[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-814 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DANA ROHRABACHER, California CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California PAT DANNER, Missouri
PETER T. KING, New York EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
MATT SALMON, Arizona JIM DAVIS, Florida
AMO HOUGHTON, New York EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TOM CAMPBELL, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
KEVIN BRADY, Texas BARBARA LEE, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
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
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
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
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.
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.
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--
--''
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 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 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
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 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 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 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.
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.
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, 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 credibility 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.
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.
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.
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, including 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.''
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.
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.
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 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 age-old 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.
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
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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, surrounded 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.
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 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 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 Nigerians, 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 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 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.
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,
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.
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.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 7, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.120