U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

68–814 CC WASHINGTON : 2001

H.R. 3378, H.R. 4673, S. 484, H. RES. 547,

H. CON. RES. 242, H. J. RES. 100, H.R.

1064, H. RES. 451, H. CON. RES. 257, AND

S. 2460

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 7, 2000

Serial No. 106–179

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

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

(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

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

Markup of H.R. 3378, to authorize certain actions to address the comprehensive treatment of sewage emanating from the Tijuana River in order to

substantially reduce river and ocean pollution in the San Diego border

region .................................................................................................................... 1, 46

Markup of H.R. 4673, to assist in the enhancement of the development

and expansion of international economic assistance programs that utilize

cooperatives and credit unions, and for other purposes .................................... 3

Markup of S. 484, Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000 ...................................... 8

Markup of H. Res. 547, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives

with respect to the peace process in Northern Ireland ..................................... 11

Markup of H. Con. Res. 257, concerning the emancipation of the Iranian

Baha’i community ................................................................................................23, 42

Markup of H. Con. Res. 242, to urge the Nobel Commission to award the

year 2000 Nobel Prize for Peace to former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell

for his dedication to fostering peace in Northern Ireland ................................ 24

Markup of H. J. Res. 100, calling upon the President to issue a proclamation

recognizing the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act ............................ 28

Markup of H.R. 1064, Serbia and Montenegro Democracy Act of 1999 .............. 32

Markup of H. Res. 451, calling for lasting peace, stability and justice in

Kosovo ................................................................................................................... 37

Markup of S. 2460, a bill to authorize the payment of rewards to individuals

furnishing information relating to persons subject to indictment fro serious

violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda, and for other

purposes ................................................................................................................ 43

WITNESSES

Shirley Cooks, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs,

U.S. Department of State, introducing witness from the State Department .. 33

Ambassador Larry Napper, Coordinator for Eastern European Assistance,

Bureau of European Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................... 34

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Representative Bob Filner concerning H.R. 3378 ................................................. 48

Representative Doug Bereuter concerning H.R. 4673 .......................................... 50

Representative Richard E. Neal concerning H. Res. 547 ..................................... 52

Representative Christopher H. Smith concerning H. Res. 547 ............................ 54

Representative Joseph Crowley concerning H. Res. 547 ...................................... 57

Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman concerning the Smith amendment to H. Res.

547 ......................................................................................................................... 59

Representative Joseph Crowley concerning H. Con. Res. 242 ............................. 60

Bills and amendments:

H.R. 3378 .................................................................................................................. 61

Substitute amendment to H.R. 3378 offered by Representative Rohrabacher ........................................................................................................... 71

H.R. 4673 .................................................................................................................. 80

S. 484 ........................................................................................................................ 85

H. Res. 547 ............................................................................................................... 93

Amendment to H. Res. 547 offered by Representative Smith of New

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 97

Page

IV

H. Con. Res. 257 ...................................................................................................... 98

H. Con. Res. 242 ...................................................................................................... 104

H. J. Res. 100 ........................................................................................................... 107

H.R. 1064 .................................................................................................................. 112

Substitute amendment to H.R. 1064 offered by Representative Smith

of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 122

H. Res. 451 ............................................................................................................... 157

Substitute amendment to H. Res. 451 offered by Chairman Gilman .......... 161

S. 2460 ...................................................................................................................... 166

Special remarks:

Discussion of the situation in Southeast Asia ....................................................... 7

Tribute to the service of Mr. Seth Foti and to United Nations Humanitarian

Workers and Peacekeepers .................................................................................. 45

(1)

H.R. 3378, H.R. 4673, S. 484, H. RES. 547, H.

CON. RES. 242, H. J. RES. 100, H.R. 1064, H.

RES. 451, H. CON. RES. 257, AND S. 2460

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 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, pursuant to notice, to take up a number of legislative items.

H.R. 3378—RIVER AND OCEAN POLLUTION IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA

We will first consider H.R. 3378, relating to river and ocean pollution in the San Diego area.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. This bill was referred by the Speaker to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in addition to the

Committee on International Relations, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

The bill was introduced by Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Filner.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H.R. 3378, a bill to authorize certain actions to

address the comprehensive treatment of sewage emanating from

the Tijuana River in order to substantially reduce river and ocean

pollution in the San Diego border region.’’ 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 the House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, section 1——’’

Chairman GILMAN. The bill is considered as having been read.

Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment at the desk.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Is that in the nature of a substitute?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment which

is on the desks of the Members.

2

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered

by Mr. Rohrabacher. ‘‘Strike all after the enacting clause and insert

the following: Section 1. Short title. This act may be cited as the

‘Tijuana River——’ ’’

Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of substitute be considered as having been read

and as open for amendment at any point. Without objection it is

so ordered.

Who seeks recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would just say that the substitute I am offering changes one particular part of the bill, makes this more

practical and permits the purpose of the bill, which is to protect

American citizens along the border from the sewage threat—permits the whole plant to function better. Because of a glitch, the bill

had been written in a way that it would have actually been very

difficult for us to have contract with the companies that were necessary to get the job done. I believe that the changes that we have

made here are very inconsequential.

Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I see that we

have the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner, one of the sponsors

of the measure. I recognize Mr. Filner on the amendment.

Mr. FILNER. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for

your courtesy, for allowing me to be here today, and for acting so

expeditiously on this bill and for my colleague from California for

offering the substitute.

Mr. Bilbray and I have introduced this jointly. There are no two

people in Congress who could say that 50 million gallons of raw

sewage flows through their districts. That is sewage that comes

from Tijuana, Mexico, which unfortunately has only plumbing facilities for half of its population. San Diego gets the raw sewage in

the river valley which flows north into the Pacific Ocean.

So we have been working on this for almost 20 years, Mr. Bilbray

and I—he as a county supervisor, myself as a city councilman. We

think we have before you a solution that will finally solve the problem. It is a win-win-win-win-win kind of legislation. It is a win for

the health of American citizens who are threatened by the raw

sewage; it is a win for the taxpayers of this country, who will pay,

I am convinced, a reduced cost because of the private public partnership involved here; it is a win for the Mexican people, who will

get recycled sewage in the form of water that will help them in agriculture and commercial areas; and it is a win for a regional environment because we will solve the problem that has been with us

for 50 years.

Again, I thank you for taking this up so expeditiously. I thank

you for relying on the expertise of Mr. Bilbray and myself on this

and look forward to, finally after 50 years, the cleanup of the border environment that has been so harmful to both countries.

Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman from California. I

want to commend Representative Brian Bilbray and Representative

Bob Filner of California for introducing this important legislation

and for Mr. Rohrabacher’s interest, in addition to the work on this

measure.

3

The San Diego border region is afflicted by an ongoing serious

problem of sewage-tainted water from the city of Tijuana in Mexico

flowing down the Tijuana River contaminating U.S. seashores and

the Tijuana National Estuary Wildlife Preserve. Ocean currents

carry the contamination to the Imperial Beach, Coronado and San

Diego area. Our International Relations Committee has previously

gone on record expressing our concern over this issue.

In 1989 this Committee approved H. Con. Res. 331, expressing

the sense of Congress concerning the inadequacy of sewage infrastructure facilities in Tijuana, Mexico. This is a problem that our

Nation and Mexico must work together to jointly solve. To date, our

Nation has provided the lion’s share of infrastructure to address

the problem, to take action to comprehensively address the treatment of sewage emanating from the Tijuana River area, Mexico.

Subject to treaty negotiations the bill provides authority to the

International Boundary Commission to provide for the secondary

treatment of up to 50 million gallons a day of sewage at a proposed

public-private facility that is located in Mexico.

I want to thank our Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Gejdenson, for his help in the legislation. I urge our colleagues to join in

supporting this bipartisan initiative.

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute? Are there any other Members seeking to make any comments?

If there are no amendments, without objection, the previous

question is ordered on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute

is agreed to.

Mr. FILNER. All of us in San Diego thank the Chair and thank

the Committee.

Chairman GILMAN. Counsel informs me that we need a quorum

before we can complete our consideration of the bill. The bill will

be temporarily set aside until the quorum appears; without objection, we will now move on to the next measure.

H.R. 4673—USE OF COOPERATIVES AND CREDIT UNIONS IN

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

We will now consider H.R. 4673 to assist in international economic development, utilizing cooperatives and credit unions. This

bill was introduced by the distinguished vice Chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H.R. 4673, a bill to assist in the enhancement of

the development and expansion of international economic assistance programs that utilize cooperatives and credit unions, and for

other purposes.’’

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 in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short Title——’’

4

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open to amendment at any point.

I now recognize Mr. Bereuter on the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express the

reasons for my strong support in initiation of this legislation. Indeed, our distinguished Committee colleague from North Dakota,

Mr. Pomeroy, and I introduced this bill to recognize the importance

and strengthen the support for cooperatives as international development tools.

I would also like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Gejdenson;

the distinguished gentleman from California, Ranking Member of

the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Lantos, and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gillmor, for their cosponsorship of this measure and the Chairman for permitting us to expedite it.

The legislation enhances language currently within Section 111

of the Foreign Assistance Act, which authorizes the use of cooperatives in international development programs. Specifically, this bill

will give priority to funding overseas cooperatives working in the

following fields: agriculture, financial systems, rural electric and

telecommunications infrastructure, housing and health. Importantly, H.R. 4673 does not provide for additional appropriations;

and while the Administration does not routinely take a position on

such matters, the Agency for International Development has not

raised any objections to H.R. 4673 and I think looks kindly upon

it.

As you may know, cooperatives are voluntary organizations

formed to share the mutual economic and self-help interest of their

members. In the United States, cooperatives have existed of course

for many years and in many forms, including agriculturally based

cooperatives, electrical cooperatives and credit unions. The common

thread among all cooperatives is that they allow their members

who, for a variety of reasons, might not otherwise be served by traditional institutions to mobilize resources available to them and to

reap the benefits of association.

Since the 1960’s, overseas cooperative projects have proven successful in providing compassionate assistance to low-income people

in developing and transitional countries. Today, people in 60 countries are benefiting from U.S. cooperatives working abroad through

projects which can be completed at very little cost to the U.S. taxpayer, if any cost at all. The low costs are possible because money

used for the projects is spent on technical and managerial expertise, not on extensive bureaucracy and direct foreign assistance

payments.

The benefits of cooperatives as a development tool are, I think,

numerous. But let me mention examples of the economic and democratic results of fostering cooperatives overseas. Building economic

infrastructure is a key role of course of overseas development cooperatives. Through representatives from U.S. cooperatives, people

who have traditionally been underserved in their country, especially those in rural areas and especially women, receive technical

training never before available to them. Such training in accounting, marketing, entrepreneurship and strategic planning purposes

5

prepare them to effectively compete for the first time in their country’s economy.

For example, agricultural cooperatives in El Salvador helped to

rebuild the once war-ravaged country by providing a venue for

farmers to pool their scarce resources and scarce experience in capitalism so that they can market and sell the fruits and vegetables

that they grow.

In rural Macedonia, a small country whose neighbors are immersed in ethnic conflict, credit unions providing their members a

way to build lines of credit and savings for the future are an important and new institutional arrangement.

In rural Bangladesh during the early 1990’s, cooperative members bought equipment for an electrical project which now supplies

5 million people with electric power.

Cooperatives lay the foundation for future economic stability.

When reviewing the impact of overseas cooperatives, one simply

can’t ignore the impact they have on assisting people in transitional countries to build democratic habits and traditions. In forming cooperatives, people who have had no previous experience with

democracy create an opportunity to routinely vote for leadership, to

set goals, to write policies and to implement those policies. Cooperative members learn to expect results from those decisions and that

their decisions can and do in fact have an impact on their lives.

I would like to thank the Overseas Cooperative Development

Council [OCDC] for its contributions to this measure. The OCDC

represents eight cooperative development organizations which have

been active in building cooperatives worldwide. The Credit Union

National Association [CUNA] has also been very supportive of this

legislation and is a member of the World Council of Credit Unions.

CUNA has contributed technical assistance to aid the growth of

credit unions in key transitional countries, such as the former

Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonia and Bolivia.

Again, overseas cooperative projects are simply a good investment toward building economic stability and democratic habits in

developing countries. I urge the Committee to support H.R. 4673,

and particularly again want to thank my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, for his interest, his active support, and his initiatives and ideas in this legislation.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman’s

legislation. I commend him for that. But for purposes of better understanding for this Member, I want to ask the gentleman a question if I might.

I wanted to ask Mr. Bereuter, how does this cooperative program

contrast or appear different from the OPIC program that we currently have in giving assistance to companies from the United

States that make investments in foreign countries? Is there a connection between the cooperatives in connection with the current operations of the OPIC?

Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman would yield for response, I

would say there is only a potential complementary relationship.

OPIC does provide some additional financial resources, but what

this does is provide the technical assistance through USAID to help

6

through the American cooperative effort these credit unions and

these cooperatives working on infrastructure and marketing. It will

also help them during the elementary stages of their existence. So

this is really a technical assistance.

But the other OPIC program does indeed provide some of the financial resources that they could use. That is my understanding,

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for his response.

Again, I fully support the gentleman’s proposed bill.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. If no other Member is seeking

recognition, I will take a few moments.

H.R. 4673 is a bill introduced by our Committee Members—Mr.

Bereuter, the gentleman from Nebraska, and cosponsored by Mr.

Pomeroy, the gentleman from North Dakota—and serves to enhance and expand international economic assistance programs that

utilize co-ops and credit unions. This bill encourages the formation

of credit unions and grass-roots financial institutions as a way to

promote democratic decisionmaking, while concurrently fostering

free market principles and self-help approaches to development in

some of the world’s poorest and neediest nations.

The bill’s purpose is multifaceted, encouraging the creation of agricultural and urban cooperatives in the telecommunications and

housing fields as well as the establishment of base-level credit

unions. By doing so, the bill also promotes the adoption of international cooperative principles and practices in our foreign assistance programs and encourages the incorporation of market-oriented applications in those programs.

By ensuring that small businessmen and women, as well as

small-scale farmers have access to credit and also a stake in their

own financial institutions, our nation will foster the key values of

self-reliance, community participation, and democratic decisionmaking in programs that directly affect their lives.

The bill amends Section 111 of the Foreign Assistance Act of

1961, the section of the act that concerns the development and promotion of cooperatives by adding specific language that promotes

agricultural cooperatives, the establishment of credit and telecommunications and housing cooperatives. The bill also lists these

increasingly critical areas of development as priorities for foreign

assistance programs and requires the administrator of the Agency

for International Development to prepare and submit a report to

the Congress on the implementation of Section 111 of the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961.

I commend my colleagues for drafting this bill, that also

strengthens the intent and spirit of H.R. 1143, the Microenterprize

for Self-Reliance Act of 1999 that our International Relations Committee reported and the House passed last year. Although strides

have been made to increase access to credit for those who need it

most, it is clear to me that much more needs to be done to enhance

microcredit institutions and credit unions, as well as agricultural

cooperatives in the developing world, to ensure that sound fiscal

practices will be applied in both rural and urban areas in the

world’s poorest countries. Accordingly, I commend the bill’s sponsors once again for their efforts to promote the formation of more

and better-managed cooperatives, as well as the establishment of

7

credit unions that are managed by the poor themselves, addressing

agricultural, housing and health care needs.

Does any other Member seek recognition? Are there any amendments to the bill?

If there are no further comments, without objection the previous

question is ordered on the bill.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your supportive

statement. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending bill on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now 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.

Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to

make motions under Rule 20 with respect to conference on the bill

or a counterpart from the Senate.

DISCUSSION ON THE SITUATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Mr. BEREUTER. I would ask unanimous consent to address the

Committee for 1 minute.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In light of the fact that we have a number of Members here, I

did want to update the Members very briefly on our intent with respect to a couple of things happening in Southeast Asia. Already,

before we adjourned, we had announced our intention to hold a

markup on John Porter’s legislation that relates to Burma. In light

of very unfortunate developments, to say the least, in Burma, we

are updating that legislation; but we intend to proceed with a

markup on what should be a bipartisanly-supported bill with respect to Burma on September 13, in time for Full Committee action

that week.

Second, I wanted to mention that we had a bipartisan staff

CODEL visit to parts of Southeast Asia during the recess, including West Timor where really tragic things have happened in the

last few days. I am drafting a resolution on which we will work

with Republican and Democratic Members, so that we will have

something ready to address this issue perhaps as early as next

week as well. I just wanted to advise the Members we are not ignoring what is happening in that area. We will be taking some action, certainly by next week.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Ms. McKinney.

Ms. MCKINNEY. May I ask Mr. Bereuter a question?

On the West Timor legislation, will you be addressing West

Timor or will you be addressing Indonesia and perhaps requesting

sanctions against Indonesia?

Mr. BEREUTER. On the latter part of your question, we certainly

do not know at this point, but of course we will be addressing West

Timor—West Timor being a part of Indonesia. We inherently are

8

going to be addressing the difficulties that exist in that government

controlling violence against international observers and the residents of East Timor that are still refugees in West Timor.

Ms. MCKINNEY. Particularly I was thinking about the military

relationship that this Administration has just renewed with Indonesia.

Mr. BEREUTER. That is something that we are going to be looking

at. What we of course want to do is something that is productive

and not counterproductive. I think the fact that the Millennium

Summit is taking place, where President Wahid will be in attendance, may have been a factor in the violence itself. I hope that is

not the case, but it may be the fact.

So I appreciate your interest, and we will be happy to of course

work with you if you would like.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to commend the gentleman for taking a delegation recently to that part of the world. I apologize. I

would have loved to have been part of that delegation.

In reference to the current crisis in West Timor, I just wanted

to ask did the gentleman also visit West Papua, New Guinea, in

his visit to Indonesia?

Mr. BEREUTER. Just to clarify, it was a staff bipartisan delegation that visited. This Member and other Members did not visit

during the recess as far as I am aware.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

S. 484—THE BRING THEM HOME ALIVE ACT

The Committee will now consider Senate bill 484, the Bring

Them Home Alive Act of 2000.

This bill was introduced in the other body by Senator Campbell,

where it was passed on May 24, 2000. The bill was referred by the

Speaker to the Committee on the Judiciary and in addition to the

Committee on International Relations ‘‘in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction the committee concerned.’’.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

The clerk will report the title.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘S. 484, to provide for the granting of refugee status in the United States to nationals of certain foreign countries in

which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or American Korean

War POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist in the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs alive.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of 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——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open to amendment at any point.

Is any Member seeking recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Senator Campbell, as we all know, is a Korean War veteran and

9

a former Member of this House and now a Member of the Senate,

a good friend of all of ours who feels very strongly about this issue.

I would like to remind my colleagues that there is a million dollar reward that is still outstanding for anyone who would help us

overseas in retrieving an American POW from Southeast Asia. This

bill would add to that some sort of protection for anyone, if there

is an American POW still alive in Southeast Asia, that would provide that a foreign national in Vietnam or in Laos or in other countries would be able to come to the United States and enjoy that reward, if indeed an American POW is delivered to us.

There is reason for us to take this issue seriously. I know that

many people would like to think that this is fantasizable, but it is

not. From the very beginning I remember as a young reporter

interviewing Richard Nixon the day after an announcement was

made that people would be coming home; and I asked him, as a

young reporter out in California, why he felt they were going to get

everybody back. His answer was not clear to me then, and after everyone came home, there were lists of people who could justifiably

have been last seen alive in enemy hands. President Nixon’s explanation did not seem to hold water with me then. Over the years

I have spent time in Southeast Asia—and I did spend time in

Southeast Asia in 1967, as well—and Vietnam. It didn’t seem that

with the war going on in Vietnam, the war still going on in Laos,

the war going on in Cambodia, I didn’t understand how the North

Vietnamese were going to give everybody back. So it is possible

that they held people behind.

We know now that not one American POW who was returned

was ever interrogated by a Russian, for example, which leads us

to believe that there was a two-tier system, a prison system. Pete

Peterson himself, our former colleague, now Ambassador to Vietnam, talked to me just after the floor debate last month about this

issue and admitted to me that he was wrong when he told Members of the House that all the records from American prisons had

been given. In fact, he was wrong and the Vietnamese have never

given us the records for the prisons in Vietnam where American

POWs were held. That is one way we could verify how many prisoners they had.

Last, let me just say that I worked in the White House for 7

years and the very last conversation that I had with President

Reagan in the White House concerned American POWs in Southeast Asia. President Reagan personally verified for me that he had

been notified as President of the United States that American

POWs were still alive in Southeast Asia, but he was told that they

were now married to local women, had local families, and didn’t

want to come home. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time—that was

my last day at the White House—to followup on that. But I would

certainly like to know who talked to those American POWs and determined that they didn’t want to come home.

So there is been a lot of murky activity on the part of our government and our military, and especially the communist governments

in Southeast Asia on this issue. It deserves our putting a message

out, which this bill does say, that anyone, a government official or

nongovernment official, who could help us get back one of those

people who Ronald Reagan was talking about or a prisoner of war

10

who has been kept there all these years, would find refuge in the

United States and could enjoy the reward that is being offered in

the private sector.

So I would say to my colleagues that we can’t lose anything by

passing this kind of legislation, and let’s pray if there is anyone

alive there, that this offer is an avenue out.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

If not, I will take a few moments.

I am pleased to bring before the Committee today S. 484, the

‘‘Bring Them Home Alive Act’’ introduced by Senator Ben Campbell, the other Senator Campbell. This legislation addresses a continuing deep concern of our veterans, our families, and Members of

Congress in accounting for those U.S. military service members

who disappeared during the course of the Vietnam and Korean

Wars.

The year 2000, which marks a half century since the outbreak

of the Korean War and a quarter century since the end of the Vietnam conflict, is a particularly fitting time to address this issue. As

we move forward to meet the global challenges of the new century,

we should seek, to the best of our ability, to address the unfinished

business of the old, including the fullest possible accounting of our

POWs and MIAs.

Foremost among the unresolved issues is doing what we can to

relieve the anguish of those who lost loved ones on the battlefield

in defense of freedom and who lack any confirmation with regard

to their final fate or resting place.

Those who can assist in bringing home our servicemen deserve

concrete recognition by our nation for their efforts. It seems altogether appropriate to grant refugee status in the United States for

nationals of nations where American Vietnam War and Korean

War POW/MIAs may still be present and who assist in their safe

return.

As the title of this bill states, let us do all that we can to bring

them home alive.

I would like to urge my colleagues on our Committee to fully support this bill. I ask that the Judiciary Committee move forward as

quickly as possible. I hope to see it on the floor at an early date

for consideration by the House.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

If there are no other Members seeking recognition, are there any

amendments to the bill?

If there are no amendments, without objection the previous question is ordered on the bill. 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 bill on the suspension

calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. The question is on

the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the

motion, signify by saying aye.

11

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Without objection, the Chair

or his designee is authorized to make motions under Rule 20 with

respect to a conference on this bill or counterpart from the Senate.

H. RES. 547—RELATING TO THE PEACE PROCESS IN NORTHERN

IRELAND

Chairman GILMAN. We will now consider H. Res. 547 relating to

the peace process in Northern Ireland.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Res. 547, a resolution expressing the sense of

the House of Representatives with respect to the peace process in

Northern Ireland.’’ Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and text of the resolution, in that order, for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas the April 10, 1998, Good Friday agreement established a framework for the peaceful settlement——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.

Are there any Members—— Mr. GEJDENSON. I have an amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to

speak for a moment.

This is a terribly important resolution, and I just want to yield

to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Neal, who has really led the

effort here. We have got to have a real peace in Northern Ireland.

It is going to have to include a police department reflective of the

population and not the present one.

I yield to Mr. Neal.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Neal, we welcome having the gentleman

from Massachusetts who is the original sponsor of the bill. I recognize Mr. Neal.

Mr. NEAL. We don’t have this kind of technology at the Ways and

Means Committee. We have to shout at each other.

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

Gejdenson because much of the strong leadership emanating from

the Congress has come from this Committee in the words of you

and Mr. Gejdenson on this issue. It is delightful that such bipartisanship prevails on this issue. If I could, I might take 3 or more

minutes to read a statement because I think that statement is that

important.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. NEAL. On June 29 of this year, I wrote a letter to British

Secretary of State Peter Mandelson on the important issue of policing in its future in the north of Ireland. Knowing the interest that

many of my colleagues have in Irish affairs, I asked him to cosign

the letter. With the Police Bill being debated in the House of Commons, I felt it was appropriate to share our thoughts and concerns

with Secretary Mandelson about this essential component of the

peace process. More than 120 Members of the Congress signed the

letter, an unprecedented number, in urging the British Government to fully implement the Patten reforms on policing.

12

Over 2 years ago, the vast majority of the people on the island

of Ireland voted for the Good Friday Agreement. People of both traditions said yes to a future of peace, justice and reconciliation. Included in that historic accord was a provision that established an

Independent Commission on Policing that would make recommendations for future policing structures and arrangements. Its

mandate was to create, ‘‘a new beginning to policing with a police

service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.’’ Later that fall, Commission Chairman Chris Patten, a Conservative member of the British Government, traveled to Washington

to brief Members of Congress on his report. He told us that his primary objective was to take politics out of policing and then outlined

the 175 recommendations made by the Commission, including

changing the name, the flag, and the emblems of the Royal Ulster

Constabulary, a new oath for all officers, a new recruitment strategy and more accountability and community involvement, in essence, a new police service that reflects and can serve all traditions

equally in the six counties.

Policing is a touchstone issue for the nationalist and republican

communities. Across the island of Ireland, they have spoken with

one clear and unambiguous voice on this important matter. From

the SDLP to religious leaders to the Irish government and Sinn

Fein, their message is simple: the Patten Report should not be diluted, minimized or altered by the British Government. In the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, it must be implemented in full.

The resolution that I have introduced in the House of Representatives and Senator Kennedy has introduced in the Senate would

put this Congress on record in the debate. It would add our strong

voice to the growing list of individuals and groups internationally

who support the full implementation of the Patten Report. Indeed,

it was Chris Patten himself who advised, ‘‘in the strongest terms

against cherry picking in this report;’’ and suggested, ‘‘The recommendations represent a package which must be implemented

comprehensively if the north of Ireland is to have the policing arrangement it so badly needs.’’

I urge my colleagues to follow his advice and support House Resolution 547. And once again I thank you, Mr. Gilman; and thank

Mr. Gejdenson as well as Members of this Committee for the strong

leadership you have offered on this question.

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

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Neal, for being here.

I might note that Mr. Neal is cochair of the Ad Hoc Committee

on Irish Affairs.

I now call on Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank you, I want to thank Mr. Neal and the bipartisan group of

lawmakers who have sponsored H. Res. 547; and I am very proud

to be among those who are fully supporting it and cosponsoring it.

Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and also as Chairman of

the Helsinki Commission, I have held five hearings on the human

rights situation in Northern Ireland. The need to reform the RUC,

13

if not disband it altogether, was a common theme in those hearings.

Later this month I plan to convene yet another hearing of the

Helsinki Commission to examine the areas in which the British

Government’s current Police Bill falls short in fully implementing

the Patten Commission’s recommendations. Unfortunately, as my

good friend from Massachusetts just pointed out, there are clear indications that the current bill falls far short in several areas and

that, if enacted, will not generate the cross-community support that

a new police service in Northern Ireland needs.

Nearly 1 year ago, on September 24, 1999, Chris Patten and Senator Maurice Hayes appeared before our subcommittee to discuss

the Patten Commission’s 175 recommendations for reforming the

police service in the north of Ireland. At the hearing they described

the themes running through the Commission’s report. The first

thing was accountability, the second was transparency, the third

was respect for human rights, and the fourth was community representative effectiveness and efficiency.

Senator Hayes also said, ‘‘The Holy Grail in all of this is the participation of young Catholic and nationalist people in the police

force.’’ At the meeting with Commissioner Patten, I stressed, as did

many of us here today, that the Patten report actually fell short,

did not go far enough, because there was no vetting of what the

Commission calls ‘‘bad apples,’’ those who had committed egregious

abuses in the past.

Despite this flaw, Mr. Patten and his fellow commissioners

seemed to understand that community policing cannot be achieved

in Northern Ireland without bringing Catholics and nationalists

into a police service that is representative of and accountable to the

community it serves.

Though there was no vetting in the recommendations, there were

other changes that would make the force at least more accountable—an ombudsman, for example, a human rights oath, local

boards that could oversee the police. These methods of accountability are a bare minimum, and Patten himself stated that his report must be taken in full that there would be no cherry picking

if it is to live up to the spirit and the intent of the Good Friday

Agreement.

Unfortunately for the people of Northern Ireland, recent indications, again from London, suggest that the British Government is

out of touch with what it would take to bring the Catholics and the

nationalists into the police service in the north of Ireland. Northern

Ireland Secretary Peter Mandelson insists that the government’s

Police Bill does implement the Patten report and will result in a

reformed police service. The major nationalist political parties,

however, have made clear that they will not encourage their constituents to join the police service until it is reformed in accordance

with all of the Patten recommendations, the 175 recommendations,

and that is their strongest recommendation.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my full statement be made a

part of the record. This resolution again puts us on record, again

expresses a very clear nonambiguous line of thought from the Congress that we want real reform. Band aids, sugar coating, some

change but not going far enough, will not lead to the kind of crediVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:25 Mar 13, 2001 Jkt 068814 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\68814 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
14

bility for the RUC that has been riddled with human rights abuses

in the past. It has got to be done and made over from top to bottom.

Again, this resolution, the upcoming hearing, hopefully will impress upon the members of Parliament in Great Britain that we

are watching very closely and we would like to see some real reform with regard to the RUC.

I thank the Chairman.

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

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the gentleman’s full statement will be made a part of the record. The gentleman will hold

his amendment until we finish the statements and we will continue.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for first of all holding

this important markup today on Resolution 547, legislation expressing the sense of the House with respect to the peace process

in the north of Ireland. Your leadership on Irish issues, as well as

that of Ranking Member Gejdenson, is deeply appreciated by myself and other members of the Irish community.

I would also like to thank my good friend and colleague, Congressman Richard Neal, for introducing Resolution 547 and for all

of his hard work on this and other issues of importance to the

Irish-American community. As Chairman Gilman has pointed out,

although not a member of this Committee, he has cochaired, along

with myself, Chairman Gilman and Representative Pete King of

New York, the congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs. So

I know personally of his deep commitment to these issues.

On June 5, the Northern Ireland Assembly resumed its important work after 4 months in limbo because of the issue of decommissioning. Many in the international community, the press, and

the public placed the blame for the suspension of the Assembly

squarely on the shoulders of the IRA.

Although I disagree with that assessment, I want to point out

that important progress has been made on the issue of decommissioning, the issue that the unionist community has often singled

out as one of great importance. Unfortunately, a delay on a related

issue, one that is of paramount importance to the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, the issue of police reform, has not

been met with the same international criticism.

The Patten Commission report, entitled ‘‘Policing in Northern

Ireland: A New Beginning,’’ was intended to be a compromise on

the very delicate issue of police reform. While many of the unionist

community view the RUC with respect, too many in the nationalist

community have lived under what is considered an occupying army

in the guise of a police force.

The Patten Commission report was undertaken under the authority of the Good Friday Agreement to help change this situation.

From the beginning, people in both communities knew it would be

a compromise between the two sides. While no side was entirely

happy with the 175 specific recommendations, many of the nationalist community felt it was more important to move forward with

the police reform than to hold up the process.

15

I continue to believe that a true new beginning on policing in

Northern Ireland requires a brand-new police force, not changes to

one; that has been viewed with great suspicion by well over 40 percent of the population in the north of Ireland. At the very least, I

view the Patten Commission recommendations as an absolute minimum, not an a la carte menu for the British Government to pick

and choose from.

Unfortunately, the British Government has done exactly that. Instead of adhering to the language and spirit of the Good Friday

Agreement, they are sending legislation through Parliament that

does not fully implement the Patten recommendations. This is not

only wrong, it is dangerous to the peace process.

Dr. Gerald Lynch, a member of the eight-member independent

Patten Commission on Policing and president of New York’s John

Jay College of Criminal Justice, stated that the Patten Commission’s suggestions on reforming the RUC should not be watered

down by the British Government and expresses concern that doing

so could damage the peace process significantly.

The legislation introduced by the British Government will likely

go to the House of Lords in early October and return to the House

of Commons for its final consideration shortly thereafter. That is

why this legislation is of such critical importance and urgently

needed.

I urge my colleagues to cast their vote in favor of this legislation.

I urge the British Government to do the right thing and fully implement the Patten report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Crowley.

Mr. King, another Cochairman of our Irish Ad Hoc Committee.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, I want to commend you for the tremendous leadership you have shown on this issue for many years, particularly of

course during the years as Chairman of this Committee. Along

with Mr. Crowley, I want to commend Mr. Gejdenson for the bipartisan spirit with which he has always engaged this issue; and of

course, Congressman Neal for many years has done a truly outstanding job. I think the fact that he is the author of this resolution today speaks volumes both to his dedication and also to the

concern that so many Americans have in this country that the Patten Commission report is not being fully implemented.

I also want to thank Chairman Smith for the truly landmark

work, ground-breaking work that he has done in pushing forth

human rights issues as far as the whole Irish situation is concerned. His hearings have gone really right to the very heart of

what is wrong with the police system in Northern Ireland, with the

security forces in Northern Ireland, and his amendment today is

just another example of that.

And as far as Mr. Crowley, of course, he has been dedicated for

many years, long before he came to the Congress and even more

so now that he has been in the Congress.

I join in strong support of this resolution today. I concur in everything that has been said by the previous speakers, especially

the fact that, as Chairman Smith said, the Patten Commission report itself was a compromise.

16

The Good Friday Agreement was a compromise. What the British

Government is doing now with the Patten Commission report is attempting to compromise a compromise. It is taking the heart and

soul out of the recommendations of the Patten Commission. It is

emasculating that report. It is coming up with an end product

which is not going to in any way ameliorate the concerns of the nationalist community.

We have to emphasize, when we are talking about the nationalist

community, we are talking about all the political parties in the nationalist community. This is not a partisan issue on that side;

whether it is Sinn Fein, whether it is the SDLP or even others who

are not aligned, they realize that the legislation put forth by the

British Government just takes away the heart and soul of the recommendation of the Patten Commission report.

It is going to result in a police force which is just slightly different from the one that exists today. It is one which young Catholics would not want to join, because they realize the inherent weaknesses and deficiencies, the inherent immorality of the current

force will not have been rooted out. Instead, it is just going to put

a protective covering over the immoral, disgraceful human rights

violating force which is in effect today under the guise of the RUC.

Like the previous speakers, I would have preferred that the RUC

itself be gutted, that it be restructured, that it be abolished, that

it be changed root and branch. The Patten Commission didn’t do

that. As Chairman Smith said last year when Commissioner Patten was in here, we had serious differences with him believing that

his Commission report did not go far enough. Now we find the situation where that report itself is being dramatically watered down.

Police reform in Northern Ireland is a metaphor for the entire

Irish peace process. The immorality the human rights violations,

the bias, the discrimination, the immoral activities of the RUC are

a metaphor for the living conditions under which nationalists have

had to live for the last 80 years. If the police reforms are not enacted, then it is hard to believe and see how the Good Friday

Agreement itself can be enacted.

This has to be all-encompassing. You cannot compromise a compromise. You cannot, in turn, dilute a report which is already diluted enough. If the Patten Commission report is not adopted in

toto by the British Parliament, then I have to agree with Mr.

Lynch and Mr. Crowley—Mr. Lynch being a member of the Patten

Commission, who said that he thinks the peace process itself could

crumble if the Patten Commission report is not enacted in toto.

So I give my strongest endorsement to this resolution today. As

always and on so many previous occasions, I commend Congressman Neal for being a leader, for having the foresight to introduce

this resolution, as he said, to get really unprecedented numbers of

signatures on the letter to Secretary of State Mandelson who

should realize that the United States, no matter which party is in

power in either the White House or Congress, that we stand together as one on this issue. The American people stand together as

one; we will not be divided among partisan lines. We stand together, united, calling for the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and essentially also as an absolute part of that integral part of the Patten Commission report.

17

I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. King.

Mr. Menendez.

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

When I arrived here at the Congress 8 years ago, I joined the Ad

Hoc Caucus—and Menendez is really an Irish name; the Spanish

Armada invaded parts of Ireland, but then they got kicked out.

Nonetheless, I have enjoyed working with Richie and the rest, and

I appreciate his tenacious but balanced approach to the issue. I

think many times he has been a very important voice in moving

us forward.

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, and

I would like to get right to the point. With this Sense of Congress,

we commend the parties for the progress made so far. But we are

also calling on the British Government to come to its senses on the

issue of police reform.

All parties to the peace process in Northern Ireland must be

praised for the progress they have made to date. The Good Friday

Agreement still stands as a remarkable achievement and the best

hope for lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I am pleased also to cosponsor another resolution on Northern Ireland we will deal with

today, one that urges the Nobel Commission to award its Peace

Prize this year to George Mitchell for his untiring efforts to forge

a nonviolent and fully democratic future for Northern Ireland.

The seating of Northern Ireland’s new executive and the ensuing

reestablishment of the power-sharing Assembly have indeed been

crucial to solidifying peace in Northern Ireland. It would not have

been possible had the IRA not allowed its weapons dumps to be inspected and its weapons declared out of commission by a distinguished group of international verifiers led by Martti Ahtisaari and

Cyril Ramaphosa.

Decommissioning was one of the two most pressing and sensitive

issues facing Northern Ireland, but the other is police reform.

Without full implementation of the recommendations of the Patten

Commission, a commission called for in the Good Friday Agreement, the peace process will remain lopsided, and a full peace will

remain elusive.

Common sense calls for a radical change in the police force, for

the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [RUC] (I cannot imagine a more British-sounding name) to be changed; and for the

membership in the police force, now 93 percent Protestant and 7

percent Catholic, to be more equitably formed to reflect the 42 to

58 percent population split in the community.

Here in America, in communities across the country, we raise the

issues of police forces that do not reflect the communities that they

are called upon to serve. And this situation of the Royal Ulster

Constabulary far exceeds any problem that we have in America.

Peace cannot be achieved when those with the badge, the legal authority, but ultimately those with the gun—the ultimate authority

who are supposed to provide peace to the people—are seen as oppressing them.

We are once again at a perilous point. The answers lie in moving

forward to full implementation of the Good Friday Accord, includVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:25 Mar 13, 2001 Jkt 068814 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\68814 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
18

ing the full implementation of the Patten Commission, to full

participatory, accountable and representative government and the

rule of law as is represented in the police force in Northern Ireland, not in stagnation and trepidation.

I am glad to join my voice with all of those of our colleagues in

sending this message, that we must have a police force that is truly

representative of the people of Northern Ireland that they can have

faith in, and that when someone puts on the badge and the ultimate authority of the gun, that people can have faith and confidence that they will be protected as well as served.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.

We will continue right on through the voting. We have one of our

Members going over so that we will not pause for any recess, but

we will continue right on through.

Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to take

this occasion to commend my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Richie Neal, for his leadership, particularly coming from

Massachusetts where so many of our citizens are of Irish-American

heritage. He has certainly demonstrated leadership, vision and a

persistence that is so important to those of us in Massachusetts,

to those of us in America and to people who are concerned about

justice all over the planet.

We are very proud of you, Richie.

I am going to be very brief. I just would echo the sentiments expressed by many who have preceded me. I think the bottom line

here is very clear. If the peace agreement is going to survive, if

there is truly going to be a reform of the police service in Ireland,

there has to be a reconfiguration of the police service. And the most

significant aspect of that is a balance between the demographics of

those that serve in the police force. Clearly, we have heard the statistic already, 93 percent Protestant, 7 percent Catholic; that is just

unacceptable and unconscionable.

It is also clear that if there are not changes in the proposal before the British Parliament today, the nationalists, the Catholics

within Northern Ireland, will not be attracted to the police service

and therefore we will not have the reform that is so necessary to

the fulfillment of the Good Friday Agreement.

I think this is a very important resolution because it does speak,

as Peter King alluded, for all of us—Democrats, Republicans, people from various faiths and different ethnic backgrounds.

I would suggest again that I think it would have been a better

course if we had started from scratch, if the RUC had been abolished and we began again. But that is not the case, that is not the

reality.

But I think it is important to understand that the Patten Commission report has within it a coherence. And I think someone—

it might have been you, Representative Neal, who used the term

‘‘cherry picking.’’ But once you begin to separate and divide and extract pieces here, it loses its coherence; and for those of us who

have a background in law enforcement, we know how significant

and important it is to have that coherence because of its relationship to the community.

19

Clearly, as it is principally being proposed, without amendment,

it will lack that coherence. This is important that I would urge

this, and I know I am confident that this will pass unanimously in

this Committee and hopefully come to the floor.

Again, thank you, Representative Neal, for bringing this to our

attention and leading this cause.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.

I am pleased the Committee is considering this measure, H. Res.

547, a bill introduced by Mr. Neal of Massachusetts; and I want to

thank him for bringing it to our Committee. I joined as an original

cosponsor, as did many on this Committee from both sides of the

aisle who are familiar with the problems in Northern Ireland.

Last spring, the IRA’s efforts at putting arms beyond use and

having that verified by outside observers showed good courage and

good faith. This made it possible for the power-sharing executive to

get up and running, and for real, peaceful democratic change.

As part of that arrangement to restore the executive, in May

2000 the British and Irish Governments made a firm commitment

to the nationalist community to fully implement the Patten Commission policing reforms that form a core portion of the Good Friday Accord for a new beginning in policing. The British Government and the unionists have failed to show a similar good faith

that the IRA has exercised. They need to live up to their agreements in the Good Friday Accord, especially concerning full RUC

police reform as envisioned by the Patten report of September

1999, a report that was issued consistent with the terms of the

Good Friday Accord and was itself a compromise that was not

agreed upon by all.

The Irish National Caucus supports the bill, as does Sinn Fein.

The Socialist Democratic Labor Party, the largest nationalist

Catholic party in the north of Ireland whose leader, John Hume,

was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, wants Patten fully implemented. The SDLP’s Deputy Minister in charge of the new executive has said failure to implement Patten policing proposals will

have a damaging effect on the whole psyche of the fledgling political process. We do not want, nor can we afford that kind of result.

The Washington Post noted in July that the onus remains now

on the British Government to respond to Catholic objections on failure to fully implement all of Patten’s police reforms, since these reforms were part of the agreement on the Good Friday Accord. To

date, they have not responded.

We hope to see full and meaningful police reform happen, not a

continuation of the old British Government/unionist politics being

played with a one-sided veto over the policing issue. The Patten report reforms should and must be fully implemented as is, and done

so now, as promised, and no longer delayed.

A 93 percent Protestant police force is a nearly equally divided

society, which does not have the support and confidence of many

in the nationalist Catholic community. That must be changed as

the Roman Catholic community and the party leaders want, demand, and are entitled to. Politics as usual must end over there.

All of our International Relations Committee Members who want

lasting peace and justice to take hold in Northern Ireland must act

favorably on this. We hope to see change soon.

20

I recognize Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to personally commend the gentleman from Massachusetts, my dear

friend, Mr. Neal, for his authorship of this very important legislation.

I also want to compliment the chief sponsors of this legislation.

You know, with Irish names like Faleomavaega and Campbell and

Neal and Delahunt, how could we do otherwise? I want to associate

myself with all of the compliments and the comprehensive statements that have been made by Members of this Committee on both

sides of the aisle.

And again commending Mr. Neal for doing an outstanding job in

authoring this legislation, I also personally want to commend the

former Senator from Maine, Mr. George Mitchell, for an outstanding job in trying to resolve the very serious problem there in

Northern Ireland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge the Members of our Committee

to pass this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

There will be a brief recess and we will take up the Smith

amendment as soon as we return. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. BEREUTER [presiding]. The Committee will be in order and

resume its markup.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, is recognized for his

statement.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to add my support to H. Res. 547, expressing the

Sense of the House with respect to the peace process in Northern

Ireland. I associate myself with the remarks of the previous speakers as they discussed the Patten Commission. I would like to commend Congressman Richard Neal and the others who have been so

involved with this—Mr. Crowley, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Gilman.

As you may know, I have been very interested and involved in

activities in the north of Ireland, and just this past marching season was again on Garvaghy Road where I stayed during the July

4th Orange Order March in Drumcree. I was there when Johnny

Adair, who is a known drug pusher and criminal, marched with the

Orange Order. It was a disgrace that they would allow such a notorious person to be with their order.

The RUC has to be totally disbanded. The process of bringing in

people at the bottom, which would once again continue to push

those who are currently members of RUC up to positions of authority, would mean that it would take a century before nationalists

could work their way up to any kind of responsible positions.

As a matter of fact, I believe that in the RUC’s oath of office,

members still have to swear allegiance to the Queen. I don’t know

whether a nationalist would feel comfortable because that person

does not represent the thinking of the nationalist community.

They are in the reconstruction of the new organization—they still

have kept some basic incorporations which talk about the old RUC.

So I think that, as was done in Haiti where the police were the

military and they controlled the streets, they disbanded the entire

21

military and started from scratch with the new police force; and

that is really what has to happen here.

The arrogance of Ronnie Flanagan and his officers, their behavior, looking the other way in the case of Rosemary Nelson when she

knew that her life was in jeopardy. The RUC did not provide any

special protection, still the question in the case of Pat Finucane. I

believe that Bloody Sunday should still be opened and reviewed

again, and that is something that we must see happen so that

there can be a true accounting of what happened there in 1972.

I would like to commend Mr. Blair for his initial move in the

right direction; but it seems like there are some forces in Britain

that are pushing Mr. Blair away from his original direction, and

I think it is unfortunate.

So I join with my colleagues. I will continue to push. The marching season once again brings out the worst. They fortunately were

prevented from going down to Lower Ormean Road in Belfast and

also off of Garvaghy Road.

But there have still been the tensions. I believe, as my colleagues

have said, we need to disband the RUC totally and start all over

again. So Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Richie Neal and those who

have brought this resolution to the floor, and I wholeheartedly support it as a cosponsor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you Mr. Payne.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BEREUTER. The clerk will report the amendment.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Smith. Strike the 9th

clause of the preamble and insert the following: Whereas many of

the signatories——’’

Mr. BEREUTER. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of

the amendment be dispensed with. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey to speak to his amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment I have

proposed highlights some of the criticisms that have been voiced by

nationalist parties, human rights groups and other observers of the

policing bill and about the British Government bill’s failure to fully

and faithfully implement the Patten Commission’s recommendations.

Specifically, the amendment notes that the proposed bill would

fail to create key accountability structures envisioned by the Patten

Commission because the bill fails to give the policing board and the

police ombudsman the broad authority they need to conduct inquiries into police practices and policies without political interference.

Mr. Chairman, there is an astonishing new proposal that the secretary of state can overrule—overrule the board if he or she determines that the inquiry would serve, ‘‘no useful purpose.’’ I mean

that just completely vitiates the authority of the board, when for

political reasons the secretary of state for Northern Ireland so construes it. And that is an absolute fatal flaw.

This amendment at least tries to say to the British Government,

we are watching. You can’t expect us to accept that this is a faithful adherence, especially to the Patten recommendations, when you

build in that Achilles heel.

22

The amendment also notes that the British bill would fail to appoint a commissioner to oversee implementation of all of the Patten

Commission’s 175 recommendations and instead would limit the

commissioner to overseeing all those changes in policing which are

decided upon by the British Government.

Finally, the amendment notes that the British Government’s bill

would exempt existing RUC officers from taking an oath expressing

their commitment to uphold human rights, despite the fact that

one of the Patten report’s very first recommendations was that all

new and existing officers take such an oath as an important step

toward focusing the Northern Ireland police service on the human

rights approach. In other words, the same ones that were worried

about that have not been looked at in terms of vetting, because

that was completely bypassed by Patten himself. Now they don’t

even have to take the oath to uphold human rights, a glaring omission on the part of the British Government.

We hope that they will take note of this and make the necessary

changes. I hope the Committee will support the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Are there Members seeking recognition? The gentleman from

Florida.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, only for just a moment of levity.

I support the amendment and the underlying bill and wanted to

compliment Mr. Neal, our colleague, and let him know that Mr.

Payne has spoken in your absence; but I want you to know the rest

of us black Irishmen are with you, too.

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. King.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my cousin,

Mr. Hastings, for his kind remarks.

I want to speak in strong support of Chairman Smith’s amendment. I believe this amendment is entirely compatible with the underlying resolution of Mr. Neal, and it is important when we discuss this issue to realize we are not just talking about philosophical

extractions, we are talking about reality.

The fact is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been guilty

of egregious human rights violations over the years. In just two instances there is strong evidence not just of brutality, not just of violence, but of outright complicity in murder. Just 12 years ago, a

good friend of mine, Patrick Finucane, the human rights lawyer in

Belfast, was murdered, shot dead by loyalist paramilitary forces.

Every month that goes by, increasing evidence comes out of collusion by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in that murder.

I guess it was just 2 years ago, Chairman Smith held a hearing

here, and had a human rights lawyer, Rosemary Nelson, testifying,

saying how she felt her life was being threatened and that she felt

that the security forces, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary,

were hostile to her. Just several months after that she was also

murdered. And again there was increasing evidence that the Royal

Ulster Constabulary was involved in that murder.

So this is what we are talking about. We are not just talking

about a force that occasionally may be brutal, occasionally may be

violent, that maybe has a few bad apples. We are talking about a

police force which is rooted in brutality, rooted in the most graphic

23

and vicious human rights violations and, yes, guilty of murder

itself.

Those of us who follow the situation—and I know it is hard very

often for Americans to realize that the British Government with all

its pomp and ceremony would allow things like this occur in an

area within its jurisdiction—but I find example after example

where the police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in Northern

Ireland gives out confidential information on the homes, the whereabouts, the jobs, the telephone numbers, whatever it is, of prominent Catholics in their communities, gives those to loyalist murderers so that murders can be carried out. This is outright collusion between the police forces and the outlawed paramilitary forces

in Northern Ireland.

This is a way of life. That is why this has to be changed. And

that is why Congressman Neal’s resolution is so important and

why Congressman Smith’s amendment to that resolution is also

vital.

So I strongly support the resolution; I strongly support Chairman

Smith’s amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

If there are no further requests for recognition, the Chair asks

unanimous consent that Chairman Gilman’s statement in support

of the Smith amendment be made a part of the record at this point.

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

The question then is on the Smith amendment. Members who

are in favor will say aye.

Opposed will say no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it.

Are there other Members seeking recognition or seeking to offer

an amendment?

If not, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized

to offer a motion.

Mr. SMITH. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution, H. Res. 547, as amended, on

the suspension calendar.

Mr. BEREUTER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman

from New Jersey. All those in favor of the motion will say aye.

All those opposed will say no.

The ayes have got it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on the measure are postponed.

The Chair asks unanimous consent that we change the order of

the agenda and take up a resolution which should be noncontroversial, until other Members that want to participate in other intervening resolutions have returned. Are there objections?

H. CON. RES. 257—CONCERNING THE IRANIAN BAHA’I COMMUNITY

Hearing no objections, we will now consider H. Con. Res. 257

concerning the emancipation of the Iranian Baha’i Community.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 257, a resolution concerning the

emancipation of the Iranian Baha’i community.’’

24

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and text of the resolution in that order for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994

and 1996, Congress, by concurrent resolution, declared that it

holds——’’

Chairman GILMAN [presiding]. Without objection, the resolution

is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at

any point.

At the request of the Minority, without objection, the measure

will be set aside. We will proceed to the next measure.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is, I think, an appropriate time as the Nobel Commission

will soon be making its—oh, we are back to the Baha’i resolution.

H. CON. RES. 242—URGING THAT FORMER SENATOR GEORGE MITCHELL

BE AWARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE

Chairman GILMAN. We will now proceed with the Mitchell resolution. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 242 urging that the Nobel

Peace Prize be awarded to former Senator George Mitchell.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 242, to urge the Nobel Commission

to award the Year 2000 Nobel Prize for Peace to former——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and the text of resolution in that order for amendment. The

clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas Senator Mitchell has worked tirelessly

over the past 4 years——’’

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

The Chair recognizes the sponsor of the resolution, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Gejdenson, to introduce the resolution to the Committee.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for supporting this resolution.

It is clear as we approach the time that the Nobel Committee

will make its decision, this is an appropriate time to move this resolution. George Mitchell has worked tirelessly over the past 4 years

to bring peace to the region, to end strife and violence in an area

where more than 3,200 have been killed, and thousands more have

been injured. At times when others would have walked away, Senator Mitchell continued to return to make every effort possible in

trying to revive negotiations when they appeared to be at a hopeless and stalled deadlock at one point.

Finally, in September 1999, Senator Mitchell went back for one

more try and has moved us to where we are today, where we can

really see hope for the future in Northern Ireland.

Those of us who, like yourself, Mr. Chairman, and I and others

who worked with Senator Mitchell, know his basic, steady, decent

approach, his endless efforts toward resolving the crisis in Northern Ireland. He is someone for whom all of us who have worked

with him have a great respect.

25

Support from the press across the country for this resolution has

been significant. So I thank you for bringing this forward and urge

that it pass rapidly to the floor to make sure that the Nobel Committee knows of the broad support for Senator Mitchell’s efforts

here in the Congress.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Is there any other Member seeking recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will be very brief because I know there are

other Members who have been much more active on this issue.

Let me just say that I think that Senator Mitchell deserves our

highest bipartisan praise for what he has been doing, and you are

going to hear me say something now that you rarely have heard

me say. I think President Clinton deserves a pat on the back for

this as well.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Just fearing that my age is starting to affect my

hearing, could the gentleman please repeat that last statement? I

am not sure that I heard it correctly.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will. I think that President Clinton does deserve praise for his efforts to bring peace in Northern Ireland,

which has been a very vexing problem. And President Clinton has

also been very active and deserves our commendation for the work

that he has done in the Middle East, as well.

But as the Nobel Prize Committee meets—and we could recognize that there has been a great convergence here—we have a situation where sides were so far apart 5 and 6 years ago. Through

Senator Mitchell’s tireless efforts, they brought them much closer

together and there is a real chance for peace.

I recently visited Ireland on the way back from a trip, a CODEL

to the Soviet Union. We had a chance to speak to the Prime Minister of Ireland, and he is very optimistic, and that optimism wasn’t

always there. That optimism was caused by the hard work of, first,

the commitment of this Administration, the Clinton Administration, and the hard work of Senator Mitchell.

Let me just say that from the last debate, it is clear and should

be made clear to everyone that when the British retreated from

their empire in the middle of the last century—and it was the last

century, it was in the 1900’s now when you think about it—that

they left time bombs all over the world. They may well have dominated—the British Empire, Rule Britannia, may have created a

certain kind of peace in the world for a number of decades during

the last century, but Rule Britannia left behind time bombs

throughout their former empire, as can now be seen in Northern

Ireland. And it has taken a lot of time to try to diffuse the time

bomb they left there; but it can also be seen in Africa, can also be

seen in, for example, the faraway Fiji Islands.

The type of problems that were left behind, it is incumbent upon

us, as a democratic people who would like to be peacemakers in

this world, to not only do our best, but to recognize those people

like Senator Mitchell who are representing the very best of our

country in trying to promote peace and maybe to clean up after the

British, who left these problems behind for us.

26

So, with that, I support the legislation and thank Mr. Gejdenson

and others who have spent time promoting it.

I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. King.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to commend

Mr. Gejdenson and certainly join in the remarks of Dana Rohrabacher.

This certainly is an historic moment. I am delighted I had the

honor of being here to witness it. I would also say that I think

Dana did put this in perspective when he spoke about the time

bombs left behind by the British. While Britannia may rule the

waves, it really can’t waive the rules.

The fact is, they waive too many international rules when dealing within their countries, such as Ireland and others. And Senator

Mitchell deserves tremendous credit for the time and effort that he

put in. The seemingly limitless patience that he had and the brilliancy he was able to show in bringing the parties together, first

for the Good Friday Agreement, and then last fall, which really did

pave the way for the IRA statement of last June that has resulted

in the Northern Ireland Assembly being set up.

So this is an issue which, depending on where you want to draw

the time line or begin the time line, has vexed diplomats for either

800 years or 300 years or 80 years or 30 years. The fact is, it was

Senator Mitchell who was most instrumental in resolving the centuries-old dispute, and certainly the Nobel Peace Prize will be a fitting tribute for the tremendous work that he has done. I support

the resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. King.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would say to Mr. Gejdenson, I was not made aware of the fact

that you were ready to take up in your resolution.

I certainly will support the resolution before us, which gives special recommendation with respect to the Nobel Peace Prize for Senator Mitchell. I also want to recognize that Senators Lugar and

Nunn have been nominated by international sources for the Nobel

Peace Prize.

This congressional initiative was and is of increasingly fundamental importance to the well-being of the United States and the

world. And the fact that we are having this specific resolution supporting the nomination and award to Senator Mitchell should not

detract from our very strong bipartisan support for our former colleague from Georgia and our current colleague, the Senior Senator

from Indiana.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. I join in strong support of this resolution. As I indicated, I have been very involved in this situation in the north of

Ireland and know many of the players from all sides, and I have

to really commend Senator Mitchell for his patience.

He makes Job look like an amateur, his patience has been so outstanding. For hours and hours and days and days and weeks and

27

weeks, he would sit and listen to issues and incidents that occurred

1,000 years ago—not 1,000 but 500 years ago and 400 years ago

and 300 years ago. People who said they would never sit at the

table together, never would shake a person’s hand, sat at the table

because Senator Mitchell just would not take ‘‘no.’’ He would say

whenever there was an obstacle, he would just confront it and take

it on.

It takes a certain kind of personality and commitment, tenacity,

patience, ability, and Senator Mitchell certainly possesses all of

those qualities. He could have been doing other things with his

time. But he dedicated his life and those years to negotiations.

So I think there is no person more fitting at this time to receive

the award than our former colleague, Senator Mitchell.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, H.

Con. Res. 242, that was introduced by Mr. Gejdenson. It is a resolution that now has more than 50 cosponsors in broad bipartisan

support.

In the resolution, Congress justifiably urges the Nobel Commission to award the Nobel Peace Prize for the year 2000 to former

Senator George Mitchell for his extraordinary and impressive efforts in securing the peace in Northern Ireland.

Few observers of the lasting peace and justice in the north of Ireland could not help but agree with this resolution. Senator Mitchell

surely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his successful efforts in

bringing together a comprehensive and fair agreement to the ageold struggle between the two traditions in that troubled region.

More than 3,000 people have died in the last 30 years in the ‘‘troubles’’ in Northern Ireland. The hatreds, misunderstandings,

and mistrust run very deep. There was an enormous trust deficit

that had to be breached, and Senator Mitchell did so in brokering

the peace.

Senator Mitchell, with his ability to listen, his fundamental sense

of fairness, and his integrity and impartiality fully breached those

age-old and wide gaps between the two traditions in Northern Ireland. Eventually, after years of hard work and dedication, he brokered a complex power-sharing agreement between the parties, a

power-sharing agreement that later won wide support from the

people of Ireland and referendum both in the north and in the

south.

Senator Mitchell’s efforts in securing the Good Friday Agreement

in April 1998, and his subsequent efforts at ensuring implementation of the new power-sharing institutions were expressions of the

master of the possible. All of this effort and resulting progress is

a strong testament to the extraordinary diplomatic efforts and

skills of Senator Mitchell in bringing all sides together.

Senator Mitchell said recently that the peace process in the north

of Ireland is irreversible. As a long-time observer of that situation,

I agree. The people want peace and they want reconciliation. The

tide of history is on the side of the peace process that George

Mitchell started. Much more, of course, needs to be done on the

ground to bring about a permanent, peaceful change and the reconciliation in Northern Ireland, especially on policing reform relating to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

28

The path has now been cleared for real and much-needed change.

The Irish people and both governments must now insist on adherence to the Good Friday Accord. Sadly, some insist on not living up

to the Accord. However, that should not be a reflection on George

Mitchell.

Today, the British Government is playing politics with the policing issue in not implementing the full Patten Commission police reforms that were intended under the terms of the negotiated Good

Friday Accord to depoliticize the police. What we need now is a

new beginning on policing and a new police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole, as

envisioned by the Good Friday Accord.

What Senator Mitchell achieved ought to be faithfully adhered to

by all parties in both governments in the region. Senator Mitchell

deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for these extraordinary efforts. This

resolution before us puts Congress on record in favor of that proposition, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Gejdenson, the author of the resolution, is further recognized.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just appreciate

your support and urge passage of the bill.

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition or seeking to offer any amendments?

If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized

to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. I move the Chairman request to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska,

and 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 measure are now postponed.

H.J. RES. 100—25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HELSINKI FINAL ACT

We will now move to consider H.J. Res. 100, asking the President

to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

The clerk will now report the title of the joint resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H.J. Res. 100, a resolution calling upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 25th anniversary of

the Helsinki Final Act.’’

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution is in the original jurisdiction

of the Full Committee.

Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and text in

that order for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas August 1, 2000, is the 25th Anniversary

of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in

Europe [CSCE], renamed the Organization——’’

Chairman GILMAN. The resolution is considered as having been

read. We will now consider the resolution.

It was introduced by the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the

29

gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, who is now recognized to

introduce the resolution to the Committee.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

H.J. Res. 100 commemorates the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act and international accords signed by 35 countries,

including the United States and the former Soviet Union.

No doubt the Final Act represents a milestone in European history. This resolution has 40 cosponsors, including all of my fellow

Helsinki commissioners, and we introduced it back on June 8; a

companion resolution, H.J. Res. 48, passed the Senate on July 27.

As you know, we had hoped to schedule consideration of this

prior to the August recess. With its language on human rights, the

Helsinki Final Act granted human rights the status of a fundamental principle in regulating international relations. The Final

Act’s emphasis on respect for human rights in the fundamental

freedoms is rooted in the recognition that the declaration of such

rights affirms the inherent dignity of men and women and are not

privileges bestowed at the whim or caprice of the state.

The Helsinki Final Act and the process it originated was instrumental in consigning the communist Soviet empire, responsible for

untold violations of human rights, to the dust bin of history. The

standards of Helsinki, which served as a valuable lever in pressing

human rights issues, also provided encouragement and sustenance

to courageous individuals who dared to challenge repressive communist regimes.

Many of these brave men and women, including members of the

Helsinki monitoring groups in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia,

Armenia, and similar groups in Poland and Czechoslovakia, Soviet

Jewish immigration activists, members of repressed Christian denominations and origins, paid a high price in the loss of personal

freedom, and in some instances, their lives, for their act of support

of principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act. Without these

Helsinki human rights activists, indeed without the Helsinki process and its emphasis on human rights, it is likely that the momentous events of 1989 and 1991 would not have occurred.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, Mr.

Chairman, the OSCE region has changed dramatically. In many

OSCE states, we have witnessed transformations and the consolidation of the core OSCE values of democracy, human rights, and

the rule of law. In others, there has been little, if any, progress;

and in some, armed conflicts have resulted in hundreds of thousands having been killed in grotesque violation of human rights.

Today, we have the equivalent. The Helsinki monitors human

rights defenders who call upon their government to uphold human

rights commitments in places such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,

Belarus and even in Northern Ireland. The OSCE, which now includes 54 participating states, has changed to reflect the changed

international environment, undertaking a variety of initiatives designed to prevent, manage, and resolve conflict and emphasizing

the rule of law in respect for the rule of law and the fight against

organized crime and corruption which constitute the threat against

economic reform and prosperity.

The Helsinki process is still dynamic and active, and the importance of a vigorous review in which countries are called to account

30

for violations of their freely undertaken Helsinki commitments has

not diminished.

In fact, next month in Warsaw there will be another in a series

of meetings of the OSCE to review implementation of the OSCE

human rights commitments made by countries. This resolution

again calls upon the OSCE states to abide by their commitments

under the Helsinki Final Act, recognizing that respect for human

rights and fundamental freedoms, democratic principles, economic

liberty and related commitments continue to be vital elements in

promoting a new era of democracy, peace, and the rule of law.

In the 25 years since this historic process was initiated in Helsinki, there have been many, many successes. The task is far from

complete. Let’s continue on, and this resolution puts us behind that

effort.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gejdenson had

planned to yield time to me and I appreciate you very much for

doing so.

Of course I offer deep gratitude to Mr. Smith of New Jersey for

introducing this timely and very important resolution. And thank

you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this to the Full Committee today.

My colleagues, it gives me special pride to speak about the 25th

anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. As has already been detailed

by Mr. Smith, the Helsinki Final Act led to the formation of the

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which we now

call the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

[OSCE]. As many of our colleagues know, I have been an active

participant in the last six congressional delegations to the annual

meetings of the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly. In fact, I sit before you today not only as a Member of this distinguished Committee, but also as a Chairperson of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Political Affairs and Security.

So as I said, it gives me special pride to speak on Chairman

Smith’s bill and to briefly explain why I feel it is so critical that

Congress recognize this milestone.

When the Helsinki Final Act was signed 25 years ago, the world

was a much different place. The Cold War was still actively being

waged, and there were literally dozens of nations still hidden to the

world by the Iron Curtain. The Helsinki Final Act was a hope, and

the resulting OSCE was the fulfillment of that hope.

We have seen many changes in recent years, particularly within

the OSCE region. We have witnessed the rebirth of democracy in

Eastern Europe and the evolution of some of these states into stable economic and democratic countries. However, our work is not

complete. As long as there is a continuum of human rights violations within our circles, we must not—indeed, we will not—stand

still.

Mr. Chairman, as we begin the new century and the new millennium, we enter a time of change and adaptation. When I reflect

upon the technological and political advances we made in the last

25 years, from the development of the Internet to the almost complete extermination of totalitarian regimes, with some significant

and conspicuous exceptions, I cannot even imagine what the world

31

will be like 25 years from now. I do, however, have no doubt that

the OSCE will continue to play a vital role in helping the members

of the organization, as well as the other countries of the world, not

just to adjust to the global shifts of governmental structures but to

prosper from them as well.

While we advance in the technological and political world, we

have retracted in other areas. The human rights violations that are

presently taking place in some OSCE countries are not traits to be

found in the modern age, but rather in the Middle Ages. But it is

because of the success of the Helsinki Final Act and the OSCE that

these are occurrences that are becoming more and more rare.

While Mr. Smith has been nothing less than stellar in his current chairmanship of the Helsinki Commission during the 106th

Congress, I want to salute a former chairman of the Commission

who also was critical in establishing the CSCE, and that is Steny

Hoyer, the Commission’s current Ranking Member.

Additionally, I would appreciate an opportunity, Mr. Chairman,

to point with some parochial interest that it is my good friend and

yours and many Members of this Committee, our late former colleague from Florida, Dante Fascell, who was instrumental in the

establishment of the CSCE. Dante’s spirit continues in Congress

today for any Member of this body who realizes that the world does

not end at the boundaries of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 100,

and I am pleased to be an active member of the OSCE. I commend

Chairman Smith for bringing this resolution before us and thank

you for bringing it before the Full Committee today.

Mr. Chairman, the world is becoming a better place every day.

The OSCE plays a critical role in this reality. It is therefore altogether fitting and appropriate that we recognize the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. I urge the Full Committee to support Mr. Smith’s resolution and bring it to the House floor.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. Does any other

Member seek recognition?

If not, I want to express my strong support for the resolution offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, honoring the

Helsinki Final Act in light of the recent 25th anniversary, its signing and calling on the President to reassert the United States’ commitment to its implementation.

The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, the

OSCE, created by the Helsinki Act of 1975, is actually not a security alliance. The OSCE is also not based on any ratified treaty

with provisions that are binding on its signatories. And yet, the

OSCE and the agreement that established the Helsinki Final Act

have proven extremely influential in modern European affairs, both

during the Cold War and in today’s post-Cold War world.

As the resolution notes, the Helsinki Act inspired many of those

seeking freedom from Communism to create nongovernmental organizations to monitor their governments’ compliance with the

human rights commitments made by communist regimes in Helsinki in 1975. Those groups—their efforts, in turn, helped speed

the end of those communist regimes and the end of the Cold War

itself.

32

Today’s OSCE, in continuing to hold up to the Helsinki Act signatory, states the standards that they should aspire to meet—particularly with regard to respect for human and political rights—

continues to play a very beneficial role. Moreover, since the OSCE

includes in the ranks of its participatory states almost all of the

states of Europe, those states have agreed to grant the OSCE a

greater role in conflict prevention and conflict resolution—again, in

spite of the fact that it is not a traditional treaty-based security organization.

I am certain that as we continue to work toward a Europe and

the North Atlantic community of states that it is truly democratic

‘‘from Vancouver to Vladivostok,’’ the OSCE will continue to play

a vital role.

I am pleased to support this resolution, and I commend Mr.

Smith for his strong support of the OSCE, along with Mr.

Hastings.

Are there any other Members who seek recognition?

If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized

to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska.

All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

As many as are 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 counterpart

from the Senate. Further proceedings on this measure are now

postponed.

H.R. 1064—SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO DEMOCRACY ACT OF 1999

We now move to consider H.R. 1064, the Serbia and Montenegro

Democracy Act of 1999. This bill was introduced by the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.

Smith.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

The clerk will report the title of this bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H.R. 1064, a bill to authorize a coordinated program to promote the development of democracy in Serbia and Montenegro.’’

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——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill will be considered

as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, who I understand has an

amendment which he may want to offer.

33

Mr. SMITH. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute

to H.R. 1064.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has offered an amendment.

The clerk will report the amendment.

The clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Smith. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert

the following——’’

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read.

Mr. Smith is recognized on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1064,

the Serbia and Montenegro Democracy Act. The amendment which

I circulated in the Dear Colleague to Members incorporates language supported in the Senate and by the Department of State.

It is important for this Committee and this Congress to support

those seeking democratic change in Serbia, as well as those undertaking democratic change in Montenegro. This amendment does

just that. It updates the original bill which was introduced in February 1999, and is based on language which passed the Senate by

unanimous consent last year.

In preparing this amendment, my staff worked closely with the

Senate staff, our own majority-minority staff, and the State Department, to find a text that we could all support; and funds authorized to support democracy in Serbia and Montenegro correspond to those of the President’s original budget request for fiscal

year 2001. I also note that the language of this amendment parallels some of that originally introduced in H.R. 1373 by our colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Sanford.

The amendment also calls for maintaining sanctions on Serbia

until such time that democratic change is under way.

Reflective of another resolution, H. Con. Res. 118, which I introduced last year, the amendment supports the efforts of the International Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to bring those

responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including

Slobodan Milosevic, to justice.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members consider this amendment in

the nature of a substitute favorably, and I yield back the balance

of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Is there any Member seeking recognition?

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I support the legislation of the gentleman from New Jersey. But before I give my final vote, I wonder

if the Administration has any position on this legislation. Would

anyone from the Administration like to address——

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentlelady please indicate her

name and title.

Ms. COOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Shirley

Cooks; I am from the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the State Department.

34

I would like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to ask Ambassador Napper to comment on this legislation.

Chairman GILMAN. Ambassador Napper, would you please take

the witness chair and, again, identify full name and title.

Mr. NAPPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Larry Napper. I am the coordinator for the East European Assistance Program in the State Department.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your work on this legislation, bringing it before the Committee, the support of Mr. Gejdenson, of Members from both sides of the aisle, and particularly

Chairman Smith’s initiatives in bringing this important legislation

forward.

The State Department fully supports the effort here to send a

strong signal of support for democratic forces in Serbia. We especially appreciate the efforts that have been undertaken by Mr.

Smith and members of his staff to consult with us about the language in the bill. We are supportive of it, and strongly so.

We do hope, in the period between today and the time when the

bill finally comes to the floor, that there will be an opportunity to

continue dialogue on certain technical wording in the bill, which we

think could clarify some of the provisions. We don’t seek that

today, but we do hope there will be an openness to working with

the staff here and the staff in the Senate on a couple of what we

regard as purely technical fixes, but they can be of some importance.

Chairman GILMAN. We will be pleased to work along with you on

that.

Mr. NAPPER. If I might mention just one, Mr. Chairman, very

quickly, and I will finish. That is, in Section 408 where there is a

waiver for the President in the event of a democratic change, a

positive change, a new democratic Serbia, to lift some of the existing sanctions and to provide assistance. We think it important that

what we take to be the intent of both this Committee and in the

Senate, to make it possible not only to provide assistance but also

to provide a positive vote in the international financial institutions,

be clearly enough delineated so that it will be clear in that event

that we can take those actions.

So again, we think that kind of thing can be done in a very technical way and we appreciate your expression of willingness to work

with us. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ambassador.

Is there any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. I would yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just a very

quick comment on page 5, line 21 through 24. This is a sense of

Congress so I will not offer an amendment, but it seems to me that

it may at some point be appropriate, for the sake of all of the objectives of the legislation, to meet with President Milosevic, not that

I have any commending or positive feelings toward him in the

slightest. But that sometimes it is necessary to meet with the person in charge in order to make progress.

As I say, it is only a sense of Congress, but I think it is worth

noting that it may be going a little too far to say that we not meet

35

with an individual. The prior clause seems to be adequate, which

says to minimize to the extent practicable any direct contacts with

the officials of the Yugoslav or Serbian Governments.

I don’t make a motion to that extent because it is only a sense

of Congress.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. I would just want to speak on behalf of Mr.

Smith’s amendment in that basically I had offered a bill that had

many of the same provisions back in April of last year with the belief that we need to come up with some counter-strategy, some alternative strategy, in dealing with Milosevic.

I think what this bill really begs is the larger point of what are

we doing in that part of the world. Because if you look at the operations, if you look at the amount of money we spent in both Kosovo

and in the skies over Serbia, with the region, if you look at the

total of basically $15.7 billion that was spent of the United States

taxpayer’s money over the last couple of years in the Balkans, I

guess the question has to be, where does this end?

Because what this bill attempts to do is look at Montenegro and

what is going to happen there over the next couple of years. If we

have not begun to help out with some kind of democracy building

as some alternative to our current strategy, we are going to be in

there, in yet a third spot, with troops in armament; and I think

that will be a horrendous mistake.

I think the overall issue needs to be examined regarding our

strategy in the Balkans and what is our exit strategy because of,

again, the overall numbers. I look at the different operations—I

have enumerated them here, and I will submit these for the

record—but military operations in Kosovo, $3.3 billion; refugee operations—Noble Anvil, Joint Guardian, Balkan Call, Eagle Eye,

Sustained Hope, Task Force Hawk, $5 billion in Kosovo alone—and

you add back Bosnia, you add what we are looking to in the future

in an area like Montenegro, and you see basically American troops

bowled down in that part of the world for years upon years upon

years.

So I would applaud Mr. Smith’s efforts on this amendment and

I would beg that the Administration come up with some kind of

strategy other than sending troops and bombs through the sky in

dealing with the Balkans, because that seems to be our current

strategy, and I think that this is a pleasant alternative.

With that, I would yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sanford.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I will be very brief. I thank Mr. Sanford for the text

and the leadership he provided by his legislation.

Let me just note very strongly that this is bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Gilman obviously is a cosponsor with Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Engle,

Mrs. Slaughter, Mr. Moran, to name just a few of those who are

cosponsors in addition to a number of Republicans. So we are trying to send a clear message that democracy building, strengthening

the NGO’s, and building up the free independent media are vitally

important.

36

I just would note, in response to Mr. Sanford again, we had a

hearing with the Helsinki Commission in February devoted to the

deteriorating situation in Montenegro and the fact that their efforts

at reform were gravely threatened, and we had an update with at

least one witness in July, an additional hearing. So they are at

risk.

This money hopefully will go toward strengthening and spreading out the root system for those who believe in democracy and

human rights in Montenegro.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Is there any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I too support this legislation. I do

think though that it does talk about assistance to promote democracy in a civil society. It talks about authority for radio and television broadcasting, and it talks about ways that we would try to

strengthen civil society, to try to strengthen the judiciary and the

Administration of justice and the transparency of political parties.

So I agree that we don’t need to send bombs and tanks all

around, but I see in this legislation, as a matter of fact, those

things aren’t mentioned. We are talking about trying to create an

atmosphere where we can have dialogue and democracy moving

forward.

So I think that Mr. Smith has a good sense of the situation, and

I support the gentleman from New Jersey.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

If not, I would like to comment on the bill H.R. 1064 introduced

by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, as well as the

amendment in the nature of a substitute that I understand he has

offered to the original text. My colleague from New Jersey has

rightfully earned his reputation as a strong supporter of democracy

and human rights around the world, and both his bill as introduced

and his amendment to that bill demonstrate once again that this

is the case.

The people of Serbia need to know that our Nation does not wish

to have antagonistic relations with their country. They need to

know, instead, our nation is simply opposed to the kinds of policies

that their country has pursued under the leadership of Mr.

Milosevic.

They also need to know that our nation supports the cause of

true democracy in Serbia, just as it does in the rest of Europe; that

Serbia is a European country, and deserves a place at the European table once it has started down the road of real democracy,

real reform, and real respect for human rights.

Regrettably, Slobodan Milosevic has proven himself a master of

manipulation of Serbian patriotism and of Serbian nationalist

fears. Milosevic has employed the ethnic distrust and unrest that

surrounded the breakup of the former communist Yugoslav federation to portray himself as a protector of Serbian rights.

Instead, he has simply led Serbia down the road to ruin. While

Serbia’s economy today lies in shambles and its people face a future that promises nothing better, Mr. Milosevic lingers on, surVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:25 Mar 13, 2001 Jkt 068814 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\68814 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
37

rounded by a web of corruption, mysterious murders, political manipulation, and state repression.

And, after yet another series of manipulative steps, Milosevic has

now set the groundwork for his election to yet another term as

Yugoslav president later on this month, an the election that most

likely will be rigged to ensure that very outcome.

This bill makes it clear that our nation has not given up on, and

will not give up on, the freedom of the nation of Serbia and the effort to create a true democracy there. This bill’s passage should

make that clear to the Serbian people.

Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to join in supporting this

measure.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition? Are there any

amendments to the amendment? If there are no further amendments, without objection the previous question is ordered on the

amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without objection, the

amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.

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 bill, as amended, on

the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. Those in favor of the motion

signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it; the

motion is agreed to.

Without objection the Chair or his designee is authorized to

make motions under Rule 20 with respect to a conference on the

bill or counterpart from the Senate.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

H. RES. 451—RELATING TO THE FUTURE OF KOSOVO

We will now move on to consider H. Res. 451 relating to the future of Kosovo.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk

will report the title of the resolution.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Res. 451, a resolution calling for lasting peace,

justice, and stability in Kosovo.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and the text of the resolution in that order for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas on June 10, 1999, the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization——’’

Chairman GILMAN. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment and distribute the amendment.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman. Strike the

preamble and insert the following: Whereas on June 10, 1999 the

North——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as having been read. It is now

open at any point for amendment. I will recognize myself briefly

and introduce the amendment to the Committee.

38

When I introduced this resolution last April, there were numerous problems in evidence concerning the U.N. mission in Kosovo.

Since that time some of those difficulties have been mitigated. A

number, however, have not; and, accordingly, I have introduced an

amendment in the nature of a substitute at this time for the Committee’s consideration. I would like to thank our Ranking Member,

the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, for his assistance

and suggestions that make this amendment a bipartisan effort.

Our principal concern is that the international community, rather than fostering a self-reliant and prosperous Kosovar-run Kosova,

is creating a new international dependency, hooked on assistance

funds and the presence of numerous international aid workers.

What seems to have been overlooked in the current approach is the

fact that prior to the move to strip away Kosova’s political autonomy in 1989, and even during the decade of oppression the

Kosovars suffered under Milosevic, the Kosovar people demonstrated a remarkable amount of initiative, hardihood, and economic skill. These characteristics should be part of our strategy in

restoring Kosova’s economy, and not largely ignored.

Another problem is the plight of thousands of Kosovars who are

being illegally detained in Serbia. Some of these individuals were

taken in the final hours of Serbia’s sway over Kosova last June as

virtual hostages. They include some of the leading intellectual

lights of Kosovar society—doctors, lawyers, journalists, and teachers. The fact that the international community has remained nearly mute in the face of their continued detention is disappointing,

and the refusal of the U.N. Security Council to demand their immediate release is frankly outrageous. Until the Kosovar detainees

have been released and accounted for, no real peace will come to

Kosova.

The important industrial town of Mitrovice remains a divided

city where international peacekeepers have been unable to return

hundreds of ethnic Albanian residents to their homes. Failure to

resolve this issue leaves a shadow of possible partition still hanging

over Kosova.

Another problem in the United Nations’ approach to its Kosova

mission is the issue of who should be able to control and operate

important economic assets such as the Trepca mines. Although

there have been recent steps to explore reopening of this most important economic asset, for many months the United Nations did

not take action because of its fears that Serb ownership was an obstacle.

Elections have been scheduled in 30 municipalities throughout

Kosova for October 28. This resolution calls upon all citizens of

Kosova to avail themselves of the democratic process and to peacefully express their political preferences. Let us hope that the adoption of this resolution and those upcoming elections will provide the

beginning of the journey to a lasting and just peace for Kosova. I

urge our Members to support this amendment.

Are there any Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I want to thank you for working out a resolution

that we can all broadly support. I think it is important for us to

remember that with all the problems we face today in Kosova, it

39

is clear that the United States led an effort to prevent what would

have been an outrageous atrocity and holocaust. It is very easy to

find that where we are today is difficult and we face many challenges.

Today on the floor we have passed a resolution concerning the

Holocaust memorial in this country. I think Americans need to understand that what we did is the right thing. With all the problems

that are associated with preventing the slaughter of thousands of

Kosovar Albanians, the alternative would have been the United

States and the world standing by watching innocent civilians

slaughtered yet once again. We talked—I talked to Mr. Smith earlier today about finding a way to have forces in the United Nations

that would be more reactive when there are these kinds of human

rights crises in the world.

We have sat by all too often in Africa and Asia; we have seen

U.N. workers and one American killed recently in West Timor.

What we did in Kosova is why the world looks to America for

leadership. We did it without any self-interest. We did it for the

right reasons. We prevented the death of thousands of women and

children, and for that we should be very proud. I thank the Chairman for working with us to come up with a resolution we can all

support.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank you very much. I want to commend you

for your initiative. The substitute before us, I think, certainly does

take into account, where appropriate, information that has been

conveyed to us by the European community. I am very concerned

about what is happening in Kosovo as we all should be. We should

not have any impression that things are going well. Members of

Congress and people across the country should understand that

things are not proceeding well. The level of violence in Kosovo is

continuing to be high. We have murders of the Serbian ethnics

going on there. We are not able to stop it. Across the line in Serbia

we have murders of Albanian ethnics by Serbian interests and individuals.

Mr. Gejdenson puts a very positive construction on what the Administration’s role in the war against Yugoslavia resulted in and

how it started. I do not agree with that kind of construction whatsoever. I think we need to speak out when we see an operation so

badly handled. The peace accord put before the Yugoslavians and

the KLA and other Albanian Kosovars was unacceptable to both

sides. We pushed ahead with a war against Yugoslavia that was

at least premature. The military operations with their gradual upgrading of bombing were inappropriate, and this country pushed

that effort through NATO.

We in this Administration are responsible for the very ineffective

way that that war was waged. We should not have been engaged

in bombing Yugoslavia at that stage. We did not exhaust even in

the short term the kind of alternatives that were available. The

peace proposal at Rambouillet was of course unacceptable to the

Albanian Kosovars. They did not want some degree of autonomy

from Yugoslavia; they wanted independence. We put before the

40

Yugoslavians something that totally was unacceptable and, naturally so, to them.

This was a war that should not have started at this point; and

to put the proper construction on it, we need to be truthful about

what happened there. But in any case, the resolution presented by

the Chairman is entirely appropriate; and it urges a much larger,

more effective European role as well as activities driven by organizations; and I support the resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Do any other Members seek recognition?

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I think it is critical that we strongly condemn all the

violence that is occurring in Kosova today, also regardless of the

ethnicity of the victim or the culprit. This resolution puts us four

square—and I think it is very important that in item No. 9 you

point out that all citizens of Kosova should adhere to the principles

enunciated where all parties agree to a rigorous campaign against

violence. Just because the bombs have stopped—and I too disagree

with the bombing—but now making peace is turning out to be

much more problematic and vexing as well. Retaliatory hits again

Serbs are so less egregious than hits on Kosovar Albanians. I think

we need to send that clear unambiguous message to all involved.

We want peace. We want people to be treated with respect and dignity. This resolution, again, keeps us focused on that very important goal.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I support the resolution although it seems that we all have a different take on what happened in Kosova. I think as we sit here and

say we moved prematurely only hundreds of Albanians were being

killed today and we should not have moved, it was premature.

Maybe we should have waited until thousands a day were killed.

That is what we did in Rwanda, where we saw close to a million

people killed because we sat around and we twiddled our thumbs.

We wouldn’t use the word genocide. We allowed that country to

have 700,000, 800,000 people killed because it wasn’t enough and

we sat around.

And so in Kosova, where the situation was not nearly as grave

but it was very serious, action had to be taken. As we know, our

troops will no longer be put on the ground. There is no more use

of ground troops around the world because we don’t want to put

our troops in harm’s way. Although we are the world’s mightiest

power, we have a no-casualty philosophy, I suppose. That is good,

but if you are going to be a world power, you are going to be a

paper tiger if everyone knows you will never put your troops in

harm’s way unless people are coming up on your shores.

Therefore, the only other alternative is to let the people continue

to be slaughtered or to use the next best thing, where you lose no

people, by using the air strike. I am not a military man. I don’t

know how to evaluate effectiveness. I have never flown a plane or

dropped a bomb or shot a gun. But I do know that people have

been killed, innocent people. We saw Sierra Leone, where people’s

arms were chopped off and maimed or killed. Thankfully, the NigeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:25 Mar 13, 2001 Jkt 068814 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\68814 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
41

rians, even though their country was run by a military dictator, did

send in troops to try to prevent the continued maiming and slaughter of innocent women, primarily, and children.

So I don’t know what the solution is that some of us might have

when you see the inhumanity to man going on. We say it is premature. When is it not premature? When is a death not a death?

I think we have to take a look at where we are going in the world

because a world with no order, with no so-called policing, is going

to be a place of total chaos. So I supported the President’s bold

move. I think it took courage for him to urge NATO to take the

action that it did, and I think that many lives were saved. I think

that some of the failure was because of the position of not having

collateral damage to try to avoid the killing of innocent civilians.

It wasn’t like Hiroshima, where you drop a bomb and everybody

just dies.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for a little opportunity for a debate here.

I want to say to the gentleman that I think that U.S. policy with

respect to its nonintervention in Rwanda was definitely a tragic

error. I think we were affected by the failures and the inept way

that things were handled in Somalia. We were unwilling, therefore,

to take a chance and do what was right.

But I do think the parallels between Rwanda and Kosovo are not

appropriate. I would just suggest that by our premature—what I

consider to be a premature—effort to give peace a chance there, we

got all the international observers out of Kosovo. We facilitated

ethnic cleansing and devastation on the part of Yugoslavian Serbs

in Kosovo, and the world community was totally unprepared for the

incredible number of refugees that fled across into Macedonia, into

Montenegro, into Albania itself and other locations.

I believe that our policy there cost lives, dramatically cost lives,

in the way it was pursued. That is why I associate myself with the

gentleman’s attitudes about our noninvolvement in Rwanda, but I

do not think it is parallel.

I thank the gentleman respectfully for letting me have the opportunity to discuss this issue.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

Resuming my time, I appreciate your remarks. Once again,

though, I believe that the fact that there were refugees should not

have been a surprise to anyone. Whenever there is conflict you

have people fleeing, and they go to the closest place that they can.

I think it should actually have been anticipated to have a conflict

with borders open; to have no refugees is absolutely being naive.

So it was a surprise that I went to a camp in the early days when

it was only 40,000 people coming over; and I was among the first

to go there and actually interview people about the atrocities, the

brutality that I don’t even want to discuss here, because it is similar to atrocities that happened in Sierra Leone. It is just that they

were not publicized, the same kind of amputations and mutilation,

that was going on right there in Kosovo.

So perhaps there should be a time for a debate. I am one who,

if it were up to me, there would be no military; but that is not the

way the world is. I am not a big supporter of our $310 billion military budget, or that we hear that it is not enough. But I just think

42

that we need to really discuss these issues and discuss them clearly. I still contend that if something happens—it is easy to say we

did the wrong thing. So the other solution is, you sit back and

nothing happens; therefore, you make no mistakes.

It is just that those people in harm’s way continue to be brutalized, murdered, and killed. You can say we made no mistake, but

we don’t create any kind of a solution.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We thank

the gentleman.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition or offering

amendments?

If not, without objection, the previous question is ordered on the

amendment. The amendment is agreed to without objection. It is

so ordered.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. I move 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 of the motion signify by

saying aye.

All those opposed say no.

The ayes have it. Further proceedings on this measure are now

postponed.

We will now move to consider H. Con. Res. 257, concerning the

emancipation of the Baha’i community.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

RESUMPTION OF CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 257—CONCERNING

THE BAHA’I COMMUNITY OF IRAN

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H. Con. Res. 257, a resolution concerning the

emancipation of the Iranian Baha’i community.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and text of the resolution in that order for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Whereas in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994

and 1996, Congress, by concurrent resolution——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.

H. Con. Res. 257 deals with a matter of ongoing and severe religious persecution. The Baha’i community is Iran’s largest religious

minority. Since 1982, seven resolutions have placed the Congress

on record expressing our continuing concern and disapprobation of

the treatment of the Baha’i by the current Iranian regime.

At present, 11 Baha’i are imprisoned in Iran. Four of these individuals are under a death sentence. Their crime is attempting to

convert Muslims to the Baha’i faith, an act each of the four has denied, but one that can hardly be considered criminal under any accepted standard of international human rights.

It should be noted that under Iranian law the Baha’i are considered as unprotected infidels, which means they have absolutely no

43

rights of protection under Iranian law. They cannot marry or pass

on an inheritance or conduct businesses.

I commend the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, for his forthright support of this community struggling to preserve its identity

in the land where the Baha’i faith was born. I also thank our senior Member of the Committee, Mr. Lantos, for his support.

I urge the Members of our Committee to unanimously support

this measure.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition with regard to

this resolution or offering amendments?

If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized

to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Again, 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, Mr. Bereuter. 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.

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions

under Rule 20 relating to a conference on this resolution or a Senate counterpart.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

S. 2460—EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS REWARDS

We will now take up S. 2460, expanding the rewards program to

include events in Rwanda. This bill was introduced in the other

body by Senator Feingold, where it was passed on June 24, 2000.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘S. 2460, a bill to authorize the payment of rewards to individuals furnishing information relating to persons

subject to indictment for serious violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda, and for other purposes.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

is dispensed with.

The clerk will read the preamble and the text in that order.

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.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for

your legislation in 1998, H.R. 4660, which originally included just

this provision.

With foresight, Mr. Chairman, you removed the specification of

Rwanda simply out of concern that it may not pass the other body

with that specification. Having passed the other body with the

strong support of our esteemed colleague from Wisconsin, Senator

Feingold, it is as straightforward to apply the benefits of this program to Rwanda, as it is to Yugoslavia.

44

A word of background: The proposal gives the Secretary of State the authority to offer up to $15 million total—no more than $5 million in any one case and no more than $100,000 without the explicit approval and decision by the Secretary of State—to anyone

who might provide information leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals for genocide and war crimes such as were experienced in Rwanda.

The legislation already exists for the provision of such testimony

with regard to the atrocities in Yugoslavia, and it ought to apply

to the situation in Rwanda as well.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I renew my appreciation for your

efforts. You saw this years ago, and it should just have been done

then; we are correcting that error today. I would also just recognize

my good friend and colleague, Mr. Payne, with whom I have traveled to Rwanda on more than one occasion, where we have personally seen the results of the genocide, and also to Arusha, Tanzania,

where the International War Crimes Tribunal is taking place.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Let me commend you, Mr. Chairman, for

moving this legislation through. As my colleague said—and I associate myself with his remarks—we now have the second link of this

package that was unlinked last year to ensure passage. I think it

is timely now that the Rwanda portion be passed.

I would also like to commend my colleague, Mr. Campbell. I was

looking over a piece of legislation here a minute or two ago, and

I was taken aback a bit—I don’t know the number; I don’t have it

handy—because it said, ‘‘introduced by Senator Campbell,’’ and I

looked at it again.

But let me just say, getting back to the point, I certainly will

miss traveling with you unless you are in the other House. But the

trip to the Tribunal in Rwanda, seeing the problems that they were

having there at the hearings, seeing the difficulties in getting witnesses, difficulty in getting the evidence, the deliberation with

which the proceedings were going on. Of course, as you know, there

was a debate. I am a person opposed to the death penalty everywhere, and as you know, the Arusha Tribunal does not recognize

the death penalty; whereas the proceedings in Rwanda, similar

hearings, recognize the death penalty.

So there is somewhat of a problem, especially since the ‘‘big fish’’

as they call them, are in Arusha, those who were the ones who

planned the genocide, and if convicted, of course will get a maximum penalty of life; whereas some Rwandans feel that they

should be in Rwanda where the penalty is more severe.

But also, I said I support the Arusha Tribunal, since I am opposed to the death penalty in any form anywhere in the world.

But once again I can thank my colleague, Mr. Campbell, for the

time that we had to travel throughout the world; and I wish him

success in whatever he pursues in the future.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

I will take a few moments on the measure.

On April 6, 1994, a massive genocide began in Rwanda. There

was no mention of Rwanda in The Washington Post on that day,

45

but soon horrific accounts of a bloody and well-planned massacre

filled its pages. A month later—one month later, 200,000 or so

were dead and more were being killed each and every day, but

White House spokesmen still quibbled with reporters about the definition of a ‘‘genocide.’’

Too many of the masterminds of that ugly chapter in human history are still at large. An International Criminal Tribunal for

Rwanda exists, but it has failed to bring to justice all the leaders.

Rwanda needs reconciliation, but without accountability, there will

be no reconciliation.

Congress extended the rewards program to those providing information leading to the indictment of Yugoslavia war criminals 2

years ago. It is now time to place a generous bounty, in U.S. dollars, on the heads of all those who seek power through extermination. These killers have fled to Paris, to Brussels, to Kinshasha,

and elsewhere. But with the passage of this measure, their havens

will be less safe.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this important

measure.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition or amendments to the bill?

If not, without objection, the previous question is ordered on the

bill.

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 bill on the suspension

calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. Those in favor of the motion

signify by saying aye.

Those opposed say no.

The ayes have it.

Without objection, the Chair or his designees are authorized to

make motions under Rule 20 with respect to a conference on this

bill. Further proceedings on this bill are postponed.

TRIBUTE TO THE SERVICE OF MR. SETH FOTI AND TO U.N.

HUMANITARIAN WORKERS AND PEACEKEEPERS

Before leaving, I want to take the opportunity to recognize three

recent tragedies. One was the loss of an American diplomatic courier in the recent plane crash in Bahrain. We extend our sympathy

to the friends and family of the deceased, Mr. Seth Foti, and to his

colleagues in the American foreign affairs community. Again we

are reminded of the dangers of service abroad.

Also, there were three U.N. humanitarian workers recently killed

in West Timor. In the past few days previously, two peacekeepers

were killed. We extend our sympathies to their families and our

colleagues. We also recognize and salute the dedication of peacekeepers and humanitarian workers who put themselves in harm’s

way.

46

RESUMPTION OF CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3378, ON RIVER AND OCEAN

POLLUTION IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA

Because we lack a quorum to report H.R. 3378, we will instead

be in receipt of a motion to seek its consideration on the suspension

calendar. I understand that is the intention of the committee of primary jurisdiction, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman request and seek consideration of that resolution, as amended, on the

suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. All in favor of the resolution by the gentleman from Nebraska signify in the usual manner.

Opposed?

The resolution is adopted.

Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to

make motions under Rule 20 with respect to a conference on this

bill or a counterpart from the Senate.

If there is no further business before the Committee, the Committee stands adjourned. I thank the gentlemen for remaining until

the end of our deliberations.

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(47)

A P P E N D I X

SEPTEMBER 7, 2000

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

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