[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H. RES. 596, H. CON. RES. 404, H. RES. 577,
H. CON. RES. 397, S. 2682, S. 1453,
H. CON. RES. 414, H. CON. RES. 382, H. RES.
588, H. CON. RES. 361, H. CON. RES. 410
=======================================================================
MARKUPS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 28 AND OCTOBER 3, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-196
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/
international--relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-978 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 [VACANCY]
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
September 28, 2000
Markup of H. Res. 596, affirmation of the United States record on
the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Part I)...................... 1
October 3, 2000
Markup of H. Con. Res. 404, calling for the immediate release of
Mr. Edmond Pope from prison in Russia for humanitarian reasons,
and for other purposes......................................... 42
Markup of H. Res. 596, affirmation of the United States record on
the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Part II)..................... 45
Markup of H. Res. 577, to honor the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for its role as a protector
of the world's refugees, to celebrate UNHCR's 50th anniversary,
and to praise the High Commissioner Sadako Ogata for her work
with UNHCR for the past 10 years............................... 85
Markup of H. Con. Res. 397, voicing concern about serious
violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in most
states of Central Asia, including substantial noncompliance
with their Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) commitments on democratization and the holding of free
and fair elections............................................. 88
Markup of S. 2682, authorizing the Board of Broadcasting
Governors to make available to the Institute for Media
Development certain materials of the Voice of America.......... 93
Markup of S. 1453, the Sudan Peace Act........................... 94
Markup of H. Con. Res. 414, relating to the reestablishment of a
representative government in Afghanistan....................... 107
Markup of H. Con. Res. 382, calling on the government of
Azerbaijan to hold free and fair parliamentary elections in
November, 2000................................................. 110
Markup of H. Res. 588, expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives with respect to violations in Western Europe of
provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and other international
agreements relating to the freedom of individuals to profess
and practice religion or belief................................ 113
Markup of H. Con. Res. 361, commending the Republic of Benin..... 123
Markup of H. Con. Res. 410, condemning the assassination of
Father John Kaiser and others who worked to promote human
rights and justice in the Republic of Kenya.................... 126
WITNESS
The Honorable Robert Pearson, United States Ambassador to the
Republic of Turkey............................................. 16
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Concerning H. Res. 596:
The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California................................. 129
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida.................................... 130
The Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Massachusetts.............................. 130
The Honorable Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in
Congress from American Samoa................................... 131
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on
International Relations, concerning H. Con. Res. 397........... 132
The Honorable Cynthia A. McKinney, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia: letter concerning S. 2682........... 133
The Honorable Benjamin Gilman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, concerning H. Con. Res. 382............. 133
The Honorable Benjamin Gilman, concerning H. Res. 588............ 134
The Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, concerning H. Con. Res. 410............... 134
Bills and Amendments:
H. Res. 596...................................................... 137
Amendment to H. Res. 596 offered by Mr. Tancredo, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado...... 148
Amendment to H. Res. 596 offered by Mr. Lantos............... 149
Amendment to H. Res. 596 offered by Mr. Burton, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana....... 151
Amendment to H. Res. 596 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California.... 153
H. Con. Res. 404................................................. 154
H. Res. 577...................................................... 158
Substitute Amendment to H. Res. 577, as reported by the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.. 161
H. Con. Res. 397................................................. 164
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 397 offered by Mr. Gejdenson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut... 173
S. 2682.......................................................... 174
S. 1453.......................................................... 178
Substitute Amendment to S. 1453, as reported by the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.. 195
Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Menendez, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey,
concerning page 11, after line 15.......................... 215
Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Menendez, concerning page
2, after line 5............................................ 216
Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Menendez, concerning page
11, after line 23.......................................... 218
Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Campbell, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California,
concerning pages 7-8....................................... 219
Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr. Campbell, striking all
previous amendments and returning the bill to its original
form....................................................... 220
H. Con. Res. 414................................................. 221
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 414 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher..... 224
H. Con. Res. 382................................................. 225
Substitute Amendment to H. Con. Res. 382 offered by Mr.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey..................................................... 231
H. Res. 588...................................................... 237
Substitute Amendment to H. Res. 588 offered by Mr. Salmon, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona....... 245
H. Con. Res. 361................................................. 252
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 361 offered by Mr. Ackerman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York...... 255
H. Con. Res. 410................................................. 256
Additional material submitted for the record:
Letter to Chairman Benjamin Gilman dated October 2, 2000
concerning H. Res. 596, signed by former Secretaries of
Defense, former Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Allied
Commanders, former National Security Advisors, and others...... 259
The Washington Post newspaper article dated September 6, 2000
entitled, ``Armenia Pins Economic Hopes on Peace,'' submitted
by Mr. Burton.................................................. 262
Letter from Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen dated October 12, 2000,
concerning H. Res. 596, submitted by Mr. Lantos................ 266
Three letters from religious leaders (Joseph K. Grieboski, et al;
the Holy Eastern Orthodox Archdiocese of the Americas; and the
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism), concerning H. Res.
588, submitted by Mr. Salmon................................... 268
H. RES. 596, AFFIRMATION OF THE UNITED STATES RECORD ON THE ARMENIAN
GENOCIDE RESOLUTION
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee on International Relations
meets today in open session.
h. res. 596--affirmation of u.s. record on armenian genocide resolution
Chairman Gilman. The Committee is meeting today pursuant to
notice, to take up several legislative items. We will first
consider H. Res. 596, relating to the way the foreign policy of
our Nation reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity
relating to the Armenian Genocide.
Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
Clerk will report the title of the resolution.
[A copy of the resolution appears in the appendix.]
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Res. 596, a resolution calling upon the
President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United
States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity
concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and
genocide documented in the United States record relating to the
Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, a first reading of the
resolution will be dispensed with. Without objection, the Clerk
will read the text of the resolution for amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Resolved, Section. 1. Short Title. This
resolution may be cited as the `Affirmation of the United
States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution'.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered having been read and is open for amendment at any
point.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Radanovich, as the sponsor of the resolution, to introduce it
to the Committee.
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I do have
a 4-minute video I would like to play before the hearing if
there is no objection.
Chairman Gilman. Is there objection?
It will be part of the gentleman's time.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. I was in consultation with my staff. What was
the----
Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman repeat his request?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes. I requested that I play a 4-minute
video before the markup, if I may.
Mr. Burton. I have no objection.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has made a unanimous consent
request. Is there any objection?
If not, the gentleman may proceed, but bear in mind it is
going to be taken from your time.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman like to speak on the
measure while we are waiting for the equipment to be put in
place?
Mr. Radanovich. I would be happy to.
Mr. Chairman, today I am introducing a new bill regarding
the affirmation of the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide. As
the sponsor of this resolution, I have carefully followed all
of the testimony and communications from proponents and
opponents. I note that some Members----
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will withhold while the
video is being shown at the present time.
[video shown.]
Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, might we have an opportunity to
see the video from the beginning?
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's requested that the video be
replayed from the beginning.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Please proceed with the video.
[video shown.]
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for
bringing up this bill today. I am introducing a new bill
regarding the affirmation of the U.S. record on the Armenian
Genocide.
As the sponsor of this resolution, I have carefully
followed all of the testimony and communications from
proponents and opponents, and I note that some Members have
expressed concern with the training component of this former
bill, H. Res. 398--specifically the complexity of implementing
the clause.
I also note that during the Subcommittee hearing Ambassador
Grossman testified that the Foreign Service Institute already
includes the Armenian Genocide in its training program. This
was later confirmed by a State Department spokesman.
Therefore, taking into account the concerns of some of my
colleagues and the statements of the Department, and with the
support of Chairman Smith, I submit this new bill. All
references to training have been removed, and I trust that this
change will enjoy the support of this Committee and will also
make expedited floor consideration possible.
H. Res. 398 enjoyed the bipartisan support of more than 140
Members, and I rest assured that H. Res. 596 maintains the
intent of my original bill. The new resolution also enjoys the
support of the Speaker, the House Minority Whip, the Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member of this Committee, as well as the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the International
Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee.
I thank all for their support and cooperation.
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired. I am going
to have to keep a tight time control, since we have 10 measures
and we will be interrupted by the proceedings on the floor.
Mr. Radanovich. I would request that my statement be----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the full statement will
be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
Before recognizing Mr. Burton, Mr. Gejdenson will be
recognized.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join with, I think, the majority of my colleagues in
urging support for this resolution. It is clear that these
kinds of acts didn't end in the early 1900's or in the 1940's,
but we face them today in many places in the world. Not but a
few days ago in this hearing room Mr. Royce had a hearing on
what was happening in West Africa in seeing children with their
arms cut off and legs cut off and ears cut off, and many others
killed.
I think that our action here today has to speak very
directly on this outrage against humanity that occurred so long
ago, but is still not recognized by all too many. It is clear
that this is not directed against the modern Turkish
Government, except the modern Turkish Government makes the
mistake that it feels it needs to defend the actions of a
predecessor regime.
I would suggest to the Turkish Government that they take
their lesson from the German Government. They would recognize
the mistakes of the past and follow Germany, which now moves
forward and holds its head high among the civilized nations of
the world who participate in trying to make this a world with
less barbarism in it.
The vote here today is not a vote against Turkey. It is a
vote to recognize history and to clearly state that this
Congress and these American people that we represent will not
let history be forgotten. So many have warned us about
forgetting history and the consequences of that. What we have
just seen on television has been told to us by many survivors
and their families.
There are always debates about the complexities of an
issue, but what is clear here is that innocent civilians in
large numbers were massacred and starved to death. Our own
officials at the time recognized this. The historic evidence is
clear; we need to move forward and pass this resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have watched that
Peter Jennings report before, and I think anybody that sees it
would say that their hearts go out to the people who suffered
those kinds of atrocities.
But I would hate to think that the Congress of the United
States is going to be swayed in any way by watching--violins in
the background when somebody talks. I mean, the lady who was
talking, could you hear the violins in the background? That was
designed, that is what we call ``advocacy journalism,'' where
they are trying to put forth a position on an issue by swaying
the audience with what they see.
Now, there is no question that genocides occurred and there
is no question that a lot of people died in that conflict. But
the fact is, I hope nobody is swayed just by that report.
Now, let me just say this: Three million Turks, three
million Turks died, many of them in what is called a genocide
during the conflict we are talking about back in 1915 through
1920. There is no question that Armenians died as well, but the
fact is, this happened 85 years ago.
There is a divergence of opinion. I have debated this issue
over the past 18 years. We have gone to the floor with huge
copies of books, volumes of books on both sides that explain
what happened; and there is a divergence of opinion among
historians about what actually happened back then and whether
or not there was an Armenian Genocide or a Turkish Genocide.
And the fact is, because of the difference of opinion, the
Turks have never said that this actually happened. They haven't
owned up to it, and I don't think they should.
Now, the second thing I would like to say is this: Turkey
has been an ally of ours through thick and thin. During the
Iraqi war we used their bases to stop Saddam Hussein. We might
not have been successful had it not been for their very help.
They lost billions of dollars by cutting off the oil supplies
that were coming from Iraq into the coffers of the rest of the
world, into the tanks of the rest of the world, and they lost
billions that they have never recovered. They have been ally of
ours time and time again.
This is a major issue. It is all over the front pages over
there in Turkey, and what are we going to do today, we are
going to kick our friends right in the teeth one more time
about something that allegedly happened 85 years ago.
In war, horrible things happen.
I am going to talk about the amendment in a minute, Mr.
Chairman, which talks about the Armenian forces and what they
have done in the last 10 years to the Azerbaijanis. They forced
people out of their villages. There have been massacres, but
nobody's talking about that. We are going back 85 years.
The only thing I want to say is that I protest this, and
the other thing I want to say is that this bill was going to be
jointly referred to my committee. I went to the Parliamentarian
and asked, because of the retraining mechanism in this bill, if
I had jurisdiction. They said, yes, and it was going to be
referred to my Committee.
So what happens after it goes through the Subcommittee?
They changed the bill in the middle of the night with the help
of the leaders on both sides of the aisle, and now they are
taking that section out so I won't have joint referral.
So I want to tell you, this thing is on rails. I think
everybody knows it is on rails. It is going to fly through this
Committee, and it is going to go to the floor; but I want you
to know, I object strenuously to the tactics that are being
used and for kicking our friend for years and years right in
the teeth when they have been with us day in and day out, year
in and year out.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you Mr. Burton.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as the only Member of Congress ever elected
who is a survivor of a holocaust, I yield to no one in my
concern for human rights, past and present, but I think it is
appropriate to ask, as we deal with this issue in the waning
hours of this congressional session, as to why this issue is
before us today.
We all know why this issue is before us. It is before us
because a Member of Congress who is in a very close
congressional race persuaded the Speaker to put this on the
agenda for political reasons. We are not dealing with a human
rights issue. We are dealing with a partisan political issue
which has been defused by the fact that the Democrat in that
race also supports this legislation, which enables us now to
deal with the merits of the issue rather than with the politics
of the case.
This is not a partisan issue anymore, so we can deal with
the merits.
Now, there is little doubt of the incredible amount of
suffering of the Armenian people during this period, and in
recognition of that suffering, the President of the United
States annually issues a powerful statement recognizing that
suffering and paying tribute to the victims. This is as it
should be. But of course, serious statesmanship always compels
us to look at all the ramifications of legislative measures,
and one of the ramifications is, of course, the U.S. national
interests--not 84 years ago, but in the year 2000.
It is self-evident to every single Member of this Committee
and of the whole Congress that U.S. national interest compels
us to vote against this measure at this time. There is a long
list of reasons why our NATO ally at this point should not be
humiliated. It will be counterproductive to Turkish-Armenian
relations. It will be counterproductive to Turkish-Greek
relations. It certainly will be counterproductive to Turkish-
U.S. relations.
It will be welcomed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein will
be the prime beneficiary of this legislation. Before my
colleagues take the politically easy road, they should ask
themselves whether, in fact, by taking the politically
convenient road they really want to benefit Saddam Hussein,
against whom our policies could not be pursued with anywhere
near its effectiveness without Turkish support.
My feeling is, Mr. Chairman, that there is always room for
honoring and recognizing past tragedies, but the manner and the
mechanism need to be cast in the context of U.S. current
national interests. This piece of legislation at this moment in
U.S.-Turkish relations is singularly counterproductive to our
national interest.
I am all in favor of the President's annual declaration. I
have spoken on countless occasions, memorializing this tragedy.
I will not be party to diminishing U.S. national interests to
participate in what was intended to be a political ploy in a
congressional district in California. That political ploy has
now been defused by both the Democrat and the Republican
favoring this legislation.
Therefore, the merit of the legislation is now before us.
On the merits, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
legislation.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, on September 12th, I received a letter and I
will just quote it briefly:
``I am writing you to urge you, Chairman Smith and
Members of the International Operations Subcommittee,
to speak and vote in favor of the Armenian Genocide
Resolution. This resolution is to come on Thursday
September 14th,'' which it did.
``It is my hope,'' the author writes, ``that the
House will go on record calling upon the President to
make sure that all U.S. officials dealing with human
rights are educated about the memory of the Armenian
Genocide and also urging the President to incorporate
into his April 24th address a statement calling on our
Nation to remember the Armenian massacres. It is
crucial that the President provide appropriate
materials''--and he goes on.
That was signed by Elie Wiesel, the quintessential
humanitarian and a Holocaust survivor, asking that this
legislation be passed into law or be approved by the House of
Representatives as quickly as possible.
I don't know if Elie Wiesel is a Democrat or a Republican.
I have no idea. But he is a humanitarian who I think speaks
with incredible, impeccable standing and has said, pass this
resolution, which has been introduced by Mr. Radanovich, Mr.
Rogan and Mr. Bonior, the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, in 1915 there were about two million
Armenians living in what was then the Ottoman Empire, a region
they had inhabited for 2,500 years. By 1923, well over 90
percent of these Armenians had disappeared. Most of them, as
many as one and a half million, were dead. The remainder had
been forced into exile.
The United States Ambassador to Turkey at the time, Henry
Morgenthau, accused the government of the Empire of a case of
``race extermination.'' The British, French and Russian
Governments accused the young Turk Government of ``a crime
against humanity.'' Even the government of the Republic of
Turkey, the successor state, tried and convicted a number of
high-ranking young Turk officials for what the Turkish
Government called the ``massacre and destruction of the
Armenians.''
When the term ``genocide'' was invented in 1944, its author
Raphael Lemkin illustrated the term by saying, ``It was the
sort of thing Hitler did to the Jews and the Turks did to the
Armenians.''
Unfortunately, memories seem to have faded. The government
of the Republic of Turkey and some of those who apologize for
it, or at least try to downgrade the idea that it was a
genocide, suggest that it never even happened. I would just
point out--when we held our hearing just a few days ago--
Ambassador Aktan made the point--and I think this doesn't pass
the straight-face test--that Turks have never harbored any
anti-Armenianism.
I have held four hearings and briefings in the Commission
on Security and Cooperation on current use of torture in
Turkey. Every time we wanted to schedule a hearing and talk
about what was going on in Turkey, there was an enormous amount
of protest about even having the hearing because it might
injure this delicate balance between ourselves and Turkey. But
we need to speak the truth to power.
You know, you look at the Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices today, not 1984 or 1985 or years ago, and human
rights monitors say that security officials increasingly use
methods of torture that do not leave physical traces. This is
talk about torture, such as beating with weighted bags instead
of clubs and fists. Commonly employed methods of torture
reported by Human Rights Foundation treatment centers include
systematic beatings, stripping and blindfolding, exposure to
extreme cold or high pressure, cold water hoses, electric
shocks, beating on the soles of the feet and genitalia, hanging
by the arms, lack of food and sleep; and you get the idea, and
it goes on and on.
That is current and that is today. Yes, and thank God, some
in Turkey have spoken out against that kind of abuse.
In this case, we have a situation where the overwhelming
body of evidence clearly points to a genocide. And I remind
Members, read the Genocide Convention, which defines the term
as the extermination of a group of people whole or in part.
This clearly is what has happened, and I would hope that we
would be very clear in our statement and not shrink from
calling genocide a genocide.
At our hearing, Dr. Melson from Purdue University
testified, and I quote, ``The Armenian Genocide and the
Holocaust are the quintessential instances of total genocide in
the 20th century.'' He testified,
``In both instances, a deliberate attempt was made by
the government of the day to destroy in part or in
whole an ethno-religious community, an ancient group
that had existed as a segment of the government's own
society.
``In both instances, genocide was perpetrated after
the fall of an old regime and during the reign of a
revolutionary movement that was motivated by an
ideology of social, political, and cultural
transformation and in both cases genocide occurred.''
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Smith. I urge support of this resolution, and I do have
several other instances backing this up, and I hope Members
will back Mr. Radanovich in his resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This resolution is supported by 126 Holocaust scholars,
including Elie Wiesel. The facts are obvious if you just look
at current demographics. For 2,500 years Armenians lived in
eastern Anatolia, and now they are gone. Are we to assume that
they just vanished?
The fact is that over a million, million-and-a-half were
killed in the first genocide of the 20th century. No wonder our
Subcommittee passed this resolution, and this Full Committee
should do so as well.
But let me confront what I think is the most repeated and
least acceptable argument against the resolution, and that is
that it is inconsistent with America's current geopolitical
convenience. Yes, Turkey is a NATO ally and a powerful one at
that; and yes, it played a role in Desert Storm and Desert
Shield. But let us look at how powerful Germany is, a NATO ally
that has play ed a critical role in winning the Cold War and in
winning Desert Storm and Desert Shield.
Today, the German Government recognizes the Holocaust, but
what about 10 or 20 or 30 years from now? A new government may
rise in Germany that demand s for U.S.-German relations we
march down from this hall and dismantle the Holocaust Museum
brick by brick. If we are going to ignore the Armenian Genocide
because it meets our geopolitical needs today, then we will
tear down the Holocaust Museum tomorrow because some future
German Government or some future Austrian Government insists
upon it.
I think the power of America is not in whether it moves
pawns and pieces on the chessboard of the world, but whether we
are respected for our commitment to human rights and our
commitment to ideals. And if we reject this resolution because
it is bad for basing rights, then what credibility do we have
in the world? And if those who say it is important to our
geopolitical convenience that we ignore this genocide, vote
against this resolution, then are we also prepared to whitewash
the Holocaust if, in some future decade, that becomes
politically convenient or helpful for basing rights or for our
relationship with some NATO country.
I think that history speaks for itself, and we do America
proud if we stand up for human rights and for what really
happened.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colleagues, we see the emergence of the Armenian Genocide
resolution from time to time, and in part--and I emphasize ``In
part''--it is driven by California politics. Over the last 20
years, this Committee unfortunately has evolved to the point
where we focus an extraordinary amount of our time and effort
on condemning and commending by resolution instead of being
focused on our authorizing responsibilities.
I don't think that much that will be said here today by
Members will influence this vote one way or another. Hope
springs eternal that it might, but I don't think that will be
the case. I am fortunate to follow our colleague from
California, Mr. Lantos, who speaks with tragic, cogent
authority on a subject like this.
Few people who argue against this resolution argue that
there was no genocidal action. The only question is who and how
much and which sides and who was responsible.
I think we need to be reminded always about what our
responsibilities are to our national interest. I am sure all of
you have been contacted by people from the State Department,
the Defense Department, the National Security Adviser, not only
of this Administration but the Carter Administration, the Bush
Administration, and the Reagan Administration saying that the
passage of this resolution is very much contrary to our
national interest. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos,
has explained very eloquently some of the many reasons why that
is the case.
Sometimes I think there should be a big banner across the
back of this room reminding us to ask the question, ``What is
our national interest?'' so that we are focused on it time and
again.
This is not a matter of geopolitical convenience, I would
say to the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. This is a
matter of our national interest. We are being advised by the
best minds that have served this country over the last 20-plus
years that the passage of this resolution is not in our
national interest. Therefore, I will not vote for it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the Ranking Member for bringing this measure before our
Committee today.
This is not an easy decision we make today. I am
extraordinarily mindful of the role that Turkey plays in
securing America's interests around the world, and I want to
begin my remarks by thanking the Republic of Turkey for all
that they do for our country and for all of our allies around
the world. There is no question that Turkey is an important
friend of the United States and a strategic partner in NATO.
But we are here today not to talk about modern Turkey. We are
not here to talk about the importance of Turkey to our military
alliance. We are asked a question today, do we acknowledge the
truth or not. Do we acknowledge the truth or not?
Now, maybe many of us would rather have not had that
question asked of us, but we now confronted with it and
certainly when it comes to the issue of genocide, the question
becomes probably a little easier, certainly for those of us who
remember our history and who have perhaps a personal stake in
never forgetting history.
We are here today to mark up a resolution that honors the
memory of 1\1/2\ million human beings. Should we do that?
Should we recognize the truth of their slaughter or should we
say it didn't happen? I would like to read from a letter that
Robert Jay Lifton wrote to Congressman Smith on September 13th,
my colleague from New Jersey, who I am proud to sit with.
And by the way, let me say this, I have read everything
submitted to me from every side from the Turkish Government,
those who support the Turkish Government and all those who
support this resolution.
Dr. Lifton wrote, ``Genocide is ignored at a terrible
peril. Whether in the case of Nazi genocide of Jews during the
1940, the Cambodian genocide of the late 1970's or the Turkish
genocide of the Armenians in 1915, confronting the causes and
human effects of such systematic mass killing is crucial to the
world at large. The failure to confront these events
contributes to a false consciousness to the effect that
murderers did not really murder, victims were not really killed
and all evidence of such killing should be ignored, glossed
over. This kind of psychic numbing encourages, indeed invites,
repetitions of the original crime.''
When Hitler asked the rhetorical question to his SS
generals, ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of
the Armenians?'' he was invoking a deadly dynamic in which
unimposed genocide begets new genocide.
Resolution 398 interrupts that dangerous dynamic and asks
instead that we and our diplomatic representatives acknowledge
and learn from the events of history, however painful. In this
way we serve the historical truth, our own integrity as a
Nation and the overall human future.
If we believe that unrecognized genocide contributes to
future genocides, don't we have an obligation to assure that
our diplomatic staff and those who advise our leaders learn
about this history, learn about this genocide?
This is an excruciatingly difficult choice that we are
asked to make today. I understand that, my friends and
colleagues. Turkey is an extremely important ally and friend of
the United States. But this has nothing to do with the whether
we acknowledge that fact. It has to do with whether we will
speak the truth or say the truth, say that these events never
occurred.
I am not prepared to deny the truth, certainly not to deny
the truth of this slaughter of 1\1/2\ million people, and I
will be supporting this resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. Ballenger. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this room
recognizes that there probably was a genocide that occurred
according to this resolution we have here, but let me ask a
question. How many genocides do we--how many resolutions do we
need in this Committee to go back over genocides?
I mean Rwanda, Tibet under Red China, Russia and the
gulags, Cambodia, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In each of these
is something that most people would recognize, and I have one
that actually occurred in my own home State of North Carolina.
I don't know how many of you remember the Trail of Tears
where the Cherokees were forced by Andrew Jackson with an Army
to move all the way, the ones that could move alive, all the
way from North Carolina to Oklahoma.
Genocides are horrible, and I realize that basically nobody
wants to recognize that we did all these various and sundry
things, but we have done them many times, and I think we have
been somewhat hypocritical to pick out one amongst many.
In my own considered opinion, the Turks are our friends.
They have been our allies through the years, and in my
considered opinion, we need at least to avoid embarrassing this
government, which was not even in existence when this occurred,
and so I plan on voting against the resolution.
Mr. Radanovich. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ballenger. Sure, fire away.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger. I just wanted to
state that during the Subcommittee hearing of H. Res. 398, the
offer was made to those who had opposed the bill to not only
include the Armenian Genocide, but to include other genocides
that had happened throughout history, and no one took me up on
that offer. So we were open to including that type of language
in the bill, but nothing came forth.
I yield back.
Mr. Ballenger. Nobody asked me. I will be glad to.
Mr. Burton. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ballenger. Sure.
Mr. Burton. I did talk about that. I talked about a number
of genocides, and I have some amendments today which will go to
that issue, and I know the gentleman and everybody else will
support those as an addition to the bill.
I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express
some concerns about the resolution and also offer them in the
form of questions to those Members of this Committee that are
trying to encourage those who have not made up our minds to
vote for the resolution.
The first, very basic question in my mind in this
resolution is, what are we intending to accomplish by adopting
this resolution. I think it is fair to say that every Member of
this Committee stipulates that what occurred in history was a
terrible thing for which the Turkish Government and its leaders
share immense culpability. It seems to me today that a lot of
the debate centers over the choice of words and the label
``genocide.'' The only specific references in the bill as to
what we intend to accomplish are contained in the declaration
of policy, and I haven't heard anything to convince me that
this is not already the policy of the United States Government
as far as the President's decision to speak on April 24th to
condemn what occurred, as far as the information that is
provided to our Foreign Service about what occurred.
I know there is legislation pending in the California
legislature that is intended to set up a compensation system,
and perhaps that is what ultimately we are debating here today,
and if that is the case, let us go ahead and discuss it openly
and honestly.
But I would just conclude by saying, I join those Members
who support and oppose the resolution in condemning what
occurred. But I remain perplexed about exactly what we are
trying to accomplish today; and without a clear and convincing
answer to that, I do not intend for vote for this resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to express my strong support for this
resolution, and I want to commend its author, Mr. Radanovich.
I want to address one objection in particular that we have
heard and that is the issue of will this undermine our
strategic interests. It has been said that passing this
resolution could hurt our relationship with our good ally
Turkey. Turkey is an important ally, there is no doubt about
that, and is strategic in terms of that alliance, and I am glad
that Turkey has taken the action it has to support America. But
I think we need to think about what it means to be an ally.
Underlining some of the statements that we have heard is
the notion that Turkey is America's ally, and it has taken
these actions out of some sense of gratitude. Well, the fact is
that nations are in NATO or are otherwise allies with the
United States for one reason and one reason alone, because it
suits their interests. International politics runs deeper than
flattery. It is about nations acting on their own interests,
and we are fortunate enough to share strategic interests with
Turkey. That is why Turkey is an ally.
Now it has been suggested that the Turkish government will
have a harder time managing public opinion and maintaining its
commitment to NATO if we pass this resolution. So a sense of
the House resolution on a genocide committed 85 years ago by a
previous government--we don't even mention Turkey in this
resolution, we say the Ottoman Empire--is going to undermine
the strategic interests we have--that we have with Turkey and
have had for 50 years, I don't think that is true. I am
confident that Turkey and our security relationship is stronger
than that. And for those Members who may wonder, why risk it,
why pass this resolution if there is the slightest risk of
undermining our relations with Turkey, I would say because
there is genocide denial in Turkey. That is what this is about.
There is another reason. We have heard it suggested that
the extremists in Turkey, who would use this resolution to
attack Turkey's relationship with the United States should we
pass it, might do so, but there is another way of looking at
it. If the extremists who are the biggest deniers of the
Armenian Genocide defeat this resolution, then we are siding
with them.
Now, for some years German Americans have kept a running
dialogue with my father because, unfortunately, he was at
Dachau and took photographs which, frankly, are the most
horrific pictures I have ever seen in my life of people dead
and half dead. They continue to insist that the Holocaust never
occurred, and every year there is a new book out about how it
never occurred. Unfortunately for them, there are many people
around just as there are Armenians around who I am sure have
talked to some of you about how they survived this genocide,
how perhaps they were the only one in their village, out of a
village of 1,000 people, to have survived.
For us to aid those who deny a genocide is a mistake, my
colleagues. You know, 3 years ago during debates on the Foreign
Ops Appropriations bill, more than 300 Members voted to
withhold economic assistance to Turkey until it acknowledged
the genocide, but that provision was removed in conference.
That was 300 of us. We are not talking about withholding
economic aid here. We don't want to do that. We are not even
talking about Turkey. We are talking about a fact that occurred
in the Ottoman Empire, and we should go forward and for the
record be prepared to say it.
That is my feeling, and I hope I have conveyed----
Mr. Smith. Will you yield?
Mr. Royce. I will certainly yield.
Mr. Smith. I thank my good friend for yielding; and I think
you have answered in part, maybe in whole, Mr. Davis' question,
a very legitimate question.
You know at our hearing Ambassador Aktan from Turkey said
the crucial question is why the Armenians are not content with
the word tragedy or catastrophe, and insist on genocide. It is
because of this aggressive, persistent, pervasive effort over
the years to deny that a holocaust actually occurred. And if
you apply that, just lift it and apply it to the Nazi Holocaust
that occurred in the Second World War, while this was in the
First, you get the same kind of reaction. We need to call a
holocaust a holocaust.
If you read the U.N. Genocide Convention, it defines the
term as ``deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in
whole or in part.''
One of our witnesses--if the gentleman would continue
yielding--Dr. Smith, the Professor of Government from William
and Mary, pointed out that as early as July 1915 the German
ambassador reported to Berlin--the Germans were obviously
allied with the Ottoman Empire--and I quote, ``Turks began
deportations from the areas which were now not threatened----''
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. I commend my colleagues for their speeches. I
think there have been some very interesting comments made in
the course of this hearing, and you might think that we get
together every week and try and unravel tragedies of the 20th
century, evaluate carefully and consider these matters. In
fact, we don't operate like that at all. This is a highly
unusual forum that we are having today; and I think it behooves
us to ask what is going on here, why are we doing this.
Well, I looked for some answer to that question in a memo
written by the Center for Security Policy. Now the Center for
Security Policy is a Republican-leaning think tank in town.
Among others included in this outfit are former National
Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, and they write as follows--
and I am going to offer this into the record of this hearing
this morning. I quote, and I am going to quote for the next few
minutes, reading from it:
``It is no secret that control of the 107th Congress
hangs in the balance since the days before the November
election slips away . . . Speaker Dennis Hastert and
his colleagues have been in the unenviable position of
having to accept terms from raising the minimum wage to
new entitlement programs to busting the budget caps
that would have been unthinkable under other
circumstances. Whether their constituents welcome the
November reward or punish legislators at the polls for
such behavior remains to be unseen.
``What is far less predictable, however, are the
repercussions of allowing this strategy to leech into
the foreign policy arena. If the full House of
Representatives approves an Armenian Genocide
resolution scheduled to be marked up today by the House
International Relations Committee, U.S. relations with
Turkey will suffer serious and possibly irreparable
harm.''
I quote, continued from the memo,
``There is little doubt that among the repercussions
will be the alienation of the pro U.S. Government in
Turkey, undermining its support at home for its
policies, and a shot-in-the-arm for Turkey's anti-
Western Islamic opposition. This is all the more
regrettable because it should not fall to the Congress
to adjudicate the arcane and bitterly debated question
of whether the undisputed murder of hundreds of
thousands of Armenians was a centrally planned and
systematic act of the Ottoman Turk government that
would, therefore, meet the definition of genocide or,
alternatively, was it the result of widespread but
uncoordinated ethnic warfare. It is hard to believe any
of those legislators who will shortly be asked to
render judgment on this matter have done their
homework.
``The Speaker feels impelled to take such a course
out of an understandable desire to help a valued and
endangered colleague, Jim Rogan of California, whose
role as an impeachment manager has made his defeat this
November a priority for the Clinton team and its
allies. Saving Mr. Rogan takes on an additional
importance as the two parties battle for every single
seat in the hotly contested and increasingly desperate
struggle for control of Congress . . . As compelling as
Speaker Hastert's considerations are for pursuing this
Armenian Genocide initiative, they risk a potentially
serious, if gratuitous and unnecessary, rupture with
one of its most important strategic partners, Turkey.
``A stable, secure Turkey closely tied to the West is
an indispensable counterweight to these and a number of
other worrisome developments. It behooves the House
Republican leadership, therefore, to find ways to
secure a renewed mandate without jeopardizing vital
national interests.''
Now, if this is not in our national interests, as some
experts again from a Republican-based think tank would have us
understand, then let us consider whether it is in the interest
of the parties themselves, the parties in the region that live
together, that live side by side and face the ongoing risk from
inflamed circumstances.
Speaking to this point is the Armenian patriarch of
Istanbul, virtually the spiritual leader of the Armenian
community continuing to reside in Turkey. Some would say he is
essentially a captive in Turkey and, therefore, not to be
trusted. Others would say he is a critical figure representing
one of the leaders of the minority, Armenian minority in Turkey
today.
He writes, it is unhelpful to see resolutions affecting
Armenian and Turkish relations adopted by third party
parliaments--it can be no doubt he is talking about us here.
However, it is our expectation that this sort of interference
will be sustained as long as the current unsatisfactory status
quo prevails and the two parties do not engage in fruitful
dialogue to resolve significant issues. Good point.
We do not think that the third party parliament action is a
positive substitute for dialogue. Above all, utmost caution
should be exercised so that this issue is not exploited for the
benefit of a variety of political interests. Nor do we think
the present situation is helpful at all. On the contrary, it is
harmful to Turkish and Armenian relations. Any undertaking
which hinders dialogue, peace and friendship is regrettable. We
pray for the Armenian----
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me, in regard to Mr. Pomeroy's remarks, my
Democratic colleague's complaining about election year politics
is like Madonna complaining about promiscuity. There is not
much substance there.
Secondly, let me tell you, while I oppose this resolution,
I greatly respect Mr. Radanovich and I believe this is
something he feels strongly about in his heart. The Republic of
Turkey has been one of our strongest allies. They have fought
with us in every major challenge. They are the only Muslim
secular democracy with a free market economy. They have an
excellent relationship with Israel in which it has overlapping
security, economic and political interests.
Here the question is not do we acknowledge the truth but
which historic version do we endorse. In reading the materials
and listening to the disputed testimony and recognizing that
the archives of Russia, France and Armenia remain closed to
date, I don't feel qualified as a Member of this Committee to
endorse a version. This is an issue that the historians should
address, not Members of Congress.
As to Mr. Bereuter's question, is this in the U.S.
interests, is this in America's interest, he is correct. This
does not contribute to peace and stability in that region. On
the contrary, it harms us. As the Armenian patriarch said, this
is harmful to Turkish and Armenian relationships. This does not
make this region more stable, and it is not a positive
substitute for dialogue between the two nations.
Finally, recent news stories have alerted us that the
tension between Iraq and Kuwait is increasing once again. I
think it important to remember the last time a similar
resolution was considered in Congress it was in February, 1990.
Senator Byrd strongly opposed it on the grounds it would damage
our relationship with Turkey and U.S. security interests.
Several months later, Iraq invaded Kuwait; and we relied on the
Turkish government to cut off the Iraqi oil pipeline, station
Turkish groups on the border with Iraq and to permit the use of
their bases. Had the resolution passed in the Senate, no
Turkish government would have been able to be as forthcoming as
it was in 1990. None of us know the security threats we will
face in the future.
I recognize this resolution is important to our Armenian
friends, but this is not the American interests which is our
job and obligation as a Committee, and I yield the balance of
my time.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield real briefly?
Mr. Brady. Yes.
Mr. Burton. I would just like the say, Mr. Chairman, we
have the new U.S. ambassador to Turkey here with us today; and
I would urge the Chairman to allow Mr. Robert Pearson to
address the Committee because he is very much aware of being on
the scene of the problems that this might create.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Brady has the time.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Brady, would you yield?
Mr. Brady. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Sherman. I just want to comment on this idea that only
those who are in support of the resolution are benefiting from
any political impetus. Let us remember the power of the oil
companies that are pushing against this resolution, the defense
contractors that have been lobbying against this resolution,
and let us realize that if any votes are swayed on this
resolution to vote in favor of it, because of the input of
Armenian Americans in California and throughout this country,
that is I think at least as legitimate, I would say more
legitimate than those votes that are swayed by oil cuts.
Mr. Brady. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman, let
me just commend my friend from California on the record amount
of soft money contributions and PAC contributions he received
this year and give him that praise.
I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Let me remind our Members before we go to vote that there
will be a number of amendments. There will be rollcalls. We
have a number of measures to be taken up when we return.
We have had a request by Mr. Burton to have the ambassador
speak, which we will do when we get back, by unanimous consent.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, before the break I referred to
our new ambassador to Turkey and asked that Mr. Pearson be
allowed to address the Committee, and so I ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to address the Committee at this
time.
Chairman Gilman. By unanimous consent. Any objection?
Mr. Lantos. Reserving the right to object, and I will not
object.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. I think Mr. Burton's suggestion is an excellent
one. No one is more qualified to discuss more authoritatively
U.S. national interests vis-a-vis Turkey than our ambassador,
and I join Mr. Burton in----
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
I will now request Ambassador Robert Pearson to come up to
the Committee table to speak. Ambassador Pearson was very
recently sworn in as our representative in Ankara. I might note
that before becoming U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Ambassador
Pearson served as Deputy Chief of Mission at NATO.
We appreciate your willingness to make yourself available
to the Committee as we debate the measure. Mr. Ambassador, I
now give you the floor.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT PEARSON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO
TURKEY
Ambassador Pearson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very
happy to be here and very happy to answer questions from the
Committee.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Ambassador, the question has arisen
with regard to the Armenian resolution. We would welcome any
comments you may have on it.
Ambassador Pearson. I have just come from Ankara, Mr.
Chairman. I flew in last night, had a chance over the last week
to talk to a number of Turkish officials about this issue.
I think if you look at a map of Turkey you see on its
frontiers are countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran. Of course,
Armenia is a neighbor of Turkey, the Black Sea, the countries
bordering the Black Sea, all of southeast Europe, Greece, the
issue of Cyprus.
I think that I can state authoritatively to you, Mr.
Chairman, that if a vote is taken in the Committee and this
resolution passes and if it passes the floor of the House there
will be a strong Turkish reaction to it.
The Turks provide the base from which we fly over northern
Iraq. That permission to perform that monitoring exercise under
U.N. Resolutions comes up for debate in the Turkish Parliament
every 6 months, and the next debate will be in December of this
year.
We are, of course, very much involved and have been for
years with the Turks concerning--trying to find a resolution to
the issue of Nagorno-Karbakh. Relations between Turkey and
Armenia are very important to finding a peaceful solution to
that issue. I think that passage of this resolution could
affect that process harmfully.
The Turks have been working with us, of course, on the
issue of Cyprus. Turkey and Greece have been very heavily
involved in a joint exercise to lower tensions and to build
stronger relations between those two countries and also, of
course, concerning issues in the Aegean.
Turkey provided the bases for us in the Kosovo campaign.
They took in 19,000 refugees during that period of time. It is
ironic that they were there just last year to help all of us in
a campaign against ethnic cleansing to face a resolution like
this one today.
There are, I will simply add, something like two-thirds of
a billion dollars worth of agricultural trade between the two
countries. Before I left, I counted something like 19 major
energy projects in which American countries are involved. We
have a very large contract for provision of new energy to
Turkey through gas pipelines and oil pipelines in the caucuses.
So I think my contribution today, Mr. Chairman, will simply be
to say that there is a lot on the table.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Pearson, thank you.
Beyond that, I have understood that Turkey is playing a
more positive role now in the Caucasus region, even informally
with Armenia, and I wonder if you could address its role in the
Caucasus country.
Ambassador Pearson. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
They are playing a more active role in the Caucasus. Former
President Demirel made a number of trips to the Caucasus. The
new President, President Sezer, is planning a major trip to the
Caucasus at the end of October.
We have been working very closely with Turkey, as I
mentioned, on oil and gas energy in the Caspian region. Turkey
is a partner in the process called the Minsk process to try to
find a resolution to the Nagorno-Karbakh issue between Armenia
and Azerbaijan; and, of course, Turkey is in favor of improved
relations with Armenia.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ambassador, can you respond to the
Radanovich resolution, section three, declaration of policy? Do
you agree or disagree with the second clause which says,
``calls upon the President in the President's annual message
commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April
24th to characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation
of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud
history of the United States' intervention in opposition to the
Armenian Genocide.'' Is that an accurate or an inaccurate
characterization?
Ambassador Pearson. Mr. Smith, I, of course, am here to
talk principally about my perspective on the relationship from
Ankara and not to characterize the events in the resolution. I
think the Administration has stated its position on that point.
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired.
I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Ambassador be
granted an additional 5 minutes for questions for the
Ambassador.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, I would like to explore with you the
internal ramifications of the possible passage of this
resolution. Those of us who have followed developments in
Turkey closely for a long time know that there are strong pro-
U.S. elements and strong anti-U.S. elements within the
political firmament of Turkey. Which of these elements would be
aided by the passage of this resolution, the pro-U.S. forces or
the anti-U.S. forces?
Ambassador Pearson. Mr. Lantos, one of the last things a
senior Turkish official told me before I left Ankara was that
one of their chief concerns was that people who wanted to drive
a wedge between American and Turkish relations would use this
issue specifically to that effect.
There is a lively debate in Turkey about how to deal with
this issue. One can look at the press even over the last 3
weeks and see that there is a great deal of open debate, but I
think that the general feeling there is clear that this is
designed to make Turkish-American relations and the working out
of the issues we are both trying to work on more difficult.
Mr. Lantos. If I may follow up, there is a strong Islamic
fundamentalist force within Turkey and there is a powerful
secular force in Turkey. The passage of this resolution, in my
judgment, would powerfully assist Islamic fundamentalist forces
and diminish the influence of the secular forces. Do you agree
with my assessment?
Ambassador Pearson. Well, Mr. Lantos, rather than try to
specifically characterize individual groups inside Turkey, I
would just say that people who are committed to the long-term
benefits of this relationship would suffer as a result of the
passage of this resolution in the Committee and in the House.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, this has been a very, very difficult issue
for many of us for a lot of reasons. I think one of the
rhetorical questions that has been asked today is why are we
doing this now. I love to study history. In my bachelor's and
my master's degree I did quite a bit of studying of history and
world religion history. I have always been fascinated by it,
and I think that if there is a reason for addressing a
resolution and if the reason is to affect the here and now,
then it is a good point, but some have raised the specter of
why here and now.
We talk about the atrocities that man has committed against
man over the ages. I look at the Spanish Inquisition, and yet I
don't see us sponsoring some resolution to condemn the Catholic
Church or the Roman crucifixion of Jesus Christ. We don't have
a denunciation of the Romans right now. And in more recent
history, just over a hundred years ago in our own country, my
people, the Mormons, were chased out of Missouri; and the
governor signed an extermination order that they could be
killed if they didn't leave. Yet I have never seen a resolution
denouncing Missouri.
I do believe that history is valuable as long as we are
using it at this present time for some great good, and so my
question would be, after all is said and done, obviously, the
motive must be to impact current relations between Armenia and
Turkey, what will passage of this resolution do to the
relationship between Armenia and Turkey? What is your opinion?
Ambassador Pearson. Thank you, Congressman.
Of course, I understand the sentiment in the resolution. I
think all Americans understand the sentiment in the resolution.
The passage of this resolution, however, would make Armenian-
Turkish relations more difficult.
There is a closed border today between Armenia and Turkey,
and there have been efforts, as I have recounted, in the past
few years to try to improve those relations. Turkey has, in an
attempt to further this process, opened an air corridor, a
limited air corridor. I think there are some limited visa
provisions that have been put into effect that are helpful.
There is a common--let me say there has been a common
commitment to try to work toward a resolution. When I talked
with Turkish officials prior to coming here yesterday they all
repeated their desire to find a way to work more effectively
with Armenia. So I believe that this would specifically set
back or risk setting back a lot of hard work that the United
States has engaged in for a number of years and, frankly, not
just us but a number of other countries in the region as well.
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired.
I am going to ask consent to extend the time for Mr.
Gejdenson's question, and then we will close the opportunity
for the Ambassador.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to briefly state that I think it is a mistake
to place this as either you tell the truth or you attack the
present Turkish government. The reality is that the present
Turkish government is an important partner in the region. The
present Turkish government is one that is not just serving
American's interests in the region. We have mutual concerns in
the region where our own individual national interests
coincide.
Turkey and the United States work together on a regular
basis. I have worked with the Turkish government on a number of
issues that are important to both of us. This Turkish
government is making important efforts in the relationship with
Greece, starting to address issues on Cyprus. There are lots of
things we agree with them on. I don't think it is acceptable
that we simply say, because of these things, we are not able to
recognize an outrage in history;and I think it is important to
look at the German experience.
You know, if you look at the German experience, my father's
family, without exception, was exterminated in World War II. He
is the only member of his family to survive. My mother lost
most of her family. We have dealt with that. The German
government has recognized what happened. Israel and Germany
have a very positive relationship. We deal with the German
government because of our mutual national interests as a
democracy.
So I think there may be people that vote on different sides
of this issue today for lots of reasons, but I don't think
anybody who plans to vote for this resolution does so thinking
that we should in any way diminish our relationship with the
Turkish government.
It is an easy thing to argue against recognizing history.
Turkey is an important ally. Turkey does cooperate with us
because it is in our interest, it is in their interest. We need
to work more with the Turkish government. They have got to work
toward democratizing their society. It is the only course for
all of us.
So it seems to me, Mr. Ambassador, with the greatest
respect for the present Turkish government and the Turkish
people, for the many great things they have done throughout
history and the contributions they have made to civilization,
there is this issue that needs to be addressed. This is all
this is about, not to condemn the present Turkish government,
not to insult the present Turkish people. We don't insult the
German people when we recognize what happened in World War II.
Chairman Gilman. We now conclude the Ambassador's time.
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I want to thank you
and Mr. Gejdenson for bringing this resolution to the Committee
for full discussion and debate. We are here participating in,
it could be said, a history lesson, but that history also is,
as we have heard, highly contested terrain.
During the First World War, millions of people were killed
or made homeless, and the deaths of some one and a half million
Armenians must be viewed within the context of this larger
human tragedy. I would certainly support efforts to educate
Americans, especially our diplomatic representatives, about the
complex events that occurred during this tragic period in world
history, including the losses suffered by the Turks and others
in the Ottoman Empire.
It is not the intention of this resolution to offend the
government of Turkey or damage an important international
relationship which I believe our Ranking Member just laid out
very eloquently. Nor is it the intent to minimize the heavy
losses suffered by other groups during the Ottoman Empire
during World War I or, for that matter, those in Russia,
France, Germany, Japan or any other country.
It is my belief that Americans will benefit from learning
more about this period and the tremendous loss of life on all
sides and that such education will help all of us avoid such
conflicts in the future, and I agree that such education
efforts should be framed within their full historical context
rather than in isolation.
This resolution does not preclude such an approach. As we
seek to confront the violence and tragedy of our own country's
past, we must also seek to more fully understand international
events as well. History lessons are neither easy nor painless,
and it is imperative that they be looked at from all sides, but
we all benefit from looking at the past.
When I was in the California legislature, I cosponsored
legislation to require that our schools' curriculum reflect
courses that reflected a study of the deplorable institution of
slavery in our own country, which our own country still has yet
to apologize for. We also required that this curriculum study
the inhumanity of the Holocaust and the horrible inhumane
treatment of our Native Americans. Awareness and education
regarding crimes against humanity must always be remembered so
that they will never happen again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding. I would like to take a moment to address an argument
that persistently comes up regarding this resolution.
Each time this body attempts to come to closure on this
subject, opponents usually ask, why now? They may even say that
the interests--the intent of the resolution is commendable, but
the timing is inopportune. Mr. Chairman, unless the Turkish
government ends its ongoing campaign to deny the facts of the
Armenian Genocide, the only time acceptable to our ally is
never; and I regret to say that our State Department readily
concurs with Turkey.
Why now? Because later accomplishes nothing. Turkey remains
adamant in its denial, and its reprehensible tactics of threats
and coercion are rewarded. Why now? Because the passage of this
resolution today by this Committee and subsequently on the
House floor will end denial which, expressed differently, is
the killing of truth. At least one branch of my government will
say categorically to all deniers that they have failed.
I implore my colleagues here today to understand that this
resolution is a Sense of the House resolution regarding the
United States' record. Despite all the threats emanating from
Turkey regarding U.S. bases, U.S. contracts, jobs, et cetera,
this resolution is not an assault on the Republic of Turkey.
Furthermore, I reject Turkey's presumption that it can impose
its views regarding the American response to the Armenian
Genocide on this Committee. If we bow to Turkish pressure over
a House-only resolution regarding our record, there is no
telling what else the U.S. will be called upon to give in to
the next time Turkey threatens a dooms day scenario.
I believe that this is a matter of principle. Congress must
not let any foreign government dictate what legislation,
especially legislation affirming America's record, it can or
cannot adopt.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. King's time.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Mr. Chairman I just wanted to ask the Ambassador
one question if I could.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Ambassador, would you take the witness
table again?
Mr. Royce. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, one of your tasks as ambassador is
explaining American perspectives. This is a House Resolution
with over 100 cosponsors, and I am sure you have anticipated
that it may pass. How have you been explaining to Turkish
authorities that this is not about the government of Turkey
today, this is about the Ottoman Empire which you know
committed a genocide but did expire in 1918? How have you done
that, if I could ask?
Ambassador Pearson. Thank you, Congressman. I think that is
an excellent question.
I have tried and explained in great detail what this
resolution says and its terms and so on. I have to tell you
quite honestly that people in Turkey regard this as directed
against them. They understand that this has in it the words
referring to the Ottoman Empire, but it looks to them as if it
is referring to them.
Mr. Royce. And you have explained to them, though, that
this is about something in history, that this is not about the
Turkish government, this is about a genocide that occurred
under a prior regime?
Ambassador Pearson. I have.
Mr. Royce. And that this is part of our democratic process
here of passing resolutions in the House.
Ambassador Pearson. I have indeed, Congressman, but they
firmly see this as directed against the current state of
Turkey, and they see it in the context of a firm alliance, and
that is why they find it so difficult to comprehend. But I
absolutely have explained this resolution in detail to them.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. King.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. King.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me to
take a moment to address the Armenian Genocide resolution
before us.
I commend Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Bonior for bringing this
matter before the Congress. The tragic occurrence perpetrated
against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1925 by the
Ottoman Turkish Empire is of great concern to me and to members
of my constituency. During this relatively brief time frame,
over 1.5 million Armenians were massacred and thousands more
were forced into exile. Unfortunately, the Turkish government
of today has not recognized these brutal acts of genocide
committed by the Ottoman Empire, nor is it willing to come to
terms with its participation in many of these horrific events.
Prior to the Armenian Genocide these brave people with a
history of over 2,500 years in the region were subject to
numerous indignities and periodic massacres by the sultans of
the Ottoman Empire. The worst of these massacres prior to 1915
occurred in 1895, when as many as 300,000 Armenian people were
murdered, and those who survived were left completely
destitute.
Despite these events, Armenians have survived as a people
and culture throughout Europe and the United States as well.
The present Turkish government needs to come to terms with the
past and work toward improving the future.
I have taken the time to hear the perspective of Turkish
groups who remain strongly opposed to this resolution. Their
contention is that the historic account of these events is
flawed and inaccurate. They suggest that since Turks were also
killed at the time, it should not be considered a genocide.
Obviously, there is some conflict as to the definition of
genocide.
I want to make sure we are all talking about the same
thing. Genocide, as was mentioned by Mr. Smith, it is a
systematic planned annihilation of a racial, political or
cultural group. Did it happen to the Jews and others in
Germany? Yes. Did it happen to the Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire? It certainly did.
I am well aware of the importance of Turkey as an ally in
an unstable region and a front line NATO State. While we do not
hold the current citizens of Turkey accountable for what their
grandparents and ancestors did, that does not mean we should
not commemorate and honor those who are slaughtered during this
campaign. A vote against this measure will send the measure to
Ankara that the U.S. is willing to look the other way as long
as those who have committed acts of genocide hold a strategic
position in our foreign policy.
I believe by failing to recognize such barbaric acts, one
becomes complicit in them. For that reason, I must vote and
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution that is
before us today. I too have concerns about our national
interests and the message we send with this Committee. What
message will we send to those victims, the human rights victims
if this measure is defeated.
Was it in the national interest of the United States to
involve itself in the affairs of the Irish people in northern
Ireland? I don't think there was any national interest at
stake, at least not by definition that has been brought out
today. To involve ourselves in the affairs of our greatest
ally, Great Britain--and by the way, I believe the State
Department also opposed our involvement in that affair as well.
But even Great Britain's leader, Tony Blair, saw that he had to
recognize the abuses of the British people by its past
government, although the exact same government in terms of
tradition exists today in Britain, to recognize the ills
perpetrated on the Irish people before they can move forward
with their peace process and come to terms with their own past.
So, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse and support this
measure, and I will be voting in the affirmative. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Wexler.
Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would very
much like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Bereuter
and Mr. Lantos and Mr. Davis.
Heaven forbid anybody on this Committee or any American, in
any respect, ignore or minimize or deny the deaths of hundreds
of thousands of Armenians during the period of World War I.
That would be an extraordinary tragedy. We in this country,
each and every year at this point on April 24th, commemorate
Armenian Remembrance Day, which allows the President and other
officials and all Americans to pay proper tribute to the
graveness of the tragedy that occurred some 90 years ago.
It seems to me, in light of what Mr. Bereuter said, in
terms of what is our national interest and ought to be our
guiding principle, the question we must ask, not of just this
resolution, but any resolution, is what is the specific purpose
of the resolution? What does it accomplish? And it seems to me,
although in some ways not particularly specific in terms of why
this resolution would, in any way, change America's foreign
policy, it is essentially a very basic goal that our foreign
policy reflect appropriate understanding of the sensitivity of
the issue concerned.
It would seem to me if we were debating today whether or
not America should build a museum or a place of learning
regarding this tragedy, that would be a very appropriate
debate. If we were debating whether or not America has any role
to play with respect to reparations of the families who were
the victims of this tragedy, that to me would be a very
appropriate debate; but to debate whether or not our foreign
policy should reflect a sensitivity related to the human
rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide documented in the United
States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, I would
respectfully suggest I see nothing in our own foreign policy
behavior to suggest that we don't already do that.
With an issue that seems to have presented so much
controversy, and like our ambassador says, with so much on the
table, it is almost unfathomable to me that with so much
controversy, that almost in the uniform position the best
experts from the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations all
agree that this is not in the best security interests of the
United States uniformly, from a variety of different political
perspectives.
So what are we gaining if we pass this resolution? It seems
to me we are gaining language that doesn't, in any significant
way, affect the current Administration in Turkey. So what are
we losing potentially? That argument has been made over and
over again, and whether or not you think it is a justifiable
loss or not is almost irrelevant. I think it can be uniformly
concluded that there will be a grave result in terms of U.S.
and Turkish relations, Turkish and Armenian relations, and what
have the Armenian people in America gained by this? Do they
have a museum so that hundreds of thousands of people can march
through it and learn and children can learn of the tragedy? No.
Do Armenian families in America get paid reparations for their
grave losses? No. They get fluff language, and I don't mean to
denigrate it. It is extremely important. But we are not
changing our economic relationship with Turkey on paper. We are
not creating museums. We are not creating learning. We have a
day of commemoration.
So it seems to me it is, in fact, an appropriate analysis
to ask what do we potentially lose and what do we potentially
gain? Going back to Mr. Bereuter's original comments, what is
in the national interests of the United States? It seems that
those that I will defer to in term of their extraordinary
expertise in both the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations
all agree that the equity is in the side of not passing the
resolution, and Mr. Chairman, that is why I will choose to
stick with that position.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Wexler.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
brief. I just want to pick up on a point made earlier, I think,
by my colleague from California, Mr. Royce. I am a supporter of
this resolution and intend to vote for it. This resolution
creates a problem for our executive branch, I recognize, but in
and of itself, that does not justify opposing the resolution.
Nations, as people, work themselves into curious states of
mind about different actions. Entirely different kinds of
issues have come up recently, which have resonance with me in
terms of the Administration's response on this issue.
China has a view of Taiwan. China is very important to us.
China's view on Taiwan is so deeply felt that, because of
China's importance to us, we here do not do what seems like
common sense things with respect to Taiwan. If the duly-elected
democratic leader of Taiwan is coming to the United States and
wants to talk to a Congressman, we will be massively
undermining U.S.-China relationships by doing this. China's
position is fundamentally irrational. It is not based on
policy. It is deeply felt. It is understandable, but in the
end, it can't sustain itself.
And while I recognize that support for this resolution puts
a special burden on the executive branch, the State Department
and our diplomats in particular, it is going to have to be your
job to communicate to these people the reality of what we are
saying rather than the atmospherics and the hysterics that they
have come to believe.
I heard a quote from the gentleman from North Dakota about
the patriarch of the Armenian Church, saying that third party
resolutions are a poor substitute for dialogue. That is true.
But in the end, sometimes third party resolutions, after a
period of anger and reaction, become the basis for the
dialogue. That dialogue has not taken place. The denial is not
being confronted, and sometimes we have to do things which
other people perceive in a certain way that we do not intend.
But once the acceptance of that becomes a move forward and a
move up, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. It is
historically valid, it is true. It is not an effort to destroy
or undermine our relationship with Turkey or a slap at modern
day Turkey in any way; and because they feel it is, does not
make it so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Berman. I appreciate your
being brief.
We now recognize Mr. Sanford.
Mr. Sanford. I would just like to associate my words with
the words of Mr. Ackerman in that I basically put myself in the
same camp because----
Mr. Ackerman. I have not spoken. I think you mean Mr.
Berman.
Mr. Sanford. I apologize. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ackerman. But I will, if the Chairman recognizes me.
Mr. Sanford. But I think you get to the very valid point,
which is, a lot of us have struggled on what to do on this
thing. I am just most pleased that the Committee took out the
proactive language asking State Department to do certain
things, because I think we have a real problem in this country
with foreign policy by congressional district; and my concern
overall with this original amendment when it came up was that
we would, once again, have foreign policy driven by a given
congressional district.
Now that that language has come out and now that, as I
understand, Tancredo is going to offer an amendment that would
further make clear this is not a slight against present day
folks in Turkey, but simply recognition of something that
happened in history, I am going to be able to support, and
again, I would associate my words with Mr. Berman, my
colleague.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Sanford.
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Meeks is not present.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend
you and Ranking Member Gejdenson for bringing this resolution
before us, and Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Ms. McKinney
for favorably reporting it out of their Subcommittee, and of
course Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Bonior for their authorship.
This moment is a long time coming, not only for myself but
for the 139 other cosponsors of the resolution. Many of us have
worked on this issue for years and years. It is a long time
coming for the 3\1/2\ million citizens of Armenia and the
millions of Americans of Armenian descent here in this country.
It comes too late for the 1\1/2\ million Armenians killed in
the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. It comes too
late, too, for the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust.
I won't spend time making the case that we are indeed
talking about a genocide. The resolution, through its numerous
findings, does that admirably and convincingly. I implore
anyone who still has a doubt to read the findings of the
resolution and check their original source or go back to the
New York Times pages of 1915 and 1916 as I have. Though it is
never too early, it is also not too late to educate ourselves
about the Armenian Genocide, and that is what this bill aims to
do.
As with the Holocaust, we have a responsibility to society
to recount for history of the Armenian Genocide so that we do
not forget its victims and so that we remember man's capacity
to destroy others who differ in their opinions based on race,
religion or ethnicity. Genocide is the most egregious crime. It
is not a crime of passion or revenge, but rather of hate. Its
innocent victims are guilty of only being born to a different
mother.
To those who continue to resist the truth, I say shame on
you, and I can only believe that those who have chosen to
ignore the cold, hard facts have done so in order to indulge
their shame. Denying the genocide, like denying the occurrence
of a holocaust, does not erase the tragedy, restore the lives
lost or compensate those driven from their homeland. Indeed, it
makes reconciliation harder, longer and more costly.
Look at our relationship with Germany. In pressing the
Germans, we strengthened their commitment to ensure that
another holocaust would never occur again, and we strengthened,
not weakened, our relationship with Germany, a significant NATO
ally.
Yes, Turkey has been an important ally. We recognize that.
But that does not mean that Turkey has been an unconditional
ally, and it must prove its commitment to the principles of
international law, democracy and human rights. I believe the
United States must be willing to stand up even to our closest
allies when they are wrong and when, as in this particular
case, we are not saying that modern Turkey, in fact, is
responsible. What we are saying is that this time in history
needs to be remembered because what has passed is often
prologue, and failure to remember, failure to recognize,
sweeping under the carpet of history is a mistake that
ultimately we are doomed to repeat time and time again.
I urge adoption of the resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had not originally
intended to speak on this resolution, but I feel moved to do so
by some of the questions that have been raised by our
colleagues during this discussion, which I find important as
well as intriguing, questions such as what do we lose and what
do we gain and what is in our national interest?
It seems to me when we talk about genocides or holocausts,
that even the survivors do not completely survive, that those
of us who, either ourselves or our parents have gone through
such a thing, feel and understand it ever so deeply. Some of us
should also note that when we as well as others said things
like never again, we should not only be talking about the
future, but we should not be pressed by historical revisionists
to also say never before.
The question of what is in our national interest, I think
it is in our national interest to speak the truth. I think it
is in our national interest to do what is right. I think it is
in our national interest to lead by example. And I think it is
in our national interest to be or become the moral leaders that
we think we are. I think it is also unfair to say that victims
who fight back because they fight back should also be counted
as aggressors.
As to what we gain and what we lose by doing this today, by
speaking the truth to our friends, I think we strengthen them
and prove our friendship. I think we make them better for it. I
think when they confront the realities and admit that things
happen that were not within their immediate historical control
and can also express their regrets about it that we can all
move on. And what do we as a Congress stand to gain, or what we
might stand to lose by either doing or not doing this today, I
think the answer might be our integrity.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just pick up on
that last word that Mr. Ackerman just spoke on integrity, which
to me becomes tremendously important. I don't know, even as I
sit here at this late hour, which way I am going to vote on
this bill, but integrity is tremendously important, and
integrity to me also starts at home.
When I think of a bill that recently was circulating in
this Congress, just asking this Congress to apologize to
African Americans for slavery, and when I looked at the number
of individuals who signed up on that bill, it was minuscule.
Integrity. Integrity starts at home. When I think of what
has happened to the native Americans in this land, and yet we
do not teach it in the manner that it should be taught. When I
look at my children's classes and my young daughter, who is now
16 years of age, and every year in this country they have what
we call Black History Month, and during that month, she has
come and said, Dad, I am tired of learning the same thing over
and over again about black history, and the only thing that
they teach me, and I know, I respect his role in history, is
Dr. King and the civil rights movement, but they never
acknowledge and teach me about the middle passage and what
happened to millions of Africans being brought over here in
chains in the hulls of slave ships.
Integrity. Integrity is when, in New York City, from which
I come, we try to have a curriculum of inclusion to include
everyone and that was denied. Integrity. So it gives me a
problem and I understand history, and we have got to make sure
that history is known so that it never repeats itself. And so,
it should be that I should have no hesitation in regard to this
bill, but the hesitation is because of the credibility or the
integrity of the body that is trying to say it to another body,
when yet we don't do it at home to ourselves. If we did it to
ourselves, then it is easy to say we have and stand on the
moral ground to do it for someone else.
And so I don't know which way I am going to vote, Mr.
Chairman. I know that we do and we must acknowledge genocide
wherever it is so that it never repeats itself, but I also know
that we as a body, and sometimes we--and this is a moral issue
in my opinion--have to forget politics. Politics is playing a
role in this because I don't know how we got where we are
today, other than it has to be politics, but we have to, as a
body at some time, decide that we are going to do the right
thing ourselves and acknowledge the wrongs that we have
committed to other people. Then I think we can stand on the
high moral ground to tell everyone else that you have to
acknowledge the wrong that you have done.
I yield back.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. We will now proceed
with the amendments. I recognize Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo, page
eleven, line 17, strike `and.' Page 11, line 24, strike the
period and insert `and.' Page eleven, after line 24, insert the
following, three, `calls upon--'.''
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. The amendment will be considered as having
been read. Without objection. Mr. Tancredo is now recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I will
take that much time. The purpose of my amendment is to simply
help clarify the intent of the resolution. If the purpose of
the resolution is, as has been expressed often, to identify the
sense of the Congress regarding the horrendous events taking
place in this area of the world 84 years ago, then it seems to
me that we should do just that. If we are not intent upon
assessing blame to the present government of Turkey which has
been a statement uttered several times by many Members of this
Committee, then I think it behooves us to also state that very
clearly and in as unambiguous manner as possible. That is the
purpose of my amendment.
It is a short one, and I think nothing more needs to really
be said, at least by me, and I will just ask for its adoption.
Chairman Gilman. Is anyone seeking time? Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend,
Congressman Tancredo, for his amendment, and I will support his
amendment.
I think it is important to realize that while his amendment
is a constructive one, and I trust all of my colleagues will
vote for it, it does not solve the underlying--Mr. Chairman,
the Committee is not in order.
Chairman Gilman. Committee will come to order. The
gentleman should be heard. You may proceed Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While Mr. Tancredo's
amendment is a constructive amendment, which I will support and
I hope all of my colleagues will, it does not address the
underlying issue. The underlying issue is a very simple one.
The government of Turkey and the Turkish people do not view
the House International Relations Committee or indeed the
Congress as a whole as a pedagogic instrument. That is not our
role in their eyes. And I think it takes an enormous degree of
unrealistic self-image to pretend that although our intentions
are noble and we clearly talk about events in the past, and
while, if we adopt this amendment, we again underscore that we
do not wish to criticize the current government of Turkey, that
is not how the underlying resolution is perceived. And I think
it is sort of important for all of us to be very conscious of
this.
Mr. Tancredo's amendment improves the underlying piece of
legislation, but it does not address the fundamental issue of
the underlying legislation, as I believe several earlier
comments did not.
Now, one of my colleagues referred to Elie Wiesel, and I
think several referred to scores of Holocaust specialists. I am
probably as close to Elie Wiesel as anybody in the Congress of
the United States. I have untold admiration and respect,
friendship and affection for him. We are friends. But I do not
view Elie Wiesel as an expert on U.S. foreign policy in the
21st century. Elie Wiesel is an expert on the Holocaust in
Europe in the 1930's and 1940's. He does not claim expertise
beyond that. I am as annoyed, as I take it everybody in this
room is, when Michael Jordan tells me what telephone to use.
That is not his field of expertise. And to drag Elie Wiesel and
other Holocaust scholars into a debate on U.S. national
interests in a critical region of the world in the 21st
century, with all due respect, is an absurdity. These would be
the first people to claim that they have no expertise in this
field.
Our job domestically and internationally is to promote the
national interests of the United States, not to listen to
Holocaust scholars on what they think about resolutions which
have a national foreign policy impact, about which they have no
expertise.
So Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. Tancredo's
amendment and urge all of my colleagues to vote for it. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Are any other
Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague that
this is a worthwhile amendment, but I also agree with what he
said, this doesn't change the underlying problem.
I think we have a bad case of what we call selective
righteousness, which is being expressed today, and the reason I
say that is because of the following, and Mr. Meeks hit right
on it. I don't know how he is going to vote but I think he hit
right on it.
We have not passed a resolution on African slave trade
involving the United States, but 18 million Africans were
carried into slavery, 18 million were stuffed into boats and
brought over to the United States, and I don't recall ever
seeing a resolution passed by the Congress condemning our
forefathers for allowing us to involve ourselves in the slave
trade. Why don't we do that?
Let us talk about the decimation of American Indians. When
we first came to this country there were about 7 million
Indians in this country. In 1890, that was reduced to 300,000.
Went from 7 million to 300,000. What do you think happened to
all those people? They were murdered. They were run off their
property and put into reservations. My colleague from North
Carolina talked about the trail of tears where Indians were
taken by the hundreds and thousands to Oklahoma and many, many
dying, starved to death because of that forced migration.
The Congo Free State, we haven't heard anything about that.
The Congo Free State--10 million, 10 million indigenous
Congolese died at the hands of the Belgians. Where's the
resolution on that? Ten million. That was the first one in the
20th century. Now we are going back 85 years. Why don't we go
back another 7 years to 1908 when 10 million Congolese were
massacred.
How about in the 20th century with Joseph Stalin? Where is
the resolution on Russia before the Soviet Union? Stalin killed
50 million. I don't hear anything about that. I haven't seen a
resolution like that.
Mao Tse-Tung, oh, we are really buddies with China right
now. They are still a Communist State. Killed 50 million. How
come we don't have a resolution on that?
Religious minorities in India. India is one of our friends
and allies. I never hear any criticism about them, but the fact
of the matter is the Sikhs, the Christians in Nagaland, the
Sikhs in Punjab, the Muslims in Kashmir by the hundreds of
thousands, have been killed and persecuted.
In Cambodia, there was a resolution on Cambodia, but it did
not deal with the massacre and the intentional killing of
anybody who wore glasses because they could read, and anybody
who was educated--millions died there.
The Sudan, the Sudan, what about the millions that have
died there just recently?
In Rwanda, 800,000 to 1\1/2\ million people were murdered.
Another two million fled to neighboring countries since 1994.
And I could go on if you want to to Australia, the
Aborigines and how they have been mistreated by the Australians
over the years, if you want to do that.
China, the treatment of Tibet; France, the Calvinist
executions of the Christians. We haven't talked about that.
Spain--the Spanish inquisition. You know, we can go on and on
and on, and you can go right up to the present day where these
things are going on between the Hutus and the Tutsis in Africa,
and yet we are being very selective in saying, oh my gosh, we
have got to do something about the so-called Armenian Genocide.
Today, the Armenians are taking their wrath out on the
Azerbaijanies. Are we going to have a resolution on that? I
mean, how far do we go?
The point I am trying to make is, we could go on ad
infinitum condemning people for atrocities that have taken
place. There is no question about it, but the thing we ought to
consider today is what is the national interest of the United
States? The Turks, if you look at their papers and their
television today, they are extremely upset. Our ambassador just
told you that this could upset the entire relationship we have
with them over there, our bases, Iraq, Iran, Syria, the entire
Middle East.
We don't know what could happen, but I could tell you this
kind of thing is full of mischief, and if we are going to do
it, if you are going to condemn all these atrocities that have
taken place in history, then let us do it right. Let us make a
bill that covers as many of them as possible, and if we find
more, bring up another bill to do it, but let us not have
selective righteousness today, especially when we killed 7 or 8
million Indians to take over this country. This was theirs.
They are living on reservations today. Now I am not saying that
I want to go back to the situation we had, but the fact is that
did take place, and I have never heard one resolution
condemning that.
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Radanovich--I am sorry.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The argument is we
can't pass this resolution because it doesn't deal with every
problem. Look at all the other resolutions we are going to deal
with today. Look at what this Committee does day after day,
week after week. We have a resolution coming up on Sudan. Are
we going to be told we can't pass a resolution about Sudan
because it doesn't mention Rwanda or Cambodia or East Timor?
We have a resolution coming up about Afghanistan. Are we
going to be told we can't pass that resolution because it
doesn't deal with atrocities in Colombia or that we can't pass
a resolution, the next one coming up on Kenya, because it
doesn't deal with some of the most frightful things that have
happened in other places? The resolution on Kenya deals with
assassination. Are we going to be told we can't pass that
resolution because we have had terrible assassinations here in
the United States, some of which remain unsolved?
Each resolution stands on its own. Each resolution is part
of a brick wall where we try to build an edifice dedicated to
human rights, and if we are told that no brick can be put in
place because it does not encompass everything, then we will
never build the wall. Of course, we should often recognize the
horrors of slavery and the genocide of America against so many
American Indian tribes or native American tribes. But is that a
reason that we would not pass a resolution about Cambodia or
Afghanistan or Rwanda or Sudan or Armenia?
Second, we are told that we are unworthy of passing a
resolution judging others. Yet we pass resolutions every day or
every week praising Benin or some other country for
successfully completing its democratic elections. Are we going
to halt all resolutions praising the successful democratic
elections in other countries because there are flaws in our own
democracy? We have got to deal with this resolution as an
individual resolution.
I would point out that the European Parliament, the Russian
Duma, the Canadian House of Commons, the Belgian senate and the
French national assembly, not to mention the parliaments of
Sweden and Lebanon, have all passed resolutions along the same
lines in the last 15 years. Are we to say that they are worthy
to pass resolutions, ignoring, as the gentleman points out,
what happened in the Belgian Congo? I don't think that we
should ignore human rights or history simply because we
ourselves are guilty of terrible abuses or simply because no
one resolution can encompass all of these facts.
We are told that our national interest requires us to
ignore the Armenian Genocide. I will repeat again. If in 20
years it becomes, in the short term, alleged national interest
of this country to march down and tear down the Holocaust
Museum because a new powerful German government insists upon it
or requests it, is there anyone here willing to march down with
picks and blowtorches ready to destroy the Holocaust Museum,
should some powerful ally of the United States request that in
some subsequent decade? I don't think we are willing to ignore
the Holocaust, no matter what the short term political
international exigencies, nor do I think that we can ignore the
Armenian Genocide for the same reason.
Our strength comes from integrity, as the gentleman from
New York said, and if we think that a few months of bad press
in Ankara is more important than the integrity and the image of
the United States for caring about human rights and caring
about integrity and caring about the historical record, then I
don't think that the rest of the world will judge us as fit to
be the world's only superpower, a role that we hold in large
part because of the respect that we have around the world.
So I look forward to the passage of this resolution. I
think the amendment strengthens the resolution and demonstrates
to the people of Turkey that we regard these as important
historical facts committed by another government.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. The gentleman's
time has expired.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, we are running out of time
here. I just ask unanimous consent that we move the amendment
at this time.
Mr. Burton. Reserving the right to object.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton reserves the right to object.
Mr. Burton. I believe that each one of these--I am going to
support this amendment, but I believe that every Member ought
to have a right to, because of the significance of this
legislation, every Member ought to have right to express
themselves on these amendments. Therefore, if there are other
Members who want to express their views on this amendment, then
I think that they should. And so pending finding out if other
Members want to speak on this, I object.
Chairman Gilman. We have a request by Mr. Radanovich, Mr.
Campbell, and Mr. Royce to speak. Do these gentlemen object to
our taking up the amendment at this time?
Mr. Radanovich. I do not.
Mr. Royce. I do not object.
Mr. Campbell. I do not.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich?
Mr. Radanovich. I support the amendment and do not object.
Chairman Gilman. All right. Then at this time without
objection, the question is on the amendment. All in favor
signify in the usual manner. Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Are there any further amendments? Well, let me say this, that
since we have a vote--are there any further amendments?
Mr. Lantos. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
desk which I think will entail considerable debate. I would
suggest we take a break and then return.
Chairman Gilman. Let us report the amendment, at least, and
then we will take a break and come back after the vote.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, on this amendment I reserve a
point of order.
Chairman Gilman. Well, we haven't heard the amendment yet.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Lantos, strike all that follows----
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. Mr. Radanovich reserves a point of
order. We are now on the Lantos amendment. You reserved a point
of order.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, may I reserve a point of
order, please.
Chairman Gilman. Yes, you have reserved a point of order.
We resume proceedings at 1. The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
Mr. Lantos is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me first commend all of my colleagues on
all sides of this issue, because they have brought valuable
insights to what is a very complex problem.
My substitute, I believe, takes care of most of the
concerns, objections, and goals of all of my colleagues. Before
presenting the amendment, let me just state a few facts.
During the course of the last 20 years, every single
American President, every single American Secretary of State,
every single American Secretary of Defense, every single
American National Security Adviser deemed this resolution that
was originally introduced--not my substitute, the original
resolution--contrary to U.S. National interests.
From Ronald Reagan to George Bush to William Clinton, from
George Shultz to Madeleine Albright, from Colin Powell to you
name it, all of our top officials in the foreign policy and the
national security field have deemed my colleague's amendment,
my colleague's resolution, severely damaging to U.S. National
interests.
Nothing has changed. Some of my colleagues raised the issue
earlier that occasionally we deal with other specific issues,
and there is no objection. Well, sure, when there are no heavy
national security interests adversely affected, we pass
resolutions perhaps without the necessary scrutiny and without
the necessary debate.
I am delighted we have had this debate.
I want to deal for a moment, Mr. Chairman, with the German
case. Several of my colleagues indicated, well, why can't the
Turkish Government take the same position the German Government
does?
Well, I wish they did. I think the German Government's
approach, beginning with the regime of Conrad Adenauer and all
through the decades, has been a very farsighted, very mature,
very judicious, and very intelligent approach. Our job would be
a great deal more manageable if the Government of Turkey would
have the same farsighted approach, saying mea culpa, mea maxima
culpa, and we move on from there.
Those are not the facts. It is regrettable that those are
not the facts, but American national security and foreign
policy interests must take precedent over satisfying any lobby,
any lobby in this country.
We have also heard some comments about unintended
consequences. Well, there are unintended consequences in two
ways. There are unintended consequences which are not pointed
out, and there are unintended consequences which are
highlighted. I am trying to highlight the unintended
consequences of this well-intentioned resolution of my
colleague. Those consequences will be devastating, they will be
devastating across the board with respect to all of the issues
in which Turkey is involved, including Turkish-Armenian
relations.
Mr. Meeks and others have indicated the tremendous range of
human rights violations over the years. My resolution deals
with all of them, without singling out any of them.
If I may just deal with one paragraph in this resolution:
``Despite the best efforts of democratic nations and
the ameliorating influence of the universal religious
and humanist traditions, the 20th century was the
bloodiest in history, with an estimated 175 million
people worldwide having lost their lives because of
politically motivated violations, genocide, ethnic
cleansing, planned starvation, and other forms of
exploitation and basic cruelty.''
My substitute, Mr. Chairman, deals with the tragedy of
Armenia. It fully recognizes the horrendous human suffering,
anguish, and devastation that unfolded in the case of Armenia,
but it does not single out Turkey, an important NATO ally,
where current and future U.S. National security interests and
foreign policy interests are so important.
I strongly urge the adoption of the substitute, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment. I would simply say that again I think
Mr. Lantos--I think many of us--are concerned about the impact
on Turkish-American relations. I believe Turkish-American
relations are based on mutual interest. They are strong allies
in the region. They share many of our same concerns for
security and stability in the region. That should continue.
I do think that the authors of this resolution deserve to
have an up-and-down vote on the resolution, that there is a
process whereby one has to confront the horrors of the past.
I do think the original text does that. It does so
especially with the amendment that I worked on with Mr.
Tancredo--that the resolution is not intended in any way to be
an affront to the modern Turkish Government--that this is a
recognition of a horror that happened in history, and we should
simply vote our conscience on that, up or down.
The gentleman's amendment might be a nice and worthy
resolution, but it does not meet the needs of what we are
discussing today.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just point out, we do
speak out on genocide; we do speak out to condemn other
governments. As a matter of fact, we have agreed to bring up a
resolution by Mr. Lantos criticizing Kenya, and yet Mombasa is
a strategic port.
Earlier this year we brought up the resolution to condemn
Sudan's government for its genocidal war in southern Sudan. I
will remind the Members that that vote on the House floor
passed by 416 to 1. In doing so, that resolution found that the
Sudanese Government is deliberately and systematically
committing genocide in southern Sudan.
Mr. Lantos. Will my colleague yield for a moment?
Mr. Royce. I will yield.
Mr. Lantos. There are two profound differences in the
example my good friend raises. The first one is that the
Sudanese Government, the current Sudanese Government, is
currently engaged in human rights violations of the most
egregious types. Number two, Sudan is not a major NATO ally.
So with all due respect to my colleague, to lump this
resolution together with a long overdue denunciation of the
dictatorial regime in the Sudan which is, as we sit here,
killing people for religious and other reasons, I don't think
is a very accurate comparison.
Mr. Royce. It is not the only comparison I made, if I could
reclaim my time. I also pointed out your resolution, that we
have agreed to bring up criticizing the Government of Kenya,
despite the fact that we have a strategic port there.
My point is that regardless of whether Sudan was an ally or
not an ally, I am glad we have spoken out on the Sudan. I wish
the U.S. Congress had spoken out at the time of the Armenian
genocide. What we can do now is move to set this record
straight. I suggest we do.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I would like to take a brief moment to rise in
opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to
point out that the language is certainly not objectionable. As
a matter of fact, it is laudable language.
But the fact that it is being offered in lieu of the
pending resolution, as a way of not getting to the underlying
issue, is a problem. As a free-standing vehicle, perhaps as an
introduced bill referred to the appropriate committee, which
obviously would be the Subcommittee on International Operations
and Human Rights, it would be a fine resolution. But I think we
need to realize that this would take the place of the very
substantive language that Mr. Radanovich has offered.
Let me just say to my good friend, previously he was
talking about Elie Wiesel, and questioned whether he is an
expert on the genocide that has gone on, or went on, in Armenia
by the Ottoman Empire. I happen to believe that he is an expert
with enormous standing when he speaks of terrible and
despicable crimes. When he stood at the Holocaust Museum with
the President of the United States and turned to Mr. Clinton
and said, ``Do something, Mr. President,'' it was with the
weight of a man who has lived through atrocities, and his words
need to be listened to very carefully.
When we juxtapose that with the scholars who have come
forward, as was noted earlier in the debate, if we are still
talking about findings of fact, those who have been in denial
have won. They have gotten us to delay, to suggest that there
are some holes in the argument. That is not the case.
As my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Menendez, said earlier, look at the record. It is replete. It
is filled with factual documentation about this despicable
crime.
When it comes to chastising other despicable crimes, I take
a second place to nobody. As a Member for the last 20 years, I
have spoken out against crimes against humanity in China, twice
got the whole House of Representatives to go on record decrying
forced abortion in China as a crime against humanity. I have
offered resolutions time and again regarding virtually every
part of the world.
When I joined Mr. Lantos and many others and took the lead
in Romania, we were told by the State Department, don't ruffle
the feathers. That was a Reagan and Bush State Department; yet,
we stood up against Nicholas Ceausescu and talked about his
crimes.
The point is, we have before us a very well-crafted
resolution by Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Rogan, and the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Bonior, and 100-plus other cosponsors. We need to
deal with that language and not try to supplant it with what is
otherwise very laudable language.
Mr. Lantos. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith. I yield to my friend.
Mr. Lantos. As the gentleman knows, I have the utmost
regard for my good friend. I stood with him or he stood with me
on human rights issues for 20 years.
There are profound differences between both the Communist
regime of Ceausescu in Romania and the despicable Communist
dictatorship in Beijing. You and I have stood together
denouncing Ceausescu and denouncing the rulers in Beijing.
Turkey happens to be a major NATO ally. China is not a
major NATO ally. Ceausescu's Romania was not a NATO ally. To
draw these analogies, with all due respect, I believe confuses
the issue. The issue is, do we deliberately wish to insult, to
humiliate, a major NATO ally in the most strategic location of
the Middle East and the edge of Europe?
My judgment is that, on balance, it is contrary to our
national interest to do so. That is why I offer my substitute,
which denounces all of the actions that the original resolution
denounces, but does so in a nonhumiliating fashion.
Mr. Smith. Reclaiming my time, Conrad Adenauer in the
current, as well as the post-Nazi, government in Germany made
it very clear that that which went on, the Holocaust and the
terrible behavior of the Nazis, was something that they would
not countenance, and they denounced it. Constantinescu, the
President of Romania, will tell you any day he has no problem,
as do any democrats in Romania, of denouncing the egregious
behavior of the Ceausescu regime.
The problem with the gentleman from Turkey is the denial
issue. I believe the beginning of healing, rather than the
continuing festering of the problem, is an honest assessment of
what happened. Admit it and move on. Why deny it? It only
brings more scrutiny.
Again, the pending resolution is fine in and of its own
right. When it is done in lieu of the amendment, that is not
so.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr.
Lantos a question. I don't have the text of the gentleman's
amendment. Does his amendment condemn the atrocities committed
by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people?
Mr. Lantos. It does not set out any specific set of
atrocities. It deals with these outrageous human rights
violations which resulted in 175 million innocent people being
killed during the last century.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It does not mention any country in
particular?
Mr. Lantos. It does not mention any country.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just suggest, if your amendment
would be amended to include a list of countries that included
the Ottoman Empire, so that it would be specifically mentioning
the genocide that this whole debate is about, I would be
inclined to support your amendment.
If it does not, I think those of us who are inclined to
support the Radanovich proposal here cannot come over and say
that this is an adequate substitute. But if you would include
the names of the Ottoman Empire and several other countries who
have committed atrocities, I think that would be adequate to
accomplish what this Committee is trying to do here today.
Mr. Lantos. Will my friend yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly would.
Mr. Lantos. I think his suggestion is a very constructive
one. I take it seriously. If we can defer action on this
matter, I will proceed in developing such a comprehensive list
and bring it back at the next meeting of the Committee. I will
be most happy to do so.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am afraid that we are probably going to
have votes on this issue before you would have that chance. If
your staff or someone could put together that amendment to your
amendment, as we speak now, I would then be inclined to support
your proposal. Otherwise, I could not do that.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the
question asked by our friend, Chairman Burton, and now Mr.
Lantos, why some and not others.
I think one distinction that might be borne in mind is, as
long as there is a victim who is still alive--you cannot bring
back everything, but maybe there is something that a resolution
can do. That, it seems to me, is one distinction we have not
spent time with.
I remember voting in favor of the Japanese-American apology
when our good friend, Norm Mineta, proposed it. That is a
distinction between some of the questions that our good friend,
Chairman Burton, raised about other atrocities, including
slavery and including the Trail of Tears that our friend, Mr.
Ballenger, raised. It is not a perfect rule, but I think it is
one that might give us a little guidance at present.
What we do should be more than a debating society. We all
grant that we are at risk of being characterized as such if all
we do is make pronouncements. But if there is a victim today,
still alive, whose pain can be somewhat alleviated, even in a
minor degree, by a resolution that shows some people in the
world recognize the validity of their suffering, that it did
happen, I think it separates it from all the other cases.
The only exemption, I suppose--the only remaining question,
one Mr. Meeks raised, is perhaps we ought to be very careful
about being introspective about our own country.
I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time, I would just say that
we are also here--and as Mr. Lantos and others have reminded
us--engaged in making American foreign policy that will
determine the peace of this world, as well as the well-being of
our country.
We must, when dealing with a country like Turkey, remember
that Turkey has not just been a friend, it has been a good
friend to the United States. In the Korean War and in Vietnam,
the Turks were there at our side. In the battle against drugs,
Turkey was almost overrun with drug dealers 50 years ago. They
fought against them and they have succeeded. Now they are
playing a very important, positive role in Central Asia.
If there is a way for us to deal with this crime of the
Ottoman Empire and not at the same time going out of the way to
hurt Turkey--which is, after all, not the government and not
the same people who committed this crime--let us do this.
But as someone who believes that human rights have to play
an important role in American policy, I think at least putting
it on the record has to be part of any amendment.
Mr. Lantos. If my friend will yield, I have prepared his
list. If I may read that list, I would appreciate his support.
The list I am proposing is: China, the Soviet Union, South
Africa, the Ottoman Empire, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan, among
others.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Menendez. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Has the Chair ruled on the point of order that was observed
at the beginning of the debate?
Chairman Gilman. Let me respond to the gentleman.
Mr. Radanovich has made a point of order, but he has
reserved his point of order.
Mr. Radanovich. I raise that point of order now.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, you recognized me, I believe.
Mr. Radanovich. Point of order as to the germaneness.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
Normally I know the answer to my questions, but in this case, I
don't.
If the gentleman is pressing his point of order at this
stage and he is no longer reserving it, do you have to rule on
his point of order before Mr. Burton speaks?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. In response to the gentleman's inquiry,
Mr. Burton had been recognized and I cannot take him off his
feet, but I will then recognize the objection that has been
raised right after Mr. Burton.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Lantos. Parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. Lantos. I think Mr. Burton's point and all other points
should be deliberately listened to by all of us. We have a live
vote. I would like to request that we recess, and when we
return Mr. Burton should be given the floor.
But I don't think we can operate this with the bells
ringing. This is an important issue. It deserves the attention
we are all giving to it.
I am asking unanimous consent that we now recess until
after the vote.
Chairman Gilman. In response to your request, Mr. Lantos,
this I understand is the last vote of the day. I fear we won't
have enough Members here to continue our business. It is our
intention, the intention of the Chair, to move our entire
agenda over until next week, but we will try to conclude on
this amendment if we can. If we cannot, we will have to put
that over, as well.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I will try not to take the full 5
minutes so we can reach the floor.
I appreciate Mr. Lantos' remarks. First of all, let me say,
I think Mr. Lantos' suggestion and his amendment in the nature
of a substitute is far preferable to what we have before us.
I also think that what he has suggested as a list of
nations that have committed acts, atrocities and other acts of
genocide, should be incorporated into that. Then I would be
happy to support that.
Let me just read real briefly to you something that has
been omitted. This occurred February 23, 1995. I hope every
Member will listen to this, because we are talking about so-
called Armenian genocide--and there were atrocities that took
place, there is no question about that. This is in 1995.
``Armenian forces,'' Armenian forces, ``often with
the direct military support of the Republic of Armenia,
were responsible for the majority of violations of the
laws of war and fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1993
and 1994, according to Human Rights Watch/Helsinki.
``In its 136-page report, 'Azerbaijan's Seven Years
of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh,' released today, Human
Rights Watch/Helsinki documents hostage taking and
holding, violent forced displacement of civilians,
mistreatment and likely execution of prisoners,
indiscriminate fire, and looting and burning of
civilian homes in 1993 and 1995 by Armenian forces,
often supported militarily by the Republic of
Armenia.''
Here is another forced replacement by the people that we
are supposed to be recognizing today as victims of genocide.
If we are going to be talking about this kind of a
resolution, let's don't be selective. Let's make sure that we
include as many as possible of those who perpetrated acts of
genocide upon humanity or upon their own people.
I think that is what Mr. Lantos is trying to say and trying
to do. We don't always agree on everything, but I will tell
you, I think he is right on the money today. For us to do less
is to be very selective. Why pick out one when there are so
many others, including the Armenians?
Mr. Radanovich. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Burton. I am happy to yield.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, I raise my point of order as
to germaneness.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich raises his point of order.
Mr. Radanovich. As to germaneness.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton has 2 more minutes.
Mr. Burton. Let me just say that I think we need to get to
the floor and vote. He is going to raise the point of order
anyhow.
I have concluded my remarks. I yield.
Chairman Gilman. I will now take up Mr. Radanovich's point.
Will the gentleman make his statement on his point of
order?
Mr. Radanovich. I might be willing to consider an amendment
like this, and with all due respect to the author of the
amendment, if there was language in it that also struck every
reference to the Jewish Holocaust and replaced it with this
watered-down piece of nothing.
Congress has historically in the past, and in this
Committee, dealt with specific genocides--Sudan, Yugoslavia,
and Rwanda, as examples. This amendment does not deal with the
issue of the Armenian genocide. To my knowledge, the Ottoman
Empire is not a member of NATO.
I would request that this Committee reject this. It is not
germane to the bill. The bill is specific to the Armenian
genocide. That is why I raise the issue of germaneness.
Chairman Gilman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair is
prepared to rule on the germaneness:
The Lantos amendment deals with a matter other than the
central subject of the pending resolution, the Armenian
genocide. In fact, it removes all reference to the Armenian
genocide.
Accordingly, the point of order is well taken. Under clause
7 of rule XVI, the amendment is ruled out of order.
Mr. Lantos. I challenge the ruling of the Chair.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the ruling of the
Chair.
Will the ruling of the Chair stand as a ruling of the
Committee?
Mr. Radanovich is recognized to offer a motion to table.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to lay the
appeal on the table.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on tabling the motion to
appeal the ruling of the Chair.
All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, I request a rollcall, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Is there a sufficient second for the
rollcall?
Mr. Burton. Second.
Chairman Gilman. The Chair will count. An insufficient
number is present for the rollcall.
Mr. Lantos. Could you specify what you mean by ``an
insufficient number for the rollcall?''
Chairman Gilman. A recorded vote has been demanded. One-
fifth of those present, if a quorum is present.
Accordingly, there is no----
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. Who is asking for recognition?
Mr. Burton. Congressman Burton.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. I make a point of order that a quorum is not
present.
Chairman Gilman. The Chair will count.
A quorum is present. Since there is a vote on now and since
the amendment has been declared nongermane, we will now recess
until next week, at which time proper notice will be sent to
all of the Members of the Committee, which will conclude with
our resolutions.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned,
subject to the call of the Chair.]
H. CON. RES. 596; H. RES. 577; H. CON. RES. 397; S. 2682; H. CON. RES.
404; S. 1453; H. RES. 588; H. CON. RES. 414; H. CON. RES. 410; H. CON.
RES. 361; AND H. CON. RES. 382
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
The Committee on International Relations meets today in
open session to continue its markup of several matters which
began on Thursday, September 28.
H. CON. RES. 404--CALLING FOR RELEASE OF MR. EDMOND POPE
Chairman Gilman. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 404
relating to Edmund Pope, which is a critical measure, and we
want to get it done before we get into the remainder of our
agenda today.
The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The
Clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 404, calls for the immediate
release of Mr. Edmond Pope from prison in the Russian
Federation for humanitarian reasons and for other purposes.''
Chairman Gilman. This resolution is referred to the
Committee by the Speaker and, in addition, to the Committee on
Ways and Means and the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services.
Without objection, the preamble and text of the resolution
will be read in that order for amendment. The Clerk will read.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas Mr. Edmund Pope of State College,
Pennsylvania----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read, and is open to amendment at any
point.
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. This measure was introduced by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.
This House concurrent resolution introduced by Congressman
Peterson of Pennsylvania, puts on record a defense of Edmund
Pope, an American citizen who has been jailed by the Russian
government for several months, now on a charge of espionage
that, by all accounts, is based on extremely dubious evidence.
The resolution calls on the Russian government to immediately
release Mr. Pope and to make certain that he is provided proper
medical attention for the rare form of cancer with which he is
afflicted.
Let me note to my colleagues that Mr. Pope is a
businessman, that he has been to Russia many times over the
past few years on business trips. We simply do not believe that
the Russian government has proved its case, particularly in
light of the fact that a Russian citizen who supposedly worked
with Mr. Pope in the alleged espionage case has already been
released by the Russian government.
This resolution makes it clear that if Mr. Pope is not
released, the President of the United States should continue to
seek his release and should consider terminating all assistance
that our Nation provides to the Russian government under our
Foreign Assistance Act for purposes of preparing Russia to
enter the World Trade Organization. It also calls on our
President to refuse further debt relief to the Russian
government if it does not release Mr. Pope.
My colleagues, the actions of the Russian government in
this case do not appear to be those of a country interested in
proper treatment of businessmen and investors. I believe it is,
therefore, appropriate to send this message in the form of a
nonbinding resolution that we expect a Nation that wants to be
part of international trade organizations and that wants wishes
for more American investment to treat our American businessmen
appropriately.
I would further point out to my colleagues that over the
past few years, our government has reportedly arrested several
Russian spies here in the United States; some under diplomatic
cover and others operating without it. We are all aware of the
reports that Russian spying conducted here in the United States
from espionage facilities such as the one in Lourdes, Cuba is
today at record levels. It is ironic that Russia would arrest
and imprison for months an American businessman who very well
may be innocent, all the while conducting espionage against us
at records that exceed those of the Cold War.
I support this nonbinding resolution, and I urge my
colleagues to adopt it.
Is there any other Member seeking recognition?
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, let me first associate myself
with all of your comments and add my own. I think the time has
come for Mr. Putin to decide whether he wishes to have
constructive relations with the United States, whether he
wishes to be part of the G-8 democratic industrial nations, or
whether he chooses to go down the path of his own KGB history.
The continued incarceration of Mr. Pope is an outrage. This
gentleman is suffering from bone cancer, Graves Disease, and
melanoma. Is he palpably not a spy, and Mr. Putin and his
regime must be put on notice that further hostile actions
against the United States will evoke an appropriate response.
I would like to advise my colleagues that I am working with
some Republican colleagues to introduce a resolution removing
Russia from the G-8. The G-8 was an accommodation to Boris
Yeltsin during the high point of Yeltsin's democratic
performance. It is self-evident that Russia is not one of the
great industrial nations of the world today; its economy is no
greater than that of the tiny west European country of Belgium.
It has been an accommodation that the G-7 have provided the
Russians in an attempt to cement their relationship with the
democratic world. It was always a fiction, but it is becoming
increasingly an obscene fiction as the free press is suppressed
in Russia, and as an American citizen is held on trumped-up spy
charges.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
It is unconscionable that a gravely ill American citizen should
be allowed to remain in Soviet prison, while Russia continues
to conduct business with Iran, Iraq and others, attempting to
break the flight embargo to Iraq, and is displaying a wide
range of hostile acts. The incarceration of individuals
associated with the free media was an ominous sign. There are
now new signs of new mock trials being prepared by the Putin
regime, and the massage of this resolution calling for the
immediate release of Edmund Pope is a useful signal as to the
views of the Congress of the United States.
I strongly urge the adoption of the resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join my
colleagues. The Russia in this case really seems more like the
old Russia than any new possible Russia that we had hoped for.
I am someone who believes strongly in a close relationship and
working with the Russians to develop a modern democratic
society, a civil society with democratic, free market
institutions. Not letting this gentleman see a western
oncologist and keeping him incarcerated in his present
condition is simply an outrage that no government should
exercise, especially one that is trying to convince the world
that it has chosen a new course and is moving away from its
old, repressive past.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the legislation.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
I would like to note that in the rear of the room we have
Mrs. Pope, who we welcome to our Committee today, and we hope
that your husband will soon have an early release. Welcome,
Mrs. Pope.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to associate myself with the sentiments of Mr.
Lantos. We are doing that more often these days. This is a case
where an American citizen has been unjustly and brutally
treated by the Russian government, and it is reminiscent of
days gone by.
I am assured by my contacts in the intelligence community
that Mr. Pope was not and is not, in any way, an intelligence
operative for the United States Government. The material he was
supposedly looking at, which caused the Russians so much
trouble, was material that was shown to many businessmen and
many U.S. Government officials at various weapons shows and
military shows and things such as that.
If Mr. Pope continues to be treated the way he is being
treated and is not released, there will be consequences. We
have already heard from Mr. Lantos some of the ideas and some
of the things that he is doing that would be impacted by the
treatment of Mr. Pope. I have a resolution on the floor today
in the House asking that the Russian debt not be restructured
because of their sending missiles to the Communist Chinese. I
would draw attention to that of our Russian friends, that there
will be more resolutions like this resolution, and we will
consider Russia a hostile rather than a friendly government if
they treat our citizens as such.
We want to be friends with Russia. We want to be friends,
we want to have a new relationship that is totally different
than the relationship we had during the Cold War. But they
cannot have that type of relationship and the benefits of that
type of goodwill if they treat citizens like Edmund Pope the
way they are, so I strongly support this resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Does any other
Member seek recognition?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and express my
support for this resolution and thank you for bringing it
before the Committee today. This resolution calls for the
immediate release of Mr. Pope, an American citizen allegedly
arrested for spying in Russia and imprisoned in Moscow since
early April of this year. Mr. Pope has been arrested for
allegedly trying to purchase secret technology that had been
advertised commercially for sale. When you consider that the
Russian government has released the alleged co-conspirator in
this case, it is difficult to understand why Mr. Pope is
considered such a dangerous criminal. Moreover, Mr. Pope is
seriously ill, and the Russian government has not permitted an
American physician to visit, which one might expect simply for
humanitarian considerations.
When we look at the long, drawn out case of Alexander
Nikitin, for whom it took 4\1/2\ years to prove his innocence
on trumped-up charges of espionage, I believe it is unlikely
that Mr. Pope would survive a lengthy judicial process. As we
all know, the Secretary of State has expressed her concern
about this case at our hearing last week, and I think it is an
important and timely resolution. I thank you for bringing it
before the Committee.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Is any other Member seeking recognition? If not, the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized to offer a
motion.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on
the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. All those in favor of the
motion signify in the usual manner. All those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make
motions under rule 20 relating to a conference on this bill or
a counterpart from the Senate. Further proceedings on this
measure are postponed.
H. RES. 596--RELATING TO THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WITH
RESPECT TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will now resume its
consideration of H. Res. 596.
The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Res. 596, a resolution calling upon the
President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United
States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity
concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and
genocide documents in the United States record relating to the
Armenian genocide, and for other purposes.''
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. When the Committee adjourned on Thursday,
H. Res. 596, had been read for amendment and was deemed open to
amendment at any point. Amendments offered by Mr. Tancredo and
Mr. Lantos had been disposed of.
As we now resume our consideration of House concurrent
resolution 596, I want to recognize our Chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, Mr. Goss, who has requested consent to
address the Committee very briefly. Regrettably, Mr. Goss will
not be able to answer questions due to the sensitive nature of
his jurisdiction.
Mr. Goss.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Lantos. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. Lantos. Would it be reasonable to ask Mr. Goss
questions which do not relate to sensitive intelligence
matters? I find it, Mr. Chairman, unacceptable that the
universally respected Chairman of the Intelligence Committee
should not be able to use his own judgment as to what questions
he is prepared to answer and not to answer. I would like to ask
him some questions. I presume other Members of this Committee
will want to ask him questions, and I don't think it is
appropriate for you to foreclose the possibility----
Chairman Gilman. Well, Mr. Lantos, if you will yield, we
don't intend to foreclose. We will leave that entirely to the
discretion of Mr. Goss on any questions that he may wish to
answer.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Goss.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege and a
pleasure to be back in this room working with this Committee. I
came this morning not to participate in a policy debate at all,
that is your prerogative and the business of this Committee. I
came to state that I have some very serious reservations about
the consequences of the timing in the matter that is before
your Committee and how they might impact our national security.
It is my view that they would impact our national security
negatively at this time. I say that based not only on the
information I have coming from my Committee and working from
members of the intelligence community that are concerned about
this, but I also say that having been contacted by members of
the Administration who have underscored to me that our thinking
is correct, that there are serious negative consequences should
this pass.
I will be opposing this legislation should it come to the
floor and urging colleagues to oppose it on those grounds, and
I wanted the Committee to understand that.
Again, I am not taking a policy position on it; I am taking
a position that there are serious consequences to our national
security which are adverse at an extremely sensitive time in a
region where I think we could have some of those dreaded,
unintended, negative consequences that we all worry about when
we pass legislation. That is what I wanted to say to the
Committee. I thank you for allowing me to say it. I will
certainly say that I have been to Turkey recently, I have also
been in the area. I understand firsthand and in firsthand
conversations some of the equities that are involved, and I
think I would be very upset, and I think we all would be very
upset if some of those equities were no longer available to
this Nation in its effort to protect the national security of
Americans at home and abroad.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions, but I do not presume to participate in your policy
debate.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Goss, we thank you for appearing
today, and there probably are some questions.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Goss, how long have you served in the Congress?
Mr. Goss. Mr. Lantos, I am in my 12th year.
Mr. Lantos. How long have you been Chairman of the
Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Goss. This is my 4th year.
Mr. Lantos. Have you ever requested to speak on an issue
before the International Relations Committee?
Mr. Goss. I have several times been invited back to the
Committee to discuss matters where capability and policy seemed
to come together overseas. I have always had extremely generous
treatment from Chairman Gilman and I am grateful for that. I
believe this is the first time I have ever come forward in a
manner such as I have today.
Mr. Lantos. Is it reasonable to assume that your judgment
of the national security implications of this proposed
resolution is so severe that it prompted you to appear before
this Committee?
Mr. Goss. That is reasonable. I can assure you that I was
aware of this matter previously, I have talked to a number of
people on my own initiative about it, and I felt it was
important, after the conversations I have had in the past few
weeks on this matter, to share my concern that it is so great
that I will be taking a position on the floor in strong
opposition, should this matter come to the floor.
Mr. Lantos. Chairman Goss, have you seen a copy of the
letter sent to Chairman Gilman and signed by a large number of
former secretaries of State and chairmen of the joint chiefs?
Mr. Goss. I am aware of its presence; I have not read it.
Mr. Lantos. Allow me, Mr. Goss, to read a small portion of
this and ask for your view of this letter sent by a most
distinguished array of defense officials in both Republican and
Democratic Administrations.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Lantos, would you refer to the date of
that letter?
Mr. Lantos. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman. This letter
is dated October 2, 2000, addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, and I
think we all received a copy.
The letter reads as follows:
``Dear Mr. Chairman:
``We urge opposition to House Resolution 596 recently
passed by the Subcommittee on International Operation
and Human Rights concerning the attention which should
be given by the President to the Armenian Genocide and
American Foreign Policy.
``Whatever you or others may feel about the merits of
this resolution, it is important to understand the real
world consequences of its adoption. The potential for
damage to U.S. interests in a vital region dramatically
outweighs,'' dramatically outweighs, ``in our judgment,
any acknowledgment of past atrocities during World War
I and its aftermath.
``Turkey's strategic location at the crossroads of
Europe, the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans,
as well as its unique position as the only Muslim
democratic country with a vigorous market economy,
places it at the center of U.S. short- and long-term
strategic interests.
``Now is not the time to test the will of an
indispensable ally which, for over 40 years, has proven
its loyalty and strategic importance. A staunch ally
during the Cold War, Turkey will be even more crucial
to U.S. security interests in the 21st century in a
region plagued by new security challenges, including
political instability, Islamic extremism, proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and
narcotics trafficking.
``Turkey's cooperation is essential to promote U.S.
strategic interests in the region. Yet, with the
adoption of this resolution, no Turkish Government will
be able to be as forthcoming as in the past, given its
public's strong sensitivities to events clouded by
history.''
I won't read the rest of the letter, but I want to read,
Mr. Chairman, some of the signatories of this letter. Our most
recent Secretary of Defense, William J. Perry; the former
Secretary of Defense, Frank Carlucci; General Alexander Haig,
former Secretary of State and former Supreme Allied Commander
for Europe; Admiral William J. Crowe, former Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Wesley K. Clark, recently
retired Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; General George
Joulwan, former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; General
John Shalikashveli, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; General
Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser; Mr. James
Woolsey, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;
General John W. Vessey, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and the list goes on.
Now, I would like to ask Mr. Goss, first of all, whether he
agrees with the substance of the letter?
Mr. Goss. I do.
Mr. Lantos. Secondly, if I may ask you, Mr. Goss, do you
think that you and I and the other 433 Members of Congress
should give some weight to the powerfully expressed views of
secretaries of defense, chairmen of Joint Chiefs of Staff,
under both Democratic and Republican Administrations who rarely
produce a document as powerful and as carefully reasoned as
this one?
Mr. Goss. Mr. Lantos, I very strongly believe in the
democratic process and representative government, and I think
that part of that process is that Members bring here to this
wonderful forum in the people's House many views across America
of things that are important on the minds of many Americans.
But I also feel that there is a requirement beyond just that
individual participation to protect our national security, and
I think this is a rare instance where the national security and
the views of those involved with the discharge of our national
security responsibly should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Goss, I would now like to ask your view
concerning the official position of the Department of State,
which, in part, reads as follows:
Over the years, the Department of State has set forth
its objections in detail to previous congressional
resolutions on this issue. These objections remain no
less valid today. In essence, the Administration
believes that the resolution would complicate its
efforts to build a peaceful, prosperous and stable
future for the people of the region. The Administration
opposes legislative measures to deal with the sensitive
issues raised in the resolution. That the Armenian
people endured horrible massacres and suffering during
the first World War is beyond doubt, that the peoples
of Turkey and Armenia must find a way to come to terms
with their shared history is a principle we strongly
support. But we also agree with the position adopted by
other friends of both Armenia and Turkey that the
question of how these massacres are characterized is
best left to historians and cannot be legislated from
the outside.
The President and the Secretary of State ascribe
great importance to the process of building peace,
stability, and mutual confidence in the Caucasus
region. Normalization of the Turkish-Armenian
relationship is a vital element of any Nagorno-Karabakh
settlement, and thus the future of Armenia.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
You may put the letter in the record at this point.
[The letter appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Do any other Members----
Mr. Lantos. I would like unanimous consent to proceed for
an additional 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has already exceeded his
time by 7 minutes. Our time is running----
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to my
colleague, Mr. Lantos, part of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Lantos may proceed on Mr. Burton's
time.
Mr. Lantos. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I will not read the rest of the letter from the State
Department. I would like to ask Chairman Goss to comment on
whether the Secretary of State's position on this matter is
relevant in making our determination?
Mr. Goss. Certainly, the Secretary of State's view is very
relevant. It always is. I don't always agree with it, but it
should always be carefully considered.
In this case, I do agree with it. I think it is part of a
larger compendium of opinion and judgment that comes from
experience, not only from our diplomats, but from our
warfighters and some of our other interests in the area. When
you add it all up, we are talking about long-term and short-
term consequences, both of which are seriously negative for the
United States of America.
Curiously enough, we are debating the price of gasoline
these days at the pump. It is hard to believe that this
particular resolution could have any relationship to it, but in
fact, it does.
Mr. Lantos. My final question to Mr. Goss, Mr. Chairman, is
have you read the statement of the President of the United
States on this issue?
Mr. Goss. I have read a statement, I am not sure which
statement you are referring to.
Mr. Lantos. Allow me to read a small portion of it. This is
a statement by the President----
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time is more than
exceeded. You have already consumed----
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I have 5 minutes, as I understand
it, and I yield it to Mr. Lantos.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton, you don't have any time. You
have been recognized, so at this point----
Mr. Burton. I thought you did recognize me, Mr. Chairman.
Did you not recognize me?
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Goss had been recognized.
Go ahead on Mr. Burton's time.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, why are you so afraid of Members
of this Committee expressing their----
Chairman Gilman. That is an unfair comment, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Are we adhering to the gag rule?
Chairman Gilman. It is not a gag rule. We have a time
limitation. We have about 10 more measures to consider in
addition to this measure, and I am trying to keep us within our
time frame.
The time has expired.
Do any other Members seek recognition? Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Yes, state it.
Mr. Burton. My point of order is I thought the time that
each Member was allotted was 5 minutes. I watched my watch, I
got about 2 minutes and I yielded to Mr. Lantos. That is 5
minutes. Now, if we are changing the time, I wish the Chairman
would recognize us and tell us how much time.
Chairman Gilman. Each Member has 5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. I did not use my time. I yielded to Mr. Lantos
and he used 2 minutes.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Lantos has exceeded the 5 minutes that
he was allotted.
Mr. Burton. That was his time. My time is 5 minutes.
Chairman Gilman. He has already utilized that time.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I have an observation on which
I would welcome Chairman Goss's response. The division between
the functions of the Intelligence Committee, the foreign
relations or the International Relations Committee and the
Speaker's office seems to me quite relevant to our discussion
here today. Here is how I look at it.
A question of policy as to whether an Armenian genocide
occurred is something that is the relevant subject matter for
our Committee. I don't believe there is a doubt that the
Armenian genocide did occur, and in hearing my colleagues'
arguments against this resolution, no one has really debated
that it did occur. Instead, what we have heard is, we have an
important ally, Turkey, who would be offended by this
resolution. That is what we have heard. That is the argument.
It seems to me that you have access to information,
Chairman Goss, and the Speaker does, too. I think the Speaker
gets the national intelligence briefing like the President and
the Vice President, so the very top information about the
United States strategic and tactical vulnerabilities around the
world would be shared with the Speaker. They are not shared
with me, and that is fine, that is as it should be. I am not on
the Intelligence Committee. It is my privilege every year to
take a visit up to your office and read the budget which I try
to do every year, and in fact, I have done every year, but I
don't get the briefing, nor, to the best of my knowledge, do
the other Members on this Committee get the briefings, although
they might before they go off on a foreign trip or something of
that nature.
So when you come before us, for which I am grateful and I
have been your admirer for 12 years, for as long as I have
known you, but when you come before us and give us information
but you can't give us all of the information, it puts me in a
bit of a spot, because I don't know what you know.
Here is what seems to me the correct way to solve this
problem. We do our job here, which is on the policy. Was there
an Armenian genocide, yes, there was an Armenian genocide. The
question of whether it then goes to the floor is a question for
the Speaker of the House who controls the floor and always has
under the Rules of the House, and it could well be that the
Speaker of the House decides not to bring it to the floor
because of the very factors to which you allude. The result of
which if that occurs would be, the Speaker makes his judgment
based on all the information available to him, I make my
judgment on the basis of all the information available to me.
The only possible harm it seems to me from that approach would
be if the concerns to which you allude but which you cannot
identify in all detail would somehow be jeopardized by the
Committee's action, just by this Committee's action.
I guess it is possible, but I really don't find it
compelling that that would be the case. So that is my proposal,
that we proceed today, we vote our conscience on this
resolution, and then you weigh in with the Speaker who has got
the fundamental judgment to balance on whether we bring it to
the floor.
I will be pleased to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. I think that is a very good suggestion, but I
would even amend that, if the Chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, of whom I also share your respect, if he is privy to
information that he feels impacts vitally our national
interests, if he could provide us in a closed session with as
much information as he can, that might be appropriate. But
simply his presence here today I think causes unease and
uncertainty as to what information is available. I support this
resolution, for the same reasons that you do. But I would like
to obviously know more. I yield back my time.
Mr. Campbell. I ask the Chairman's indulgence to allow
Chairman Goss to advise me on my suggestion.
Mr. Goss. Let me say that I believe the Speaker is
regularly briefed; I am not sure to what degree he has been
briefed on the matters that have been brought to my specific
attention by the intelligence community as recently as
yesterday afternoon and their concern on this matter, but I
think the Speaker is generally well aware of it, and certainly
I will be talking to the Speaker about this on behalf of
concern about the capabilities question, which is what I have
spoken to this morning, the capabilities question. I do not
wish our country to lose any capability, particularly in that
region, and that is why I have come down today, is to raise a
warning flag.
Of course, it is the Speaker's decision and leadership's
decision, and I am not in that circle. I will do what the
intelligence community does, which is say this is what we think
the facts are, these are what the capabilities are, and the
policymakers will debate it and do what they will do. I have
specifically said at the beginning of my comments here today
that I, even though I value my absentee seat on the Committee
greatly and look forward to returning some day to this
Committee, which I respect very greatly, I do not wish to
inject myself in the policy debate. That is very much your
task. I am concerned about maintaining maximum equities in the
area, and I felt it important that people debating policy in
the area that could affect those equities understood that there
will be people who are worried about what the capabilities
question should be should this matter come to the floor, we
will be taking a strong position in opposition.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. I yield to Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Just to follow up, Chairman Goss, I thank you for that
answer. As always, you are responsive, I don't mean to say you
are not, but my question was, do any of your concerns get
triggered by this Committee's action if it doesn't get to the
floor, because that was the way I saw it dividing this up. Let
the Speaker make the judgment as to whether it is right for our
country for this to come to the floor, but let us go ahead
today. Are your concerns triggered by this Committee's actions?
Mr. Goss. I guess my concerns were triggered by when this
came up and was starting to be discussed publicly, it caused
considerable uproar and caused people's anxiety levels to go
up. You are asking me to make a judgment as to whether, if
people's anxiety levels will tip over, the answer is I have no
way of knowing that. Frankly, I wish the whole thing would go
away. At what stage we deal with it and how we dispose of it
will have consequences. Whether they are favorable consequences
or negative consequences I think will depend on the
leadership's decision on this. I can't answer your question.
Mr. Delahunt. I would like to ask the Chairman a question
and then I will yield back my time. Do you believe that you
have information, specific information that is available to you
that you could share with Members of this Committee that would
impact our deliberations?
Mr. Goss. I believe that the intelligence community has
promised--in fact, has stated that I would have written
material suitable for Members to look at in the Intelligence
Committee spaces. I was promised that last evening. I cannot
verify that that material has actually arrived. I know what the
material talks about, but I haven't seen it myself.
Mr. Delahunt. I yield back my time.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to remind
the Members that this House went on record to cut aid to Turkey
4 years ago over this very issue. As a matter of fact, this was
supported by 268 Members of this Congress, and I will just
share with you the vote on the House floor to limit to $22
million the amount of funds to be appropriated to Turkey under
the Economic Support Fund until such time as that country
acknowledges the atrocity committed against the Armenian
population by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923.
Now, this was supported by 268 Members, including Mr.
Lantos at the time, and the question I would ask of Mr. Goss is
this: Four years ago, we were talking about real money. Today
we are just talking about a resolution. Four years ago, 1996,
Saddam was a threat; 2000, today, Saddam is a threat, but are
conditions that different from 1996 when the House went on
record that--I guess I should ask this question, Mr. Goss. Was
the House wrong in 1996 when we passed this so overwhelmingly?
Mr. Goss. I think I should let that vote speak for itself.
I don't think the House is right or wrong. The House did what
it did. The issue today is would something that the House do
today affect capabilities in the area, and based on information
that has come in to me from warfighters, people who are
concerned about our security, our diplomats and our
intelligence community, the answer to that question would be
yes. Is that sufficient to outweigh the message that this
Committee is debating? I don't know the answer to that. That
will depend on the collective wisdom of the Members of the
House should it go to the House floor, and I would certainly
not want to prejudge that.
Mr. Royce. I would just point out that when this resolution
was passed 4 years ago by an overwhelming vote, the Congress
went on record as cutting aid to Turkey over this issue. Now,
that was reversed in the Senate, but I would like to remind my
colleagues of their vote at that time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goss, do you
argue with the historical facts involved in this case?
Mr. Goss. Certainly not. I am not taking any position on
the matter before us except the consequences of the debate.
Mr. Gejdenson. So you don't argue that the genocide
occurred?
Mr. Goss. I am not arguing or addressing the substance of
the matter before the Committee.
Mr. Gejdenson. You are avoiding the substance?
Mr. Goss. I am totally avoiding it, as I said in the
beginning.
Mr. Gejdenson. So let me ask you this. In dealing with
Russia and China, should we avoid responding today to human
rights outrages because of the considerations of building a
relationship with Russia and China and because it may
complicate other foreign policy issues?
Mr. Goss. Obviously, human rights are a critical factor in
all decisions made by the United States Government on behalf of
United States citizens and should be, and we come to different
conclusions in different areas under certain times. We
certainly addressed human rights violations in different ways,
whether it is Russia, China, Colombia or any other place you
want to speak of. I am not, in any way, trying to deemphasize
human rights violations, I am merely trying to flag, as I said
at the beginning, that those of us dealing with the
capabilities question find that there may be adverse
consequences of significance here.
Mr. Gejdenson. I guess my problem is this, that what we are
being asked to do is to ignore a historical fact; and I have
come to the conclusion, and I think most historians have,
because it complicates our present foreign policy. I think that
is a very dangerous message. I think that what societies have
to do is confront history honestly as best we can. I think that
if you see instances where there has been disintegration; you
know, for a long time, American policy ignored the problems in
Iran under the Shah, because he seemed to be the better choice
over what was coming. The alternative finally came, and we have
now lived with it for a long period of time.
I think that we have to differentiate the recognition of
this historical fact from our present relations with the
country of Turkey. I think, frankly, the Turkish Government has
to accept that. I can tell you that at least for this Member, I
think there is a hopeful future for Turkey, and I think that it
is an important country in the region for the United States. I
think Turkey will function better internally with its present
issues, with the Kurds and others within its borders, if it
honestly addresses its history in the same way, as I said the
other day, that the German government of today, while accepting
the historical responsibility of what happened during the
Holocaust, was among our closest allies and partners throughout
the Cold War, and it continues today that we work with the
German government.
I think for the United States to say well, here we have
important assets, and so in this case we are going to have to
not recognize the historical outrage. This sends a very
dangerous message to the future, that if you are important
enough to the United States, if you happen to have the right
landing strip or geographic position, then we may not be as
serious about how you treat your people or your neighbors.
Frankly, I think that has happened, at times. I think that
resolving this issue is something not just the United States
needs to do, I think the Turkish government needs to do it as
well. I think the Turkish Government needs to address it
historically and find a way to move forward. I think that would
be best for all of us.
To argue that American Members of Congress should sweep
this under the rug to me is unacceptable. We need to reach out
to the present Turkish Government; we need to try to help them
develop a civil society and deal with the ethnic differences in
their country, to include them more in Western European, pro-
democratic civil society. I don't think we do that by saying,
okay, you are important enough where we are going to ignore
these historical facts. Because in this case, you have decided
it is problematic. The same arguments could have been made in
dealing with the German government on issues surrounding the
Holocaust.
Gee, this is difficult for you to deal with. It is even
more recent than what happened to the Armenians. But in the
case of Germany, we said no, Germany is an ally, Germany is a
country we want to be friends with. The German people today
have a civil society that recognizes its international
responsibility, and we are moving forward. I think we have to
do the same thing here. There may be hurdles in the interim,
but over the long haul, recognizing the honest verdict of
history is the only way to proceed.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. I would like to--the Chair recognizes
himself on this issue. I would like to take this time to thank
Chairman Goss for coming to the Committee and expressing
himself with regard to this important issue.
We thank you, Mr. Goss, for being here today.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. I would like to take this time to
recognize a distinguished delegation from the Turkish Grand
National Assembly who is with us in our audience today. These
parliamentarians who represent Turkey's five major political
parties have come to Washington because of the importance that
they find with regard to the measure before us. They include
the Honorable Tayyibe Gulek, the Honorable Ayfer Yilmaz--please
forgive the pronunciation--the Honorable Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik,
the Honorable Metin Ergun, and the Honorable Temel
Karamollaoglu.
I am informed that the mission of this delegation is
connected to the measure before our Committee, and it is an
unprecedented opportunity for the Grand National Assembly of
Turkey to come to Congress, and we welcome you.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. Lantos. Would it be appropriate to invite one of the
members of the Turkish Parliament to express the views of their
membership concerning the issue raised by Congressman Campbell;
namely, would action by this Committee have any impact on U.S.-
Turkish relations? I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
one of the members be given the opportunity to speak to us.
Chairman Gilman. That would be appropriate if some Member
will yield his time.
At this time I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, yes, I will be happy to yield to
one of the members of the Turkish Parliament if they would like
to come forward and give us their views.
Chairman Gilman. Would the chairman of the Turkish
Parliament come forward if he so desires?
Mr. Burton. While he is doing that, Mr. Chairman, I would
urge that the letter that was sent to you be distributed to all
Members of the Committee. I think it is so relevant that every
Member ought to read it and see who the signatories are to that
letter. It is at the desk, and I would urge the Chair to have
that passed out.
Chairman Gilman. Are you referring to the letter by the
Secretaries, the former Secretaries of Defense?
Mr. Burton. Yes, sir, the one that Mr. Lantos----
Chairman Gilman. I had not seen it until Mr. Lantos read
it. We will have it distributed, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton, are you yielding your time now?
Mr. Burton. It is my time, and you said I could yield to
the member of the parliament and I have so done.
Chairman Gilman. Would the chairman of the parliamentary
delegation please identify himself.
Mr. Irtemcelik \1\. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for this opportunity as well. We salute all
of the Members of this distinguished Committee. My name is
Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik. I am, as you indicated, the spokesperson
of the Turkish parliamentary delegation. We are an all-party
delegation. In other words, all the parties represented at the
Turkish National Assembly have one member in this delegation,
and we have come here to express the feelings of the Turkish
nation in the face of this attempt, I do not know how much time
I have, if you could kindly tell me, I will organize my
statement accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik, leader of the parliamentary
delegation from the Turkish National Assembly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
Mr. Sanford. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly yield him my 5
minutes as well.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman now has 7 minutes, because
you have already utilized 2 minutes.
Mr. Lantos. Five and five is not seven, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you; a mathematician.
Mr. Lantos. I am delighted to assist you any time.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has already utilized 2
minutes of his time.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Delahunt. I would request that this distinguished
chairman be allowed to speak as long as he wants, as long as he
should need.
Chairman Gilman. Is there any objection?
If there is no objection, please proceed.
Mr. Irtemcelik. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, once
again. We take very seriously the resolution which is before
this Committee at the present time. This issue has a past in
this House. Many attempts have been made before, it has come,
it has gone. We want our being here to be understood properly.
This is the first time the Turkish Parliament has taken the
initiative to send an all-party delegation to the Hill to
express the views and the feelings of the Turkish nation.
There are two aspects to the issue. One concerns the
historical facts which the gentleman, Mr. Gejdenson, I
understand referred to, historical facts. It is indisputable,
Mr. Chairman, that most regrettable tragic events, mass
killings, atrocities happened in Ottoman times during the first
World War in what is Eastern Turkey today, and nobody denies
it. No historian. But what you are talking about here and what
certain circles want people to talk about elsewhere in other
parliaments is a very, very serious issue. You are talking
about genocide.
Genocide is a word, is a concept, is a fact which cannot be
taken lightly. There is a huge price tag which comes with it,
and there must be a price tag that should come with it wherever
and whenever genocide takes place. One genocide so far has
taken place on the face of this planet, and we know which one
it was. And history cannot be taken lightly either. History
cannot be rewritten for the sake of certain individuals or
groups of people.
As I indicated, tens of thousands of people, Armenians and
Turks have perished in the hands of one another toward the
demise of the Ottoman Empire. And all Members of this
Committee, I believe, are familiar with the real facts as well.
But I want to insist on one point. Genocide did not happen. And
the Turkish nation will never accept the charge because it
didn't happen, and history is written on the basis of documents
and not on hearsay or allegations. Otherwise, we would have had
by now I don't know how many thousands or millions of world
history.
The Ottoman government then at its weakest point in its 600
years history did not make the decision to exterminate
systematically, and that is what genocide is about, to
exterminate systematically any segment of its subjects. No
genocide was carried out. There is not a single document, and I
insist, and whoever wishes to do so could accept it as a
challenge, there is not a single respectable, not forged,
historical document that indicates that the Ottoman government
had indeed taken the decision to perpetrate that crime against
a portion of its population. You all know that some of the
Armenians in Ottoman times, those who were residing in Eastern
Anatolia rebelled against the empire, against the Ottoman
government in the hope to have a homeland in that part of the
Ottoman Empire after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, with the
help of the invading Russian forces.
They were duped, and as any self-respecting government
would have done, would do, the Ottoman government has taken the
decision to relocate these people in other parts, in other
regions of the empire. In that case it was what is Syria today.
And that decision was carried out. In the process, and before,
there have been clashes, and very bloody ones, between Armenian
and Turkish irregulars, and I haven't even referred to the fact
that some of the Armenian gangs had been shooting at Ottoman
armies and remember, they were then subjects of the Ottoman
Empire.
I am not referring to the fact that the Ottoman armies,
fighting against invading Russian forces, have been caught
between two fires. But anyhow, during the process, yes, I will
repeat it again, tens of thousands of Armenians have perished,
and at least some historians fully agree that a greater number
of Turks had perished during the same events at the hands of
Armenians. Atrocities have happened. That is a fact. Nobody
denies that. But no one, no historian is in the position of
accusing the Ottoman government then of having committed the
crime of genocide, and I repeat it again. History cannot be
written on hearsay to fit the petty or other needs or purposes
of any person.
I should like to add several facts since I said that
history can be written, should be written on documents. The
Ottoman archives are open. We have opened the Ottoman archives.
But you may find it interesting to note perhaps that the
Armenian archives are not open, not to mention the archives of
the Dashnak party.
So my first point is that what is before this Committee is
fundamentally wrong, and we don't think it would be befitting
any chamber of the legislative body of the greatest country on
earth to accept such a resolution. Neither the U.S. Congress or
any chamber of it, nor any legislative body on earth should
consider itself authorized to codify or rewrite history for
whatever purposes they may have. History must be left to
historians and, to say the least, to say the least, there is no
consensus among respectable or real, I should say perhaps,
historians on what really happened then.
There is no agreement on how to characterize those events.
Some with political purposes insist that genocide happened;
many forcefully disagree. But we all agree, and we cannot do
otherwise, that very regrettable, tragic events, massive
killings indeed happened in that part of the Ottoman Empire
then.
And, referring to genocide, referring to genocide, let me
bring to your attention two points. One would be enough,
perhaps. As you all know, hundreds of thousands of Armenians
were living as loyal subjects of the Ottoman Empire and they
have lived for centuries.
Mr. Gejdenson, I think, tried to identify the Holocaust and
what is, in his words, the Armenian genocide. So I regret to
tell you that there are no parallels whatsoever. Tragic events
have happened in what is Eastern Turkey today, that is true,
that tens of thousands of Armenians and Turks have perished at
the hand of one another is a fact as well. But what kind of a
genocide was it? Why didn't anything happen to Armenians living
in other regions of the Ottoman Empire? What kind of a
systematic genocide was it? So I don't think this body will
make the mistake of accepting this resolution, which is, as I
indicated earlier, fundamentally wrong.
Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman wind up his speech
in----
Mr. Irtemcelik. The other point, the reason why we are here
is because we attach great importance to the relationship we
entertain with the United States of America. We cherish, in the
words of President Clinton, our strategic relationship.
Inevitably, and I don't want to be misunderstood, if this
resolution is adopted, it will be impossible for our efforts
alone to suffice to have our relations unaffected by it; but we
are not here, we are not here to tell you, or else. That is not
our view at all, and that is not our purpose. We are here to
sensitize you, to tell you that we need your efforts to prevent
our relationship from being affected by an issue which we don't
need to inject into the relationship.
We value our bilateral relations; we value our alliance,
which is also important in, as far as our interests are
concerned, as far as the U.S. interests are concerned,
concerning various regions surrounding Turkey.
And one last point, one last point, Turkish-Armenian
relations. We wish to be able to entertain good relations with
Armenia as we wish to entertain good and healthy relations with
all of our neighbors and other countries in the world. I should
like to remind this Committee that Turkey was one of the first
countries to recognize Armenia today, and Turkey did everything
in its power to try to integrate, to try to help integrate
Armenia to the community of nations.
In Armenia's most difficult days, we haven't hesitated for
a moment to send them humanitarian aid. If need be, we will do
it again. But you should consider, Mr. Chairman, that it takes
two to tango, and Armenia also should wish seriously to
entertain good relations with Turkey. We would expect our
goodwill to be reciprocated.
So, to sum up, we wish you, we expect you not to allow this
resolution to continue its path, because it is fundamentally
wrong and because it wouldn't serve our purposes to further
deepen and diversify, which is a very sound and healthy, and
mutually beneficial relationship. Once again, I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and all of your colleagues on this Committee for
providing me with the opportunity to address this Committee.
Chairman Gilman. We thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank your
delegation for taking the time to come to the House to our
International Relations Committee to express your cogent views.
I now recognize the gentleman who sought prior recognition,
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. I want to associate myself with the
gentleman from California, Mr. Campbell, regarding the
information that was provided by Mr. Goss and by the Turkish
Government. [The Speaker is aware of the fact that, because of
this resolution, there have been threats made by Turkey that we
might lose bases there and that there might be canceled defense
contracts. There is even a scenario that Saddam Hussein might
do something crazy that would affect relations, and the threat
was that perhaps there might not be Turkish bases available in
that event.]
The Speaker is aware of all of these things and the Speaker
also wants this bill reported out of Committee. It is the
Speaker's responsibility to determine whether or not this thing
should come to the floor, and if and when, and I suggest that
we report to the leader of the United States House of
Representatives and fulfill his desire to get this out of
Committee, and would respect whatever decision he comes up with
as far as the dispensation of this bill.
I would ask the Chairman that we might be able to then move
to the business at hand, which is, that we do have more
amendments to do and we also need to conclude this and other
business as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich. I now recognize
Mr. Burton for his previous offer of an amendment.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will distribute and read the
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Burton, page 11,
after line 6, insert the following: 34, the purposes of this
resolution and the national interests of the United States are
likely to be negated without the establishment of a firm
foundation----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton is recognized for 5 minutes on
his amendment.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I think we checked this with the
parliamentarian. I think it is in order, but we will wait and
see what the ruling of the Chair is.
I offer this amendment as a good faith effort to recognize
the fact that our country has important strategic interests in
the region where Turkey and Armenia live, Asia Minor and the
Caucasus.
I offer it also as a means of injecting some contemporary
realism into this debate. You know, this Committee can exhibit
a tendency to look at things in the abstract and forget that
real human lives and real national interests, our interests,
are at stake.
Columnist George Will recently said, ``Few things in life
are more stimulating than observing the calamities of other
people from a safe distance.'' He was speaking of an altogether
different situation, but he could just as easily have been
describing this Committee and the attitude that often prevails
around here.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment as a way of
saying that something has been conspicuously absent throughout
this debate, and that is who speaks for the Armenians? I don't
mean Armenian Americans. I mean the two and a half or three
million Armenians who actually live in Armenia. I mean the
people who are struggling to put bread on the table over there.
A little later today the Committee is scheduled to take up
a resolution about the problems in Central Asia. Well, let me
tell you that the Caucasus is no garden spot either. We all
rejoiced 9 or 10 years ago when the Soviet Union disintegrated
and the various nationalities and constituent republics who had
been oppressed for so long under the Soviet jackboot regained
their independence. I remember when Reagan said, tear down this
wall. I thought it would never happen, and then it did. What a
wonderful day that was.
But the tragic fact is, and this is very tragic, Mr.
Chairman and Members, that 9 years after regaining its
independence the Republic of Armenia is dangerously close to
becoming a failed state.
I have an article from the September 6 edition of The
Washington Post that I would like to submit for the record
which I think is very, very important. I would like for the
Members to read that if they can.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Burton. This article describes an Armenia from which
one-third of the entire population has immigrated since 1991
because the situation there is so hopeless. One-third of the
country has immigrated in 9 years. Of the working age
population that remains, according to this article, 40 percent
are unemployed, and the country is drowning in corruption.
Little, if any, effort has been made at enacting any basic
reforms that would be necessary to attract foreign investment.
I have seen other articles, and other Members have as well,
that describe a country being torn apart by internal violence
and political killings. One democratic leader in Armenia, a man
who survived the Soviet Gulag, was quoted recently as saying,
terrorism has become an integral part of our daily life.
Here is just a short list of high officials in Armenia who
have been assassinated in the last several years: the prime
minister, the speaker of parliament, the prosecutor general,
the chairman of the state security committee, the deputy
minister of defense, the deputy minister of internal affairs,
the mayor of Yerevan, the capital city, the director general of
railroads, the president of the chamber of industry and trade.
Meanwhile, Russia has been muscling in, perhaps it never
really left, and has forced the signing of military cooperation
agreements, including one this summer that guarantees Russian
occupation of certain military bases on Armenian soil for the
next 25 years guaranteed.
It is now even being rumored that--we pray that this will
not happen--that Armenia may join the treaty of union with
Russia and Belarus.
And, all the while, the pro-democracy forces in Armenia
find themselves more and more on the defensive as the pro-
Russian forces in parliament and the military get stronger.
Mr. Chairman, who speaks for the Armenians? We can disagree
about the definition of what happened 85 years ago, but who
speaks for the Armenians of today?
The amendment I am offering recognizes the need for Turkey
and Armenia to reconcile their differences. Yes, it is an awful
history. We all hope that they can come to terms with it. But
how does the resolution before us today propose to do that? Why
has the plight of the Armenians today been completely ignored
during this debate? How does this resolution propose to move
one inch toward a solution to Armenia's problems today?
Believe me, those problems can get a lot worse, and I am
afraid they will if this resolution passes.
Mr. Chairman, who speaks for the Armenians? We ought to
think about that and the ramifications of this resolution if it
passes, not only about Iraq and the surrounding countries and
what it might do to destabilizing that whole area but also what
is it going to do to the Armenians who are suffering already
over there? Who speaks for them?
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we ought the get to the point of having an up or
down vote on this issue. Not that dealing with other issues
aren't important--and there are lots of issues--but I believe
that we do have an obligation, at this point, to have a clear
decision on whether we are going to proceed with recognizing
what is, in my opinion, a fact of history: a million and a half
people killed, women and children, intellectuals taken out of
every part of Turkey, killed. Then we can get on dealing with
our relationship with Turkey and every other issue in the
region.
We could offer amendments from now until whenever the
session ends--which may never end, apparently--but it is clear
what the sides are in this debate. Some people believe,
irrespective of the facts of what happened during the Armenian
genocide, that the United States' political interests are such
that we shouldn't act on the legislation. That is one position
that elected Members of Congress have a right to express and
vote.
There are some people here who believe that this piece of
history needs to be dealt with before we move on. I believe,
whatever your position is, we ought to get to a vote and not
simply try to undermine the basic debate here by having other
issues dealt with.
We could have amendments that deal with every issue in the
region from now until the new Congress is here. Let's vote on
the Armenian resolution. Let's give it a fair opportunity to
make this statement. If it is the collective wisdom of this
Committee or the Speaker of the Congress to not move forward,
that is fine. I think it is a mistake not to recognize history.
I think it damages our present-day actions. I would urge that
we defeat Mr. Burton's amendment, we proceed to a vote on the
underlying bill up or down, and move on with the other
responsibilities of this Committee.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order,
but do want to urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment. It opens the door to further amendments that will
water down this bill so much so that it will not, in the end,
be germane, and that is in dealing with the fact of the
Armenian genocide. We as a body vote quite often on specific
genocides in violation of human rights from countries varying
from Sudan to Rwanda to Iraq. The list is very long.
Again, this amendment opens the door to further watering
down and making this amendment useless and nonfunctional, and I
would urge my colleagues to vote against this thing. Again, as
my friend from Connecticut says, let's deal with the issue at
hand and move soon to an up or down vote on the issue. If you
don't believe that there was an Armenian genocide, then let's
just vote on this bill as it stands and be done with it. But
let's not use clever ways to dissolve this thing and turn it
into mush and meaningless nothingness and then thereby affect
the germaneness of this bill.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first wish to strongly support Mr. Burton's amendment,
and I want to use a portion of my 5 minutes to read a statement
of the President of the United States on this issue. Some of my
colleagues are under the misapprehension that, unless this
Committee now approves this resolution, the United States will
have been silent on the tragedies that have been inflicted on
the Armenian people 85 years ago.
Let me read the statement of the President of the United
States.
I quote,
``Today we remember a great tragedy of the 20th
century, the deportations and massacres of roughly one
and a half million Armenians in the final years of the
Ottoman Empire. I join Armenians around the world,
including the Armenian American community, in mourning
the loss of those innocent lives.
``I also extend my sympathy to the survivors and
their descendants for the hardships they have suffered.
I call upon all Americans to renew their commitment to
build a world where such events are not allowed to
happen. The lesson we must learn from the stark annals
of history is that we must forge a more humane future
for the peoples of all nations.
``Our own society has benefited immeasurably from the
contributions of Armenian Americans. They have enriched
every aspect of American life, from science to commerce
to the arts. For the past 8 and a half years, the
Armenian people have been engaged in an historic
undertaking to establish democracy and prosperity in
the independent Republic of Armenia. Their courage,
energy and resourcefulness inspire the admiration of
all Americans; and we are proud to extend our
assistance to help realize the dream of a vital and
vibrant Armenia. The United States fully supports the
efforts of Armenia and its neighbors to make lasting
peace with one another and to begin an era of security
and cooperation in the Caucasus region. We encourage
any and all dialogue between citizens of the region
that hastens reconciliation and understanding. On
behalf of the American people, I extend my best wishes
to all Armenians on this solemn day of remembrance.''
This statement was issued by the President on April 24, the
Armenian Day of Remembrance. I think it is important my
colleagues be aware of the fact that the President of the
United States, speaking on behalf of the American people, has
made this statement. He made this statement on the Armenian Day
of Remembrance, the 24th of April, unrelated to the elections
which will take place 5 weeks from today.
All of us, Republicans and Democrats, can applaud the
President's statement. It is an appropriate statement. It
expresses our anguish at the tragedy and suffering of the
Armenian people 85 years ago, and we can move on defending our
national security interests.
If I have some time left, as I believe I do, Mr. Chairman,
the light is still green----
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would merely like to remind my colleague--and I am sorry
he is not in the room--Mr. Gejdenson, that resolutions
concerning human rights in China and resolutions concerning
human rights violations in Turkey 85 years ago are not
comparable. Resolutions involving human rights abuses in China
relate to the ongoing tragedy and suffering of the Chinese and
the Tibetan people.
China, the last time I looked, is not a major NATO ally. So
to compare human rights resolutions directed at China in the
year 2000, when the Falun Gong has again been arrested and
beaten on Tiananmen Square, of note, this resolution is an
absurdity. There is no parallel between this resolution and our
ongoing attempt to improve the human rights conditions in
China.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have debated this issue long
enough, and I move that we table the resolution.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion to table the
resolution.
Would the gentleman explain his motion?
Mr. Lantos. I will wait until we deal with the Burton
resolution, at which point I will move to table.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman withdraws his motion to
table at this point.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, I call for a vote.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Chairman Gilman. Is that a point of order, Mr. Radanovich?
Mr. Radanovich. Not a point of order, sir; just a call for
a vote.
Chairman Gilman. Is the gentleman moving the previous
question?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes, sir.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman moves the previous question
on the amendment.
The gentleman is entitled to move the previous question,
but there are some Members who would like to be heard. Does the
gentleman want to hold his request?
Mr. Radanovich. My only question, Mr. Chairman, is that we
have only got 24 hours in this day. For a couple of more
speakers, yes, but I think that we sooner or later are going to
have to vote on this issue, and I hope that we can do that
sooner rather than later.
I withdraw my motion for now.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman withdraws his motion.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I would remind my good friend, Mr.
Radanovich, that there are very serious consequences to his
resolution. I am a supporter of his resolution, but with the
serious consequences that means we spend more time on these
things, and there are people who have amendments which might be
perfecting amendments.
For example, I will be carrying one of Mr. Burton's
amendments because, unfortunately, he has to leave at 11:30;
but also I have a perfecting amendment. For example, in your
resolution, it mentions the young Turk government, and I am
going to ask that that be replaced by the, quote, government of
the Ottoman Empire, because that is more accurate.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher, would you address
yourself to the Burton amendment at this time?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I oppose this particular Burton
amendment, but I believe that it is important for us to leave
the avenue open for other amendments to make this very
significant piece of legislation better.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Sherman, on the Burton amendment.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I oppose this amendment, as I
oppose other amendments. I would like to move quickly to a vote
on the underlying resolution.
Mr. Burton asks, who speaks for the Armenians? I would
point out that every voice of the Armenians here, in Armenia,
in Lebanon, in Syria and around the world, call out for the
recognition of this genocide and call out for us to adopt this
resolution before the last survivors of that genocide die.
Mr. Burton points out the difficulties faced by the people
of Armenia. I hope that he will join with me in supporting
increases in aid to Armenia and to Nagorno-Karabakh.
We are told that this genocide of Armenians was not a
genocide because those perpetrating it did not kill every
Armenian in every part of the Ottoman Empire. I would point out
that even the Holocaust did not lead to the utter destruction
of the Jewish community of Bulgaria or Morocco, and in both of
those areas the Nazis had some power, just not enough power to
complete their genocide. Genocide is genocide, even if it is
aimed at wiping out a people from a portion or a region of the
area in which they live.
We are told that it is not the purpose of this Committee to
deal with history, but I would point out that Chairman Gilman
quite wisely in 1996 authored House Resolution 316, which the
House and this Committee adopted overwhelmingly, condemning
those who deny the Holocaust. And I would say that if this
Committee is going to condemn, quite properly, those who deny
history then it is time for this Committee to affirm history
and to recognize it.
We have had extensive hearings on this issue, both before
the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Full Committee, and
even during this markup we have heard three witnesses, all of
them on one side. I would hope that we would move as quickly as
possible to a vote. As we do we are told that national security
is important; and it is, but I would point out that not only
has Speaker Hastert urged that this resolution come before the
floor of the House, but Governor George W. Bush has spoken out
in recognition of the Armenian genocide. I doubt either of
those two individuals would be making statements harmful to
American security.
It is true that today's diplomats would find it more
convenient if we avoided recognizing an aspect of history that
our ally, Turkey, for reasons I have not fully understood,
finds it distasteful for us to remember. But let us--and I made
this point before--let us imagine that a decade or two from now
Germany, a powerful nation, a nation I would say more important
to our national security than Turkey, were to have a political
change and some new government there were to demand that we as
Members of the House march down and physically remove brick by
brick the Holocaust Museum. I think that we would say no, that
no matter how important an ally Germany was, that if its
government insisted that we repudiate history we would refuse.
Likewise, if the government of Austria, which could play a
major role, a destructive role, if it choose, in international
affairs--it is a highly technological country, capable of
exporting some of the most dangerous technology should it
choose to do so--if Austria 10 or 20 years from now were to
demand that we not recognize the Holocaust, we should say no
because, as has been pointed out by other speakers, our
credibility in the world depends upon our adherence to the
truth.
Let us move forward and recognize the truth and adopt this
resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. The gentleman's
time has expired.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take 1
minute.
Nobody on our Committee has denied the existence of the
genocide. The only testimony is from the Turkish National
Assembly's representative who, of course, I respect and to whom
I am grateful that he has come and testified, but no gentleman
or gentlelady on this Committee has said that the genocide did
not exist.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield very quickly?
Mr. Campbell. I only have a minute, and you have spoken
often. I am anxious to hear your response.
Mr. Burton. Well, you are incorrect, Mr. Campbell.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has not yielded his time.
Mr. Campbell. I do not yield. Assuming I don't take all of
my time--I was trying to restrict myself to 1 minute--I would
be happy to yield at the end. Then if the Committee is patient
and gives you the time, I would be delighted.
The issue comes down to Western Anatolia. I mean, that is
the burden of the testimony of the gentleman from Turkey, that
how there could be a genocide if there was no extermination in
Western Anatolia such as happened in Eastern Anatolia?
This is essential to the heart of the question. If the
government policy is to wipe out a people by government design,
in a systematic manner, where they have control to do so, that
constitutes genocide.
That they did not do it everywhere does not make it less,
that they did it where they could or they did it where it was
most helpful. The opposite end of the spectrum would be a
horrible civil war where you go after the enemy's troops or the
people who are supporting the enemy, but you don't go after the
race. You don't go after children.
So that is the distinction. And even taking into account
the testimony of the gentleman from the Turkish National
Assembly, we do not have a rebuttal.
Mr. Rothman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Campbell. Same condition. We don't have a rebuttal that
what happened in Eastern Anatolia was a genocide; what happened
in Western Anatolia is a separate issue.
Imagine, in other words, if you had a true genocide but it
was limited only to one part of where people lived, would you
say, no, it isn't? So it seems to me on those two points--and I
would be happy now to go to the various people who have asked
to yield--that there is no dispute that what happened in
Eastern Anatolia was a genocide; but I would ask for those who
still remain in doubt to take a look at the testimony that was
adduced at the Subcommittee hearing and is referred to in the
resolution itself.
Two things are most telling. One is the United Nations
General Assembly in 1946, when it set up the Genocide
Convention, explicitly referred to the Armenian genocide. That
is in clause 19 of the whereases, and clause 20 of the
whereases states that in 1948 the U.N. War Crimes Commission
precisely referred to the Armenian genocide in setting up what
a Nuremberg trial would constitute as a crime against humanity.
And lastly, contemporary testimony from our ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire, Ambassador Morgenthau, which is referenced
in Finding 11, referred to a campaign of race extermination by
the government at that time.
So because of the nature of our hearing we only heard from
one side. The evidence is quite clear from the other side, and
we should not lose sight of it.
Now with the Chairman's indulgence, I would yield first to
my colleague from Indiana and then to my other colleague.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has 1 minute and 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. Burton. I will be real quick.
I respect very much Mr. Campbell, and I agree with him on
many issues. On the floor of the House of Representatives, for
the past 16 years, when this kind of a resolution came up, I
have been down there saying that atrocities did take place,
horrible things happened, but it was not a genocide, and I
maintain that today. So when you say that nobody on the
Committee would refute that, I do.
I would like to also say that when the Russians invaded and
worked with the Armenians during World War I, three million
Ottoman Muslims were killed; and many people called that, the
way they were systematically eliminated, a genocide. It wasn't.
It was a tragedy, just like the Armenian problem was a tragedy.
They also had----
Mr. Campbell. I am going to take my time back.
Mr. Burton. Let me just say one more thing.
Mr. Campbell. No, I am going to take my time back.
Mr. Burton. They also killed 200,000 Jews.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is reclaiming his time.
Mr. Campbell. And I yield to my colleague.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you.
It is my inclination to support the resolution and oppose
the amendment, but I want to give the full strength to the
distinguished gentleman from Turkey's position, which is that a
genocide did not occur because in his words, paraphrasing, of
course, no systematic order was given to exterminate a people,
the entire Armenian people, let alone the entire population of
Armenians from that portion of the Ottoman Empire.
So I think that is his strongest case. The problem with
that, though, is that certainly then it is a quibble about the
definition of--not a quibble--a serious disagreement about the
application of--the word genocide to an instance where in the
strongest case of the Turkish representative the government
ordered the deportation of a people within its empire to
another region, where during the course of that deportation the
gentleman says tens of thousands--I think the record is clear
it is over a million, if not a million and a half----
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rothman. Can I have unanimous consent to address the
body for another 1 minute, please?
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. So that is his best case, and so that it doesn't
qualify as a systematic, organized effort to exterminate a
particular people, it is just moving them from one part of
their empire to another.
What is troubling me, though, is that this movement of
these peoples occurred during, I am told, 1915 to 1923. That is
8 years. During this 8-year period one and a half million
Armenians happened to be slaughtered or happened to die. Now,
one could argue that if this was a deportation order gone awry
and these slaughters occurred that would perhaps not qualify
for a genocide, but how could the Ottoman Empire not take
responsibility for the death of a million and a half people
over the course of an 8-year period when they were in total
control? That is the problem I have with the Representative's
argument.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Ms. Lee is recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to oppose Mr. Burton's amendment and just say that I
don't believe this resolution should be watered down at all.
You know, last week and now again this week we are having a
full discussion of this resolution and why many of us on both
sides of the aisle believe that we must acknowledge and set
forth in our foreign policy the horrors of the Armenian
genocide. These terrible crimes against humanity must never be
forgotten.
So as a co-sponsor of this resolution--and many of us have
made it perfectly clear that we believe that our country does
have a duty and responsibility to acknowledge and condemn this
genocide--I urge the Committee to pass this resolution and
oppose the Burton amendment. We do not need to pass this
resolution encumbered by amendments which will cloud the
purpose of the resolution, and that is to acknowledge this
horror, to acknowledge the Armenian genocide in our foreign
policy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me say that was very enlightening. I do
welcome our friend from the Turkish Grand National Assembly,
Mr. Irtemcelik, but I think his testimony, frankly, actually
made our case, and made it very profoundly.
He told us, and again I say this with all due respect, that
the genocide did not happen, when the overwhelming body of
evidence clearly points to a genocide, as my good friend from
New Jersey just pointed out, as many as 1.5 million people
died. As a matter of fact, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we had a
lengthy, exhaustive hearing just a couple of weeks ago, where
we heard from scholars who made it crystal clear--at least
those who presented what I thought what was very tangible
evidence--that a genocide did indeed occur.
As a matter of fact, in a letter that was sent to me,
Professor Deborah Lipstadt, the director of the Institute for
Jewish Studies at Emory University, stated, and I quote,
``Denial of genocide strives to reshape history in order to
demonize the victims and rehabilitate the perpetrators. Denial
of genocide is the final stage of genocide. It is what Elie
Wiesel has called double killing. It denies the murders, the
dignity of the survivors, and seeks to destroy the remembrance
of the crime.''
In the testimony, it was pointed out that Henry Morgenthau,
the United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time,
said, and I quote, ``When the Turkish authorities gave the
orders for these deportations they were simply giving the death
warrant to a whole race. They understood this well, and in
their conversations with me''--this is Henry Morgenthau--``they
made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.''
As was pointed out in our testimony, the ambassadors of
Germany and Austria, representatives of governments allied with
Turkey, also quickly realized what was taking place. As early
as 1915, the German ambassador reported to Berlin, and I quote,
``Turks began deportation from areas now not threatened by
invasion. This fact, and the manner in which the relocation is
being carried out, demonstrates that the government is really
pursuing the aim of destroying the Armenian race in Turkey.''
By January 1917, his successor reported, and I quote, ``The
policy of extermination has largely been achieved. The current
leaders of Turkey fully subscribe to this policy.''
This is the ambassador from Germany, allied with the
Ottoman Empire, making those damning comments. And I would
remind my colleagues again that the Convention on Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the U.N. document,
article 2, states very clearly that genocide is defined thusly,
``deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part.''
One and one-half million out of two million--that is almost
the whole thing. That is almost the whole race, so it is
clearly a genocide.
Again, we welcome our friend from the Grand National
Assembly, but I think he actually made our case.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you, Mr. Smith.
If there is no further debate, the question is now on the
amendment. As many as are in favor, signify in the usual
manner.
Opposed?
The noes have it.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. I ask for a rollcall vote.
Chairman Gilman. A rollcall has been requested. Is there a
sufficient second for a rollcall, by a show of hands, please?
A sufficient number, the Clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman Gilman. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burton votes yes.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. Ballenger. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Sanford.
Mr. Sanford. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford votes yes.
Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. Houghton. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady votes yes.
Mr. Burr.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor.
Mr. Gillmor. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor votes yes.
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich votes no.
Mr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Cooksey votes yes.
Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Menendez.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brown.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. McKinney.
Ms. McKinney. I vote no.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. McKinney votes no.
Mr. Hastings.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Wexler.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman votes no.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Davis votes no.
Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.
Mr. Delahunt.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Crowley votes no.
Mr. Hoeffel.
Mr. Hoeffel. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hoeffel votes no.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Votes aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr votes aye.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mr. Brown.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Wexler.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the tally.
Ms. Bloomer. On this vote, there are 15 ayes and 19 noes.
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the amendment. The
Clerk will distribute the amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The purpose of my amendment----
Chairman Gilman. Hold just a moment. The Clerk will report
the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher, in
Section 2, the 11th clause, line 3: replace ``Young Turk
Government'' with ``government of the Ottoman Empire.''
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, on that I reserve a point of
order.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich reserves a point of order.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. The purpose of my amendment is to
get right to the heart of the matter of Mr. Radanovich's bill,
and that is that Mr. Radanovich is in no way attempting to put
blame on the Turkish government or the current population of
Turkey for sins committed by people who lived in Turkey in the
past, and especially the government of the Ottoman Empire. The
current Turkish government bears no responsibility for the
crimes of the Ottoman Empire before Turkey became the
government that it is today.
Let me say that I also have an amendment, a resolution,
H.R. 606, which amplifies this. Unfortunately, it will not be
permitted to be put into the hopper today, or excuse me,
brought before the Committee today because there just wasn't
enough time to meet the parliamentary requirements.
But H.R. 606, I might add, when it does come to a vote,
puts into context what we are saying today, and that is that
there were many atrocities, similar atrocities, committed
against various populations during the 20th century, and that
what happened in the final days of the Ottoman Empire and the
slaughter of innocent Armenians is not an aberration of history
but instead happened in Cambodia, happened, of course, in
occupied Europe by the Germans, by the Nazis, and happened in
Soviet Russia. But we do not, for example, condemn the people
of Russia today for the crimes committed by Josef Stalin,
because Josef Stalin, of course, was a dictator operating
totally independently of the will of the Russian people.
With that said, that is the purpose of my amendment, which
is changing the words from the ``Young Turk Government'' to be
replaced by the ``government of the Ottoman Empire.''
I would ask now Mr. Radanovich a question for the record.
Mr. Radanovich, as the author of this legislation before us
today, is it your intent or is it not your intent that this
legislation will lay the foundation for any claim of
reparations against Turkey for crimes committed during the time
of the Ottoman Empire?
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. No, it is not
the intent of this legislation. It strictly deals with genocide
recognition.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thus, Mr. Chairman, this legislation
in no way would justify reparations against the current Turkish
government or Turkish people for crimes that were committed
during the Ottoman Empire's time period.
Let me say that the legislation does cover some property
disputes that might have arisen from this situation, and I
think that is justified for the people whose families lost
their property during this time period when we had this killing
going on. There has to be some sort of settlement with them,
but not reparations. That is not what this is about.
I support Mr. Radanovich's bill and believe my amendment
underscores it because of two things. Number one, we are
talking about an event in history. I will have to say that I
have tried to keep an open mind in this, realizing that Turkey
is one of our best friends of the United States of America and
during the Cold War we relied so much on that friendship. That
does not escape the truth that in the final days of the Ottoman
Empire, not only in the Armenian section of that empire but in
other sections of that empire as well, there were horrible
crimes committed against various populations, crimes against
humanity, because the magnitude of the slaughter was that bad.
So we are recognizing that truth that in the final days of
the Ottoman Empire these types of things happened, but we are
not blaming the current Turkish people.
By the way, let me just add this: The slaughter that took
place against the Armenians may be an example of where winners
end up slaughtering the losers. That still does not make it
justified because much has been said, and our friends from
Turkey pointed out, that Armenians during that time period
killed some Turkish noncombatants as well.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. I thank the Chairman.
As I mentioned earlier, I am going to be voting for the
underlying bill, and I will be supporting this amendment as
well.
I did want to make this germane perhaps, this comment. I
wanted to follow my colleague from California's comments that
this in no way reflects this body's or certainly my feelings
with regard to the Turkish people of today or the great history
of Turkey or of the vital role that Turkey and its people play
in the security of freedom in the world today.
We are mindful of your importance to the region and to our
national security, and we consider you friends. We hope that
you consider that the way we have behaved with regard to your
security qualifies us as your friends as well.
My friends from Turkey, for hundreds of years in the United
States of America we denied the actual subjugation and
destruction of the African slaves we brought by the millions
from Africa, who died by the millions at our hands, and the
consequences to the African American people once they came
here. We denied as Americans the slaughter of millions of
Native Americans, denied that for a long time.
Now I have no intention of directing you, my friends from
Turkey, to consider or reconsider your view of history. I will
just share with you our own years of struggle to deal with our
own history and to reiterate the point made by the gentleman
from California that this does not reflect our view about our
friends in Turkey today or about our mutual value to one
another.
I will be supporting the amendment.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
I intend to support Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment. I think it
is a helpful amendment, and I think it is consistent with Mr.
Tancredo's amendment that was passed last week, that stated in
part that in the President's annual message commemorating the
Armenian genocide, it should state that the modern-day Republic
of Turkey did not conduct the Armenian genocide which was
perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. I think that this is
consistent with that; and, therefore, I would encourage my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would first like to offer my appreciation to the
distinguished leader from the Turkish Parliament for his
observation and his sentiments before the Members of this
distinguished Committee.
It is ironic that we have to become experts overnight on
the history of this very difficult region of the world. To my
good friend, Mr. Campbell from California, I think history is a
very funny story. You tend to become subjective. You tend to
believe which story you want to believe and who wrote the
history of these peoples.
In fairness also to the issue here, I think the bottom line
is that where do we go from here, Mr. Chairman? If we are going
to pass a resolution on genocide against the Armenian people,
let's do it also for the Cambodian government and Pol Pot.
Let's do it also for Stalin, who exterminated systematically
over 25 million Russians during the Stalin era. Let's also
observe the, if we call it genocide, killings of some 250,000
Bosnians due to Milosevic's administration. It goes on and on.
I suppose, ironically, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with
this issue when we are only a couple of months away from the
presidential election, as well as gubernatorial and
congressional elections. I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman--and
this is something, too, that the fact is that this resolution,
a similar resolution, was taken up by the House 4 years ago,
and it was killed in the Senate.
In the 12 years that I have served as a Member of this
Committee, never have I seen a simple resolution proposed in
the House with such tremendous emotion, with such tremendous
feelings in terms of how this body or this distinguished
Committee ought to take a position or make a decision on this
issue. If there were a systematic killing of some 1.5 million
Armenians, historians have also said that there were just as
many Turkish in the millions also killed in the process.
There was a war against the Russians during World War I
where a lot of the patriots among the Armenian people took
sides with the Russians. There is nothing wrong with that,
being patriots. If you are fighting the opposition, you would
also like it to become that.
This happened in World War II when the French patriots
decided to repatriate themselves through General de Gaulle and
his people.
I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, about where do we go from
here if we pass this resolution? Let's propose resolutions
about all that I have indicated. What about the systematic
killings of hundreds of thousands in Indochina during the
French presence there in that part of the world?
So we are opening up, I believe, Mr. Chairman, an issue
that is not going to go away. If we are going to make the
decision on this, let's do it on an even-handed basis in terms
of where genocide occurs in other regions of the world.
I am not trying to defend what our good friend from the
Turkish Parliament has stated. But, as I have said before, we
have become overnight experts on history in this region of the
world which to me is one of the most complicated areas, our
understanding of the Balkans in the areas of Ottoman Empire and
how that occurred. I feel very, very reluctant, Mr. Chairman,
that we are making a decision, but do we have all the facts at
hand?
I just wanted to express the concern that my good friend
from California, Mr. Lantos, has reiterated earlier. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my
point of order and support the amendment.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman withdraws his point of order
and supports the amendment.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, of course, but I
would like to use my time to summarize basically where we are.
There are basically--the Committee is not in order, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's point is well taken. The
Committee will please respect the gentleman's time.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have great respect for all of my colleagues on both sides
of this issue. I think the time has come to summarize where we
are.
There are two items being discussed here seriatim. One
relates to the horrendous suffering of a vast number of
Armenian men, women and children 85 years ago; and there is
unanimity on this Committee in terms of recognizing that
tragedy and expressing our sorrow and anguish with respect to
it. The President of the United States, on Armenian Remembrance
Day, spoke on behalf of all of us.
There is a second issue, and that is the current national
security interests of the United States. We have now heard at
our last meeting and today from our current ambassador to
Turkey. We have heard from the Chairman of the Intelligence
Committee. We have heard from, in writing, a vast array of
former secretaries of defense and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.
I am asking for unanimous consent to place in the record a
letter we expect to receive by our current Secretary of State
and Secretary of Defense which also strongly opposes passage of
this resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
[The letter appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Lantos. We, in fact, can do both of these things. We
can express our support for the President's statement with
respect to the tragedy of the Armenian people, for which I am
sure there will be a unanimous vote on behalf of every Member
of this Committee, but at the same time not impact on our
national security, which is clearly involved.
The Chairman of our Intelligence Committee does not come
here frivolously. Former secretaries of State and chairmen of
the Joint Chiefs don't write us letters frivolously. The
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense don't write us
frivolously. Every single American president in the last
quarter century opposed this legislation. Every secretary of
state did. Every secretary of defense did. Every chairman of
the Joint Chiefs did.
I think it takes an incredible degree of arrogance for us
to sweep all of this aside and to move now to approve this
resolution. After all, it is important for us to remember that
this came to us initially for the purpose of saving a
congressional seat in California. The partisan politics----
Mr. Royce. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lantos. In a moment.
The partisan politics of that issue have now been diffused
because both the Democratic candidate and the Republican
candidate in that congressional district, for whatever reasons,
strongly support the underlying resolution. So it is no longer
a partisan issue.
It allows us to deal with this issue on its merits. On its
merits, we are in a position to identify ourselves with the
President's statement expressing the anguish of the American
people for the tragedy of the Armenians 85 years ago, without
adversely impacting our national security.
I yield back the balance of my time. I am happy to yield to
my friend.
Mr. Royce. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just wanted to point out, because I heard this argument
yesterday and last week as well, that I think all of us are
aware that Congressman Bonior is the cosponsor of this
resolution. As a matter of fact, he wrote to the Speaker and
said, ``I urge you to schedule this bipartisan legislation for
consideration for the floor as soon as possible.'' And he said,
``This resolution has a long history of bipartisan support. I
have worked to achieve passage of this for some years, and we
believe that now is the time to move forward.''
Then I noticed that we have a letter from Minority Leader
Richard Gephardt and Sam Gejdenson and Frank Pallone saying,
``We are writing to urge that you schedule for immediate floor
consideration.''
Mr. Lantos. Reclaiming my time.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Royce. So I am making that point to you that this is a
bipartisan resolution----
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Lantos has the time, and the
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Royce [continuing]. Supported by Mr. Gephardt and Mr.
Bonior.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to speak briefly in support of this amendment
and to stress what I believe to be the importance of it.
Last week, when we passed my amendment, which was referred
to by Mr. Chabot, some comments were made about the effect of
it and as to whether or not it would really change the course
of affairs or the way in which we look at the whole issue. I
just want to state very clearly for the record and also for our
friends here from Turkey that at least in my mind it is an
enormously important distinction we are making here.
Please indulge us, if you will, with regard to our desire
to reflect the events of history 85 years ago. Regardless of
whether or not you agree with that determination of this
Committee, please do not let that encumber your decision about
the action we are about to take. Because the action we are
about to take, both supporting this amendment and the
underlying resolution, is one that I think is extremely
important for a variety of reasons, be it political or the
heartfelt beliefs of the people, the majority of Members of
this Committee.
But it should have absolutely nothing to do with our
relationship with the present government of Turkey, and in
order to state that clearly and maybe in a redundant fashion,
we have another amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher. But that is only
to encourage you to understand what we believe to be the case
here and that is that the present government of Turkey holds no
responsibility for the actions taken in this area of the world
85 years ago.
So, therefore, although others have suggested that this is
not really going to solve our problem, I will tell you that, at
least for this Member, the only way in which I can support the
underlying resolution is with the inclusion of this language.
It is extremely important for me and I believe for other
Members of the Committee. So I do not want it discounted by the
very people we are trying to, in fact, talk to through this
resolution, and that is the present government of Turkey.
We value your friendship. We understand your concerns.
Please understand on our side what we are trying to do here and
how clearly we are attempting to distinguish between those two
actions.
Chairman Gilman. If there is no further debate, the
question is now on the amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher. As many as
are in favor, signify in the usual manner.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Gilman. A recorded vote is requested. Is there a
show of hands favoring a recorded vote?
A sufficient second, the Clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman Gilman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burton votes yes.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. Ballenger. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford.
Mr. Sanford. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford votes yes.
Mr. Salmon.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton.
Mr. Houghton. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady votes yes.
Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Votes yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr votes yes.
Mr. Gillmor.
Mr. Gillmor. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor votes yes.
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich votes yes.
Mr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr Cooksey votes yes.
Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. McKinney.
Ms. McKinney. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Mr. Hastings.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. Hilliard. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Mr. Pomeroy.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Mr. Hoeffel.
Mr. Hoeffel. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brown.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Wexler.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Pomeroy.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the tally.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the tally.
Ms. Bloomer. On this vote, there were 34 ayes and zero
knows.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will withhold.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton. Is Mr. Burton recorded?
Ms. Bloomer. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the tally.
Ms. Bloomer. On this vote, there were 34 ayes and zero
knows.
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is adopted.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized for
offer a motion.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Speaker, I move to order the resolution
reported to the House with the recommendation that the
resolution, H. Res. 596, as amended, be agreed to.
Chairman Gilman. This motion is not amendable and not
debatable.
The question is on the motion. All in favor, signify in the
usual manner. Opposed?
The ayes have it.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a rollcall vote.
Chairman Gilman. A rollcall vote is requested. Is there a
sufficient second by a show of hands?
There is a sufficient second. The Clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman Gilman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman votes aye.
Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Chairman Gilman. Let me interrupt the Clerk. To those
Members leaving, after this vote we will be recessing until 1
o'clock to come back to complete the rest of our agenda. We
will stand in recess until 1 after the Clerk completes the
rollcall.
Please proceed.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. Ballenger. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Sanford.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon votes no.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. Houghton. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell votes aye.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh votes aye.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr votes no.
Mr. Gillmor.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich votes aye.
Mr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. I vote present.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Cooksey votes present.
Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Tancredo votes aye.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gejdenson votes aye.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brown votes aye.
Ms. McKinney.
Ms. McKinney. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. McKinney votes aye.
Mr. Hastings.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will withhold.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner.
Ms. Danner. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner votes no.
Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. Hilliard. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard votes no.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Wexler.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman votes aye.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Davis votes aye.
Mr. Pomeroy.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Crowley votes aye.
Mr. Hoeffel.
Mr. Hoeffel. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hoeffel votes aye.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford.
Mr. Sanford. Present.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford votes present.
Mr. Gillmor.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Wexler.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Pomeroy.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks.
[no response.]
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will call Mr. Delahunt.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
Chairman Gilman. Any other Member wishing to change their
vote or any Member not recorded?
The Clerk will report the tally.
Ms. Bloomer. On this vote, there were 24 ayes, 11 noes, and
2 present.
Chairman Gilman. The motion is agreed to.
A motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
The Committee now stands in recess until 1:30 p.m..
[Recess.]
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
H.R. 577--TO HONOR THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES
Chairman Gilman. We will now consider H.R. 577 relating to
the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The Chair lays the
resolution before the Committee. The Clerk will report the
title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Res. 577, a resolution to honor the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for its role as a
protector of the world's refugees, to celebrate UNHCR's 50th
anniversary, and to praise the High Commissioner Sadako Ogata
for her work with the UNHCR for the past 10 years.''
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. This resolution was considered by the
Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights and
reported with an amendment. Without objection, the language
recommended by the Subcommittee on International Relations and
Human Rights which is before the Members will be considered as
original text for the purpose of an amendment.
Without objection, the Clerk will read the preamble and
operative language of the Subcommittee recommendation, so
ordered.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas, since the founding of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in December 1950----''
[The amended resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Subcommittee's
amendment is considered as having been read and is open for
amendment at any point.
I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith,
the Chairman of the Subcommittee, to introduce the resolution.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution introduced by my
friend and colleague, Tony Hall, whose commitment to human
rights and humanitarian principles is well-known.
The resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
the UNHCR; it commends the UNHCR for its good work over the
years, and congratulates the present high commissioner, Dr.
Ogata, who will be retiring in December.
The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights made minor technical changes to the bill when we
considered it and reported it favorably to the Full Committee.
As the resolution points out, it is important that UNHCR never
forgets that at the heart of its mandate is protection. Donor
countries like the United States often forget this. Our own
contribution to refugee protection around the world is about 20
percent lower than it was just 5 years ago and most other
countries have done even worse. Countries of first asylum to
which refugees have fled from persecution or from the fear of
persecution often wish they would just go away, and sometimes
the brutal regimes from which they fled are all only too happy
to have them back.
So there is always pressure on the UNHCR to pretend that
mass repatriation would be safe when it, in fact, is very
dangerous; or to pretend that repatriation is voluntary when,
in fact, the refugees and asylum seekers are given no choice.
Occasionally, as in the so-called Comprehensive Plan of
Action for asylum seekers from Indochina, the UNHCR has yielded
to this pressure. On these occasions, I and other Members of
Congress have been among UNHCR's strongest critics. On many
other occasions, the UNHCR has stood up for the principle of
protection, even at great risk to its own institutional
interests.
This resolution celebrates those instances of courage and
compassion over the last 50 years and particularly during the
stewardship of Dr. Ogata. I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend
my colleagues for their work on this resolution and just say
that while the High Commissioner's office is 50 years old, the
predecessor organization, UNRA, ran the camp where I was born
in Germany at the end of World War II, and I know what it meant
to my family and thousands and thousands of others who survived
that horror, and the U.N. Commissioner's offices around the
world continue to do work for refugees that really is
irreplaceable.
When I have been to places in this hemisphere and others,
it is clear they are doing the same jobs, the same training,
education, health. All of us here also remember that 3 workers
were recently killed in West Timor, that doing some of the most
humanitarian work on the planet doesn't protect you from the
kind of violence that goes on in the world. I urge passage of
the legislation.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Anyone else
seeking recognition?
If not, H. Res. 577, in observation of the 50th anniversary
of the establishment of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees,
honors the outstanding service that the UNHCR has provided the
international community since 1950. This small agency of the
U.N., since its inception, has helped ameliorate, and in many
instances resolve the plights of hundreds of millions of
victims of persecution and abuse.
I would like to commend our colleague, the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Hall, for his diligence in making certain that the
Congress is able to record its immense respect for the UNHCR on
the occasion of this important milestone.
We should also note that measure pays fitting tribute to
our current high commissioner, Dr. Sadako Ogata, who we met
with on a number of occasions and who is stepping down after
completing her 10-year tour of duty in this vital international
post.
During her tenure, Mrs. Ogata has seen the caseload of
refugees and persons of concern coming to her office rise to a
total of some 22 million people. This number is indicative of
the increase in wars, internal conflicts, and natural
disasters. It has produced a tide of human suffering that has
only been paralleled in the past by our most serious global
conflicts.
The UNHCR has also had to exceed the terms of its own
mandate as laid out in the statutes that created the Office of
High Commissioner some 50 years ago, by providing invaluable
assistance to those vulnerable individuals who were internally
displaced within the borders of their home countries, and who
are also the victims of persecution or human rights abuses.
As global events have become even more complex, the UNHCR
has been able to adapt itself to meeting the new challenges and
complexities presented, and I hope that this resolution, by
calling attention to the good work performed by the UNHCR and
its staff, will increase the support by American citizens and
others around the world of the efforts spearheaded by the
UNHCR.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues on our Committee to
support H. Res. 577.
Are any other Members seeking recognition?
If not, if there are no further amendments, the question is
on agreeing to the Subcommittee recommendation. As many as are
in favor of the amendment signify in the usual manner; those
opposed say no. The amendment is agreed to.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on
the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor signify in the
usual manner; opposed no. The ayes have it. The motion is
agreed to.
Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
H. CON. RES. 397--ABOUT SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN CENTRAL ASIA
Chairman Gilman. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 397
relating to the situation in central Asia. The Chair lays the
resolution before the Committee. The Clerk will report the
title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 397, a resolution voicing
concern about serious violations of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in most States of central Asia, including
substantial noncompliance with their organization for security
and cooperation in Europe commitments on democratization and
the holding of free and fair elections.''
[The concurrent resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. This resolution was introduced on
September 12, 2000, referred to the Subcommittees on Asia and
the Pacific and on International Operations and Human Rights.
It was considered September 13 in the Asia Pacific
Subcommittee, forwarded without amendment to the Full
Committee. The Operations Subcommittee has waived
consideration.
Without objection, the preamble text of the resolution will
be read in that order for amendment.
The Clerk will read.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas the States of central Asia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any
point. The measure was introduced by the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. I now recognize the
gentleman for 5 minutes to introduce the resolution to the
Committee.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am an original
cosponsor, but the primary author is, in fact, Mr. Smith, the
gentleman from New Jersey.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the five
independent States of Central Asia came into being: Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The
deserts, mountains, steppes, and river valleys in this region
are home to 50 million people. State borders, which were
imposed by Stalin, artificially partition and breed resentments
among various large ethnic groups, principally Russians,
Uzbeks, and Tajiks.
Since achieving their independence, the Central Asian
Republics have operated with little or no international
scrutiny. In effect, Central Asia has been relegated to an
international policy backwater. However, given the geo-
strategic significance of the region and given the region's
vast wealth of natural resources, such an oversight is risky.
We ignore the region at some peril.
Regrettably, the nations of Central Asia appear to be
moving along the path of authoritarianism. In recent months,
each of the five countries has conducted general elections.
These elections varied in the degree of electoral freedom.
However, in no case did any of the elections meet
internationally-accepted norms. Indeed, most remain reminiscent
of Soviet-style elections. There has been decertification of
opposition parties and, in some cases, the apprehension of
opposition leaders. The State Department's Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices for 1999 concludes that the presidential
power in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan overshadows legislative and
judicial power and that Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and
Tajikistan have lost ground in democratization and respect for
human rights. This continual decline is very disturbing and
raises questions about the ability of the United States and
other democracies to successfully encourage true democratic
institutions and the rule of law.
In some ways, this is a difficult resolution. There are
five countries in Central Asia. Each has unique
characteristics. Some enjoy certain socioeconomic advantages
over the others. Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan allow a relatively
greater, but still very limited, degree of political
participation. The ruler in Turkmenistan has developed cult of
personalities so deep that he has changed his name so that he
is, quite literally, the ``Father of the Turkmen,'' Turkmen-
bashi. Tajikistan has suffered from a severe civil war through
the 1990's, but the common theme throughout central Asia is
governmental abuse of basic human rights. Opposition leaders
who appear to be gaining influence are dealt with in a
decisive, antidemocratic manner, sometimes brutally.
Now it is certainly true that most, if not all, of these
countries face armed insurgencies. There are all-powerful
tribal warlords in Tajikistan. In Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan,
there are armed religious extremists. Indeed, as we meet, there
are Taliban-backed insurgents fighting Uzbek military forces,
and Islamic militants are decidedly antidemocratic. In
Kazakhstan, there have been efforts by pro-Moscow elements to
overthrow the government. It is entirely appropriate that the
governments of the region deal with such threats. However, it
is one thing to campaign against armed insurgents; it is quite
another to use the insurgency as an excuse to suspend
international law and to crack down on the legal political
opposition. Unfortunately, in some instances, that is what has
been done and is going on today.
H. Con. Res. 397 speaks to the very real abuses that have
occurred in each of the Central Asian Republics and puts these
nations on alert that the U.S. House of Representatives is
deeply concerned about the ongoing abuses of power. The
resolution urges the nations to come into compliance with their
OSCE commitments and calls upon the President and the Secretary
of State to raise human rights concerns when meeting with
representatives of these governments, even more energetically
than I assume they have been.
I congratulate the resolution's primary author, Mr. Smith,
for introducing the resolution. The language he has crafted
accurately reflects the serious democratic shortcomings
throughout the region. I am pleased to be a cosponsor along
with several other Members, and I appreciate the willingness of
his staff to work with the Asia Pacific Subcommittee to craft a
resolution that I think we can all energetically and
emphatically support.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H. Con. Res. 397. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
I will withhold.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. I thank my friend for
withholding momentarily.
Mr. Chairman, I introduced this resolution last October
because of the serious concerns about the general trends in
central Asia. Since then, we have held 3 hearings, one on
Kazakhstan in 1999, Uzbekistan in 1999, and Turkmenistan in the
year 2000. They were very comprehensive hearings. We heard from
all sides. We heard from human rights advocates, we heard from
a number of diplomats and, unfortunately, the trend is a very
negative one. Since then, the situation has deteriorated even
further from the date of the original introduction of the
resolution. The updated and newly introduced resolution is H.
Con. Res. 397, and I am grateful to my good friend, the
Chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, for moving this
resolution so that we can consider it in this timely fashion.
Throughout the region, Mr. Chairman, strongman regimes have
emerged where presidents have contrived to control or co-opt
the political systems and the sources of wealth. It is clear
that these leaders intend to stay in power indefinitely, and
are prepared to manipulate constitutions, elections, and
legislative and judicial systems to do so. Their desire to
remain in power requires repressive political systems so as to
stifle criticism to prevent exposure of high-level corruption
and to intimidate politicians and the public.
In the last year, the leaders of Turkmenistan and
Kazakhstan have made their privileges permanent. President
Niyazov of Turkmenistan had himself coronated as ``President
for life'' last December, and in June, Kazakhstan's President,
Nazarbaev, arranged for parliament to grant him certain
prerequisites and powers for life.
It is quite possible that some of these leaders plan to
create family dynasties. Kyrgyzstan, for example, which used to
be considered the most reformist Central Asian country, held
scandalously flawed parliamentary elections in February and
March, and President Akaev is now preparing to have himself
reelected to his third term in October by excluding any serious
challengers.
While the leaders and their families and supporters live in
luxury, the great bulk of the population in these countries has
suffered a devastating drop in living standards, and discontent
is growing.
Radical elements in Central Asia, which may be linked to
international terrorist centers, have called for overthrowing
these regimes and introducing theocracies. These elements are
currently mounting military campaigns against Uzbekistan and
Kyrgyzstan.
While it is possible that nothing could have stopped or
dissuaded the most radical and determined groups from pursuing
this goal, the domestic policies of Central Asian leaders have
aggravated the situation by depriving the public of an
opportunity to express grievances or otherwise participate
legally in the political process, or to enjoy a share of the
pie.
While we reject and condemn any attempts to create or
impose a political system by force, especially by elements that
are anti-American, we cannot remain silent about the deeply
harmful consequences of the domestic policies of Central Asian
leaders which violate their OSCE commitments on
democratization, human rights, and the rule of law. I hope that
all Members will support this resolution, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an amendment at the desk that I think is agreeable
to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the amendment and
the Clerk will distribute the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson. After
the 5th clause of the preamble, insert the following----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized on the
amendment.
Mr. Gejdenson. The intention of the amendment is simply to
point out that in Kazakhstan, there has been some progress.
Obviously there is a long way to go in all of these countries.
There is absolutely no historic tradition of democracy. It is a
critical area in the world for us when we look at the
surrounding countries in this region: Iran, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, India, China, all touching this area. Obviously I
applaud what the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Smith, has
done here; it is an important statement. I just wanted to give
a little bit of applause to Kazakhstan for beginning some
process, but obviously all of these countries have a long way
to go. I am happy to see this little bit of progress in
Kazakhstan. I would offer the amendment at this time.
Chairman Gilman. The amendment has been offered by Mr.
Gejdenson. Is there any discussion? Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bereuter. I want to establish a little legislative
record here, and I would hope to have the gentleman from
Connecticut's attention on this issue.
Mr. Gejdenson. The gentleman from Nebraska always has my
attention.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you. I know that is the case.
I want to make sure that the amendment is not
misinterpreted in Kazakhstan or by President Nazarbayev.
Unfortunately, no one from the opposition parties was a
part of the process for organizing the roundtables or in
setting the agenda of such roundtable. I think, in fact, the
roundtable was conceived as a substitute to the national
dialogue that is favored by the major opposition party and
other groups. I think it is important that Kazakhstan's
President Nazarbayev not be allowed to twist this amendment and
the approval thereof, which I hope to support, as a
congressional endorsement for his very limited approach to
discussions with the opposition----
Mr. Gejdenson. If the gentleman will yield----
Mr. Bereuter. I will yield in just a second. As a rejection
favored by most of the opposition, I think we should not give
any message whatsoever that we are giving an aura of legitimacy
to a regime that has been corrupt and has dealt harshly and
undemocratically with the opposition.
I think that a more comprehensive and high-level national
dialogue, similar to ones held some years ago in Poland and
South Africa, for example, are much better ways to proceed than
is the roundtable that is proposed. I am hoping the gentleman
may agree that we do not want to send a message that we are
satisfied or that the oppositions' concerns are satisfied by
the roundtable. I yield to the gentleman for any comments he
might make in response.
Mr. Gejdenson. I agree with the gentleman. I point to two
areas in my amendment. One is at the end of the second
``whereas'' clause: ``now should increase the input in those
discussions by opposition parties, public organizations that
favor a more comprehensive national dialogue.'' Additionally,
in lines 3 and 4 I emphasize the need ``to engage in a serious
comprehensive national dialogue on an equal footing.''
I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. My goal here
was simply to say, they have taken a small step, which is
important, but the gentleman is absolutely correct that there
needs to be a lot more done. I guess what I am trying to say is
once in a while you need a little bit of an ``atta boy,'' but
they have a long way to go. We need to make sure that they
recognize that America is not going to be happy, that they are
not going to get the kind of reception here that they hope to
get until they have real democratic institutions, real respect
for opposition, respect for a free press, independent parties.
I agree with the gentleman completely.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you. Reclaiming my time for just a
second, I want to say I appreciate the gentleman's words. The
emphasis he has given I think is appropriate, and I wanted that
to be part of the hearing record here today.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of
Mr. Bereuter. I think he very accurately described what I think
all of our hope is in not conveying a misinterpretation of the
intent of the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment.
Kazakhstan, as we know, has participated in a series of
roundtable discussions between the government and opposition
and independent forces. The first roundtable took place in
September, on September 2nd, and more are scheduled. The next
one is expected in January.
The purpose of these talks is to come to an agreement about
ways to eliminate the very severe defects in election
legislation, which the OSCE and ODA criticized in the past and
to improve the election process. It is very important to stress
that the roundtable discussions must be genuine, they must be
serious. As I think Members know, the opposition and
independent forces have to be able to sit at that table and
take a part in those on an equal basis. We do not want to, in
any way, endorse a farce that is done for international
consumption. We want these to be real and genuine, and I think
that, Mr. Bereuter, in raising some of these concerns, has
precluded the President from misapplying the intent of what we
are trying to do here.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Any other Members seeking recognition? If there is no other
Member seeking recognition, the amendment is now before the
Committee. All in favor signify by saying aye; opposed; the
amendment is agreed to.
I just I just want to state my strong support for the
resolution. Along with our colleague from Nebraska, Mr.
Bereuter, I have shared an interest to underline to the
Congress and the American people the importance of the States
of Central Asia and the future stability of all Eurasia and the
future expansion of global energy.
I am going to ask that my full statement be made a part of
the record. I think our Nation makes it clear that we expect
and support true democracy and will not tie our policies in
Central Asia to leaders bent on condemning their peoples to a
future of repression, corruption and poverty. I support the
amended resolution.
[The Chairman's statement appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. On the resolution, I recognize the
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution, as
amended, on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor say aye, opposed
no. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
S. 2682--REGARDING MAKING AVAILABLE CERTAIN MATERIALS OF THE VOICE OF
AMERICA
Chairman Gilman. A noncontroversial measure is next on the
Voice of America. We will now consider S. 2682 relating to
making certain Voice of America materials available. The Chair
lays the bill before the Committee. The Clerk will report the
title of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. ``S. 2682, to authorize the Broadcasting Board
of Governors to make available to the Institute for Media
Development certain materials of the Voice of America.''
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with.
The Clerk will read the bill for amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, Section 1.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.
The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights, which has not acted on it.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Georgia, Mrs.
McKinney, to introduce the bill.
Ms. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a statement that I would like to submit for the
record. I would just like to add that this is a
noncontroversial bill that allows the Board of Governors of the
Voice of America to enter into a contract with UCLA to digitize
the analogue material and to allow access to the material to
selected scholars for research.
This bill is not precedent-setting, inasmuch as it has been
done before with the University of Pennsylvania.
This bill has been passed by the Senate, and I urge my
colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. McKinney. Are any other
Members seeking recognition?
If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is
recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman request and
seek consideration of the pending bill on the suspension
calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye, those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The
motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make
motions under rule 22 relating to a conference on the bill.
Further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
We will now recess and come back right after the last vote,
and hopefully we will be able to wind up our agenda. There is a
series of votes on the floor. The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order. Members
please take their seats.
S. 1453--THE SUDAN PEACE ACT
Chairman Gilman. The Chair lays a bill before the
Committee, Senate 1453, the Sudan Peace Act.
The Clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. ``S. 1453, an act to facilitate famine relief
efforts and a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan.''
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with.
This bill was considered by the Subcommittee on Africa and
by the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights. The Subcommittees recommended amendments. Without
objection, the Subcommittee recommendation in the nature of a
substitute which is before the Members and marked Committee
Print will be considered as the base text for the purpose of
amendment. The Clerk will read the Subcommittee amendment for
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Committee print. Strike all after the
enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1, short
title.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Subcommittee
recommendation is considered as having been read and is open
for amendment at any point.
[The Subcommittee print of S. 1453 appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. I now recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes to introduce the bill.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the government of Sudan's genocidal religious
war against the non-Muslim peoples of southern Sudan have
turned the south into, in the words of one Sudanese priest,
``the hell of the earth.'' Enslavement, calculated starvation,
forced conversion, and the bombardment of civilian targets,
such as schools, churches, and hospitals, are still methods of
terror favored by the National Islamic Front government.
Unfortunately, Khartoum has also begun generating the
revenue it needs to extend its self-described jihad by
developing Sudanese oil resources. S. 1453, the Sudan Peace
Act, is an important first step toward addressing the crisis in
that war-torn region. Among other things, the bill condemns
slavery and other human rights violations perpetrated by the
Khartoum regime. I would note parenthetically that we held the
first hearing on slavery in the Sudan in my Subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman, back some 4\1/2\ or so years ago. We have had a
number of followup meetings to that. We had actual survivors of
slavery who testified, who talked about the gross indignities
that they suffered as a result of slavery. Slavery in the year
2000 continues to exist. This resolution condemns it.
It expresses support for the IGAD-sponsored peace process.
It expresses a sense of Congress on several objectives relating
to improvement of relief services to the south of Sudan. It
authorizes an additional $16 million for rehabilitation
assistance to areas of Sudan not controlled by the government
in the north, and it requires the President to report to
Congress on several aspects of the conflict as well as options
available to the United States for providing nonlethal
assistance to members of the National Democratic Alliance.
These are all very good things, Mr. Chairman, but the
horrors of Sudan, which have already claimed more than 2
million lives, demand more than expressions of concern and new
reporting requirements. They require concrete action.
For this reason, at our markup, the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights reinstated portions
of sanctions-related language that was present in both the
House and the Senate--introduced versions of the Act. Unless
the President can certify that Khartoum has made significant
progress toward peace and respect for human rights, the
restored language would impose certain trade and financial
sanctions intended to keep the government of Sudan from raising
funds in the U.S. capital markets. The robust U.S. economy
should not be used to underwrite this ongoing genocide.
I urge Members to support the bill. I know there will be
some amendments, but I do hope that in its current form,
Members will support it.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Menendez, for general debate.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start from the outset saying that I fully support
this bill and all that it tries to do, and if I could have
signed my name on to it as a cosponsor, I would have. Since it
is a Senate bill, I can only commend the authors and the
original cosponsors in the Senate, Senators Frist, Feingold,
Brownback and Joe Lieberman.
I am a cosponsor of a similar bill in the House, H.R. 2906,
sponsored by Congressman Watts, Frank Wolf, who has done much
to expose the barbarities of the Sudanese government; Ed Markey
and, on this Committee, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Payne, Ms. McKinney
and Mr. Smith, all who have worked tirelessly on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I abhor the Sudanese slave trade and the
Khartoum regime that perpetrates it as much as anyone in
Congress. Even before the current sanctions were imposed on the
Sudanese government, I am on the record as the former Ranking
Member of the Africa Subcommittee as being critical of Sudan's
despicable human rights abuses and its perpetuation of the
country's brutal Civil War. The list of wholly condemnable
practices then, as now, includes the abduction of children and
the use of selective starvation as a weapon of war.
This bill makes a case for sanctions against the Sudanese
government. It makes clear that those sanctions will continue
until the regime in Khartoum changes its ways.
What I hope it will work toward, Mr. Chairman, however, is
full enforcement, not a fig leaf. If, for example, you allow
gum arabic to come into the United States through the Europeans
instead of directly, all you do is give the Sudanese higher
prices and more money and, therefore, undermine the very nature
of the sanctions you seek to create. That should not stand.
I will have two amendments aimed at strengthening the bill
by broadening sanctions provisions and calling on the United
States Government to do everything possible to bring Sudan's
trading partners, which are our allies in Europe, into line on
the sanctions.
I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Africa Subcommittee marked this legislation up in July.
I am glad to see that the Full Committee is paving the way for
this bill to come on to the House floor. Let me say you have
all heard the arguments about the full measure of the tragedy
we are dealing with here, and I would hope that the Members of
this Committee would all support the legislation. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. Are any other Members seeking time?
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. At the right moment, I would have an
amendment, but this is general debate I assume, so I am happy
to wait until later.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too want to commend the Chairman for bringing this up,
and the Chairmen of the Subcommittees for their work on this
particular issue.
As has been noted, it is one that has come before this
Committee several times in the past, and I am pleased that it
has finally developed into this particular piece of legislation
that includes the issue of sanctions. We have been told, and we
were told in the Subcommittees, that we should shy away from
that, because it may cause the bill to be reconsidered and have
to go back to the Senate. That argument, of course, I think is
much less important in light of the fact that we know that the
Sudanese government is making use of the economic forces--the
economic resources available to them for the most nefarious of
purposes; and that recently, as a matter of fact, the World Net
Daily learned that the African Nation of Sudan has acquired 34
new jet fighters from China, doubling the size of the country's
Air Force, further escalating the Muslim government's war
against Christians in southern Sudan.
Records show the Sudan Air Force is now equipped with $100
million worth of brand new Shangyen jet fighters built in
China. A recent U.N. Report accused the Sudan government of
using an airfield built with Chinese assistance to bomb schools
and hospitals in its war against the south.
Every increase in available resources to the northern
government--to the government of Sudan and Khartoum--is used to
propagate their war against the south. That is why sanctions
are so important. Without sanctions, this bill is truly just a
resolution, not a bill.
I noted with interest that not too long ago, the Government
of the United States, the State Department, and the President
of the United States, threatened economic sanctions against the
Nation of Peru, and they did so because they were concerned
about the electoral process and whether there was validity in
their electoral process, whether the election for President was
being carried out accurately. The fact is that if we can
threaten sanctions against Peru, for heaven's sake, because of
their electoral process, why fear using this particular
mechanism against a government who has propagated far more
heinous crimes against its population than any other in the
region or around the world in recent history.
So it is a bogus idea, I think, to suggest that this is not
an appropriate measure for us to take. I recognize we may be
debating this further as this bill goes along, the idea of
sanctions, but I just wanted to say on the front end that I
think it is an enormously important part of the bill. Without
it, we really don't have anything more than the kind of thing
we have had in front of us time after time after time and that
is rhetoric. They should do it. We hope they will do it. But,
in fact, this gives them consequences for not moving in the
direction of peace.
So I sincerely hope that the Committee will support the
bill in its entirety and that we will not change it, not water
it down. I commend it to my colleagues for their approval.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo. Is any other
Member seeking recognition?
I support this measure, which passed the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee unanimously in November of last year.
Sudan has been independent for some 44 years. For 34 of
those years, it has been engaged in civil war. Entire
generations of Sudanese in both the north and south have grown
up with war as a regular fact of life. Several national
governments, military and civilian, have come and gone. Some,
like the current regime, have been militant Islamists. Others
have been moderate, the historical norm for Islam in Sudan.
All, however, have attempted, without much success, to subdue
the rebellious south with military force.
The cost in human life has been enormous; about 2 million
dead in the past 17 years. Two million have perished. There is
no way to estimate the death toll of the first 17 years of the
war, from 1956 to 1973.
Last year, high level State Department and National
Security Council officials asked Members of Congress to remove
restrictions in the law that would prevent food aid from going
to the rebel forces. We did so in the mistaken belief that they
had decided upon a course of action and were planning to do
something with that authorization.
But as soon as some NGOs and other officials within their
own Administration publicly criticized the action, the
Administration turned tail and ducked for cover. Current State
Department guidance reads as follows, and I quote: ``The
Administration has not made a decision to use previous
authorization to provide direct food aid to Sudan's opposition
forces, but the issue remains under review.''
It is now going on a year that this has been under review.
Perhaps the Administration should be reminded that time is
running out. Their indecision has had real consequences and
they have managed to achieve the worst of all worlds.
The militant government in Khartoum spreads the word that
the U.S. is actively supporting the rebels, and this mobilizes
real support from its extremist allies in the Arab world.
Meanwhile, the rebels actually receive nothing but rhetoric
from our Nation. Although the State Department says it supports
this bill in large measure, it bristles at reporting
requirements that it describes as onerous. It objects to
anything that might restrict the Administration's exercise of
its authority with respect to economic sanctions. They have
been arguing--the argument is not to tie the President's hands.
These arguments would be more persuasive if the Administration
could point to a consistent and effective policy of measures of
its own during its 8-year tenure. Indeed, we would be less
willing to tie the Administration's hands if it were not so
painfully obvious that at least on Sudan policy, one hand often
has not known what the other was doing. Accordingly, I urge my
colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk, number 34.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the amendment, and
the Clerk will distribute the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez, page 11,
after line 15, insert the following: (D), The importation to
the United States of gum arabic, in raw or processed form----''
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as having been
read.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Gilman. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My purpose in offering this amendment, which is one small
paragraph but I think very powerful in terms of what we are
trying to accomplish, is that one of the products that Sudan
produces, not its major one, but one of the major ones, gum
arabic, which is needed here in the United States. If we are
going to cut it off, and I am willing to support such a
sanction, it should be in its totality, which means that
whether it be in raw or processed form, if it is originating
from the Sudan, whether imported directly from Sudan or from a
third country, we are going to say no.
If we do not do that, then all we are accomplishing in this
one instance is having the Sudanese make more money because the
Europeans are cornering the market, they are making more money;
we are not hurting them, and we are still going to get a gum
arabic product into the United States and pay higher prices for
it and shut down companies that import directly.
So I think most of us here today agree that sanctions
against the Sudanese government are the right thing to do. I
have supported and will support them. However, our European
allies do not agree. Their policy of engagement and continued
unfettered trade with Sudan is both undermining our policy and
hurting American companies. This is particularly true with
regard to one product, gum arabic, which is not Sudan's largest
export, but it is an important one.
Their ability to sell gum arabic to the world has not been
stopped by our sanction. In fact, a top State Department
official in testimony to the Congress more than a year ago
said, ``Economically, the Sudanese regime has not been
adversely affected at all by the U.S. ban. Sudan is exporting
more gum arabic than ever before. American gum arabic refiners,
on the other hand, may soon be forced to shut down, and
American companies that use refined gum arabic could wind up
paying higher prices to overseas competitors who are acquiring
a monopoly on this necessary substance.''
Unfortunately, his prophecy is now fact.
So the Sudanese are making more money, the Europeans are
making more money, and American companies are being unfairly
hurt.
Now, we all know that sanctions are going to hurt U.S.
firms. There are some in my own district. I stand ready to have
them face the consequences. But, if we are going to hurt them,
let's at least be sure we are achieving our goals at the same
time. Our goal is to hurt the Sudanese regime economically so
that these killers and slave traders are forced to change. We
will not do that if we allow them an open door to bring their
product in through the Europeans, most particularly the French,
who seem to be unwilling to work with us in order to achieve
it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge the adoption of the
amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Does anyone wish
to be heard?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, just so I understand exactly what is
going on here, in the past it has been my understanding that
the gentleman from New Jersey, my good friend, Mr. Menendez,
while he was supportive of overall sanctions was actually in
favor of carving out a protection for gum arabic, a position
which I did not like, but unfortunately it is the position that
prevailed.
But it is my understanding that if this amendment were to
be added to this bill, there would be a referral made or a
demand for a referral by the Ways and Means Committee, which
would make this legislation a dead letter. It would not be
reported out of the Ways and Means Committee. We would be
talking about, like I said, a piece of legislation that would
be dead as a door nail.
So I will insist on my point of order and obviously leave
it up to the Chair, but it seems to me that the double-edged
sword here is that this would be a killer amendment for the
entirety of this legislation, because of the Ways and Means
Committee. We all know that the Ways and Means Committee would
be the final repository of what otherwise would be a good bill.
We have carefully crafted the sanctions language in this. I
give high marks to my Chief Counsel, Grover Joseph Rees, who
wrote it in such a way that would preclude a referral to the
Ways and Means Committee. I am absolutely transparent about
that. We didn't want it to go there for one simple solitary
reason: it would be a dead letter. This amendment makes the
bill a dead letter.
Chairman Gilman. If the gentleman will withhold his point
of order, I think there is some other discussion.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Well, it is my time or the gentleman's time?
If it is on my time, my point, and I do not intend to
insist on the amendment; but my point, however, is to say let's
be honest and not hypocritical. The fact of the matter is, if
we want to hurt the Sudanese, what we must do is shut down the
avenue of any product that we seek to sanction from coming to
the United States. Otherwise, all we do is give the Sudanese a
greater market price, the Europeans are paying top euro for
them because they want to corner the market; so we give the
Sudanese more money and, therefore, allow them to have more
resources to conduct the type of activity they have been
conducting. That is not something we want to do.
I am going to seek to withdraw, but I wanted to make the
point to my colleague from New Jersey that I support what he
wants to do and I don't want it to be referred anywhere else.
But I hope we will work toward, if we are going to make this
meaningful, locking down sanctions that ensure that we, in
fact, don't just have American companies get hurt and end up
giving the Sudanese more money at the end of the day.
Mr. Smith. I thank the gentleman for that explanation. I
don't think the word ``hypocritical'' would apply, though,
because I and Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Royce, and so many others, have
tried very hard to be as expansive as humanly possible in
applying the sanctions. Many of our efforts were joint hearings
with my good friend, Mr. Royce. We held the landmark hearings
on the forgotten war against the 2 million people who so far
have perished under unspeakable conditions. ``Crimes Against
Humanity in the Sudan,'' was the title of our hearing on May 27
of 1999. As I said, we had the first hearing ever that was held
on that issue----
Mr. Menendez. Well, reclaiming my time, my point is, when I
say ``hypocritical,'' I am saying our policy, not my colleagues
here.
Mr. Smith. Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. Menendez. Our policy, that if we are going to have
sanctions, and I have had this policy worldwide, if we are
going to have sanctions, the way to ensure it is that we don't
provide open doors that ultimately allow back room entrances,
so we can say that we are doing something, but in reality we
are doing very little to effect a sanction in a way in which we
want.
I know that my colleagues who have pursued this are very
sincere in their effort. I am talking about governmentally,
ultimately in the Administration's policy, if we are not going
to close down all access of this or any other product from the
Sudan, then ultimately, we are not being true to our ultimate
goal, and that is the context in which I meant it. I thank the
gentleman.
Chairman Gilman. Does the gentleman seek to withdraw?
Mr. Menendez. I seek to withdraw, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. Menendez, do you have an additional amendment?
Mr. Menendez. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I have two
amendments, 35 and 36, which I would ask unanimous consent to
offer en bloc.
Chairman Gilman. Two amendments offered en bloc by Mr.
Menendez.
The Clerk will read the amendments.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendments offered by Mr. Menendez. Page 2,
after line 5, insert the following: And redesignate subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.''
[The amendments, offered en bloc, appear in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendments are
considered as having been read.
Mr. Menendez is recognized for 5 minutes on this amendment.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the merger of these two amendments basically
goes toward an expansion of language which I think is
appropriate. It speaks, as I have already made the case that if
sanctions against the regime are going to be effective, we must
convince our trading partners to join us in attempts to hurt
Sudan economically. Unfortunately, our European allies today
have not been cooperative. This has meant that the sanctions
have not hurt Sudan, but have hurt American companies and their
employees, while European firms are reaping the benefit. Sudan
is making more money than ever before on gum arabic, for
example, as the Europeans are willing to pay top euro for the
product in the hope that they can corner the market. They are
cornering the market right now, buying all the stocks of gum
arabic and selling to American firms who rely on it through
European companies.
Until we secure European cooperation on the sanctions, U.S.
companies will bear an unfair burden and the Sudanese despots
won't be persuaded in the least to change their ways. Those of
us around the world who are disgusted by any forms of slavery
in this day and age, as in any day and age, must work together
politically and economically to send a message to the Sudanese
government.
So what we seek to do in this amendment is to strengthen by
recognizing the refusal of those countries specifically that do
not seek to join us but are, nonetheless, purchasing from the
Sudanese and giving them higher prices, ensuring that we use
any and all unilateral and multilateral economic and diplomatic
tools to compel Sudan's trading partners to join us in this
effort, and also to ensure that all of the other entities are
engaged. I have taken out as well those references that would
have created a referral; so to my colleague from New Jersey who
has legitimate concerns about that, we took those references
out to ensure that it wouldn't produce a referral to another
Committee, but in essence, to strengthen our call for
unilateral sanctions.
Lastly, to suggest as a sense of the Congress that if we
can close down all of the efforts to have any Sudanese imports
come into the United States, either directly or indirectly
through third countries, that we should seek to provide some
relief to those companies, in whole or in part, who are
affected. This falls in line also with our views on some of the
trade sanctions we have had with reference to banana and
hormone beef; and saying small businesses should not be the
focus of those trade sanctions, we should give relief to those
small businesses.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Any Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, we are on both amendments at the
same time, just in terms of parliamentary procedure?
Chairman Gilman. They are en bloc.
Mr. Smith. I would hope the sense of the Congress might be
separated, just because I have some questions about how much
money we are indeed talking about and to whom the money would
go. Are we talking about Coca Cola, a large, multinational,
rather cash-rich corporation, who would be compensated? I am
just not sure who he is talking about, so if the gentleman
could explain that.
Mr. Menendez. I would be happy to explain that to the
gentleman if he will yield.
Current sanctions only deal with the refiners, so I think
there are only two companies, small companies in the whole
United States that import and refine gum arabic, and those are
the only people to whom the sanctions apply, and those are the
only people who, in fact, I am talking about.
Mr. Smith. And about how much would we be talking about?
Mr. Menendez. I can't quantify for the gentleman that
amount, but I would be happy to try to get that information. I
would just say to the gentleman, there are about 150 to 200
employees in two very small companies that are the only ones
that I know of in the entire country that import this, and they
are the only ones affected by the sanctions.
Of course, the sense of the Congress doesn't say we are
going to do that, it just says we should look toward the
possibility that if we can enforce such sanctions successfully,
that we should look at giving some relief. The gentleman would
find legislation that I have offered with many other Members of
the House to give such relief to other small companies in
similar circumstances where, in the context of trade disputes,
we are affecting those small companies.
Chairman Gilman. Is there any other Member seeking
recognition?
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
As you know, this has been an ongoing debate for some time.
I certainly appreciate my colleague from New Jersey having
concerns, as he ought to, regarding businesses in his district
which are affected, and I can understand the legislation that
he is introducing. However, I think that somewhat of a
precedent may be set by us attempting to hold harmless,
although very small businesses, the businesses that are
involved. You know, this question of gum arabic has been
debated now for several years, 5 or 6. I know myself, because I
attempted to have previous legislation passed to have sanctions
on gum arabic.
The thing that I find difficult to understand is that if a
product is necessary for the final conclusion or the final
making of some other product, then it would appear to me that a
responsible company would look for alternatives, alternative
places that this particular product could be grown, knowing
there is a certain amount of time that it takes before the
fruits can bear and become productive. But we have been
discussing this question of gum arabic for some time now.
I don't blame the refineries or the companies that are in
the business of converting this into whatever the substance
that is necessary for candy and sodas and all of the rest; but
it seems to me that those large companies, multinational
corporations who must depend on gum arabic, would at least have
had some foresight to say well, let's move to Nigeria or let's
go to Ethiopia, let's grow it in Eritria. I mentioned that 3 or
4 years ago.
Certainly, if you have a supply and you have everything in
place, it is a lot easier simply to continue to draw from that
place that you are drawing from.
So it appears to me that the corporations that depend on
gum arabic have not taken initiatives to try to prevent the
eventuality that perhaps sanctions will be brought upon a
country like Sudan. For those reasons, I have very little
sympathy because it is not something that has come out of the
blue; it is something that we have talked about; we have urged
them to look at other sites, we have suggested that they find
the topography that is similar to that in the Sudan where this
product is grown, and that they, as any progressive company
would be forward-thinking, would then move and start that
product in that area.
So I just have a concern about precedent-setting. In the
past, as a matter of fact, with South African sanctions, there
were many South Africans who were hurt and they said they
supported the sanctions anyway because they knew it was the
right thing to do.
So I do certainly appreciate not offering the other
amendment would have sent it to the Ways and Means Committee,
which would have definitely killed any kind of sanctions. But
in due respect, I cannot support these amendments.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Are any other Members seeking recognition? If not, the
question is on the amendments en bloc. All in favor signify in
the usual manner. Opposed, no.
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Gilman. A show of hands, would that be acceptable?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. All in favor of the amendment signify by a
show of hands; opposed.
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the
desk. One is very quick. The shorter one to strike section 5 B.
I discussed it with the author.
Chairman Gilman. Are they en bloc or separate amendments?
Mr. Campbell. They are separate, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the amendments.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell, pages 7,
8, strike section 5b, renumber all succeeding sections.''
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Campbell is recognized on his
amendment for 5 minutes.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, 5b refers to the IGAD process
as the only one the United States ought to be pursuing. That is
a dated reference. Since the time that was drafted, there have
been prospects of alternative routes that are positive, not
involving Libya. I understand that that was a concern. I
understand there has been some progress in Asmira; there has
been some progress in some other opportunities perhaps
involving Egypt.
So I am asking that we drop five, which says that it is the
sense of Congress that the best route is through the IGAD
process in Nairobi and that the President should not create any
process or diplomatic facility or office which could be viewed
as a parallel or competing diplomatic track, because it may not
be in the best interests of peace and settlement that we solely
support IGAD. I leave in 5a and C, having consulted with
Chairman Smith, because I don't wish to say there is anything
wrong with IGAD, it just shouldn't be exclusive.
I yield to my friend from New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. I thank my friend for giving us advance notice
about his intentions and for narrowing it to just section B.
Because IGAD is certainly one viable route, but as he has
pointed out, events have overtaken the text of the resolution.
So I think it is a very timely deletion from the underlying
resolution, and I thank him for it.
Mr. Bereuter. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Campbell. I yield.
Mr. Bereuter. I just wonder if you could tell me if the
Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee has had a chance to see
this and has an opinion about it?
Mr. Campbell. I have expressed it to him and I am confident
that he will support it, but I cannot put words in his mouth.
Mr. Bereuter. Is the gentleman in the anteroom?
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the Chairman of the
Africa Subcommittee on the question of my amendment where I am
attempting to strike the reference to IGAD as the only peace
process to be followed.
Mr. Royce. I am in concurrence. As originally marked up in
our Subcommittee, we did not have that narrowly constricted
language, and I agree with the gentleman from California.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. Are any other Members seeking recognition
on the Campbell amendment?
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Yes. I will note and support that. Of course
perhaps IGAD was put in because currently IGAD is the only
official organization that was dealing, specifically over the
last 3 or 4 years, with the process of attempting to come up
with a solution. But I would accept the amendment of the
gentleman from California.
Chairman Gilman. Is any other Member seeking recognition?
If not, the question is on the amendment. All in favor
signify in the usual manner, opposed. The amendment is agreed
to.
I recognize Mr. Campbell on his second amendment.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I have one other amendment.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will distribute the amendment,
and the Clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment to S. 1453 offered by Mr.
Campbell. Strike all and insert the following:''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Campbell is recognized for 5 minutes
on the amendment.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, in respect of the hour and the
fact that so many have already heard the debate here, I will
just summarize in less than I think a minute.
This simply goes back to the Senate version, and the reason
why is that only the Senate version has a chance of passage,
because we will not have time for a conference in this
Congress. So if we are interested in having a bill pass, only
the Senate version will.
Good people disagree. I heard my good friend from
Colorado's point of view earlier. The difference, of course, is
with sanctions. The Senate version does not involve sanctions.
I have expressed my concern in the Subcommittee as to the
effectiveness of sanctions in general and in this case
specifically, but I leave the fundamental argument simply as
this: If you wish a resolution to pass out of the Congress,
then we really don't have much choice this year except to adopt
the Senate language, which is what this amendment does. It is
not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to call for a rollcall on this.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Gilman. Is any other Member seeking recognition?
If not, all in favor of the Campbell amendment signify by
saying aye; opposed, no.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield, I was really
trying to get your attention and wanted to say that if we go
back to the Senate language in which the sanctions were gutted
and taken out, then for all intents and purposes, we have a
very diluted bill. I mean, that was why I even opposed my
colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, who I think perhaps
was disturbed. But then if I knew that this was going to be the
case, I wouldn't have been silent with my good friend.
So this simply gives us a bill with no sanctions. I can
understand maybe the difficulty of getting the bill through,
but I don't know where this leads us at this time.
Mr. Smith. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Just for the record, I offered the amendment to
reinsert these sanctions during a markup in the Subcommittee on
International Operations. I think it is absolutely vital that
we stand in this case shoulder to shoulder with the
Administration, suggesting that there is going to be absolutely
no diminution of our resolve. The peace sanctions are
necessary. Sanctions never work in a day, but we have a
genocide going on, as you know, and have spoken out so
eloquently about. We need to state clearly and unambiguously
our support for this. I would hope that Members would vote down
the amendment of my good friend, Mr. Campbell, well intentioned
though he always is.
Mr. Tancredo. Will the gentleman yield? Taking the
sanctions out of this bill is providing false hope, which is
worse than doing nothing at all. We have done that to the
Sudanese time after time after time. Do not pretend that
something has happened if we pass a piece of legislation
without the teeth of sanctions, because we all know it will be
status quo. That is worse than this government taking no
action. It is worse to create false hope. And I certainly
oppose the amendment.
Chairman Gilman. The Chair is in doubt on the rollcall, on
the last vote on the amendment. Can we have a vote by a show of
hands? All in favor of the amendment signify by a show of
hands. Please raise your hands. All opposed please raise your
hands.
The noes have it..
The Chair will entertain a motion by the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. If there are no further amendments, then I
move that the Chairman request to seek consideration of the
pending measure on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska.
Those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye, those
opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized
to make motions under rule 22 with respect to a conference on
the bill, the counterpart for the Senate.
I understand we have one vote on the floor, which will be
the last vote of the day. Please return and we will try to
conclude our agenda as rapidly as possible. The Committee
stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
H. CON. RES. 414--RELATING TO REESTABLISHMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE
GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN
Chairman Gilman. While we are waiting for Members to
return, we will take up one of our quicker resolutions. We will
now consider H. Con. Res. 411, which is now renumbered H. Con.
Res. 414, relating to Afghanistan. The Chair lays the
resolution before the Committee. The Clerk will report the
title of the resolution and distribute the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 414, a resolution relating to
the reestablishment of representative government in
Afghanistan.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the resolution will be dispensed with.
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Clerk will read the
preamble text of the resolution in that order for amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas Afghanistan has existed as a
sovereign nation since 1747, maintaining its independence,
neutrality and dignity.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any
point.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Campbell, the sponsor of the resolution, to introduce it to the
Committee. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your
accommodation. The bill is sponsored by myself and Members of
this Committee, including Mr. Lantos, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Royce, Mr. Bereuter.
It simply calls to attention the efforts by the former king
of Afghanistan to convene an emergency Loya Jirgah, which is a
traditional Afghanistan assembly for the sake of possibly
adding to the resolution of the war and difficulties in that
country. The Administration has informed me of their support,
and I read Mr. Inderferth's testimony before our Committee to
say we are encouraged by the efforts of the Afghans around the
world to contribute to the search for peace in group meetings
in Rome, Cypress, Bonn and elsewhere. Many advocate the
convening of a Loya Jirgah or grand council of Afghan leaders
to forge a new national accord.
There is nothing further in that resolution, and I urge its
support.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Any other Members
seeking recognition?
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of
it. There is much that can be said about the terrible situation
in Afghanistan. I think all of my colleagues are generally or
very specifically aware of it. But the terrorism that is
generated from that country and the haven for terrorists that
it has become, including Osama bin Ladin, certainly should
catch our attention.
A number of Afghans around the world have looked to
Afghanistan's history, and they seek the king to convene the
grand council or the Loya Jirgah. This is a forum whereby
leaders from around Afghanistan would be allowed to air their
views and resolve their differences.
I don't know whether this effort is going to succeed. The
odds are against it. Secretary Inderfurth has spoken, as
mentioned by Mr. Campbell, in support of it. The Administration
supports it. I am pleased to be cosponsoring this initiative by
our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from California. I
think it is worth trying. I am pleased about the initiative,
and I commend the gentleman for pursuing this effort.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Are any other Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Before that, let me speak on the general
debate.
I want to commend Mr. Campbell for crafting this important
initiative, and I strongly endorse H. Con. Res. 414,
legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the United
States supports the former Afghan king Mohammed Zahir Shah's
initiative to convene an emergency Loya Jirgha or Grand
Assembly to establish a democratic government in Afghanistan. I
also want to praise Congressman Rohrabacher, the gentleman from
California, for his expertise regarding Afghanistan and the
Loya Jirgah process.
During times of Afghan national crises, it is traditional
to hold a Grand Assembly to democratically consider means and
methods to tackle significant problems. The power behind the
Loya Jirgah is its assurance that all groups within Afghanistan
will be equally represented in an historic effort to resolve
the crises at hand. Our nation should be actively supporting
that effort in every way possible.
The Taliban, which currently rules over much of
Afghanistan, has turned that nation into a major worldwide
supplier of heroin. It also exports terrorism and religious
extremism.
As the Taliban has extended its hold over Afghanistan, it
has grown increasingly extremist and anti-Western, its leaders
proclaiming that virtually every aspect of western culture
violates their version of Islam.
In addition to restrictions against women, such as barring
them from holding jobs or traveling unaccompanied by a male
relative, ancient and cruel forms of punishment, such as
stoning, have been revived. There are reports of massive ethnic
killings and starvation.
The evolution of the Taliban bears a fearsome resemblance
to the murderously fanatical and purist Pol Pot regime in
Cambodia.
The Taliban also continues to give refuge to Osama bin
Ladin, the Saudi terrorist who plots against American citizens.
Distressingly, Taliban leaders who have made narcotics the
economic base of their regime view the drug trade itself as a
potential weapon. Views of the West and many pro-Western
countries by the Muslim world as being corrupt, the Taliban
have no compunction about trafficking in narcotics.
Our government must get firmly behind the Grand Assembly
process so that Afghanistan can begin again to play a
constructive role in the world and the Afghan people can once
again live in peace.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues on the Committee to
support H. Con. Res. 414.
Is any Member seeking recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher, for an
amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the amendment, and
the Clerk will distribute the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher, on
page 2, in the Resolved section, replace Clause (1) with: (1)
supports democratic efforts that respect the human and
political rights of all----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5
minutes on the amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This
amendment does not in any way alter the fundamental purpose of
Mr. Campbell's bill. In fact, Mr. Campbell, I think I can say
supports the changes. It does nothing but strengthen them, and
what, in essence, the changes this amendment would bring about
actually add just the concept that the Loya Jirgah is not an
end in itself. The Loya Jirgah would lead to a democratic
process that would permit the people of Afghanistan eventually
to determine their own destiny through a free and democratic
electoral process. This is what, in the end, will actually
change the situation in Afghanistan. The king, and I know the
king very well--I have met him on many occasions--is not
seeking a Loya Jirgah in order to reestablish monarchy in
Afghanistan. If that were the case, I am sure Mr. Campbell,
being a Republican and not a monarchist, would not be
supporting this bill. But the fact is the king agrees that the
Loya Jirgah should be the process in which a transition
government is established, which will then lead to a democratic
process of elections in Afghanistan.
One last thought, Mr. Chairman, and that is, I am sorry to
have to assert this, and I will assert this on the floor of the
House as well. I am sorry, but I have made it my life to know
what is going on in Afghanistan, and after years of trying to
talk to this Administration about our policy, as an honest
person and one with some expertise in this area, I have to tell
you that I have concluded that this government of ours, that
this Administration, has been covertly supporting the Taliban
for years. I make that charge not with glee, but with, just
with sadness in my heart.
After 2\1/2\ years of trying to get documents from the
State Department, and 2 years after the Secretary of State
promised us personally in this room to have the documentation
of the fundamentals of American policy toward Afghanistan made
available to us, those documents have still not been made
available to us, 2 years after she made the commitment, 2\1/2\
years after us trying to assert our rightful claim to have an
oversight authority in this area. This, plus many other things,
especially the Taliban offensives that have accompanied Mr.
Inderfurth's trips to south Asia and to that area of the world
and the advances that have been made by the Taliban after each
and every trip Mr. Inderfurth made to Pakistan, leads me to
conclude that this Administration has been supporting this
despicable, antiwoman, antihuman regime that harbors terrorism
and is again involved with drugs and repression.
This amendment today, Mr. Campbell's underlying bill and
this amendment, put us on record as taking the higher road and
that Congress believes that the people of Afghanistan have a
right to control their destiny through free elections and need
some peace in this world after 20 years of turmoil. Thank you
very much.
Chairman Gilman. Are there any other Members seeking
recognition?
If not, the consideration before us is the Rohrabacher
amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner by saying
aye; opposed, no.
The amendment is agreed to.
Are there any other further amendments?
If there are no further amendments, the previous question
is ordered on the resolution.
Without objection, the gentleman from Nebraska is
recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chair may request
and seek consideration of the pending measure, as amended, on
the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye; those opposed say no. The ayes have it.
The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this matter are
postponed.
We will now take up another measure out of order at the
request of Mr. Smith, who has to leave.
H. CON. RES. 382--CALLING ON AZERBAIJAN TO HOLD FREE AND FAIR
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
Chairman Gilman. We will now take up H. Con. Res. 382,
calling on the government of Azerbaijan to hold free and fair
parliamentary elections in November 2000.
The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 382, a resolution calling on
the government of Azerbaijan to hold free and fair
parliamentary elections in November 2000.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the resolution will be dispensed with.
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Clerk will read the
preamble and text of the resolution in that order for that
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas Azerbaijan has been a participating
state----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any
point.
I now recognize Mr. Smith, the gentleman from New Jersey,
to introduce it to the Committee. The gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk
in the nature of a substitute.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will report the amendment. The
Clerk will the read the amendment. The Clerk will distribute
the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``An Amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Smith. Strike the preamble and insert the
following:''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
[The substitute amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith is recognized on his amendment.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment in the nature of a substitute is being
offered for one reason: to urge the government of Azerbaijan to
hold free and fair parliamentary elections on November 5th,
less than 5 weeks away.
President Aliev has often pledged to hold free and fair
elections, but Azerbaijan's record is poor. In fact, the
Helsinki Commission, which I chair, conducted a hearing on May
25 concerning the upcoming elections, and the progress, or more
accurately stated, the lack of progress in building a
democratic environment, and the violation of human rights in
Azerbaijan.
The three elections, Mr. Chairman, that have been held
since 1995 have not met OSCE standards. These flawed elections
have deepened the distrust between the government and the
opposition, undermining prospects for establishing democratic
institutions and resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
promoting peaceful, predictable transfers of power.
The parliamentary elections due to be held next week offer
the opportunity to demonstrate the Azerbaijani government's
commitment to democracy and to overcome tension between the
government and the opposition and within Azerbaijani society.
Unfortunately, Azerbaijan has refused to incorporate
substantive suggestions made by the OSCE's Office of Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights into its election law, which do
not correspond to the OSCE standards. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Chairman, when we held this hearing on the upcoming elections,
many of us were cautiously optimistic that there might be some
progress. Regrettably, that progress has failed to materialize.
Azerbaijan's Central Election Commission has recently
excluded several parties, including major opposition parties,
claiming signatures were falsified or otherwise invalid. This
claim is based on the same flawed methodology employed in the
1995 parliamentary election. The OSCE and the U.S. Government
have criticized the exclusion of these parties and repeatedly
has called upon Azerbaijan to bring its election law into
correspondence with internationally recognized OSCE norms. The
exclusion of major opposition parties will clearly undermine
confidence in the election results in Azerbaijan and the
international community, and threatens to continue the pattern
of flawed elections in Azerbaijan.
This resolution again calls on the government and the
parliament of Azerbaijan to bring its legislative framework up
to the OSCE standards, not to exclude opposition parties on the
basis of flawed methodologies without giving them a chance to
prove the veracity of their signatures and to create an
environment conducive to the holding of free and fair
elections.
Mr. Chairman, the Helsinki Commission will hold additional
hearings. This hearing that we held, as I mentioned earlier,
had a varied cross-section of panelists, including Ambassador
Daniel Fried, who represented the Administration very ably;
Clifford Bond; and we even had the Azerbaijani Ambassador,
Ambassador Pashayev, who gave the government's point of view;
and then we heard from several of the opposition party
spokesmen who gave us, again, some very, very compelling
testimony.
So I do hope that the Committee will pass this resolution
so that they know exactly where we are coming from in our hopes
that there will be a free and fair election.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Are any other
Members seeking recognition on this resolution?
If not, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The United States has a growing relationship with the
Republic of Azerbaijan, one of the Newly Independent States of
the former Soviet Union. That relationship obviously has a
great deal to do with Azerbaijan's geopolitical position, given
its location between Russia, Iran and Turkey, and also has much
to do with its potentially huge energy reserves.
But that relationship also has to focus on the expansion of
a truly democratic government with Azerbaijan if it is to prove
enduring and if it is in the benefit of the Azeri people over
the long term.
Much has been accomplished over the past 9 years in
building a new independent state in Azerbaijan.
This resolution introduced by my colleague from New Jersey,
Mr. Smith, points out those things that the Azeri leadership
has recently done that conflict with the need to move toward
truly democratic government, and points out the steps it needs
to take to get back on the real road to democracy.
The parliamentary elections to be held in Azerbaijan next
month are an important milestone on the road to democracy in
that country. I support the passage of this resolution, making
it clear that our Nation expects the Azeri leadership to ensure
that they are truly free and fair.
I ask that my full statement be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Is there any other Member seeking
recognition?
If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is
recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chair may
request to seek consideration of the pending measure, as
amended, on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion
signify in the usual manner. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The
motion is agreed to.
The Chair is deemed to be instructed to make motions under
rule 22 of this measure, a companion from the Senate. Further
proceedings on this measure are postponed.
H. RES. 588--CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF PROVISIONS OF THE HELSINKI FINAL
ACT
Chairman Gilman. We will now take up resolution H. Res.
588, expressing the sense of the House with respect to
violations in Western Europe of provisions of the Helsinki
Final Act.
The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The
Clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Res. 588, a resolution expressing the
sense of the House of Representatives with respect to
violations in Western Europe of provisions of the Helsinki
Final Act and other international agreements relating to the
freedom of individuals to profess and practice religion or
belief.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the resolution will be dispensed with.
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Clerk will read the
preamble and the text of the resolution in that order for
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas under article 18 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to
freedom----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any
point.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Salmon, the
sponsor of the resolution, who has an amendment.
Mr. Salmon. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature
of a substitute at the desk.
Chairman Gilman. The Clerk will read the amendment. The
Clerk will distribute the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Salmon. Amend the preamble to read as follows.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any
point.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. I now recognize the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Salmon, to speak on his amendment for 5 minutes.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this measure. First
I might say that I appreciate the Democrats working with me to
craft this substitute motion. I believe that this piece of
legislation is fair, it is responsible, it covers a broad range
of problems in terms of religious freedom and the persecution
of certain religious minority groups, and I know that is one of
the things that has stirred up some controversy in the past.
At the outset, I would like to thank Karen Lord of the
Helsinki Commission, and Hillel Weinberg of the Full Committee
for their hard work in helping to draft this resolution for
markup today.
Unfortunately, government discrimination against minority
groups and individuals in Western Europe based on religion or
belief continues to persist. Such discrimination has been
documented in several State Department human rights reports and
U.N. reports. This discrimination takes place at the national
and local levels of government and has included the denial of
business licenses, the exclusion from government employment and
political parties, and the prevention of performances or
exhibitions by minority religions. Religious and minority
discrimination appears to be permeating in European countries
like France, Belgium, Austria and Germany.
For example, in Belgium, the most recent international
Helsinki federation report mentions that religious minorities
in Belgium have been subjected to various forms of harassment
and other human rights violations, such as slander, anonymous
threats, loss of jobs, bomb threats, and denial of room rental
for religious ceremonies.
In France, the French National Assembly passed a bill that
would restrict the free expression, growth and development of
173 ``blacklisted'' religious groups including, but not limited
to, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Opus Dei, Muslims,
Unificationists, and certain denominations of Orthodox Judaism.
Furthermore, this bill would imprison religious proselytizers
for up to 2 years for mental manipulation of the public.
Another example took place in Austria. The 1999 U.S.
Department of State Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom stated that the conservative Austrian people's party
formally accepted a decision that the party membership is
incompatible with membership in a sect. This policy led to the
resignation of a local party official.
Lastly, Germany continues to engage in discriminatory trade
practices by using a sect filter to ensure that a firm is not
affiliated with a certain religion or belief before granting a
contract to them. We heard testimony in this Committee a couple
of months ago regarding a certain vendor that provides services
to Microsoft, and we remember the problems that we are having
there.
It is time that this blatant discrimination came to a stop.
I, along with my colleagues, Mr. Payne and Mr. Gilman, have
introduced resolution 588, which expresses the sense of the
House relating to the freedom to profess and practice religion
or belief in Western Europe. The resolution also documents
several of the examples I have just discussed.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Resolution 588, and I
would like to also call to your attention letters sent to
Chairman Gilman by several religious leaders supporting my
resolution and urging its adoption. If I could, without
objection, I would like to enter them into the record.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
Mr. Salmon. These letters encourage the passage of this
resolution, because these religious leaders recognize, as we
have, that this is a serious problem. As you can see, there are
all kinds of organizations from those that represent the
Catholic religion to the Jewish religion to the family research
council. So there are many, many groups that have recognized
the problem.
I have another letter from a group called the Religious
Action Center of Reformed Judaism which also supports the
passage of this resolution.
[These letters appear in the appendix.]
Mr. Salmon. I would like to close by quoting a very, very
profound and moving quote that is inscribed on the second floor
at the end of the permanent exhibit in the Holocaust Museum.
``First, they came for the socialists. I was not a
socialist. I did not speak out. Then they came for the
trade unionists. I was not a trade unionist, so I did
not speak out. Then they came for the Jews and I did
not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came
for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.''
That is pastor Martin Nemor.
I know that some have said, why in the world would we want
to say something about problems with our friends. We should
only be beating up on our so-called enemies. But let me quote
to you in the letter that was sent to Chairman Gilman by these
religious leaders, a quote that I think is very, very
appropriate.
``If we do not halt this antireligion movement in
Eastern Europe, particularly in liberal democratic
states like France, what right do we have to criticize
nonwestern countries whose policies do not measure up
to our own standards of religious freedom? Should the
American community of faith not be concerned that the
government of France, like that of Communist China,
will not discuss issues of religious liberty with the
United States Government. If we can't talk to our
friends, who can we talk to?''
Mr. Chairman, I encourage the adoption of this measure. It
is something that has been debated over the last 3 years. I
know because I have been involved in all of those debates. I
know when I have gone to OSCE meetings to the various
participating countries it is an issue that we have constantly
brought up, yet the problems still persist. If we truly are
about religious freedom in this country and we serve as a
beacon for the rest of the world, if we are that light on the
Hill that President Reagan once talked about, then let's be the
light on the Hill. Let us stand up for religious liberty
throughout the entire world.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say to the
gentleman from Arizona, I was relieved to find when I first
began to examine your bill that this was not a traditional
scientology resolution with all of its defects and
inaccuracies. I want to ask you to make sure I am addressing
the right one. Are we talking now about H. Res. 588? Is that
the one we have before us?
Mr. Salmon. Yes.
Mr. Bereuter. I have a number of specific questions, if I
could just go over them line by line with you, and these are
reports from various people, mostly international
representatives from some of the European countries involved
here.
On page 3, the whereas clause that begins about 10 lines
down, with respect to the French National Assembly, we were
told by State just as a matter of accuracy that the National
Assembly has not yet passed the bill and they would say it is
under consideration. I wonder if you know if, in fact, that is
accurate?
Mr. Salmon. My understanding--yes, it did pass the House,
and it is under consideration in the Senate, so it has not
passed both bodies.
Mr. Bereuter. But it has passed the assembly?
Mr. Salmon. Right.
Mr. Bereuter. That is your understanding?
Mr. Salmon. Correct.
Mr. Bereuter. Well, then, perhaps State is wrong or that is
now out of date.
Also on that same page, with respect to the French National
Assembly, the State Department indicates that the Seventh Day
Adventists should not be on that list. I don't have any
knowledge one way or another.
Mr. Salmon. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Bereuter. That on the list on the last whereas clause
on number 3, our State Department says that Seventh Day
Adventists should not be listed there.
Mr. Salmon. They are not on the list. They are not on the
list of the 173. If you read the statement as it is written, it
does not say they are part of that list. It says that--let me
see, ``whereas in 1996, French National Assembly report listed
173 organizations as suspect, including,'' and it goes through
and lists those groups. And then it says, ``and official
entities harass, intimidate, deny employment.'' That is not
continuing with the list.
Mr. Bereuter. I see your point. So you believe that the
second reference is accurate?
Mr. Salmon. That is correct.
Mr. Bereuter. Okay. On page 5, the whereas clause that
begins ``whereas Scientologists''--this is a matter of
interpretation and I would just like your clarification. At
least the German Government suggests that the German Government
is not orchestrating boycotts in Germany. Now, your legislation
does not say that, although they are concerned about the
implications, so I would just like your clarification. There
may well be orchestrated boycotts. But you are saying the
German Government is, in no way, involved in orchestrating such
boycotts? Is that consistent----
Mr. Salmon. Yes, it does not refer to a boycott perpetrated
by the German Government. It simply says boycotts. And to my
knowledge, that is the same information that we have gotten as
well, that there is no governmental entity that is actually
overtly instigating any kind of boycotts.
Mr. Bereuter. On the top of page 4, Mr. Salmon, this could
be clarified, just a minor point. The Austrian law, somehow we
believe it was enacted in 1998, but that is just a minor point.
That can be collected, I gather. You may be right.
I thank the gentleman for his responses to these questions.
One of the concerns that I have had--and I know various
governments in Europe have had--is related to their subsidy of
church bodies and the treatment by the State or various levels
of their government with respect to subsidies paid to the
churches. They are particularly concerned in some cases, for
example, in Germany, since they do subsidize the recognized
churches, that subsidies do not flow to churches that they do
not recognize as religions, but contend that they do not,
thereby, justify, or in any way condone discrimination against
it.
Is there anything in your legislation that you think is
addressing the tax issue appropriately or inappropriately?
Mr. Salmon. This legislation is silent on any
recommendations as far as tax policy of other countries. It is
not our intent to step in and tell these countries who they are
to give the subsidy to or who they are not. There is no
language on that.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Salmon, thank you very much for your
responses. I yield back.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Let me commend Mr. Salmon
for the outstanding job that he did, of course, as a cosponsor.
We worked diligently on this legislation. I am glad that it is
broadened enough so that those who had specific problems with
the fact that we talk about religious persecution and have
included Scientologists, that now seems to be put down further
in the resolution, and therefore, finds less objection. I
thought that the resolution, as it stood for the last 4 or 5
years, should have been passed, but I was in the minority, and
of course it was not.
So I am pleased that with this broadening and widening and
including of 189 groups, we could finally get some resolution
passed. We should certainly, though, seriously be against
intolerance everywhere, and we are finding that there is more
and more of it growing in the world. It seems like as the world
moves to sort of a one-body, one-Europe, you know, almost one
North America with NAFTA and all that, we are finding that
intolerance is on the increase and it doesn't make sense--not
religious intolerance, racial intolerance, intolerance for
sexual preference.
So I hope that this resolution passes. I think that it
certainly expresses the sense of the House with respect to the
violations in Western Europe. We certainly have been critical
of ourselves and we still need legislation here in the United
States to protect minorities and others also. So we are not
doing something that we are looking over there and not over
here. So once again, I would like to commend Mr. Salmon and I
strongly support the resolution, I support the broadening of
it, I support the inclusiveness of it, and I would hope that we
would be able to have this resolution passed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some concerns about a trend that I have seen on this
Committee. It seems that every week, we spend an inordinate
amount of time on another resolution going over something that
maybe makes everyone on the Committee feel good about
themselves and the greater worth about what they are doing; but
at the same time, we are ignoring present day problems--the
history of the 20th century. In the 20th century, apparently
there was genocide by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and we have
spent 10 hours discussing that.
The history of the Nazis and the Holocaust is well-known.
Stalin killed 11 million Ukrainians, or some large number. We
have our Trail of Tears in the United States that we seem to
ignore, and Congress existed when this occurred and Congress
participated in it. And this Congress, in this Administration,
sat by on our hands when hundreds of thousands of people were
killed in Rwanda, Burundi, the Congo, and more recently in
Sierra Leone.
So today, we are telling four European countries, Austria,
Belgium, France, and Germany how to run their government, how
to treat their religions. At the same time, if they were to
tell us how to run our government, how to run our Congress, how
to manage our relations with religion, I am sure we would
resent it, and properly so.
I am convinced that God will indeed judge us by our deeds
as individuals, and I don't think God is going to judge us on
our mixing politics and religions. That was one of the
foundations of this country. So I am opposed to this piece of
legislation. I don't really think it serves any purpose.
I would point out in relation to Scientology, which has
been a nagging problem for this Congress every year and it is
always defeated, this Administration, once they came into
office in 1993, was the first time Scientology had ever been
recognized. That was in 1993. So how can we criticize Germany
for not recognizing Scientology when our Administration made
probably a political decision on a group that I know has a
history of preying on elderly, perceived wealthy little widows,
and apparently preys on some people in the entertainment
industry that are not smart enough to do anything else but be
entertainers.
So I really am opposed to this and do not think it serves
any useful purpose. I think that if we are going to do
something useful or meaningful, we need to address some of the
problems of infectious disease around the world, some of the
problems of current day human rights abuses. Because I don't
really think anyone is suffering in Austria or Belgium or
France or Germany to the extent that it has been brought up
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey. Are any other
Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Very briefly, to my good friend from
Louisiana in particular, I read the resolution and I think it
is a correct statement of the Rules of the House that we do not
enact the whereas clauses. That is to say the whereas clauses,
they are not numbered, they don't become part of law, and I
tell you why I say that, because the resolution starting at
page 6 with the lines that are numbered do not, in my judgment,
carry any of the dangers that the gentleman from Louisiana
observed, which are entirely contained in the whereas clauses.
Now, that is not to say that a friend looking at our
actions overseas will treat that difference with the same
respect that a student of statutory construction would here in
the United States. But I don't find anything objectionable in
the enacting clauses, the therefore clauses, and I would yield
to my good friend from Louisiana, if there is any aspect there
that you would like to identify, and then would I yield
whatever time I have back to the author of the resolution as
well. But just for a second, if there is anything that you see
on page 6 or 7 that you would like to draw attention to, I
would be pleased to yield, and if not, I don't want to put you
on the spot. I yield to you.
Mr. Cooksey. I would ask the author if he would be willing
to withdraw the whereas for the Scientology group.
Mr. Campbell. I yield to Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon. I respectfully would decline to the gentleman.
This is about religious inclusion for all of these various
groups, and I don't want to diminish the bill in any way. I
might also thank the gentleman for yielding. Every one of these
countries, these 4 countries that are noted in this resolution
cite international covenants in which they willingly signed and
agreed to these international covenants. We are simply trying
to put their feet to the fire and make sure that they adhere to
them.
I must respectfully disagree, if the gentleman from
Louisiana does not agree that religious freedom is a human
right. You stated that we should spend our time dealing with
human rights issues. This country was founded on religious
freedom. That is what we are about. The First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States is about religious freedom.
That is why we came here. That is why the pilgrims originally
came to this country, to escape religious discrimination.
People of my faith have endured religious discrimination even
in this country.
Maybe the gentleman has never had to encounter that, but I
have sat through hearing after hearing after hearing, and I
have heard of multiple problems right now in Europe. It is a
serious problem, and if we don't stand in this Congress for
defending religious liberty, we have no right to speak on other
things.
In China, where we have had the PNTR vote, every year it
comes up, we talk about the religious freedom issues in China.
I do not think the gentleman from Louisiana believes that those
are not very serious issues. They are very serious. To me, this
is very, very important. I am sorry that you don't agree that
it is an important issue to try to defend religious liberty
worldwide, but I believe that that is a very fundamental part
of what we are about here.
Mr. Campbell. I will reclaim my time. My attempt to pour
oil on troubled waters has failed. The whole idea of my
intervention was to say, hey, nothing to disagree about on the
enacting clauses, and instead, I am afraid I have made things
worse; so I am going to withdraw, unless my friend from
Louisiana wants to use the rest of my time.
Mr. Cooksey. Why don't we drop the whereas on all of the
different religions, all of them, without singling out any one.
I am for religious freedom, but my point is, we are
dwelling on this issue in these four European countries, and we
are sitting on our hands while people are dying in Sierra
Leone. I was there 2 months saying I saw it. You saw the abuses
that have gone on there, that have gone on all over west Africa
because we have one group that does not have the courage to do
the right thing in west Africa and a group in our party that
does not care, it seems. And this is true with the Kurds, in
Iran, Turkey, Iraq. There are a lot of groups--I mean, what
greater human right is there than the right to life?
Mr. Salmon. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Campbell. I reluctantly yield.
Mr. Salmon. I do not disagree whatsoever. I think we are
singing from the same sheet of music. I would be happy to work
with the gentleman on any legislation that he would like to put
forward on Sierra Leone or talk to the Administration, but I
don't understand why it is not possible to do two goods. I am
not responsible for the fact that we haven't taken up any
legislation or any issues regarding Sierra Leone or defending
life. I certainly agree with that. I don't oppose the
gentleman. I simply am asking you to work with me on this one
and I would be happy to work with you on the other. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I support the pending resolution. It is unfortunate that
countries like those named in the preamble, which are so
important as allies, and where liberty is, in general, so
highly regarded, seem to have a blind spot when it comes to
religious liberty.
This is a carefully drafted resolution dealing with a
problem that is widely recognized in the community of observers
of religious liberty in this country. It is supported by
representatives of diverse religious groups from southern
Baptists to Sikhs. I have received letters in support of it
signed by personalities ranging from the Interim Dean of the
Catholic University Law School to Michael Novak of the American
Enterprise Institute.
Accordingly, I believe this measure deserves the support of
all Members of the Committee and I urge its adoption. I ask
unanimous consent to insert my full statement into the record.
[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Are there any other Members seeking
recognition or seeking to offer amendments?
If there are no further amendments, the previous question
is ordered on the----
Mr. Cooksey. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. I would like to request a recorded vote and I
notice there is not a quorum here right now.
Chairman Gilman. Are you making a point of order with
regard to a quorum?
Mr. Cooksey. Yes.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Could I make a unanimous consent that we
suspend further discussion on this bill until we complete the
rest of the calendar and take this one up at the end?
Chairman Gilman. A motion has been made to--a unanimous
consent has been made. Is there objection to the unanimous
consent request?
Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Mr. Chairman, I would object.
Chairman Gilman. Dr. Cooksey objects.
Mr. Cooksey. I object to the unanimous consent request.
Chairman Gilman. There is an objection to the unanimous
consent request.
The Chair will now----
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. I make a motion to table the request of Mr.
Cooksey.
Chairman Gilman. A motion has been made to table the
request.
Mr. Bereuter. Could we have a clarification of
parliamentary situation?
Chairman Gilman. I am going to ask our counsel to set forth
the parliamentary situation.
Mr. Weinberg. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that a
point of order of no quorum was made by Dr. Cooksey, and I
believe that there is no higher motion available such as a
motion to table at this point. The Chairman would be obliged, I
would advise the Chairman that he ought to count for a quorum
and then we would establish whether or not we had a quorum
present, following the normal procedure.
Chairman Gilman. The Chair will count for a quorum.
The Clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman Gilman. Aye , present.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman votes aye.
Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Present.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter votes present.
Mr. Smith.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burton.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Present.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce votes present.
Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. Present.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell votes present.
Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Mr. Cooksey. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. I would like to interrupt the quorum call for
a second and yield to Mr.----
Chairman Gilman. It is not in order, but are you
withdrawing your request?
Mr. Cooksey. I want to yield to Mr. Campbell, and then I
want to make one more statement after his statement.
Chairman Gilman. Well, it is not in order unless you want
to withdraw the request for a quorum and then we can recognize
you.
Mr. Cooksey. Okay. I will withdraw my request for a quorum.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has withdrawn his request
for a quorum. I now recognize Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. I ask unanimous consent to speak.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
Mr. Cooksey. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back and make the
same point I made earlier. This Committee is spending too much
time on resolutions like this, and I am not sure that we really
help anyone out. I am sitting here right now with a news
release about 5 Catholic priests that have died in Kenya, and I
worked in Kenya off and on for 6 years. Why haven't we
condemned the government of Kenya, why haven't we taken
decisive action there? Taking someone's right to life,
someone's life is a far greater human rights violation than
what we have seen in these four European countries. I am
convinced that we are not doing enough along these lines, and I
think that we need to reconsider what we are doing----
Mr. Ackerman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cooksey. I would hope that next year when this Congress
reconvenes and this Committee reconvenes, we will spend more
time on worrying about people that have either lost their lives
or are currently under the threat of losing their lives.
I yield.
Mr. Ackerman. I would just like to remind the gentleman
that the Committee's intent to take up the resolution on Kenya
doing exactly what you just said if we are allowed to continue
without having a disruption of disbanding because of the
possible suggestion of the lack of a quorum.
Chairman Gilman. We will continue----
Mr. Cooksey. Well, I have withdrawn my quorum call.
Mr. Bereuter. Would the gentleman from Louisiana yield?
Mr. Cooksey. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Bereuter. I want to clarify my own position. I intend
to vote for this resolution, and in fact will be voting to move
it forward because of the work that Mr. Salmon has done. My
concern is that this Member does not want to do anything to
suggest that Scientology is a religion. But I look at the
language here and it does say religion or belief. Certainly,
people who are engaged in Scientology have a belief, and that
gives me an opportunity to express my view without being
opposed to the resolution. But I want it particularly clear
that I do not consider this vote to be a concession on my part
that Scientology is a religion. I thank the gentleman for
yielding for that clarification for the record and to make
myself feel comfortable about it.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Are there any
other Members seeking recognition? If not, if there are no
further amendments and no further requests, I recognize the
gentleman from Nebraska for a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as
amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor signify in the
usual manner; opposed. The ayes have it. And the resolution is
agreed to.
H. CON. RES. 361--COMMENDING THE REPUBLIC OF BENIN
Chairman Gilman. We now move to H. Con. Res. 361 relating
to Benin.
The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The
Clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 361, a resolution commending
the Republic of Benin.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the resolution will be dispensed with.
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Clerk will read the
preamble and the text of the resolution in that order for
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas in 1990 the Republic of Benin made a
smooth transition from Marxist rule to constitutional
democracy.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and open for amendment at any
point.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman,
the sponsor of the resolution to introduce it to the Committee.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
as well as Chairman Royce and Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Payne for
agreeing to consider this resolution.
Too often, Mr. Chairman, the news we hear from west Africa
is bad news. Civil unrest, human rights abuses, refugees, are
the usual images that we see of Africa. So I am pleased that
with this resolution, we can support a good news story in west
Africa.
Under the leadership of President Mathieu Kerekou, Benin
has successfully transitioned into a vibrant constitutional
democracy. As a result of the legislative elections in March
1999, there are opposing parties controlling the executive and
legislative branches of the government. Benin stands out as a
true example of political pluralism, religious tolerance and
respect for human rights. In fact, according to the State
Department's Country Reports on Human Rights, Benin has no
political prisoners and the government generally respects the
human rights of its citizens.
Last January, I had the opportunity to travel to Benin and
meet with President Kerekou. He impressed me with his pro-
American attitude, his commitment to privatization of State-
owned enterprises and his willingness to support international
law enforcement efforts to stem the tide of narcotics
trafficking in west Africa.
Mr. Chairman, this resolution is very straightforward. It
simply commends the government and the people of Benin for
their commitment to democracy and urges the Administration to
enhance its efforts to support democratic consolidation and
free enterprise in Benin. I urge my colleagues to support the
resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Is any other
Member seeking recognition on the Ackerman resolution?
Mr. Royce. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. I want to express my support for this resolution
and commend its author, Mr. Ackerman. Democratic progress
unfortunately has been halting in some of Africa, so we need to
take note of where there is progress, and that is what this
resolution does. And it deserves our support. I think there is
an amendment that Mr. Ackerman was going to offer, and I
support the resolution, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
Are any other Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, let me also commend Mr. Ackerman
for this resolution. I think that the country of Benin, a very
small country next to the giant country of Nigeria really, as
has been indicated, made a very smooth transition to
constitutional democracy.
As you probably know, many of the countries in Africa were
pushed into the Warsaw Pact countries because of the refusal of
the United States of America to support their independence.
Many of the colonial powers were NATO allies and we looked the
other way as we sought the support for Mobutu in Zaire and
Savambi in Angola, and P.W. Botha in South Africa, and we could
go on and on. So we were on the wrong side of conscience.
We are now hopefully trying to redo some of the problems
that we have created with the Africa Trade and Opportunities
Act, with President Clinton visiting Africa twice, one 12-day,
6 country tour. But I would certainly commend Benin President
Soglo, the one who moved it into this new mood. He was
defeated, actually, because the World Bank said you had to
bring in a lot of reforms, tighten the belts, had to pay back
debt, and he did that. That didn't go over well and he lost his
office, but he stepped out and the new President moved in with
no problem.
I think I really commend Mr. Ackerman for talking about
when things happen correctly. We see so many times when they
don't happen right, we read about it, we talk about the
refugees, we talk about the killings and the maimings and the
Sierra Leones and the Congos and so forth. But I certainly
commend you for having this resolution.
Secondly, President Kerekou admitted that there was
certainly complicity in the slave trade and African leaders
worked in tandem with the European slave traders, and that
slavery would not have flourished the way that it had if it
were not for the concurrence of leaders in Africa at that time.
The President of Haiti was there at the conference, and I had
an opportunity to meet with him, and he said that the apology
that the President of Benin made to the Haitian President was
really heartwarming.
So I think that there is a lot more in this, and at the
appropriate time I would like to highlight more of what has
happened in this little country of Benin. But I commend Mr.
Ackerman again for this resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to associate
myself with the comments of my friend, Mr. Payne, and I want to
commend Mr. Ackerman for bringing this resolution before us,
and I urge its adoption.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
I commend Mr. Ackerman too for this resolution on Benin. In
this Committee we regularly call attention to injustice, to
war, and the abuse of power wherever they may occur. Witness,
for example, our earlier discussion on Sudan.
Occasionally, we must also acknowledge the considerable
progress that some nations have made and give credit where it
is due. The relationship between our Nation and President
Mathieu Kerekou of Benin has not always been smooth. During the
Cold War, President Kerekou expressed a Marxist ideology that
gave our Nation some cause for concern. In 1990, however,
President Kerekou allowed free and fair elections to take place
in Benin. Defeated at the polls, he stepped down gracefully.
Six years later, he came back into power the same way he left,
by the ballot box and the popular will of the citizens of
Benin.
In his second administration, President Kerekou has
exhibited wisdom, strength and compassion. This resolution
commends his leadership and a growing friendship between our
two nations.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to join in support of
this measure.
Is there any other Member seeking recognition?
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Ackerman has an amendment. The Clerk
will read the amendment. The Clerk will distribute the
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman, in the
5th clause of the preamble----''
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
Mr. Ackerman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment that I offered here reflects changes to the
resolution that were suggested to me by Chairman Royce. The
amendment makes modest, but important, changes to the 5th, 7th,
8th and 9th whereas clauses, as well as to the first resolved
clause. In addition, the amendment deletes the last resolve
clause.
With Mr. Royce's suggestions, I believe the resolution is
much improved and I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Is any Member seeking recognition on the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment. All in favor
signify in the usual manner, opposed, no. The amendment is
agreed to.
I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, for
a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as
amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion by the
gentleman from Nebraska. All in favor signify in the usual
manner; opposed. The resolution is adopted.
Further proceedings on this matter will be postponed.
H. CON. RES. 410--CONDEMNING THE ASSASSINATION OF FATHER JOHN KAISER
Chairman Gilman. We now consider H. Con. Res. 410
concerning the assassination of Father John Kaiser and others.
The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The Clerk
will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 410, a resolution condemning
the assassination of Father John Kaiser and others who work to
promote human rights and justice in the Republic of Kenya.''
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Clerk will read the
preamble and text of the resolution in that order for
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas Father John Kaiser, a Catholic of
the Order----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any
point.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos,
the sponsor of the resolution, to introduce it to the
Committee.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First I would like to thank my friends, Mr. Royce and Mr.
Payne, for waiving jurisdiction and allowing the resolution to
come before the Full Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I have a lengthy and eloquent prepared
statement that was created by my colleague and associate, Mr.
Hans Hogrefe. I would like to ask permission that it be placed
in the record.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Lantos. I will be very brief.
Those of us who work in the vineyards of human rights
occasionally come upon a giant. Father John Kaiser is such a
giant. This 68-year-old Catholic priest devoted his life to
help the people of Kenya, and as his final reward he was
assassinated, probably at the insistence and the urging of the
government. There are indications, Mr. Chairman, that other
Catholic priests have been singled out for assassination. So
far, we have five Catholic priests whose deaths appear to be a
mystery, more likely a government-inspired assassination.
Father John Kaiser has displayed a degree of unselfish devotion
to human rights, the plight of the poor that moves one to
tears. I would strongly urge all of my colleagues to join me in
this tribute and in calling upon the government of Kenya to
undertake an independent, or to allow to be undertaken an
independent inquiry into the circumstances of Father John
Kaiser's death.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
this resolution, and I want to commend its author, Mr. Lantos.
I have no doubt that the killing this resolution condemns was a
political killing. When democratic supporters who use such
peaceful means are struck down, we all lose. Father John Kaiser
was an American citizen, he was fighting for human rights, he
was fighting for democracy in Kenya. He was revered, in fact,
by Kenyans. He was struck down and he deserves this resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Royce. Are any other
Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Let me also commend Mr. Lantos, and I associate
myself with the remarks of the Chairman of the Subcommittee,
Mr. Royce. I think that we should certainly insist that the
government of Kenya have an independent investigation as is
called for in this resolution. We certainly condemn the
violence around Father Kaiser and the others as we try to
promote human rights. We should insist that our State
Department and our embassy in Kenya personally deliver to the
President this resolution, and we demand that there be a
thorough investigation.
Let me commend the gentleman again for this resolution. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to commend the gentleman from California, Mr.
Lantos, for bringing this measure to our attention at this
time.
An outspoken and passionate defender of the poor, the weak
and the oppressed, Father John Kaiser was shot and killed just
a month ago. His killers still remain at large. Although Father
Kaiser knew that he was in danger, his courage and compassion
never left him.
He is one of the distressingly long line of clergy who have
been murdered in Africa. Eight years ago, 5 American nuns from
Illinois were killed by Charles Taylor's NPFL soldiers in
Liberia. We are still waiting for their killers to be brought
to justice. We must not let 8 years slip by with no resolution
of Father Kaiser's case. We owe it to him and to the voiceless
on whose behalf he spoke with such energy and commitment. We
also owe it to the rule of law in Kenya.
As the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, ``Man's capacity
for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to
injustice makes democracy necessary.''
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to fully support this
measure.
If there are no further requests for time, or any
amendments, I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Bereuter, for a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, it is a particular pleasure, as
this is the last resolution of the day, to move that the
Chairman request to seek consideration of the pending
resolution on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion. All those
in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All those opposed
say no. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further
proceedings on this matter are postponed.
The Committee stands adjourned, and I thank our colleagues
for being here.
[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
H. RES. 596
Mr. Chairman, today I am introducing a new bill regarding the
affirmation of the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide.
As the sponsor of this resolution I have carefully followed all of
the testimony and communications from proponents and opponents. I note
that some Members have expressed concern with the training component of
the former bill --H.Res.398--specifically the complexity of
implementing this clause. I also note that during the subcommittee
hearing, Ambassador Grossman testified that the Foreign Service
Institute already includes the Armenian Genocide in its training
program. This was later confirmed by a State Department spokesman.
Therefore, taking into account the concerns of some of my colleagues
and the statements of the Department, and with the support of Chairman
Smith, I submit this new bill. All references to training have been
removed. I trust that this change will enjoy the support of this
committee and will also make expedited floor consideration possible.
H.Res. 398 enjoyed the bi-partisan support of some 140 members and
I rest assured that H. Res. 596 maintains the intent of my original
bill. The new resolution also enjoys the support of the Speaker, the
House Minority Whip, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of this
Committee, as well the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee. I thank all for
their support and cooperation.
With the training component removed, what remains in H.Res. 596?
LAffirmation of the US record that fully documents our
government's attempt to end the genocide of the Armenians in
Turkey at the time of the Genocide and to save those who
survived it. In view of the denial literature that we have been
bombarded with prior to and since the subcommittee hearing, I
believe that affirmation is even more critical. I share with
you a portion of the remarks from Professor Deborah Lipstadt to
Chairman Smith, and I quote, ``Denial of genocide strives to
reshape history in order to demonize the victims and
rehabilitate the perpetrators. Denial of genocide is the final
stage of genocide; it is what Eliie Wiesel has called `double
killing'. Denial murders the dignity of the survivors and seeks
to destroy the remembrance of the crime.''
I would like to commend and fully support the comments of
Congresswoman McKinney during the markup of this bill in Subcommittee
in response to the ``high-priced denial campaign.'' Silence in the face
of genocide, as we have learned, can only embolden those who would
again seek the systematic destruction of an entire people.
I would also like to address an argument that persistently comes up
regarding this resolution. Each time this body attempts to come to
closure on this subject, opponents ask why now? They may even say, `the
intent of the resolution is commendable, but the timing is
inopportune.' Mr. Chairman, unless the Turkish government ends its
ongoing campaign to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide, the only
time acceptable to our ally is never. And I regret to say that our
State Department readily concurs with Turkey. Why now? Because later
accomplishes nothing Turkey remains adamant in its denial and its
reprehensible tactics of threats and coercion are rewarded. Why now?
Because passage of this resolution today by this Committee and
subsequently on the House floor will end denial--which expressed
differently is the killing of truth. At least one branch of my
government will say categorically to all deniers that they have failed.
I implore my colleagues here today to understand that this
resolution is a Sense of the House resolution regarding the U.S.
record. Despite all of the threats emanating from Turkey regarding U.S.
bases, U.S. contracts, jobs, etc. this resolution is NOT an assault on
the Republic of Turkey. Furthermore, I reject Turkey's presumption that
it can impose its views regarding the American response to the Armenian
Genocide on this Committee. If we bow to Turkish pressure over a House-
only resolution regarding our record, there's no telling what else the
U.S. will be called upon to give into the next time Turkey threatens a
doomsday scenario. I believe that as a matter of principle, Congress
must not let any foreign government dictate what legislation it can or
cannot adopt.
I thank you Mr. Chairman and I hope this Committee accepts my
resolution and does the right thing today.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
H. RES. 596
Mr. Chairman, one of the most important lessons humanity has
learned throughout the centuries, is that we must not forget. If we
fail to acknowledge and condemn the crimes of the past, we are sending
a message to those who have little regard for human life, that they can
act with impunity in the present and future.
This resolution seeks to ensure that this grim period in history is
not erased or re-written by those who argue that the genocide of over a
million Armenians is a mere fabrication.
Failure to act; failure to underscore that this was a systematic
effort to massacre and destroy the Armenian people, is tantamount to a
denial and, thus, a further attack on the victims and an affront to
their memory.
This resolution is about the past, but a past mankind is doomed to
repeat unless we state in no uncertain terms that this type of action
is not, nor will it ever, be tolerated by the United States.
An example of the danger posed by a policy of neglect which ignores
the Armenian genocide is outlined in clause (16) of this resolution.
This clause refers to a 1939 letter where Adolf Hitler orders the
attack on Poland and dismisses the objections by saying: ``who, after
all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians.''
To reiterate, this measure is a testament to our commitment to
human life and focuses on the massacre of the Armenian people to
underscore U.S. abhorrence of genocide against any people, anywhere, at
any time.
I commend my colleagues, Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Rogan, for
introducing this resolution and fighting the good fight. I am proud to
be a co-sponsor of the measure and ask the members of this committee to
render their support.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
H. RES. 596
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding a markup on this
legislation. This is a very important topic. It is also a very
sensitive one. So it's critical that there be a frank and thoughtful
discussion of the matter in Congress.
Genocide is an extremely loaded word. It is not something to be
tossed around lightly. Genocide is literally a crime against humanity
itself, an attempt to eliminate an entire segment of the human race.
And thus it is an attack on us all. Something we must all join together
in fighting. And we must be aware of the details of past experiences of
genocide. That way we are familiar with the warning signs and can stop
a new one before it begins.
That is why I worked successfully last year to change the State
Department human rights reporting requirements to take into account
instances of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. That is
why I supported efforts to stop what could have been a genocide in
Kosovo. That is why I still call for more investigation into what
happened in Guatemala.
And that is why I believe that the truth about the Armenian
Genocide--because that's what it was--should be understood by all and
officially acknowledged by the American government--and the Turkish
government. By recognizing the Armenian Genocide, the US government
will contribute to the further study of a crime that affects us all and
thus help prevent future horrors. I co-sponsored H Res 398, the
previous version of this legislation, and I give this resolution my
full support as well.
I know that there are objections to this resolution. I understand
that there are those who, for a variety of reasons, do not see this as
an issue affecting all humanity. Instead, they see it merely as ethnic
politics or part of a campaign to discredit Turkey. That is
unfortunate.
I believe American recognition of the genocide would encourage the
Turkish government, our ally and fellow democracy, to do the same--
which would be a good thing for Turkey. Turkey has long been a leader
in that part of the world. In fact, the current Turkish government is
politically descended from those who overthrew the regime which carried
out the genocide. A move by Turkey to acknowledge that the genocide did
happen and to seek reconciliation with the past would be just as
revolutionary. It would set an admirable precedent for other nations in
the region who have refused to deal with their own histories of
violence.
Just as Turkey and Greece have begun to take steps towards
addressing their differences, moving beyond the debate over whether or
not the genocide happened would allow Turks and Armenians to begin
doing the same. Such reconciliation would benefit Turks as much as
Armenians and would contribute to peace and stability in the region.
And peace and stability is definitely in the interests of the United
States. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
H. RES. 596
Chairman Gilman:
I commend you for your strong leadership of the House International
Relations Committee. Over the years, you have earned my deep respect
`and that of our colleagues for your vigorous protection of human
rights throughout the world.
Today, our committee considers adoption of House Resolution 596, a
measure which seeks official recognition by the United States Congress
that, in 1915 to 1923, a genocide was committed by the Turkish Ottoman
Empire against the Armenian people.
While I have the greatest respect for our colleagues who support
this measure, and I fully sympathize with their position--I must
reluctantly disagree for two reasons, and strongly urge that H.Res. 596
be defeated.
First, as our colleagues are aware, the historical accounts of the
tragic events of 1915 to 1923 are mixed and filled with
inconsistencies. Indeed, historians, scholars, and academia are split
as to whether a genocide was committed.
It is my understanding that intercommunal warfare was rampant in
this period, with terrible suffering in both the Armenian and Turkish
communities, and amongst Christians and Muslims alike.
While it is estimated that one-and-a-half million Armenians died or
disappeared in the tragic conflict, we must not forget that the
invading Russians and their Armenian allies also had blood on their
hands. In fact, historical accounts document that upwards of 3 million
Ottoman Muslims died in this conflict, along with the decimation of the
Jewish population numbering over 200,000. H.Res. 596 one-sidedly fails
to mention these atrocities.
From the mixed historical record, Mr. Chairman, I cannot absolutely
and conclusively determine that a genocide, rather than wartime
casualities, was responsible for the tragic losses suffered by the
Armenian people.
Second, I believe it important that we place the consideration of
this resolution in perspective.
Were this resolution to be adopted, I firmly believe it would
alienate the Republic of Turkey, which for over four decades has been
steadfast as one of America's most trusted and loyal allies in NATO
during the Cold War.
As we sit here today discussing H.Res. 596 and the events of 85
years ago, American warplanes are taking off from Turkish airbases to
patrol the skies over Northern Iraq to contain Saddam Hussein, who is
suspected of rebuilding his deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction. Our aircraft cannot be there without the full cooperation
of our Turkish ally, an ally whose soldiers have fought side by side
with ours since Korea.
As we sit here today examining this resolution, our special envoy,
Ambassador Al Moses, is working with both the Greek and Turkish
governments to solve one of the most intractable problems in the region
the issue of Cyprus.
As we sit here today debating H.Res. 596, American oil companies
and the Administration are looking to move ahead on building a.new oil
pipeline across Turkey to deliver new crude oil to America, at a time
when oil prices have skyrocketed with unpredictable instability ahead.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we sit here today, the Administration is
seeking to end the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a war that has
caused almost I million Azeris to become refugees in their own country.
I raise these points, Mr. Chairman, to remind our colleagues that
Turkey--a longtime friend and crucial ally--plays a central role in
helping us meet, understand, and solve issues that fundamentally affect
us and America's national interest.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, if this resolution is adopted, I firmly
believe it would irreparably damage our strategic partnership with
Turkey. As some of our colleagues may be aware, two days ago in Ankara,
the President and Parliament of Turkey took action strongly opposing
adoption of this resolution--urging it would be perceived as a
humiliation of our longtime NATO ally that would jeopardize our
friendship and security relationship.
It is a good bet, Mr. Chairman, that if this resolution is adopted,
our planes would no longer fly from Turkish airbases; that Ambassador
Moses' efforts would be stopped; that the pipeline would never be
built; and that the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan would continue.
This is clearly not in the national interest of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the policy implications of passage of H.Res. 596 are
profound--profound enough in my estimation that it should be defeated.
There are better avenues, Mr. Chairman, to express Congress'
condemnation of the terrible, tragic losses of life suffered during the
late years of the Ottoman Empire, and I urge our colleagues to pursue
and support such measures.
Mr. Chairman, all of us are very proud to be Americans and, in that
spirit, I urge our colleagues to put politics aside and seek what is
truly in the best interests of our great Nation.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
H. CON. RES. 397
I want to state my strong support for this resolution.
I and my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, have shared an
interest to underline to the Congress and the American people the
importance of the states of Central Asia to the future stability of all
of Eurasia and to the future expansion of global energy supplies.
In fact, as Chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Chairman Bereuter took under his wing the ``Silk Road Act,'' a measure
which was passed last year as part of our Foreign Assistance
Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
I commend him for that successful effort, and I want to commend him
as well for joining as a sponsor of this measure--House Concurrent
Resolution 397--introduced by our colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
The resolution before us today says some very detailed and
extremely important things about the very negative trends in Central
Asia with regard to respect for democracy and human rights. But this
measure makes clear one over-riding fact: democracy is absolutely vital
to the future peace and prosperity of the peoples of Central Asia.
My colleagues, I am certain that none of us wants to see the
peoples of Central Asia end up in the situation that has come about in
other countries that are blessed with tremendous natural resources--in
other words, we do not want to see those countries' resources exported
and the revenues from their sale stolen by corrupt officials while the
peoples of those states sink into poverty.
Democratic government is indeed the best antidote for the kind of
corruption that is the cause of such afflictions. For those of us who
care about the future of the peoples of Africa, for example, we know
that where true democracy has been absent, corruption has flourished
and poverty, suffering, and violence have spread.
Unfortunately, the leadership of the states of Central Asia--
inherited from the ranks of the ``nomenklatura'' of the former Soviet
Union--is proving itself to be increasingly corrupt and far from
democratic.
I fear that the increasing violence we see in some of those
countries today is merely a harbinger of things to come, unless the
leaders of Central Asia change their ways--and soon.
The United States should make it clear that we expect and support
true democracy and will not tie our policies in Central Asia to leaders
bent on condemning their peoples to a future of repression, corruption
and poverty.
I support adoption of this resolution.
__________
U.S. Congress,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 28, 2000.
Dear Colleague: I am writing to ask you to support S. 2682. Senator
Joseph Biden and I introduced identical companion legislation on June
6, 2000. S. 2682 passed the Senate on June 23, 2000 under unanimous
consent and without amendment.
This non-controversial legislation will enable the Institute for
Media Development (IMD) to archive Voice of America's (VOA) Africa
Division broadcast materials for scholarly purposes. IMD is a tax-
exempt corporation dedicated to promoting the innovative use of the
media, particularly in Africa. Currently VOA Africa broadcasts are not
being archived, and programming that is rich in interviews of African
political and cultural leaders is being lost to posterity. IMD is
looking primarily to the private sector to finance the initiative, and
this bill will have a zero net effect on spending according to the
Congressional Budget Office.
IMD will place the VOA programming in an Africana digital archive.
The Africana digital archive will be on-line and accessible by scholars
and others around the world. The materials will not be available for
commercial broadcast purposes, and any mis-use of the materials may
result in the termination of the program. The quality and quantity of
information on the Internet about Africans and other people of color is
in dire need of improvement, and this project is a significant step in
that direction.
The internationally renowned African Studies Center at UCLA is the
academic partner in the project, and both the Center and the University
Library (ranked 2nd in the nation) have agreed to provide resources to
help make the Africana digital archive a reality. Since its
establishment in 1959, the UCLA African Studies Center has continued to
be one of the leading National Resource Centers on African Studies in
the United States. The reputation that it shares with UCLA has been
instrumental in winning the confidence and enthusiastic support of both
VOA and the Broadcasting Board of Governors for the project.
This legislation will preserve some of the rich culture and
politics of modem day Africa. I urge you to support this legislation.
Sincerely,
Cynthia McKinney, Member of Congress.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENTS OF HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
H. CON. RES. 382
The United States has a growing relationship with the Republic of
Azerbaijan, one of the newly independent states of the former Soviet
Union.
That relationship obviously has a great deal to do with
Azerbaijan's geo-political position, given its location between Russia,
Iran and Turkey, and also has much to do with its potentially huge
energy reserves. But that relationship also has to focus on the
expansion of truly democratic government within Azerbaijan if it is to
prove enduring and if it is to benefit the Azeri people over the long
term.
Much has been accomplished over the past nine years in building a
new, independent state in Azerbaijan. That has not been easy.
Azerbaijan has not only had to deal with the tremendously difficult
problems associated with the emergence from communist rule, but has
been at war with neighboring Armenia for almost a decade now, a war
that has only been suspended by the cease-fire that was negotiated six
years ago.
Of the almost eight million people who live in Azerbaijan, one
million have become refugees from that fighting, placing an incredible
burden on that new state and its depressed economy.
Still, while we can appreciate the tremendous problems the Azeri
people confront and the progress they have made in consolidating their
new independence, we would be remiss if we did not insist that their
leadership respect their right to truly democratic government--and take
concrete steps to bring democracy to life in that country.
This resolution, introduced by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr.
Smith, points out those things that the Azeri leadership has recently
done that conflict with the need to move toward truly democratic
government--and points out the steps it needs to take to get back on
the road to democracy.
The parliamentary elections to be held in Azerbaijan next month are
an important milestone on the road to democracy in that country.
I support the passage of this resolution, which makes it clear that
the United States expects the Azeri leadership to ensure that they are
truly free and fair.
H. RES. 588
I support the pending resolution, H. Res. 588.
We held a hearing on the issue of religious liberty in Western
Europe in which we took testimony from independent experts, the
Administration, as well as from representatives of persons who were
aggrieved by the behavior of certain European governments.
We also invited testimony from foreign Ambassadors; although they
did not appear personally, their statements were circulated at the
hearing.
It is unfortunate that countries like those named, which are so
important as allies, and where liberty is in general so highly
regarded, seem to have a blind spot when it comes to religious liberty.
The motivations of these governments are by and large good ones--
the protection of individuals from possible harm--but in some cases
they are inadmissible--such as the protection of well-established
religions or a hostility to religion.
In any event they are simply not compatible with internationally
recognized human rights standards. Even worse, they encourage
developing democracies to enact similar laws. And so we need to address
the problem, respectfully but clearly.
This is a carefully drafted resolution that deals with a problem
that is widely recognized in the community of observers of religious
liberty in this country. [As you have been told] it is supported by
representatives of diverse religious groups, from Southern Baptists to
Sikhs. I have received letters in support of it signed by personalities
ranging from the Interim Dean of the Catholic University Law School to
Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute.
Accordingly, I believe that it deserves the support of all the
members of the Committee and I urge its adoption.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
H. CON. RES. 410
Mr. Chairman, my House concurrent resolution 410 intents to bring
attention to the tragic deaths of several human rights defenders in
Kenya, and to get Congress on the record as condemning these deaths in
the strongest possible way. While H. Con. Res. 410 condemns the
assassination of Father John Anthony Kaiser on August 23, 2000, in the
Republic of Kenya, it also highlights the general human rights
situation in Kenya, and the dangers for those brave enough to work in
the defense of human rights in this country.
Mr. Chairman, Father Kaiser's love for the Kenyan people turned him
into a relentless activist for human rights and social justice, and an
outspoke critic of the Moi government.
Father Kaiser was born in Perham Minnesota in 1932 to a German
father and Irish Mother as one of four children. Kaiser attended a one-
roomed school for eight years before he went to a Benedictine secondary
school. He then joined the U.S. Army Airborne for three years. After
his service, he began to pursue his true calling by attending St.
John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota. After two years he
transferred to St. Louis University where he got his B.A. in
Philosophy. Father Kaiser then crossed the ocean and studied theology
in preparation for the priesthood at St., Joseph's Mill Hill College,in
London.
In 1964, Father Kaiser was, ordained a Mill Hill Missionary priest.
He was sent to Kenya and assigned to the Kisii Catholic Diocese where
he served as a pastor for 30 years. Most of these years he lived in
Kisliiland, away from any public attention. He had gone to Kenya to
build churches and clinics. In the first several years in Kenya he
would travel from Mass to Mass on a motorcycle over dirt roads. Father
Kaiser spoke the local languages fluently. In his parish work, Father
Kaiser was known as someone who could mediate disputes. Once, during a
dispute between Maasai and Luo leaders over an old gold mine, Father
Kaiser sat with the adversaries late into the night, patiently and
persistently helping them to find common ground.
A conservative Catholic of intense faith, he lived ascetically and
what he saw happening to Kenyans turned him into a crusader of social
justice. In 1993, Father Kaiser was transferred to Ngong Catholic
Diocese. His transformation from remote parish priest to nationally
known human rights campaigner began in 1994 when, in his new
assignment, he worked in the Maela Displacement Camp. Farmers had taken
refuge in Maela after being pushed off their land. He chose to live
with the displaced people and saw the disease, despair and hunger in
the way they were forced to live. He was moved to stand with people
whose only crime was being born into the `wrong' tribe.
When the government decided to break up the camp by force, Father
Kaiser stood in the way. Father Kaiser took all the women and children
and put all of them inside the church. He got in a sleeping bag and
slept in the entrance of the church so they were unable to forcibly
evict them that night. The authorities came back the following night
and beat him up. Father Kaiser was placed under house arrest. During
Christmas week of 1995, Kaiser was arrested twice for opposing the
destruction of the Maela Refugee Camp of which he was the chaplain.
After his experience in Maela Refugee Camp, Father Kaiser was
assigned to the Lolgorian Parish in the Trans Mara District, working
among the Maasai people who were trying to defend themselves against
land invaders. Father Kaiser also helped young Maasai women to pursue
rape cases against their attackers. Father Kaiser lived in the
Lolgorian Parish until his death.
In 1999, Father Kaiser testified before the Akiwumi Commission, a
special government commission set up to investigate the 1992 tribal
clashes in Kenya's Great Rift Valley. He told the members of the
commission just what he had witnessed. He reported dates, names, places
and times. He accused two Cabinet ministers of instigating tribal
clashes and seizing land vacated during the fighting, which broke out
before the 1992 multiparty elections. In November of 1999, he narrowly
escaped deportation when the Kenyan Immigration Department refused to
renew his work permit. The government issued the permit renewal only
after the Catholic Church and civil rights groups accused it of trying
to silence him for his human rights advocacy. Earlier that year, the
Kenyan Law Society honored Kaiser with the prestigious 1999 Human
Rights Award for his tremendous human rights work.
In a letter to his family and friends, Father Kaiser wrote, ``some
sage once wrote that to understand African problems you must understand
three main causes of all problems here which are: Tribalism, tribalism
and tribalism. I would disagree with that and say rather the one main
cause of all problems in Africa is bad government leaders who stir up
tribal wars for their own political ambitions. That is what is
happening in Kenya, and the practice goes back into the history of
colonialism.''
On August 23, Father Kaiser had been at the Mill Hill House in
Nairobi. He was visibly upset and,nervous. He confided to other Mill
Hill priests that he feared for his life. He left the Mill Hill House
and went to the Bishop's house in Ngong. When he left the bishop's
house he did not say where he was going. On August 24 the Bishop of
Ngong, Rt. Rev. Colin Davies, received an anonymous call saying that
Kaiser was shot dead in Naivasha. His body was found on the side of the
road in Naivasha, not far from his own car and with his own gun beside
him. Police investigating the scene shortly after his death immediately
ruled out suicide.
The Catholic Justice and Peace Commission of the Kenya Episcopal
Conference stated that ``it is no secret that Fr. Kaiser has been a
thorn in the flesh of some senior Kenya government officials and
Ministers, for his incessant crusade against social injustices.'' In
the same statement the commission remarks ``While we cautiously
appreciate the on-going joint CID/FBI investigation into the murder, we
strongly doubt the seriousness of the Kenyan government, especially in
the absence of an official government statement: let.alone a message of
condolence to his family and friends. The government's reaction, cover-
ups of the past such killings and the reckless utterances by some
senior government officials and Ministers, compound our doubts.''
Father Kaiser was not an ordinary U.S. citizen; having served in
Kenya for 36 years he was also a Kenyan. Therefore, U.S. citizens
cannot ignore the Kenyan cry for truth and justice in this case nor in
other cases where Kenyan citizens who have championed for the same
human rights causes have been mysteriously murdered with no serious
investigations.
Mr. Chairman, my resolution calls on the Kenyan Government to allow
a truly independent investigation not only into the death of Father
Kaiser, but also into the deaths of Father Stallone, Father Graiff, and
Father Luigi Andeni, all of the Marsabit Diocese, and the murder of
Brother Larry Timons of the Nakuru Diocese and of Father Martin Boyle
of the Eldoret Diocese. While I appreciate the fact that FBI officials
are currently investigating the death of Father Kaiser, the recent
unsatisfactory experiences regarding the investigations into the deaths
of other human rights defenders and members of the clergy and the
record of impunity clearly show that the Kenyan government needs to go
beyond its current efforts.