding the horrendous events taking place in this area

29

of the world 84 years ago, then it seems to me that we should do

just that. If we are not intent upon assessing blame to the present

government of Turkey which has been a statement uttered several

times by many Members of this Committee, then I think it behooves us to also state that very clearly and in as unambiguous

manner as possible. That is the purpose of my amendment.

It is a short one, and I think nothing more needs to really be

said, at least by me, and I will just ask for its adoption.

Chairman GILMAN. Is anyone seeking time? Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, Congressman Tancredo, for his amendment, and I will support his

amendment.

I think it is important to realize that while his amendment is a

constructive one, and I trust all of my colleagues will vote for it,

it does not solve the underlying—Mr. Chairman, the Committee is

not in order.

Chairman GILMAN. Committee will come to order. The gentleman

should be heard. You may proceed Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While Mr. Tancredo’s

amendment is a constructive amendment, which I will support and

I hope all of my colleagues will, it does not address the underlying

issue. The underlying issue is a very simple one.

The government of Turkey and the Turkish people do not view

the House International Relations Committee or indeed the Congress as a whole as a pedagogic instrument. That is not our role

in their eyes. And I think it takes an enormous degree of unrealistic self-image to pretend that although our intentions are noble

and we clearly talk about events in the past, and while, if we adopt

this amendment, we again underscore that we do not wish to criticize the current government of Turkey, that is not how the underlying resolution is perceived. And I think it is sort of important for

all of us to be very conscious of this.

Mr. Tancredo’s amendment improves the underlying piece of legislation, but it does not address the fundamental issue of the underlying legislation, as I believe several earlier comments did not.

Now, one of my colleagues referred to Elie Wiesel, and I think

several referred to scores of Holocaust specialists. I am probably as

close to Elie Wiesel as anybody in the Congress of the United

States. I have untold admiration and respect, friendship and affection for him. We are friends. But I do not view Elie Wiesel as an

expert on U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century. Elie Wiesel is an

expert on the Holocaust in Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s. He

does not claim expertise beyond that. I am as annoyed, as I take

it everybody in this room is, when Michael Jordan tells me what

telephone to use. That is not his field of expertise. And to drag Elie

Wiesel and other Holocaust scholars into a debate on U.S. national

interests in a critical region of the world in the 21st century, with

all due respect, is an absurdity. These would be the first people to

claim that they have no expertise in this field.

Our job domestically and internationally is to promote the national interests of the United States, not to listen to Holocaust

scholars on what they think about resolutions which have a national foreign policy impact, about which they have no expertise.

30

So Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. Tancredo’s amendment

and urge all of my colleagues to vote for it. I yield back the balance

of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague that this

is a worthwhile amendment, but I also agree with what he said,

this doesn’t change the underlying problem.

I think we have a bad case of what we call selective righteousness, which is being expressed today, and the reason I say that is

because of the following, and Mr. Meeks hit right on it. I don’t

know how he is going to vote but I think he hit right on it.

We have not passed a resolution on African slave trade involving

the United States, but 18 million Africans were carried into slavery, 18 million were stuffed into boats and brought over to the

United States, and I don’t recall ever seeing a resolution passed by

the Congress condemning our forefathers for allowing us to involve

ourselves in the slave trade. Why don’t we do that?

Let us talk about the decimation of American Indians. When we

first came to this country there were about 7 million Indians in

this country. In 1890, that was reduced to 300,000. Went from 7

million to 300,000. What do you think happened to all those people? They were murdered. They were run off their property and put

into reservations. My colleague from North Carolina talked about

the trail of tears where Indians were taken by the hundreds and

thousands to Oklahoma and many, many dying, starved to death

because of that forced migration.

The Congo Free State, we haven’t heard anything about that.

The Congo Free State—10 million, 10 million indigenous Congolese

died at the hands of the Belgians. Where’s the resolution on that?

Ten million. That was the first one in the 20th century. Now we

are going back 85 years. Why don’t we go back another 7 years to

1908 when 10 million Congolese were massacred.

How about in the 20th century with Joseph Stalin? Where is the

resolution on Russia before the Soviet Union? Stalin killed 50 million. I don’t hear anything about that. I haven’t seen a resolution

like that.

Mao Tse-Tung, oh, we are really buddies with China right now.

They are still a Communist State. Killed 50 million. How come we

don’t have a resolution on that?

Religious minorities in India. India is one of our friends and allies. I never hear any criticism about them, but the fact of the matter is the Sikhs, the Christians in Nagaland, the Sikhs in Punjab,

the Muslims in Kashmir by the hundreds of thousands, have been

killed and persecuted.

In Cambodia, there was a resolution on Cambodia, but it did not

deal with the massacre and the intentional killing of anybody who

wore glasses because they could read, and anybody who was educated—millions died there.

The Sudan, the Sudan, what about the millions that have died

there just recently?

In Rwanda, 800,000 to 11⁄2 million people were murdered. Another two million fled to neighboring countries since 1994.

31

And I could go on if you want to to Australia, the Aborigines and

how they have been mistreated by the Australians over the years,

if you want to do that.

China, the treatment of Tibet; France, the Calvinist executions

of the Christians. We haven’t talked about that. Spain—the Spanish inquisition. You know, we can go on and on and on, and you

can go right up to the present day where these things are going

on between the Hutus and the Tutsis in Africa, and yet we are

being very selective in saying, oh my gosh, we have got to do something about the so-called Armenian Genocide. Today, the Armenians are taking their wrath out on the Azerbaijanies. Are we

going to have a resolution on that? I mean, how far do we go?

The point I am trying to make is, we could go on ad infinitum

condemning people for atrocities that have taken place. There is no

question about it, but the thing we ought to consider today is what

is the national interest of the United States? The Turks, if you look

at their papers and their television today, they are extremely

upset. Our ambassador just told you that this could upset the entire relationship we have with them over there, our bases, Iraq,

Iran, Syria, the entire Middle East.

We don’t know what could happen, but I could tell you this kind

of thing is full of mischief, and if we are going to do it, if you are

going to condemn all these atrocities that have taken place in history, then let us do it right. Let us make a bill that covers as many

of them as possible, and if we find more, bring up another bill to

do it, but let us not have selective righteousness today, especially

when we killed 7 or 8 million Indians to take over this country.

This was theirs. They are living on reservations today. Now I am

not saying that I want to go back to the situation we had, but the

fact is that did take place, and I have never heard one resolution

condemning that.

Chairman GILMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Radanovich—I am sorry.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The argument is we

can’t pass this resolution because it doesn’t deal with every problem. Look at all the other resolutions we are going to deal with

today. Look at what this Committee does day after day, week after

week. We have a resolution coming up on Sudan. Are we going to

be told we can’t pass a resolution about Sudan because it doesn’t

mention Rwanda or Cambodia or East Timor?

We have a resolution coming up about Afghanistan. Are we going

to be told we can’t pass that resolution because it doesn’t deal with

atrocities in Colombia or that we can’t pass a resolution, the next

one coming up on Kenya, because it doesn’t deal with some of the

most frightful things that have happened in other places? The resolution on Kenya deals with assassination. Are we going to be told

we can’t pass that resolution because we have had terrible assassinations here in the United States, some of which remain unsolved?

Each resolution stands on its own. Each resolution is part of a

brick wall where we try to build an edifice dedicated to human

rights, and if we are told that no brick can be put in place because

it does not encompass everything, then we will never build the

32

wall. Of course, we should often recognize the horrors of slavery

and the genocide of America against so many American Indian

tribes or native American tribes. But is that a reason that we

would not pass a resolution about Cambodia or Afghanistan or

Rwanda or Sudan or Armenia?

Second, we are told that we are unworthy of passing a resolution

judging others. Yet we pass resolutions every day or every week

praising Benin or some other country for successfully completing

its democratic elections. Are we going to halt all resolutions praising the successful democratic elections in other countries because

there are flaws in our own democracy? We have got to deal with

this resolution as an individual resolution.

I would point out that the European Parliament, the Russian

Duma, the Canadian House of Commons, the Belgian senate and

the French national assembly, not to mention the parliaments of

Sweden and Lebanon, have all passed resolutions along the same

lines in the last 15 years. Are we to say that they are worthy to

pass resolutions, ignoring, as the gentleman points out, what happened in the Belgian Congo? I don’t think that we should ignore

human rights or history simply because we ourselves are guilty of

terrible abuses or simply because no one resolution can encompass

all of these facts.

We are told that our national interest requires us to ignore the

Armenian Genocide. I will repeat again. If in 20 years it becomes,

in the short term, alleged national interest of this country to march

down and tear down the Holocaust Museum because a new powerful German government insists upon it or requests it, is there anyone here willing to march down with picks and blowtorches ready

to destroy the Holocaust Museum, should some powerful ally of the

United States request that in some subsequent decade? I don’t

think we are willing to ignore the Holocaust, no matter what the

short term political international exigencies, nor do I think that we

can ignore the Armenian Genocide for the same reason.

Our strength comes from integrity, as the gentleman from New

York said, and if we think that a few months of bad press in Ankara is more important than the integrity and the image of the

United States for caring about human rights and caring about integrity and caring about the historical record, then I don’t think

that the rest of the world will judge us as fit to be the world’s only

superpower, a role that we hold in large part because of the respect

that we have around the world.

So I look forward to the passage of this resolution. I think the

amendment strengthens the resolution and demonstrates to the

people of Turkey that we regard these as important historical facts

committed by another government.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. The gentleman’s

time has expired.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, we are running out of time here.

I just ask unanimous consent that we move the amendment at this

time.

Mr. BURTON. Reserving the right to object.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton reserves the right to object.

33

Mr. BURTON. I believe that each one of these—I am going to support this amendment, but I believe that every Member ought to

have a right to, because of the significance of this legislation, every

Member ought to have right to express themselves on these amendments. Therefore, if there are other Members who want to express

their views on this amendment, then I think that they should. And

so pending finding out if other Members want to speak on this, I

object.

Chairman GILMAN. We have a request by Mr. Radanovich, Mr.

Campbell, and Mr. Royce to speak. Do these gentlemen object to

our taking up the amendment at this time?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I do not.

Mr. ROYCE. I do not object.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I support the amendment and do not object.

Chairman GILMAN. All right. Then at this time without objection,

the question is on the amendment. All in favor signify in the usual

manner. Opposed? The amendment is carried. Are there any further amendments? Well, let me say this, that since we have a

vote—are there any further amendments?

Mr. LANTOS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the

desk which I think will entail considerable debate. I would suggest

we take a break and then return.

Chairman GILMAN. Let us report the amendment, at least, and

then we will take a break and come back after the vote.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, on this amendment I reserve a

point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. Well, we haven’t heard the amendment yet.

The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered

by Mr. Lantos, strike all that follows—— [The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, further reading of the

amendment is dispensed with. Mr. Radanovich reserves a point of

order. We are now on the Lantos amendment. You reserved a point

of order.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, may I reserve a point of order,

please.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, you have reserved a point of order. We

resume proceedings at 1. The Committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

Mr. Lantos is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, let me first commend all of my colleagues on all

sides of this issue, because they have brought valuable insights to

what is a very complex problem.

My substitute, I believe, takes care of most of the concerns, objections, and goals of all of my colleagues. Before presenting the

amendment, let me just state a few facts.

During the course of the last 20 years, every single American

President, every single American Secretary of State, every single

American Secretary of Defense, every single American National SeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
34

curity Adviser deemed this resolution that was originally introduced—not my substitute, the original resolution—contrary to U.S.

National interests.

From Ronald Reagan to George Bush to William Clinton, from

George Shultz to Madeleine Albright, from Colin Powell to you

name it, all of our top officials in the foreign policy and the national security field have deemed my colleague’s amendment, my

colleague’s resolution, severely damaging to U.S. National interests.

Nothing has changed. Some of my colleagues raised the issue

earlier that occasionally we deal with other specific issues, and

there is no objection. Well, sure, when there are no heavy national

security interests adversely affected, we pass resolutions perhaps

without the necessary scrutiny and without the necessary debate.

I am delighted we have had this debate.

I want to deal for a moment, Mr. Chairman, with the German

case. Several of my colleagues indicated, well, why can’t the Turkish Government take the same position the German Government

does?

Well, I wish they did. I think the German Government’s approach, beginning with the regime of Conrad Adenauer and all

through the decades, has been a very farsighted, very mature, very

judicious, and very intelligent approach. Our job would be a great

deal more manageable if the Government of Turkey would have the

same farsighted approach, saying mea culpa, mea maxima culpa,

and we move on from there.

Those are not the facts. It is regrettable that those are not the

facts, but American national security and foreign policy interests

must take precedent over satisfying any lobby, any lobby in this

country.

We have also heard some comments about unintended consequences. Well, there are unintended consequences in two ways.

There are unintended consequences which are not pointed out, and

there are unintended consequences which are highlighted. I am

trying to highlight the unintended consequences of this well-intentioned resolution of my colleague. Those consequences will be devastating, they will be devastating across the board with respect to

all of the issues in which Turkey is involved, including Turkish-Armenian relations.

Mr. Meeks and others have indicated the tremendous range of

human rights violations over the years. My resolution deals with

all of them, without singling out any of them.

If I may just deal with one paragraph in this resolution:

‘‘Despite the best efforts of democratic nations and the ameliorating influence of the universal religious and humanist traditions, the 20th century was the bloodiest in history, with an

estimated 175 million people worldwide having lost their lives

because of politically motivated violations, genocide, ethnic

cleansing, planned starvation, and other forms of exploitation

and basic cruelty.’’

My substitute, Mr. Chairman, deals with the tragedy of Armenia.

It fully recognizes the horrendous human suffering, anguish, and

devastation that unfolded in the case of Armenia, but it does not

35

single out Turkey, an important NATO ally, where current and future U.S. National security interests and foreign policy interests

are so important.

I strongly urge the adoption of the substitute, and I yield back

the balance of my time.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to

reject this amendment. I would simply say that again I think Mr.

Lantos—I think many of us—are concerned about the impact on

Turkish-American relations. I believe Turkish-American relations

are based on mutual interest. They are strong allies in the region.

They share many of our same concerns for security and stability in

the region. That should continue.

I do think that the authors of this resolution deserve to have an

up-and-down vote on the resolution, that there is a process whereby one has to confront the horrors of the past.

I do think the original text does that. It does so especially with

the amendment that I worked on with Mr. Tancredo—that the resolution is not intended in any way to be an affront to the modern

Turkish Government—that this is a recognition of a horror that

happened in history, and we should simply vote our conscience on

that, up or down.

The gentleman’s amendment might be a nice and worthy resolution, but it does not meet the needs of what we are discussing

today.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just point out, we do

speak out on genocide; we do speak out to condemn other governments. As a matter of fact, we have agreed to bring up a resolution

by Mr. Lantos criticizing Kenya, and yet Mombasa is a strategic

port.

Earlier this year we brought up the resolution to condemn Sudan’s government for its genocidal war in southern Sudan. I will

remind the Members that that vote on the House floor passed by

416 to 1. In doing so, that resolution found that the Sudanese Government is deliberately and systematically committing genocide in

southern Sudan.

Mr. LANTOS. Will my colleague yield for a moment?

Mr. ROYCE. I will yield.

Mr. LANTOS. There are two profound differences in the example

my good friend raises. The first one is that the Sudanese Government, the current Sudanese Government, is currently engaged in

human rights violations of the most egregious types. Number two,

Sudan is not a major NATO ally.

So with all due respect to my colleague, to lump this resolution

together with a long overdue denunciation of the dictatorial regime

in the Sudan which is, as we sit here, killing people for religious

and other reasons, I don’t think is a very accurate comparison.

Mr. ROYCE. It is not the only comparison I made, if I could reclaim my time. I also pointed out your resolution, that we have

agreed to bring up criticizing the Government of Kenya, despite the

fact that we have a strategic port there.

36

My point is that regardless of whether Sudan was an ally or not

an ally, I am glad we have spoken out on the Sudan. I wish the

U.S. Congress had spoken out at the time of the Armenian genocide. What we can do now is move to set this record straight. I suggest we do.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to take a brief moment to rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to point out

that the language is certainly not objectionable. As a matter of fact,

it is laudable language.

But the fact that it is being offered in lieu of the pending resolution, as a way of not getting to the underlying issue, is a problem.

As a free-standing vehicle, perhaps as an introduced bill referred

to the appropriate committee, which obviously would be the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, it

would be a fine resolution. But I think we need to realize that this

would take the place of the very substantive language that Mr.

Radanovich has offered.

Let me just say to my good friend, previously he was talking

about Elie Wiesel, and questioned whether he is an expert on the

genocide that has gone on, or went on, in Armenia by the Ottoman

Empire. I happen to believe that he is an expert with enormous

standing when he speaks of terrible and despicable crimes. When

he stood at the Holocaust Museum with the President of the

United States and turned to Mr. Clinton and said, ‘‘Do something,

Mr. President,’’ it was with the weight of a man who has lived

through atrocities, and his words need to be listened to very carefully.

When we juxtapose that with the scholars who have come forward, as was noted earlier in the debate, if we are still talking

about findings of fact, those who have been in denial have won.

They have gotten us to delay, to suggest that there are some holes

in the argument. That is not the case.

As my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, said earlier, look at the record. It is replete. It is filled with

factual documentation about this despicable crime.

When it comes to chastising other despicable crimes, I take a second place to nobody. As a Member for the last 20 years, I have spoken out against crimes against humanity in China, twice got the

whole House of Representatives to go on record decrying forced

abortion in China as a crime against humanity. I have offered resolutions time and again regarding virtually every part of the world.

When I joined Mr. Lantos and many others and took the lead in

Romania, we were told by the State Department, don’t ruffle the

feathers. That was a Reagan and Bush State Department; yet, we

stood up against Nicholas Ceausescu and talked about his crimes.

The point is, we have before us a very well-crafted resolution by

Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Rogan, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.

Bonior, and 100-plus other cosponsors. We need to deal with that

language and not try to supplant it with what is otherwise very

laudable language.

Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH. I yield to my friend.

37

Mr. LANTOS. As the gentleman knows, I have the utmost regard

for my good friend. I stood with him or he stood with me on human

rights issues for 20 years.

There are profound differences between both the Communist regime of Ceausescu in Romania and the despicable Communist dictatorship in Beijing. You and I have stood together denouncing

Ceausescu and denouncing the rulers in Beijing.

Turkey happens to be a major NATO ally. China is not a major

NATO ally. Ceausescu’s Romania was not a NATO ally. To draw

these analogies, with all due respect, I believe confuses the issue.

The issue is, do we deliberately wish to insult, to humiliate, a

major NATO ally in the most strategic location of the Middle East

and the edge of Europe?

My judgment is that, on balance, it is contrary to our national

interest to do so. That is why I offer my substitute, which denounces all of the actions that the original resolution denounces,

but does so in a nonhumiliating fashion.

Mr. SMITH. Reclaiming my time, Conrad Adenauer in the current, as well as the post-Nazi, government in Germany made it

very clear that that which went on, the Holocaust and the terrible

behavior of the Nazis, was something that they would not countenance, and they denounced it. Constantinescu, the President of

Romania, will tell you any day he has no problem, as do any democrats in Romania, of denouncing the egregious behavior of the

Ceausescu regime.

The problem with the gentleman from Turkey is the denial issue.

I believe the beginning of healing, rather than the continuing festering of the problem, is an honest assessment of what happened.

Admit it and move on. Why deny it? It only brings more scrutiny.

Again, the pending resolution is fine in and of its own right.

When it is done in lieu of the amendment, that is not so.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Lantos a question. I don’t have the text of the gentleman’s amendment.

Does his amendment condemn the atrocities committed by the

Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people?

Mr. LANTOS. It does not set out any specific set of atrocities. It

deals with these outrageous human rights violations which resulted in 175 million innocent people being killed during the last

century.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It does not mention any country in particular?

Mr. LANTOS. It does not mention any country.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just suggest, if your amendment

would be amended to include a list of countries that included the

Ottoman Empire, so that it would be specifically mentioning the

genocide that this whole debate is about, I would be inclined to

support your amendment.

If it does not, I think those of us who are inclined to support the

Radanovich proposal here cannot come over and say that this is an

adequate substitute. But if you would include the names of the

Ottoman Empire and several other countries who have committed

atrocities, I think that would be adequate to accomplish what this

Committee is trying to do here today.

38

Mr. LANTOS. Will my friend yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly would.

Mr. LANTOS. I think his suggestion is a very constructive one. I

take it seriously. If we can defer action on this matter, I will proceed in developing such a comprehensive list and bring it back at

the next meeting of the Committee. I will be most happy to do so.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am afraid that we are probably going to

have votes on this issue before you would have that chance. If your

staff or someone could put together that amendment to your

amendment, as we speak now, I would then be inclined to support

your proposal. Otherwise, I could not do that.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the question

asked by our friend, Chairman Burton, and now Mr. Lantos, why

some and not others.

I think one distinction that might be borne in mind is, as long

as there is a victim who is still alive—you cannot bring back everything, but maybe there is something that a resolution can do. That,

it seems to me, is one distinction we have not spent time with.

I remember voting in favor of the Japanese-American apology

when our good friend, Norm Mineta, proposed it. That is a distinction between some of the questions that our good friend, Chairman

Burton, raised about other atrocities, including slavery and including the Trail of Tears that our friend, Mr. Ballenger, raised. It is

not a perfect rule, but I think it is one that might give us a little

guidance at present.

What we do should be more than a debating society. We all grant

that we are at risk of being characterized as such if all we do is

make pronouncements. But if there is a victim today, still alive,

whose pain can be somewhat alleviated, even in a minor degree, by

a resolution that shows some people in the world recognize the validity of their suffering, that it did happen, I think it separates it

from all the other cases.

The only exemption, I suppose—the only remaining question, one

Mr. Meeks raised, is perhaps we ought to be very careful about

being introspective about our own country.

I yield back.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, I would just say that we

are also here—and as Mr. Lantos and others have reminded us—

engaged in making American foreign policy that will determine the

peace of this world, as well as the well-being of our country.

We must, when dealing with a country like Turkey, remember

that Turkey has not just been a friend, it has been a good friend

to the United States. In the Korean War and in Vietnam, the

Turks were there at our side. In the battle against drugs, Turkey

was almost overrun with drug dealers 50 years ago. They fought

against them and they have succeeded. Now they are playing a

very important, positive role in Central Asia.

If there is a way for us to deal with this crime of the Ottoman

Empire and not at the same time going out of the way to hurt Turkey—which is, after all, not the government and not the same people who committed this crime—let us do this.

39

But as someone who believes that human rights have to play an

important role in American policy, I think at least putting it on the

record has to be part of any amendment.

Mr. LANTOS. If my friend will yield, I have prepared his list. If

I may read that list, I would appreciate his support.

The list I am proposing is: China, the Soviet Union, South Africa,

the Ottoman Empire, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan, among others.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Has the Chair ruled on the point of order that was observed at

the beginning of the debate?

Chairman GILMAN. Let me respond to the gentleman.

Mr. Radanovich has made a point of order, but he has reserved

his point of order.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I raise that point of order now.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, you recognized me, I believe.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Point of order as to the germaneness.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Normally I know the answer to my questions, but in this case, I don’t.

If the gentleman is pressing his point of order at this stage and

he is no longer reserving it, do you have to rule on his point of

order before Mr. Burton speaks?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. In response to the gentleman’s inquiry, Mr.

Burton had been recognized and I cannot take him off his feet, but

I will then recognize the objection that has been raised right after

Mr. Burton.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. LANTOS. Parliamentary inquiry.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

Mr. LANTOS. I think Mr. Burton’s point and all other points

should be deliberately listened to by all of us. We have a live vote.

I would like to request that we recess, and when we return Mr.

Burton should be given the floor.

But I don’t think we can operate this with the bells ringing. This

is an important issue. It deserves the attention we are all giving

to it.

I am asking unanimous consent that we now recess until after

the vote.

Chairman GILMAN. In response to your request, Mr. Lantos, this

I understand is the last vote of the day. I fear we won’t have

enough Members here to continue our business. It is our intention,

the intention of the Chair, to move our entire agenda over until

next week, but we will try to conclude on this amendment if we

can. If we cannot, we will have to put that over, as well.

Mr. Burton?

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I will try not to take the full 5 minutes so we can reach the floor.

I appreciate Mr. Lantos’ remarks. First of all, let me say, I think

Mr. Lantos’ suggestion and his amendment in the nature of a substitute is far preferable to what we have before us.

40

I also think that what he has suggested as a list of nations that

have committed acts, atrocities and other acts of genocide, should

be incorporated into that. Then I would be happy to support that.

Let me just read real briefly to you something that has been

omitted. This occurred February 23, 1995. I hope every Member

will listen to this, because we are talking about so-called Armenian

genocide—and there were atrocities that took place, there is no

question about that. This is in 1995.

‘‘Armenian forces,’’ Armenian forces, ‘‘often with the direct

military support of the Republic of Armenia, were responsible

for the majority of violations of the laws of war and fighting

in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1993 and 1994, according to Human

Rights Watch/Helsinki.

‘‘In its 136-page report, ’Azerbaijan’s Seven Years of Conflict

in Nagorno-Karabakh,’ released today, Human Rights Watch/

Helsinki documents hostage taking and holding, violent forced

displacement of civilians, mistreatment and likely execution of

prisoners, indiscriminate fire, and looting and burning of civilian homes in 1993 and 1995 by Armenian forces, often supported militarily by the Republic of Armenia.’’

Here is another forced replacement by the people that we are

supposed to be recognizing today as victims of genocide.

If we are going to be talking about this kind of a resolution, let’s

don’t be selective. Let’s make sure that we include as many as possible of those who perpetrated acts of genocide upon humanity or

upon their own people.

I think that is what Mr. Lantos is trying to say and trying to do.

We don’t always agree on everything, but I will tell you, I think

he is right on the money today. For us to do less is to be very selective. Why pick out one when there are so many others, including

the Armenians?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON. I am happy to yield.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I raise my point of order as to

germaneness.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich raises his point of order.

Mr. RADANOVICH. As to germaneness.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton has 2 more minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say that I think we need to get to the

floor and vote. He is going to raise the point of order anyhow.

I have concluded my remarks. I yield.

Chairman GILMAN. I will now take up Mr. Radanovich’s point.

Will the gentleman make his statement on his point of order?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I might be willing to consider an amendment

like this, and with all due respect to the author of the amendment,

if there was language in it that also struck every reference to the

Jewish Holocaust and replaced it with this watered-down piece of

nothing.

Congress has historically in the past, and in this Committee,

dealt with specific genocides—Sudan, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, as

examples. This amendment does not deal with the issue of the ArVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
41

menian genocide. To my knowledge, the Ottoman Empire is not a

member of NATO.

I would request that this Committee reject this. It is not germane to the bill. The bill is specific to the Armenian genocide. That

is why I raise the issue of germaneness.

Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair is prepared

to rule on the germaneness:

The Lantos amendment deals with a matter other than the central subject of the pending resolution, the Armenian genocide. In

fact, it removes all reference to the Armenian genocide.

Accordingly, the point of order is well taken. Under clause 7 of

rule XVI, the amendment is ruled out of order.

Mr. LANTOS. I challenge the ruling of the Chair.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the ruling of the Chair.

Will the ruling of the Chair stand as a ruling of the Committee?

Mr. Radanovich is recognized to offer a motion to table.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to lay the appeal on the table.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on tabling the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

All in favor, signify in the usual manner.

Opposed, no.

The ayes have it.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I request a rollcall, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Is there a sufficient second for the rollcall?

Mr. BURTON. Second.

Chairman GILMAN. The Chair will count. An insufficient number

is present for the rollcall.

Mr. LANTOS. Could you specify what you mean by ‘‘an insufficient

number for the rollcall?’’

Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded. Onefifth of those present, if a quorum is present.

Accordingly, there is no——

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILMAN. Who is asking for recognition?

Mr. BURTON. Congressman Burton.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I make a point of order that a quorum is not

present.

Chairman GILMAN. The Chair will count.

A quorum is present. Since there is a vote on now and since the

amendment has been declared nongermane, we will now recess

until next week, at which time proper notice will be sent to all of

the Members of the Committee, which will conclude with our resolutions.

The Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, subject

to the call of the Chair.]

42

H. CON. RES. 596; H. RES. 577; H. CON. RES.

397; S. 2682; H. CON. RES. 404; S. 1453; H. RES.

588; H. CON. RES. 414; H. CON. RES. 410; H.

CON. RES. 361; AND H. CON. RES. 382

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room 2172,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

The Committee on International Relations meets today in open

session to continue its markup of several matters which began on

Thursday, September 28.

H. CON. RES. 404—CALLING FOR RELEASE OF MR. EDMOND POPE

Chairman GILMAN. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 404 relating to Edmund Pope, which is a critical measure, and we want to

get it done before we get into the remainder of our agenda today.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The Clerk

will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 404, calls for the immediate release

of Mr. Edmond Pope from prison in the Russian Federation for humanitarian reasons and for other purposes.’’

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution is referred to the Committee

by the Speaker and, in addition, to the Committee on Ways and

Means and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Without objection, the preamble and text of the resolution will be

read in that order for amendment. The Clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas Mr. Edmund Pope of State College,

Pennsylvania——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read, and is open to amendment at any point.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. This measure was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.

This House concurrent resolution introduced by Congressman Peterson of Pennsylvania, puts on record a defense of Edmund Pope,

an American citizen who has been jailed by the Russian government for several months, now on a charge of espionage that, by all

accounts, is based on extremely dubious evidence. The resolution

calls on the Russian government to immediately release Mr. Pope

and to make certain that he is provided proper medical attention

for the rare form of cancer with which he is afflicted.

Let me note to my colleagues that Mr. Pope is a businessman,

that he has been to Russia many times over the past few years on

business trips. We simply do not believe that the Russian government has proved its case, particularly in light of the fact that a

43

Russian citizen who supposedly worked with Mr. Pope in the alleged espionage case has already been released by the Russian government.

This resolution makes it clear that if Mr. Pope is not released,

the President of the United States should continue to seek his release and should consider terminating all assistance that our Nation provides to the Russian government under our Foreign Assistance Act for purposes of preparing Russia to enter the World Trade

Organization. It also calls on our President to refuse further debt

relief to the Russian government if it does not release Mr. Pope.

My colleagues, the actions of the Russian government in this

case do not appear to be those of a country interested in proper

treatment of businessmen and investors. I believe it is, therefore,

appropriate to send this message in the form of a nonbinding resolution that we expect a Nation that wants to be part of international trade organizations and that wants wishes for more American investment to treat our American businessmen appropriately.

I would further point out to my colleagues that over the past few

years, our government has reportedly arrested several Russian

spies here in the United States; some under diplomatic cover and

others operating without it. We are all aware of the reports that

Russian spying conducted here in the United States from espionage

facilities such as the one in Lourdes, Cuba is today at record levels.

It is ironic that Russia would arrest and imprison for months an

American businessman who very well may be innocent, all the

while conducting espionage against us at records that exceed those

of the Cold War.

I support this nonbinding resolution, and I urge my colleagues to

adopt it.

Is there any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, let me first associate myself with all

of your comments and add my own. I think the time has come for

Mr. Putin to decide whether he wishes to have constructive relations with the United States, whether he wishes to be part of the

G–8 democratic industrial nations, or whether he chooses to go

down the path of his own KGB history.

The continued incarceration of Mr. Pope is an outrage. This gentleman is suffering from bone cancer, Graves Disease, and melanoma. Is he palpably not a spy, and Mr. Putin and his regime must

be put on notice that further hostile actions against the United

States will evoke an appropriate response.

I would like to advise my colleagues that I am working with

some Republican colleagues to introduce a resolution removing

Russia from the G–8. The G–8 was an accommodation to Boris

Yeltsin during the high point of Yeltsin’s democratic performance.

It is self-evident that Russia is not one of the great industrial nations of the world today; its economy is no greater than that of the

tiny west European country of Belgium. It has been an accommodation that the G–7 have provided the Russians in an attempt to cement their relationship with the democratic world. It was always

a fiction, but it is becoming increasingly an obscene fiction as the

free press is suppressed in Russia, and as an American citizen is

held on trumped-up spy charges.

44

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is unconscionable that a gravely ill American citizen should be allowed

to remain in Soviet prison, while Russia continues to conduct business with Iran, Iraq and others, attempting to break the flight embargo to Iraq, and is displaying a wide range of hostile acts. The

incarceration of individuals associated with the free media was an

ominous sign. There are now new signs of new mock trials being

prepared by the Putin regime, and the massage of this resolution

calling for the immediate release of Edmund Pope is a useful signal

as to the views of the Congress of the United States.

I strongly urge the adoption of the resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join my colleagues.

The Russia in this case really seems more like the old Russia than

any new possible Russia that we had hoped for. I am someone who

believes strongly in a close relationship and working with the Russians to develop a modern democratic society, a civil society with

democratic, free market institutions. Not letting this gentleman see

a western oncologist and keeping him incarcerated in his present

condition is simply an outrage that no government should exercise,

especially one that is trying to convince the world that it has chosen a new course and is moving away from its old, repressive past.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the legislation.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

I would like to note that in the rear of the room we have Mrs.

Pope, who we welcome to our Committee today, and we hope that

your husband will soon have an early release. Welcome, Mrs. Pope.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to associate myself with the sentiments of Mr. Lantos. We are doing that more often these days. This is a case where

an American citizen has been unjustly and brutally treated by the

Russian government, and it is reminiscent of days gone by.

I am assured by my contacts in the intelligence community that

Mr. Pope was not and is not, in any way, an intelligence operative

for the United States Government. The material he was supposedly

looking at, which caused the Russians so much trouble, was material that was shown to many businessmen and many U.S. Government officials at various weapons shows and military shows and

things such as that.

If Mr. Pope continues to be treated the way he is being treated

and is not released, there will be consequences. We have already

heard from Mr. Lantos some of the ideas and some of the things

that he is doing that would be impacted by the treatment of Mr.

Pope. I have a resolution on the floor today in the House asking

that the Russian debt not be restructured because of their sending

missiles to the Communist Chinese. I would draw attention to that

of our Russian friends, that there will be more resolutions like this

resolution, and we will consider Russia a hostile rather than a

friendly government if they treat our citizens as such.

We want to be friends with Russia. We want to be friends, we

want to have a new relationship that is totally different than the

relationship we had during the Cold War. But they cannot have

45

that type of relationship and the benefits of that type of goodwill

if they treat citizens like Edmund Pope the way they are, so I

strongly support this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Does any other

Member seek recognition?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and express my

support for this resolution and thank you for bringing it before the

Committee today. This resolution calls for the immediate release of

Mr. Pope, an American citizen allegedly arrested for spying in Russia and imprisoned in Moscow since early April of this year. Mr.

Pope has been arrested for allegedly trying to purchase secret technology that had been advertised commercially for sale. When you

consider that the Russian government has released the alleged coconspirator in this case, it is difficult to understand why Mr. Pope

is considered such a dangerous criminal. Moreover, Mr. Pope is seriously ill, and the Russian government has not permitted an

American physician to visit, which one might expect simply for humanitarian considerations.

When we look at the long, drawn out case of Alexander Nikitin,

for whom it took 41⁄2 years to prove his innocence on trumped-up

charges of espionage, I believe it is unlikely that Mr. Pope would

survive a lengthy judicial process. As we all know, the Secretary

of State has expressed her concern about this case at our hearing

last week, and I think it is an important and timely resolution. I

thank you for bringing it before the Committee.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Is any other Member seeking recognition? If not, the gentleman

from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized to offer a motion.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. All those in favor of the motion signify in the usual manner. All those opposed, say no. The

ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions

under rule 20 relating to a conference on this bill or a counterpart

from the Senate. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

H. RES. 596—RELATING TO THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED

STATES WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will now resume its consideration of H. Res. 596.

The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Res. 596, a resolution calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects

appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide documents in

the United States record relating to the Armenian genocide, and

for other purposes.’’

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

46

Chairman GILMAN. When the Committee adjourned on Thursday,

H. Res. 596, had been read for amendment and was deemed open

to amendment at any point. Amendments offered by Mr. Tancredo

and Mr. Lantos had been disposed of.

As we now resume our consideration of House concurrent resolution 596, I want to recognize our Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Goss, who has requested consent to address

the Committee very briefly. Regrettably, Mr. Goss will not be able

to answer questions due to the sensitive nature of his jurisdiction.

Mr. Goss.

Mr. GOSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Mr. LANTOS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

Mr. LANTOS. Would it be reasonable to ask Mr. Goss questions

which do not relate to sensitive intelligence matters? I find it, Mr.

Chairman, unacceptable that the universally respected Chairman

of the Intelligence Committee should not be able to use his own

judgment as to what questions he is prepared to answer and not

to answer. I would like to ask him some questions. I presume other

Members of this Committee will want to ask him questions, and I

don’t think it is appropriate for you to foreclose the possibility—— Chairman GILMAN. Well, Mr. Lantos, if you will yield, we don’t

intend to foreclose. We will leave that entirely to the discretion of

Mr. Goss on any questions that he may wish to answer.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goss.

Mr. GOSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege and a

pleasure to be back in this room working with this Committee. I

came this morning not to participate in a policy debate at all, that

is your prerogative and the business of this Committee. I came to

state that I have some very serious reservations about the consequences of the timing in the matter that is before your Committee and how they might impact our national security. It is my

view that they would impact our national security negatively at

this time. I say that based not only on the information I have coming from my Committee and working from members of the intelligence community that are concerned about this, but I also say

that having been contacted by members of the Administration who

have underscored to me that our thinking is correct, that there are

serious negative consequences should this pass.

I will be opposing this legislation should it come to the floor and

urging colleagues to oppose it on those grounds, and I wanted the

Committee to understand that.

Again, I am not taking a policy position on it; I am taking a position that there are serious consequences to our national security

which are adverse at an extremely sensitive time in a region where

I think we could have some of those dreaded, unintended, negative

consequences that we all worry about when we pass legislation.

That is what I wanted to say to the Committee. I thank you for

allowing me to say it. I will certainly say that I have been to Turkey recently, I have also been in the area. I understand firsthand

and in firsthand conversations some of the equities that are involved, and I think I would be very upset, and I think we all would

be very upset if some of those equities were no longer available to

47

this Nation in its effort to protect the national security of Americans at home and abroad.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions, but I do not presume to participate in your policy debate.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goss, we thank you for appearing today,

and there probably are some questions.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goss, how long have you served in the Congress?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Lantos, I am in my 12th year.

Mr. LANTOS. How long have you been Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. GOSS. This is my 4th year.

Mr. LANTOS. Have you ever requested to speak on an issue before

the International Relations Committee?

Mr. GOSS. I have several times been invited back to the Committee to discuss matters where capability and policy seemed to

come together overseas. I have always had extremely generous

treatment from Chairman Gilman and I am grateful for that. I believe this is the first time I have ever come forward in a manner

such as I have today.

Mr. LANTOS. Is it reasonable to assume that your judgment of

the national security implications of this proposed resolution is so

severe that it prompted you to appear before this Committee?

Mr. GOSS. That is reasonable. I can assure you that I was aware

of this matter previously, I have talked to a number of people on

my own initiative about it, and I felt it was important, after the

conversations I have had in the past few weeks on this matter, to

share my concern that it is so great that I will be taking a position

on the floor in strong opposition, should this matter come to the

floor.

Mr. LANTOS. Chairman Goss, have you seen a copy of the letter

sent to Chairman Gilman and signed by a large number of former

secretaries of State and chairmen of the joint chiefs?

Mr. GOSS. I am aware of its presence; I have not read it.

Mr. LANTOS. Allow me, Mr. Goss, to read a small portion of this

and ask for your view of this letter sent by a most distinguished

array of defense officials in both Republican and Democratic Administrations.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos, would you refer to the date of

that letter?

Mr. LANTOS. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman. This letter is

dated October 2, 2000, addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, and I

think we all received a copy.

The letter reads as follows:

‘‘Dear Mr. Chairman:

‘‘We urge opposition to House Resolution 596 recently passed

by the Subcommittee on International Operation and Human

Rights concerning the attention which should be given by the

President to the Armenian Genocide and American Foreign

Policy.

‘‘Whatever you or others may feel about the merits of this

resolution, it is important to understand the real world consequences of its adoption. The potential for damage to U.S. inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
48

terests in a vital region dramatically outweighs,’’ dramatically

outweighs, ‘‘in our judgment, any acknowledgment of past

atrocities during World War I and its aftermath.

‘‘Turkey’s strategic location at the crossroads of Europe, the

Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans, as well as its

unique position as the only Muslim democratic country with a

vigorous market economy, places it at the center of U.S. shortand long-term strategic interests.

‘‘Now is not the time to test the will of an indispensable ally

which, for over 40 years, has proven its loyalty and strategic

importance. A staunch ally during the Cold War, Turkey will

be even more crucial to U.S. security interests in the 21st century in a region plagued by new security challenges, including

political instability, Islamic extremism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and narcotics trafficking.

‘‘Turkey’s cooperation is essential to promote U.S. strategic

interests in the region. Yet, with the adoption of this resolution, no Turkish Government will be able to be as forthcoming

as in the past, given its public’s strong sensitivities to events

clouded by history.’’

I won’t read the rest of the letter, but I want to read, Mr. Chairman, some of the signatories of this letter. Our most recent Secretary of Defense, William J. Perry; the former Secretary of Defense, Frank Carlucci; General Alexander Haig, former Secretary of

State and former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; Admiral

William J. Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

General Wesley K. Clark, recently retired Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; General George Joulwan, former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; General John Shalikashveli, former

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; General Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser; Mr. James Woolsey, former Director of the Central

Intelligence Agency; General John W. Vessey, former Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the list goes on.

Now, I would like to ask Mr. Goss, first of all, whether he agrees

with the substance of the letter?

Mr. GOSS. I do.

Mr. LANTOS. Secondly, if I may ask you, Mr. Goss, do you think

that you and I and the other 433 Members of Congress should give

some weight to the powerfully expressed views of secretaries of defense, chairmen of Joint Chiefs of Staff, under both Democratic and

Republican Administrations who rarely produce a document as

powerful and as carefully reasoned as this one?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Lantos, I very strongly believe in the democratic

process and representative government, and I think that part of

that process is that Members bring here to this wonderful forum

in the people’s House many views across America of things that are

important on the minds of many Americans. But I also feel that

there is a requirement beyond just that individual participation to

protect our national security, and I think this is a rare instance

where the national security and the views of those involved with

the discharge of our national security responsibly should be taken

into consideration.

49

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Goss, I would now like to ask your view concerning the official position of the Department of State, which, in

part, reads as follows:

Over the years, the Department of State has set forth its objections in detail to previous congressional resolutions on this

issue. These objections remain no less valid today. In essence,

the Administration believes that the resolution would complicate its efforts to build a peaceful, prosperous and stable future for the people of the region. The Administration opposes

legislative measures to deal with the sensitive issues raised in

the resolution. That the Armenian people endured horrible

massacres and suffering during the first World War is beyond

doubt, that the peoples of Turkey and Armenia must find a

way to come to terms with their shared history is a principle

we strongly support. But we also agree with the position adopted by other friends of both Armenia and Turkey that the question of how these massacres are characterized is best left to

historians and cannot be legislated from the outside.

The President and the Secretary of State ascribe great importance to the process of building peace, stability, and mutual

confidence in the Caucasus region. Normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relationship is a vital element of any NagornoKarabakh settlement, and thus the future of Armenia.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

You may put the letter in the record at this point.

[The letter appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Do any other Members——

Mr. LANTOS. I would like unanimous consent to proceed for an

additional 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has already exceeded his time

by 7 minutes. Our time is running——

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Lantos, part of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos may proceed on Mr. Burton’s

time.

Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate the gentleman’s courtesy.

I will not read the rest of the letter from the State Department.

I would like to ask Chairman Goss to comment on whether the Secretary of State’s position on this matter is relevant in making our

determination?

Mr. GOSS. Certainly, the Secretary of State’s view is very relevant. It always is. I don’t always agree with it, but it should always be carefully considered.

In this case, I do agree with it. I think it is part of a larger compendium of opinion and judgment that comes from experience, not

only from our diplomats, but from our warfighters and some of our

other interests in the area. When you add it all up, we are talking

about long-term and short-term consequences, both of which are seriously negative for the United States of America.

50

Curiously enough, we are debating the price of gasoline these

days at the pump. It is hard to believe that this particular resolution could have any relationship to it, but in fact, it does.

Mr. LANTOS. My final question to Mr. Goss, Mr. Chairman, is

have you read the statement of the President of the United States

on this issue?

Mr. GOSS. I have read a statement, I am not sure which statement you are referring to.

Mr. LANTOS. Allow me to read a small portion of it. This is a

statement by the President—— Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time is more than exceeded.

You have already consumed—— Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I have 5 minutes, as I understand

it, and I yield it to Mr. Lantos.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton, you don’t have any time. You

have been recognized, so at this point—— Mr. BURTON. I thought you did recognize me, Mr. Chairman. Did

you not recognize me?

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goss had been recognized.

Go ahead on Mr. Burton’s time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, why are you so afraid of Members

of this Committee expressing their—— Chairman GILMAN. That is an unfair comment, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Are we adhering to the gag rule?

Chairman GILMAN. It is not a gag rule. We have a time limitation. We have about 10 more measures to consider in addition to

this measure, and I am trying to keep us within our time frame.

The time has expired.

Do any other Members seek recognition? Mr. Campbell.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, state it.

Mr. BURTON. My point of order is I thought the time that each

Member was allotted was 5 minutes. I watched my watch, I got

about 2 minutes and I yielded to Mr. Lantos. That is 5 minutes.

Now, if we are changing the time, I wish the Chairman would recognize us and tell us how much time.

Chairman GILMAN. Each Member has 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. I did not use my time. I yielded to Mr. Lantos and

he used 2 minutes.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos has exceeded the 5 minutes that

he was allotted.

Mr. BURTON. That was his time. My time is 5 minutes.

Chairman GILMAN. He has already utilized that time.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an observation on which

I would welcome Chairman Goss’s response. The division between

the functions of the Intelligence Committee, the foreign relations or

the International Relations Committee and the Speaker’s office

seems to me quite relevant to our discussion here today. Here is

how I look at it.

A question of policy as to whether an Armenian genocide occurred is something that is the relevant subject matter for our

Committee. I don’t believe there is a doubt that the Armenian

51

genocide did occur, and in hearing my colleagues’ arguments

against this resolution, no one has really debated that it did occur.

Instead, what we have heard is, we have an important ally, Turkey, who would be offended by this resolution. That is what we

have heard. That is the argument.

It seems to me that you have access to information, Chairman

Goss, and the Speaker does, too. I think the Speaker gets the national intelligence briefing like the President and the Vice President, so the very top information about the United States strategic

and tactical vulnerabilities around the world would be shared with

the Speaker. They are not shared with me, and that is fine, that

is as it should be. I am not on the Intelligence Committee. It is my

privilege every year to take a visit up to your office and read the

budget which I try to do every year, and in fact, I have done every

year, but I don’t get the briefing, nor, to the best of my knowledge,

do the other Members on this Committee get the briefings, although they might before they go off on a foreign trip or something

of that nature.

So when you come before us, for which I am grateful and I have

been your admirer for 12 years, for as long as I have known you,

but when you come before us and give us information but you can’t

give us all of the information, it puts me in a bit of a spot, because

I don’t know what you know.

Here is what seems to me the correct way to solve this problem.

We do our job here, which is on the policy. Was there an Armenian

genocide, yes, there was an Armenian genocide. The question of

whether it then goes to the floor is a question for the Speaker of

the House who controls the floor and always has under the Rules

of the House, and it could well be that the Speaker of the House

decides not to bring it to the floor because of the very factors to

which you allude. The result of which if that occurs would be, the

Speaker makes his judgment based on all the information available

to him, I make my judgment on the basis of all the information

available to me. The only possible harm it seems to me from that

approach would be if the concerns to which you allude but which

you cannot identify in all detail would somehow be jeopardized by

the Committee’s action, just by this Committee’s action.

I guess it is possible, but I really don’t find it compelling that

that would be the case. So that is my proposal, that we proceed

today, we vote our conscience on this resolution, and then you

weigh in with the Speaker who has got the fundamental judgment

to balance on whether we bring it to the floor.

I will be pleased to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think that is a very good suggestion, but I

would even amend that, if the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, of whom I also share your respect, if he is privy to information that he feels impacts vitally our national interests, if he could

provide us in a closed session with as much information as he can,

that might be appropriate. But simply his presence here today I

think causes unease and uncertainty as to what information is

available. I support this resolution, for the same reasons that you

do. But I would like to obviously know more. I yield back my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask the Chairman’s indulgence to allow Chairman Goss to advise me on my suggestion.

52

Mr. GOSS. Let me say that I believe the Speaker is regularly

briefed; I am not sure to what degree he has been briefed on the

matters that have been brought to my specific attention by the intelligence community as recently as yesterday afternoon and their

concern on this matter, but I think the Speaker is generally well

aware of it, and certainly I will be talking to the Speaker about

this on behalf of concern about the capabilities question, which is

what I have spoken to this morning, the capabilities question. I do

not wish our country to lose any capability, particularly in that region, and that is why I have come down today, is to raise a warning flag.

Of course, it is the Speaker’s decision and leadership’s decision,

and I am not in that circle. I will do what the intelligence community does, which is say this is what we think the facts are, these

are what the capabilities are, and the policymakers will debate it

and do what they will do. I have specifically said at the beginning

of my comments here today that I, even though I value my absentee seat on the Committee greatly and look forward to returning

some day to this Committee, which I respect very greatly, I do not

wish to inject myself in the policy debate. That is very much your

task. I am concerned about maintaining maximum equities in the

area, and I felt it important that people debating policy in the area

that could affect those equities understood that there will be people

who are worried about what the capabilities question should be

should this matter come to the floor, we will be taking a strong position in opposition.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr.

Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.

Just to follow up, Chairman Goss, I thank you for that answer.

As always, you are responsive, I don’t mean to say you are not, but

my question was, do any of your concerns get triggered by this

Committee’s action if it doesn’t get to the floor, because that was

the way I saw it dividing this up. Let the Speaker make the judgment as to whether it is right for our country for this to come to

the floor, but let us go ahead today. Are your concerns triggered

by this Committee’s actions?

Mr. GOSS. I guess my concerns were triggered by when this came

up and was starting to be discussed publicly, it caused considerable

uproar and caused people’s anxiety levels to go up. You are asking

me to make a judgment as to whether, if people’s anxiety levels

will tip over, the answer is I have no way of knowing that. Frankly,

I wish the whole thing would go away. At what stage we deal with

it and how we dispose of it will have consequences. Whether they

are favorable consequences or negative consequences I think will

depend on the leadership’s decision on this. I can’t answer your

question.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would like to ask the Chairman a question and

then I will yield back my time. Do you believe that you have information, specific information that is available to you that you could

share with Members of this Committee that would impact our deliberations?

53

Mr. GOSS. I believe that the intelligence community has promised—in fact, has stated that I would have written material suitable for Members to look at in the Intelligence Committee spaces.

I was promised that last evening. I cannot verify that that material

has actually arrived. I know what the material talks about, but I

haven’t seen it myself.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield back my time.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to remind

the Members that this House went on record to cut aid to Turkey

4 years ago over this very issue. As a matter of fact, this was supported by 268 Members of this Congress, and I will just share with

you the vote on the House floor to limit to $22 million the amount

of funds to be appropriated to Turkey under the Economic Support

Fund until such time as that country acknowledges the atrocity

committed against the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923.

Now, this was supported by 268 Members, including Mr. Lantos

at the time, and the question I would ask of Mr. Goss is this: Four

years ago, we were talking about real money. Today we are just

talking about a resolution. Four years ago, 1996, Saddam was a

threat; 2000, today, Saddam is a threat, but are conditions that different from 1996 when the House went on record that—I guess I

should ask this question, Mr. Goss. Was the House wrong in 1996

when we passed this so overwhelmingly?

Mr. GOSS. I think I should let that vote speak for itself. I don’t

think the House is right or wrong. The House did what it did. The

issue today is would something that the House do today affect capabilities in the area, and based on information that has come in

to me from warfighters, people who are concerned about our security, our diplomats and our intelligence community, the answer to

that question would be yes. Is that sufficient to outweigh the message that this Committee is debating? I don’t know the answer to

that. That will depend on the collective wisdom of the Members of

the House should it go to the House floor, and I would certainly

not want to prejudge that.

Mr. ROYCE. I would just point out that when this resolution was

passed 4 years ago by an overwhelming vote, the Congress went on

record as cutting aid to Turkey over this issue. Now, that was reversed in the Senate, but I would like to remind my colleagues of

their vote at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goss, do you

argue with the historical facts involved in this case?

Mr. GOSS. Certainly not. I am not taking any position on the

matter before us except the consequences of the debate.

Mr. GEJDENSON. So you don’t argue that the genocide occurred?

Mr. GOSS. I am not arguing or addressing the substance of the

matter before the Committee.

Mr. GEJDENSON. You are avoiding the substance?

Mr. GOSS. I am totally avoiding it, as I said in the beginning.

54

Mr. GEJDENSON. So let me ask you this. In dealing with Russia

and China, should we avoid responding today to human rights outrages because of the considerations of building a relationship with

Russia and China and because it may complicate other foreign policy issues?

Mr. GOSS. Obviously, human rights are a critical factor in all decisions made by the United States Government on behalf of United

States citizens and should be, and we come to different conclusions

in different areas under certain times. We certainly addressed

human rights violations in different ways, whether it is Russia,

China, Colombia or any other place you want to speak of. I am not,

in any way, trying to deemphasize human rights violations, I am

merely trying to flag, as I said at the beginning, that those of us

dealing with the capabilities question find that there may be adverse consequences of significance here.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I guess my problem is this, that what we are

being asked to do is to ignore a historical fact; and I have come to

the conclusion, and I think most historians have, because it complicates our present foreign policy. I think that is a very dangerous

message. I think that what societies have to do is confront history

honestly as best we can. I think that if you see instances where

there has been disintegration; you know, for a long time, American

policy ignored the problems in Iran under the Shah, because he

seemed to be the better choice over what was coming. The alternative finally came, and we have now lived with it for a long period

of time.

I think that we have to differentiate the recognition of this historical fact from our present relations with the country of Turkey.

I think, frankly, the Turkish Government has to accept that. I can

tell you that at least for this Member, I think there is a hopeful

future for Turkey, and I think that it is an important country in

the region for the United States. I think Turkey will function better internally with its present issues, with the Kurds and others

within its borders, if it honestly addresses its history in the same

way, as I said the other day, that the German government of today,

while accepting the historical responsibility of what happened during the Holocaust, was among our closest allies and partners

throughout the Cold War, and it continues today that we work with

the German government.

I think for the United States to say well, here we have important

assets, and so in this case we are going to have to not recognize

the historical outrage. This sends a very dangerous message to the

future, that if you are important enough to the United States, if

you happen to have the right landing strip or geographic position,

then we may not be as serious about how you treat your people or

your neighbors. Frankly, I think that has happened, at times. I

think that resolving this issue is something not just the United

States needs to do, I think the Turkish government needs to do it

as well. I think the Turkish Government needs to address it historically and find a way to move forward. I think that would be

best for all of us.

To argue that American Members of Congress should sweep this

under the rug to me is unacceptable. We need to reach out to the

present Turkish Government; we need to try to help them develop

55

a civil society and deal with the ethnic differences in their country,

to include them more in Western European, pro-democratic civil society. I don’t think we do that by saying, okay, you are important

enough where we are going to ignore these historical facts. Because

in this case, you have decided it is problematic. The same arguments could have been made in dealing with the German government on issues surrounding the Holocaust.

Gee, this is difficult for you to deal with. It is even more recent

than what happened to the Armenians. But in the case of Germany, we said no, Germany is an ally, Germany is a country we

want to be friends with. The German people today have a civil society that recognizes its international responsibility, and we are moving forward. I think we have to do the same thing here. There may

be hurdles in the interim, but over the long haul, recognizing the

honest verdict of history is the only way to proceed.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. I would like to—the Chair recognizes himself

on this issue. I would like to take this time to thank Chairman

Goss for coming to the Committee and expressing himself with regard to this important issue.

We thank you, Mr. Goss, for being here today.

Mr. GOSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. I would like to take this time to recognize a

distinguished delegation from the Turkish Grand National Assembly who is with us in our audience today. These parliamentarians

who represent Turkey’s five major political parties have come to

Washington because of the importance that they find with regard

to the measure before us. They include the Honorable Tayyibe

Gulek, the Honorable Ayfer Yilmaz—please forgive the pronunciation—the Honorable Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik, the Honorable Metin

Ergun, and the Honorable Temel Karamollaoglu.

I am informed that the mission of this delegation is connected to

the measure before our Committee, and it is an unprecedented opportunity for the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to come to

Congress, and we welcome you.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

Mr. LANTOS. Would it be appropriate to invite one of the members of the Turkish Parliament to express the views of their membership concerning the issue raised by Congressman Campbell;

namely, would action by this Committee have any impact on U.S.-

Turkish relations? I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that one

of the members be given the opportunity to speak to us.

Chairman GILMAN. That would be appropriate if some Member

will yield his time.

At this time I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, yes, I will be happy to yield to one

of the members of the Turkish Parliament if they would like to

come forward and give us their views.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the chairman of the Turkish Parliament come forward if he so desires?

Mr. BURTON. While he is doing that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge

that the letter that was sent to you be distributed to all Members

56

1Mr. Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik, leader of the parliamentary delegation from the Turkish National Assembly

of the Committee. I think it is so relevant that every Member

ought to read it and see who the signatories are to that letter. It

is at the desk, and I would urge the Chair to have that passed out.

Chairman GILMAN. Are you referring to the letter by the Secretaries, the former Secretaries of Defense?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, sir, the one that Mr. Lantos——

Chairman GILMAN. I had not seen it until Mr. Lantos read it. We

will have it distributed, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Burton, are you yielding your time now?

Mr. BURTON. It is my time, and you said I could yield to the

member of the parliament and I have so done.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the chairman of the parliamentary

delegation please identify himself.

Mr. IRTEMCELIK 1. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for this opportunity as well. We salute all

of the Members of this distinguished Committee. My name is

Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik. I am, as you indicated, the spokesperson of

the Turkish parliamentary delegation. We are an all-party delegation. In other words, all the parties represented at the Turkish National Assembly have one member in this delegation, and we have

come here to express the feelings of the Turkish nation in the face

of this attempt, I do not know how much time I have, if you could

kindly tell me, I will organize my statement accordingly.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has 5 minutes.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly yield him my 5

minutes as well.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman now has 7 minutes, because

you have already utilized 2 minutes.

Mr. LANTOS. Five and five is not seven, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you; a mathematician.

Mr. LANTOS. I am delighted to assist you any time.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has already utilized 2 minutes of his time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would request that this distinguished chairman

be allowed to speak as long as he wants, as long as he should need.

Chairman GILMAN. Is there any objection?

If there is no objection, please proceed.

Mr. IRTEMCELIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, once

again. We take very seriously the resolution which is before this

Committee at the present time. This issue has a past in this

House. Many attempts have been made before, it has come, it has

gone. We want our being here to be understood properly. This is

the first time the Turkish Parliament has taken the initiative to

send an all-party delegation to the Hill to express the views and

the feelings of the Turkish nation.

There are two aspects to the issue. One concerns the historical

facts which the gentleman, Mr. Gejdenson, I understand referred

to, historical facts. It is indisputable, Mr. Chairman, that most reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
57

grettable tragic events, mass killings, atrocities happened in Ottoman times during the first World War in what is Eastern Turkey

today, and nobody denies it. No historian. But what you are talking

about here and what certain circles want people to talk about elsewhere in other parliaments is a very, very serious issue. You are

talking about genocide.

Genocide is a word, is a concept, is a fact which cannot be taken

lightly. There is a huge price tag which comes with it, and there

must be a price tag that should come with it wherever and whenever genocide takes place. One genocide so far has taken place on

the face of this planet, and we know which one it was. And history

cannot be taken lightly either. History cannot be rewritten for the

sake of certain individuals or groups of people.

As I indicated, tens of thousands of people, Armenians and Turks

have perished in the hands of one another toward the demise of the

Ottoman Empire. And all Members of this Committee, I believe,

are familiar with the real facts as well. But I want to insist on one

point. Genocide did not happen. And the Turkish nation will never

accept the charge because it didn’t happen, and history is written

on the basis of documents and not on hearsay or allegations. Otherwise, we would have had by now I don’t know how many thousands

or millions of world history.

The Ottoman government then at its weakest point in its 600

years history did not make the decision to exterminate systematically, and that is what genocide is about, to exterminate systematically any segment of its subjects. No genocide was carried out.

There is not a single document, and I insist, and whoever wishes

to do so could accept it as a challenge, there is not a single respectable, not forged, historical document that indicates that the Ottoman government had indeed taken the decision to perpetrate that

crime against a portion of its population. You all know that some

of the Armenians in Ottoman times, those who were residing in

Eastern Anatolia rebelled against the empire, against the Ottoman

government in the hope to have a homeland in that part of the

Ottoman Empire after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, with the

help of the invading Russian forces.

They were duped, and as any self-respecting government would

have done, would do, the Ottoman government has taken the decision to relocate these people in other parts, in other regions of the

empire. In that case it was what is Syria today. And that decision

was carried out. In the process, and before, there have been clashes, and very bloody ones, between Armenian and Turkish

irregulars, and I haven’t even referred to the fact that some of the

Armenian gangs had been shooting at Ottoman armies and remember, they were then subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

I am not referring to the fact that the Ottoman armies, fighting

against invading Russian forces, have been caught between two

fires. But anyhow, during the process, yes, I will repeat it again,

tens of thousands of Armenians have perished, and at least some

historians fully agree that a greater number of Turks had perished

during the same events at the hands of Armenians. Atrocities have

happened. That is a fact. Nobody denies that. But no one, no historian is in the position of accusing the Ottoman government then of

having committed the crime of genocide, and I repeat it again. HisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
58

tory cannot be written on hearsay to fit the petty or other needs

or purposes of any person.

I should like to add several facts since I said that history can be

written, should be written on documents. The Ottoman archives

are open. We have opened the Ottoman archives. But you may find

it interesting to note perhaps that the Armenian archives are not

open, not to mention the archives of the Dashnak party.

So my first point is that what is before this Committee is fundamentally wrong, and we don’t think it would be befitting any

chamber of the legislative body of the greatest country on earth to

accept such a resolution. Neither the U.S. Congress or any chamber

of it, nor any legislative body on earth should consider itself authorized to codify or rewrite history for whatever purposes they

may have. History must be left to historians and, to say the least,

to say the least, there is no consensus among respectable or real,

I should say perhaps, historians on what really happened then.

There is no agreement on how to characterize those events. Some

with political purposes insist that genocide happened; many forcefully disagree. But we all agree, and we cannot do otherwise, that

very regrettable, tragic events, massive killings indeed happened in

that part of the Ottoman Empire then.

And, referring to genocide, referring to genocide, let me bring to

your attention two points. One would be enough, perhaps. As you

all know, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were living as loyal

subjects of the Ottoman Empire and they have lived for centuries.

Mr. Gejdenson, I think, tried to identify the Holocaust and what

is, in his words, the Armenian genocide. So I regret to tell you that

there are no parallels whatsoever. Tragic events have happened in

what is Eastern Turkey today, that is true, that tens of thousands

of Armenians and Turks have perished at the hand of one another

is a fact as well. But what kind of a genocide was it? Why didn’t

anything happen to Armenians living in other regions of the Ottoman Empire? What kind of a systematic genocide was it? So I don’t

think this body will make the mistake of accepting this resolution,

which is, as I indicated earlier, fundamentally wrong.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman wind up his speech

in——

Mr. IRTEMCELIK. The other point, the reason why we are here is

because we attach great importance to the relationship we entertain with the United States of America. We cherish, in the words

of President Clinton, our strategic relationship. Inevitably, and I

don’t want to be misunderstood, if this resolution is adopted, it will

be impossible for our efforts alone to suffice to have our relations

unaffected by it; but we are not here, we are not here to tell you,

or else. That is not our view at all, and that is not our purpose.

We are here to sensitize you, to tell you that we need your efforts

to prevent our relationship from being affected by an issue which

we don’t need to inject into the relationship.

We value our bilateral relations; we value our alliance, which is

also important in, as far as our interests are concerned, as far as

the U.S. interests are concerned, concerning various regions surrounding Turkey.

And one last point, one last point, Turkish-Armenian relations.

We wish to be able to entertain good relations with Armenia as we

59

wish to entertain good and healthy relations with all of our neighbors and other countries in the world. I should like to remind this

Committee that Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize

Armenia today, and Turkey did everything in its power to try to

integrate, to try to help integrate Armenia to the community of nations.

In Armenia’s most difficult days, we haven’t hesitated for a moment to send them humanitarian aid. If need be, we will do it

again. But you should consider, Mr. Chairman, that it takes two

to tango, and Armenia also should wish seriously to entertain good

relations with Turkey. We would expect our goodwill to be reciprocated.

So, to sum up, we wish you, we expect you not to allow this resolution to continue its path, because it is fundamentally wrong and

because it wouldn’t serve our purposes to further deepen and diversify, which is a very sound and healthy, and mutually beneficial relationship. Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of your

colleagues on this Committee for providing me with the opportunity

to address this Committee.

Chairman GILMAN. We thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank your

delegation for taking the time to come to the House to our International Relations Committee to express your cogent views.

I now recognize the gentleman who sought prior recognition, Mr.

Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I want to associate myself with the gentleman

from California, Mr. Campbell, regarding the information that was

provided by Mr. Goss and by the Turkish Government. [The Speaker is aware of the fact that, because of this resolution, there have

been threats made by Turkey that we might lose bases there and

that there might be canceled defense contracts. There is even a scenario that Saddam Hussein might do something crazy that would

affect relations, and the threat was that perhaps there might not

be Turkish bases available in that event.]

The Speaker is aware of all of these things and the Speaker also

wants this bill reported out of Committee. It is the Speaker’s responsibility to determine whether or not this thing should come to

the floor, and if and when, and I suggest that we report to the leader of the United States House of Representatives and fulfill his desire to get this out of Committee, and would respect whatever decision he comes up with as far as the dispensation of this bill.

I would ask the Chairman that we might be able to then move

to the business at hand, which is, that we do have more amendments to do and we also need to conclude this and other business

as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich. I now recognize

Mr. Burton for his previous offer of an amendment.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment

at the desk.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will distribute and read the

amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Burton, page 11, after

line 6, insert the following: 34, the purposes of this resolution and

60

the national interests of the United States are likely to be negated

without the establishment of a firm foundation——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton is recognized for 5 minutes on his

amendment.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I think we checked this with the

parliamentarian. I think it is in order, but we will wait and see

what the ruling of the Chair is.

I offer this amendment as a good faith effort to recognize the fact

that our country has important strategic interests in the region

where Turkey and Armenia live, Asia Minor and the Caucasus.

I offer it also as a means of injecting some contemporary realism

into this debate. You know, this Committee can exhibit a tendency

to look at things in the abstract and forget that real human lives

and real national interests, our interests, are at stake.

Columnist George Will recently said, ‘‘Few things in life are more

stimulating than observing the calamities of other people from a

safe distance.’’ He was speaking of an altogether different situation,

but he could just as easily have been describing this Committee

and the attitude that often prevails around here.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment as a way of saying that something has been conspicuously absent throughout this

debate, and that is who speaks for the Armenians? I don’t mean

Armenian Americans. I mean the two and a half or three million

Armenians who actually live in Armenia. I mean the people who

are struggling to put bread on the table over there.

A little later today the Committee is scheduled to take up a resolution about the problems in Central Asia. Well, let me tell you

that the Caucasus is no garden spot either. We all rejoiced 9 or 10

years ago when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the various nationalities and constituent republics who had been oppressed for so

long under the Soviet jackboot regained their independence. I remember when Reagan said, tear down this wall. I thought it would

never happen, and then it did. What a wonderful day that was.

But the tragic fact is, and this is very tragic, Mr. Chairman and

Members, that 9 years after regaining its independence the Republic of Armenia is dangerously close to becoming a failed state.

I have an article from the September 6 edition of The Washington Post that I would like to submit for the record which I think

is very, very important. I would like for the Members to read that

if they can.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BURTON. This article describes an Armenia from which onethird of the entire population has immigrated since 1991 because

the situation there is so hopeless. One-third of the country has immigrated in 9 years. Of the working age population that remains,

according to this article, 40 percent are unemployed, and the country is drowning in corruption. Little, if any, effort has been made

at enacting any basic reforms that would be necessary to attract

foreign investment.

61

I have seen other articles, and other Members have as well, that

describe a country being torn apart by internal violence and political killings. One democratic leader in Armenia, a man who survived the Soviet Gulag, was quoted recently as saying, terrorism

has become an integral part of our daily life.

Here is just a short list of high officials in Armenia who have

been assassinated in the last several years: the prime minister, the

speaker of parliament, the prosecutor general, the chairman of the

state security committee, the deputy minister of defense, the deputy minister of internal affairs, the mayor of Yerevan, the capital

city, the director general of railroads, the president of the chamber

of industry and trade.

Meanwhile, Russia has been muscling in, perhaps it never really

left, and has forced the signing of military cooperation agreements,

including one this summer that guarantees Russian occupation of

certain military bases on Armenian soil for the next 25 years guaranteed.

It is now even being rumored that—we pray that this will not

happen—that Armenia may join the treaty of union with Russia

and Belarus.

And, all the while, the pro-democracy forces in Armenia find

themselves more and more on the defensive as the pro-Russian

forces in parliament and the military get stronger.

Mr. Chairman, who speaks for the Armenians? We can disagree

about the definition of what happened 85 years ago, but who

speaks for the Armenians of today?

The amendment I am offering recognizes the need for Turkey

and Armenia to reconcile their differences. Yes, it is an awful history. We all hope that they can come to terms with it. But how

does the resolution before us today propose to do that? Why has the

plight of the Armenians today been completely ignored during this

debate? How does this resolution propose to move one inch toward

a solution to Armenia’s problems today?

Believe me, those problems can get a lot worse, and I am afraid

they will if this resolution passes.

Mr. Chairman, who speaks for the Armenians? We ought to

think about that and the ramifications of this resolution if it

passes, not only about Iraq and the surrounding countries and

what it might do to destabilizing that whole area but also what is

it going to do to the Armenians who are suffering already over

there? Who speaks for them?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we ought the get to the point of having an up or down

vote on this issue. Not that dealing with other issues aren’t important—and there are lots of issues—but I believe that we do have

an obligation, at this point, to have a clear decision on whether we

are going to proceed with recognizing what is, in my opinion, a fact

of history: a million and a half people killed, women and children,

intellectuals taken out of every part of Turkey, killed. Then we can

get on dealing with our relationship with Turkey and every other

issue in the region.

62

We could offer amendments from now until whenever the session

ends—which may never end, apparently—but it is clear what the

sides are in this debate. Some people believe, irrespective of the

facts of what happened during the Armenian genocide, that the

United States’ political interests are such that we shouldn’t act on

the legislation. That is one position that elected Members of Congress have a right to express and vote.

There are some people here who believe that this piece of history

needs to be dealt with before we move on. I believe, whatever your

position is, we ought to get to a vote and not simply try to undermine the basic debate here by having other issues dealt with.

We could have amendments that deal with every issue in the region from now until the new Congress is here. Let’s vote on the Armenian resolution. Let’s give it a fair opportunity to make this

statement. If it is the collective wisdom of this Committee or the

Speaker of the Congress to not move forward, that is fine. I think

it is a mistake not to recognize history. I think it damages our

present-day actions. I would urge that we defeat Mr. Burton’s

amendment, we proceed to a vote on the underlying bill up or

down, and move on with the other responsibilities of this Committee.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order,

but do want to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

It opens the door to further amendments that will water down this

bill so much so that it will not, in the end, be germane, and that

is in dealing with the fact of the Armenian genocide. We as a body

vote quite often on specific genocides in violation of human rights

from countries varying from Sudan to Rwanda to Iraq. The list is

very long.

Again, this amendment opens the door to further watering down

and making this amendment useless and nonfunctional, and I

would urge my colleagues to vote against this thing. Again, as my

friend from Connecticut says, let’s deal with the issue at hand and

move soon to an up or down vote on the issue. If you don’t believe

that there was an Armenian genocide, then let’s just vote on this

bill as it stands and be done with it. But let’s not use clever ways

to dissolve this thing and turn it into mush and meaningless nothingness and then thereby affect the germaneness of this bill.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I first wish to strongly support Mr. Burton’s amendment, and I

want to use a portion of my 5 minutes to read a statement of the

President of the United States on this issue. Some of my colleagues

are under the misapprehension that, unless this Committee now

approves this resolution, the United States will have been silent on

the tragedies that have been inflicted on the Armenian people 85

years ago.

Let me read the statement of the President of the United States.

I quote,

‘‘Today we remember a great tragedy of the 20th century,

the deportations and massacres of roughly one and a half million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire. I

63

join Armenians around the world, including the Armenian

American community, in mourning the loss of those innocent

lives.

‘‘I also extend my sympathy to the survivors and their descendants for the hardships they have suffered. I call upon all

Americans to renew their commitment to build a world where

such events are not allowed to happen. The lesson we must

learn from the stark annals of history is that we must forge

a more humane future for the peoples of all nations.

‘‘Our own society has benefited immeasurably from the contributions of Armenian Americans. They have enriched every

aspect of American life, from science to commerce to the arts.

For the past 8 and a half years, the Armenian people have

been engaged in an historic undertaking to establish democracy and prosperity in the independent Republic of Armenia.

Their courage, energy and resourcefulness inspire the admiration of all Americans; and we are proud to extend our assistance to help realize the dream of a vital and vibrant Armenia.

The United States fully supports the efforts of Armenia and its

neighbors to make lasting peace with one another and to begin

an era of security and cooperation in the Caucasus region. We

encourage any and all dialogue between citizens of the region

that hastens reconciliation and understanding. On behalf of

the American people, I extend my best wishes to all Armenians

on this solemn day of remembrance.’’

This statement was issued by the President on April 24, the Armenian Day of Remembrance. I think it is important my colleagues

be aware of the fact that the President of the United States, speaking on behalf of the American people, has made this statement. He

made this statement on the Armenian Day of Remembrance, the

24th of April, unrelated to the elections which will take place 5

weeks from today.

All of us, Republicans and Democrats, can applaud the President’s statement. It is an appropriate statement. It expresses our

anguish at the tragedy and suffering of the Armenian people 85

years ago, and we can move on defending our national security interests.

If I have some time left, as I believe I do, Mr. Chairman, the

light is still green——

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute and 20 seconds.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would merely like to remind my colleague—and I am sorry he

is not in the room—Mr. Gejdenson, that resolutions concerning

human rights in China and resolutions concerning human rights

violations in Turkey 85 years ago are not comparable. Resolutions

involving human rights abuses in China relate to the ongoing tragedy and suffering of the Chinese and the Tibetan people.

China, the last time I looked, is not a major NATO ally. So to

compare human rights resolutions directed at China in the year

2000, when the Falun Gong has again been arrested and beaten on

Tiananmen Square, of note, this resolution is an absurdity. There

is no parallel between this resolution and our ongoing attempt to

improve the human rights conditions in China.

64

I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have debated this issue long enough,

and I move that we table the resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion to table the

resolution.

Would the gentleman explain his motion?

Mr. LANTOS. I will wait until we deal with the Burton resolution,

at which point I will move to table.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman withdraws his motion to table

at this point.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I call for a vote.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Is that a point of order, Mr. Radanovich?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Not a point of order, sir; just a call for a vote.

Chairman GILMAN. Is the gentleman moving the previous question?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman moves the previous question

on the amendment.

The gentleman is entitled to move the previous question, but

there are some Members who would like to be heard. Does the gentleman want to hold his request?

Mr. RADANOVICH. My only question, Mr. Chairman, is that we

have only got 24 hours in this day. For a couple of more speakers,

yes, but I think that we sooner or later are going to have to vote

on this issue, and I hope that we can do that sooner rather than

later.

I withdraw my motion for now.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman withdraws his motion.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I would remind my good friend, Mr.

Radanovich, that there are very serious consequences to his resolution. I am a supporter of his resolution, but with the serious consequences that means we spend more time on these things, and

there are people who have amendments which might be perfecting

amendments.

For example, I will be carrying one of Mr. Burton’s amendments

because, unfortunately, he has to leave at 11:30; but also I have a

perfecting amendment. For example, in your resolution, it mentions

the young Turk government, and I am going to ask that that be

replaced by the, quote, government of the Ottoman Empire, because that is more accurate.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, would you address yourself

to the Burton amendment at this time?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I oppose this particular Burton amendment, but I believe that it is important for us to leave the avenue

open for other amendments to make this very significant piece of

legislation better.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. Sherman, on the Burton amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I oppose this amendment, as I oppose

other amendments. I would like to move quickly to a vote on the

underlying resolution.

65

Mr. Burton asks, who speaks for the Armenians? I would point

out that every voice of the Armenians here, in Armenia, in Lebanon, in Syria and around the world, call out for the recognition

of this genocide and call out for us to adopt this resolution before

the last survivors of that genocide die.

Mr. Burton points out the difficulties faced by the people of Armenia. I hope that he will join with me in supporting increases in

aid to Armenia and to Nagorno-Karabakh.

We are told that this genocide of Armenians was not a genocide

because those perpetrating it did not kill every Armenian in every

part of the Ottoman Empire. I would point out that even the Holocaust did not lead to the utter destruction of the Jewish community

of Bulgaria or Morocco, and in both of those areas the Nazis had

some power, just not enough power to complete their genocide.

Genocide is genocide, even if it is aimed at wiping out a people

from a portion or a region of the area in which they live.

We are told that it is not the purpose of this Committee to deal

with history, but I would point out that Chairman Gilman quite

wisely in 1996 authored House Resolution 316, which the House

and this Committee adopted overwhelmingly, condemning those

who deny the Holocaust. And I would say that if this Committee

is going to condemn, quite properly, those who deny history then

it is time for this Committee to affirm history and to recognize it.

We have had extensive hearings on this issue, both before the

Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Full Committee, and even

during this markup we have heard three witnesses, all of them on

one side. I would hope that we would move as quickly as possible

to a vote. As we do we are told that national security is important;

and it is, but I would point out that not only has Speaker Hastert

urged that this resolution come before the floor of the House, but

Governor George W. Bush has spoken out in recognition of the Armenian genocide. I doubt either of those two individuals would be

making statements harmful to American security.

It is true that today’s diplomats would find it more convenient

if we avoided recognizing an aspect of history that our ally, Turkey,

for reasons I have not fully understood, finds it distasteful for us

to remember. But let us—and I made this point before—let us

imagine that a decade or two from now Germany, a powerful nation, a nation I would say more important to our national security

than Turkey, were to have a political change and some new government there were to demand that we as Members of the House

march down and physically remove brick by brick the Holocaust

Museum. I think that we would say no, that no matter how important an ally Germany was, that if its government insisted that we

repudiate history we would refuse.

Likewise, if the government of Austria, which could play a major

role, a destructive role, if it choose, in international affairs—it is

a highly technological country, capable of exporting some of the

most dangerous technology should it choose to do so—if Austria 10

or 20 years from now were to demand that we not recognize the

Holocaust, we should say no because, as has been pointed out by

other speakers, our credibility in the world depends upon our adherence to the truth.

66

Let us move forward and recognize the truth and adopt this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. The gentleman’s

time has expired.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take 1 minute.

Nobody on our Committee has denied the existence of the genocide. The only testimony is from the Turkish National Assembly’s

representative who, of course, I respect and to whom I am grateful

that he has come and testified, but no gentleman or gentlelady on

this Committee has said that the genocide did not exist.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield very quickly?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I only have a minute, and you have spoken often.

I am anxious to hear your response.

Mr. BURTON. Well, you are incorrect, Mr. Campbell.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has not yielded his time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not yield. Assuming I don’t take all of my

time—I was trying to restrict myself to 1 minute—I would be

happy to yield at the end. Then if the Committee is patient and

gives you the time, I would be delighted.

The issue comes down to Western Anatolia. I mean, that is the

burden of the testimony of the gentleman from Turkey, that how

there could be a genocide if there was no extermination in Western

Anatolia such as happened in Eastern Anatolia?

This is essential to the heart of the question. If the government

policy is to wipe out a people by government design, in a systematic manner, where they have control to do so, that constitutes

genocide.

That they did not do it everywhere does not make it less, that

they did it where they could or they did it where it was most helpful. The opposite end of the spectrum would be a horrible civil war

where you go after the enemy’s troops or the people who are supporting the enemy, but you don’t go after the race. You don’t go

after children.

So that is the distinction. And even taking into account the testimony of the gentleman from the Turkish National Assembly, we do

not have a rebuttal.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Same condition. We don’t have a rebuttal that

what happened in Eastern Anatolia was a genocide; what happened in Western Anatolia is a separate issue.

Imagine, in other words, if you had a true genocide but it was

limited only to one part of where people lived, would you say, no,

it isn’t? So it seems to me on those two points—and I would be

happy now to go to the various people who have asked to yield— that there is no dispute that what happened in Eastern Anatolia

was a genocide; but I would ask for those who still remain in doubt

to take a look at the testimony that was adduced at the Subcommittee hearing and is referred to in the resolution itself.

Two things are most telling. One is the United Nations General

Assembly in 1946, when it set up the Genocide Convention, explicitly referred to the Armenian genocide. That is in clause 19 of the

whereases, and clause 20 of the whereases states that in 1948 the

U.N. War Crimes Commission precisely referred to the Armenian

67

genocide in setting up what a Nuremberg trial would constitute as

a crime against humanity.

And lastly, contemporary testimony from our ambassador to the

Ottoman Empire, Ambassador Morgenthau, which is referenced in

Finding 11, referred to a campaign of race extermination by the

government at that time.

So because of the nature of our hearing we only heard from one

side. The evidence is quite clear from the other side, and we should

not lose sight of it.

Now with the Chairman’s indulgence, I would yield first to my

colleague from Indiana and then to my other colleague.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute and 45 seconds

remaining.

Mr. BURTON. I will be real quick.

I respect very much Mr. Campbell, and I agree with him on

many issues. On the floor of the House of Representatives, for the

past 16 years, when this kind of a resolution came up, I have been

down there saying that atrocities did take place, horrible things

happened, but it was not a genocide, and I maintain that today. So

when you say that nobody on the Committee would refute that, I

do.

I would like to also say that when the Russians invaded and

worked with the Armenians during World War I, three million

Ottoman Muslims were killed; and many people called that, the

way they were systematically eliminated, a genocide. It wasn’t. It

was a tragedy, just like the Armenian problem was a tragedy. They

also had—— Mr. CAMPBELL. I am going to take my time back.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say one more thing.

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, I am going to take my time back.

Mr. BURTON. They also killed 200,000 Jews.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is reclaiming his time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. And I yield to my colleague.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you.

It is my inclination to support the resolution and oppose the

amendment, but I want to give the full strength to the distinguished gentleman from Turkey’s position, which is that a genocide

did not occur because in his words, paraphrasing, of course, no systematic order was given to exterminate a people, the entire Armenian people, let alone the entire population of Armenians from that

portion of the Ottoman Empire.

So I think that is his strongest case. The problem with that,

though, is that certainly then it is a quibble about the definition

of—not a quibble—a serious disagreement about the application

of—the word genocide to an instance where in the strongest case

of the Turkish representative the government ordered the deportation of a people within its empire to another region, where during

the course of that deportation the gentleman says tens of thousands—I think the record is clear it is over a million, if not a million and a half——

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Can I have unanimous consent to address the

body for another 1 minute, please?

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

68

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. So that is his best case, and so that it doesn’t qualify as

a systematic, organized effort to exterminate a particular people, it

is just moving them from one part of their empire to another.

What is troubling me, though, is that this movement of these

peoples occurred during, I am told, 1915 to 1923. That is 8 years.

During this 8-year period one and a half million Armenians happened to be slaughtered or happened to die. Now, one could argue

that if this was a deportation order gone awry and these slaughters

occurred that would perhaps not qualify for a genocide, but how

could the Ottoman Empire not take responsibility for the death of

a million and a half people over the course of an 8-year period

when they were in total control? That is the problem I have with

the Representative’s argument.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Lee is recognized.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to oppose Mr. Burton’s amendment and just say that I

don’t believe this resolution should be watered down at all. You

know, last week and now again this week we are having a full discussion of this resolution and why many of us on both sides of the

aisle believe that we must acknowledge and set forth in our foreign

policy the horrors of the Armenian genocide. These terrible crimes

against humanity must never be forgotten.

So as a co-sponsor of this resolution—and many of us have made

it perfectly clear that we believe that our country does have a duty

and responsibility to acknowledge and condemn this genocide—I

urge the Committee to pass this resolution and oppose the Burton

amendment. We do not need to pass this resolution encumbered by

amendments which will cloud the purpose of the resolution, and

that is to acknowledge this horror, to acknowledge the Armenian

genocide in our foreign policy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me say that was very enlightening. I do welcome

our friend from the Turkish Grand National Assembly, Mr.

Irtemcelik, but I think his testimony, frankly, actually made our

case, and made it very profoundly.

He told us, and again I say this with all due respect, that the

genocide did not happen, when the overwhelming body of evidence

clearly points to a genocide, as my good friend from New Jersey

just pointed out, as many as 1.5 million people died. As a matter

of fact, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we had a lengthy, exhaustive

hearing just a couple of weeks ago, where we heard from scholars

who made it crystal clear—at least those who presented what I

thought what was very tangible evidence—that a genocide did indeed occur.

As a matter of fact, in a letter that was sent to me, Professor

Deborah Lipstadt, the director of the Institute for Jewish Studies

at Emory University, stated, and I quote, ‘‘Denial of genocide

strives to reshape history in order to demonize the victims and reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
69

habilitate the perpetrators. Denial of genocide is the final stage of

genocide. It is what Elie Wiesel has called double killing. It denies

the murders, the dignity of the survivors, and seeks to destroy the

remembrance of the crime.’’ In the testimony, it was pointed out that Henry Morgenthau, the

United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time,

said, and I quote, ‘‘When the Turkish authorities gave the orders

for these deportations they were simply giving the death warrant

to a whole race. They understood this well, and in their conversations with me’’—this is Henry Morgenthau—‘‘they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.’’ As was pointed out in our testimony, the ambassadors of Germany and Austria, representatives of governments allied with Turkey, also quickly realized what was taking place. As early as 1915,

the German ambassador reported to Berlin, and I quote, ‘‘Turks

began deportation from areas now not threatened by invasion. This

fact, and the manner in which the relocation is being carried out,

demonstrates that the government is really pursuing the aim of destroying the Armenian race in Turkey.’’ By January 1917, his successor reported, and I quote, ‘‘The policy

of extermination has largely been achieved. The current leaders of

Turkey fully subscribe to this policy.’’ This is the ambassador from Germany, allied with the Ottoman

Empire, making those damning comments. And I would remind my

colleagues again that the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the U.N. document, article 2, states

very clearly that genocide is defined thusly, ‘‘deliberately inflicting

on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical

destruction in whole or in part.’’ One and one-half million out of two million—that is almost the

whole thing. That is almost the whole race, so it is clearly a genocide.

Again, we welcome our friend from the Grand National Assembly, but I think he actually made our case.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank

you, Mr. Smith.

If there is no further debate, the question is now on the amendment. As many as are in favor, signify in the usual manner.

Opposed?

The noes have it.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I ask for a rollcall vote.

Chairman GILMAN. A rollcall has been requested. Is there a sufficient second for a rollcall, by a show of hands, please?

A sufficient number, the Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

Chairman GILMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.

Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

70

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.

Mr. Gallegly.

Mr. GALLEGLY. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes no.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.

Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.

Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.

Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.

Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.

Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes.

Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

Mr. GILLMOR. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor votes yes.

Mr. Radanovich.

71

Mr. RADANOVICH. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich votes no.

Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes yes.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes no.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes no.

Mr. Menendez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.

Ms. MCKINNEY. I vote no.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes no.

Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.

Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.

Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.

Mr. Delahunt.

72

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes no.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes no.

Mr. Hoeffel.

Mr. HOEFFEL. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes no.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will call the absentees.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr.

Mr. BURR. Votes aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes aye.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no.

Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there are 15 ayes and 19 noes.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at

the desk.

73

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment. The

Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The purpose of my amendment——

Chairman GILMAN. Hold just a moment. The Clerk will report

the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher, in Section 2, the 11th clause, line 3: replace ‘‘Young Turk Government’’

with ‘‘government of the Ottoman Empire.’’

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 minutes

on his amendment.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, on that I reserve a point of

order.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich reserves a point of order.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. The purpose of my amendment is to

get right to the heart of the matter of Mr. Radanovich’s bill, and

that is that Mr. Radanovich is in no way attempting to put blame

on the Turkish government or the current population of Turkey for

sins committed by people who lived in Turkey in the past, and especially the government of the Ottoman Empire. The current Turkish government bears no responsibility for the crimes of the Ottoman Empire before Turkey became the government that it is today.

Let me say that I also have an amendment, a resolution, H.R.

606, which amplifies this. Unfortunately, it will not be permitted

to be put into the hopper today, or excuse me, brought before the

Committee today because there just wasn’t enough time to meet

the parliamentary requirements.

But H.R. 606, I might add, when it does come to a vote, puts into

context what we are saying today, and that is that there were

many atrocities, similar atrocities, committed against various populations during the 20th century, and that what happened in the

final days of the Ottoman Empire and the slaughter of innocent Armenians is not an aberration of history but instead happened in

Cambodia, happened, of course, in occupied Europe by the Germans, by the Nazis, and happened in Soviet Russia. But we do not,

for example, condemn the people of Russia today for the crimes

committed by Josef Stalin, because Josef Stalin, of course, was a

dictator operating totally independently of the will of the Russian

people.

With that said, that is the purpose of my amendment, which is

changing the words from the ‘‘Young Turk Government’’ to be replaced by the ‘‘government of the Ottoman Empire.’’

I would ask now Mr. Radanovich a question for the record. Mr.

Radanovich, as the author of this legislation before us today, is it

your intent or is it not your intent that this legislation will lay the

foundation for any claim of reparations against Turkey for crimes

committed during the time of the Ottoman Empire?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. No, it is not the

intent of this legislation. It strictly deals with genocide recognition.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Thus, Mr. Chairman, this legislation

in no way would justify reparations against the current Turkish

74

government or Turkish people for crimes that were committed during the Ottoman Empire’s time period.

Let me say that the legislation does cover some property disputes

that might have arisen from this situation, and I think that is justified for the people whose families lost their property during this

time period when we had this killing going on. There has to be

some sort of settlement with them, but not reparations. That is not

what this is about.

I support Mr. Radanovich’s bill and believe my amendment underscores it because of two things. Number one, we are talking

about an event in history. I will have to say that I have tried to

keep an open mind in this, realizing that Turkey is one of our best

friends of the United States of America and during the Cold War

we relied so much on that friendship. That does not escape the

truth that in the final days of the Ottoman Empire, not only in the

Armenian section of that empire but in other sections of that empire as well, there were horrible crimes committed against various

populations, crimes against humanity, because the magnitude of

the slaughter was that bad.

So we are recognizing that truth that in the final days of the

Ottoman Empire these types of things happened, but we are not

blaming the current Turkish people.

By the way, let me just add this: The slaughter that took place

against the Armenians may be an example of where winners end

up slaughtering the losers. That still does not make it justified because much has been said, and our friends from Turkey pointed

out, that Armenians during that time period killed some Turkish

noncombatants as well.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the Chairman.

As I mentioned earlier, I am going to be voting for the underlying bill, and I will be supporting this amendment as well.

I did want to make this germane perhaps, this comment. I wanted to follow my colleague from California’s comments that this in

no way reflects this body’s or certainly my feelings with regard to

the Turkish people of today or the great history of Turkey or of the

vital role that Turkey and its people play in the security of freedom

in the world today.

We are mindful of your importance to the region and to our national security, and we consider you friends. We hope that you consider that the way we have behaved with regard to your security

qualifies us as your friends as well.

My friends from Turkey, for hundreds of years in the United

States of America we denied the actual subjugation and destruction

of the African slaves we brought by the millions from Africa, who

died by the millions at our hands, and the consequences to the African American people once they came here. We denied as Americans the slaughter of millions of Native Americans, denied that for

a long time.

Now I have no intention of directing you, my friends from Turkey, to consider or reconsider your view of history. I will just share

with you our own years of struggle to deal with our own history

and to reiterate the point made by the gentleman from California

75

that this does not reflect our view about our friends in Turkey

today or about our mutual value to one another.

I will be supporting the amendment.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.

I intend to support Mr. Rohrabacher’s amendment. I think it is

a helpful amendment, and I think it is consistent with Mr.

Tancredo’s amendment that was passed last week, that stated in

part that in the President’s annual message commemorating the

Armenian genocide, it should state that the modern-day Republic

of Turkey did not conduct the Armenian genocide which was perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. I think that this is consistent

with that; and, therefore, I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to offer my appreciation to the distinguished

leader from the Turkish Parliament for his observation and his

sentiments before the Members of this distinguished Committee.

It is ironic that we have to become experts overnight on the history of this very difficult region of the world. To my good friend,

Mr. Campbell from California, I think history is a very funny story.

You tend to become subjective. You tend to believe which story you

want to believe and who wrote the history of these peoples.

In fairness also to the issue here, I think the bottom line is that

where do we go from here, Mr. Chairman? If we are going to pass

a resolution on genocide against the Armenian people, let’s do it

also for the Cambodian government and Pol Pot. Let’s do it also for

Stalin, who exterminated systematically over 25 million Russians

during the Stalin era. Let’s also observe the, if we call it genocide,

killings of some 250,000 Bosnians due to Milosevic’s administration. It goes on and on.

I suppose, ironically, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with this

issue when we are only a couple of months away from the presidential election, as well as gubernatorial and congressional elections. I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman—and this is something, too,

that the fact is that this resolution, a similar resolution, was taken

up by the House 4 years ago, and it was killed in the Senate.

In the 12 years that I have served as a Member of this Committee, never have I seen a simple resolution proposed in the

House with such tremendous emotion, with such tremendous feelings in terms of how this body or this distinguished Committee

ought to take a position or make a decision on this issue. If there

were a systematic killing of some 1.5 million Armenians, historians

have also said that there were just as many Turkish in the millions

also killed in the process.

There was a war against the Russians during World War I where

a lot of the patriots among the Armenian people took sides with the

Russians. There is nothing wrong with that, being patriots. If you

are fighting the opposition, you would also like it to become that.

76

This happened in World War II when the French patriots decided

to repatriate themselves through General de Gaulle and his people.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, about where do we go from here

if we pass this resolution? Let’s propose resolutions about all that

I have indicated. What about the systematic killings of hundreds

of thousands in Indochina during the French presence there in that

part of the world?

So we are opening up, I believe, Mr. Chairman, an issue that is

not going to go away. If we are going to make the decision on this,

let’s do it on an even-handed basis in terms of where genocide occurs in other regions of the world.

I am not trying to defend what our good friend from the Turkish

Parliament has stated. But, as I have said before, we have become

overnight experts on history in this region of the world which to

me is one of the most complicated areas, our understanding of the

Balkans in the areas of Ottoman Empire and how that occurred.

I feel very, very reluctant, Mr. Chairman, that we are making a decision, but do we have all the facts at hand?

I just wanted to express the concern that my good friend from

California, Mr. Lantos, has reiterated earlier. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my

point of order and support the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order

and supports the amendment.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, of course, but I would

like to use my time to summarize basically where we are.

There are basically—the Committee is not in order, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s point is well taken. The

Committee will please respect the gentleman’s time.

The gentleman may proceed.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have great respect for all of my colleagues on both sides of this

issue. I think the time has come to summarize where we are.

There are two items being discussed here seriatim. One relates

to the horrendous suffering of a vast number of Armenian men,

women and children 85 years ago; and there is unanimity on this

Committee in terms of recognizing that tragedy and expressing our

sorrow and anguish with respect to it. The President of the United

States, on Armenian Remembrance Day, spoke on behalf of all of

us.

There is a second issue, and that is the current national security

interests of the United States. We have now heard at our last

meeting and today from our current ambassador to Turkey. We

have heard from the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We

have heard from, in writing, a vast array of former secretaries of

defense and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am asking for unanimous consent to place in the record a letter

we expect to receive by our current Secretary of State and SecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
77

retary of Defense which also strongly opposes passage of this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

[The letter appears in the appendix.]

Mr. LANTOS. We, in fact, can do both of these things. We can express our support for the President’s statement with respect to the

tragedy of the Armenian people, for which I am sure there will be

a unanimous vote on behalf of every Member of this Committee,

but at the same time not impact on our national security, which

is clearly involved.

The Chairman of our Intelligence Committee does not come here

frivolously. Former secretaries of State and chairmen of the Joint

Chiefs don’t write us letters frivolously. The Secretary of State and

the Secretary of Defense don’t write us frivolously. Every single

American president in the last quarter century opposed this legislation. Every secretary of state did. Every secretary of defense did.

Every chairman of the Joint Chiefs did.

I think it takes an incredible degree of arrogance for us to sweep

all of this aside and to move now to approve this resolution. After

all, it is important for us to remember that this came to us initially

for the purpose of saving a congressional seat in California. The

partisan politics—— Mr. ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTOS. In a moment.

The partisan politics of that issue have now been diffused because both the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate

in that congressional district, for whatever reasons, strongly support the underlying resolution. So it is no longer a partisan issue.

It allows us to deal with this issue on its merits. On its merits,

we are in a position to identify ourselves with the President’s statement expressing the anguish of the American people for the tragedy of the Armenians 85 years ago, without adversely impacting

our national security.

I yield back the balance of my time. I am happy to yield to my

friend.

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just wanted to point out, because I heard this argument yesterday and last week as well, that I think all of us are aware that

Congressman Bonior is the cosponsor of this resolution. As a matter of fact, he wrote to the Speaker and said, ‘‘I urge you to schedule this bipartisan legislation for consideration for the floor as soon

as possible.’’ And he said, ‘‘This resolution has a long history of bipartisan support. I have worked to achieve passage of this for some

years, and we believe that now is the time to move forward.’’ Then I noticed that we have a letter from Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and Sam Gejdenson and Frank Pallone saying, ‘‘We

are writing to urge that you schedule for immediate floor consideration.’’ Mr. LANTOS. Reclaiming my time.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. ROYCE. So I am making that point to you that this is a bipartisan resolution——

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos has the time, and the gentleman’s

time has expired.

78

Mr. ROYCE [continuing]. Supported by Mr. Gephardt and Mr.

Bonior.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to speak briefly in support of this amendment and

to stress what I believe to be the importance of it.

Last week, when we passed my amendment, which was referred

to by Mr. Chabot, some comments were made about the effect of

it and as to whether or not it would really change the course of affairs or the way in which we look at the whole issue. I just want

to state very clearly for the record and also for our friends here

from Turkey that at least in my mind it is an enormously important distinction we are making here.

Please indulge us, if you will, with regard to our desire to reflect

the events of history 85 years ago. Regardless of whether or not

you agree with that determination of this Committee, please do not

let that encumber your decision about the action we are about to

take. Because the action we are about to take, both supporting this

amendment and the underlying resolution, is one that I think is extremely important for a variety of reasons, be it political or the

heartfelt beliefs of the people, the majority of Members of this

Committee.

But it should have absolutely nothing to do with our relationship

with the present government of Turkey, and in order to state that

clearly and maybe in a redundant fashion, we have another amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher. But that is only to encourage you to understand what we believe to be the case here and that is that the

present government of Turkey holds no responsibility for the actions taken in this area of the world 85 years ago.

So, therefore, although others have suggested that this is not

really going to solve our problem, I will tell you that, at least for

this Member, the only way in which I can support the underlying

resolution is with the inclusion of this language. It is extremely important for me and I believe for other Members of the Committee.

So I do not want it discounted by the very people we are trying to,

in fact, talk to through this resolution, and that is the present government of Turkey.

We value your friendship. We understand your concerns. Please

understand on our side what we are trying to do here and how

clearly we are attempting to distinguish between those two actions.

Chairman GILMAN. If there is no further debate, the question is

now on the amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher. As many as are in

favor, signify in the usual manner.

As many as are opposed, say no.

The ayes have it.

The amendment is agreed to.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote is requested. Is there a show

of hands favoring a recorded vote?

A sufficient second, the Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

79

Chairman GILMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.

Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.

Mr. Gallegly.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.

Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.

Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.

Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.

Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes.

80

Mr. Burr.

Mr. BURR. Votes yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes yes.

Mr. Gillmor.

Mr. GILLMOR. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor votes yes.

Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich votes yes.

Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr Cooksey votes yes.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.

Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.

Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.

Ms. MCKINNEY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.

Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.

Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.

Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.

81

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.

Mr. Pomeroy.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes.

Mr. Hoeffel.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will call the absentees.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.

Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the tally.

82

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 34 ayes and zero knows.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will withhold.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton. Is Mr. Burton recorded?

Ms. BLOOMER. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 34 ayes and zero knows.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is adopted.

Without objection, the previous question is ordered.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized for

offer a motion.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Speaker, I move to order the resolution reported

to the House with the recommendation that the resolution, H. Res.

596, as amended, be agreed to.

Chairman GILMAN. This motion is not amendable and not debatable.

The question is on the motion. All in favor, signify in the usual

manner. Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a rollcall vote.

Chairman GILMAN. A rollcall vote is requested. Is there a sufficient second by a show of hands?

There is a sufficient second. The Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

Chairman GILMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes aye.

Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes aye.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.

Mr. Gallegly.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.

Chairman GILMAN. Let me interrupt the Clerk. To those Members leaving, after this vote we will be recessing until 1 o’clock to

come back to complete the rest of our agenda. We will stand in recess until 1 after the Clerk completes the rollcall.

Please proceed.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

83

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes aye.

Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes aye.

Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.

Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes aye.

Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes aye.

Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.

Mr. Burr.

Mr. BURR. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes no.

Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich votes aye.

Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. I vote present.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes present.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes aye.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes aye.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes no.

Mr. Berman.

84

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes aye.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.

Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes aye.

Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes aye.

Ms. McKinney.

Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes aye.

Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will withhold.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.

Mr. Hilliard.

Mr. HILLIARD. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes aye.

Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes aye.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes aye.

Mr. Pomeroy.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes aye.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes aye.

85

Mr. Hoeffel.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes aye.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will call the absentees.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes aye.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. Present.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes present.

Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[no response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will call Mr. Delahunt.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Member wishing to change their

vote or any Member not recorded?

The Clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 24 ayes, 11 noes, and 2

present.

Chairman GILMAN. The motion is agreed to.

A motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

The Committee now stands in recess until 1:30 p.m..

[Recess.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

H.R. 577—TO HONOR THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR

REFUGEES

Chairman GILMAN. We will now consider H.R. 577 relating to the

U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The Clerk will report the title of the

resolution.

86

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Res. 577, a resolution to honor the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for its role as a protector of

the world’s refugees, to celebrate UNHCR’s 50th anniversary, and

to praise the High Commissioner Sadako Ogata for her work with

the UNHCR for the past 10 years.’’

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights and reported with an amendment. Without objection, the language recommended by the Subcommittee on International Relations and

Human Rights which is before the Members will be considered as

original text for the purpose of an amendment.

Without objection, the Clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee recommendation, so ordered.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas, since the founding of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in December 1950——’’

[The amended resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Subcommittee’s

amendment is considered as having been read and is open for

amendment at any point.

I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, the

Chairman of the Subcommittee, to introduce the resolution.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very

proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution introduced by my friend

and colleague, Tony Hall, whose commitment to human rights and

humanitarian principles is well-known.

The resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Office of

the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UNHCR;

it commends the UNHCR for its good work over the years, and congratulates the present high commissioner, Dr. Ogata, who will be

retiring in December.

The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human

Rights made minor technical changes to the bill when we considered it and reported it favorably to the Full Committee. As the resolution points out, it is important that UNHCR never forgets that

at the heart of its mandate is protection. Donor countries like the

United States often forget this. Our own contribution to refugee

protection around the world is about 20 percent lower than it was

just 5 years ago and most other countries have done even worse.

Countries of first asylum to which refugees have fled from persecution or from the fear of persecution often wish they would just go

away, and sometimes the brutal regimes from which they fled are

all only too happy to have them back.

So there is always pressure on the UNHCR to pretend that mass

repatriation would be safe when it, in fact, is very dangerous; or

to pretend that repatriation is voluntary when, in fact, the refugees

and asylum seekers are given no choice.

Occasionally, as in the so-called Comprehensive Plan of Action

for asylum seekers from Indochina, the UNHCR has yielded to this

pressure. On these occasions, I and other Members of Congress

have been among UNHCR’s strongest critics. On many other occasions, the UNHCR has stood up for the principle of protection, even

at great risk to its own institutional interests.

87

This resolution celebrates those instances of courage and compassion over the last 50 years and particularly during the stewardship

of Dr. Ogata. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend

my colleagues for their work on this resolution and just say that

while the High Commissioner’s office is 50 years old, the predecessor organization, UNRA, ran the camp where I was born in Germany at the end of World War II, and I know what it meant to

my family and thousands and thousands of others who survived

that horror, and the U.N. Commissioner’s offices around the world

continue to do work for refugees that really is irreplaceable.

When I have been to places in this hemisphere and others, it is

clear they are doing the same jobs, the same training, education,

health. All of us here also remember that 3 workers were recently

killed in West Timor, that doing some of the most humanitarian

work on the planet doesn’t protect you from the kind of violence

that goes on in the world. I urge passage of the legislation.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Anyone else seeking recognition?

If not, H. Res. 577, in observation of the 50th anniversary of the

establishment of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, honors

the outstanding service that the UNHCR has provided the international community since 1950. This small agency of the U.N.,

since its inception, has helped ameliorate, and in many instances

resolve the plights of hundreds of millions of victims of persecution

and abuse.

I would like to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio,

Mr. Hall, for his diligence in making certain that the Congress is

able to record its immense respect for the UNHCR on the occasion

of this important milestone.

We should also note that measure pays fitting tribute to our current high commissioner, Dr. Sadako Ogata, who we met with on a

number of occasions and who is stepping down after completing her

10-year tour of duty in this vital international post.

During her tenure, Mrs. Ogata has seen the caseload of refugees

and persons of concern coming to her office rise to a total of some

22 million people. This number is indicative of the increase in

wars, internal conflicts, and natural disasters. It has produced a

tide of human suffering that has only been paralleled in the past

by our most serious global conflicts.

The UNHCR has also had to exceed the terms of its own mandate as laid out in the statutes that created the Office of High

Commissioner some 50 years ago, by providing invaluable assistance to those vulnerable individuals who were internally displaced

within the borders of their home countries, and who are also the

victims of persecution or human rights abuses.

As global events have become even more complex, the UNHCR

has been able to adapt itself to meeting the new challenges and

complexities presented, and I hope that this resolution, by calling

attention to the good work performed by the UNHCR and its staff,

88

will increase the support by American citizens and others around

the world of the efforts spearheaded by the UNHCR.

Accordingly, I urge our colleagues on our Committee to support

H. Res. 577.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

If not, if there are no further amendments, the question is on

agreeing to the Subcommittee recommendation. As many as are in

favor of the amendment signify in the usual manner; those opposed

say no. The amendment is agreed to.

Without objection, the previous question is ordered.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor signify in the

usual manner; opposed no. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed

to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

H. CON. RES. 397—ABOUT SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN

CENTRAL ASIA

Chairman GILMAN. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 397 relating to the situation in central Asia. The Chair lays the resolution

before the Committee. The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 397, a resolution voicing concern

about serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in most States of central Asia, including substantial noncompliance with their organization for security and cooperation in

Europe commitments on democratization and the holding of free

and fair elections.’’ [The concurrent resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was introduced on September

12, 2000, referred to the Subcommittees on Asia and the Pacific

and on International Operations and Human Rights. It was considered September 13 in the Asia Pacific Subcommittee, forwarded

without amendment to the Full Committee. The Operations Subcommittee has waived consideration.

Without objection, the preamble text of the resolution will be

read in that order for amendment.

The Clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas the States of central Asia, Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.

The measure was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from

Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on

Asia and the Pacific. I now recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes

to introduce the resolution to the Committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am an original cosponsor, but the primary author is, in fact, Mr. Smith, the gentleman from New Jersey.

89

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the five independent States of Central Asia came into being: Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The

deserts, mountains, steppes, and river valleys in this region are

home to 50 million people. State borders, which were imposed by

Stalin, artificially partition and breed resentments among various

large ethnic groups, principally Russians, Uzbeks, and Tajiks.

Since achieving their independence, the Central Asian Republics

have operated with little or no international scrutiny. In effect,

Central Asia has been relegated to an international policy backwater. However, given the geo-strategic significance of the region

and given the region’s vast wealth of natural resources, such an

oversight is risky. We ignore the region at some peril.

Regrettably, the nations of Central Asia appear to be moving

along the path of authoritarianism. In recent months, each of the

five countries has conducted general elections. These elections varied in the degree of electoral freedom. However, in no case did any

of the elections meet internationally-accepted norms. Indeed, most

remain reminiscent of Soviet-style elections. There has been decertification of opposition parties and, in some cases, the apprehension

of opposition leaders. The State Department’s Country Reports on

Human Rights Practices for 1999 concludes that the presidential

power in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan overshadows legislative and

judicial power and that Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan

have lost ground in democratization and respect for human rights.

This continual decline is very disturbing and raises questions about

the ability of the United States and other democracies to successfully encourage true democratic institutions and the rule of law.

In some ways, this is a difficult resolution. There are five countries in Central Asia. Each has unique characteristics. Some enjoy

certain socioeconomic advantages over the others. Kyrgyzstan and

Kazakhstan allow a relatively greater, but still very limited, degree

of political participation. The ruler in Turkmenistan has developed

cult of personalities so deep that he has changed his name so that

he is, quite literally, the ‘‘Father of the Turkmen,’’ Turkmen-bashi.

Tajikistan has suffered from a severe civil war through the 1990’s,

but the common theme throughout central Asia is governmental

abuse of basic human rights. Opposition leaders who appear to be

gaining influence are dealt with in a decisive, antidemocratic manner, sometimes brutally.

Now it is certainly true that most, if not all, of these countries

face armed insurgencies. There are all-powerful tribal warlords in

Tajikistan. In Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, there are armed religious extremists. Indeed, as we meet, there are Taliban-backed insurgents fighting Uzbek military forces, and Islamic militants are

decidedly antidemocratic. In Kazakhstan, there have been efforts

by pro-Moscow elements to overthrow the government. It is entirely

appropriate that the governments of the region deal with such

threats. However, it is one thing to campaign against armed insurgents; it is quite another to use the insurgency as an excuse to suspend international law and to crack down on the legal political opposition. Unfortunately, in some instances, that is what has been

done and is going on today.

90

H. Con. Res. 397 speaks to the very real abuses that have occurred in each of the Central Asian Republics and puts these nations on alert that the U.S. House of Representatives is deeply concerned about the ongoing abuses of power. The resolution urges the

nations to come into compliance with their OSCE commitments

and calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to raise

human rights concerns when meeting with representatives of these

governments, even more energetically than I assume they have

been.

I congratulate the resolution’s primary author, Mr. Smith, for introducing the resolution. The language he has crafted accurately

reflects the serious democratic shortcomings throughout the region.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor along with several other Members,

and I appreciate the willingness of his staff to work with the Asia

Pacific Subcommittee to craft a resolution that I think we can all

energetically and emphatically support.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H. Con. Res. 397. I yield back

the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

I will withhold.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. I thank my friend for withholding momentarily.

Mr. Chairman, I introduced this resolution last October because

of the serious concerns about the general trends in central Asia.

Since then, we have held 3 hearings, one on Kazakhstan in 1999,

Uzbekistan in 1999, and Turkmenistan in the year 2000. They

were very comprehensive hearings. We heard from all sides. We

heard from human rights advocates, we heard from a number of

diplomats and, unfortunately, the trend is a very negative one.

Since then, the situation has deteriorated even further from the

date of the original introduction of the resolution. The updated and

newly introduced resolution is H. Con. Res. 397, and I am grateful

to my good friend, the Chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, for moving this resolution so that we can consider it in

this timely fashion.

Throughout the region, Mr. Chairman, strongman regimes have

emerged where presidents have contrived to control or co-opt the

political systems and the sources of wealth. It is clear that these

leaders intend to stay in power indefinitely, and are prepared to

manipulate constitutions, elections, and legislative and judicial systems to do so. Their desire to remain in power requires repressive

political systems so as to stifle criticism to prevent exposure of

high-level corruption and to intimidate politicians and the public.

In the last year, the leaders of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan

have made their privileges permanent. President Niyazov of

Turkmenistan had himself coronated as ‘‘President for life’’ last December, and in June, Kazakhstan’s President, Nazarbaev, arranged

for parliament to grant him certain prerequisites and powers for

life.

91

It is quite possible that some of these leaders plan to create family dynasties. Kyrgyzstan, for example, which used to be considered

the most reformist Central Asian country, held scandalously flawed

parliamentary elections in February and March, and President

Akaev is now preparing to have himself reelected to his third term

in October by excluding any serious challengers.

While the leaders and their families and supporters live in luxury, the great bulk of the population in these countries has suffered a devastating drop in living standards, and discontent is

growing.

Radical elements in Central Asia, which may be linked to international terrorist centers, have called for overthrowing these regimes and introducing theocracies. These elements are currently

mounting military campaigns against Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

While it is possible that nothing could have stopped or dissuaded

the most radical and determined groups from pursuing this goal,

the domestic policies of Central Asian leaders have aggravated the

situation by depriving the public of an opportunity to express grievances or otherwise participate legally in the political process, or to

enjoy a share of the pie.

While we reject and condemn any attempts to create or impose

a political system by force, especially by elements that are antiAmerican, we cannot remain silent about the deeply harmful consequences of the domestic policies of Central Asian leaders which

violate their OSCE commitments on democratization, human

rights, and the rule of law. I hope that all Members will support

this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have an amendment at the desk that I think is agreeable to my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment and the

Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson. After the

5th clause of the preamble, insert the following——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized on the amendment.

Mr. GEJDENSON. The intention of the amendment is simply to

point out that in Kazakhstan, there has been some progress. Obviously there is a long way to go in all of these countries. There is

absolutely no historic tradition of democracy. It is a critical area in

the world for us when we look at the surrounding countries in this

region: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, all touching this

area. Obviously I applaud what the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Smith, has done here; it is an important statement.

I just wanted to give a little bit of applause to Kazakhstan for beginning some process, but obviously all of these countries have a

long way to go. I am happy to see this little bit of progress in

Kazakhstan. I would offer the amendment at this time.

92

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment has been offered by Mr.

Gejdenson. Is there any discussion? Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BEREUTER. I want to establish a little legislative record here,

and I would hope to have the gentleman from Connecticut’s attention on this issue.

Mr. GEJDENSON. The gentleman from Nebraska always has my

attention.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. I know that is the case.

I want to make sure that the amendment is not misinterpreted

in Kazakhstan or by President Nazarbayev.

Unfortunately, no one from the opposition parties was a part of

the process for organizing the roundtables or in setting the agenda

of such roundtable. I think, in fact, the roundtable was conceived

as a substitute to the national dialogue that is favored by the

major opposition party and other groups. I think it is important

that Kazakhstan’s President Nazarbayev not be allowed to twist

this amendment and the approval thereof, which I hope to support,

as a congressional endorsement for his very limited approach to

discussions with the opposition——

Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman will yield——

Mr. BEREUTER. I will yield in just a second. As a rejection favored by most of the opposition, I think we should not give any

message whatsoever that we are giving an aura of legitimacy to a

regime that has been corrupt and has dealt harshly and

undemocratically with the opposition.

I think that a more comprehensive and high-level national dialogue, similar to ones held some years ago in Poland and South Africa, for example, are much better ways to proceed than is the

roundtable that is proposed. I am hoping the gentleman may agree

that we do not want to send a message that we are satisfied or that

the oppositions’ concerns are satisfied by the roundtable. I yield to

the gentleman for any comments he might make in response.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I agree with the gentleman. I point to two areas

in my amendment. One is at the end of the second ‘‘whereas’’

clause: ‘‘now should increase the input in those discussions by opposition parties, public organizations that favor a more comprehensive national dialogue.’’ Additionally, in lines 3 and 4 I emphasize

the need ‘‘to engage in a serious comprehensive national dialogue

on an equal footing.’’

I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. My goal here was

simply to say, they have taken a small step, which is important,

but the gentleman is absolutely correct that there needs to be a lot

more done. I guess what I am trying to say is once in a while you

need a little bit of an ‘‘atta boy,’’ but they have a long way to go.

We need to make sure that they recognize that America is not

going to be happy, that they are not going to get the kind of reception here that they hope to get until they have real democratic institutions, real respect for opposition, respect for a free press, independent parties. I agree with the gentleman completely.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. Reclaiming my time for just a second,

I want to say I appreciate the gentleman’s words. The emphasis he

93

has given I think is appropriate, and I wanted that to be part of

the hearing record here today.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Bereuter. I think he very accurately described what I think all of our

hope is in not conveying a misinterpretation of the intent of the

gentleman from Connecticut’s amendment. Kazakhstan, as we

know, has participated in a series of roundtable discussions between the government and opposition and independent forces. The

first roundtable took place in September, on September 2nd, and

more are scheduled. The next one is expected in January.

The purpose of these talks is to come to an agreement about

ways to eliminate the very severe defects in election legislation,

which the OSCE and ODA criticized in the past and to improve the

election process. It is very important to stress that the roundtable

discussions must be genuine, they must be serious. As I think

Members know, the opposition and independent forces have to be

able to sit at that table and take a part in those on an equal basis.

We do not want to, in any way, endorse a farce that is done for

international consumption. We want these to be real and genuine,

and I think that, Mr. Bereuter, in raising some of these concerns,

has precluded the President from misapplying the intent of what

we are trying to do here.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Any other Members seeking recognition? If there is no other

Member seeking recognition, the amendment is now before the

Committee. All in favor signify by saying aye; opposed; the amendment is agreed to.

I just I just want to state my strong support for the resolution.

Along with our colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, I have

shared an interest to underline to the Congress and the American

people the importance of the States of Central Asia and the future

stability of all Eurasia and the future expansion of global energy.

I am going to ask that my full statement be made a part of the

record. I think our Nation makes it clear that we expect and support true democracy and will not tie our policies in Central Asia

to leaders bent on condemning their peoples to a future of repression, corruption and poverty. I support the amended resolution.

[The Chairman’s statement appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. On the resolution, I recognize the gentleman

from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution, as amended, on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor say aye, opposed no. The

ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

S. 2682—REGARDING MAKING AVAILABLE CERTAIN MATERIALS OF THE

VOICE OF AMERICA

Chairman GILMAN. A noncontroversial measure is next on the

Voice of America. We will now consider S. 2682 relating to making

94

certain Voice of America materials available. The Chair lays the

bill before the Committee. The Clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘S. 2682, to authorize the Broadcasting Board of

Governors to make available to the Institute for Media Development certain materials of the Voice of America.’’

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

is dispensed with.

The Clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which has not acted on it.

I now recognize the gentlewoman from Georgia, Mrs. McKinney,

to introduce the bill.

Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a statement that I would like to submit for the record. I

would just like to add that this is a noncontroversial bill that allows the Board of Governors of the Voice of America to enter into

a contract with UCLA to digitize the analogue material and to

allow access to the material to selected scholars for research.

This bill is not precedent-setting, inasmuch as it has been done

before with the University of Pennsylvania.

This bill has been passed by the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. McKinney. Are any other

Members seeking recognition?

If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized

to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman request and

seek consideration of the pending bill on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor of the motion signify by

saying aye, those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is

agreed to.

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions

under rule 22 relating to a conference on the bill. Further proceedings on the bill are postponed.

We will now recess and come back right after the last vote, and

hopefully we will be able to wind up our agenda. There is a series

of votes on the floor. The Committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Members

please take their seats.

S. 1453—THE SUDAN PEACE ACT

Chairman GILMAN. The Chair lays a bill before the Committee,

Senate 1453, the Sudan Peace Act.

The Clerk will report the title of the bill.

95

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘S. 1453, an act to facilitate famine relief efforts

and a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan.’’

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

is dispensed with.

This bill was considered by the Subcommittee on Africa and by

the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

The Subcommittees recommended amendments. Without objection,

the Subcommittee recommendation in the nature of a substitute

which is before the Members and marked Committee Print will be

considered as the base text for the purpose of amendment. The

Clerk will read the Subcommittee amendment for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Committee print. Strike all after the enacting

clause and insert the following: Section 1, short title.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Subcommittee recommendation is considered as having been read and is open for

amendment at any point.

[The Subcommittee print of S. 1453 appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes to introduce the bill.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the government of Sudan’s genocidal religious

war against the non-Muslim peoples of southern Sudan have

turned the south into, in the words of one Sudanese priest, ‘‘the

hell of the earth.’’ Enslavement, calculated starvation, forced conversion, and the bombardment of civilian targets, such as schools,

churches, and hospitals, are still methods of terror favored by the

National Islamic Front government.

Unfortunately, Khartoum has also begun generating the revenue

it needs to extend its self-described jihad by developing Sudanese

oil resources. S. 1453, the Sudan Peace Act, is an important first

step toward addressing the crisis in that war-torn region. Among

other things, the bill condemns slavery and other human rights violations perpetrated by the Khartoum regime. I would note parenthetically that we held the first hearing on slavery in the Sudan

in my Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, back some 41⁄2 or so years

ago. We have had a number of followup meetings to that. We had

actual survivors of slavery who testified, who talked about the

gross indignities that they suffered as a result of slavery. Slavery

in the year 2000 continues to exist. This resolution condemns it.

It expresses support for the IGAD-sponsored peace process. It expresses a sense of Congress on several objectives relating to improvement of relief services to the south of Sudan. It authorizes an

additional $16 million for rehabilitation assistance to areas of

Sudan not controlled by the government in the north, and it requires the President to report to Congress on several aspects of the

conflict as well as options available to the United States for providing nonlethal assistance to members of the National Democratic

Alliance.

These are all very good things, Mr. Chairman, but the horrors

of Sudan, which have already claimed more than 2 million lives,

demand more than expressions of concern and new reporting requirements. They require concrete action.

96

For this reason, at our markup, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights reinstated portions of sanctions-related language that was present in both the House and the

Senate—introduced versions of the Act. Unless the President can

certify that Khartoum has made significant progress toward peace

and respect for human rights, the restored language would impose

certain trade and financial sanctions intended to keep the government of Sudan from raising funds in the U.S. capital markets. The

robust U.S. economy should not be used to underwrite this ongoing

genocide.

I urge Members to support the bill. I know there will be some

amendments, but I do hope that in its current form, Members will

support it.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Menendez, for general debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to start from the outset saying that I fully support this

bill and all that it tries to do, and if I could have signed my name

on to it as a cosponsor, I would have. Since it is a Senate bill, I

can only commend the authors and the original cosponsors in the

Senate, Senators Frist, Feingold, Brownback and Joe Lieberman.

I am a cosponsor of a similar bill in the House, H.R. 2906, sponsored by Congressman Watts, Frank Wolf, who has done much to

expose the barbarities of the Sudanese government; Ed Markey

and, on this Committee, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Payne, Ms. McKinney

and Mr. Smith, all who have worked tirelessly on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I abhor the Sudanese slave trade and the Khartoum regime that perpetrates it as much as anyone in Congress.

Even before the current sanctions were imposed on the Sudanese

government, I am on the record as the former Ranking Member of

the Africa Subcommittee as being critical of Sudan’s despicable

human rights abuses and its perpetuation of the country’s brutal

Civil War. The list of wholly condemnable practices then, as now,

includes the abduction of children and the use of selective starvation as a weapon of war.

This bill makes a case for sanctions against the Sudanese government. It makes clear that those sanctions will continue until the

regime in Khartoum changes its ways.

What I hope it will work toward, Mr. Chairman, however, is full

enforcement, not a fig leaf. If, for example, you allow gum arabic

to come into the United States through the Europeans instead of

directly, all you do is give the Sudanese higher prices and more

money and, therefore, undermine the very nature of the sanctions

you seek to create. That should not stand.

I will have two amendments aimed at strengthening the bill by

broadening sanctions provisions and calling on the United States

Government to do everything possible to bring Sudan’s trading

partners, which are our allies in Europe, into line on the sanctions.

I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Africa Subcommittee marked this legislation up in July. I

am glad to see that the Full Committee is paving the way for this

97

bill to come on to the House floor. Let me say you have all heard

the arguments about the full measure of the tragedy we are dealing with here, and I would hope that the Members of this Committee would all support the legislation. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Are any other Members seeking time?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. At the right moment, I would have an amendment, but this is general debate I assume, so I am happy to wait

until later.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too want to commend the Chairman for bringing this up, and

the Chairmen of the Subcommittees for their work on this particular issue.

As has been noted, it is one that has come before this Committee

several times in the past, and I am pleased that it has finally developed into this particular piece of legislation that includes the

issue of sanctions. We have been told, and we were told in the Subcommittees, that we should shy away from that, because it may

cause the bill to be reconsidered and have to go back to the Senate.

That argument, of course, I think is much less important in light

of the fact that we know that the Sudanese government is making

use of the economic forces—the economic resources available to

them for the most nefarious of purposes; and that recently, as a

matter of fact, the World Net Daily learned that the African Nation

of Sudan has acquired 34 new jet fighters from China, doubling the

size of the country’s Air Force, further escalating the Muslim government’s war against Christians in southern Sudan. Records show the Sudan Air Force is now equipped with $100

million worth of brand new Shangyen jet fighters built in China.

A recent U.N. Report accused the Sudan government of using an

airfield built with Chinese assistance to bomb schools and hospitals

in its war against the south.

Every increase in available resources to the northern government—to the government of Sudan and Khartoum—is used to

propagate their war against the south. That is why sanctions are

so important. Without sanctions, this bill is truly just a resolution,

not a bill.

I noted with interest that not too long ago, the Government of

the United States, the State Department, and the President of the

United States, threatened economic sanctions against the Nation of

Peru, and they did so because they were concerned about the electoral process and whether there was validity in their electoral process, whether the election for President was being carried out accurately. The fact is that if we can threaten sanctions against Peru,

for heaven’s sake, because of their electoral process, why fear using

this particular mechanism against a government who has propagated far more heinous crimes against its population than any

other in the region or around the world in recent history.

So it is a bogus idea, I think, to suggest that this is not an appropriate measure for us to take. I recognize we may be debating this

further as this bill goes along, the idea of sanctions, but I just

wanted to say on the front end that I think it is an enormously imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
98

portant part of the bill. Without it, we really don’t have anything

more than the kind of thing we have had in front of us time after

time after time and that is rhetoric. They should do it. We hope

they will do it. But, in fact, this gives them consequences for not

moving in the direction of peace.

So I sincerely hope that the Committee will support the bill in

its entirety and that we will not change it, not water it down. I

commend it to my colleagues for their approval.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo. Is any other Member seeking recognition?

I support this measure, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously in November of last year.

Sudan has been independent for some 44 years. For 34 of those

years, it has been engaged in civil war. Entire generations of Sudanese in both the north and south have grown up with war as a regular fact of life. Several national governments, military and civilian, have come and gone. Some, like the current regime, have been

militant Islamists. Others have been moderate, the historical norm

for Islam in Sudan. All, however, have attempted, without much

success, to subdue the rebellious south with military force.

The cost in human life has been enormous; about 2 million dead

in the past 17 years. Two million have perished. There is no way

to estimate the death toll of the first 17 years of the war, from

1956 to 1973.

Last year, high level State Department and National Security

Council officials asked Members of Congress to remove restrictions

in the law that would prevent food aid from going to the rebel

forces. We did so in the mistaken belief that they had decided upon

a course of action and were planning to do something with that authorization.

But as soon as some NGOs and other officials within their own

Administration publicly criticized the action, the Administration

turned tail and ducked for cover. Current State Department guidance reads as follows, and I quote: ‘‘The Administration has not

made a decision to use previous authorization to provide direct food

aid to Sudan’s opposition forces, but the issue remains under review.’’

It is now going on a year that this has been under review. Perhaps the Administration should be reminded that time is running

out. Their indecision has had real consequences and they have

managed to achieve the worst of all worlds.

The militant government in Khartoum spreads the word that the

U.S. is actively supporting the rebels, and this mobilizes real support from its extremist allies in the Arab world. Meanwhile, the

rebels actually receive nothing but rhetoric from our Nation. Although the State Department says it supports this bill in large

measure, it bristles at reporting requirements that it describes as

onerous. It objects to anything that might restrict the Administration’s exercise of its authority with respect to economic sanctions.

They have been arguing—the argument is not to tie the President’s

hands. These arguments would be more persuasive if the Administration could point to a consistent and effective policy of measures

of its own during its 8-year tenure. Indeed, we would be less willing to tie the Administration’s hands if it were not so painfully obVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
99

vious that at least on Sudan policy, one hand often has not known

what the other was doing. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, number 34.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment, and

the Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez, page 11,

after line 15, insert the following: (D), The importation to the

United States of gum arabic, in raw or processed form——’’

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. A point of order is reserved.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My purpose in offering this amendment, which is one small paragraph but I think very powerful in terms of what we are trying to

accomplish, is that one of the products that Sudan produces, not

its major one, but one of the major ones, gum arabic, which is needed here in the United States. If we are going to cut it off, and I

am willing to support such a sanction, it should be in its totality,

which means that whether it be in raw or processed form, if it is

originating from the Sudan, whether imported directly from Sudan

or from a third country, we are going to say no.

If we do not do that, then all we are accomplishing in this one

instance is having the Sudanese make more money because the Europeans are cornering the market, they are making more money;

we are not hurting them, and we are still going to get a gum arabic

product into the United States and pay higher prices for it and

shut down companies that import directly.

So I think most of us here today agree that sanctions against the

Sudanese government are the right thing to do. I have supported

and will support them. However, our European allies do not agree.

Their policy of engagement and continued unfettered trade with

Sudan is both undermining our policy and hurting American companies. This is particularly true with regard to one product, gum

arabic, which is not Sudan’s largest export, but it is an important

one.

Their ability to sell gum arabic to the world has not been stopped

by our sanction. In fact, a top State Department official in testimony to the Congress more than a year ago said, ‘‘Economically,

the Sudanese regime has not been adversely affected at all by the

U.S. ban. Sudan is exporting more gum arabic than ever before.

American gum arabic refiners, on the other hand, may soon be

forced to shut down, and American companies that use refined gum

arabic could wind up paying higher prices to overseas competitors

who are acquiring a monopoly on this necessary substance.’’

Unfortunately, his prophecy is now fact.

So the Sudanese are making more money, the Europeans are

making more money, and American companies are being unfairly

hurt.

100

Now, we all know that sanctions are going to hurt U.S. firms.

There are some in my own district. I stand ready to have them face

the consequences. But, if we are going to hurt them, let’s at least

be sure we are achieving our goals at the same time. Our goal is

to hurt the Sudanese regime economically so that these killers and

slave traders are forced to change. We will not do that if we allow

them an open door to bring their product in through the Europeans, most particularly the French, who seem to be unwilling to

work with us in order to achieve it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Does anyone wish

to be heard?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Smith, just so I understand exactly what is going

on here, in the past it has been my understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey, my good friend, Mr. Menendez, while he

was supportive of overall sanctions was actually in favor of carving

out a protection for gum arabic, a position which I did not like, but

unfortunately it is the position that prevailed.

But it is my understanding that if this amendment were to be

added to this bill, there would be a referral made or a demand for

a referral by the Ways and Means Committee, which would make

this legislation a dead letter. It would not be reported out of the

Ways and Means Committee. We would be talking about, like I

said, a piece of legislation that would be dead as a door nail.

So I will insist on my point of order and obviously leave it up

to the Chair, but it seems to me that the double-edged sword here

is that this would be a killer amendment for the entirety of this

legislation, because of the Ways and Means Committee. We all

know that the Ways and Means Committee would be the final repository of what otherwise would be a good bill. We have carefully

crafted the sanctions language in this. I give high marks to my

Chief Counsel, Grover Joseph Rees, who wrote it in such a way

that would preclude a referral to the Ways and Means Committee.

I am absolutely transparent about that. We didn’t want it to go

there for one simple solitary reason: it would be a dead letter. This

amendment makes the bill a dead letter.

Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will withhold his point of

order, I think there is some other discussion.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, it is my time or the gentleman’s time?

If it is on my time, my point, and I do not intend to insist on

the amendment; but my point, however, is to say let’s be honest

and not hypocritical. The fact of the matter is, if we want to hurt

the Sudanese, what we must do is shut down the avenue of any

product that we seek to sanction from coming to the United States.

Otherwise, all we do is give the Sudanese a greater market price,

the Europeans are paying top euro for them because they want to

corner the market; so we give the Sudanese more money and,

therefore, allow them to have more resources to conduct the type

of activity they have been conducting. That is not something we

want to do.

I am going to seek to withdraw, but I wanted to make the point

to my colleague from New Jersey that I support what he wants to

101

do and I don’t want it to be referred anywhere else. But I hope we

will work toward, if we are going to make this meaningful, locking

down sanctions that ensure that we, in fact, don’t just have American companies get hurt and end up giving the Sudanese more

money at the end of the day.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the gentleman for that explanation. I don’t

think the word ‘‘hypocritical’’ would apply, though, because I and

Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Royce, and so many others, have tried very hard

to be as expansive as humanly possible in applying the sanctions.

Many of our efforts were joint hearings with my good friend, Mr.

Royce. We held the landmark hearings on the forgotten war

against the 2 million people who so far have perished under unspeakable conditions. ‘‘Crimes Against Humanity in the Sudan,’’ was the title of our hearing on May 27 of 1999. As I said, we had

the first hearing ever that was held on that issue—— Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, reclaiming my time, my point is, when I

say ‘‘hypocritical,’’ I am saying our policy, not my colleagues here.

Mr. SMITH. Well, I appreciate that.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Our policy, that if we are going to have sanctions, and I have had this policy worldwide, if we are going to have

sanctions, the way to ensure it is that we don’t provide open doors

that ultimately allow back room entrances, so we can say that we

are doing something, but in reality we are doing very little to effect

a sanction in a way in which we want.

I know that my colleagues who have pursued this are very sincere in their effort. I am talking about governmentally, ultimately

in the Administration’s policy, if we are not going to close down all

access of this or any other product from the Sudan, then ultimately, we are not being true to our ultimate goal, and that is the

context in which I meant it. I thank the gentleman.

Chairman GILMAN. Does the gentleman seek to withdraw?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I seek to withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. Menendez, do you have an additional amendment?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I have two amendments, 35 and 36, which I would ask unanimous consent to offer

en bloc.

Chairman GILMAN. Two amendments offered en bloc by Mr.

Menendez.

The Clerk will read the amendments.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendments offered by Mr. Menendez. Page 2,

after line 5, insert the following: And redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly.’’

[The amendments, offered en bloc, appear in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendments are considered as having been read.

Mr. Menendez is recognized for 5 minutes on this amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the merger of these two amendments basically

goes toward an expansion of language which I think is appropriate.

It speaks, as I have already made the case that if sanctions against

the regime are going to be effective, we must convince our trading

partners to join us in attempts to hurt Sudan economically. Unfortunately, our European allies today have not been cooperative. This

102

has meant that the sanctions have not hurt Sudan, but have hurt

American companies and their employees, while European firms

are reaping the benefit. Sudan is making more money than ever

before on gum arabic, for example, as the Europeans are willing to

pay top euro for the product in the hope that they can corner the

market. They are cornering the market right now, buying all the

stocks of gum arabic and selling to American firms who rely on it

through European companies.

Until we secure European cooperation on the sanctions, U.S.

companies will bear an unfair burden and the Sudanese despots

won’t be persuaded in the least to change their ways. Those of us

around the world who are disgusted by any forms of slavery in this

day and age, as in any day and age, must work together politically

and economically to send a message to the Sudanese government.

So what we seek to do in this amendment is to strengthen by

recognizing the refusal of those countries specifically that do not

seek to join us but are, nonetheless, purchasing from the Sudanese

and giving them higher prices, ensuring that we use any and all

unilateral and multilateral economic and diplomatic tools to compel

Sudan’s trading partners to join us in this effort, and also to ensure

that all of the other entities are engaged. I have taken out as well

those references that would have created a referral; so to my colleague from New Jersey who has legitimate concerns about that,

we took those references out to ensure that it wouldn’t produce a

referral to another Committee, but in essence, to strengthen our

call for unilateral sanctions.

Lastly, to suggest as a sense of the Congress that if we can close

down all of the efforts to have any Sudanese imports come into the

United States, either directly or indirectly through third countries,

that we should seek to provide some relief to those companies, in

whole or in part, who are affected. This falls in line also with our

views on some of the trade sanctions we have had with reference

to banana and hormone beef; and saying small businesses should

not be the focus of those trade sanctions, we should give relief to

those small businesses.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Any Members seeking recognition?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, we are on both amendments at the

same time, just in terms of parliamentary procedure?

Chairman GILMAN. They are en bloc.

Mr. SMITH. I would hope the sense of the Congress might be separated, just because I have some questions about how much money

we are indeed talking about and to whom the money would go. Are

we talking about Coca Cola, a large, multinational, rather cash-rich

corporation, who would be compensated? I am just not sure who he

is talking about, so if the gentleman could explain that.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to explain that to the gentleman if he will yield.

Current sanctions only deal with the refiners, so I think there

are only two companies, small companies in the whole United

States that import and refine gum arabic, and those are the only

people to whom the sanctions apply, and those are the only people

who, in fact, I am talking about.

Mr. SMITH. And about how much would we be talking about?

103

Mr. MENENDEZ. I can’t quantify for the gentleman that amount,

but I would be happy to try to get that information. I would just

say to the gentleman, there are about 150 to 200 employees in two

very small companies that are the only ones that I know of in the

entire country that import this, and they are the only ones affected

by the sanctions.

Of course, the sense of the Congress doesn’t say we are going to

do that, it just says we should look toward the possibility that if

we can enforce such sanctions successfully, that we should look at

giving some relief. The gentleman would find legislation that I

have offered with many other Members of the House to give such

relief to other small companies in similar circumstances where, in

the context of trade disputes, we are affecting those small companies.

Chairman GILMAN. Is there any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

As you know, this has been an ongoing debate for some time. I

certainly appreciate my colleague from New Jersey having concerns, as he ought to, regarding businesses in his district which are

affected, and I can understand the legislation that he is introducing. However, I think that somewhat of a precedent may be set

by us attempting to hold harmless, although very small businesses,

the businesses that are involved. You know, this question of gum

arabic has been debated now for several years, 5 or 6. I know myself, because I attempted to have previous legislation passed to

have sanctions on gum arabic.

The thing that I find difficult to understand is that if a product

is necessary for the final conclusion or the final making of some

other product, then it would appear to me that a responsible company would look for alternatives, alternative places that this particular product could be grown, knowing there is a certain amount

of time that it takes before the fruits can bear and become productive. But we have been discussing this question of gum arabic for

some time now.

I don’t blame the refineries or the companies that are in the

business of converting this into whatever the substance that is necessary for candy and sodas and all of the rest; but it seems to me

that those large companies, multinational corporations who must

depend on gum arabic, would at least have had some foresight to

say well, let’s move to Nigeria or let’s go to Ethiopia, let’s grow it

in Eritria. I mentioned that 3 or 4 years ago.

Certainly, if you have a supply and you have everything in place,

it is a lot easier simply to continue to draw from that place that

you are drawing from.

So it appears to me that the corporations that depend on gum

arabic have not taken initiatives to try to prevent the eventuality

that perhaps sanctions will be brought upon a country like Sudan.

For those reasons, I have very little sympathy because it is not

something that has come out of the blue; it is something that we

have talked about; we have urged them to look at other sites, we

have suggested that they find the topography that is similar to that

in the Sudan where this product is grown, and that they, as any

104

progressive company would be forward-thinking, would then move

and start that product in that area.

So I just have a concern about precedent-setting. In the past, as

a matter of fact, with South African sanctions, there were many

South Africans who were hurt and they said they supported the

sanctions anyway because they knew it was the right thing to do.

So I do certainly appreciate not offering the other amendment

would have sent it to the Ways and Means Committee, which

would have definitely killed any kind of sanctions. But in due respect, I cannot support these amendments.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Are any other Members seeking recognition? If not, the question

is on the amendments en bloc. All in favor signify in the usual

manner. Opposed, no.

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman GILMAN. A show of hands, would that be acceptable?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. All in favor of the amendment signify by a

show of hands; opposed.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the

desk. One is very quick. The shorter one to strike section 5 B. I

discussed it with the author.

Chairman GILMAN. Are they en bloc or separate amendments?

Mr. CAMPBELL. They are separate, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell, pages 7, 8,

strike section 5b, renumber all succeeding sections.’’

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell is recognized on his amendment for 5 minutes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, 5b refers to the IGAD process as

the only one the United States ought to be pursuing. That is a

dated reference. Since the time that was drafted, there have been

prospects of alternative routes that are positive, not involving

Libya. I understand that that was a concern. I understand there

has been some progress in Asmira; there has been some progress

in some other opportunities perhaps involving Egypt.

So I am asking that we drop five, which says that it is the sense

of Congress that the best route is through the IGAD process in

Nairobi and that the President should not create any process or

diplomatic facility or office which could be viewed as a parallel or

competing diplomatic track, because it may not be in the best interests of peace and settlement that we solely support IGAD. I leave

in 5a and C, having consulted with Chairman Smith, because I

don’t wish to say there is anything wrong with IGAD, it just

shouldn’t be exclusive.

I yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH. I thank my friend for giving us advance notice about

his intentions and for narrowing it to just section B. Because IGAD

is certainly one viable route, but as he has pointed out, events have

105

overtaken the text of the resolution. So I think it is a very timely

deletion from the underlying resolution, and I thank him for it.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. I just wonder if you could tell me if the Chairman

of the Africa Subcommittee has had a chance to see this and has

an opinion about it?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have expressed it to him and I am confident

that he will support it, but I cannot put words in his mouth.

Mr. BEREUTER. Is the gentleman in the anteroom?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee on the question of my amendment where I am

attempting to strike the reference to IGAD as the only peace process to be followed.

Mr. ROYCE. I am in concurrence. As originally marked up in our

Subcommittee, we did not have that narrowly constricted language,

and I agree with the gentleman from California.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Are any other Members seeking recognition

on the Campbell amendment?

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. I will note and support that. Of course perhaps

IGAD was put in because currently IGAD is the only official organization that was dealing, specifically over the last 3 or 4 years,

with the process of attempting to come up with a solution. But I

would accept the amendment of the gentleman from California.

Chairman GILMAN. Is any other Member seeking recognition?

If not, the question is on the amendment. All in favor signify in

the usual manner, opposed. The amendment is agreed to.

I recognize Mr. Campbell on his second amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have one other amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will distribute the amendment,

and the Clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Campbell.

Strike all and insert the following:’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell is recognized for 5 minutes on

the amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, in respect of the hour and the fact

that so many have already heard the debate here, I will just summarize in less than I think a minute.

This simply goes back to the Senate version, and the reason why

is that only the Senate version has a chance of passage, because

we will not have time for a conference in this Congress. So if we

are interested in having a bill pass, only the Senate version will.

Good people disagree. I heard my good friend from Colorado’s

point of view earlier. The difference, of course, is with sanctions.

The Senate version does not involve sanctions.

I have expressed my concern in the Subcommittee as to the effectiveness of sanctions in general and in this case specifically, but I

leave the fundamental argument simply as this: If you wish a resolution to pass out of the Congress, then we really don’t have much

106

choice this year except to adopt the Senate language, which is what

this amendment does. It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to call

for a rollcall on this. With that, I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Is any other Member seeking recognition?

If not, all in favor of the Campbell amendment signify by saying

aye; opposed, no.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield, I was really trying

to get your attention and wanted to say that if we go back to the

Senate language in which the sanctions were gutted and taken out,

then for all intents and purposes, we have a very diluted bill. I

mean, that was why I even opposed my colleague from New Jersey,

Mr. Menendez, who I think perhaps was disturbed. But then if I

knew that this was going to be the case, I wouldn’t have been silent with my good friend.

So this simply gives us a bill with no sanctions. I can understand

maybe the difficulty of getting the bill through, but I don’t know

where this leads us at this time.

Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Just for the record, I offered the amendment to reinsert these sanctions during a markup in the Subcommittee on

International Operations. I think it is absolutely vital that we

stand in this case shoulder to shoulder with the Administration,

suggesting that there is going to be absolutely no diminution of our

resolve. The peace sanctions are necessary. Sanctions never work

in a day, but we have a genocide going on, as you know, and have

spoken out so eloquently about. We need to state clearly and unambiguously our support for this. I would hope that Members would

vote down the amendment of my good friend, Mr. Campbell, well

intentioned though he always is.

Mr. TANCREDO. Will the gentleman yield? Taking the sanctions

out of this bill is providing false hope, which is worse than doing

nothing at all. We have done that to the Sudanese time after time

after time. Do not pretend that something has happened if we pass

a piece of legislation without the teeth of sanctions, because we all

know it will be status quo. That is worse than this government taking no action. It is worse to create false hope. And I certainly oppose the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. The Chair is in doubt on the rollcall, on the

last vote on the amendment. Can we have a vote by a show of

hands? All in favor of the amendment signify by a show of hands.

Please raise your hands. All opposed please raise your hands.

The noes have it..

The Chair will entertain a motion by the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. If there are no further amendments, then I move

that the Chairman request to seek consideration of the pending

measure on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska.

Those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye, those opposed,

say no. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

107

Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to

make motions under rule 22 with respect to a conference on the

bill, the counterpart for the Senate.

I understand we have one vote on the floor, which will be the last

vote of the day. Please return and we will try to conclude our agenda as rapidly as possible. The Committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

H. CON. RES. 414—RELATING TO REESTABLISHMENT OF

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN

Chairman GILMAN. While we are waiting for Members to return,

we will take up one of our quicker resolutions. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 411, which is now renumbered H. Con. Res. 414,

relating to Afghanistan. The Chair lays the resolution before the

Committee. The Clerk will report the title of the resolution and distribute the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 414, a resolution relating to the reestablishment of representative government in Afghanistan.’’ Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the

resolution will be dispensed with.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the

preamble text of the resolution in that order for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas Afghanistan has existed as a sovereign

nation since 1747, maintaining its independence, neutrality and

dignity.’’ Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Campbell,

the sponsor of the resolution, to introduce it to the Committee. The

gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your accommodation. The bill is sponsored by myself and Members of this

Committee, including Mr. Lantos, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Royce, Mr.

Bereuter.

It simply calls to attention the efforts by the former king of Afghanistan to convene an emergency Loya Jirgah, which is a traditional Afghanistan assembly for the sake of possibly adding to the

resolution of the war and difficulties in that country. The Administration has informed me of their support, and I read Mr.

Inderferth’s testimony before our Committee to say we are encouraged by the efforts of the Afghans around the world to contribute

to the search for peace in group meetings in Rome, Cypress, Bonn

and elsewhere. Many advocate the convening of a Loya Jirgah or

grand council of Afghan leaders to forge a new national accord.

There is nothing further in that resolution, and I urge its support.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of it.

There is much that can be said about the terrible situation in Afghanistan. I think all of my colleagues are generally or very specifiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
108

cally aware of it. But the terrorism that is generated from that

country and the haven for terrorists that it has become, including

Osama bin Ladin, certainly should catch our attention.

A number of Afghans around the world have looked to Afghanistan’s history, and they seek the king to convene the grand council

or the Loya Jirgah. This is a forum whereby leaders from around

Afghanistan would be allowed to air their views and resolve their

differences.

I don’t know whether this effort is going to succeed. The odds are

against it. Secretary Inderfurth has spoken, as mentioned by Mr.

Campbell, in support of it. The Administration supports it. I am

pleased to be cosponsoring this initiative by our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from California. I think it is worth trying. I

am pleased about the initiative, and I commend the gentleman for

pursuing this effort.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Before that, let me speak on the general debate.

I want to commend Mr. Campbell for crafting this important initiative, and I strongly endorse H. Con. Res. 414, legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the United States supports the

former Afghan king Mohammed Zahir Shah’s initiative to convene

an emergency Loya Jirgha or Grand Assembly to establish a democratic government in Afghanistan. I also want to praise Congressman Rohrabacher, the gentleman from California, for his expertise

regarding Afghanistan and the Loya Jirgah process.

During times of Afghan national crises, it is traditional to hold

a Grand Assembly to democratically consider means and methods

to tackle significant problems. The power behind the Loya Jirgah

is its assurance that all groups within Afghanistan will be equally

represented in an historic effort to resolve the crises at hand. Our

nation should be actively supporting that effort in every way possible.

The Taliban, which currently rules over much of Afghanistan,

has turned that nation into a major worldwide supplier of heroin.

It also exports terrorism and religious extremism.

As the Taliban has extended its hold over Afghanistan, it has

grown increasingly extremist and anti-Western, its leaders proclaiming that virtually every aspect of western culture violates

their version of Islam.

In addition to restrictions against women, such as barring them

from holding jobs or traveling unaccompanied by a male relative,

ancient and cruel forms of punishment, such as stoning, have been

revived. There are reports of massive ethnic killings and starvation.

The evolution of the Taliban bears a fearsome resemblance to the

murderously fanatical and purist Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.

The Taliban also continues to give refuge to Osama bin Ladin,

the Saudi terrorist who plots against American citizens.

Distressingly, Taliban leaders who have made narcotics the economic base of their regime view the drug trade itself as a potential

weapon. Views of the West and many pro-Western countries by the

109

Muslim world as being corrupt, the Taliban have no compunction

about trafficking in narcotics.

Our government must get firmly behind the Grand Assembly

process so that Afghanistan can begin again to play a constructive

role in the world and the Afghan people can once again live in

peace.

Accordingly, I urge our colleagues on the Committee to support

H. Con. Res. 414.

Is any Member seeking recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher, for an

amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment, and

the Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher, on page

2, in the Resolved section, replace Clause (1) with: (1) supports

democratic efforts that respect the human and political rights of

all——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 minutes

on the amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This

amendment does not in any way alter the fundamental purpose of

Mr. Campbell’s bill. In fact, Mr. Campbell, I think I can say supports the changes. It does nothing but strengthen them, and what,

in essence, the changes this amendment would bring about actually

add just the concept that the Loya Jirgah is not an end in itself.

The Loya Jirgah would lead to a democratic process that would

permit the people of Afghanistan eventually to determine their own

destiny through a free and democratic electoral process. This is

what, in the end, will actually change the situation in Afghanistan.

The king, and I know the king very well—I have met him on many

occasions—is not seeking a Loya Jirgah in order to reestablish

monarchy in Afghanistan. If that were the case, I am sure Mr.

Campbell, being a Republican and not a monarchist, would not be

supporting this bill. But the fact is the king agrees that the Loya

Jirgah should be the process in which a transition government is

established, which will then lead to a democratic process of elections in Afghanistan.

One last thought, Mr. Chairman, and that is, I am sorry to have

to assert this, and I will assert this on the floor of the House as

well. I am sorry, but I have made it my life to know what is going

on in Afghanistan, and after years of trying to talk to this Administration about our policy, as an honest person and one with some

expertise in this area, I have to tell you that I have concluded that

this government of ours, that this Administration, has been covertly supporting the Taliban for years. I make that charge not with

glee, but with, just with sadness in my heart.

After 21⁄2 years of trying to get documents from the State Department, and 2 years after the Secretary of State promised us personally in this room to have the documentation of the fundamentals

of American policy toward Afghanistan made available to us, those

documents have still not been made available to us, 2 years after

110

she made the commitment, 21⁄2 years after us trying to assert our

rightful claim to have an oversight authority in this area. This,

plus many other things, especially the Taliban offensives that have

accompanied Mr. Inderfurth’s trips to south Asia and to that area

of the world and the advances that have been made by the Taliban

after each and every trip Mr. Inderfurth made to Pakistan, leads

me to conclude that this Administration has been supporting this

despicable, antiwoman, antihuman regime that harbors terrorism

and is again involved with drugs and repression.

This amendment today, Mr. Campbell’s underlying bill and this

amendment, put us on record as taking the higher road and that

Congress believes that the people of Afghanistan have a right to

control their destiny through free elections and need some peace in

this world after 20 years of turmoil. Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

If not, the consideration before us is the Rohrabacher amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner by saying aye; opposed, no.

The amendment is agreed to.

Are there any other further amendments?

If there are no further amendments, the previous question is ordered on the resolution.

Without objection, the gentleman from Nebraska is recognized to

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chair may request

and seek consideration of the pending measure, as amended, on the

suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor of the motion signify by

saying aye; those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is

agreed to. Further proceedings on this matter are postponed.

We will now take up another measure out of order at the request

of Mr. Smith, who has to leave.

H. CON. RES. 382—CALLING ON AZERBAIJAN TO HOLD FREE AND FAIR

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Chairman GILMAN. We will now take up H. Con. Res. 382, calling

on the government of Azerbaijan to hold free and fair parliamentary elections in November 2000.

The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 382, a resolution calling on the government of Azerbaijan to hold free and fair parliamentary elections

in November 2000.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the

resolution will be dispensed with.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the

preamble and text of the resolution in that order for that amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas Azerbaijan has been a participating

state——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

111

I now recognize Mr. Smith, the gentleman from New Jersey, to

introduce it to the Committee. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk

in the nature of a substitute.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment. The

Clerk will the read the amendment. The Clerk will distribute the

amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘An Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Smith. Strike the preamble and insert the following:’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

[The substitute amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith is recognized on his amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment in the nature of a substitute is being offered for

one reason: to urge the government of Azerbaijan to hold free and

fair parliamentary elections on November 5th, less than 5 weeks

away.

President Aliev has often pledged to hold free and fair elections,

but Azerbaijan’s record is poor. In fact, the Helsinki Commission,

which I chair, conducted a hearing on May 25 concerning the upcoming elections, and the progress, or more accurately stated, the

lack of progress in building a democratic environment, and the violation of human rights in Azerbaijan.

The three elections, Mr. Chairman, that have been held since

1995 have not met OSCE standards. These flawed elections have

deepened the distrust between the government and the opposition,

undermining prospects for establishing democratic institutions and

resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and promoting peaceful,

predictable transfers of power.

The parliamentary elections due to be held next week offer the

opportunity to demonstrate the Azerbaijani government’s commitment to democracy and to overcome tension between the government and the opposition and within Azerbaijani society. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan has refused to incorporate substantive suggestions made by the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and

Human Rights into its election law, which do not correspond to the

OSCE standards. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, when we held

this hearing on the upcoming elections, many of us were cautiously

optimistic that there might be some progress. Regrettably, that

progress has failed to materialize.

Azerbaijan’s Central Election Commission has recently excluded

several parties, including major opposition parties, claiming signatures were falsified or otherwise invalid. This claim is based on the

same flawed methodology employed in the 1995 parliamentary election. The OSCE and the U.S. Government have criticized the exclusion of these parties and repeatedly has called upon Azerbaijan to

bring its election law into correspondence with internationally recognized OSCE norms. The exclusion of major opposition parties

will clearly undermine confidence in the election results in Azerbaijan and the international community, and threatens to continue

the pattern of flawed elections in Azerbaijan.

112

This resolution again calls on the government and the parliament of Azerbaijan to bring its legislative framework up to the

OSCE standards, not to exclude opposition parties on the basis of

flawed methodologies without giving them a chance to prove the

veracity of their signatures and to create an environment conducive

to the holding of free and fair elections.

Mr. Chairman, the Helsinki Commission will hold additional

hearings. This hearing that we held, as I mentioned earlier, had a

varied cross-section of panelists, including Ambassador Daniel

Fried, who represented the Administration very ably; Clifford

Bond; and we even had the Azerbaijani Ambassador, Ambassador

Pashayev, who gave the government’s point of view; and then we

heard from several of the opposition party spokesmen who gave us,

again, some very, very compelling testimony.

So I do hope that the Committee will pass this resolution so that

they know exactly where we are coming from in our hopes that

there will be a free and fair election.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Are any other Members seeking recognition on this resolution?

If not, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The United States has a growing relationship with the Republic

of Azerbaijan, one of the Newly Independent States of the former

Soviet Union. That relationship obviously has a great deal to do

with Azerbaijan’s geopolitical position, given its location between

Russia, Iran and Turkey, and also has much to do with its potentially huge energy reserves.

But that relationship also has to focus on the expansion of a

truly democratic government with Azerbaijan if it is to prove enduring and if it is in the benefit of the Azeri people over the long

term.

Much has been accomplished over the past 9 years in building

a new independent state in Azerbaijan.

This resolution introduced by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr.

Smith, points out those things that the Azeri leadership has recently done that conflict with the need to move toward truly democratic government, and points out the steps it needs to take to get

back on the real road to democracy.

The parliamentary elections to be held in Azerbaijan next month

are an important milestone on the road to democracy in that country. I support the passage of this resolution, making it clear that

our Nation expects the Azeri leadership to ensure that they are

truly free and fair.

I ask that my full statement be made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Is there any other Member seeking recognition?

If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized

to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chair may request to seek consideration of the pending measure, as amended,

on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion sigVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
113

nify in the usual manner. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

The Chair is deemed to be instructed to make motions under rule

22 of this measure, a companion from the Senate. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

H. RES. 588—CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF PROVISIONS OF THE

HELSINKI FINAL ACT

Chairman GILMAN. We will now take up resolution H. Res. 588,

expressing the sense of the House with respect to violations in

Western Europe of provisions of the Helsinki Final Act.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The Clerk

will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Res. 588, a resolution expressing the sense of

the House of Representatives with respect to violations in Western

Europe of provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and other international agreements relating to the freedom of individuals to profess and practice religion or belief.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the

resolution will be dispensed with.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the

preamble and the text of the resolution in that order for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas under article 18 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to

freedom——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Salmon, the

sponsor of the resolution, who has an amendment.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature

of a substitute at the desk.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will read the amendment. The

Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered

by Mr. Salmon. Amend the preamble to read as follows.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona,

Mr. Salmon, to speak on his amendment for 5 minutes.

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this measure. First I

might say that I appreciate the Democrats working with me to

craft this substitute motion. I believe that this piece of legislation

is fair, it is responsible, it covers a broad range of problems in

terms of religious freedom and the persecution of certain religious

minority groups, and I know that is one of the things that has

stirred up some controversy in the past.

At the outset, I would like to thank Karen Lord of the Helsinki

Commission, and Hillel Weinberg of the Full Committee for their

hard work in helping to draft this resolution for markup today.

114

Unfortunately, government discrimination against minority

groups and individuals in Western Europe based on religion or belief continues to persist. Such discrimination has been documented

in several State Department human rights reports and U.N. reports. This discrimination takes place at the national and local levels of government and has included the denial of business licenses,

the exclusion from government employment and political parties,

and the prevention of performances or exhibitions by minority religions. Religious and minority discrimination appears to be permeating in European countries like France, Belgium, Austria and Germany.

For example, in Belgium, the most recent international Helsinki

federation report mentions that religious minorities in Belgium

have been subjected to various forms of harassment and other

human rights violations, such as slander, anonymous threats, loss

of jobs, bomb threats, and denial of room rental for religious ceremonies.

In France, the French National Assembly passed a bill that

would restrict the free expression, growth and development of 173

‘‘blacklisted’’ religious groups including, but not limited to, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, Opus Dei, Muslims, Unificationists,

and certain denominations of Orthodox Judaism. Furthermore, this

bill would imprison religious proselytizers for up to 2 years for

mental manipulation of the public.

Another example took place in Austria. The 1999 U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom

stated that the conservative Austrian people’s party formally accepted a decision that the party membership is incompatible with

membership in a sect. This policy led to the resignation of a local

party official.

Lastly, Germany continues to engage in discriminatory trade

practices by using a sect filter to ensure that a firm is not affiliated

with a certain religion or belief before granting a contract to them.

We heard testimony in this Committee a couple of months ago regarding a certain vendor that provides services to Microsoft, and

we remember the problems that we are having there.

It is time that this blatant discrimination came to a stop. I, along

with my colleagues, Mr. Payne and Mr. Gilman, have introduced

resolution 588, which expresses the sense of the House relating to

the freedom to profess and practice religion or belief in Western

Europe. The resolution also documents several of the examples I

have just discussed.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Resolution 588, and I would

like to also call to your attention letters sent to Chairman Gilman

by several religious leaders supporting my resolution and urging its

adoption. If I could, without objection, I would like to enter them

into the record.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. SALMON. These letters encourage the passage of this resolution, because these religious leaders recognize, as we have, that

this is a serious problem. As you can see, there are all kinds of organizations from those that represent the Catholic religion to the

Jewish religion to the family research council. So there are many,

many groups that have recognized the problem.

115

I have another letter from a group called the Religious Action

Center of Reformed Judaism which also supports the passage of

this resolution.

[These letters appear in the appendix.]

Mr. SALMON. I would like to close by quoting a very, very profound and moving quote that is inscribed on the second floor at the

end of the permanent exhibit in the Holocaust Museum.

‘‘First, they came for the socialists. I was not a socialist. I

did not speak out. Then they came for the trade unionists. I

was not a trade unionist, so I did not speak out. Then they

came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not

a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to

speak for me.’’

That is pastor Martin Nemor.

I know that some have said, why in the world would we want

to say something about problems with our friends. We should only

be beating up on our so-called enemies. But let me quote to you in

the letter that was sent to Chairman Gilman by these religious

leaders, a quote that I think is very, very appropriate.

‘‘If we do not halt this antireligion movement in Eastern Europe, particularly in liberal democratic states like France, what

right do we have to criticize nonwestern countries whose policies do not measure up to our own standards of religious freedom? Should the American community of faith not be concerned that the government of France, like that of Communist

China, will not discuss issues of religious liberty with the

United States Government. If we can’t talk to our friends, who

can we talk to?’’

Mr. Chairman, I encourage the adoption of this measure. It is

something that has been debated over the last 3 years. I know because I have been involved in all of those debates. I know when I

have gone to OSCE meetings to the various participating countries

it is an issue that we have constantly brought up, yet the problems

still persist. If we truly are about religious freedom in this country

and we serve as a beacon for the rest of the world, if we are that

light on the Hill that President Reagan once talked about, then

let’s be the light on the Hill. Let us stand up for religious liberty

throughout the entire world.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say to the

gentleman from Arizona, I was relieved to find when I first began

to examine your bill that this was not a traditional scientology resolution with all of its defects and inaccuracies. I want to ask you

to make sure I am addressing the right one. Are we talking now

about H. Res. 588? Is that the one we have before us?

Mr. SALMON. Yes.

Mr. BEREUTER. I have a number of specific questions, if I could

just go over them line by line with you, and these are reports from

various people, mostly international representatives from some of

the European countries involved here.

116

On page 3, the whereas clause that begins about 10 lines down,

with respect to the French National Assembly, we were told by

State just as a matter of accuracy that the National Assembly has

not yet passed the bill and they would say it is under consideration. I wonder if you know if, in fact, that is accurate?

Mr. SALMON. My understanding—yes, it did pass the House, and

it is under consideration in the Senate, so it has not passed both

bodies.

Mr. BEREUTER. But it has passed the assembly?

Mr. SALMON. Right.

Mr. BEREUTER. That is your understanding?

Mr. SALMON. Correct.

Mr. BEREUTER. Well, then, perhaps State is wrong or that is now

out of date.

Also on that same page, with respect to the French National Assembly, the State Department indicates that the Seventh Day Adventists should not be on that list. I don’t have any knowledge one

way or another.

Mr. SALMON. Could you repeat the question?

Mr. BEREUTER. That on the list on the last whereas clause on

number 3, our State Department says that Seventh Day Adventists

should not be listed there.

Mr. SALMON. They are not on the list. They are not on the list

of the 173. If you read the statement as it is written, it does not

say they are part of that list. It says that—let me see, ‘‘whereas

in 1996, French National Assembly report listed 173 organizations

as suspect, including,’’ and it goes through and lists those groups.

And then it says, ‘‘and official entities harass, intimidate, deny employment.’’ That is not continuing with the list.

Mr. BEREUTER. I see your point. So you believe that the second

reference is accurate?

Mr. SALMON. That is correct.

Mr. BEREUTER. Okay. On page 5, the whereas clause that begins ‘‘whereas Scientologists’’—this is a matter of interpretation and I

would just like your clarification. At least the German Government

suggests that the German Government is not orchestrating boycotts in Germany. Now, your legislation does not say that, although

they are concerned about the implications, so I would just like your

clarification. There may well be orchestrated boycotts. But you are

saying the German Government is, in no way, involved in orchestrating such boycotts? Is that consistent——

Mr. SALMON. Yes, it does not refer to a boycott perpetrated by

the German Government. It simply says boycotts. And to my

knowledge, that is the same information that we have gotten as

well, that there is no governmental entity that is actually overtly

instigating any kind of boycotts.

Mr. BEREUTER. On the top of page 4, Mr. Salmon, this could be

clarified, just a minor point. The Austrian law, somehow we believe

it was enacted in 1998, but that is just a minor point. That can be

collected, I gather. You may be right.

I thank the gentleman for his responses to these questions. One

of the concerns that I have had—and I know various governments

in Europe have had—is related to their subsidy of church bodies

and the treatment by the State or various levels of their governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
117

ment with respect to subsidies paid to the churches. They are particularly concerned in some cases, for example, in Germany, since

they do subsidize the recognized churches, that subsidies do not

flow to churches that they do not recognize as religions, but contend that they do not, thereby, justify, or in any way condone discrimination against it.

Is there anything in your legislation that you think is addressing

the tax issue appropriately or inappropriately?

Mr. SALMON. This legislation is silent on any recommendations

as far as tax policy of other countries. It is not our intent to step

in and tell these countries who they are to give the subsidy to or

who they are not. There is no language on that.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Salmon, thank you very much for your responses. I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me commend Mr. Salmon

for the outstanding job that he did, of course, as a cosponsor. We

worked diligently on this legislation. I am glad that it is broadened

enough so that those who had specific problems with the fact that

we talk about religious persecution and have included Scientologists, that now seems to be put down further in the resolution, and

therefore, finds less objection. I thought that the resolution, as it

stood for the last 4 or 5 years, should have been passed, but I was

in the minority, and of course it was not.

So I am pleased that with this broadening and widening and including of 189 groups, we could finally get some resolution passed.

We should certainly, though, seriously be against intolerance everywhere, and we are finding that there is more and more of it growing in the world. It seems like as the world moves to sort of a onebody, one-Europe, you know, almost one North America with

NAFTA and all that, we are finding that intolerance is on the increase and it doesn’t make sense—not religious intolerance, racial

intolerance, intolerance for sexual preference.

So I hope that this resolution passes. I think that it certainly expresses the sense of the House with respect to the violations in

Western Europe. We certainly have been critical of ourselves and

we still need legislation here in the United States to protect minorities and others also. So we are not doing something that we are

looking over there and not over here. So once again, I would like

to commend Mr. Salmon and I strongly support the resolution, I

support the broadening of it, I support the inclusiveness of it, and

I would hope that we would be able to have this resolution passed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some concerns about a trend that I have seen on this

Committee. It seems that every week, we spend an inordinate

amount of time on another resolution going over something that

maybe makes everyone on the Committee feel good about themselves and the greater worth about what they are doing; but at the

same time, we are ignoring present day problems—the history of

the 20th century. In the 20th century, apparently there was genoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
118

cide by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and we have spent 10 hours

discussing that.

The history of the Nazis and the Holocaust is well-known. Stalin

killed 11 million Ukrainians, or some large number. We have our

Trail of Tears in the United States that we seem to ignore, and

Congress existed when this occurred and Congress participated in

it. And this Congress, in this Administration, sat by on our hands

when hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Rwanda, Burundi, the Congo, and more recently in Sierra Leone.

So today, we are telling four European countries, Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany how to run their government, how to

treat their religions. At the same time, if they were to tell us how

to run our government, how to run our Congress, how to manage

our relations with religion, I am sure we would resent it, and properly so.

I am convinced that God will indeed judge us by our deeds as individuals, and I don’t think God is going to judge us on our mixing

politics and religions. That was one of the foundations of this country. So I am opposed to this piece of legislation. I don’t really think

it serves any purpose.

I would point out in relation to Scientology, which has been a

nagging problem for this Congress every year and it is always defeated, this Administration, once they came into office in 1993, was

the first time Scientology had ever been recognized. That was in

1993. So how can we criticize Germany for not recognizing Scientology when our Administration made probably a political decision

on a group that I know has a history of preying on elderly, perceived wealthy little widows, and apparently preys on some people

in the entertainment industry that are not smart enough to do anything else but be entertainers.

So I really am opposed to this and do not think it serves any useful purpose. I think that if we are going to do something useful or

meaningful, we need to address some of the problems of infectious

disease around the world, some of the problems of current day

human rights abuses. Because I don’t really think anyone is suffering in Austria or Belgium or France or Germany to the extent

that it has been brought up today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey. Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Very briefly, to my good friend from Louisiana in

particular, I read the resolution and I think it is a correct statement of the Rules of the House that we do not enact the whereas

clauses. That is to say the whereas clauses, they are not numbered,

they don’t become part of law, and I tell you why I say that, because the resolution starting at page 6 with the lines that are numbered do not, in my judgment, carry any of the dangers that the

gentleman from Louisiana observed, which are entirely contained

in the whereas clauses.

Now, that is not to say that a friend looking at our actions overseas will treat that difference with the same respect that a student

of statutory construction would here in the United States. But I

don’t find anything objectionable in the enacting clauses, the thereVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
119

fore clauses, and I would yield to my good friend from Louisiana,

if there is any aspect there that you would like to identify, and

then would I yield whatever time I have back to the author of the

resolution as well. But just for a second, if there is anything that

you see on page 6 or 7 that you would like to draw attention to,

I would be pleased to yield, and if not, I don’t want to put you on

the spot. I yield to you.

Mr. COOKSEY. I would ask the author if he would be willing to

withdraw the whereas for the Scientology group.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. I respectfully would decline to the gentleman. This

is about religious inclusion for all of these various groups, and I

don’t want to diminish the bill in any way. I might also thank the

gentleman for yielding. Every one of these countries, these 4 countries that are noted in this resolution cite international covenants

in which they willingly signed and agreed to these international

covenants. We are simply trying to put their feet to the fire and

make sure that they adhere to them.

I must respectfully disagree, if the gentleman from Louisiana

does not agree that religious freedom is a human right. You stated

that we should spend our time dealing with human rights issues.

This country was founded on religious freedom. That is what we

are about. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States is about religious freedom. That is why we came here. That

is why the pilgrims originally came to this country, to escape religious discrimination. People of my faith have endured religious discrimination even in this country.

Maybe the gentleman has never had to encounter that, but I

have sat through hearing after hearing after hearing, and I have

heard of multiple problems right now in Europe. It is a serious

problem, and if we don’t stand in this Congress for defending religious liberty, we have no right to speak on other things.

In China, where we have had the PNTR vote, every year it comes

up, we talk about the religious freedom issues in China. I do not

think the gentleman from Louisiana believes that those are not

very serious issues. They are very serious. To me, this is very, very

important. I am sorry that you don’t agree that it is an important

issue to try to defend religious liberty worldwide, but I believe that

that is a very fundamental part of what we are about here.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will reclaim my time. My attempt to pour oil

on troubled waters has failed. The whole idea of my intervention

was to say, hey, nothing to disagree about on the enacting clauses,

and instead, I am afraid I have made things worse; so I am going

to withdraw, unless my friend from Louisiana wants to use the rest

of my time.

Mr. COOKSEY. Why don’t we drop the whereas on all of the different religions, all of them, without singling out any one.

I am for religious freedom, but my point is, we are dwelling on

this issue in these four European countries, and we are sitting on

our hands while people are dying in Sierra Leone. I was there 2

months saying I saw it. You saw the abuses that have gone on

there, that have gone on all over west Africa because we have one

group that does not have the courage to do the right thing in west

Africa and a group in our party that does not care, it seems. And

120

this is true with the Kurds, in Iran, Turkey, Iraq. There are a lot

of groups—I mean, what greater human right is there than the

right to life?

Mr. SALMON. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I reluctantly yield.

Mr. SALMON. I do not disagree whatsoever. I think we are singing from the same sheet of music. I would be happy to work with

the gentleman on any legislation that he would like to put forward

on Sierra Leone or talk to the Administration, but I don’t understand why it is not possible to do two goods. I am not responsible

for the fact that we haven’t taken up any legislation or any issues

regarding Sierra Leone or defending life. I certainly agree with

that. I don’t oppose the gentleman. I simply am asking you to work

with me on this one and I would be happy to work with you on the

other. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

I support the pending resolution. It is unfortunate that countries

like those named in the preamble, which are so important as allies,

and where liberty is, in general, so highly regarded, seem to have

a blind spot when it comes to religious liberty.

This is a carefully drafted resolution dealing with a problem that

is widely recognized in the community of observers of religious liberty in this country. It is supported by representatives of diverse

religious groups from southern Baptists to Sikhs. I have received

letters in support of it signed by personalities ranging from the Interim Dean of the Catholic University Law School to Michael

Novak of the American Enterprise Institute.

Accordingly, I believe this measure deserves the support of all

Members of the Committee and I urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent to insert my full statement into the record.

[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition or seeking to offer amendments?

If there are no further amendments, the previous question is ordered on the—— Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. I would like to request a recorded vote and I notice

there is not a quorum here right now.

Chairman GILMAN. Are you making a point of order with regard

to a quorum?

Mr. COOKSEY. Yes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Could I make a unanimous consent that we suspend further discussion on this bill until we complete the rest of

the calendar and take this one up at the end?

Chairman GILMAN. A motion has been made to—a unanimous

consent has been made. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?

Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would object.

Chairman GILMAN. Dr. Cooksey objects.

Mr. COOKSEY. I object to the unanimous consent request.

121

Chairman GILMAN. There is an objection to the unanimous consent request.

The Chair will now—— Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I make a motion to table the request of Mr.

Cooksey.

Chairman GILMAN. A motion has been made to table the request.

Mr. BEREUTER. Could we have a clarification of parliamentary

situation?

Chairman GILMAN. I am going to ask our counsel to set forth the

parliamentary situation.

Mr. WEINBERG. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that a point

of order of no quorum was made by Dr. Cooksey, and I believe that

there is no higher motion available such as a motion to table at

this point. The Chairman would be obliged, I would advise the

Chairman that he ought to count for a quorum and then we would

establish whether or not we had a quorum present, following the

normal procedure.

Chairman GILMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.

The Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

Chairman GILMAN. Aye , present.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes aye.

Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Present.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes present.

Mr. Smith.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Present.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes present.

Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

[No response.]

122

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Present.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes present.

Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. I would like to interrupt the quorum call for a second and yield to Mr.—— Chairman GILMAN. It is not in order, but are you withdrawing

your request?

Mr. COOKSEY. I want to yield to Mr. Campbell, and then I want

to make one more statement after his statement.

Chairman GILMAN. Well, it is not in order unless you want to

withdraw the request for a quorum and then we can recognize you.

Mr. COOKSEY. Okay. I will withdraw my request for a quorum.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has withdrawn his request for

a quorum. I now recognize Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back and make the

same point I made earlier. This Committee is spending too much

time on resolutions like this, and I am not sure that we really help

anyone out. I am sitting here right now with a news release about

5 Catholic priests that have died in Kenya, and I worked in Kenya

off and on for 6 years. Why haven’t we condemned the government

of Kenya, why haven’t we taken decisive action there? Taking

someone’s right to life, someone’s life is a far greater human rights

violation than what we have seen in these four European countries.

I am convinced that we are not doing enough along these lines, and

I think that we need to reconsider what we are doing——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOKSEY. I would hope that next year when this Congress

reconvenes and this Committee reconvenes, we will spend more

time on worrying about people that have either lost their lives or

are currently under the threat of losing their lives.

I yield.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would just like to remind the gentleman that

the Committee’s intent to take up the resolution on Kenya doing

exactly what you just said if we are allowed to continue without

having a disruption of disbanding because of the possible suggestion of the lack of a quorum.

Chairman GILMAN. We will continue—— Mr. COOKSEY. Well, I have withdrawn my quorum call.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman from Louisiana yield?

Mr. COOKSEY. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. I want to clarify my own position. I intend to vote

for this resolution, and in fact will be voting to move it forward beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
123

cause of the work that Mr. Salmon has done. My concern is that

this Member does not want to do anything to suggest that Scientology is a religion. But I look at the language here and it does say

religion or belief. Certainly, people who are engaged in Scientology

have a belief, and that gives me an opportunity to express my view

without being opposed to the resolution. But I want it particularly

clear that I do not consider this vote to be a concession on my part

that Scientology is a religion. I thank the gentleman for yielding

for that clarification for the record and to make myself feel comfortable about it.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Are there any

other Members seeking recognition? If not, if there are no further

amendments and no further requests, I recognize the gentleman

from Nebraska for a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended

on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor signify in the usual manner; opposed. The ayes have it. And the resolution is agreed to.

H. CON. RES. 361—COMMENDING THE REPUBLIC OF BENIN

Chairman GILMAN. We now move to H. Con. Res. 361 relating to

Benin.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The Clerk

will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 361, a resolution commending the

Republic of Benin.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the

resolution will be dispensed with.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the

preamble and the text of the resolution in that order for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas in 1990 the Republic of Benin made a

smooth transition from Marxist rule to constitutional democracy.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and open for amendment at any point.

I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman,

the sponsor of the resolution to introduce it to the Committee. The

gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

as well as Chairman Royce and Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Payne for

agreeing to consider this resolution.

Too often, Mr. Chairman, the news we hear from west Africa is

bad news. Civil unrest, human rights abuses, refugees, are the

usual images that we see of Africa. So I am pleased that with this

resolution, we can support a good news story in west Africa.

Under the leadership of President Mathieu Kerekou, Benin has

successfully transitioned into a vibrant constitutional democracy.

As a result of the legislative elections in March 1999, there are opposing parties controlling the executive and legislative branches of

the government. Benin stands out as a true example of political

pluralism, religious tolerance and respect for human rights. In fact,

124

according to the State Department’s Country Reports on Human

Rights, Benin has no political prisoners and the government generally respects the human rights of its citizens.

Last January, I had the opportunity to travel to Benin and meet

with President Kerekou. He impressed me with his pro-American

attitude, his commitment to privatization of State-owned enterprises and his willingness to support international law enforcement

efforts to stem the tide of narcotics trafficking in west Africa.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution is very straightforward. It simply

commends the government and the people of Benin for their commitment to democracy and urges the Administration to enhance its

efforts to support democratic consolidation and free enterprise in

Benin. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Is any other

Member seeking recognition on the Ackerman resolution?

Mr. ROYCE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. I want to express my support for this resolution and

commend its author, Mr. Ackerman. Democratic progress unfortunately has been halting in some of Africa, so we need to take note

of where there is progress, and that is what this resolution does.

And it deserves our support. I think there is an amendment that

Mr. Ackerman was going to offer, and I support the resolution, and

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, let me also commend Mr. Ackerman

for this resolution. I think that the country of Benin, a very small

country next to the giant country of Nigeria really, as has been indicated, made a very smooth transition to constitutional democracy.

As you probably know, many of the countries in Africa were

pushed into the Warsaw Pact countries because of the refusal of

the United States of America to support their independence. Many

of the colonial powers were NATO allies and we looked the other

way as we sought the support for Mobutu in Zaire and Savambi in

Angola, and P.W. Botha in South Africa, and we could go on and

on. So we were on the wrong side of conscience.

We are now hopefully trying to redo some of the problems that

we have created with the Africa Trade and Opportunities Act, with

President Clinton visiting Africa twice, one 12-day, 6 country tour.

But I would certainly commend Benin President Soglo, the one who

moved it into this new mood. He was defeated, actually, because

the World Bank said you had to bring in a lot of reforms, tighten

the belts, had to pay back debt, and he did that. That didn’t go over

well and he lost his office, but he stepped out and the new President moved in with no problem.

I think I really commend Mr. Ackerman for talking about when

things happen correctly. We see so many times when they don’t

happen right, we read about it, we talk about the refugees, we talk

about the killings and the maimings and the Sierra Leones and the

Congos and so forth. But I certainly commend you for having this

resolution.

125

Secondly, President Kerekou admitted that there was certainly

complicity in the slave trade and African leaders worked in tandem

with the European slave traders, and that slavery would not have

flourished the way that it had if it were not for the concurrence of

leaders in Africa at that time. The President of Haiti was there at

the conference, and I had an opportunity to meet with him, and he

said that the apology that the President of Benin made to the Haitian President was really heartwarming.

So I think that there is a lot more in this, and at the appropriate

time I would like to highlight more of what has happened in this

little country of Benin. But I commend Mr. Ackerman again for

this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to associate myself

with the comments of my friend, Mr. Payne, and I want to commend Mr. Ackerman for bringing this resolution before us, and I

urge its adoption.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

I commend Mr. Ackerman too for this resolution on Benin. In

this Committee we regularly call attention to injustice, to war, and

the abuse of power wherever they may occur. Witness, for example,

our earlier discussion on Sudan.

Occasionally, we must also acknowledge the considerable

progress that some nations have made and give credit where it is

due. The relationship between our Nation and President Mathieu

Kerekou of Benin has not always been smooth. During the Cold

War, President Kerekou expressed a Marxist ideology that gave our

Nation some cause for concern. In 1990, however, President

Kerekou allowed free and fair elections to take place in Benin. Defeated at the polls, he stepped down gracefully. Six years later, he

came back into power the same way he left, by the ballot box and

the popular will of the citizens of Benin.

In his second administration, President Kerekou has exhibited

wisdom, strength and compassion. This resolution commends his

leadership and a growing friendship between our two nations.

Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to join in support of this measure.

Is there any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman has an amendment. The Clerk

will read the amendment. The Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman, in the 5th

clause of the preamble——’’

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

Mr. Ackerman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amendment that I offered here reflects changes to the resolution that were suggested to me by Chairman Royce. The amendment makes modest, but important, changes to the 5th, 7th, 8th

126

and 9th whereas clauses, as well as to the first resolved clause. In

addition, the amendment deletes the last resolve clause.

With Mr. Royce’s suggestions, I believe the resolution is much

improved and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Is any Member seeking recognition on the

amendment?

If not, the question is on the amendment. All in favor signify in

the usual manner, opposed, no. The amendment is agreed to.

I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, for a

motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended

on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Nebraska. All in favor signify in the usual manner;

opposed. The resolution is adopted.

Further proceedings on this matter will be postponed.

H. CON. RES. 410—CONDEMNING THE ASSASSINATION OF FATHER JOHN

KAISER

Chairman GILMAN. We now consider H. Con. Res. 410 concerning

the assassination of Father John Kaiser and others. The Chair lays

the resolution before the Committee. The Clerk will report the title

of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 410, a resolution condemning the

assassination of Father John Kaiser and others who work to promote human rights and justice in the Republic of Kenya.’’ [The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the

preamble and text of the resolution in that order for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas Father John Kaiser, a Catholic of the

Order——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, the

sponsor of the resolution, to introduce it to the Committee.

The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to thank my friends, Mr. Royce and Mr. Payne,

for waiving jurisdiction and allowing the resolution to come before

the Full Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have a lengthy and eloquent prepared statement that was created by my colleague and associate, Mr. Hans

Hogrefe. I would like to ask permission that it be placed in the

record.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.]

Mr. LANTOS. I will be very brief.

Those of us who work in the vineyards of human rights occasionally come upon a giant. Father John Kaiser is such a giant. This

68-year-old Catholic priest devoted his life to help the people of

Kenya, and as his final reward he was assassinated, probably at

the insistence and the urging of the government. There are indications, Mr. Chairman, that other Catholic priests have been singled

127

out for assassination. So far, we have five Catholic priests whose

deaths appear to be a mystery, more likely a government-inspired

assassination. Father John Kaiser has displayed a degree of unselfish devotion to human rights, the plight of the poor that moves one

to tears. I would strongly urge all of my colleagues to join me in

this tribute and in calling upon the government of Kenya to undertake an independent, or to allow to be undertaken an independent

inquiry into the circumstances of Father John Kaiser’s death.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this

resolution, and I want to commend its author, Mr. Lantos. I have

no doubt that the killing this resolution condemns was a political

killing. When democratic supporters who use such peaceful means

are struck down, we all lose. Father John Kaiser was an American

citizen, he was fighting for human rights, he was fighting for democracy in Kenya. He was revered, in fact, by Kenyans. He was

struck down and he deserves this resolution. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce. Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Let me also commend Mr. Lantos, and I associate

myself with the remarks of the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr.

Royce. I think that we should certainly insist that the government

of Kenya have an independent investigation as is called for in this

resolution. We certainly condemn the violence around Father Kaiser and the others as we try to promote human rights. We should

insist that our State Department and our embassy in Kenya personally deliver to the President this resolution, and we demand

that there be a thorough investigation.

Let me commend the gentleman again for this resolution. I yield

back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to commend the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos,

for bringing this measure to our attention at this time.

An outspoken and passionate defender of the poor, the weak and

the oppressed, Father John Kaiser was shot and killed just a

month ago. His killers still remain at large. Although Father Kaiser knew that he was in danger, his courage and compassion never

left him.

He is one of the distressingly long line of clergy who have been

murdered in Africa. Eight years ago, 5 American nuns from Illinois

were killed by Charles Taylor’s NPFL soldiers in Liberia. We are

still waiting for their killers to be brought to justice. We must not

let 8 years slip by with no resolution of Father Kaiser’s case. We

owe it to him and to the voiceless on whose behalf he spoke with

such energy and commitment. We also owe it to the rule of law in

Kenya.

As the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, ‘‘Man’s capacity for

justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice

makes democracy necessary.’’

128

Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to fully support this measure.

If there are no further requests for time, or any amendments, I

recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, for a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is a particular pleasure, as this

is the last resolution of the day, to move that the Chairman request to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion. All those in

favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All those opposed say no.

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on

this matter are postponed.

The Committee stands adjourned, and I thank our colleagues for

being here.

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(129)

A P P E N D I X

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H. RES. 596

Mr. Chairman, today I am introducing a new bill regarding the affirmation of the

U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide.

As the sponsor of this resolution I have carefully followed all of the testimony and

communications from proponents and opponents. I note that some Members have

expressed concern with the training component of the former bill —H.Res.398—specifically the complexity of implementing this clause. I also note that during the subcommittee hearing, Ambassador Grossman testified that the Foreign Service Institute already includes the Armenian Genocide in its training program. This was later

confirmed by a State Department spokesman. Therefore, taking into account the

concerns of some of my colleagues and the statements of the Department, and with

the support of Chairman Smith, I submit this new bill. All references to training

have been removed. I trust that this change will enjoy the support of this committee

and will also make expedited floor consideration possible.

H.Res. 398 enjoyed the bi-partisan support of some 140 members and I rest assured that H. Res. 596 maintains the intent of my original bill. The new resolution

also enjoys the support of the Speaker, the House Minority Whip, the Chairman and

Ranking Minority Member of this Committee, as well the Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee.

I thank all for their support and cooperation.

With the training component removed, what remains in H.Res. 596?

• Affirmation of the US record that fully documents our government’s attempt

to end the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey at the time of the Genocide

and to save those who survived it. In view of the denial literature that we

have been bombarded with prior to and since the subcommittee hearing, I believe that affirmation is even more critical. I share with you a portion of the

remarks from Professor Deborah Lipstadt to Chairman Smith, and I quote,

‘‘Denial of genocide strives to reshape history in order to demonize the victims

and rehabilitate the perpetrators. Denial of genocide is the final stage of

genocide; it is what Eliie Wiesel has called ‘double killing’. Denial murders

the dignity of the survivors and seeks to destroy the remembrance of the

crime.’’

I would like to commend and fully support the comments of Congresswoman

McKinney during the markup of this bill in Subcommittee in response to the ‘‘highpriced denial campaign.’’ Silence in the face of genocide, as we have learned, can

only embolden those who would again seek the systematic destruction of an entire

people.

I would also like to address an argument that persistently comes up regarding

this resolution. Each time this body attempts to come to closure on this subject, opponents ask why now? They may even say, ‘the intent of the resolution is commendable, but the timing is inopportune.’ Mr. Chairman, unless the Turkish government

ends its ongoing campaign to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide, the only

time acceptable to our ally is never. And I regret to say that our State Department

readily concurs with Turkey. Why now? Because later accomplishes nothing Turkey

remains adamant in its denial and its reprehensible tactics of threats and coercion

are rewarded. Why now? Because passage of this resolution today by this Committee and subsequently on the House floor will end denial—which expressed difVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:29 Mar 30, 2001 Jkt 069978 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\M092800\69978 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
130

ferently is the killing of truth. At least one branch of my government will say categorically to all deniers that they have failed.

I implore my colleagues here today to understand that this resolution is a Sense

of the House resolution regarding the U.S. record. Despite all of the threats emanating from Turkey regarding U.S. bases, U.S. contracts, jobs, etc. this resolution

is NOT an assault on the Republic of Turkey. Furthermore, I reject Turkey’s presumption that it can impose its views regarding the American response to the Armenian Genocide on this Committee. If we bow to Turkish pressure over a House-only

resolution regarding our record, there’s no telling what else the U.S. will be called

upon to give into the next time Turkey threatens a doomsday scenario. I believe

that as a matter of principle, Congress must not let any foreign government dictate

what legislation it can or cannot adopt.

I thank you Mr. Chairman and I hope this Committee accepts my resolution and

does the right thing today.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

H. RES. 596

Mr. Chairman, one of the most important lessons humanity has learned throughout the centuries, is that we must not forget. If we fail to acknowledge and condemn

the crimes of the past, we are sending a message to those who have little regard

for human life, that they can act with impunity in the present and future.

This resolution seeks to ensure that this grim period in history is not erased or

re-written by those who argue that the genocide of over a million Armenians is a

mere fabrication.

Failure to act; failure to underscore that this was a systematic effort to massacre

and destroy the Armenian people, is tantamount to a denial and, thus, a further

attack on the victims and an affront to their memory.

This resolution is about the past, but a past mankind is doomed to repeat unless

we state in no uncertain terms that this type of action is not, nor will it ever, be

tolerated by the United States.

An example of the danger posed by a policy of neglect which ignores the Armenian

genocide is outlined in clause (16) of this resolution.

This clause refers to a 1939 letter where Adolf Hitler orders the attack on Poland

and dismisses the objections by saying: ‘‘who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians.’’

To reiterate, this measure is a testament to our commitment to human life and

focuses on the massacre of the Armenian people to underscore U.S. abhorrence of

genocide against any people, anywhere, at any time.

I commend my colleagues, Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Rogan, for introducing this

resolution and fighting the good fight. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the measure

and ask the members of this committee to render their support.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

H. RES. 596

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding a markup on this legislation. This

is a very important topic. It is also a very sensitive one. So it’s critical that there

be a frank and thoughtful discussion of the matter in Congress.

Genocide is an extremely loaded word. It is not something to be tossed around

lightly. Genocide is literally a crime against humanity itself, an attempt to eliminate

an entire segment of the human race. And thus it is an attack on us all. Something

we must all join together in fighting. And we must be aware of the details of past

experiences of genocide. That way we are familiar with the warning signs and can

stop a new one before it begins.

That is why I worked successfully last year to change the State Department

human rights reporting requirements to take into account instances of war crimes,

crimes against humanity, and genocide. That is why I supported efforts to stop what

could have been a genocide in Kosovo. That is why I still call for more investigation

into what happened in Guatemala.

And that is why I believe that the truth about the Armenian Genocide—because

that’s what it was—should be understood by all and officially acknowledged by the

American government—and the Turkish government. By recognizing the Armenian

131

Genocide, the US government will contribute to the further study of a crime that

affects us all and thus help prevent future horrors. I co-sponsored H Res 398, the

previous version of this legislation, and I give this resolution my full support as

well.

I know that there are objections to this resolution. I understand that there are

those who, for a variety of reasons, do not see this as an issue affecting all humanity. Instead, they see it merely as ethnic politics or part of a campaign to discredit

Turkey. That is unfortunate.

I believe American recognition of the genocide would encourage the Turkish government, our ally and fellow democracy, to do the same—which would be a good

thing for Turkey. Turkey has long been a leader in that part of the world. In fact,

the current Turkish government is politically descended from those who overthrew

the regime which carried out the genocide. A move by Turkey to acknowledge that

the genocide did happen and to seek reconciliation with the past would be just as

revolutionary. It would set an admirable precedent for other nations in the region

who have refused to deal with their own histories of violence.

Just as Turkey and Greece have begun to take steps towards addressing their differences, moving beyond the debate over whether or not the genocide happened

would allow Turks and Armenians to begin doing the same. Such reconciliation

would benefit Turks as much as Armenians and would contribute to peace and stability in the region. And peace and stability is definitely in the interests of the

United States. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

H. RES. 596

Chairman Gilman:

I commend you for your strong leadership of the House International Relations

Committee. Over the years, you have earned my deep respect ‘and that of our colleagues for your vigorous protection of human rights throughout the world.

Today, our committee considers adoption of House Resolution 596, a measure

which seeks official recognition by the United States Congress that, in 1915 to 1923,

a genocide was committed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire against the Armenian

people.

While I have the greatest respect for our colleagues who support this measure,

and I fully sympathize with their position—I must reluctantly disagree for two reasons, and strongly urge that H.Res. 596 be defeated.

First, as our colleagues are aware, the historical accounts of the tragic events of

1915 to 1923 are mixed and filled with inconsistencies. Indeed, historians, scholars,

and academia are split as to whether a genocide was committed.

It is my understanding that intercommunal warfare was rampant in this period,

with terrible suffering in both the Armenian and Turkish communities, and amongst

Christians and Muslims alike.

While it is estimated that one-and-a-half million Armenians died or disappeared

in the tragic conflict, we must not forget that the invading Russians and their Armenian allies also had blood on their hands. In fact, historical accounts document

that upwards of 3 million Ottoman Muslims died in this conflict, along with the decimation of the Jewish population numbering over 200,000. H.Res. 596 one-sidedly

fails to mention these atrocities.

From the mixed historical record, Mr. Chairman, I cannot absolutely and conclusively determine that a genocide, rather than wartime casualities, was responsible

for the tragic losses suffered by the Armenian people.

Second, I believe it important that we place the consideration of this resolution

in perspective.

Were this resolution to be adopted, I firmly believe it would alienate the Republic

of Turkey, which for over four decades has been steadfast as one of America’s most

trusted and loyal allies in NATO during the Cold War.

As we sit here today discussing H.Res. 596 and the events of 85 years ago, American warplanes are taking off from Turkish airbases to patrol the skies over Northern Iraq to contain Saddam Hussein, who is suspected of rebuilding his deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Our aircraft cannot be there without the full

cooperation of our Turkish ally, an ally whose soldiers have fought side by side with

ours since Korea.

132

As we sit here today examining this resolution, our special envoy, Ambassador Al

Moses, is working with both the Greek and Turkish governments to solve one of the

most intractable problems in the region the issue of Cyprus.

As we sit here today debating H.Res. 596, American oil companies and the Administration are looking to move ahead on building a.new oil pipeline across Turkey to

deliver new crude oil to America, at a time when oil prices have skyrocketed with

unpredictable instability ahead.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we sit here today, the Administration is seeking to end

the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a war that has caused almost I million

Azeris to become refugees in their own country.

I raise these points, Mr. Chairman, to remind our colleagues that Turkey—a longtime friend and crucial ally—plays a central role in helping us meet, understand,

and solve issues that fundamentally affect us and America’s national interest.

Simply put, Mr. Chairman, if this resolution is adopted, I firmly believe it would

irreparably damage our strategic partnership with Turkey. As some of our colleagues may be aware, two days ago in Ankara, the President and Parliament of

Turkey took action strongly opposing adoption of this resolution—urging it would

be perceived as a humiliation of our longtime NATO ally that would jeopardize our

friendship and security relationship.

It is a good bet, Mr. Chairman, that if this resolution is adopted, our planes would

no longer fly from Turkish airbases; that Ambassador Moses’ efforts would be

stopped; that the pipeline would never be built; and that the war between Armenia

and Azerbaijan would continue. This is clearly not in the national interest of the

United States.

Mr. Chairman, the policy implications of passage of H.Res. 596 are profound—profound enough in my estimation that it should be defeated.

There are better avenues, Mr. Chairman, to express Congress’ condemnation of

the terrible, tragic losses of life suffered during the late years of the Ottoman Empire, and I urge our colleagues to pursue and support such measures.

Mr. Chairman, all of us are very proud to be Americans and, in that spirit, I urge

our colleagues to put politics aside and seek what is truly in the best interests of

our great Nation.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

H. CON. RES. 397

I want to state my strong support for this resolution.

I and my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, have shared an interest to underline to the Congress and the American people the importance of the states of

Central Asia to the future stability of all of Eurasia and to the future expansion

of global energy supplies.

In fact, as Chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Chairman Bereuter took under his wing the ‘‘Silk Road Act,’’ a measure which was passed last

year as part of our Foreign Assistance Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

I commend him for that successful effort, and I want to commend him as well for

joining as a sponsor of this measure—House Concurrent Resolution 397—introduced

by our colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

The resolution before us today says some very detailed and extremely important

things about the very negative trends in Central Asia with regard to respect for democracy and human rights. But this measure makes clear one over-riding fact: democracy is absolutely vital to the future peace and prosperity of the peoples of Central Asia.

My colleagues, I am certain that none of us wants to see the peoples of Central

Asia end up in the situation that has come about in other countries that are blessed

with tremendous natural resources—in other words, we do not want to see those

countries’ resources exported and the revenues from their sale stolen by corrupt officials while the peoples of those states sink into poverty.

Democratic government is indeed the best antidote for the kind of corruption that

is the cause of such afflictions. For those of us who care about the future of the peoples of Africa, for example, we know that where true democracy has been absent,

corruption has flourished and poverty, suffering, and violence have spread.

Unfortunately, the leadership of the states of Central Asia—inherited from the

ranks of the ‘‘nomenklatura’’ of the former Soviet Union—is proving itself to be increasingly corrupt and far from democratic.

133

I fear that the increasing violence we see in some of those countries today is merely a harbinger of things to come, unless the leaders of Central Asia change their

ways—and soon.

The United States should make it clear that we expect and support true democracy and will not tie our policies in Central Asia to leaders bent on condemning

their peoples to a future of repression, corruption and poverty.

I support adoption of this resolution.

U.S. CONGRESS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, September 28, 2000.

DEAR COLLEAGUE: I am writing to ask you to support S. 2682. Senator Joseph

Biden and I introduced identical companion legislation on June 6, 2000. S. 2682

passed the Senate on June 23, 2000 under unanimous consent and without amendment.

This non-controversial legislation will enable the Institute for Media Development

(IMD) to archive Voice of America’s (VOA) Africa Division broadcast materials for

scholarly purposes. IMD is a tax-exempt corporation dedicated to promoting the innovative use of the media, particularly in Africa. Currently VOA Africa broadcasts

are not being archived, and programming that is rich in interviews of African political and cultural leaders is being lost to posterity. IMD is looking primarily to the

private sector to finance the initiative, and this bill will have a zero net effect on

spending according to the Congressional Budget Office.

IMD will place the VOA programming in an Africana digital archive. The Africana

digital archive will be on-line and accessible by scholars and others around the

world. The materials will not be available for commercial broadcast purposes, and

any mis-use of the materials may result in the termination of the program. The

quality and quantity of information on the Internet about Africans and other people

of color is in dire need of improvement, and this project is a significant step in that

direction.

The internationally renowned African Studies Center at UCLA is the academic

partner in the project, and both the Center and the University Library (ranked 2nd

in the nation) have agreed to provide resources to help make the Africana digital

archive a reality. Since its establishment in 1959, the UCLA African Studies Center

has continued to be one of the leading National Resource Centers on African Studies

in the United States. The reputation that it shares with UCLA has been instrumental in winning the confidence and enthusiastic support of both VOA and the

Broadcasting Board of Governors for the project.

This legislation will preserve some of the rich culture and politics of modem day

Africa. I urge you to support this legislation.

Sincerely,

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, Member of Congress.

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

H. CON. RES. 382

The United States has a growing relationship with the Republic of Azerbaijan, one

of the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union.

That relationship obviously has a great deal to do with Azerbaijan’s geo-political

position, given its location between Russia, Iran and Turkey, and also has much to

do with its potentially huge energy reserves. But that relationship also has to focus

on the expansion of truly democratic government within Azerbaijan if it is to prove

enduring and if it is to benefit the Azeri people over the long term.

Much has been accomplished over the past nine years in building a new, independent state in Azerbaijan. That has not been easy.

Azerbaijan has not only had to deal with the tremendously difficult problems associated with the emergence from communist rule, but has been at war with neighboring Armenia for almost a decade now, a war that has only been suspended by

the cease-fire that was negotiated six years ago.

Of the almost eight million people who live in Azerbaijan, one million have become refugees from that fighting, placing an incredible burden on that new state

and its depressed economy.

134

Still, while we can appreciate the tremendous problems the Azeri people confront

and the progress they have made in consolidating their new independence, we would

be remiss if we did not insist that their leadership respect their right to truly democratic government—and take concrete steps to bring democracy to life in that country.

This resolution, introduced by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, points

out those things that the Azeri leadership has recently done that conflict with the

need to move toward truly democratic government—and points out the steps it

needs to take to get back on the road to democracy.

The parliamentary elections to be held in Azerbaijan next month are an important

milestone on the road to democracy in that country.

I support the passage of this resolution, which makes it clear that the United

States expects the Azeri leadership to ensure that they are truly free and fair.

H. RES. 588

I support the pending resolution, H. Res. 588.

We held a hearing on the issue of religious liberty in Western Europe in which

we took testimony from independent experts, the Administration, as well as from

representatives of persons who were aggrieved by the behavior of certain European

governments.

We also invited testimony from foreign Ambassadors; although they did not appear personally, their statements were circulated at the hearing.

It is unfortunate that countries like those named, which are so important as allies, and where liberty is in general so highly regarded, seem to have a blind spot

when it comes to religious liberty.

The motivations of these governments are by and large good ones—the protection

of individuals from possible harm—but in some cases they are inadmissible—such

as the protection of well-established religions or a hostility to religion.

In any event they are simply not compatible with internationally recognized

human rights standards. Even worse, they encourage developing democracies to

enact similar laws. And so we need to address the problem, respectfully but clearly.

This is a carefully drafted resolution that deals with a problem that is widely recognized in the community of observers of religious liberty in this country. [As you

have been told] it is supported by representatives of diverse religious groups, from

Southern Baptists to Sikhs. I have received letters in support of it signed by personalities ranging from the Interim Dean of the Catholic University Law School to Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute.

Accordingly, I believe that it deserves the support of all the members of the Committee and I urge its adoption.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H. CON. RES. 410

Mr. Chairman, my House concurrent resolution 410 intents to bring attention to

the tragic deaths of several human rights defenders in Kenya, and to get Congress

on the record as condemning these deaths in the strongest possible way. While H.

Con. Res. 410 condemns the assassination of Father John Anthony Kaiser on August 23, 2000, in the Republic of Kenya, it also highlights the general human rights

situation in Kenya, and the dangers for those brave enough to work in the defense

of human rights in this country.

Mr. Chairman, Father Kaiser’s love for the Kenyan people turned him into a relentless activist for human rights and social justice, and an outspoke critic of the

Moi government.

Father Kaiser was born in Perham Minnesota in 1932 to a German father and

Irish Mother as one of four children. Kaiser attended a one-roomed school for eight

years before he went to a Benedictine secondary school. He then joined the U.S.

Army Airborne for three years. After his service, he began to pursue his true calling

by attending St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. After two years he

transferred to St. Louis University where he got his B.A. in Philosophy. Father Kaiser then crossed the ocean and studied theology in preparation for the priesthood

at St., Joseph’s Mill Hill College,in London.

In 1964, Father Kaiser was, ordained a Mill Hill Missionary priest. He was sent

to Kenya and assigned to the Kisii Catholic Diocese where he served as a pastor

for 30 years. Most of these years he lived in Kisliiland, away from any public attention. He had gone to Kenya to build churches and clinics. In the first several years

135

in Kenya he would travel from Mass to Mass on a motorcycle over dirt roads. Father

Kaiser spoke the local languages fluently. In his parish work, Father Kaiser was

known as someone who could mediate disputes. Once, during a dispute between

Maasai and Luo leaders over an old gold mine, Father Kaiser sat with the adversaries late into the night, patiently and persistently helping them to find common

ground.

A conservative Catholic of intense faith, he lived ascetically and what he saw happening to Kenyans turned him into a crusader of social justice. In 1993, Father Kaiser was transferred to Ngong Catholic Diocese. His transformation from remote parish priest to nationally known human rights campaigner began in 1994 when, in

his new assignment, he worked in the Maela Displacement Camp. Farmers had

taken refuge in Maela after being pushed off their land. He chose to live with the

displaced people and saw the disease, despair and hunger in the way they were

forced to live. He was moved to stand with people whose only crime was being born

into the ‘wrong’ tribe.

When the government decided to break up the camp by force, Father Kaiser stood

in the way. Father Kaiser took all the women and children and put all of them inside the church. He got in a sleeping bag and slept in the entrance of the church

so they were unable to forcibly evict them that night. The authorities came back

the following night and beat him up. Father Kaiser was placed under house arrest.

During Christmas week of 1995, Kaiser was arrested twice for opposing the destruction of the Maela Refugee Camp of which he was the chaplain.

After his experience in Maela Refugee Camp, Father Kaiser was assigned to the

Lolgorian Parish in the Trans Mara District, working among the Maasai people who

were trying to defend themselves against land invaders. Father Kaiser also helped

young Maasai women to pursue rape cases against their attackers. Father Kaiser

lived in the Lolgorian Parish until his death.

In 1999, Father Kaiser testified before the Akiwumi Commission, a special government commission set up to investigate the 1992 tribal clashes in Kenya’s Great

Rift Valley. He told the members of the commission just what he had witnessed.

He reported dates, names, places and times. He accused two Cabinet ministers of

instigating tribal clashes and seizing land vacated during the fighting, which broke

out before the 1992 multiparty elections. In November of 1999, he narrowly escaped

deportation when the Kenyan Immigration Department refused to renew his work

permit. The government issued the permit renewal only after the Catholic Church

and civil rights groups accused it of trying to silence him for his human rights advocacy. Earlier that year, the Kenyan Law Society honored Kaiser with the prestigious

1999 Human Rights Award for his tremendous human rights work.

In a letter to his family and friends, Father Kaiser wrote, ‘‘some sage once wrote

that to understand African problems you must understand three main causes of all

problems here which are: Tribalism, tribalism and tribalism. I would disagree with

that and say rather the one main cause of all problems in Africa is bad government

leaders who stir up tribal wars for their own political ambitions. That is what is

happening in Kenya, and the practice goes back into the history of colonialism.’’

On August 23, Father Kaiser had been at the Mill Hill House in Nairobi. He was

visibly upset and,nervous. He confided to other Mill Hill priests that he feared for

his life. He left the Mill Hill House and went to the Bishop’s house in Ngong. When

he left the bishop’s house he did not say where he was going. On August 24 the

Bishop of Ngong, Rt. Rev. Colin Davies, received an anonymous call saying that Kaiser was shot dead in Naivasha. His body was found on the side of the road in

Naivasha, not far from his own car and with his own gun beside him. Police investigating the scene shortly after his death immediately ruled out suicide.

The Catholic Justice and Peace Commission of the Kenya Episcopal Conference

stated that ‘‘it is no secret that Fr. Kaiser has been a thorn in the flesh of some

senior Kenya government officials and Ministers, for his incessant crusade against

social injustices.’’ In the same statement the commission remarks ‘‘While we cautiously appreciate the on-going joint CID/FBI investigation into the murder, we

strongly doubt the seriousness of the Kenyan government, especially in the absence

of an official government statement: let.alone a message of condolence to his family

and friends. The government’s reaction, cover-ups of the past such killings and the

reckless utterances by some senior government officials and Ministers, compound

our doubts.’’

Father Kaiser was not an ordinary U.S. citizen; having served in Kenya for 36

years he was also a Kenyan. Therefore, U.S. citizens cannot ignore the Kenyan cry

for truth and justice in this case nor in other cases where Kenyan citizens who have

championed for the same human rights causes have been mysteriously murdered

with no serious investigations.

136

Mr. Chairman, my resolution calls on the Kenyan Government to allow a truly

independent investigation not only into the death of Father Kaiser, but also into the

deaths of Father Stallone, Father Graiff, and Father Luigi Andeni, all of the

Marsabit Diocese, and the murder of Brother Larry Timons of the Nakuru Diocese

and of Father Martin Boyle of the Eldoret Diocese. While I appreciate the fact that

FBI officials are currently investigating the death of Father Kaiser, the recent unsatisfactory experiences regarding the investigations into the deaths of other human

rights defenders and members of the clergy and the record of impunity clearly show

that the Kenyan government needs to go beyond its current efforts.

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

Æ