    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    H.R. 3378, H.R. 4673, S. 484, H. RES. 547, H. CON. RES. 242, H. J. RES.
           100, H.R. 1064, H. RES. 451, H. CON. RES. 257, AND S. 2460

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                            INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 7, 2000

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-179

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

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

                                     ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    68-814                     WASHINGTON : 2001

                      COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

                     BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
    WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania    SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
    JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa                 TOM LANTOS, California
    HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska              GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                      Samoa
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina       SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
    DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois         ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
    EDWARD R. ROYCE, California          PAT DANNER, Missouri
    PETER T. KING, New York              EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   BRAD SHERMAN, California
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
        Carolina                         STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 JIM DAVIS, Florida
    AMO HOUGHTON, New York               EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
    TOM CAMPBELL, California             WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   BARBARA LEE, California
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio                JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
    GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
    THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
                        Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
              Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
         Hillel Weinberg, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
                        Marilyn C. Owen, Staff Associate

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Markup of H.R. 3378, to authorize certain actions to address the
      comprehensive treatment of sewage emanating from the Tijuana
      River in order to substantially reduce river and ocean
      pollution in the San Diego border region....................... 1, 46
    Markup of H.R. 4673, to assist in the enhancement of the
      development and expansion of international economic assistance
      programs that utilize cooperatives and credit unions, and for
      other purposes.................................................     3
    Markup of S. 484, Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000..............     8
    Markup of H. Res. 547, expressing the sense of the House of
      Representatives with respect to the peace process in Northern
      Ireland........................................................    11
    Markup of H. Con. Res. 257, concerning the emancipation of the
      Iranian Baha'i community.......................................23, 42
    Markup of H. Con. Res. 242, to urge the Nobel Commission to award
      the year 2000 Nobel Prize for Peace to former U.S. Senator
      George J. Mitchell for his dedication to fostering peace in
      Northern Ireland...............................................    24
    Markup of H. J. Res. 100, calling upon the President to issue a
      proclamation recognizing the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki
      Final Act......................................................    28
    Markup of H.R. 1064, Serbia and Montenegro Democracy Act of 1999.    32
    Markup of H. Res. 451, calling for lasting peace, stability and
      justice in Kosovo..............................................    37
    Markup of S. 2460, a bill to authorize the payment of rewards to
      individuals furnishing information relating to persons subject
      to indictment fro serious violations of international
      humanitarian law in Rwanda, and for other purposes.............    43

                                   WITNESSES

    Shirley Cooks, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative
      Affairs, U.S. Department of State, introducing witness from the
      State Department...............................................    33
    Ambassador Larry Napper, Coordinator for Eastern European
      Assistance, Bureau of European Affairs, U.S. Department of
      State..........................................................    34

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statements:

    Representative Bob Filner concerning H.R. 3378...................    48
    Representative Doug Bereuter concerning H.R. 4673................    50
    Representative Richard E. Neal concerning H. Res. 547............    52
    Representative Christopher H. Smith concerning H. Res. 547.......    54
    Representative Joseph Crowley concerning H. Res. 547.............    57
    Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman concerning the Smith amendment to H.
      Res. 547.......................................................    59
    Representative Joseph Crowley concerning H. Con. Res. 242........    60

    Bills and amendments:

    H.R. 3378........................................................    61
        Substitute amendment to H.R. 3378 offered by Representative
          Rohrabacher................................................    71
    H.R. 4673........................................................    80
    S. 484...........................................................    85
    H. Res. 547......................................................    93
        Amendment to H. Res. 547 offered by Representative Smith of
          New Jersey.................................................    97
    H. Con. Res. 257.................................................    98
    H. Con. Res. 242.................................................   104
    H. J. Res. 100...................................................   107
    H.R. 1064........................................................   112
        Substitute amendment to H.R. 1064 offered by Representative
          Smith of New Jersey........................................   122
    H. Res. 451......................................................   157
        Substitute amendment to H. Res. 451 offered by Chairman
          Gilman.....................................................   161
    S. 2460..........................................................   166

    Special remarks:

    Discussion of the situation in Southeast Asia....................     7
    Tribute to the service of Mr. Seth Foti and to United Nations
      Humanitarian Workers and Peacekeepers..........................    45

    H.R. 3378, H.R. 4673, S. 484, H. RES. 547, H. CON. RES. 242, H. J. RES.
           100, H.R. 1064, H. RES. 451, H. CON. RES. 257, AND S. 2460

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on International Relations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A.
    Gilman (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Chairman Gilman. The Committee on International Relations
    meets today in open session, pursuant to notice, to take up a
    number of legislative items.

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

        We will first consider H.R. 3378, relating to river and
    ocean pollution in the San Diego area.
        [The bill appears in the appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. This bill was referred by the Speaker to
    the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in addition
    to the Committee on International Relations, in each case for
    consideration of such provisions as fall within the
    jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
        The bill was introduced by Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Filner.
        The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk
    will report the title of the bill.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H.R. 3378, a bill to authorize certain
    actions to address the comprehensive treatment of sewage
    emanating from the Tijuana River in order to substantially
    reduce river and ocean pollution in the San Diego border
    region.''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection the first reading of the
    bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
    amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
    Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
    assembled, section 1----''
        Chairman Gilman. The bill is considered as having been
    read. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
        [The amendment appears in the appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. Is that in the nature of a substitute?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. It is.
        Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report the amendment which
    is on the desks of the Members.
        Ms. Bloomer. Amendment in the nature of a substitute
    offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. ``Strike all after the enacting
    clause and insert the following: Section 1. Short title. This
    act may be cited as the `Tijuana River----' ''
        Chairman Gilman. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
    in the nature of substitute be considered as having been read
    and as open for amendment at any point. Without objection it is
    so ordered.
        Who seeks recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I would just say that the substitute I am
    offering changes one particular part of the bill, makes this
    more practical and permits the purpose of the bill, which is to
    protect American citizens along the border from the sewage
    threat--permits the whole plant to function better. Because of
    a glitch, the bill had been written in a way that it would have
    actually been very difficult for us to have contract with the
    companies that were necessary to get the job done. I believe
    that the changes that we have made here are very
    inconsequential.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I see that we
    have the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner, one of the
    sponsors of the measure. I recognize Mr. Filner on the
    amendment.
        Mr. Filner. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for
    your courtesy, for allowing me to be here today, and for acting
    so expeditiously on this bill and for my colleague from
    California for offering the substitute.
        Mr. Bilbray and I have introduced this jointly. There are
    no two people in Congress who could say that 50 million gallons
    of raw sewage flows through their districts. That is sewage
    that comes from Tijuana, Mexico, which unfortunately has only
    plumbing facilities for half of its population. San Diego gets
    the raw sewage in the river valley which flows north into the
    Pacific Ocean.
        So we have been working on this for almost 20 years, Mr.
    Bilbray and I--he as a county supervisor, myself as a city
    councilman. We think we have before you a solution that will
    finally solve the problem. It is a win-win-win-win-win kind of
    legislation. It is a win for the health of American citizens
    who are threatened by the raw sewage; it is a win for the
    taxpayers of this country, who will pay, I am convinced, a
    reduced cost because of the private public partnership involved
    here; it is a win for the Mexican people, who will get recycled
    sewage in the form of water that will help them in agriculture
    and commercial areas; and it is a win for a regional
    environment because we will solve the problem that has been
    with us for 50 years.
        Again, I thank you for taking this up so expeditiously. I
    thank you for relying on the expertise of Mr. Bilbray and
    myself on this and look forward to, finally after 50 years, the
    cleanup of the border environment that has been so harmful to
    both countries.
        Chairman Gilman. I thank the gentleman from California. I
    want to commend Representative Brian Bilbray and Representative
    Bob Filner of California for introducing this important
    legislation and for Mr. Rohrabacher's interest, in addition to
    the work on this measure.
        The San Diego border region is afflicted by an ongoing
    serious problem of sewage-tainted water from the city of
    Tijuana in Mexico flowing down the Tijuana River contaminating
    U.S. seashores and the Tijuana National Estuary Wildlife
    Preserve. Ocean currents carry the contamination to the
    Imperial Beach, Coronado and San Diego area. Our International
    Relations Committee has previously gone on record expressing
    our concern over this issue.
        In 1989 this Committee approved H. Con. Res. 331,
    expressing the sense of Congress concerning the inadequacy of
    sewage infrastructure facilities in Tijuana, Mexico. This is a
    problem that our Nation and Mexico must work together to
    jointly solve. To date, our Nation has provided the lion's
    share of infrastructure to address the problem, to take action
    to comprehensively address the treatment of sewage emanating
    from the Tijuana River area, Mexico. Subject to treaty
    negotiations the bill provides authority to the International
    Boundary Commission to provide for the secondary treatment of
    up to 50 million gallons a day of sewage at a proposed public-
    private facility that is located in Mexico.
        I want to thank our Ranking Democratic Member, Mr.
    Gejdenson, for his help in the legislation. I urge our
    colleagues to join in supporting this bipartisan initiative.
        Chairman Gilman. Are there any amendments to the amendment
    in nature of a substitute? Are there any other Members seeking
    to make any comments?
        If there are no amendments, without objection, the previous
    question is ordered on the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute is agreed to.
        Mr. Filner. All of us in San Diego thank the Chair and
    thank the Committee.
        Chairman Gilman. Counsel informs me that we need a quorum
    before we can complete our consideration of the bill. The bill
    will be temporarily set aside until the quorum appears; without
    objection, we will now move on to the next measure.

       H.R. 4673--USE OF COOPERATIVES AND CREDIT UNIONS IN INTERNATIONAL
                              ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

        We will now consider H.R. 4673 to assist in international
    economic development, utilizing cooperatives and credit unions.
    This bill was introduced by the distinguished vice Chairman of
    the Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
        The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
        [The bill appears in the appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report the title of the
    bill.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H.R. 4673, a bill to assist in the
    enhancement of the development and expansion of international
    economic assistance programs that utilize cooperatives and
    credit unions, and for other purposes.''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
    the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
    amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
    Representatives in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short Title--
    --''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
    as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
        I now recognize Mr. Bereuter on the bill.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express
    the reasons for my strong support in initiation of this
    legislation. Indeed, our distinguished Committee colleague from
    North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, and I introduced this bill to
    recognize the importance and strengthen the support for
    cooperatives as international development tools.
        I would also like to thank the distinguished gentleman from
    Connecticut, the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr.
    Gejdenson; the distinguished gentleman from California, Ranking
    Member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Lantos,
    and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gillmor, for
    their cosponsorship of this measure and the Chairman for
    permitting us to expedite it.
        The legislation enhances language currently within Section
    111 of the Foreign Assistance Act, which authorizes the use of
    cooperatives in international development programs.
    Specifically, this bill will give priority to funding overseas
    cooperatives working in the following fields: agriculture,
    financial systems, rural electric and telecommunications
    infrastructure, housing and health. Importantly, H.R. 4673 does
    not provide for additional appropriations; and while the
    Administration does not routinely take a position on such
    matters, the Agency for International Development has not
    raised any objections to H.R. 4673 and I think looks kindly
    upon it.
        As you may know, cooperatives are voluntary organizations
    formed to share the mutual economic and self-help interest of
    their members. In the United States, cooperatives have existed
    of course for many years and in many forms, including
    agriculturally based cooperatives, electrical cooperatives and
    credit unions. The common thread among all cooperatives is that
    they allow their members who, for a variety of reasons, might
    not otherwise be served by traditional institutions to mobilize
    resources available to them and to reap the benefits of
    association.
        Since the 1960's, overseas cooperative projects have proven
    successful in providing compassionate assistance to low-income
    people in developing and transitional countries. Today, people
    in 60 countries are benefiting from U.S. cooperatives working
    abroad through projects which can be completed at very little
    cost to the U.S. taxpayer, if any cost at all. The low costs
    are possible because money used for the projects is spent on
    technical and managerial expertise, not on extensive
    bureaucracy and direct foreign assistance payments.
        The benefits of cooperatives as a development tool are, I
    think, numerous. But let me mention examples of the economic
    and democratic results of fostering cooperatives overseas.
    Building economic infrastructure is a key role of course of
    overseas development cooperatives. Through representatives from
    U.S. cooperatives, people who have traditionally been
    underserved in their country, especially those in rural areas
    and especially women, receive technical training never before
    available to them. Such training in accounting, marketing,
    entrepreneurship and strategic planning purposes prepare them
    to effectively compete for the first time in their country's
    economy.
        For example, agricultural cooperatives in El Salvador
    helped to rebuild the once war-ravaged country by providing a
    venue for farmers to pool their scarce resources and scarce
    experience in capitalism so that they can market and sell the
    fruits and vegetables that they grow.
        In rural Macedonia, a small country whose neighbors are
    immersed in ethnic conflict, credit unions providing their
    members a way to build lines of credit and savings for the
    future are an important and new institutional arrangement.
        In rural Bangladesh during the early 1990's, cooperative
    members bought equipment for an electrical project which now
    supplies 5 million people with electric power.
        Cooperatives lay the foundation for future economic
    stability. When reviewing the impact of overseas cooperatives,
    one simply can't ignore the impact they have on assisting
    people in transitional countries to build democratic habits and
    traditions. In forming cooperatives, people who have had no
    previous experience with democracy create an opportunity to
    routinely vote for leadership, to set goals, to write policies
    and to implement those policies. Cooperative members learn to
    expect results from those decisions and that their decisions
    can and do in fact have an impact on their lives.
        I would like to thank the Overseas Cooperative Development
    Council [OCDC] for its contributions to this measure. The OCDC
    represents eight cooperative development organizations which
    have been active in building cooperatives worldwide. The Credit
    Union National Association [CUNA] has also been very supportive
    of this legislation and is a member of the World Council of
    Credit Unions. CUNA has contributed technical assistance to aid
    the growth of credit unions in key transitional countries, such
    as the former Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonia and
    Bolivia.
        Again, overseas cooperative projects are simply a good
    investment toward building economic stability and democratic
    habits in developing countries. I urge the Committee to support
    H.R. 4673, and particularly again want to thank my colleague
    from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, for his interest, his active
    support, and his initiatives and ideas in this legislation.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
        Any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's
    legislation. I commend him for that. But for purposes of better
    understanding for this Member, I want to ask the gentleman a
    question if I might.
        I wanted to ask Mr. Bereuter, how does this cooperative
    program contrast or appear different from the OPIC program that
    we currently have in giving assistance to companies from the
    United States that make investments in foreign countries? Is
    there a connection between the cooperatives in connection with
    the current operations of the OPIC?
        Mr. Bereuter. If the gentleman would yield for response, I
    would say there is only a potential complementary relationship.
    OPIC does provide some additional financial resources, but what
    this does is provide the technical assistance through USAID to
    help through the American cooperative effort these credit
    unions and these cooperatives working on infrastructure and
    marketing. It will also help them during the elementary stages
    of their existence. So this is really a technical assistance.
        But the other OPIC program does indeed provide some of the
    financial resources that they could use. That is my
    understanding, Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman for his response.
    Again, I fully support the gentleman's proposed bill.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you. If no other Member is seeking
    recognition, I will take a few moments.
        H.R. 4673 is a bill introduced by our Committee Members--
    Mr. Bereuter, the gentleman from Nebraska, and cosponsored by
    Mr. Pomeroy, the gentleman from North Dakota--and serves to
    enhance and expand international economic assistance programs
    that utilize co-ops and credit unions. This bill encourages the
    formation of credit unions and grass-roots financial
    institutions as a way to promote democratic decisionmaking,
    while concurrently fostering free market principles and self-
    help approaches to development in some of the world's poorest
    and neediest nations.
        The bill's purpose is multifaceted, encouraging the
    creation of agricultural and urban cooperatives in the
    telecommunications and housing fields as well as the
    establishment of base-level credit unions. By doing so, the
    bill also promotes the adoption of international cooperative
    principles and practices in our foreign assistance programs and
    encourages the incorporation of market-oriented applications in
    those programs.
        By ensuring that small businessmen and women, as well as
    small-scale farmers have access to credit and also a stake in
    their own financial institutions, our nation will foster the
    key values of self-reliance, community participation, and
    democratic decisionmaking in programs that directly affect
    their lives.
        The bill amends Section 111 of the Foreign Assistance Act
    of 1961, the section of the act that concerns the development
    and promotion of cooperatives by adding specific language that
    promotes agricultural cooperatives, the establishment of credit
    and telecommunications and housing cooperatives. The bill also
    lists these increasingly critical areas of development as
    priorities for foreign assistance programs and requires the
    administrator of the Agency for International Development to
    prepare and submit a report to the Congress on the
    implementation of Section 111 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
    1961.
        I commend my colleagues for drafting this bill, that also
    strengthens the intent and spirit of H.R. 1143, the
    Microenterprize for Self-Reliance Act of 1999 that our
    International Relations Committee reported and the House passed
    last year. Although strides have been made to increase access
    to credit for those who need it most, it is clear to me that
    much more needs to be done to enhance microcredit institutions
    and credit unions, as well as agricultural cooperatives in the
    developing world, to ensure that sound fiscal practices will be
    applied in both rural and urban areas in the world's poorest
    countries. Accordingly, I commend the bill's sponsors once
    again for their efforts to promote the formation of more and
    better-managed cooperatives, as well as the establishment of
    credit unions that are managed by the poor themselves,
    addressing agricultural, housing and health care needs.
        Does any other Member seek recognition? Are there any
    amendments to the bill?
        If there are no further comments, without objection the
    previous question is ordered on the bill.
        The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
    offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your supportive
    statement. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek
    consideration of the pending bill on the suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
    gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion, signify
    by saying aye.
        Those opposed say no.
        The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
        Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized
    to make motions under Rule 20 with respect to conference on the
    bill or a counterpart from the Senate.

                 DISCUSSION ON THE SITUATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

        Mr. Bereuter. I would ask unanimous consent to address the
    Committee for 1 minute.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the gentleman is
    recognized.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In light of the fact that we have a number of Members here,
    I did want to update the Members very briefly on our intent
    with respect to a couple of things happening in Southeast Asia.
    Already, before we adjourned, we had announced our intention to
    hold a markup on John Porter's legislation that relates to
    Burma. In light of very unfortunate developments, to say the
    least, in Burma, we are updating that legislation; but we
    intend to proceed with a markup on what should be a
    bipartisanly-supported bill with respect to Burma on September
    13, in time for Full Committee action that week.
        Second, I wanted to mention that we had a bipartisan staff
    CODEL visit to parts of Southeast Asia during the recess,
    including West Timor where really tragic things have happened
    in the last few days. I am drafting a resolution on which we
    will work with Republican and Democratic Members, so that we
    will have something ready to address this issue perhaps as
    early as next week as well. I just wanted to advise the Members
    we are not ignoring what is happening in that area. We will be
    taking some action, certainly by next week.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Ms. McKinney.
        Ms. McKinney. May I ask Mr. Bereuter a question?
        On the West Timor legislation, will you be addressing West
    Timor or will you be addressing Indonesia and perhaps
    requesting sanctions against Indonesia?
        Mr. Bereuter. On the latter part of your question, we
    certainly do not know at this point, but of course we will be
    addressing West Timor--West Timor being a part of Indonesia. We
    inherently are going to be addressing the difficulties that
    exist in that government controlling violence against
    international observers and the residents of East Timor that
    are still refugees in West Timor.
        Ms. McKinney. Particularly I was thinking about the
    military relationship that this Administration has just renewed
    with Indonesia.
        Mr. Bereuter. That is something that we are going to be
    looking at. What we of course want to do is something that is
    productive and not counterproductive. I think the fact that the
    Millennium Summit is taking place, where President Wahid will
    be in attendance, may have been a factor in the violence
    itself. I hope that is not the case, but it may be the fact.
        So I appreciate your interest, and we will be happy to of
    course work with you if you would like.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to commend the gentleman for
    taking a delegation recently to that part of the world. I
    apologize. I would have loved to have been part of that
    delegation.
        In reference to the current crisis in West Timor, I just
    wanted to ask did the gentleman also visit West Papua, New
    Guinea, in his visit to Indonesia?
        Mr. Bereuter. Just to clarify, it was a staff bipartisan
    delegation that visited. This Member and other Members did not
    visit during the recess as far as I am aware.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.

                     S. 484--THE BRING THEM HOME ALIVE ACT

        The Committee will now consider Senate bill 484, the Bring
    Them Home Alive Act of 2000.
        This bill was introduced in the other body by Senator
    Campbell, where it was passed on May 24, 2000. The bill was
    referred by the Speaker to the Committee on the Judiciary and
    in addition to the Committee on International Relations ``in
    each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
    the jurisdiction the committee concerned.''.
        The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
        [The bill appears in the appendix.]
        The clerk will report the title.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``S. 484, to provide for the granting of
    refugee status in the United States to nationals of certain
    foreign countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or
    American Korean War POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals
    assist in the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs
    alive.''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
    bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
    amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
    Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
    assembled----''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
    as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
        Is any Member seeking recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I rise in strong support of this
    legislation. Senator Campbell, as we all know, is a Korean War
    veteran and a former Member of this House and now a Member of
    the Senate, a good friend of all of ours who feels very
    strongly about this issue.
        I would like to remind my colleagues that there is a
    million dollar reward that is still outstanding for anyone who
    would help us overseas in retrieving an American POW from
    Southeast Asia. This bill would add to that some sort of
    protection for anyone, if there is an American POW still alive
    in Southeast Asia, that would provide that a foreign national
    in Vietnam or in Laos or in other countries would be able to
    come to the United States and enjoy that reward, if indeed an
    American POW is delivered to us.
        There is reason for us to take this issue seriously. I know
    that many people would like to think that this is fantasizable,
    but it is not. From the very beginning I remember as a young
    reporter interviewing Richard Nixon the day after an
    announcement was made that people would be coming home; and I
    asked him, as a young reporter out in California, why he felt
    they were going to get everybody back. His answer was not clear
    to me then, and after everyone came home, there were lists of
    people who could justifiably have been last seen alive in enemy
    hands. President Nixon's explanation did not seem to hold water
    with me then. Over the years I have spent time in Southeast
    Asia--and I did spend time in Southeast Asia in 1967, as well--
    and Vietnam. It didn't seem that with the war going on in
    Vietnam, the war still going on in Laos, the war going on in
    Cambodia, I didn't understand how the North Vietnamese were
    going to give everybody back. So it is possible that they held
    people behind.
        We know now that not one American POW who was returned was
    ever interrogated by a Russian, for example, which leads us to
    believe that there was a two-tier system, a prison system. Pete
    Peterson himself, our former colleague, now Ambassador to
    Vietnam, talked to me just after the floor debate last month
    about this issue and admitted to me that he was wrong when he
    told Members of the House that all the records from American
    prisons had been given. In fact, he was wrong and the
    Vietnamese have never given us the records for the prisons in
    Vietnam where American POWs were held. That is one way we could
    verify how many prisoners they had.
        Last, let me just say that I worked in the White House for
    7 years and the very last conversation that I had with
    President Reagan in the White House concerned American POWs in
    Southeast Asia. President Reagan personally verified for me
    that he had been notified as President of the United States
    that American POWs were still alive in Southeast Asia, but he
    was told that they were now married to local women, had local
    families, and didn't want to come home. Unfortunately, I didn't
    have time--that was my last day at the White House--to followup
    on that. But I would certainly like to know who talked to those
    American POWs and determined that they didn't want to come
    home.
        So there is been a lot of murky activity on the part of our
    government and our military, and especially the communist
    governments in Southeast Asia on this issue. It deserves our
    putting a message out, which this bill does say, that anyone, a
    government official or nongovernment official, who could help
    us get back one of those people who Ronald Reagan was talking
    about or a prisoner of war who has been kept there all these
    years, would find refuge in the United States and could enjoy
    the reward that is being offered in the private sector.
        So I would say to my colleagues that we can't lose anything
    by passing this kind of legislation, and let's pray if there is
    anyone alive there, that this offer is an avenue out.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Are any other Members seeking recognition?
        If not, I will take a few moments.
        I am pleased to bring before the Committee today S. 484,
    the ``Bring Them Home Alive Act'' introduced by Senator Ben
    Campbell, the other Senator Campbell. This legislation
    addresses a continuing deep concern of our veterans, our
    families, and Members of Congress in accounting for those U.S.
    military service members who disappeared during the course of
    the Vietnam and Korean Wars.
        The year 2000, which marks a half century since the
    outbreak of the Korean War and a quarter century since the end
    of the Vietnam conflict, is a particularly fitting time to
    address this issue. As we move forward to meet the global
    challenges of the new century, we should seek, to the best of
    our ability, to address the unfinished business of the old,
    including the fullest possible accounting of our POWs and MIAs.
        Foremost among the unresolved issues is doing what we can
    to relieve the anguish of those who lost loved ones on the
    battlefield in defense of freedom and who lack any confirmation
    with regard to their final fate or resting place.
        Those who can assist in bringing home our servicemen
    deserve concrete recognition by our nation for their efforts.
    It seems altogether appropriate to grant refugee status in the
    United States for nationals of nations where American Vietnam
    War and Korean War POW/MIAs may still be present and who assist
    in their safe return.
        As the title of this bill states, let us do all that we can
    to bring them home alive.
        I would like to urge my colleagues on our Committee to
    fully support this bill. I ask that the Judiciary Committee
    move forward as quickly as possible. I hope to see it on the
    floor at an early date for consideration by the House.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
        If there are no other Members seeking recognition, are
    there any amendments to the bill?
        If there are no amendments, without objection the previous
    question is ordered on the bill. The gentleman from Nebraska,
    Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
    requested to seek consideration of the pending bill on the
    suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. The question is
    on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of
    the motion, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Without objection, the
    Chair or his designee is authorized to make motions under Rule
    20 with respect to a conference on this bill or counterpart
    from the Senate.

         H. RES. 547--RELATING TO THE PEACE PROCESS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

        Chairman Gilman. We will now consider H. Res. 547 relating
    to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
        The clerk will report the title.
        [The resolution appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Res. 547, a resolution expressing the
    sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the peace
    process in Northern Ireland.''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the clerk will read the
    preamble and text of the resolution, in that order, for
    amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas the April 10, 1998, Good Friday
    agreement established a framework for the peaceful settlement--
    --''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
    considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any
    point. Are there any Members----
        Mr. Gejdenson. I have an amendment.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to
    speak for a moment.
        This is a terribly important resolution, and I just want to
    yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Neal, who has really
    led the effort here. We have got to have a real peace in
    Northern Ireland. It is going to have to include a police
    department reflective of the population and not the present
    one.
        I yield to Mr. Neal.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Neal, we welcome having the gentleman
    from Massachusetts who is the original sponsor of the bill. I
    recognize Mr. Neal.
        Mr. Neal. We don't have this kind of technology at the Ways
    and Means Committee. We have to shout at each other.
        I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr.
    Gejdenson because much of the strong leadership emanating from
    the Congress has come from this Committee in the words of you
    and Mr. Gejdenson on this issue. It is delightful that such
    bipartisanship prevails on this issue. If I could, I might take
    3 or more minutes to read a statement because I think that
    statement is that important.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
        Mr. Neal. On June 29 of this year, I wrote a letter to
    British Secretary of State Peter Mandelson on the important
    issue of policing in its future in the north of Ireland.
    Knowing the interest that many of my colleagues have in Irish
    affairs, I asked him to cosign the letter. With the Police Bill
    being debated in the House of Commons, I felt it was
    appropriate to share our thoughts and concerns with Secretary
    Mandelson about this essential component of the peace process.
    More than 120 Members of the Congress signed the letter, an
    unprecedented number, in urging the British Government to fully
    implement the Patten reforms on policing.
        Over 2 years ago, the vast majority of the people on the
    island of Ireland voted for the Good Friday Agreement. People
    of both traditions said yes to a future of peace, justice and
    reconciliation. Included in that historic accord was a
    provision that established an Independent Commission on
    Policing that would make recommendations for future policing
    structures and arrangements. Its mandate was to create, ``a new
    beginning to policing with a police service capable of
    attracting and sustaining support from the community as a
    whole.''
        Later that fall, Commission Chairman Chris Patten, a
    Conservative member of the British Government, traveled to
    Washington to brief Members of Congress on his report. He told
    us that his primary objective was to take politics out of
    policing and then outlined the 175 recommendations made by the
    Commission, including changing the name, the flag, and the
    emblems of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a new oath for all
    officers, a new recruitment strategy and more accountability
    and community involvement, in essence, a new police service
    that reflects and can serve all traditions equally in the six
    counties.
        Policing is a touchstone issue for the nationalist and
    republican communities. Across the island of Ireland, they have
    spoken with one clear and unambiguous voice on this important
    matter. From the SDLP to religious leaders to the Irish
    government and Sinn Fein, their message is simple: the Patten
    Report should not be diluted, minimized or altered by the
    British Government. In the letter and spirit of the Good Friday
    Agreement, it must be implemented in full.
        The resolution that I have introduced in the House of
    Representatives and Senator Kennedy has introduced in the
    Senate would put this Congress on record in the debate. It
    would add our strong voice to the growing list of individuals
    and groups internationally who support the full implementation
    of the Patten Report. Indeed, it was Chris Patten himself who
    advised, ``in the strongest terms against cherry picking in
    this report;'' and suggested, ``The recommendations represent a
    package which must be implemented comprehensively if the north
    of Ireland is to have the policing arrangement it so badly
    needs.''
        I urge my colleagues to follow his advice and support House
    Resolution 547. And once again I thank you, Mr. Gilman; and
    thank Mr. Gejdenson as well as Members of this Committee for
    the strong leadership you have offered on this question.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Neal appears in the
    appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Neal, for being here.
        I might note that Mr. Neal is cochair of the Ad Hoc
    Committee on Irish Affairs.
        I now call on Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank you, I want to thank Mr. Neal and the bipartisan group of
    lawmakers who have sponsored H. Res. 547; and I am very proud
    to be among those who are fully supporting it and cosponsoring
    it.
        Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    International Operations and Human Rights and also as Chairman
    of the Helsinki Commission, I have held five hearings on the
    human rights situation in Northern Ireland. The need to reform
    the RUC, if not disband it altogether, was a common theme in
    those hearings.
        Later this month I plan to convene yet another hearing of
    the Helsinki Commission to examine the areas in which the
    British Government's current Police Bill falls short in fully
    implementing the Patten Commission's recommendations.
    Unfortunately, as my good friend from Massachusetts just
    pointed out, there are clear indications that the current bill
    falls far short in several areas and that, if enacted, will not
    generate the cross-community support that a new police service
    in Northern Ireland needs.
        Nearly 1 year ago, on September 24, 1999, Chris Patten and
    Senator Maurice Hayes appeared before our subcommittee to
    discuss the Patten Commission's 175 recommendations for
    reforming the police service in the north of Ireland. At the
    hearing they described the themes running through the
    Commission's report. The first thing was accountability, the
    second was transparency, the third was respect for human
    rights, and the fourth was community representative
    effectiveness and efficiency.
        Senator Hayes also said, ``The Holy Grail in all of this is
    the participation of young Catholic and nationalist people in
    the police force.'' At the meeting with Commissioner Patten, I
    stressed, as did many of us here today, that the Patten report
    actually fell short, did not go far enough, because there was
    no vetting of what the Commission calls ``bad apples,'' those
    who had committed egregious abuses in the past.
        Despite this flaw, Mr. Patten and his fellow commissioners
    seemed to understand that community policing cannot be achieved
    in Northern Ireland without bringing Catholics and nationalists
    into a police service that is representative of and accountable
    to the community it serves.
        Though there was no vetting in the recommendations, there
    were other changes that would make the force at least more
    accountable--an ombudsman, for example, a human rights oath,
    local boards that could oversee the police. These methods of
    accountability are a bare minimum, and Patten himself stated
    that his report must be taken in full that there would be no
    cherry picking if it is to live up to the spirit and the intent
    of the Good Friday Agreement.
        Unfortunately for the people of Northern Ireland, recent
    indications, again from London, suggest that the British
    Government is out of touch with what it would take to bring the
    Catholics and the nationalists into the police service in the
    north of Ireland. Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Mandelson
    insists that the government's Police Bill does implement the
    Patten report and will result in a reformed police service. The
    major nationalist political parties, however, have made clear
    that they will not encourage their constituents to join the
    police service until it is reformed in accordance with all of
    the Patten recommendations, the 175 recommendations, and that
    is their strongest recommendation.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my full statement be made a
    part of the record. This resolution again puts us on record,
    again expresses a very clear nonambiguous line of thought from
    the Congress that we want real reform. Band aids, sugar
    coating, some change but not going far enough, will not lead to
    the kind of credibility for the RUC that has been riddled with
    human rights abuses in the past. It has got to be done and made
    over from top to bottom.
        Again, this resolution, the upcoming hearing, hopefully
    will impress upon the members of Parliament in Great Britain
    that we are watching very closely and we would like to see some
    real reform with regard to the RUC.
        I thank the Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears in the
    appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the gentleman's full
    statement will be made a part of the record. The gentleman will
    hold his amendment until we finish the statements and we will
    continue.
        Mr. Crowley.
        Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for first of all
    holding this important markup today on Resolution 547,
    legislation expressing the sense of the House with respect to
    the peace process in the north of Ireland. Your leadership on
    Irish issues, as well as that of Ranking Member Gejdenson, is
    deeply appreciated by myself and other members of the Irish
    community.
        I would also like to thank my good friend and colleague,
    Congressman Richard Neal, for introducing Resolution 547 and
    for all of his hard work on this and other issues of importance
    to the Irish-American community. As Chairman Gilman has pointed
    out, although not a member of this Committee, he has cochaired,
    along with myself, Chairman Gilman and Representative Pete King
    of New York, the congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish
    Affairs. So I know personally of his deep commitment to these
    issues.
        On June 5, the Northern Ireland Assembly resumed its
    important work after 4 months in limbo because of the issue of
    decommissioning. Many in the international community, the
    press, and the public placed the blame for the suspension of
    the Assembly squarely on the shoulders of the IRA.
        Although I disagree with that assessment, I want to point
    out that important progress has been made on the issue of
    decommissioning, the issue that the unionist community has
    often singled out as one of great importance. Unfortunately, a
    delay on a related issue, one that is of paramount importance
    to the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, the issue of
    police reform, has not been met with the same international
    criticism.
        The Patten Commission report, entitled ``Policing in
    Northern Ireland: A New Beginning,'' was intended to be a
    compromise on the very delicate issue of police reform. While
    many of the unionist community view the RUC with respect, too
    many in the nationalist community have lived under what is
    considered an occupying army in the guise of a police force.
        The Patten Commission report was undertaken under the
    authority of the Good Friday Agreement to help change this
    situation. From the beginning, people in both communities knew
    it would be a compromise between the two sides. While no side
    was entirely happy with the 175 specific recommendations, many
    of the nationalist community felt it was more important to move
    forward with the police reform than to hold up the process.
        I continue to believe that a true new beginning on policing
    in Northern Ireland requires a brand-new police force, not
    changes to one; that has been viewed with great suspicion by
    well over 40 percent of the population in the north of Ireland.
    At the very least, I view the Patten Commission recommendations
    as an absolute minimum, not an a la carte menu for the British
    Government to pick and choose from.
        Unfortunately, the British Government has done exactly
    that. Instead of adhering to the language and spirit of the
    Good Friday Agreement, they are sending legislation through
    Parliament that does not fully implement the Patten
    recommendations. This is not only wrong, it is dangerous to the
    peace process.
        Dr. Gerald Lynch, a member of the eight-member independent
    Patten Commission on Policing and president of New York's John
    Jay College of Criminal Justice, stated that the Patten
    Commission's suggestions on reforming the RUC should not be
    watered down by the British Government and expresses concern
    that doing so could damage the peace process significantly.
        The legislation introduced by the British Government will
    likely go to the House of Lords in early October and return to
    the House of Commons for its final consideration shortly
    thereafter. That is why this legislation is of such critical
    importance and urgently needed.
        I urge my colleagues to cast their vote in favor of this
    legislation. I urge the British Government to do the right
    thing and fully implement the Patten report.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Crowley.
        Mr. King, another Cochairman of our Irish Ad Hoc Committee.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        At the outset, I want to commend you for the tremendous
    leadership you have shown on this issue for many years,
    particularly of course during the years as Chairman of this
    Committee. Along with Mr. Crowley, I want to commend Mr.
    Gejdenson for the bipartisan spirit with which he has always
    engaged this issue; and of course, Congressman Neal for many
    years has done a truly outstanding job. I think the fact that
    he is the author of this resolution today speaks volumes both
    to his dedication and also to the concern that so many
    Americans have in this country that the Patten Commission
    report is not being fully implemented.
        I also want to thank Chairman Smith for the truly landmark
    work, ground-breaking work that he has done in pushing forth
    human rights issues as far as the whole Irish situation is
    concerned. His hearings have gone really right to the very
    heart of what is wrong with the police system in Northern
    Ireland, with the security forces in Northern Ireland, and his
    amendment today is just another example of that.
        And as far as Mr. Crowley, of course, he has been dedicated
    for many years, long before he came to the Congress and even
    more so now that he has been in the Congress.
        I join in strong support of this resolution today. I concur
    in everything that has been said by the previous speakers,
    especially the fact that, as Chairman Smith said, the Patten
    Commission report itself was a compromise.
        The Good Friday Agreement was a compromise. What the
    British Government is doing now with the Patten Commission
    report is attempting to compromise a compromise. It is taking
    the heart and soul out of the recommendations of the Patten
    Commission. It is emasculating that report. It is coming up
    with an end product which is not going to in any way ameliorate
    the concerns of the nationalist community.
        We have to emphasize, when we are talking about the
    nationalist community, we are talking about all the political
    parties in the nationalist community. This is not a partisan
    issue on that side; whether it is Sinn Fein, whether it is the
    SDLP or even others who are not aligned, they realize that the
    legislation put forth by the British Government just takes away
    the heart and soul of the recommendation of the Patten
    Commission report.
        It is going to result in a police force which is just
    slightly different from the one that exists today. It is one
    which young Catholics would not want to join, because they
    realize the inherent weaknesses and deficiencies, the inherent
    immorality of the current force will not have been rooted out.
    Instead, it is just going to put a protective covering over the
    immoral, disgraceful human rights violating force which is in
    effect today under the guise of the RUC.
        Like the previous speakers, I would have preferred that the
    RUC itself be gutted, that it be restructured, that it be
    abolished, that it be changed root and branch. The Patten
    Commission didn't do that. As Chairman Smith said last year
    when Commissioner Patten was in here, we had serious
    differences with him believing that his Commission report did
    not go far enough. Now we find the situation where that report
    itself is being dramatically watered down.
        Police reform in Northern Ireland is a metaphor for the
    entire Irish peace process. The immorality the human rights
    violations, the bias, the discrimination, the immoral
    activities of the RUC are a metaphor for the living conditions
    under which nationalists have had to live for the last 80
    years. If the police reforms are not enacted, then it is hard
    to believe and see how the Good Friday Agreement itself can be
    enacted.
        This has to be all-encompassing. You cannot compromise a
    compromise. You cannot, in turn, dilute a report which is
    already diluted enough. If the Patten Commission report is not
    adopted in toto by the British Parliament, then I have to agree
    with Mr. Lynch and Mr. Crowley--Mr. Lynch being a member of the
    Patten Commission, who said that he thinks the peace process
    itself could crumble if the Patten Commission report is not
    enacted in toto.
        So I give my strongest endorsement to this resolution
    today. As always and on so many previous occasions, I commend
    Congressman Neal for being a leader, for having the foresight
    to introduce this resolution, as he said, to get really
    unprecedented numbers of signatures on the letter to Secretary
    of State Mandelson who should realize that the United States,
    no matter which party is in power in either the White House or
    Congress, that we stand together as one on this issue. The
    American people stand together as one; we will not be divided
    among partisan lines. We stand together, united, calling for
    the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and
    essentially also as an absolute part of that integral part of
    the Patten Commission report.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. King.
        Mr. Menendez.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
    commend Mr. Neal.
        When I arrived here at the Congress 8 years ago, I joined
    the Ad Hoc Caucus--and Menendez is really an Irish name; the
    Spanish Armada invaded parts of Ireland, but then they got
    kicked out. Nonetheless, I have enjoyed working with Richie and
    the rest, and I appreciate his tenacious but balanced approach
    to the issue. I think many times he has been a very important
    voice in moving us forward.
        I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this
    resolution, and I would like to get right to the point. With
    this Sense of Congress, we commend the parties for the progress
    made so far. But we are also calling on the British Government
    to come to its senses on the issue of police reform.
        All parties to the peace process in Northern Ireland must
    be praised for the progress they have made to date. The Good
    Friday Agreement still stands as a remarkable achievement and
    the best hope for lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I am
    pleased also to cosponsor another resolution on Northern
    Ireland we will deal with today, one that urges the Nobel
    Commission to award its Peace Prize this year to George
    Mitchell for his untiring efforts to forge a nonviolent and
    fully democratic future for Northern Ireland.
        The seating of Northern Ireland's new executive and the
    ensuing reestablishment of the power-sharing Assembly have
    indeed been crucial to solidifying peace in Northern Ireland.
    It would not have been possible had the IRA not allowed its
    weapons dumps to be inspected and its weapons declared out of
    commission by a distinguished group of international verifiers
    led by Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa.
        Decommissioning was one of the two most pressing and
    sensitive issues facing Northern Ireland, but the other is
    police reform. Without full implementation of the
    recommendations of the Patten Commission, a commission called
    for in the Good Friday Agreement, the peace process will remain
    lopsided, and a full peace will remain elusive.
        Common sense calls for a radical change in the police
    force, for the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [RUC] (I
    cannot imagine a more British-sounding name) to be changed; and
    for the membership in the police force, now 93 percent
    Protestant and 7 percent Catholic, to be more equitably formed
    to reflect the 42 to 58 percent population split in the
    community.
        Here in America, in communities across the country, we
    raise the issues of police forces that do not reflect the
    communities that they are called upon to serve. And this
    situation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary far exceeds any
    problem that we have in America. Peace cannot be achieved when
    those with the badge, the legal authority, but ultimately those
    with the gun--the ultimate authority who are supposed to
    provide peace to the people--are seen as oppressing them.
        We are once again at a perilous point. The answers lie in
    moving forward to full implementation of the Good Friday
    Accord, including the full implementation of the Patten
    Commission, to full participatory, accountable and
    representative government and the rule of law as is represented
    in the police force in Northern Ireland, not in stagnation and
    trepidation.
        I am glad to join my voice with all of those of our
    colleagues in sending this message, that we must have a police
    force that is truly representative of the people of Northern
    Ireland that they can have faith in, and that when someone puts
    on the badge and the ultimate authority of the gun, that people
    can have faith and confidence that they will be protected as
    well as served.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
        We will continue right on through the voting. We have one
    of our Members going over so that we will not pause for any
    recess, but we will continue right on through.
        Mr. Delahunt.
        Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to take
    this occasion to commend my friend and colleague from
    Massachusetts, Richie Neal, for his leadership, particularly
    coming from Massachusetts where so many of our citizens are of
    Irish-American heritage. He has certainly demonstrated
    leadership, vision and a persistence that is so important to
    those of us in Massachusetts, to those of us in America and to
    people who are concerned about justice all over the planet.
        We are very proud of you, Richie.
        I am going to be very brief. I just would echo the
    sentiments expressed by many who have preceded me. I think the
    bottom line here is very clear. If the peace agreement is going
    to survive, if there is truly going to be a reform of the
    police service in Ireland, there has to be a reconfiguration of
    the police service. And the most significant aspect of that is
    a balance between the demographics of those that serve in the
    police force. Clearly, we have heard the statistic already, 93
    percent Protestant, 7 percent Catholic; that is just
    unacceptable and unconscionable.
        It is also clear that if there are not changes in the
    proposal before the British Parliament today, the nationalists,
    the Catholics within Northern Ireland, will not be attracted to
    the police service and therefore we will not have the reform
    that is so necessary to the fulfillment of the Good Friday
    Agreement.
        I think this is a very important resolution because it does
    speak, as Peter King alluded, for all of us--Democrats,
    Republicans, people from various faiths and different ethnic
    backgrounds.
        I would suggest again that I think it would have been a
    better course if we had started from scratch, if the RUC had
    been abolished and we began again. But that is not the case,
    that is not the reality.
        But I think it is important to understand that the Patten
    Commission report has within it a coherence. And I think
    someone--it might have been you, Representative Neal, who used
    the term ``cherry picking.'' But once you begin to separate and
    divide and extract pieces here, it loses its coherence; and for
    those of us who have a background in law enforcement, we know
    how significant and important it is to have that coherence
    because of its relationship to the community.
        Clearly, as it is principally being proposed, without
    amendment, it will lack that coherence. This is important that
    I would urge this, and I know I am confident that this will
    pass unanimously in this Committee and hopefully come to the
    floor.
        Again, thank you, Representative Neal, for bringing this to
    our attention and leading this cause.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.
        I am pleased the Committee is considering this measure, H.
    Res. 547, a bill introduced by Mr. Neal of Massachusetts; and I
    want to thank him for bringing it to our Committee. I joined as
    an original cosponsor, as did many on this Committee from both
    sides of the aisle who are familiar with the problems in
    Northern Ireland.
        Last spring, the IRA's efforts at putting arms beyond use
    and having that verified by outside observers showed good
    courage and good faith. This made it possible for the power-
    sharing executive to get up and running, and for real, peaceful
    democratic change.
        As part of that arrangement to restore the executive, in
    May 2000 the British and Irish Governments made a firm
    commitment to the nationalist community to fully implement the
    Patten Commission policing reforms that form a core portion of
    the Good Friday Accord for a new beginning in policing. The
    British Government and the unionists have failed to show a
    similar good faith that the IRA has exercised. They need to
    live up to their agreements in the Good Friday Accord,
    especially concerning full RUC police reform as envisioned by
    the Patten report of September 1999, a report that was issued
    consistent with the terms of the Good Friday Accord and was
    itself a compromise that was not agreed upon by all.
        The Irish National Caucus supports the bill, as does Sinn
    Fein. The Socialist Democratic Labor Party, the largest
    nationalist Catholic party in the north of Ireland whose
    leader, John Hume, was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize,
    wants Patten fully implemented. The SDLP's Deputy Minister in
    charge of the new executive has said failure to implement
    Patten policing proposals will have a damaging effect on the
    whole psyche of the fledgling political process. We do not
    want, nor can we afford that kind of result.
        The Washington Post noted in July that the onus remains now
    on the British Government to respond to Catholic objections on
    failure to fully implement all of Patten's police reforms,
    since these reforms were part of the agreement on the Good
    Friday Accord. To date, they have not responded.
        We hope to see full and meaningful police reform happen,
    not a continuation of the old British Government/unionist
    politics being played with a one-sided veto over the policing
    issue. The Patten report reforms should and must be fully
    implemented as is, and done so now, as promised, and no longer
    delayed.
        A 93 percent Protestant police force is a nearly equally
    divided society, which does not have the support and confidence
    of many in the nationalist Catholic community. That must be
    changed as the Roman Catholic community and the party leaders
    want, demand, and are entitled to. Politics as usual must end
    over there.
        All of our International Relations Committee Members who
    want lasting peace and justice to take hold in Northern Ireland
    must act favorably on this. We hope to see change soon.
        I recognize Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    personally commend the gentleman from Massachusetts, my dear
    friend, Mr. Neal, for his authorship of this very important
    legislation.
        I also want to compliment the chief sponsors of this
    legislation. You know, with Irish names like Faleomavaega and
    Campbell and Neal and Delahunt, how could we do otherwise? I
    want to associate myself with all of the compliments and the
    comprehensive statements that have been made by Members of this
    Committee on both sides of the aisle.
        And again commending Mr. Neal for doing an outstanding job
    in authoring this legislation, I also personally want to
    commend the former Senator from Maine, Mr. George Mitchell, for
    an outstanding job in trying to resolve the very serious
    problem there in Northern Ireland.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge the Members of our
    Committee to pass this resolution.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
        There will be a brief recess and we will take up the Smith
    amendment as soon as we return. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Bereuter [presiding]. The Committee will be in order
    and resume its markup.
        The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, is recognized for
    his statement.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to add my support to H. Res. 547, expressing
    the Sense of the House with respect to the peace process in
    Northern Ireland. I associate myself with the remarks of the
    previous speakers as they discussed the Patten Commission. I
    would like to commend Congressman Richard Neal and the others
    who have been so involved with this--Mr. Crowley, Mr.
    Gejdenson, Mr. Gilman.
        As you may know, I have been very interested and involved
    in activities in the north of Ireland, and just this past
    marching season was again on Garvaghy Road where I stayed
    during the July 4th Orange Order March in Drumcree. I was there
    when Johnny Adair, who is a known drug pusher and criminal,
    marched with the Orange Order. It was a disgrace that they
    would allow such a notorious person to be with their order.
        The RUC has to be totally disbanded. The process of
    bringing in people at the bottom, which would once again
    continue to push those who are currently members of RUC up to
    positions of authority, would mean that it would take a century
    before nationalists could work their way up to any kind of
    responsible positions.
        As a matter of fact, I believe that in the RUC's oath of
    office, members still have to swear allegiance to the Queen. I
    don't know whether a nationalist would feel comfortable because
    that person does not represent the thinking of the nationalist
    community.
        They are in the reconstruction of the new organization--
    they still have kept some basic incorporations which talk about
    the old RUC. So I think that, as was done in Haiti where the
    police were the military and they controlled the streets, they
    disbanded the entire military and started from scratch with the
    new police force; and that is really what has to happen here.
        The arrogance of Ronnie Flanagan and his officers, their
    behavior, looking the other way in the case of Rosemary Nelson
    when she knew that her life was in jeopardy. The RUC did not
    provide any special protection, still the question in the case
    of Pat Finucane. I believe that Bloody Sunday should still be
    opened and reviewed again, and that is something that we must
    see happen so that there can be a true accounting of what
    happened there in 1972.
        I would like to commend Mr. Blair for his initial move in
    the right direction; but it seems like there are some forces in
    Britain that are pushing Mr. Blair away from his original
    direction, and I think it is unfortunate.
        So I join with my colleagues. I will continue to push. The
    marching season once again brings out the worst. They
    fortunately were prevented from going down to Lower Ormean Road
    in Belfast and also off of Garvaghy Road.
        But there have still been the tensions. I believe, as my
    colleagues have said, we need to disband the RUC totally and
    start all over again. So Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Richie Neal
    and those who have brought this resolution to the floor, and I
    wholeheartedly support it as a cosponsor. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you Mr. Payne.
        The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Mr. Bereuter. The clerk will report the amendment.
        [The amendment appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Smith. Strike the
    9th clause of the preamble and insert the following: Whereas
    many of the signatories----''
        Mr. Bereuter. I ask unanimous consent that further reading
    of the amendment be dispensed with. The Chair recognizes the
    gentleman from New Jersey to speak to his amendment.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment I have
    proposed highlights some of the criticisms that have been
    voiced by nationalist parties, human rights groups and other
    observers of the policing bill and about the British Government
    bill's failure to fully and faithfully implement the Patten
    Commission's recommendations.
        Specifically, the amendment notes that the proposed bill
    would fail to create key accountability structures envisioned
    by the Patten Commission because the bill fails to give the
    policing board and the police ombudsman the broad authority
    they need to conduct inquiries into police practices and
    policies without political interference.
        Mr. Chairman, there is an astonishing new proposal that the
    secretary of state can overrule--overrule the board if he or
    she determines that the inquiry would serve, ``no useful
    purpose.'' I mean that just completely vitiates the authority
    of the board, when for political reasons the secretary of state
    for Northern Ireland so construes it. And that is an absolute
    fatal flaw.
        This amendment at least tries to say to the British
    Government, we are watching. You can't expect us to accept that
    this is a faithful adherence, especially to the Patten
    recommendations, when you build in that Achilles heel.
        The amendment also notes that the British bill would fail
    to appoint a commissioner to oversee implementation of all of
    the Patten Commission's 175 recommendations and instead would
    limit the commissioner to overseeing all those changes in
    policing which are decided upon by the British Government.
        Finally, the amendment notes that the British Government's
    bill would exempt existing RUC officers from taking an oath
    expressing their commitment to uphold human rights, despite the
    fact that one of the Patten report's very first recommendations
    was that all new and existing officers take such an oath as an
    important step toward focusing the Northern Ireland police
    service on the human rights approach. In other words, the same
    ones that were worried about that have not been looked at in
    terms of vetting, because that was completely bypassed by
    Patten himself. Now they don't even have to take the oath to
    uphold human rights, a glaring omission on the part of the
    British Government.
        We hope that they will take note of this and make the
    necessary changes. I hope the Committee will support the
    amendment.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        Are there Members seeking recognition? The gentleman from
    Florida.
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, only for just a moment of
    levity. I support the amendment and the underlying bill and
    wanted to compliment Mr. Neal, our colleague, and let him know
    that Mr. Payne has spoken in your absence; but I want you to
    know the rest of us black Irishmen are with you, too.
        Mr. Bereuter. The gentleman from New York, Mr. King.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my
    cousin, Mr. Hastings, for his kind remarks.
        I want to speak in strong support of Chairman Smith's
    amendment. I believe this amendment is entirely compatible with
    the underlying resolution of Mr. Neal, and it is important when
    we discuss this issue to realize we are not just talking about
    philosophical extractions, we are talking about reality.
        The fact is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been
    guilty of egregious human rights violations over the years. In
    just two instances there is strong evidence not just of
    brutality, not just of violence, but of outright complicity in
    murder. Just 12 years ago, a good friend of mine, Patrick
    Finucane, the human rights lawyer in Belfast, was murdered,
    shot dead by loyalist paramilitary forces. Every month that
    goes by, increasing evidence comes out of collusion by the
    Royal Ulster Constabulary in that murder.
        I guess it was just 2 years ago, Chairman Smith held a
    hearing here, and had a human rights lawyer, Rosemary Nelson,
    testifying, saying how she felt her life was being threatened
    and that she felt that the security forces, including the Royal
    Ulster Constabulary, were hostile to her. Just several months
    after that she was also murdered. And again there was
    increasing evidence that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was
    involved in that murder.
        So this is what we are talking about. We are not just
    talking about a force that occasionally may be brutal,
    occasionally may be violent, that maybe has a few bad apples.
    We are talking about a police force which is rooted in
    brutality, rooted in the most graphic and vicious human rights
    violations and, yes, guilty of murder itself.
        Those of us who follow the situation--and I know it is hard
    very often for Americans to realize that the British Government
    with all its pomp and ceremony would allow things like this
    occur in an area within its jurisdiction--but I find example
    after example where the police force, the Royal Ulster
    Constabulary, in Northern Ireland gives out confidential
    information on the homes, the whereabouts, the jobs, the
    telephone numbers, whatever it is, of prominent Catholics in
    their communities, gives those to loyalist murderers so that
    murders can be carried out. This is outright collusion between
    the police forces and the outlawed paramilitary forces in
    Northern Ireland.
        This is a way of life. That is why this has to be changed.
    And that is why Congressman Neal's resolution is so important
    and why Congressman Smith's amendment to that resolution is
    also vital.
        So I strongly support the resolution; I strongly support
    Chairman Smith's amendment.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.
        If there are no further requests for recognition, the Chair
    asks unanimous consent that Chairman Gilman's statement in
    support of the Smith amendment be made a part of the record at
    this point.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears in the
    appendix.]
        The question then is on the Smith amendment. Members who
    are in favor will say aye.
        Opposed will say no.
        The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it.
        Are there other Members seeking recognition or seeking to
    offer an amendment?
        If not, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is
    recognized to offer a motion.
        Mr. Smith. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek
    consideration of the pending resolution, H. Res. 547, as
    amended, on the suspension calendar.
        Mr. Bereuter. The question is on the motion of the
    gentleman from New Jersey. All those in favor of the motion
    will say aye.
        All those opposed will say no.
        The ayes have got it. The motion is agreed to. Further
    proceedings on the measure are postponed.
        The Chair asks unanimous consent that we change the order
    of the agenda and take up a resolution which should be
    noncontroversial, until other Members that want to participate
    in other intervening resolutions have returned. Are there
    objections?

           H. CON. RES. 257--CONCERNING THE IRANIAN BAHA'I COMMUNITY

        Hearing no objections, we will now consider H. Con. Res.
    257 concerning the emancipation of the Iranian Baha'i
    Community.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
        [The resolution appears in the appendix.]
        The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 257, a resolution concerning
    the emancipation of the Iranian Baha'i community.''
        Mr. Bereuter. Without objection, the clerk will read the
    preamble and text of the resolution in that order for
    amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992,
    1994 and 1996, Congress, by concurrent resolution, declared
    that it holds----''
        Chairman Gilman [presiding]. Without objection, the
    resolution is considered as having been read and is open for
    amendment at any point.
        At the request of the Minority, without objection, the
    measure will be set aside. We will proceed to the next measure.
        Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is, I think, an appropriate time as the Nobel
    Commission will soon be making its--oh, we are back to the
    Baha'i resolution.

    H. CON. RES. 242--URGING THAT FORMER SENATOR GEORGE MITCHELL BE AWARDED
                                THE NOBEL PRIZE

        Chairman Gilman. We will now proceed with the Mitchell
    resolution. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 242 urging that
    the Nobel Peace Prize be awarded to former Senator George
    Mitchell.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
        [The resolution appears in the appendix.]
        The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 242, to urge the Nobel
    Commission to award the Year 2000 Nobel Prize for Peace to
    former----''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the clerk will read the
    preamble and the text of resolution in that order for
    amendment. The clerk will read.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas Senator Mitchell has worked
    tirelessly over the past 4 years----''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
    considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any
    point.
        The Chair recognizes the sponsor of the resolution, the
    distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Gejdenson,
    to introduce the resolution to the Committee.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    supporting this resolution.
        It is clear as we approach the time that the Nobel
    Committee will make its decision, this is an appropriate time
    to move this resolution. George Mitchell has worked tirelessly
    over the past 4 years to bring peace to the region, to end
    strife and violence in an area where more than 3,200 have been
    killed, and thousands more have been injured. At times when
    others would have walked away, Senator Mitchell continued to
    return to make every effort possible in trying to revive
    negotiations when they appeared to be at a hopeless and stalled
    deadlock at one point.
        Finally, in September 1999, Senator Mitchell went back for
    one more try and has moved us to where we are today, where we
    can really see hope for the future in Northern Ireland.
        Those of us who, like yourself, Mr. Chairman, and I and
    others who worked with Senator Mitchell, know his basic,
    steady, decent approach, his endless efforts toward resolving
    the crisis in Northern Ireland. He is someone for whom all of
    us who have worked with him have a great respect.
        Support from the press across the country for this
    resolution has been significant. So I thank you for bringing
    this forward and urge that it pass rapidly to the floor to make
    sure that the Nobel Committee knows of the broad support for
    Senator Mitchell's efforts here in the Congress.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you. Is there any other Member
    seeking recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I will be very brief because I know there
    are other Members who have been much more active on this issue.
        Let me just say that I think that Senator Mitchell deserves
    our highest bipartisan praise for what he has been doing, and
    you are going to hear me say something now that you rarely have
    heard me say. I think President Clinton deserves a pat on the
    back for this as well.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Certainly.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Just fearing that my age is starting to
    affect my hearing, could the gentleman please repeat that last
    statement? I am not sure that I heard it correctly.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I will. I think that President Clinton
    does deserve praise for his efforts to bring peace in Northern
    Ireland, which has been a very vexing problem. And President
    Clinton has also been very active and deserves our commendation
    for the work that he has done in the Middle East, as well.
        But as the Nobel Prize Committee meets--and we could
    recognize that there has been a great convergence here--we have
    a situation where sides were so far apart 5 and 6 years ago.
    Through Senator Mitchell's tireless efforts, they brought them
    much closer together and there is a real chance for peace.
        I recently visited Ireland on the way back from a trip, a
    CODEL to the Soviet Union. We had a chance to speak to the
    Prime Minister of Ireland, and he is very optimistic, and that
    optimism wasn't always there. That optimism was caused by the
    hard work of, first, the commitment of this Administration, the
    Clinton Administration, and the hard work of Senator Mitchell.
        Let me just say that from the last debate, it is clear and
    should be made clear to everyone that when the British
    retreated from their empire in the middle of the last century--
    and it was the last century, it was in the 1900's now when you
    think about it--that they left time bombs all over the world.
    They may well have dominated--the British Empire, Rule
    Britannia, may have created a certain kind of peace in the
    world for a number of decades during the last century, but Rule
    Britannia left behind time bombs throughout their former
    empire, as can now be seen in Northern Ireland. And it has
    taken a lot of time to try to diffuse the time bomb they left
    there; but it can also be seen in Africa, can also be seen in,
    for example, the faraway Fiji Islands.
        The type of problems that were left behind, it is incumbent
    upon us, as a democratic people who would like to be
    peacemakers in this world, to not only do our best, but to
    recognize those people like Senator Mitchell who are
    representing the very best of our country in trying to promote
    peace and maybe to clean up after the British, who left these
    problems behind for us.
        So, with that, I support the legislation and thank Mr.
    Gejdenson and others who have spent time promoting it.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Mr. King.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to commend
    Mr. Gejdenson and certainly join in the remarks of Dana
    Rohrabacher.
        This certainly is an historic moment. I am delighted I had
    the honor of being here to witness it. I would also say that I
    think Dana did put this in perspective when he spoke about the
    time bombs left behind by the British. While Britannia may rule
    the waves, it really can't waive the rules.
        The fact is, they waive too many international rules when
    dealing within their countries, such as Ireland and others. And
    Senator Mitchell deserves tremendous credit for the time and
    effort that he put in. The seemingly limitless patience that he
    had and the brilliancy he was able to show in bringing the
    parties together, first for the Good Friday Agreement, and then
    last fall, which really did pave the way for the IRA statement
    of last June that has resulted in the Northern Ireland Assembly
    being set up.
        So this is an issue which, depending on where you want to
    draw the time line or begin the time line, has vexed diplomats
    for either 800 years or 300 years or 80 years or 30 years. The
    fact is, it was Senator Mitchell who was most instrumental in
    resolving the centuries-old dispute, and certainly the Nobel
    Peace Prize will be a fitting tribute for the tremendous work
    that he has done. I support the resolution.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. King.
        Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would say to Mr. Gejdenson, I was not made aware of the
    fact that you were ready to take up in your resolution.
        I certainly will support the resolution before us, which
    gives special recommendation with respect to the Nobel Peace
    Prize for Senator Mitchell. I also want to recognize that
    Senators Lugar and Nunn have been nominated by international
    sources for the Nobel Peace Prize.
        This congressional initiative was and is of increasingly
    fundamental importance to the well-being of the United States
    and the world. And the fact that we are having this specific
    resolution supporting the nomination and award to Senator
    Mitchell should not detract from our very strong bipartisan
    support for our former colleague from Georgia and our current
    colleague, the Senior Senator from Indiana.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. I join in strong support of this resolution. As
    I indicated, I have been very involved in this situation in the
    north of Ireland and know many of the players from all sides,
    and I have to really commend Senator Mitchell for his patience.
        He makes Job look like an amateur, his patience has been so
    outstanding. For hours and hours and days and days and weeks
    and weeks, he would sit and listen to issues and incidents that
    occurred 1,000 years ago--not 1,000 but 500 years ago and 400
    years ago and 300 years ago. People who said they would never
    sit at the table together, never would shake a person's hand,
    sat at the table because Senator Mitchell just would not take
    ``no.'' He would say whenever there was an obstacle, he would
    just confront it and take it on.
        It takes a certain kind of personality and commitment,
    tenacity, patience, ability, and Senator Mitchell certainly
    possesses all of those qualities. He could have been doing
    other things with his time. But he dedicated his life and those
    years to negotiations.
        So I think there is no person more fitting at this time to
    receive the award than our former colleague, Senator Mitchell.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
        I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this
    resolution, H. Con. Res. 242, that was introduced by Mr.
    Gejdenson. It is a resolution that now has more than 50
    cosponsors in broad bipartisan support.
        In the resolution, Congress justifiably urges the Nobel
    Commission to award the Nobel Peace Prize for the year 2000 to
    former Senator George Mitchell for his extraordinary and
    impressive efforts in securing the peace in Northern Ireland.
        Few observers of the lasting peace and justice in the north
    of Ireland could not help but agree with this resolution.
    Senator Mitchell surely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his
    successful efforts in bringing together a comprehensive and
    fair agreement to the age-old struggle between the two
    traditions in that troubled region.
        More than 3,000 people have died in the last 30 years in
    the ``troubles'' in Northern Ireland. The hatreds,
    misunderstandings, and mistrust run very deep. There was an
    enormous trust deficit that had to be breached, and Senator
    Mitchell did so in brokering the peace.
        Senator Mitchell, with his ability to listen, his
    fundamental sense of fairness, and his integrity and
    impartiality fully breached those age-old and wide gaps between
    the two traditions in Northern Ireland. Eventually, after years
    of hard work and dedication, he brokered a complex power-
    sharing agreement between the parties, a power-sharing
    agreement that later won wide support from the people of
    Ireland and referendum both in the north and in the south.
        Senator Mitchell's efforts in securing the Good Friday
    Agreement in April 1998, and his subsequent efforts at ensuring
    implementation of the new power-sharing institutions were
    expressions of the master of the possible. All of this effort
    and resulting progress is a strong testament to the
    extraordinary diplomatic efforts and skills of Senator Mitchell
    in bringing all sides together.
        Senator Mitchell said recently that the peace process in
    the north of Ireland is irreversible. As a long-time observer
    of that situation, I agree. The people want peace and they want
    reconciliation. The tide of history is on the side of the peace
    process that George Mitchell started. Much more, of course,
    needs to be done on the ground to bring about a permanent,
    peaceful change and the reconciliation in Northern Ireland,
    especially on policing reform relating to the Royal Ulster
    Constabulary.
        The path has now been cleared for real and much-needed
    change. The Irish people and both governments must now insist
    on adherence to the Good Friday Accord. Sadly, some insist on
    not living up to the Accord. However, that should not be a
    reflection on George Mitchell.
        Today, the British Government is playing politics with the
    policing issue in not implementing the full Patten Commission
    police reforms that were intended under the terms of the
    negotiated Good Friday Accord to depoliticize the police. What
    we need now is a new beginning on policing and a new police
    service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the
    community as a whole, as envisioned by the Good Friday Accord.
        What Senator Mitchell achieved ought to be faithfully
    adhered to by all parties in both governments in the region.
    Senator Mitchell deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for these
    extraordinary efforts. This resolution before us puts Congress
    on record in favor of that proposition, and I urge its
    adoption.
        Mr. Gejdenson, the author of the resolution, is further
    recognized.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just appreciate
    your support and urge passage of the bill.
        Chairman Gilman. Are there any other Members seeking
    recognition or seeking to offer any amendments?
        If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is
    recognized to offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. I move the Chairman request to seek
    consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension
    calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from
    Nebraska, and all those in favor of the motion, signify by
    saying aye.
        All those opposed say no.
        The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further
    proceedings on this measure are now postponed.

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

        We will now move to consider H.J. Res. 100, asking the
    President to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki
    Final Act.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
        [The resolution appears in the appendix.]
        The clerk will now report the title of the joint
    resolution.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H.J. Res. 100, a resolution calling upon the
    President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 25th
    anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act.''
        Chairman Gilman. This resolution is in the original
    jurisdiction of the Full Committee.
        Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and
    text in that order for amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas August 1, 2000, is the 25th
    Anniversary of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and
    Cooperation in Europe [CSCE], renamed the Organization----''
        Chairman Gilman. The resolution is considered as having
    been read. We will now consider the resolution.
        It was introduced by the distinguished Chairman of the
    Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the
    gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, who is now recognized to
    introduce the resolution to the Committee.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        H.J. Res. 100 commemorates the 25th anniversary of the
    Helsinki Final Act and international accords signed by 35
    countries, including the United States and the former Soviet
    Union.
        No doubt the Final Act represents a milestone in European
    history. This resolution has 40 cosponsors, including all of my
    fellow Helsinki commissioners, and we introduced it back on
    June 8; a companion resolution, H.J. Res. 48, passed the Senate
    on July 27.
        As you know, we had hoped to schedule consideration of this
    prior to the August recess. With its language on human rights,
    the Helsinki Final Act granted human rights the status of a
    fundamental principle in regulating international relations.
    The Final Act's emphasis on respect for human rights in the
    fundamental freedoms is rooted in the recognition that the
    declaration of such rights affirms the inherent dignity of men
    and women and are not privileges bestowed at the whim or
    caprice of the state.
        The Helsinki Final Act and the process it originated was
    instrumental in consigning the communist Soviet empire,
    responsible for untold violations of human rights, to the dust
    bin of history. The standards of Helsinki, which served as a
    valuable lever in pressing human rights issues, also provided
    encouragement and sustenance to courageous individuals who
    dared to challenge repressive communist regimes.
        Many of these brave men and women, including members of the
    Helsinki monitoring groups in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania,
    Georgia, Armenia, and similar groups in Poland and
    Czechoslovakia, Soviet Jewish immigration activists, members of
    repressed Christian denominations and origins, paid a high
    price in the loss of personal freedom, and in some instances,
    their lives, for their act of support of principles enshrined
    in the Helsinki Final Act. Without these Helsinki human rights
    activists, indeed without the Helsinki process and its emphasis
    on human rights, it is likely that the momentous events of 1989
    and 1991 would not have occurred.
        With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia,
    Mr. Chairman, the OSCE region has changed dramatically. In many
    OSCE states, we have witnessed transformations and the
    consolidation of the core OSCE values of democracy, human
    rights, and the rule of law. In others, there has been little,
    if any, progress; and in some, armed conflicts have resulted in
    hundreds of thousands having been killed in grotesque violation
    of human rights.
        Today, we have the equivalent. The Helsinki monitors human
    rights defenders who call upon their government to uphold human
    rights commitments in places such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,
    Belarus and even in Northern Ireland. The OSCE, which now
    includes 54 participating states, has changed to reflect the
    changed international environment, undertaking a variety of
    initiatives designed to prevent, manage, and resolve conflict
    and emphasizing the rule of law in respect for the rule of law
    and the fight against organized crime and corruption which
    constitute the threat against economic reform and prosperity.
        The Helsinki process is still dynamic and active, and the
    importance of a vigorous review in which countries are called
    to account for violations of their freely undertaken Helsinki
    commitments has not diminished.
        In fact, next month in Warsaw there will be another in a
    series of meetings of the OSCE to review implementation of the
    OSCE human rights commitments made by countries. This
    resolution again calls upon the OSCE states to abide by their
    commitments under the Helsinki Final Act, recognizing that
    respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democratic
    principles, economic liberty and related commitments continue
    to be vital elements in promoting a new era of democracy,
    peace, and the rule of law.
        In the 25 years since this historic process was initiated
    in Helsinki, there have been many, many successes. The task is
    far from complete. Let's continue on, and this resolution puts
    us behind that effort.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Mr. Hastings.
        Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gejdenson had
    planned to yield time to me and I appreciate you very much for
    doing so.
        Of course I offer deep gratitude to Mr. Smith of New Jersey
    for introducing this timely and very important resolution. And
    thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this to the Full
    Committee today.
        My colleagues, it gives me special pride to speak about the
    25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. As has already been
    detailed by Mr. Smith, the Helsinki Final Act led to the
    formation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
    Europe, which we now call the Organization for Security and
    Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. As many of our colleagues know, I
    have been an active participant in the last six congressional
    delegations to the annual meetings of the OSCE's Parliamentary
    Assembly. In fact, I sit before you today not only as a Member
    of this distinguished Committee, but also as a Chairperson of
    the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's Committee on Political
    Affairs and Security.
        So as I said, it gives me special pride to speak on
    Chairman Smith's bill and to briefly explain why I feel it is
    so critical that Congress recognize this milestone.
        When the Helsinki Final Act was signed 25 years ago, the
    world was a much different place. The Cold War was still
    actively being waged, and there were literally dozens of
    nations still hidden to the world by the Iron Curtain. The
    Helsinki Final Act was a hope, and the resulting OSCE was the
    fulfillment of that hope.
        We have seen many changes in recent years, particularly
    within the OSCE region. We have witnessed the rebirth of
    democracy in Eastern Europe and the evolution of some of these
    states into stable economic and democratic countries. However,
    our work is not complete. As long as there is a continuum of
    human rights violations within our circles, we must not--
    indeed, we will not--stand still.
        Mr. Chairman, as we begin the new century and the new
    millennium, we enter a time of change and adaptation. When I
    reflect upon the technological and political advances we made
    in the last 25 years, from the development of the Internet to
    the almost complete extermination of totalitarian regimes, with
    some significant and conspicuous exceptions, I cannot even
    imagine what the world will be like 25 years from now. I do,
    however, have no doubt that the OSCE will continue to play a
    vital role in helping the members of the organization, as well
    as the other countries of the world, not just to adjust to the
    global shifts of governmental structures but to prosper from
    them as well.
        While we advance in the technological and political world,
    we have retracted in other areas. The human rights violations
    that are presently taking place in some OSCE countries are not
    traits to be found in the modern age, but rather in the Middle
    Ages. But it is because of the success of the Helsinki Final
    Act and the OSCE that these are occurrences that are becoming
    more and more rare.
        While Mr. Smith has been nothing less than stellar in his
    current chairmanship of the Helsinki Commission during the
    106th Congress, I want to salute a former chairman of the
    Commission who also was critical in establishing the CSCE, and
    that is Steny Hoyer, the Commission's current Ranking Member.
        Additionally, I would appreciate an opportunity, Mr.
    Chairman, to point with some parochial interest that it is my
    good friend and yours and many Members of this Committee, our
    late former colleague from Florida, Dante Fascell, who was
    instrumental in the establishment of the CSCE. Dante's spirit
    continues in Congress today for any Member of this body who
    realizes that the world does not end at the boundaries of the
    United States.
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.J. Res.
    100, and I am pleased to be an active member of the OSCE. I
    commend Chairman Smith for bringing this resolution before us
    and thank you for bringing it before the Full Committee today.
        Mr. Chairman, the world is becoming a better place every
    day. The OSCE plays a critical role in this reality. It is
    therefore altogether fitting and appropriate that we recognize
    the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. I urge the Full
    Committee to support Mr. Smith's resolution and bring it to the
    House floor.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. Does any other
    Member seek recognition?
        If not, I want to express my strong support for the
    resolution offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith,
    honoring the Helsinki Final Act in light of the recent 25th
    anniversary, its signing and calling on the President to
    reassert the United States' commitment to its implementation.
        The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, the
    OSCE, created by the Helsinki Act of 1975, is actually not a
    security alliance. The OSCE is also not based on any ratified
    treaty with provisions that are binding on its signatories. And
    yet, the OSCE and the agreement that established the Helsinki
    Final Act have proven extremely influential in modern European
    affairs, both during the Cold War and in today's post-Cold War
    world.
        As the resolution notes, the Helsinki Act inspired many of
    those seeking freedom from Communism to create nongovernmental
    organizations to monitor their governments' compliance with the
    human rights commitments made by communist regimes in Helsinki
    in 1975. Those groups--their efforts, in turn, helped speed the
    end of those communist regimes and the end of the Cold War
    itself.
        Today's OSCE, in continuing to hold up to the Helsinki Act
    signatory, states the standards that they should aspire to
    meet--particularly with regard to respect for human and
    political rights--continues to play a very beneficial role.
    Moreover, since the OSCE includes in the ranks of its
    participatory states almost all of the states of Europe, those
    states have agreed to grant the OSCE a greater role in conflict
    prevention and conflict resolution--again, in spite of the fact
    that it is not a traditional treaty-based security
    organization.
        I am certain that as we continue to work toward a Europe
    and the North Atlantic community of states that it is truly
    democratic ``from Vancouver to Vladivostok,'' the OSCE will
    continue to play a vital role.
        I am pleased to support this resolution, and I commend Mr.
    Smith for his strong support of the OSCE, along with Mr.
    Hastings.
        Are there any other Members who seek recognition?
        If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is
    recognized to offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. I move the Chairman be requested to seek
    consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension
    calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from
    Nebraska. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying
    aye.
        As many as are opposed, say no.
        The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
        Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make
    motions under Rule 20 relating to a conference on this bill or
    counterpart from the Senate. Further proceedings on this
    measure are now postponed.

             H.R. 1064--SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO DEMOCRACY ACT OF 1999

        We now move to consider H.R. 1064, the Serbia and
    Montenegro Democracy Act of 1999. This bill was introduced by
    the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on International
    Operations and Human Rights, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
    Smith.
        The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
        [The bill appears in the appendix.]
        The clerk will report the title of this bill.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H.R. 1064, a bill to authorize a coordinated
    program to promote the development of democracy in Serbia and
    Montenegro.''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
    the bill is dispensed with.
        The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
    Representatives----''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill will be
    considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any
    point.
        I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, the distinguished
    gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, who I understand has an
    amendment which he may want to offer.
        Mr. Smith. I have an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1064.
        [The amendment appears in the appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has offered an amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
        The clerk will distribute the amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``An amendment in the nature of a substitute
    offered by Mr. Smith. Strike all after the enacting clause and
    insert the following----''
        Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as having been
    read.
        Mr. Smith is recognized on the amendment.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
    1064, the Serbia and Montenegro Democracy Act. The amendment
    which I circulated in the Dear Colleague to Members
    incorporates language supported in the Senate and by the
    Department of State.
        It is important for this Committee and this Congress to
    support those seeking democratic change in Serbia, as well as
    those undertaking democratic change in Montenegro. This
    amendment does just that. It updates the original bill which
    was introduced in February 1999, and is based on language which
    passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year.
        In preparing this amendment, my staff worked closely with
    the Senate staff, our own majority-minority staff, and the
    State Department, to find a text that we could all support; and
    funds authorized to support democracy in Serbia and Montenegro
    correspond to those of the President's original budget request
    for fiscal year 2001. I also note that the language of this
    amendment parallels some of that originally introduced in H.R.
    1373 by our colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Sanford.
        The amendment also calls for maintaining sanctions on
    Serbia until such time that democratic change is under way.
        Reflective of another resolution, H. Con. Res. 118, which I
    introduced last year, the amendment supports the efforts of the
    International Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to
    bring those responsible for war crimes and crimes against
    humanity, including Slobodan Milosevic, to justice.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members consider this amendment in
    the nature of a substitute favorably, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Is there any Member seeking recognition?
        Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, I support the legislation of the
    gentleman from New Jersey. But before I give my final vote, I
    wonder if the Administration has any position on this
    legislation. Would anyone from the Administration like to
    address----
        Chairman Gilman. Would the gentlelady please indicate her
    name and title.
        Ms. Cooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Shirley
    Cooks; I am from the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the State
    Department.
        I would like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to ask
    Ambassador Napper to comment on this legislation.
        Chairman Gilman. Ambassador Napper, would you please take
    the witness chair and, again, identify full name and title.
        Mr. Napper.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Larry
    Napper. I am the coordinator for the East European Assistance
    Program in the State Department.
        Thank you very much. We appreciate your work on this
    legislation, bringing it before the Committee, the support of
    Mr. Gejdenson, of Members from both sides of the aisle, and
    particularly Chairman Smith's initiatives in bringing this
    important legislation forward.
        The State Department fully supports the effort here to send
    a strong signal of support for democratic forces in Serbia. We
    especially appreciate the efforts that have been undertaken by
    Mr. Smith and members of his staff to consult with us about the
    language in the bill. We are supportive of it, and strongly so.
        We do hope, in the period between today and the time when
    the bill finally comes to the floor, that there will be an
    opportunity to continue dialogue on certain technical wording
    in the bill, which we think could clarify some of the
    provisions. We don't seek that today, but we do hope there will
    be an openness to working with the staff here and the staff in
    the Senate on a couple of what we regard as purely technical
    fixes, but they can be of some importance.
        Chairman Gilman. We will be pleased to work along with you
    on that.
        Mr. Napper.  If I might mention just one, Mr. Chairman,
    very quickly, and I will finish. That is, in Section 408 where
    there is a waiver for the President in the event of a
    democratic change, a positive change, a new democratic Serbia,
    to lift some of the existing sanctions and to provide
    assistance. We think it important that what we take to be the
    intent of both this Committee and in the Senate, to make it
    possible not only to provide assistance but also to provide a
    positive vote in the international financial institutions, be
    clearly enough delineated so that it will be clear in that
    event that we can take those actions.
        So again, we think that kind of thing can be done in a very
    technical way and we appreciate your expression of willingness
    to work with us. Thank you.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ambassador.
        Is there any other Member seeking recognition?
        Mr. Sanford.
        Mr. Sanford. I would yield to the gentleman from
    California.
        Mr. Campbell. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just a
    very quick comment on page 5, line 21 through 24. This is a
    sense of Congress so I will not offer an amendment, but it
    seems to me that it may at some point be appropriate, for the
    sake of all of the objectives of the legislation, to meet with
    President Milosevic, not that I have any commending or positive
    feelings toward him in the slightest. But that sometimes it is
    necessary to meet with the person in charge in order to make
    progress.
        As I say, it is only a sense of Congress, but I think it is
    worth noting that it may be going a little too far to say that
    we not meet with an individual. The prior clause seems to be
    adequate, which says to minimize to the extent practicable any
    direct contacts with the officials of the Yugoslav or Serbian
    Governments.
        I don't make a motion to that extent because it is only a
    sense of Congress.
        I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Sanford.
        Mr. Sanford. I would just want to speak on behalf of Mr.
    Smith's amendment in that basically I had offered a bill that
    had many of the same provisions back in April of last year with
    the belief that we need to come up with some counter-strategy,
    some alternative strategy, in dealing with Milosevic.
        I think what this bill really begs is the larger point of
    what are we doing in that part of the world. Because if you
    look at the operations, if you look at the amount of money we
    spent in both Kosovo and in the skies over Serbia, with the
    region, if you look at the total of basically $15.7 billion
    that was spent of the United States taxpayer's money over the
    last couple of years in the Balkans, I guess the question has
    to be, where does this end?
        Because what this bill attempts to do is look at Montenegro
    and what is going to happen there over the next couple of
    years. If we have not begun to help out with some kind of
    democracy building as some alternative to our current strategy,
    we are going to be in there, in yet a third spot, with troops
    in armament; and I think that will be a horrendous mistake.
        I think the overall issue needs to be examined regarding
    our strategy in the Balkans and what is our exit strategy
    because of, again, the overall numbers. I look at the different
    operations--I have enumerated them here, and I will submit
    these for the record--but military operations in Kosovo, $3.3
    billion; refugee operations--Noble Anvil, Joint Guardian,
    Balkan Call, Eagle Eye, Sustained Hope, Task Force Hawk, $5
    billion in Kosovo alone--and you add back Bosnia, you add what
    we are looking to in the future in an area like Montenegro, and
    you see basically American troops bowled down in that part of
    the world for years upon years upon years.
        So I would applaud Mr. Smith's efforts on this amendment
    and I would beg that the Administration come up with some kind
    of strategy other than sending troops and bombs through the sky
    in dealing with the Balkans, because that seems to be our
    current strategy, and I think that this is a pleasant
    alternative.
        With that, I would yield back.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Sanford.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. I will be very brief. I thank Mr. Sanford for
    the text and the leadership he provided by his legislation.
        Let me just note very strongly that this is bipartisan
    legislation. Mr. Gilman obviously is a cosponsor with Mr.
    Hoyer, Mr. Engle, Mrs. Slaughter, Mr. Moran, to name just a few
    of those who are cosponsors in addition to a number of
    Republicans. So we are trying to send a clear message that
    democracy building, strengthening the NGO's, and building up
    the free independent media are vitally important.
        I just would note, in response to Mr. Sanford again, we had
    a hearing with the Helsinki Commission in February devoted to
    the deteriorating situation in Montenegro and the fact that
    their efforts at reform were gravely threatened, and we had an
    update with at least one witness in July, an additional
    hearing. So they are at risk.
        This money hopefully will go toward strengthening and
    spreading out the root system for those who believe in
    democracy and human rights in Montenegro.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you. Is there any other Member
    seeking recognition?
        Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, I too support this legislation. I
    do think though that it does talk about assistance to promote
    democracy in a civil society. It talks about authority for
    radio and television broadcasting, and it talks about ways that
    we would try to strengthen civil society, to try to strengthen
    the judiciary and the Administration of justice and the
    transparency of political parties.
        So I agree that we don't need to send bombs and tanks all
    around, but I see in this legislation, as a matter of fact,
    those things aren't mentioned. We are talking about trying to
    create an atmosphere where we can have dialogue and democracy
    moving forward.
        So I think that Mr. Smith has a good sense of the
    situation, and I support the gentleman from New Jersey.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
        If not, I would like to comment on the bill H.R. 1064
    introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, as well
    as the amendment in the nature of a substitute that I
    understand he has offered to the original text. My colleague
    from New Jersey has rightfully earned his reputation as a
    strong supporter of democracy and human rights around the
    world, and both his bill as introduced and his amendment to
    that bill demonstrate once again that this is the case.
        The people of Serbia need to know that our Nation does not
    wish to have antagonistic relations with their country. They
    need to know, instead, our nation is simply opposed to the
    kinds of policies that their country has pursued under the
    leadership of Mr. Milosevic.
        They also need to know that our nation supports the cause
    of true democracy in Serbia, just as it does in the rest of
    Europe; that Serbia is a European country, and deserves a place
    at the European table once it has started down the road of real
    democracy, real reform, and real respect for human rights.
        Regrettably, Slobodan Milosevic has proven himself a master
    of manipulation of Serbian patriotism and of Serbian
    nationalist fears. Milosevic has employed the ethnic distrust
    and unrest that surrounded the breakup of the former communist
    Yugoslav federation to portray himself as a protector of
    Serbian rights.
        Instead, he has simply led Serbia down the road to ruin.
    While Serbia's economy today lies in shambles and its people
    face a future that promises nothing better, Mr. Milosevic
    lingers on, surrounded by a web of corruption, mysterious
    murders, political manipulation, and state repression.
        And, after yet another series of manipulative steps,
    Milosevic has now set the groundwork for his election to yet
    another term as Yugoslav president later on this month, an the
    election that most likely will be rigged to ensure that very
    outcome.
        This bill makes it clear that our nation has not given up
    on, and will not give up on, the freedom of the nation of
    Serbia and the effort to create a true democracy there. This
    bill's passage should make that clear to the Serbian people.
        Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to join in supporting
    this measure.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition? Are there
    any amendments to the amendment? If there are no further
    amendments, without objection the previous question is ordered
    on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without
    objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is
    agreed to.
        The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
    offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
    requested to seek consideration of the pending bill, as
    amended, on the suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
    gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. Those in favor of the
    motion signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes
    have it; the motion is agreed to.
        Without objection the Chair or his designee is authorized
    to make motions under Rule 20 with respect to a conference on
    the bill or counterpart from the Senate.
        Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

                 H. RES. 451--RELATING TO THE FUTURE OF KOSOVO

        We will now move on to consider H. Res. 451 relating to the
    future of Kosovo.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The
    clerk will report the title of the resolution.
        [The resolution appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Res. 451, a resolution calling for
    lasting peace, justice, and stability in Kosovo.''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the clerk will read the
    preamble and the text of the resolution in that order for
    amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas on June 10, 1999, the North Atlantic
    Treaty Organization----''
        Chairman Gilman. I have an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment and
    distribute the amendment.
        [The amendment appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman. Strike the
    preamble and insert the following: Whereas on June 10, 1999 the
    North----''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment in the
    nature of a substitute is considered as having been read. It is
    now open at any point for amendment. I will recognize myself
    briefly and introduce the amendment to the Committee.
        When I introduced this resolution last April, there were
    numerous problems in evidence concerning the U.N. mission in
    Kosovo. Since that time some of those difficulties have been
    mitigated. A number, however, have not; and, accordingly, I
    have introduced an amendment in the nature of a substitute at
    this time for the Committee's consideration. I would like to
    thank our Ranking Member, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr.
    Gejdenson, for his assistance and suggestions that make this
    amendment a bipartisan effort.
        Our principal concern is that the international community,
    rather than fostering a self-reliant and prosperous Kosovar-run
    Kosova, is creating a new international dependency, hooked on
    assistance funds and the presence of numerous international aid
    workers. What seems to have been overlooked in the current
    approach is the fact that prior to the move to strip away
    Kosova's political autonomy in 1989, and even during the decade
    of oppression the Kosovars suffered under Milosevic, the
    Kosovar people demonstrated a remarkable amount of initiative,
    hardihood, and economic skill. These characteristics should be
    part of our strategy in restoring Kosova's economy, and not
    largely ignored.
        Another problem is the plight of thousands of Kosovars who
    are being illegally detained in Serbia. Some of these
    individuals were taken in the final hours of Serbia's sway over
    Kosova last June as virtual hostages. They include some of the
    leading intellectual lights of Kosovar society--doctors,
    lawyers, journalists, and teachers. The fact that the
    international community has remained nearly mute in the face of
    their continued detention is disappointing, and the refusal of
    the U.N. Security Council to demand their immediate release is
    frankly outrageous. Until the Kosovar detainees have been
    released and accounted for, no real peace will come to Kosova.
        The important industrial town of Mitrovice remains a
    divided city where international peacekeepers have been unable
    to return hundreds of ethnic Albanian residents to their homes.
    Failure to resolve this issue leaves a shadow of possible
    partition still hanging over Kosova.
        Another problem in the United Nations' approach to its
    Kosova mission is the issue of who should be able to control
    and operate important economic assets such as the Trepca mines.
    Although there have been recent steps to explore reopening of
    this most important economic asset, for many months the United
    Nations did not take action because of its fears that Serb
    ownership was an obstacle.
        Elections have been scheduled in 30 municipalities
    throughout Kosova for October 28. This resolution calls upon
    all citizens of Kosova to avail themselves of the democratic
    process and to peacefully express their political preferences.
    Let us hope that the adoption of this resolution and those
    upcoming elections will provide the beginning of the journey to
    a lasting and just peace for Kosova. I urge our Members to
    support this amendment.
        Are there any Members seeking recognition?
        Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I want to thank you for working out a
    resolution that we can all broadly support. I think it is
    important for us to remember that with all the problems we face
    today in Kosova, it is clear that the United States led an
    effort to prevent what would have been an outrageous atrocity
    and holocaust. It is very easy to find that where we are today
    is difficult and we face many challenges.
        Today on the floor we have passed a resolution concerning
    the Holocaust memorial in this country. I think Americans need
    to understand that what we did is the right thing. With all the
    problems that are associated with preventing the slaughter of
    thousands of Kosovar Albanians, the alternative would have been
    the United States and the world standing by watching innocent
    civilians slaughtered yet once again. We talked--I talked to
    Mr. Smith earlier today about finding a way to have forces in
    the United Nations that would be more reactive when there are
    these kinds of human rights crises in the world.
        We have sat by all too often in Africa and Asia; we have
    seen U.N. workers and one American killed recently in West
    Timor.
        What we did in Kosova is why the world looks to America for
    leadership. We did it without any self-interest. We did it for
    the right reasons. We prevented the death of thousands of women
    and children, and for that we should be very proud. I thank the
    Chairman for working with us to come up with a resolution we
    can all support.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. I thank you very much. I want to commend you
    for your initiative. The substitute before us, I think,
    certainly does take into account, where appropriate,
    information that has been conveyed to us by the European
    community. I am very concerned about what is happening in
    Kosovo as we all should be. We should not have any impression
    that things are going well. Members of Congress and people
    across the country should understand that things are not
    proceeding well. The level of violence in Kosovo is continuing
    to be high. We have murders of the Serbian ethnics going on
    there. We are not able to stop it. Across the line in Serbia we
    have murders of Albanian ethnics by Serbian interests and
    individuals.
        Mr. Gejdenson puts a very positive construction on what the
    Administration's role in the war against Yugoslavia resulted in
    and how it started. I do not agree with that kind of
    construction whatsoever. I think we need to speak out when we
    see an operation so badly handled. The peace accord put before
    the Yugoslavians and the KLA and other Albanian Kosovars was
    unacceptable to both sides. We pushed ahead with a war against
    Yugoslavia that was at least premature. The military operations
    with their gradual upgrading of bombing were inappropriate, and
    this country pushed that effort through NATO.
        We in this Administration are responsible for the very
    ineffective way that that war was waged. We should not have
    been engaged in bombing Yugoslavia at that stage. We did not
    exhaust even in the short term the kind of alternatives that
    were available. The peace proposal at Rambouillet was of course
    unacceptable to the Albanian Kosovars. They did not want some
    degree of autonomy from Yugoslavia; they wanted independence.
    We put before the Yugoslavians something that totally was
    unacceptable and, naturally so, to them.
        This was a war that should not have started at this point;
    and to put the proper construction on it, we need to be
    truthful about what happened there. But in any case, the
    resolution presented by the Chairman is entirely appropriate;
    and it urges a much larger, more effective European role as
    well as activities driven by organizations; and I support the
    resolution.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you. Do any other Members seek
    recognition?
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. I think it is critical that we strongly condemn
    all the violence that is occurring in Kosova today, also
    regardless of the ethnicity of the victim or the culprit. This
    resolution puts us four square--and I think it is very
    important that in item No. 9 you point out that all citizens of
    Kosova should adhere to the principles enunciated where all
    parties agree to a rigorous campaign against violence. Just
    because the bombs have stopped--and I too disagree with the
    bombing--but now making peace is turning out to be much more
    problematic and vexing as well. Retaliatory hits again Serbs
    are so less egregious than hits on Kosovar Albanians. I think
    we need to send that clear unambiguous message to all involved.
    We want peace. We want people to be treated with respect and
    dignity. This resolution, again, keeps us focused on that very
    important goal.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I support the resolution although it seems that we all have
    a different take on what happened in Kosova. I think as we sit
    here and say we moved prematurely only hundreds of Albanians
    were being killed today and we should not have moved, it was
    premature. Maybe we should have waited until thousands a day
    were killed. That is what we did in Rwanda, where we saw close
    to a million people killed because we sat around and we
    twiddled our thumbs. We wouldn't use the word genocide. We
    allowed that country to have 700,000, 800,000 people killed
    because it wasn't enough and we sat around.
        And so in Kosova, where the situation was not nearly as
    grave but it was very serious, action had to be taken. As we
    know, our troops will no longer be put on the ground. There is
    no more use of ground troops around the world because we don't
    want to put our troops in harm's way. Although we are the
    world's mightiest power, we have a no-casualty philosophy, I
    suppose. That is good, but if you are going to be a world
    power, you are going to be a paper tiger if everyone knows you
    will never put your troops in harm's way unless people are
    coming up on your shores.
        Therefore, the only other alternative is to let the people
    continue to be slaughtered or to use the next best thing, where
    you lose no people, by using the air strike. I am not a
    military man. I don't know how to evaluate effectiveness. I
    have never flown a plane or dropped a bomb or shot a gun. But I
    do know that people have been killed, innocent people. We saw
    Sierra Leone, where people's arms were chopped off and maimed
    or killed. Thankfully, the Nigerians, even though their country
    was run by a military dictator, did send in troops to try to
    prevent the continued maiming and slaughter of innocent women,
    primarily, and children.
        So I don't know what the solution is that some of us might
    have when you see the inhumanity to man going on. We say it is
    premature. When is it not premature? When is a death not a
    death? I think we have to take a look at where we are going in
    the world because a world with no order, with no so-called
    policing, is going to be a place of total chaos. So I supported
    the President's bold move. I think it took courage for him to
    urge NATO to take the action that it did, and I think that many
    lives were saved. I think that some of the failure was because
    of the position of not having collateral damage to try to avoid
    the killing of innocent civilians. It wasn't like Hiroshima,
    where you drop a bomb and everybody just dies.
        Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield?
        I thank the gentleman for a little opportunity for a debate
    here. I want to say to the gentleman that I think that U.S.
    policy with respect to its nonintervention in Rwanda was
    definitely a tragic error. I think we were affected by the
    failures and the inept way that things were handled in Somalia.
    We were unwilling, therefore, to take a chance and do what was
    right.
        But I do think the parallels between Rwanda and Kosovo are
    not appropriate. I would just suggest that by our premature--
    what I consider to be a premature--effort to give peace a
    chance there, we got all the international observers out of
    Kosovo. We facilitated ethnic cleansing and devastation on the
    part of Yugoslavian Serbs in Kosovo, and the world community
    was totally unprepared for the incredible number of refugees
    that fled across into Macedonia, into Montenegro, into Albania
    itself and other locations.
        I believe that our policy there cost lives, dramatically
    cost lives, in the way it was pursued. That is why I associate
    myself with the gentleman's attitudes about our noninvolvement
    in Rwanda, but I do not think it is parallel.
        I thank the gentleman respectfully for letting me have the
    opportunity to discuss this issue.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        Resuming my time, I appreciate your remarks. Once again,
    though, I believe that the fact that there were refugees should
    not have been a surprise to anyone. Whenever there is conflict
    you have people fleeing, and they go to the closest place that
    they can.
        I think it should actually have been anticipated to have a
    conflict with borders open; to have no refugees is absolutely
    being naive. So it was a surprise that I went to a camp in the
    early days when it was only 40,000 people coming over; and I
    was among the first to go there and actually interview people
    about the atrocities, the brutality that I don't even want to
    discuss here, because it is similar to atrocities that happened
    in Sierra Leone. It is just that they were not publicized, the
    same kind of amputations and mutilation, that was going on
    right there in Kosovo.
        So perhaps there should be a time for a debate. I am one
    who, if it were up to me, there would be no military; but that
    is not the way the world is. I am not a big supporter of our
    $310 billion military budget, or that we hear that it is not
    enough. But I just think that we need to really discuss these
    issues and discuss them clearly. I still contend that if
    something happens--it is easy to say we did the wrong thing. So
    the other solution is, you sit back and nothing happens;
    therefore, you make no mistakes.
        It is just that those people in harm's way continue to be
    brutalized, murdered, and killed. You can say we made no
    mistake, but we don't create any kind of a solution.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired. We thank
    the gentleman.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition or offering
    amendments?
        If not, without objection, the previous question is ordered
    on the amendment. The amendment is agreed to without objection.
    It is so ordered.
        The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
    offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. I move the Chairman be requested to seek
    consideration of the pending resolution, as amended, on the
    suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
    gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor of the motion
    signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed say no.
        The ayes have it. Further proceedings on this measure are
    now postponed.
        We will now move to consider H. Con. Res. 257, concerning
    the emancipation of the Baha'i community.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

    RESUMPTION OF CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 257--CONCERNING THE BAHA'I
                               COMMUNITY OF IRAN

        Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report the title of the
    resolution.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``H. Con. Res. 257, a resolution concerning
    the emancipation of the Iranian Baha'i community.''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the clerk will read the
    preamble and text of the resolution in that order for
    amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Whereas in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992,
    1994 and 1996, Congress, by concurrent resolution----''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
    considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any
    point.
        H. Con. Res. 257 deals with a matter of ongoing and severe
    religious persecution. The Baha'i community is Iran's largest
    religious minority. Since 1982, seven resolutions have placed
    the Congress on record expressing our continuing concern and
    disapprobation of the treatment of the Baha'i by the current
    Iranian regime.
        At present, 11 Baha'i are imprisoned in Iran. Four of these
    individuals are under a death sentence. Their crime is
    attempting to convert Muslims to the Baha'i faith, an act each
    of the four has denied, but one that can hardly be considered
    criminal under any accepted standard of international human
    rights.
        It should be noted that under Iranian law the Baha'i are
    considered as unprotected infidels, which means they have
    absolutely no rights of protection under Iranian law. They
    cannot marry or pass on an inheritance or conduct businesses.
        I commend the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, for his
    forthright support of this community struggling to preserve its
    identity in the land where the Baha'i faith was born. I also
    thank our senior Member of the Committee, Mr. Lantos, for his
    support.
        I urge the Members of our Committee to unanimously support
    this measure.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition with regard
    to this resolution or offering amendments?
        If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is
    recognized to offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Again, I move the Chairman be requested to
    seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension
    calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
    gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. All those in favor of
    the motion signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed say no.
        The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
        Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make
    motions under Rule 20 relating to a conference on this
    resolution or a Senate counterpart.
        Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

           S. 2460--EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS REWARDS

        We will now take up S. 2460, expanding the rewards program
    to include events in Rwanda. This bill was introduced in the
    other body by Senator Feingold, where it was passed on June 24,
    2000.
        The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
        [The bill appears in the appendix.]
        The clerk will report the title of the bill.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``S. 2460, a bill to authorize the payment of
    rewards to individuals furnishing information relating to
    persons subject to indictment for serious violations of
    international humanitarian law in Rwanda, and for other
    purposes.''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
    the bill is dispensed with.
        The clerk will read the preamble and the text in that
    order.
        Ms. Bloomer. ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
    Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
    assembled, Section 1----''
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
    as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.
        Mr. Campbell.
        Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    your legislation in 1998, H.R. 4660, which originally included
    just this provision.
        With foresight, Mr. Chairman, you removed the specification
    of Rwanda simply out of concern that it may not pass the other
    body with that specification. Having passed the other body with
    the strong support of our esteemed colleague from Wisconsin,
    Senator Feingold, it is as straightforward to apply the
    benefits of this program to Rwanda, as it is to Yugoslavia.
        A word of background: The proposal gives the Secretary of
    State the authority to offer up to $15 million total--no more
    than $5 million in any one case and no more than $100,000
    without the explicit approval and decision by the Secretary of
    State--to anyone who might provide information leading to the
    arrest and prosecution of individuals for genocide and war
    crimes such as were experienced in Rwanda.
        The legislation already exists for the provision of such
    testimony with regard to the atrocities in Yugoslavia, and it
    ought to apply to the situation in Rwanda as well.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I renew my appreciation for
    your efforts. You saw this years ago, and it should just have
    been done then; we are correcting that error today. I would
    also just recognize my good friend and colleague, Mr. Payne,
    with whom I have traveled to Rwanda on more than one occasion,
    where we have personally seen the results of the genocide, and
    also to Arusha, Tanzania, where the International War Crimes
    Tribunal is taking place.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. Let me commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
    moving this legislation through. As my colleague said--and I
    associate myself with his remarks--we now have the second link
    of this package that was unlinked last year to ensure passage.
    I think it is timely now that the Rwanda portion be passed.
        I would also like to commend my colleague, Mr. Campbell. I
    was looking over a piece of legislation here a minute or two
    ago, and I was taken aback a bit--I don't know the number; I
    don't have it handy--because it said, ``introduced by Senator
    Campbell,'' and I looked at it again.
        But let me just say, getting back to the point, I certainly
    will miss traveling with you unless you are in the other House.
    But the trip to the Tribunal in Rwanda, seeing the problems
    that they were having there at the hearings, seeing the
    difficulties in getting witnesses, difficulty in getting the
    evidence, the deliberation with which the proceedings were
    going on. Of course, as you know, there was a debate. I am a
    person opposed to the death penalty everywhere, and as you
    know, the Arusha Tribunal does not recognize the death penalty;
    whereas the proceedings in Rwanda, similar hearings, recognize
    the death penalty.
        So there is somewhat of a problem, especially since the
    ``big fish'' as they call them, are in Arusha, those who were
    the ones who planned the genocide, and if convicted, of course
    will get a maximum penalty of life; whereas some Rwandans feel
    that they should be in Rwanda where the penalty is more severe.
        But also, I said I support the Arusha Tribunal, since I am
    opposed to the death penalty in any form anywhere in the world.
        But once again I can thank my colleague, Mr. Campbell, for
    the time that we had to travel throughout the world; and I wish
    him success in whatever he pursues in the future.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
        I will take a few moments on the measure.
        On April 6, 1994, a massive genocide began in Rwanda. There
    was no mention of Rwanda in The Washington Post on that day,
    but soon horrific accounts of a bloody and well-planned
    massacre filled its pages. A month later--one month later,
    200,000 or so were dead and more were being killed each and
    every day, but White House spokesmen still quibbled with
    reporters about the definition of a ``genocide.''
        Too many of the masterminds of that ugly chapter in human
    history are still at large. An International Criminal Tribunal
    for Rwanda exists, but it has failed to bring to justice all
    the leaders. Rwanda needs reconciliation, but without
    accountability, there will be no reconciliation.
        Congress extended the rewards program to those providing
    information leading to the indictment of Yugoslavia war
    criminals 2 years ago. It is now time to place a generous
    bounty, in U.S. dollars, on the heads of all those who seek
    power through extermination. These killers have fled to Paris,
    to Brussels, to Kinshasha, and elsewhere. But with the passage
    of this measure, their havens will be less safe.
        Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this important
    measure.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition or
    amendments to the bill?
        If not, without objection, the previous question is ordered
    on the bill.
        The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
    offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
    requested to seek consideration of the pending bill on the
    suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
    gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. Those in favor of the
    motion signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed say no.
        The ayes have it.
        Without objection, the Chair or his designees are
    authorized to make motions under Rule 20 with respect to a
    conference on this bill. Further proceedings on this bill are
    postponed.

       TRIBUTE TO THE SERVICE OF MR. SETH FOTI AND TO U.N. HUMANITARIAN
                            WORKERS AND PEACEKEEPERS

        Before leaving, I want to take the opportunity to recognize
    three recent tragedies. One was the loss of an American
    diplomatic courier in the recent plane crash in Bahrain. We
    extend our sympathy to the friends and family of the deceased,
    Mr. Seth Foti, and to his colleagues in the American foreign
    affairs community. Again we are reminded of the dangers of
    service abroad.
        Also, there were three U.N. humanitarian workers recently
    killed in West Timor. In the past few days previously, two
    peacekeepers were killed. We extend our sympathies to their
    families and our colleagues. We also recognize and salute the
    dedication of peacekeepers and humanitarian workers who put
    themselves in harm's way.

    RESUMPTION OF CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3378, ON RIVER AND OCEAN POLLUTION
                             IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA

        Because we lack a quorum to report H.R. 3378, we will
    instead be in receipt of a motion to seek its consideration on
    the suspension calendar. I understand that is the intention of
    the committee of primary jurisdiction, the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee.
        The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman
    request and seek consideration of that resolution, as amended,
    on the suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. All in favor of the resolution by the
    gentleman from Nebraska signify in the usual manner.
        Opposed?
        The resolution is adopted.
        Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized
    to make motions under Rule 20 with respect to a conference on
    this bill or a counterpart from the Senate.
        If there is no further business before the Committee, the
    Committee stands adjourned. I thank the gentlemen for remaining
    until the end of our deliberations.
        [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                               September 7, 2000

    =======================================================================

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8814.120