[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       PEACE IN NORTHERN IRELAND?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Cooper). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Neal] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, tonight we rise again for the 
next hour in an attempt to draw attention to and spread some light upon 
the longest-standing political dispute in the Western world.
  The issue that we put before the American people tonight is the 
issue, once again, of Northern Ireland. During the course of the next 
hour we will have an opportunity to discuss this issue and to speak 
forcefully to the issues that still bedevil those six counties in the 
northeast of Ireland. We are reminded tonight that this geographic area 
is comprised of similar size to the State of Connecticut and is 
inhabited by 1.5 million people.
  This week I was fortunate enough to have been invited by the Speaker, 
Speaker Foley, to attend a meeting with the prime minister of Great 
Britain, John Major. During the course of that meeting we had a free 
exchange of ideas, which I hope will be helpful during the course of 
this debate.
  But I would like at this time to present the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Manton], who is not only a distinguished American in his own right 
but this year has the distinct honor of leading the St. Patrick's Day 
parade in the city of New York. I can think of no one who is more 
deserving of this tribute and honor than the distinguished gentleman 
from New York. His interest in this issue goes back many, many years, 
and we are, indeed, grateful for his help. I would now like to 
acknowledge the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tom Manton, for as much 
time as he may consume.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend Richard Neal 
for organizing this special order on the subject of prospects for a 
united Ireland. I also want to commend him for his longstanding efforts 
to bring peace to all of Ireland.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's appropriate that we join to discuss 
prospects for a united Ireland at this juncture. In the last several 
months, those of us concerned about human and civil rights in Northern 
Ireland have had reason for hope. This optimism began when the most 
important Catholic leaders in Northern Ireland, John Hume, the leader 
of the SDLP Party, and Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein Party 
announced they had joined to craft an historic plan to end civil strife 
in Northern Ireland. Later, British Prime Minister John Major and Irish 
Prime Minister Albert Reynolds took another step to encourage the peace 
process by issuing their joint Declaration of Peace. More recently, 
President Clinton's decision to allow Gerry Adams into the United 
States last month provided an important opportunity for Mr. Adams, whom 
the British have silenced through censorship in his own country, to 
share the perspective of a substantial segment of the Catholic 
population in Northern Ireland.
  While these events have been positive, change in Northern Ireland is 
long overdue. We cannot be satisfied by the encouraging gestures we 
have received from Mr. Major, Mr. Reynolds, or President Clinton. We 
cannot be satisfied because we cannot allow any more young lives to be 
sacrificed to the ongoing sectarian strife in Northern Ireland.
  Several weeks ago, Amnesty International released a troubling report 
entitled, ``Political Killings in Northern Ireland,'' which noted that 
more than 350 people have been killed by security forces in Northern 
Ireland during the last 20 years. About half of those killed were 
unarmed individuals. Most were Catholic. Disturbingly, Amnesty 
International expressed the view that there was convincing evidence 
that British security forces in Northern Ireland practice a policy of 
deliberately killing suspects, rather than arresting them. The gravity 
of such a charge cannot be overstated. The idea of the police shooting 
suspects, thereby taking upon themselves the role of investigator, 
prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner is shocking to me as a former 
police officer and as an American. To date, the British have still not 
responded to Amnesty's charges.
  Unfortunately, these kind of charges against British occupying forces 
in Northern Ireland are not new. While international media attention is 
often rightly given to the tragedy of IRA terrorism in Ireland, in the 
United States we do not often hear of the equally gruesome violence 
perpetrated by loyalist paramilitary groups against Catholics there. My 
point today is not that one type of murder is worse than another, but 
rather that after more than 20 years and the deaths of more than 3,400 
people over all, the time has come to stop simply laying blame at one 
side or another and bring peace to the whole of Ireland.
  Those of us who have joined here today believe that we can no longer 
be patient with small steps toward peace. We must offer support to 
President Clinton and the Irish and British Prime Ministers for their 
efforts up to this point, but we must urge them to do more. The fact is 
Northern Ireland is one of the last vestiges of the British colonial 
system. British rule in Northern Ireland is enforced today by the 
barrel of a gun. To me, it seems the sensible thing from all 
standpoints would be to create a government for all of Ireland which 
protects the rights of both Protestants and Catholics, encourages 
integration rather than reinforces separation, and is determined by the 
ballot rather than by bombs and fear. I firmly believe this is an 
Ireland that the Irish people fervently desire.
  Of course, as Americans we cannot make peace a reality. Although we 
can continue to speak out and urge our President to encourage the 
British and Irish Governments to support peace, peace must ultimately 
come from the Irish people themselves. However, they must be given the 
support necessary to achieve this goal. I pledge my support, and ask my 
colleagues to join me in continuing to call attention to the suffering 
in Northern Ireland, and speak out until the goal of peace for all of 
Ireland is realized.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton]. Certainly the theme of this 
evening's talks will refer frequently to the issue of a united Ireland, 
which brings us to the House this evening.
  I now would like to acknowledge a great son of South Boston, an 
individual who has had a consistent interest in the issue of the state 
of Ireland, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to say a few words about 
the conflict in Northern Ireland. This issue has been important to me 
for many years, and I thank my colleague and friend, Richard Neal, for 
organizing this special session.
  Given the recent developments in the peace process and diplomatic 
visits by Prime Minister John Major, Irish President Mary Robinson, and 
Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds, I think it is especially 
important that we call attention to the many questions surrounding this 
conflict.
  For many years there seemed little reason to hope for a peaceful, 
demilitarized Northern Ireland. Efforts toward a united Ireland were 
too often associated with violence and fear. Well, that has changed. I 
believe we have reached a historic moment in this conflict and believe 
it is our responsibility not to let this opportunity slip away.
  The joint peace declaration gives all parties a foundation from which 
to approach lasting solutions in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Major 
and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland John Mayhew have publicly 
reaffirmed their desire to legislate for a united Ireland.
  I am encouraged that Prime Minister Major has said repeatedly that 
the British Government has no strategic interest in remaining in 
Northern Ireland and that the British Government intends to withdraw 
its troops from Northern Ireland if the violence stops.
  With the Downing Street Declaration we now have a framework under 
which a comprehensive political settlement can be achieved. We must 
recognize, however, that a lasting solution can only be achieved 
through agreement and consent. If we are going to be able to reach this 
agreement, all parties must be full participants in the process.
  I urge my colleagues and President Clinton to understand the 
overwhelming desire of the people in both parts of the island for a 
lasting peace. It is our responsibility to push for a peace process 
that will allow all the people of Ireland to negotiate the future of 
their great nation.
  I thank all of my colleagues who have done so much good work on this 
issue and who have shown their support fore Ireland by being here 
tonight.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Now I would like to acknowledge, in a demonstration of bipartisan 
support, the theme that we have enunciated once again this evening, the 
distinguished gentleman from the State of Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Neal], and I do not have the time in this Chamber nor the credentials 
with this particular issue that, for example, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has because I am relatively new to it, and 
perhaps I can bring some perspectives of someone who has become 
recently involved in the issue that might be a little different.
  Mr. Speaker, last summer I was privileged to gain an extraordinary 
exposure to Ireland's expansive landscape of political views and 
opinions during a visit to Belfast, and with the assistance of the U.S. 
State Department and Cleveland City Councilman Pat O'Malley I met with 
party leaders representing the entire spectrum of Irish political 
parties from Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, to Ian Paisley, the 
leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, which represents the most 
extreme loyalist pro-British element.
  Unlike our American political parties, the political parties in 
Northern Ireland are not distinguished primarily by their commitment to 
economic or social principles. Whereas our political parties debate 
ideological differences over the legitimate and appropriate size of 
Government, the role of regulation, how much we should tax ourselves, 
et cetera, the Irish parties are distinguished first and foremost by 
their various commitments to the future geopolitical status of Northern 
Ireland.
  At one end of the political spectrum are the pure Republicans, the 
Catholic faction which demands that Northern Ireland become part of the 
Republic of Ireland to the south. This is the position held by the Sinn 
Fein Party, which received about 12 percent of the popular vote in the 
last election. At the other end of the spectrum is the Protestant 
faction, which believes Northern Ireland should always be a part of 
Britain. They are represented by the DUP, the Democratic Unionist 
Party, which received about 17 percent of the vote in the last 
election. In the middle are three other parties which have the majority 
of popular support, although none has a majority by itself. The Social 
Democratic Labor Party [SDLP], led by John Hume of Derry, is the 
pronationalist, prounification party that gathered about 22 percent of 
the vote and then the Ulster Unionist Party is a prounion centrist 
party with 29 percent of the vote. Finally, there is the appropriately 
named Alliance Party which is the only political party with substantial 
numbers of both Catholics and Protestants, which predictably is also 
the smallest party and received only about 8 percent of the vote.
  The problems in Northern Ireland are not simple. They are reflected 
by that rather complex array of parties. It is axiomatic that if the 
problems of Northern Ireland were simple and lent themselves to easy 
solutions, they would have been resolved a long time ago.

                              {time}  2030

  Lending to the confusion is the practice by nearly every political 
leader I met in Ireland of using historical events to prove his or her 
point, reaching back as far as needed to illustrate it. To put this in 
perspective, bear in mind that Saint Patrick converted the Celts to 
Christianity in AD 432, and the British came to Northern Ireland nearly 
400 years before Columbus sailed for the Americas.
  It is not unusual for Americans visiting Northern Ireland to be 
struck by the similarities between Ireland's current situation and our 
civil rights movement of the 1960's. The primary difference being that 
Ireland suffers not from a history of racial discrimination, rather 
from a history of religious discrimination, specifically discrimination 
against Catholics by Protestants. What is unfortunate is that the Irish 
have not yet benefited from the lessons of the politics of inclusion 
that we have here in the United States.
  Instead of including all political groups with popular support in the 
political process, the British Government has, until very recently, 
actually aggravated the natural political polarities by excluding those 
of dissenting views, specifically the Sinn Fein Party. To the extent 
that all groups are brought within the process and thereby made 
responsible and accountable for outcomes, society succeeds in pulling 
dissenting elements into the social and political mainstream. Certainly 
the past 250 years of American history convincingly illustrate this 
point.
  If I had to single out one flaw in British policy toward Northern 
Ireland over the past 20 years, it would be its ignorance of this 
political truth. By way of example, I had the privilege of touring the 
Conway Mills project, an established community center that was founded 
by Father Des Wilson in 1982, a supporter of the reunification of 
Ireland. It has applied and been turned down for grants from the 
International Fund for Ireland [IFI], a program for commercial 
development in Ireland that receives half of its funding from the 
United States and the other half from the European Community.
  Father Wilson is working in the poorest section of Catholic West 
Belfast on a number of initiatives designed to improve peoples' lives 
through economic development, education, and hunger relief. The Conway 
Mills Community Center includes classrooms and a small business 
incubator. Actively involved in special community projects, it also has 
a small theater, a day care center, and an inexpensive snack bar. 
Frankly, it reminded me of the community center in the Cleveland 
neighborhood of Tremont.
  But the British Government had indicated to the IFI that it did not 
want Conway Mills to be funded in any way because of the politics of 
Father Des Wilson. I personally spoke to the Director of the IFI and 
requested that the Conway Mills grant request be reconsidered. Bear in 
mind that 50 percent of the IFI's funding is appropriated by the U.S. 
Congress. I explained that I though it was not only important to 
support Conway Mills because of the value of its programs, but equally 
important to draw it out of the underground and into the mainstream. 
This will profoundly impact not only how the individuals involved with 
Conway Mills are viewed by outsiders, but how those individuals view 
themselves and their own relation to the larger society in which they 
live.
  Because of the polarized environment and rigid positions held by 
Ireland's parties, I am relatively discouraged regarding the prospects 
for near-term reconciliation of these differences. That 
notwithstanding, I was tremendously impressed and inspired by one group 
with whom I met, the Northern Ireland Commission for Integrated 
Education [NICIE]. Led by Fiona Stephens, this is a parent-driven 
initiative which has established integrated schools with student bodies 
composed of about equal numbers of Protestants and Catholics. It is 
tragic that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland grow up 
never meeting or getting to know people of different religious faiths 
except in brief commercial transactions, feeding the development of 
deep-seated prejudice at a very young age. NICIE has only been around 
for a few years, yet it already has over 18 schools with 4,000 
students. While this represents only 2 percent of Ireland's student 
population, it was the most hopeful indication I saw that these 
differences will eventually be worked out.
  The untenability of the British position is that during their 
colonial period they presided over the building of a political and 
economic system which exploited the religious differences and rivalries 
between two communities in order to serve and maintain their own 
colonial purposes. Now in a vastly changed 1990's European Community. 
Northern Ireland finds itself saddled with the rotting remnants of an 
unjust foundation. No lasting and equitable solution will be possible 
without the full inclusion and participation of all political parties. 
The British and Dublin Governments are clearly in the positions of 
leadership to initiate a new era of reconciliation and cooperation in 
which the politics of pride and paranoia are replaced by the politics 
of inclusion and reason.
  Britain is to be praised for its recent boldness in initiating talks, 
even though clandestinely, with representatives of Sinn Fein. But 
Britain should be further encouraged to continue this process, that 
when men and women of peace and justice are committed to positive 
resolution and reconciliation, if all are included in that process, 
then reconciliation will eventually come.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Ohio for his presentation.
  Mr. Speaker, I now would like to call upon the cochairman of the ad 
hoc committee on Irish affairs, a champion of human rights everywhere, 
who has been a leader on the issue of a united Ireland, and an 
outspoken critic of a system that in many cases has demonstrated 
injustice, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in 
drawing attention to the turbulent, hostile situation in Northern 
Ireland--and the critical role the United States can play in achieving 
a just, peaceful and lasting resolution to the tragic conflict there.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] for organizing 
this special order to permit us to once again, focus our attention on 
this important issue.
  The United States owes a great deal of gratitude to Americans of 
Irish birth and descent. Their significant contributions to the 
development and growth of our country are part of the warp and woof of 
our history.
  Our Nation's history is interwoven with the biographies of Irish men 
and women who have helped to provide leadership to our Nation.
  No fewer than 11 Presidents, from Andrew Jackson elected in 1828, to 
Ronald Reagan elected in 1980, have identified themselves as at least 
partially of Irish descent.
  A number of Irish-Americans sit in Congress on both sides of the 
aisle. It is only appropriate that we do whatever we can to improve the 
situation in both parts of Ireland--the north and the south.
  The recent visit to New York of Sinn Fein's political leader, Gerry 
Adams, with whom London had been meeting secretly for 3 years, 
demonstrated the impact of U.S. can have in seeking a resolution to 
this conflict. His visit enabled millions of Americans and others to 
gain a fresh insight into the conflict and the divisions it has 
created.
    
    
  Mr. Adams' visit to the U.S. came after pressure was put on President 
Clinton to fulfill his promise in the 1992 Presidential campaign that a 
Clinton administration would issue a visa to the leader of Sinn Fein.
  We must all work together to build upon that visit by ensuring that 
the American public is informed about all points of view concerning the 
north of Ireland.
  While Mr. Adams' brief visit was welcome, there needs to be more. The 
U.S. provides 7,000,000 visas a year for travel to the U.S.
  We have issued visas to political leaders who have been our 
adversaries, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, and leaders of organizations, 
that we have considered terrorist, such as Yassar Arafat, because we 
consider it in our interests to do so.
  If the United States is to play a constructive role in seeking a just 
and peaceful resolution to the conflict in Northern Ireland--and I 
believe it is in our best interest to do so--then it is in our interest 
to permit those who hold different viewpoints on this issue to visit 
the United States so that the American public can hear those 
viewpoints.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to promising a visa for Gerry Adams, Mr. 
Clinton make a number of other commitments to the Irish-American 
community during his 1992 presidential campaign, including support for 
the Mcbride Principles on Fair Employment in Northern Ireland and 
appointment of a United States peace envoy to Northern Ireland.
  They are described in an article in the April 8-14, 1992 issue of The 
Irish Echo which I include for the Record.

                  [From the Irish Echo, April 8, 1992]

                       Putting Ireland on the Map

                           (By Ray O'Hanlon)

       Governors Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown, rivals for the 
     Democratic Party nomination for November's presidential 
     election, have backed the recent proposal of a U.S. peace 
     envoy to Northern Ireland.
       And at a specially convened forum to discuss issues of 
     Irish concern. Sunday night in Manhattan, both candidates 
     said that as president they would support the MacBride 
     Principles on Fair Employment in Northern Ireland and rescind 
     the current State Department ban on the entry to this country 
     of Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams.
       The forum, which had previously been scheduled for Saturday 
     at Mt. St. Vincent College in the Bronx--and which Clinton 
     was not expected to attend--was rescheduled for Sunday night 
     at the Sheraton Manhattan Hotel, Clinton's base of operations 
     in the city.
       The meeting, organized by Bronx Assemblyman John Dearie, 
     featured a panel of journalists and community leaders who 
     directed a series of questions at both candidates.


                              bill clinton

       In answer to the first question, if as president of the 
     United States would he appoint a special envoy to Northern 
     Ireland, delivered by Boston Mayor Ray Flynn. Gov. Clinton 
     was to the point with his answer.
       ``The short answer to your question is yes,'' he said.
       ``I think sometimes we have been a little too reluctant to 
     engage ourselves in a positive way in pursuit of our clearly 
     stated interests and values because of our longstanding 
     special relationship with Great Britain and also because it 
     (Northern Ireland) seemed such a thorny problem.''
       Clinton also said he hoped to see the United Nations become 
     more involved in helping to solve the North's troubles.
       On the question of direct presidential intervention with 
     the British Government regarding cases of human rights 
     violations in Northern Ireland, Clinton said that if the U.S. 
     had a special envoy and was initiating greater activity on 
     the part of the U.N., ``we would wish to focus on the work of 
     Amnesty International as well as Helsinki Watch on verifiable 
     cases, not only by the security forces, but by other forces 
     of violence, other violators of human rights and other 
     purveyors of death in Northern Ireland.
       ``And I don't think you can exempt the security forces from 
     the actions we ought to take,'' he said.
       Clinton said he did not see a more direct approach taken 
     with London as being a danger to the special relationship 
     between the U.S. and Britain.
       ``We have a government in (the Republic of) Ireland and a 
     president committed to reaching across religious and 
     geographic borders. This is a propitious opportunity to try 
     and heal some of the divisions and solve some of the problems 
     and, yes, I would take it up with the prime minister of Great 
     Britain.''
       Clinton said he would support a visa for Gerry Adams and 
     would support a visa for ``any other properly elected 
     official.''
       He said he understood the position of the U.S. ``with 
     regard to Sinn Fein and the advocacy of violence as opposed 
     to non-violence.'' But as Adams was an elected member of the 
     British Parliament, Clinton said he felt that it would be 
     ``totally harmless to our national security interest and it 
     might be enlightening to the political debate in this country 
     about the issues.''
       ``I would support a visa for Adams and any other properly 
     elected official from a government we recognize,'' Clinton 
     said.
       Clinton expressed his concern over the manner of the recent 
     deportation to Northern Ireland of Joe Doherty.
       ``What bothers me about this case more than the facts of 
     the case is the indication that our court system plainly laid 
     out a process by which he could have been extradited or not 
     as the case may be and that the process was short-circuited 
     apparently for political reasons by the administration.
       ``That's what bothers me about this case. I know that those 
     who supported the extradition say that if he (Doherty) had 
     been in Ireland he would have been extradited, but that's not 
     the point. The point is we have rules, regulations, a 
     Constitution, court procedures and my strong instinct in all 
     cases of this kind would be to let the court procedures run 
     their course.''
       Clinton did point out that if Doherty had been granted an 
     asylum hearing, and if the court had ordered him to be sent 
     back to Northern Ireland, he would have had to support that 
     decision.
       Clinton said he liked the MacBride Principles and believed 
     in them and as president would encourage all governors to 
     embrace them.
       And he rejected the argument that the principles discourage 
     investment in Northern Ireland. Instead, he saw the 
     principles as a way of encouraging investment and stabilizing 
     the political and economic climate and the work force by 
     making them free of discrimination.
       ``I don't buy that (argument). I don't see it as a 
     problem,'' he said.
       Clinton, who addressed the forum for about 30 minutes, from 
     about 8:30 p.m., also welcomed recent changes in U.S. 
     immigration law and the introduction of the Morrison Visa 
     Program. He also paid tribute to Irish-Americans and their 
     contribution to the building of the United States. ``The 
     character, the strength of family and community, the old 
     fashioned passion for politics that the Irish have brought to 
     this country are very much needed today, ``Clinton said in a 
     concluding statement.


                              jerry brown

       Because of his schedule, Gov. Brown did not speak until 
     some time after his rival left the forum. Indeed, it was 
     something of a dramatic entrance for Brown almost at the 
     stroke of midnight following a flight from upstate New York.
       He lost no time in warming to and warming up those who had 
     lasted the three hours spanning the Clinton and Brown 
     interviews.
       ``It would be quite appropriate to appoint a special envoy 
     and peace envoy and take a real personal interest,'' Brown 
     said.
       ``Ireland and the violence in Northern Ireland doesn't get 
     the same presidential attention that other areas in the world 
     do. And yes, I would appoint a special envoy; more than that 
     I would make an effort to go to Northern Ireland myself or 
     send the secretary of State.''
       Brown was emphatic that, as president, he would raise human 
     rights issues directly with the British Government.
       ``Great Britain needs to be reminded in the most forceful 
     way that this is a country whose premise is due process and 
     rights and respect for each individual person.''
       On the Gerry Adams visa denial issue, he prefaced his 
     support for the admission to the U.S. of the Sinn Fein leader 
     by saying that it was without giving ``any particular support 
     to the advocacy of violence, terrorism or killing.''
       He added that he believed that elected officials should be 
     invited to the United States particularly if Americans wanted 
     to hear them.
       ``This country,'' Brown said, ``is governed not by 
     politicians but by the people, we the people, and the first 
     principle of we the people running things is to have 
     information.''
       Brown said that if the U.S. was going to have a national 
     policy with regard to Northern Ireland, then people would 
     have to be allowed to hear different points of view and to 
     that end he would allow ``legitimate political leadership,'' 
     including Gerry Adams, to enter the country.
       In expressing his support for the MacBride Principles and 
     disagreement with the decision of current California 
     governor, Pete Wilson, to veto the state's MacBride Bill, 
     Brown said it was necessary to take an active role in public 
     pension funds as a way of having an impact on the direction 
     of investment.
       As to arguments that MacBride was a disincentive to 
     investment, Brown replied: ``I don't believe the market 
     should be the closet dictator.''
       ``We should introduce a moral principle into the social and 
     economic order,'' he said to loud applause.

  In addition to promising a visa to Mr. Adams, Mr. Clinton also 
pledged to encourage all State governors to embrace and enact the 
MacBride Principals.
  These moral guidelines call on foreign business to invest only in 
those enterprises in Northern Ireland which do not practice religious 
discrimination. So far, the President has not pushed State governors in 
that direction, and I urge him to do so.
  During the 1992 campaign, then Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, now U.S. 
Ambassador to the Vatican, asked then Governor Clinton if he would 
appoint a special peace envoy to Northern Ireland.
  After saying that the short answer to Mr. Flynn's question was yes, 
Mr. Clinton said he would use the special envoy to:

       Focus on the work of Amnesty International as well as 
     Helsinki Watch on verifiable cases, not only by the security 
     forces, but by other forces of violence, other violators of 
     human rights and other purveyors of death in Northern 
     Ireland.

  Appointment of a Special U.S. Representative who would focus on peace 
efforts would be an important and visible symbol that the United States 
is truly committed to helping all the parties to the conflict achieve a 
just and lasting settlement. Former President Jimmy Carter comes to 
mind as just one potential candidate as a special envoy.
  Those of us in this Congress who want peace in Ireland must ensure 
that President Clinton lives up to his promise to appoint a special 
envoy, as well as his other campaign promises regarding Northern 
Ireland.
  The American Irish Political Education Committee is among many groups 
in the United States that are working diligently to realize this goal. 
Founded in 1975 and based in West Haverstraw, NY, its national 
president is John Finucane, a retired, 20-year decorated firefighter. 
The American Irish Political Committee realizes that now is the time to 
work for a peaceful, united, democratic Ireland.
  In addition to pressing President Clinton on key issues, the Congress 
can keep up pressure on other fronts. Earlier today our Irish Caucus 
met with Martin Finucane, no relation to the previously mentioned John 
Finucane, who is president of the Patrick Finucane Centre for Human 
Rights and Social Change in Derry. Derry was the location of the tragic 
1972 massacre of 13 unarmed people known as Bloody Sunday.

  Martin's brother Patrick Finucane, a well respected human rights 
lawyer who had successfully taken the British Government to court, was 
murdered by the loyalist Ulster Defense Association in 1989. Mr. 
Finucane shed light on the state of the judicial system in the north of 
Ireland by stating, ``Where I come from the people who write the laws 
are the ones who break them.'' Martin also noted that the opportunities 
for peace have never been greater.
  I also met this week with British Prime Minister John Major. He 
assured us that he would continue the current peace talks. While the 
Downing Street Declaration requires further clarification in certain 
areas, such as amnesty of political prisoners on all sides and a 
timetable for complete demilitarization, this new dialog stands in 
stark contrast to the posturing of years past.
  We must also continue our economic support of the Anglo-Irish Fund 
and continue the work of the Congressional Ad-Hoc Committee on Northern 
Ireland. The ad-hoc committee now has more than 100 members.
  The United States, as a world leader, must play its rightful role in 
bringing about that peace. Today's special order clearly underscores 
the need and reviews the historical basis for that role. I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] for his leadership in this 
evening's effort.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. We thank the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman] for his longstanding interest in human rights 
issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. King], an 
individual who has had a long history of interest in this issue. 
Indeed, he has been courageous and forceful on this issue for many, 
many years.
  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  At the very outset I want to begin my remarks on a bipartisan tone by 
first commending the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] for the 
outstanding leadership that he has shown on this issue. He has been in 
the forefront. He has waged the fight, waged the struggle, and he is 
always there when needed. I just want to thank him for the truly 
outstanding work that he has done in alerting the Members of this House 
on both sides of the aisle to the terrible injustices which exist in 
the north of Ireland.
  I also, on a further bipartisan note, want to extend my 
congratulations to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Manton] on being designated as the grand marshal of the New York City 
St. Patrick's Day parade. Tom Manton has been a friend of mine for many 
years before I came to this House. In fact, Tom represents my old 
neighborhood in Sunnyside, Queens, and no one is more deserving of the 
honor of grand marshal than Tom Manton. Hundreds of thousands of Irish-
Americans will be very proud to march behind him as he leads us up 
Fifth Avenue on St. Patrick's Day.
  Also, on another bipartisan note, I want to commend President Clinton 
for resisting the pressure of the British Government, the British 
Ambassador, the British Prime Minister, and granting a visa to Mr. 
Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, to enter this country. For 20 
years, the American Government allowed its policy toward Mr. Adams to 
be guided and controlled by the British Government. President Clinton, 
honoring a campaign pledge, allowed Mr. Adams into this country and 
gave the American people the opportunity to see for themselves exactly 
who Gerry Adams was and what he stood for.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I should, and I would be remiss if I did not, 
point to those Irish-Americans, those of Irish ancestry, who have risen 
to high positions of power, but unfortunately have chosen not to 
advance the cause of Irish freedom, instead following in the ignoble 
tradition of Judas Iscariot and Gypo Nolan and turned their backs on 
their own people. Thank God that we had people in this House and in 
this Chamber and in this Government who were willing to stand up for 
what was right, and people not just of Irish descent, people such as 
the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Gilman and Mr. Fish, people who 
understand that justice is not something that is defined by religious 
or ethnic lines.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that we are at a 
crossroads in Irish history. We are at a moment in Irish history where, 
for the first time, there is a real opportunity for all the parties to 
come together, and yet there is still more that has to be done.
  Yes, the Downing Street Declaration was certainly a very, very 
significant step in the right direction. Indeed, it was a historic step 
in the right direction. I commend the prime ministers for going as far 
as they have. However, we have to realize that these talks were 
initiated in the first instance by Sinn Fein, with the British 
Government, between Gerry Adams and John Hume and with the British 
Government. That is where the pressure continues to come from.
  We cannot reach a lasting peace unless the legitimate aspirations of 
all the people in the north of Ireland are acknowledged. That is the 
flaw which still remains in the Downing Street Declaration. As 
progressive as it is, as advanced as it is, the bottom line is it still 
does retain a loyalist veto.
  I would join with those who call upon the British Government to 
further clarify what that Declaration is about, to go the extra mile, 
to go the extra step, and too, now that we are so close to the 
possibility of peace, not to let anything stand in the way, not to let 
a certain intransigent or historical bigotry or bias or blindness 
towards the north of Ireland prevent the British from going that extra 
step.
  Also, that involves our Government. It is important for our 
Government, just because Mr. Adams came once, not to feel that our 
commitment to free speech has been satisfied. I believe that Mr. Adams 
should be allowed to reenter this country, to once again meet with 
Members of Congress, to come to Washington, to not just be confined to 
a narrow 15-mile zone in New York City.
  Let the Members of this body see what Mr. Adams stands for and what 
he has to say. Let him answer questions we may have for him. I think it 
is absolutely vital that we do that.
  In saying that, let us not focus all of the attention on Mr. Adams. 
People have spoken about a person who was alleged to be a terrorist 
entering this country, a person who perhaps has been involved with 
paramilitary organizations entering this country, yet no one says a 
word when Ian Paisley enters this country. Ian Paisley is the head of 
the Democratic Unity Party. He is a notoriously open anti-Catholic 
bigot who still gives speeches against the Pope and denounces Rome, and 
carries on in some sort of 19th century tradition, and his chief 
deputy, Peter Robinson, is openly allied with paramilitaries in 
Northern Ireland. He was involved in the Ulster resistance movement 
several years ago, yet he will be able to come to this country in 
several weeks and no one will comment on why the President let him in. 
It will be looked on as just the ordinary course of business.
  I say if it is just the ordinary course of business for Ian Paisley 
and Peter Robinson to come to this country, then it should be the 
ordinary course of business for people such as Gerry Adams and Martin 
McGinnis of Sinn Fein to come to this country.
  Mr. Speaker, sitting in this Chamber tonight in the gallery is a 
gentleman who was referred to by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] Martin Finucane. I was privileged to know Martin's brother, 
Patrick Finucane, very well. Patrick Finucane was one of the leading 
solicitors in the north of Ireland. He took on the cases that other 
lawyers were afraid to take on.
  Patrick Finucane was in the forefront of exposing the injustices of 
the British criminal justice system, and in 1989, after a member of the 
British Parliament stood on the floor of the House of Commons, and by 
his words, called for the death of Patrick Finucane, within weeks of 
that speech Patrick Finucane was shot dead in his home in front of his 
wife, in front of his children, and he was only shot dead after the 
British security forces cleared that neighborhood to make sure there 
was no one there to defend Patrick Finucane.
  When we talk about terrorism, and all of us must denounce terrorism, 
but let us never forget the state terrorism of the British security 
forces, the state terrorism of the British security forces which 
brought about the murder of outstanding people such as Patrick 
Finucane.
  When those who talk of Gerry Adams, a man who, by the way, and I 
think this should also be put in the Record, Mr. Adams represents a 
political party which has had more of its members assassinated in the 
last 1\1/2\ than any other political party in Western Europe. They have 
been assassinated. His office was rocket-bombed just several days ago. 
He has been, himself, shot, shot in the back.
  In spite of all of that, in spite of the fact that he is not allowed 
to speak on television in the north of Ireland, the people cannot hear 
his words, they are dubbed in by an actor, in spite of all of that, in 
the last elections Mr. Adams' party, Sinn Fein, received more first 
preference votes than any other political party in Belfast, and that is 
very, very important to note.
  Mr. Speaker, what can be done? We can go on all night denouncing the 
record of the British Government in the north of Ireland, and the fact 
that it is the British Government which is the source and the cause of 
the violence in the north of Ireland, but I also want to take a step 
forward.

                              {time}  2050

  I say let us put all of that behind us and let us let all people come 
to the negotiating table. Let us all follow the admonition of the 
President of Sinn Fein who called for a complete demilitarization in 
the north of Ireland, yes, the IRA should lay down their arms, yes, the 
British Army should lay down there arms, yes, the Royal Ulster 
Constabulary should lay down their arms, yes, the discredited UDR, now 
going under the pseudonym of the Royal Irish Rangers, yes, the Ulster 
Defense Association should lay down their arms, and the Ulster Freedom 
Fighters, and the Ulster Volunteer Force, and all of the paramilitaries 
on the loyalist side.
  You will notice that I just went through a list of seven, or eight, 
or nine armed organizations in the north of Ireland. Only one of them 
was the Irish Republican Army.
  Yet when people call for a cease-fire, when people call for a laying 
down of arms, all they talk about is the IRA. What about all the 
others?
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just emphasize again the crossroads 
that we are at, the fact if John Major will just come forward and say 
that the loyalists no longer have their veto in the occupied six 
counties, if he would say that the solution to the problems of Ireland 
is to have all the people on the island of Ireland speak, let them all 
come together and let us create a 32-county island where all 
denominations and all traditions and all peoples receive full civil 
rights, civil liberties, and human rights, so no longer will we have an 
occupied six counties where the British are condemned more for their 
human rights violations than any other country in Western Europe. Let 
us have, after 835 years of occupation, let us finally have an island 
that is free, an island that is united, and an island where the 
counties from Antrim, Down, Armagh, Fermanagh, and Tyrone are part of a 
free, united, and peaceful 32-county republic.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman for 
articulating that point of view as well as he always does.
  I now would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from the 
Third Congressional District of Massachusetts. We are reminded tonight, 
Mr. Speaker, that not only have we utilized the talents of many 
individuals who frequently have spoken out on this issue, but just as 
importantly, there are a lot of new faces who have joined us in this 
effort. I would like now to acknowledge the distinguished gentleman 
from the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], for his leadership on this 
issue which is well known in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and 
across the country. I would also like to commend my freshman colleague, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. King], who has brought a passion to 
this issue that I do not think has been seen for some time.
  Tonight we are speaking about Ireland.
  Unfortunately, as we have heard tonight, Ireland today stands 
divided. It stands divided at a time when the rest of the world seems 
to be moving together. The Iron Curtain has fallen, as has the Berlin 
Wall. Jews and Arabs in the Middle East are coming together, and whites 
and blacks in South Africa are moving toward peace and democracy, 
although as we have heard in recent weeks, there will be setbacks along 
the way.
  But even with the efforts for peace and reunification, these are 
turbulent times in Germany, in Eastern Europe, in Israel, and in South 
Africa. But it is also a time when there is new hope and thoughts of 
what can be and will be, rather than the dark thoughts of hopelessness.
  Peace is not easy. Reunification is not an easy way. But it is, in 
the end, the only way.
  Just a few short months ago prospects for peace in Ireland were not 
strong. But today after the issuance of the joint Declaration of Peace 
by Prime Ministers Reynolds and Major in December and developments over 
the last few months, I think most observers find themselves thinking 
positively about the situation in Northern Ireland. We have a chance 
now to move forward toward a united Ireland.
  Prime Minister Major said yesterday in referring to the violence in 
Northern Ireland that, ``Strong support for peace coming from America 
can play a part in this.'' I guess we should add tonight that strong 
support for unity coming from Britain can also play a major part in 
this.
  I, for one, pledge my support for the principle of peace in Northern 
Ireland and for making, at long last, Ireland a free and united 32-
county Ireland.
  Clearly, the Irish people overwhelmingly support efforts for peace. 
They are tired of the violence. The American people and the American 
political leadership here in the Congress and in the administration 
should be as well.
  It is time for all parties to the dispute to sit down and work out an 
accord, and whatever steps we can take as Americans to accomplish this 
noble goal should be taken just as we have across the globe.
  Eight hundred years of conflict, 25 years of increasing violence. 
More than 3,500 lives lost; women, children, infants, the frail, and 
elderly, countless innocent bystanders have been brutally and violently 
murdered. It is time to make it stop.
  There is no easy solution, but the first steps toward unity are a 
willingness to negotiate whether you are from Britain or Northern 
Ireland or the Republic, whether you are a unionist, a republican, or a 
nationalist; put aside your differences, clear your minds, and make a 
good-faith effort to arbitrate this dispute. Now is the time for peace 
and unity in Northern Ireland.
  I urge other Members of this House to join me and many of the 
speakers here tonight in standing up for unity and standing up for an 
end to the violence in Ireland.
  I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Neal], my neighbor, for arranging this discussion and for allowing the 
American people to hear the great prospects for peace and unity that 
have developed over the last few months.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. We thank the distinguished gentleman from 
the Third District of Massachusetts for offering those encouraging 
words.
  I now would like to acknowledge a familiar face in the Congress on 
the issue of Northern Ireland, indeed, a united Ireland, an individual 
who has time and again articulated a strong point of view as it relates 
to this issue, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I very much appreciate his organizing this special order at a very 
historic moment in the history of Ireland and its relationship with our 
country and with England. I would also like to give credit to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. King] who I joined last night watching the 
movie ``In the Name of the Father,'' a movie about the Guildford Four, 
which shows that tyranny and bigotry and injustice still exist in the 
north of Ireland, and its relationship with England.
  Since first coming to this Chamber as a Representative from center 
New York, I have had the honor of witnessing internationally historical 
events unfold. Many of them have been positive, the results of 
compromise and understanding. I want the same to happen in Northern 
Ireland.
  Lech Walesa was here in this Chamber and told us what it is finally 
like to live in a free Poland. Nelson Mandela gave his personal and 
important views as to what freedom means in South Africa. The wheels 
are turning in the Middle East. We are working to bring a permanent end 
to the fighting in Yugoslavia. The Berlin Wall is down. The U.S.S.R. 
has dissolved. Eastern Europe and Asia are still writhing in chains of 
totalitarianism.
  But in Northern Ireland the same class struggle exists as if it were 
excerpted from a 1950's documentary or an early 1900's newsreel or a 
late 19th century letter to relatives in America from the old country.
  I have to tell you a story. Most of our great Irish traditions are 
oral, and a story that my grandfather related to me when I was a young 
boy about when he was a young boy around the turn of the century, just 
before the turn of the century in Ireland, and things were hard, and 
wherever you could find food you found it. He used to go down to a 
river near his house on the west coast in the northern part of Ireland 
and try to hook a salmon. He had a gaff hook, which some of you may be 
familiar with, and he would go down and lay along the side of the river 
and wait until a salmon swam by and hook it and pull it out. One day he 
was doing this, and he got one, and he was only about 13 or 14 years 
old at the time.
  He told me the salmon was about as big as him, and he pulled it out 
of the water, and he started walking back home, and a game warden saw 
him and started chasing him. My grandfather started running, and he 
said that that salmon got heavier and heavier as he ran, and the man 
behind him kept yelling, ``That fish belongs to the King. That fish 
belongs to the Crown of England.'' And the faster he ran, the heavier 
the fish got until they were almost nose to nose, he and that game 
warden. They got so close that my grandfather had to finally drop the 
fish in order to escape.

  A long time later when he left Ireland to go to a country where he 
could fish where he pleased, he met that man again in an elevator shaft 
going down into a coal mine in Pennsylvania, and they recognized each 
other. They did not say anything on the way down, but on the way back 
up they passed the time of day, and he said, ``You were that little boy 
I saw trying to steal that salmon out of the river?'' And my 
grandfather acknowledged him, and they became close friends. They were 
now in a country where they could go and take a fish from a river and 
not have to worry about it belonging to someone who lived in a foreign 
land. It was their fish.
  I asked my colleagues today to join me in giving Ireland a turn on 
center stage. It is Ireland's turn. All parties involved need our help.
  We either act positively or risk being judged negatively by our 
inaction. But just what can we do? It is a fair enough question, given 
the fact that our historic ally, Great Britain, struggles with this 
question every day.

                              {time}  2100

  There are nettle some issues involved. How indeed can they extricate 
themselves militarily and every other way if the majority of the 
northern Provinces desire to remain part of the United Kingdom?
  There are no easy answers. Step-by-step negotiations, finding common 
ground, appealing to the desire for peace and security, men and women 
of peace trying to unravel the strands of mistrust and animosities 
centuries old; it can be done. We know it can.
  We have seen it happen right here. Religious prejudice does exist in 
the north of Ireland as it exists in many countries. The difference in 
Northern Ireland is the government sanctions it, de facto, favoring one 
side. This is historic and undeniable.
  Prime Minister John Major inherited this, just as many before him. He 
asks seemingly reasonable questions of Sinn Fein leader Jerry Adams, 
``Say you will lay down your arms, and we will include you in the peace 
talks.'' At arms length, so to speak, across the ocean, so many of our 
ancestors traveled to get away from the persecution and famine, and we 
can see things clearly. That does not mean we see an easy solution, but 
we see that common sense can prevail if certain steps are taken.
  The Prime Minister must answer Sinn Fein's request for clarification 
of the joint declaration. Mr. Adams must be given information with 
which to approach the Irish Republican Army.
  The problem can be very generally stated as this: If Mr. Adams did 
have the power over all Irish Republican Army actions, he would be 
hard-pressed to get all the elements to agree to abandon the armed 
struggle. No reasonable person can deny the hardship inflicted by the 
Loyalists over the years, just as one cannot condone revenge by the 
IRA. Mr. Adams needs our understanding of his political position, and 
our support. We need to convey this commitment to our ally, Great 
Britain.
  Now, I am not an expert in this area. I do know that the history of 
Ireland's struggle documents clear hardship for the minority in the 
north. Those identified as Catholics are living in desperate physical 
conditions while Protestants have been prosperous since Great Britain 
divided Ireland 74 years ago.
  This fits neatly into headlines as a religious war, but these are two 
groups who would be seen in many areas of the world as quite similar. 
They are Christian, they speak the same language, they use the same 
currency. They are separated profoundly by economics. This is part of 
how we can help. President Clinton should undertake the appointment of 
a special envoy. Ireland needs our attention. It would be 
unconscionable to let this historic opportunity fade. We must become 
active. It is Ireland's turn.
  We can easily take fundamental steps toward strengthening the economy 
of Northern Ireland. This strength--that is, creating jobs--will soothe 
fears, create cross-cultural associations and friendships. As we know, 
security for one's family often translates into toleration for others, 
all of which precedes egalitarianism.
  No matter what action we take, the troubles are a long way from over.
  I think we are at an important juncture. The United States cannot 
stand by. We can make a difference. I saw a difference. I saw us make a 
difference. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal. When I came here to 
this body, I was joined by a number of Members who wrote to the king 
when they went through the transition from monarchy to democracy. We 
asked that he honor the legitimate rights of his people for democracy, 
and he did. There was a peaceful transition there. People pay attention 
to what is done in this Chamber.
  This year the Project Children Program, which brings Northern Ireland 
kids to the United States for a summer vacation with host families, 
celebrates 20 years in business.
  My family and I hosted a boy from Belfast, Michael Lyons. I tried to 
call him recently but was reminded that his family does not have a 
phone. If you have been through the Catholic neighborhoods in Belfast, 
you will know the level of poverty that suffocates the dreams of young 
people there. Michael is now 14. It makes me sad to think that he could 
grow into adulthood surrounded by the same fear and hatred that has 
existed throughout not only his life but those of his parents, 
grandparents, and great-grandparents.

  But I remind myself that there is hope. I think of the other historic 
agreements we have seen in recent years. I am excited by the prospect 
of peace in Northern Ireland, too. It is Ireland's turn. We can make a 
difference. They must act in unison with our ally, but we must do 
everything we can to make them act now.
  No more bloodshed, no more tyranny; the time has come for peace, 
Justice, and a unified Ireland.
  Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for a very 
clear presentation.
  I would like to close, for the next few minutes. Tonight we heard two 
themes: No. 1, the unification of Northern Ireland; and, No. 2, at long 
last that peace be brought to this tiny island that has given so much 
to the rest of the world. At that meeting that I had this past week 
with Prime Minister Major, I asked him to set a date for the withdrawal 
of British soldiers from Northern Ireland. Tonight, even as I speak 
here, there are 17,000 British soldiers, at an annual cost of $3 
billion, to occupy Northern Ireland.
  During the course of our conversation, which was always respectful, I 
reminded the Prime Minister that the 800-year history of Great Britain 
in Ireland has not always been high-minded. He has acknowledged that 
himself in recent days.
  I am also encouraged that the secretary of state for the north of 
Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, has stated that you could make a good 
argument that the partition of Ireland was wrong.
  Northern Ireland was artificially contrived. It was offered as a 
prospect to those who did not want to join the Republic of Ireland.
  The truth is it has outlived its usefulness. As we watch the British 
set a date in Hong Kong for withdrawal, we are reminded that why, after 
800 years and at least 300 years of direct antagonism, the same model 
cannot be applied to those six counties in the northeast of Ireland.
  Indeed, overwhelming British public opinions favors the withdrawal of 
British troops from the north of Ireland. Why should the small segment 
in the north of Ireland be given veto power over unification? Why 
should a small segment be allowed to practice ascendancy when that 
model is now dead in South Africa?
  This issue draws more attention as time moves on, and I am encouraged 
that John Major has never, like his predecessor, ruled out the prospect 
of a united Ireland.

  Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and the viewers this evening that 
we will be back again next month in another in this series of special 
orders. I would encourage all to view the movie ``In the Name of the 
Father'' if they wonder why many of us are so worked up about the 
repeated injustices that exist in the north of Ireland. It indeed is a 
great lesson for all.
  I would just close on this note as many of the speakers before me 
tonight have: When I met with John Major, he noted, in speaking of 
Boris Yeltsin, that Boris Yeltsin needed to be supported because of the 
extraordinary changes that have swept the world in the last 4 years. I 
asked him, ``Mr. Prime Minister, how can you contrast that progress 
with the current stalemate of eight centuries in Ireland?
  In but the last 4 years, the Berlin Wall has come down, Eastern 
Europe has been freed, the Soviet Union dissolved, Russian troops have 
left Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania; majority rule has come to South 
Africa and free elections have taken place in El Salvador and 
Nicaragua. Yet the one place where the sunshine of freedom continues to 
be blacked out by the clouds of injustice is on the island of Ireland.

                              {time}  2110

  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] said it well:
  ``It's Ireland's turn, and fair-minded people everywhere agree with 
our position.''
  I want to close simply by saying, Mr. Speaker, that there is one 
ireland on one island, and, if there is to be a referendum, it should 
include all the people of the Island of Ireland.
  Once again I want to acknowledge, as well, Bill Tranghese and 
Margaret Albrecht from my office who helped to put together this 
special order.
  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my 
colleague from Massachusetts for organizing this special order session 
with regard to the advancement of the peace process in Northern 
Ireland.
  The timing of this session is particularly good, in light of this 
month's release of Amnesty International's report on human rights in 
Northern Ireland.
  The report warns that there will be no peace without respect for 
human rights in Northern Ireland. I maintain that no negotiated 
settlement will take place until the cycle of sectarian murders is put 
to an end and until the British Government's atrocious human rights 
record is drastically improved.
  It should come as no surprise that the majority of human rights 
violations detailed in Amnesty's report have occurred to the detriment 
of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. There has long been an 
appearance of collusion between the security forces in the north and 
illegal loyalist paramilitary organizations. This apparent collusion 
has had the understandable effect of polarizing the Catholic population 
from the security forces in Northern Ireland.
  On this note, I believe the time has come for an independent tribunal 
to be appointed to carry out independent investigations into shooting 
incidents involving members of the public where lethal force has been 
used. I also believe it necessary to tighten up on the operational 
rules with regard to lethal force used by the security forces in 
Northern Ireland.
  There have been many allegations that the Royal Ulster Constabulary 
[RUC] has been uncooperative with regard to gathering evidence about 
loyalist attacks on Catholics, and the continued failure to provide 
adequate levels of protection to the Catholic community from loyalist 
attacks. How can years of hatred between these two divided communities 
be expected to subside if biases are allowed to thrive, judicial 
injustices are left unchecked and the weight of the law seems balanced 
in favor of one community over the other?
  Besides the obvious and more publicized inequities in Northern 
Ireland, there exists a need for effective and fair antidiscrmination 
laws to ensure that new and existing jobs are distributed fairly 
between Protestants and Catholics. There also needs to be a more 
vigorous enforcement of the 1989 Fair Employment Act in an effort to 
reach out to the underrepresented in both communities. Much good has 
been achieved in this area, but more needs to be done.
  The road to the peace talks has come a long way, but before it 
reaches its destination, the British Government, in my opinion, must 
come to the realization that for negotiations to succeed, all involved 
parties, including the Irish Republican Army, must participate. How can 
a resolution be achieved with the absence of the very groups upon which 
the success of the talks hinge? In my opinion, it can't.
  The British and Irish Governments have achieved much in the past few 
months and we have all been encouraged by the momentum for change in 
South Africa and in the Middle East. However, the comparisons with the 
strife in Northern Ireland are few. In South Africa and in the Middle 
East, unconditional negotiations between all parties have resulted in 
real progress. If peace in Northern Ireland is to be achieved, 
preconditions for any negotiation must be cast aside and details of any 
proposed negotiating settlement should be disclosed at the outset for 
all parties to see. Attaching preconditions to negotiations in Northern 
Ireland serves no positive purpose, and so far, has only alienated 
those whose accordance is critical if there is to be agreement.
  There will be no lasting settlement in Northern Ireland unless the 
Catholic community truly believes they are entering into talks as equal 
negotiators, and not as unequal subjects whose interests are 
subservient to those of the unionist majority.
  Evenhandedness must prevail for a settlement to be reached and a 
lasting peace to be maintained.
  Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, my first contact with 
Ireland came in the early 1950's when I served as a vice consul of the 
U.S. Foreign Service in Dublin. I then returned in 1978, as the ranking 
minority member of the Immigration Subcommittee, to investigate reports 
of visa denials to British subjects of Irish descent by United States 
consular posts in London, Dublin, and Belfast.
  That Judiciary Committee trip forever changed my outlook on Northern 
Ireland. Despite the thorough briefings we had on the situation prior 
to our departure, we were totally unprepared for what we saw during our 
4 days there. We were especially struck by the violation of human 
rights the people of Northern Ireland are subjected to day in and day 
out and the glaring inadequacies of the justice system there.
  Since that time, I have worked with my colleagues as one of the 
cochairmen of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, to realize the 
goals of peace, justice, freedom, and an end to all discrimination in 
Northern Ireland. We are closer than ever to achieving those goals.
  The Joint Declaration of Peace issued by British Prime Minister John 
Major and Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds on December 15, 
acknowledges the urgency of the situation in Northern Ireland and 
indicates a willingness to take steps toward resolving the crisis 
there. This plan, however, is just a first step.
  While it contains many positive statements, the plan outlines no 
definite proposals for bringing about peace and no specific timeframe 
for initiating negotiations. All affected parties must have their 
questions answered and be allowed to participate in the debate. It is 
vital that the Governments of Ireland and Great Britain follow through 
on their commitment to consider the wide spectrum of political views in 
Northern Ireland.
  Certainly a solution which has eluded men not just for decades, but 
for centuries, will not be easy. But peace, justice, and unity in 
Ireland are possible if leadership is exhibited, policies are developed 
to end the great economic injustices there, and all violence is ended.
  Ms. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, world attention and 
pressure have brought about an end to apartheid in South Africa, a 
dialog between Israel and the PLO, and the collapse of communism in 
Eastern Europe and Russia. These incredible changes, unthinkable just a 
few years ago, make the continuing conflict in Northern Ireland all the 
more tragic, and the world's silence all the more puzzling.
  This is one reason why I strongly supported congressional efforts to 
grant Gerry Adams a visa, and why I applauded President Clinton's 
decision to do just that. I believe that Mr. Adam's visit has enhanced 
the process of Irish peace and reconciliation by focusing public 
attention on the issue and generating a healthy public debate.
  The joint declaration by Prime Ministers Major and Hume was initially 
greeted by many with great optimism. It is unfortunate that the peace 
process seems to have stalled since then. Mr. Adams has requested 
clarification from the British Government on certain points so that 
Sinn Fein may then approach the Irish Republican Army for a cease fire. 
I hope Mr. Major will provide that clarification to promote resumption 
of the peace process.
  There are other issues in which I believe that Congress can play a 
positive role to help improve the situation in Northern Ireland. 
Concerned Members of Congress have repeatedly urged the President to 
fulfill his campaign promise and appoint a special envoy to Northern 
Ireland. I continue to believe that a special envoy would help to 
facilitate negotiations and I again ask the President to appoint one.
  The human rights violations in Northern Ireland continue to be an 
issue of great concern, as the Amnesty International report released 
last month points out. The people of Northern Ireland have endured 
human rights violations for far too long. They need and deserve the 
protection which a bill of rights would provide. I commend my colleague 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for his resolution calling for such a 
bill of rights and urge all Members of this House to support it.
  Working to end anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland is 
also a legitimate concern for this House. Unfortunately, religious 
discrimination is still pervasive in Northern Ireland; that is why I 
hope Congress will adopt the same MacBride principles legislation that 
I authored and brought to passage while on the New York City Council.
  By passing the MacBride principles, as outlined in H.R. 672, Congress 
would go a long way to help end corporate discrimination against anyone 
in Northern Ireland on the basis of religion.
  As with other conflicts around the world, Congress has an important 
role to play in demonstrating the support of the people of the United 
States for the preservation of basic human rights and self-
determination. By keeping attention focused on Northern Ireland, it is 
my hope that we in the House can help to bring about peace with justice 
in that long-troubled part of the world.


                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on the subject of Ireland.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooper). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is 
recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

                          ____________________