[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 48 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
IRAQ CLAIMS ACT OF 1993
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 410 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 410
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3221) to provide for the adjudication of
certain claims against the Government of Iraq. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs now printed
in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of
order against the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI
are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order unless printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII before the beginning of
consideration of the bill. The amendment caused to be printed
in the Record by Representative Bereuter of Nebraska
(relating to certain commercial claims) may amend portions of
the bill not yet read for amendment. After disposition of all
other amendments to the committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute, it shall be in order to consider an amendment
caused to be printed in the Record by Representative Bonior
of Michigan (relating to humanitarian assistance) and an
amendment caused to be printed in the Record by
Representative Solomon of New York (relating to war crimes)
in the order stated. Points of order against each of those
amendments for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI
are waived. After disposition of those amendments, no further
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago this month, America was
celebrating our victory in the Persian Gulf war.
We had defeated the forces of Saddam Hussein.
We had liberated the people of Kuwait, and our troops were rightfully
welcomed home with flags, parades, and all-star salutes.
But Mr. Speaker, 3 years after the war ended, there are still some
people who are paying the price.
Thousands of the brave men and women who fought for America in that
war still suffer physical and emotional injuries, including the effects
of Persian Gulf war syndrome.
Many of the crew members injured in the prewar Iraqi attack on the
U.S.S. Stark still have outstanding claims from the injuries they
suffered, and many United States corporations who did business in
prewar Iraq and were owed money for services rendered, were left high
and dry after the United Nations imposed sanctions and the United
States Government itself is owed a hefty chunk of change as the result
of defaults by the Iraqi Government.
Mr. Speaker, all told, American claims against Iraq for losses,
damages, and injuries suffered as a result of the gulf war run to about
$5 billion.
And Saddam Hussein is not about to pay a dime of it back.
But this bill before us today will help us recoup some of those
losses.
Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today, there are approximately $1.2
billion in frozen Iraqi assets in the United States, assets that were
frozen by the United States after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
For most of the people and businesses owed money by Iraq, these
frozen assets are the only means they have of being reimbursed.
There is no other way.
But under current U.S. law, those assets must remain frozen. They
cannot be used for anything or to reimburse anybody right now.
But the bill that we will be discussing in just a few minutes changes
all that.
This bill authorizes the United States Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission to use the $1.2 billion in frozen Iraqi assets to pay
American claims against the Government of Iraq.
It also sets up a mechanism by which these claims may be processed
fairly, and it directs the commission to give first priority, as it
should, to claims filed by veterans of Operation Desert Storm, victims
of the U.S.S. Stark attack, and small claimants who can't afford to
hire expensive attorneys to get their money back.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to mention an
amendment I intend to offer later today as authorized by the rule that
the Clerk just read.
As we speak about the people who are still paying the price of the
gulf war, nobody is paying a higher price today than the Iraqi people
themselves.
Saddam Hussein has turned his back on the people of Iraq, and with
sanctions in place, hundreds of thousands of civilians in that country
are dying today due to a lack of food, water, and basic medicine.
{time} 1310
Mr. Speaker, this is a startling statistic. An estimated 120,000
children under the age of 5 have died in Iraq in the past 3 years
alone. Iraq today is a place where mothers see their babies scream in
agony because operations must be performed without anesthesia. There is
no anesthesia in the country. It is a place where diabetics lapse into
comas, there is no insulin. It is a place where children suffering from
leukemia are routinely sent home from the hospital because there is no
medicine to provide them care. I intend to offer an amendment to
address that situation. I will speak to it a little later as this bill
progresses.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the right thing to do, it is the right time
to do it, and I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and to
support the bill on final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, although this rule was unnecessarily clouded
by a requirement that proposed amendments be preprinted--it is
basically an open rule. And for that I would like to commend Chairman
Moakley, as well as Chairman Hamilton and ranking member Gilman, of the
Foreign Affairs Committee. While we objected to the preprinting
requirement as a needless restraint on Members' ability to proposed
changes to this bill, because of unrelated national events, Members
with an interest in the Iraq Claims Act of 1993, did in fact have
additional opportunity to formulate and submit suggested amendments.
H.R. 3221 provides a measured, technical process to help victims of
the Persian Gulf war--private and public--recoup some of their serious
losses. Clearly the available resources--$1.3 billion in frozen Iraqi
assets--fall far short of covering the estimated $5 billion in total
claims against the Iraqis resulting from the war. As a result, this
legislation is only one step toward an equitable prioritization of
claims against the Iraqi Government. After the war, the United Nations
established a Commission on Compensation to deal with losses by
governments, individuals, and corporations stemming from Iraq's
aggression against Kuwait, violations of international law, and
inhumane treatment of prisoners. Despite this mandate, though, many
claims against Iraq stemming from the war do not fall within the
jurisdiction of the U.N. Commission. Under H.R. 3221, frozen Iraqi
assets will be liquidated and divided between the Federal Government
and private claimants whose grievances fall beyond the jurisdiction of
the U.N. commission. H.R. 3221 rightfully gives preference for
settlement of such claims to families of U.S. servicemen killed and
veterans injured during Operation Desert Storm and the attack of the
U.S.S. Stark. Private companies with business interests in Iraq that
suffered losses because of the war will also be eligible, once
veterans' and survivors' claims are settled. Mr. Speaker, Saddam
Hussein's debt to the international community can never be repaid in
full. H.R. 3221 will help make amends to some of those who suffered
because of his insatiable appetite for power and indefensible
aggression against innocent people. Of course, there remain serious
consequences of the gulf war, for the Iraqi people who continue to
suffer under the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein and for the
American veterans whose lives are forever changed by their service in
Desert Storm. I strongly support an amendment offered by Mr. Solomon,
expressing Congress' interest in a U.N. war crimes tribunal, and I
believe the list of crimes should include Hussein's deliberate attacks
on the environment. In March 1991, this House passed a resolution
deploring the blatant degradation of the environment and holding Saddam
Hussein and his government expressly liable for related damages. At the
time, we called this the send-the-bill-to-Saddam resolution. Americans
vividly remember the gruesome images of purposely dumped sludge fouling
the coastline and black smoke from deliberately torched oil wells
blocking the Sun. Residents of the region will no doubt suffer long-
term health and economic consequences from this terrible crime--while
hundreds of American military personnel now report mysterious health
problems that could relate to toxic exposure during their active duty
in the Persian Gulf. While the legislation before us today clearly does
not address all of these lingering problems stemming from the gulf war,
H.R. 3221 lays the groundwork for settling at least part of our score
with the Iraqi Government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)............................................. 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)............................................. 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)............................................. 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)............................................. 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)............................................. 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88)............................................ 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90)............................................ 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)............................................. 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)............................................. 60 12 20 48 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of
order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is
otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called
modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for
consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are
restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''
Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Apr. 22, 1994.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1(not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).
Offenders.
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993.... C H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill. 1 (D-1; R-0).... N/A....................... A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3: Campaign Finance 35 (D-6; R-29).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).
Reform.
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3400: Reinventing 34 (D-15; R-19). 3 (D-3; R-0).............. A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).
Government.
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994..... MC H.R. 3759: Emergency 14 (D-8; R-5; I- 5 (D-3; R-2).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3,
Supplemental Appropriations. 1). 1994).
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994..... MC H.R. 811: Independent Counsel 27 (D-8; R-19).. 10 (D-4; R-6)............. PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
Act. 1994).
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce 3 (D-2; R-1).... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).
Restructuring.
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994.... MO H.R. 6: Improving America's NA.............. NA........................ A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).
Schools.
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994..... MC H. Con. Res. 218: Budget 14 (D-5; R-9)... 5 (D-3; R-2).............. A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).
Resolution FY 1995-99.
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994.... MO H.R. 4092: Violent Crime 180 (D-98; R-82) 68 (D-47; R-21)........... A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).
Control.
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994.... MO H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act.. N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon], the ranking member of the Committee on Rules,
who has an important amendment to this bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and the legislation that it
brings to the floor. At the appropriate time, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] and I will offer two separate amendments
concerning the atrocities that continue to be inflicted on the Iraqi
people. And if we think things are bad with what is going on in Bosnia
and in other flash points around this world, in Turkestan and
Azerbaijan and Georgia and many of the former Soviet republics, let us
remember what continues to go on in Iraq.
I support the Bonior amendment and urge all Members on both sides of
the aisle to support it. It is so terribly important, the message and
help it delivers.
As for my own amendment, it simply lists the most serious and abusive
of actions by Saddam Hussein and his regime during the Persian Gulf
crisis and continuing right to today. It calls on the President of the
United States to request the United Nations to establish a war crimes
tribunal to hold Saddam Hussein and other officials in his regime
accountable for their atrocities.
Mr. Speaker, all decent people throughout the world were appalled by
the brutality of Saddam Hussein's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Our memories are still vivid when we recall the atrocities committed by
Iraqi forces against the people of Kuwait. We are still repulsed by
Saddam Hussein's cynical use of so-called human shields as a means of
protecting his important military facilities against threatened
attacks. And we still recoil at the recollection of indiscriminate
Iraqi missile attacks against innocent unarmed civilians in Israel and
Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Speaker, the final chapter in Saddam Hussein's bloody history has
not yet been written. I remain hopeful, indeed, very confident, that
the day will come when Saddam Hussein has to face the bar of justice,
when he has to face the court of world opinion. As a way of continuing
to keep the pressure on his regime, I urge the establishment of a war
crimes tribunal. Let the process of organizing the evidence begin now.
And let us continue to keep the moral outrage of the civilized world
focused on these atrocities. Surely, the day will come when Saddam
Hussein and his henchmen are held accountable.
My amendment simply expresses the sense of this Congress that the
President should request the United Nations to establish a tribunal to
charge this war criminal for his crimes against humanity. I urge
Members to please support the amendment when it comes up.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the ranking member of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the
Rules Committee, the Honorable John Joseph Moakley, the distinguished
ranking minority member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and
the distinguished minority floor manager, Porter Goss from Florida, for
their efforts in bringing this resolution to the floor. It should
provide Members on both sides of the aisle with the opportunity to
consider and amend H.R. 3221, the Iraq Claims Act of 1993, reported out
of the Foreign Affairs Committee on November 20, 1993.
I agree with Chairman Hamilton on the importance of this legislation
and the need for its prompt consideration by the House. We need to
establish a fair and orderly system of adjudicating the claims of
United States nationals against Iraq.
The $1.2 billion in frozen Iraqi assets is far outweighed by the $5
billion in total claims by the United States Government, individuals
and companies.
The bill authorizes the vesting of these frozen Iraqi assets to pay
claims that are not within the jurisdiction of the U.N. Compensation
Commission and authorizes the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to
administer and allocate any funds received from the U.N. Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the Iraq
Claims Act.
{time} 1320
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding
time to me.
This legislation originated in our Subcommittee on Economic Policy,
Trade and Environment and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for
the rule and for the bill.
As has been said here a number of times, there are about $5 billion
in American claims which have been pending for years against Iraq. And
we are holding about $1.2 billion in Iraqi assets, which we seized at
the time of the gulf war. This legislation will allow these frozen
assets to be distributed as partial settlement to these longstanding
American claims. And the important part of this legislation is since
these claims are far more than the seized assets, this bill sets up a
Government Commission to make partial settlements.
The Commission would determine the most equitable basis for
allocating favorable and available assets. The bill sets a priority for
resolving the claims of American service people at the head of the
line. This is why I think this legislation is so important. Those
injured in the U.S.S. Stark attack and those injured in the gulf war
would be first in line.
Other claimants, including the U.S. businesses and U.S. Government,
would also receive settlements. In my view, it is long past time when
we can help the American soldiers, American businesses, and American
taxpayer recover as much from Iraq as possible. Unless we pass this
legislation, these claimants face a free-for-all in court. Let me
repeat that. Unless we pass this legislation, these claimants face a
free-for-all in court, where the winners will be determined by those
with the best lawyers, not the best claim. That is why I am so
determined that our service people are at the head of the line when
these claims are allocated. That is why our subcommittee wrote this
bill, and that is why the House should pass this bill today.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from
Wisconsin for his work on this issue and so many others, trying to work
out a responsible solution, as I think we have. And it could not have
been done without his help.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the chairman of the committee for those kind words.
Let me say that the chairman is too modest because the chairman is the
one that put this legislation to the Congress, and we appreciate his
working with us in doing that.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], another distinguished member of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness and
courtesy in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to support the rule. First, I would
like to say that I completely support one goal of this legislation to
fully compensate those United States armed servicemen, or their
families, who were injured in the Stark attack or bravely fought in the
Persian Gulf war and were either injured or killed in that war.
However, the unprecedented step by the U.S. Department of Treasury to
compensate those servicemen out of a pool of frozen assets--some of
which is owed to U.S. commercial and Government interests--has created
some very inequitable results. And it is important to recognize that
such payment to servicemen, who are not abused POW's, from frozen enemy
assets is indeed, apparently, a precedent-setting step. Unfortunately,
our Government failed in the United Nations to have our United States
servicemen, or their families, compensated from Iraqi oil revenues
collected by the U.N. Commission as they should have been. Therefore, I
fully understand the need and desire to utilize other funds for this
very important and necessary purpose. Nevertheless, the United States
should still pursue the U.N. option.
I strongly object to the way the Treasury Department has handled this
matter. It seems only fair and equitable that the United States
Treasury Department should not prohibit the relatively small number of
United States exporters--who have actually shipped goods to Iraq before
the embargo--from collecting payment owed to them by the Iraqis when
the Iraqis authorized payment. This was not the way Treasury treated
exporters in a similar circumstance with respect to frozen Iranian
assets. United States exporters who shipped goods to Iran prior to the
embargo were paid, and United States exporters who shipped goods to
Iraq prior to the embargo should be paid--especially if the Iraqis had
also authorized payment from their assets abroad. In addition, I am
concerned that current Treasury Department regulations will add
substantial noncommercial costs to U.S. exporters in the future by
forcing them to purchase expensive, confirmed letters of credit for
much of their export financing. These noncommercial costs will damage
our competitive stance with foreign competitors.
The U.S. Treasury Department could avoid the inequities locked in
place by this legislation by reexamining its current regulations. It
should do so. I believe that a permanent policy should be developed
which would permit both U.S. exporters and their financing institutions
to understand and rely upon set rights and obligations when a
Presidential freeze of foreign assets occurs.
This Member attempted to develop a compromise amendment to this
legislation which would more equitably distribute limited assets to all
claimants including: U.S. armed servicemen, victims of the Stark
incident, the U.S. Government, and all commercial claimants.
Unfortunately, it is clear that the fundamental source of the
inequitable distribution of limited assets lies first in Treasury
Department regulations.
Therefore, this Member believes it would be appropriate for the
Treasury Department to carefully reexamine its current regulations and
attempt to resolve the inequities created by existing regulations. I
would suggest that for reasons of equity, and as a message to Treasury
to go back and do their job properly.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets
Control has not responsibly administered the assets which were blocked
pursuant to Executive order by President Bush. Unfortunately, the
Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control more
responsibly administered the assets which were blocked pursuant to
Executive order by President Bush. Unfortunately, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control and a man who apparently operates like an arrogant
little tin god, Mr. Richard Newcomb, has administered these blocked
funds in a haphazard and inequitable manner:
First, OFAC intended to allow exporters to be paid out of blocked
assets. OFAC's original policy for releasing blocked Iraqi assets
(General License No. 7, August 15, 1990) authorized the issuance of
licenses to permit payment from a blocked account for all exporters who
shipped goods to Iraq prior to the embargo.
Then, OFAC limited this authority (General License No. 7, October 18,
1990) to U.S. banks for goods shipped based on letters of credit issued
or confirmed by U.S. banks. This is a radical departure from OFAC
policy with regard to frozen Iranian assets which were paid to
exporters who shipped under all letters of credit.
As of March 3, 1994, OFAC has--despite its objections to piecemeal
distribution of blocked Iraqi assets--issued 444 specific licenses
allegedly authorizing the release of assets frozen by the Executive
orders including the following:
First, a CCC payment of $450 million to Gulf International Bank, a
Middle Eastern bank partly owned by the Government of Iraq, and
reportedly involved in financing embargo-busting activities.
Second, release of frozen assets to Saalim Noman, the reputed head of
Iraq's military procurement network in the United States.
Third, release of $16 million from frozen Iraqi assets to a major
political contributor (see Statement of the honorable former senior
Senator from Colorado, Senator Tim Wirth, 138 Congressional Record
S15731, September 30, 1993).
Fourth, transfer of more than $107 million from blocked Iraqi
accounts in United States banks to the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, the Office of Foreign Assets Control has plenty of
precedent to permit U.S. exporters to receive full payment for their
transactions, yet they have instead permitted disreputable individuals
and entities which have allegedly engaged in embargo busting activities
to erode claims that are entitled by this legislation to be awarded to
U.S. veterans, U.S. businesses, and other individuals.
Mr. Speaker, in light of these allegations against the Department of
the Treasury, this Member demands that the Treasury Department's
inspector general investigate these important allegations. Because Mr.
Richard Newcomb and the Office of Foreign Assets Control will not
provide the details on who has received licenses from his perch atop
this apparently unaccountable agency within the Treasury Department,
this Member believes such allegations at least, must be considered as
possibly true until proven false.
Mr. Speaker, to remedy these aforementioned abuses and
inexcusable practices of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, an
amendment I have drafted merely places those U.S. exporters who shipped
goods prior to August 2, 1990, in a similar status but still below that
which the Office of Foreign Assets Control has elected to confer on
U.S. banks who issued or confirmed letters of credit to U.S. exporters.
It seems only fair and equitable to this Member that the United States
Treasury Department should not prohibit United States exporters--who
have actually shipped goods to Iraq before the embargo--from collecting
payment owed to them by the Iraqis when the Iraqis authorized payment.
Mr. Speaker, without the amendment I have drafted, this legislation
will preclude us from reversing an administrative policy that will
adversely impact U.S. commerce, U.S. exporters, and the financing of
international commercial transactions. Without the Bereuter amendment,
H.R. 3221 would deter U.S. exporters from selling goods to foreign
countries where the threat of hostilities--which is increasingly
common--could cause them to lose everything if funds payable to them
become subject to a blocking order in a U.S. financial institution.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this Member has today endured one of the
more damaging and irresponsible descriptions of an amendment which I
hope to offer. A ``Dear Colleague'' which was circulated prior to
consideration of this legislation grossly and unfairly characterizes
this Member's amendment by associating it with attempts to place
commercial claims before the legislation's priority designation of
payment for members of the Armed Forces, victims of U.S.S. Stark, and
other individuals. Clearly, this Member's proposed amendment does not
affect H.R. 3221's priority designation of those claims. In fact, this
Member took extra caution and care to ensure that H.R. 3221's priority
designation be left unaffected.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in regard to a letter circulated to Members of
Congress by a bank which claims that my proposed amendment ``violates
established principles of commercial law,'' this Member would like to
state that my proposed amendment does nothing to change letter of
credit law, and in fact, maintains current legal distinctions between
confirmed letters of credit and advised letters of credit. Under
current Treasury Regulations U.S. financial institutions have been
reimbursed from frozen Iraqi assets after paying out of their own
funds, confirmed letters of credit. The proposed Bereuter amendment
does not permit unconfirmed letters to be paid out of frozen Iraqi
funds. Rather, it places exporters who shipped under unconfirmed
letters of credit firmly behind those exporters who shipped under
confirmed letters of credit--which are even ahead of veterans claims--
and firmly behind the priority claims of members of the U.S. Armed
Forces, their families, and victims of the U.S.S. Stark.
Therefore, the drafted Bereuter amendment, as published in the Record
on page H 2839, April 26, 1994, does nothing to create extra
obligations for U.S. financial institutions who finance international
commercial transactions. The drafted Bereuter amendment was aimed at
promoting U.S. exports and U.S. financing of export transactions; it
intentionally avoided creating extra obligations for U.S. financial
institutions.
{time} 1330
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 410 provides, as we have
heard this afternoon, for the consideration of H.R. 3221, the Iraqi
Claims Act. This is, as has been stated, a simple open rule that
provides 1 hour of general debate and makes in order any amendment
printed in the Congressional Record.
The rule allows the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], who has
just spoken, to offer an en bloc amendment which modifies portions of
the bill not yet read for amendment. The bill waives clause 7 of rule
XXI for an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] relating, as he so aptly described, to the war crimes issue
and Saddam Hussein, and for an amendment that I intend to offer
relating to humanitarian assistance.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield
back the balance of the time, and I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Pursuant to House Resolution
410 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 3221.
{time} 1334
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3221) to provide for the adjudication of certain claims against the
Government of Iraq with Ms. Eshoo in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, first let me express appreciation to
those Members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs who have worked
very diligently on this amendment and on this bill, the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Roth], the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic
Policy, Trade and Environment of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the ranking member of the
committee.
Madam Chairman, I just want to say also a word of appreciation to the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. He may offer an amendment a
little later on with which I disagree, but I have enormous respect for
him, and I have appreciated the dialog I have had with him as we have
tried to work our way through this complicated issue. I know that from
the start of this process he has been very uncomfortable about any
amendment which would put certain companies before veterans in terms of
access to the limited Iraqi assets available to settle claims.
The committee has been in a position of not knowing until this
morning, when Tuesday's Congressional Record was available, precisely
what amendments would be in order. Over the last several weeks some
companies have sought to reorder the process of claims adjudication,
and have wanted their claims paid first. We have had to prepare for
that eventuality.
Fortunately, we are not confronted with an amendment which seeks to
pay certain companies with claims before veterans, so I simply want to
commend the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for the care he has
given in drafting his amendment, so that veterans do not operate at a
disadvantage. However, while the problem of the veterans has been
removed, if his amendment is offered, I will, of course, oppose it.
First, Madam Chairman, let me explain the bill. H.R. 3221 provides
the necessary authority to establish, maintain, and ultimately
terminate a fair and orderly system for adjudicating the claims of
United States nationals against Iraq. In other claims situations, the
U.S. Government has not started the claims process until it has reached
a government-to-government settlement.
With Iraq, of course, there is no reasonable prospect of reaching
such a settlement. For this reason, the United States needs the
authority this bill provides to invest and then use the proceeds from
frozen Iraqi assets under United States control to provide awards to
United States citizens and claimants.
There are serious negative repercussions if we do not approve this
legislation. We need to be very clear about one point. It is not at all
likely that everyone with claims against Iraq will be reimbursed in
full for their loss. In fact, it is likely that no one will be
reimbursed in full. There is simply not enough money to go around. It
is estimated that there will be approximately $4 to $5 billion in
individual, business, and government claims. There is approximately
$1.2 billion in frozen Iraqi assets in this country, so we need to try
to ensure a process that is fair and equitable for settling outstanding
claims.
The bill before us is directed towards two goals. It sets up a system
for dealing with the claims of U.S. nationals that predate the gulf
war, but gives priority to veterans with gulf war claims; and, second,
it sets up a structure for handling funds the United States may receive
from the U.N. Commission. The U.N. Commission is handling most claims
that result from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
A word about the bill further. The bill authorizes the United States
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to administer and, if necessary,
to allocate funds received from the U.N. Commission.
{time} 1340
The U.N. Commission plans to use Iraqi oil exports to provide
compensation to foreign governments, individuals, and corporations that
have suffered direct loss, damage, or injury as a result of Iraq's
unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The U.N. Commission's mandate includes providing compensation to
prisoners of war who suffered losses or injuries due to treatment that
violated international humanitarian law.
The U.N. Commission will not hear claims of United States servicemen
who may have suffered losses in the course of their duty during the
Iraq war. For this reason, these servicemen are given special priority
under the U.S. Commission procedures.
Madam Chairman, the bill authorizes the U.S. Commission to pay claims
that are not within the jurisdiction of the U.N. Commission.
In other words, the U.S. Commission will handle other losses suffered
by U.S. claimants, such as prewar debts and obligations, injury claims
of seamen on the U.S.S. Stark, and death and injury claims of Operation
Desert Storm veterans.
Madam Chairman, the U.N. Commission is up and running. Filing
deadlines for claimants with the U.N. Commission have been set. The
United States needs a structure in place to accommodate the U.N.
process.
Since we will not be able to reach settlement with Iraq, claimants
deserve to have their claims heard while the evidence of their losses
is still fresh.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece
of legislation.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3221, the Iraq
Claims Act of 1993, reported out of the Foreign Affairs Committee on
November 20, 1993.
I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of our Foreign
Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and his
staff, as well as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules,
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and the ranking member
of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for
their cooperation and support in bringing this bill to the floor today
under an open rule.
Also, I want to pay tribute to all the minority members of the
committee who helped to shape this legislation and influence its
consideration particularly Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Leach, and Mr. Bereuter.
I fully agree with Chairman Hamilton on the importance of this
legislation and the need for creating a fair and equitable procedure
and framework for American claims not within the jurisdiction of the
U.N. Compensation Commission.
This legislation provides a fair and orderly system for satisfying
the claims of United States nationals, companies and the United States
against Iraq as a result of the August 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.
The Iraq Claims Act follows the standard procedure utilized in the
past to provide compensation of Americans in similar circumstances.
The bill authorizes the President to use the $1.2 billion of Iraqi
assets frozen in 1990 to award payments on the estimated $3.1 billion
of pre-August 2 claims and $2.3 billion post-invasion claims.
It would permit the available compensation to be allocated equitably
among all claimants including individuals, Desert Storm and Desert
Shield veterans, and commercial claimants.
This bill authorizes the vesting of these frozen Iraqi assets to pay
claims that are not within the jurisdiction of the U.N. Compensation
Commission and authorizes the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to
administer and allocate any funds received from the U.N. Commission.
The U.N. Commission plans to reuse revenues generated from Iraqi oil
exports to provide compensation to foreign governments, individuals,
and corporations that have suffered damage or injury as a result of
Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Other losses suffered by U.S. claimants, including any unpaid pre-war
commercial debts and obligations, injury claims of the crew members of
the U.S.S. Stark and death and injury claims of Operation Desert Storm
veterans, fall outside of the U.N. jurisdiction. This legislation will
ensure that these claims will be adjudicated by the U.S. Commission.
In our review of this legislation, many members expressed concern
with the limited jurisdiction of the U.N. Commission, particularly over
the fact that this commission will not consider the war-related claims
of service personnel from any Nation unless such personnel were
prisoners of war who were mistreated.
To the extent that the members of our Armed Forces in the Desert
Storm and Desert Shield operations are not fully compensated, our
Government should continue to hold Iraq accountable. At such time as we
reestablish normal relations with that country, we should seek payment
in full for the balance of these claims.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this
important legislation.
Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Leach].
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Madam Chairman, I rise to follow some of the concerns of the
distinguished chairman of the committee and to simply stress that with
regard to at least the principal amendment that is going to be offered
from this side, that it is with some reluctance that I express some
skepticism.
Madam Chairman, I think one should always recognize that care has to
be given so that law is written with precedent in mind, with the
understanding that the best law has the widest general applicability
and the most dubious statute is particularist in nature. The amendment
to be offered later has the effect of advantaging some and
disadvantaging others in the assertion of claims. It also has the
effect of overturning, after the fact, legal precedent.
Madam Chairman, I personally have very little doubt that the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is entirely correct in
expressing concerns about the allocation of the $1.2 billion in frozen
assets which are currently available to dispense, however, about $5
billion in expected claims are being considered. But moving one group
of creditors to the head of the line, as deserving as they may be,
pushes other equally deserving creditors to the back of the line. And
so with the greatest reluctance, I would stress that even though the
particular group that is in effect has some very heartrending
circumstances, there are other groups that also have heartrending
circumstances from an economic perspective and that in the name of
fairness and equitability, the best reliance for this Congress is
established law.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
I wonder if he would not admit that this difficultly about assessing
the claims of one claimant class against another could be best handled
by an administrative agency discharging their duties in a fashion that
is consistent with previous precedents that have been established such
as during the Iranian conflict?
Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman has a fair point,
but I would not take it too far.
Madam Chairman, one of the reasons that one should be careful about
taking it too far, in the Iranian circumstance there was a surplus of
frozen assets compared to claims. In this circumstance, there is a
sparsity of frozen assets in relation to claims and so it was
relatively easy to make an accommodation in that circumstance and not
quite as easy in this particular one.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?
Mr. LEACH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, that is certainly true, but the
gentleman is aware of the fact that the U.S. Government failed to make
its case convincingly with the United Nations so that in fact the
claims for a substantial number of our claimants could have been paid
for out of Iraqi oil proceeds which is entirely appropriate, true?
Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, it would have been far better for this
country if our Government had made that claim. We are dealing with a
circumstance that exists, not one that we would prefer to be the case.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. LEACH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. This gentleman is very, very reluctant to offer an
amendment like I have drafted on the floor, even though we put veterans
in the preferred first priority status where they ought to be. But when
we have OFAC, this is the body within the Treasury Department
responsible for these kinds of claims matters, failing to discharge
their duty in a consistent fashion and making arbitrary distinctions
that are inconsistent with precedent, a Member really has no other
alternative but to come to the committee and then to the House floor to
try to get some kind of realistic and acceptable action out of the
administrative agency that ought to be handling this. And I think that
is what this gentleman intends.
Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I say to the gentleman, I respect very
much what the gentleman has in mind, but I would also say that the fact
that this particular institution, and in my comments I made reference
to the fact that I thought the gentleman had some fair points in this
regard, may have been capricious does not mean that, therefore, greater
capriciousness is the reward for that group that happens to have the
brightest and the most astute Member of Congress advocating their case.
{time} 1350
And what we have here is one of the finest, most reputable, and
esteemed Members of our body who has come to the defense of one group
of creditors, and I respect that more than anything, but I think the
public interest should be for a general approach of the law than a
particular interest.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
(Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I rise today with regret, because I
think the world of our chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He
has been my candidate for many things in this Congress in the past and
probably will be in the future.
In going over the report language and the language in the bill today,
in the last section, the Congress does address the statement of policy,
and it says that it is a sense of the Congress that individuals who
have served in the armed forces of Iraq during the Persian Gulf
conflict should not be admitted into the United States as refugees
under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. That would be fine except
it also says, ``except in exceptional circumstances.'' The bill does
not say what those exceptional circumstances are.
Reading on, the bill says, ``until all claims certified under section
2(b) of this act shall have been paid in full.'' Well, there are two
real considerations to me more as a matter of conscience. One, we do
not sell American refugee status or citizenship to anybody,
particularly those people who fight against American fighting men and
women. And two, I do not think we should tie freedom to economic
claims. I think they are so distinguishable, that if that is the sense
of this Congress, I am embarrassed to say I am a Member of this
Congress.
I have prepared and am introducing today a bill that would clearly
say to the Immigration Service and State Department of the United
States, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, no refugee of Iraqi
descent who served in the Iraqi Army during the conflict in Iraq should
be admitted into the United States under any circumstances. As we turn
down Haitians, and as we turn down freedom fighters all over the world,
can we say that we are going to take care of soldiers who fought
against the United States? I think that is unconscionable.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I concur with what the gentleman has
stated.
I, however, would state that several months ago when it was
discovered that Iraqi POW's who were finding their way to this country,
we made inquiry of the Sate Department, and the State Department now
changed its position, so only those ex-Iraqi POW's who did not fire
shots at us and who assisted the United States in the effort would be
allowed to come to this country as refugees.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I understand that, but I saw the
newscasts when a thousand or so men were in the field waiting to come
to the United States, and the State Department of the United States and
the Immigration Service of the United States said these are prisoners
of war who cannot go home because they are threatened; that they have
asked for political refugee status, and under the existing laws the
Congress has passed, they are entitled to it.
I just want it very clear that if we did pass laws like that in the
past which are being applied by our State Department or Immigration
Service in such a way, we should change those laws. This is not to say
that I would send people back to Iraq to suffer. We went to war for the
benefit of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries.
They certainly should have the ability to hold soldiers until Iraq
becomes a free nation again or at least until their lives are not
threatened.
It is not a responsibility for the United States to fill up this
country with people who say, ``I cannot go home for various political
reasons''; that we have got to bring them over here in preference over
other world citizens who are major contributors and true believers in
freedom and democracy and willing to fight for it. These people did not
fight for it.
Mr. MANZULLO. I concur with everything the gentleman said. But I
would state, based upon the outrage just expressed, we took that
outrage, approached the State Department, and the State Department has
officially changed its policy to limit the number of POW's coming in.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Fine, but we do not know what that change is going to
be.
Mr. MANZULLO. The change is in the report.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I read the report. It said they will change their
policy and take into account different considerations. I do not know
what those are. Until we know what the considerations are, and they are
spelled out, the policy is wrong.
Mr. MANZULLO. The considerations are in the report. The
considerations state very clearly that No. 1, any ex-Iraqi POW who
comes to this country could not have fired any shots at this country.
No. 2, he would have had to substantially aid this country in efforts
to defeat.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Did you address the 500 that are here? Are they going
back?
Mr. MANZULLO. What we asked was the policy be halted immediately
because there were no specific guidelines.
Mr. KANJORSKI. What about those that are already here? What are we
doing with the 500 that are here?
Mr. MANZULLO. Well, they are already here now. We cannot help that.
Mr. KANJORSKI. We can change the law and send them back.
Mr. MANZULLO. I would work with the gentleman on any reasonable laws
to change it.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I will challenge my friends on the Republican side. I
have sat here for years hearing motions to recommit on issues, on fine,
fundamental things. We cannot offer recommittal on this side. But I
challenge a Republican to offer a recommittal.
I prepared the language. I will tell you, if you put it up to a vote
on this floor, if it does not pass overwhelmingly, then we ought to all
go home and apologize to our constituents.
I am challenging the Republicans to find one conscientious Member on
the Republican side to offer a motion to recommit so we can change this
sense-of-the-Congress language. It does not need to be so harsh that we
deny anybody refugee status.
Mr. MANZULLO. If the gentleman will yield further, it was the
Republicans that found the problem going on, and it was the Republican
Party that worked in the committee in a bipartisan.
Mr. KANJORSKI. This is no partisan issue. I drafted a bill, but I
seek to make no partisan issue of it. I am asking the Republican
minority who say they never have a chance, to find one of your Members
that will stand up in objection to this bill and make a motion to
recommit and let us vote on this floor whether it is the sense of
Congress to let these refugees in.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania was
courteous enough a moment ago to show me his amendment, a new motion to
recommit. I had not seen it before.
I do not have any doubt at all that he needs to be commended for the
principle that is stated in the amendment. None of us, I think, are
comfortable with the idea of welcoming as refugees into this country
Iraqi soldiers who fought against us.
Now, I told the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I would try to work
with him on it. This raises questions of refugee policies that are
outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I do not know whether this motion to recommit is subject to a point
of order or not, but it may be. But I think it is a very serious
question that he has raised.
I also think, on the basis of my understanding of the problem, that
it is not quite as simple as the language that this recommittal motion
would suggest. In other words, there were many Iraqi soldiers who
deserted. There were many who came over through our enticement. There
were some Iraqi soldiers who helped us.
I just do not want to have blanket language without providing for
some exceptions.
But the gentleman raises a very valid point, and I do want to try to
work with him, as I have tried to work with the gentleman from
Illinois, who was very interested in this matter in the committee, in
order to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I commend him for calling it
to our attention.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much. I
have a friend from Pennsylvania in our delegation. He is a freshman,
and he fought against the Iraqis in the gulf war, and I would doubt
that he feels comfortable with the idea that in the thousands of
prisoners in the field, some would have the ability to assert refugee
status, and that they would get preference over all refugees around the
world.
I would invite my fellow Member, if he would like, to comment on this
subject.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I would like to say what happened here is that the
U.S. Military, in trying to protect American lives, said that if some
of the Iraqis helped us, we would then repay them by giving them an
opportunity to come to the United States.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Reclaiming my time, that may have been General
Schwarzkopf's position, but it is not this Member of Congress, and I do
not think it represents the position of the American people. I think we
have every right in the world to protect them, we should say to Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait: ``We sent our boys, we lost our lives. Do you mean you
can't take care of this prisoner problem in the Middle East?''
Madam Chairman, I call upon my colleague, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, from just below my district in Easton-Allentown-
Bethlehem, the Honorable Paul McHale, who served in the Persian Gulf.
He resigned his seat in the house of representatives of the Assembly of
Pennsylvania and honorably went to the Middle East and offered his life
in the defense of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and to
help get freedom in Iraq.
I would like his opinion of what we are passing on here today.
Mr. McHALE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McHALE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time to speak.
Madam Chairman, I had not anticipating to speak on this issue. I was
not aware that it would be debated at some length. In light of the fact
that it is, I want to associate myself fully with the remarks of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
Madam Chairman, I remember what it was like on the morning of
February 24, 1991, when brave soldiers and marines prepared to walk
into an enemy minefield. And I remember what it was like that evening
and for the next several evenings as thousands of Iraqi prisoners were
captured. Yes, at that point they were defenseless, and, yes, at that
point they were willing to cooperate. But a few hours earlier they were
prepared to kill Americans.
I find it outrageous that those who have taken up arms in opposition
to our country have now been invited to have permanent residency status
within our Nation. That is a disgrace. We owe more than that to our
comrades who died on the battlefield. Brave young Americans, knowing
full well what the danger was, put their lives on the line, walked into
those minefields, and in some cases sacrificed their blood and their
lives. I do not want to hear State Department doublespeak on this
issue. I do not want to hear we are only admitting those who did not
pull a trigger. Those who took up arms are morally and politically
accountable for their actions, and in light of the fact that they were
prepared to kill Americans, I do not want to admit them to our shores.
We owe more than that to those who sacrificed their lives. I fully
agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski]. This issue
has been debated at length for at least 6 months. It is time to make it
clear that in the past war and in any future war, those who take up
arms against the United States will not be welcome in our country.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, the United States of America has a penchant for
putting American troops in harm's way, bleating the trumpets of
victory, and then finding out that we lost the peace at the negotiating
table. This time, the gulf war victory was shattered by the outrageous
actions of the United Nations.
As part of the United Nations peace effort to conclude the gulf war,
the U.N. Security Council adopted on April 8, 1991 Resolution 687 to
provide compensation for damages caused by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
The resolution states that Iraq was liable under international law
``for any direct loss, damage * * * or injury to foreign governments,
nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and
occupation of Kuwait.'' The United Nations established a compensation
commission to administer these claims, based on a 30-percent tax on all
future Iraqi oil shipments.
I discovered that this fund could not be used to pay for the war
injuries to soldiers, or survivors of deceased veterans, of the Allied
Coalition Armed Forces who fought Saddam Hussein. The United States
delegation to the Governing Council, according to a letter I received
from the State Department, fought very hard to have the claims of these
soldiers included in this fund.
The letter stated:
All members of the Allied Coalition Armed Forces, or their
survivors, should be able to file claims for death or injury
suffered in the course of military actions against Iraq . . .
[The U.S. delegation to the Governing Council] argues that
these individuals had been sent into harm's way to combat
aggression on behalf of the United Nations and thus they were
at least as deserving as any other claimant . . . No other
government supported the U.S. position.
On June 26, 1992, the Governing Council decided that only those
veterans who were prisoners of war and who suffered Geneva convention
rights violations would be able to use the fund to help pay for their
injuries. Thus, some nations serving on the United Nations Security
Council who were not even involved in the allied war effort against
Saddam Hussein, such as China, determined that American soldiers and
their survivors could not charge Iraq the cost of their injuries. I
enclose the full letter for the record.
The only fund available to the soldiers or their survivors is the
Iraqi Claims Fund, which consists of $1.2 billion in frozen Iraqi
assets. That claims fund, however, has a limit of $100,000 per soldier
or survivor. There were 396 U.S. soldiers killed and some 2,000 injured
in the gulf war. In addition, an additional 8,000 veterans have been
treated by VA hospitals for physiological injuries arising out of the
war. Needless to say, the Iraqi Claims Fund could easily be depleted by
veterans' claims. Plus, the fund will be used to settle United States
Government contact and property claims against Iraq and unpaid contract
obligations to American companies.
Over a period of time, Kuwait will have its property damage claims by
Iraq paid through the United Nations Compensation Fund. However, United
States veterans of the war, or the survivors, will have to look at the
meager $1.2 billion Iraq Claim Fund or regular veterans' benefits to
pay for injuries or death claims.
This is not right. Saddam Hussein someday will be shipping oil and
will not be responsible one bit for injuries to soldiers, or survivors
of soldiers, who battled his armies. Saddam Hussein will not have to
pay for the injuries caused when one of his SCUD's landed on the
American transportation division from Pennsylvania.
I am pleased that the committee inserted report language at my
request to express this outrage. I fully agree with the committee that
the United States should continue to hold Iraq accountable for
uncompensated veterans' claims.
It is time that we stop the process of having American soldiers shed
their blood on foreign soil only to have the peace accords dictated by
nations whose efforts were minimal.
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, October 25, 1993.
Hon. Donald Manzullo,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Manzullo: This letter responds to your request, in
connection with the proposed Iraq Claims Act, for background
on the eligibility of members of the United States Armed
Forces to file claims against Iraq before the U.N.
Compensation Commission (UNCC).
On June 26, 1992, the Governing Council of the Commission
adopted Decision 11 (S/AC.26/1992/11) (enclosed), under which
members of the Allied Coalition Armed Forces who engaged in
military operations against Iraq are ineligible to file
claims, unless they were prisoners of war and were mistreated
in violation of international humanitarian law. You asked for
an explanation of how the Governing Council arrived at this
decision.
At the end of the Persian Gulf War, the U.N. Security
Council adopted Resolution 687 (enclosed), which in paragraph
16 confirmed Iraq's liability under international law ``for
any direct loss, damage . . . or injury to foreign
Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of
Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.'' The
Security Council went on to establish a fund to pay
compensation to eligible claimants and set up the Commission
to administer the fund. It was left to the Governing Council
of the Commission, composed of the fifteen member states of
the Security Council, to determine the specific criteria for
eligible claims, consistent with the terms of the resolution.
From the outset, the U.S. delegation to the Governing
Council's first session (July 23-August 2, 1991) argued
vigorously that all members of the Allied Coalition Armed
Forces, or their survivors, should be able to file claims for
death or injury suffered in the course of military actions
against Iraq. We argued that these individuals had been sent
into harm's way to combat aggression on behalf of the United
Nations and thus they were at least as deserving as any other
claimant. We said such persons were clearly ``nationals''
covered by paragraph 16 of Resolution 687 and deserved to be
compensated for their losses. However, other governments
objected strenuously to the U.S. position, arguing that
national governments should be responsible for compensating
members of their armed forces, there were no clear
international precedents for such compensation, and inclusion
here would exceed the mandate of the Commission. No other
government supported the U.S. position, and the matter was
put off for later consideration (Decision 1, paragraph 7)
(enclosed).
At the Governing Council's fifth session (March 16-20,
1992), another government introduced a proposal, supported by
the U.S. delegation, to clarify that prisoners of war who had
been mistreated in violation of international humanitarian
law were eligible for compensation, under established
international precedents. Again there were serious objections
from several governments even to this more limited proposal.
The matter was again postponed in favor of further study.
Finally, at the Council's sixth session (June 22-26, 1992),
consensus was reached on adoption of Decision 11 (enclosed),
which clarifies that prisoners of war who were mistreated are
eligible to submit claims to the Commission. The U.S.
delegation continued to argue that all members of the Allied
Coalition Armed Forces who suffered direct loss, damage or
injury as a result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of
Kuwait were entitled to make claims under Resolution 687.
There was no support from any other Council member for the
U.S. position. Other delegations continued to disagree, based
on the reasons set forth above. In the end, other members of
the Council would accept a provision stating that prisoners
of war were eligible to claim compensation before the
Commission on the basis of mistreatment only if the provision
also clearly excluded all other claims by members of Allied
Coalition Forces. Under the circumstances, and taking into
account the importance of reaffirming the special status and
protection to be accorded prisoners of war under
international humanitarian law, the decision was the best
result that could be obtained. The Department of Defense
informed us that their priority was to increase international
recognition of the status and rights of prisoners of war, and
requested that the U.S. delegation support this decision.
Compensation for other members of the U.S. Armed Forces
remains a matter for national legislation. Thus, we hope you
will support adoption of the proposed Iraq claims
legislation.
I hope we have been responsive to your concerns. Please
contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Wendy R. Sherman,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Enclosures: 1. Resolution 687; 2. UNCC Decision 1; 3. UNCC
Decision 11.
United Nations Security Council--Resolution 687 (1991)*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991
Recalling its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, 661
(1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664
(1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666
(1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990,
669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September
1990, 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990, 667 (1990) of 28
November 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 and 686 (1991)
of 2 March 1991.
Welcoming the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty,
independence and territorial integrity and the return of its
legitimate Government.
Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence
of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the
member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of
resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in
Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph
8 of resolution 686 (1991).
Reaffirming the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful
intentions in the light of its unlawful invasion and
occupation of Kuwait.
Taking note of the letter sent by the minister for Foreign
Affairs of Iraq on 27 February 1991\1\ and those sent
pursuant to resolution 686 (1991).\2\
Noting that Iraq and Kuwait, as independent sovereign
States, signed at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 ``Agreed Minutes
Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq
Regarding the Restoration of Friendly relations, Recognition
and Related Matters'', thereby recognizing formally the
boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and the allocation of
islands, which were registered with the United Nations in
accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United
Nations and in which Iraq recognized the independence and
complete sovereignty of the State of Kuwait within its
borders as specified and accepted in the letter of the Prime
Minister of Iraq dated 21 July 1932, and as accepted by the
Ruler of Kuwait in his letter dated 10 August 1932.
Conscious of the need for demarcation of the said boundary.
Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use
weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of
Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17
June 1925,\3\ and of its prior use of chemical weapons and
affirming that grave consequences would follow any further
use by Iraq of such weapons.
Recalling that Iraq has subscribed to the Declaration
adopted by all States participating in the Conference of
States Parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and Other
Interested States, held in Paris from 7 to 11 January 1989,
establishing the objective of universal elimination of
chemical and biological weapons.
Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development. Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their
Destruction, of 10 April 1972.\4\
Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying this Convention.
Noting moreover the importance of all States adhering to
this Convention and encouraging its forthcoming Review
Conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and
universal scope of the convention.
Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the
Conference on Disarmament of its work on a Convention on the
Universal Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and of universal
adherence thereto.
Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in
unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific
measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq.
Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that
Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons
programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,\5\
Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-
weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,
Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass
destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the
need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of
a zone free of such weapons,
Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and
comprehensive control of armaments in the region,
Conscious further of the importance of achieving the
objectives noted above using all available means, including a
dialogue among the States of the region,
Noting that resolution 686 (1991) marked the lifting of the
measures imposed by resolution 661 (1990) in so far as they
applied to Kuwait,
Noting that despite the progress being made in fulfilling
the obligations of resolution 686 (1991), many Kuwaiti and
third country nationals are still not accounted for and
property remains unreturned,
Recalling the International Convention against the Taking
of Hostages,\6\ opened for signature at New York on 18
December 1979, which categorizes all acts of taking hostages
as manifestations of international terrorism,
Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict
to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the
taking of hostages by Iraq,
Taking note with grave concern of the reports of the
Secretary-General of 20 March 1991\7\ and 28 March 1991,\8\
and conscious of the necessity to meet urgently the
humanitarian needs in Kuwait and Iraq.
Bearing in mind its objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area as set out in recent
resolutions of the Security Council,
Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting
under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as
expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this
resolution, including a formal cease-fire;
A
2. Demands that Iraq and Kuwait respect the inviolability
of the international boundary and the allocation of islands
set out in the ``Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait
and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of
Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters'', signed
by them in the exercise of their sovereignty at Baghdad on 4
October 1963 and registered with the United Nations and
published by the United Nations in document 7063, United
Nations, Treaty Series, 1964:
3. Calls upon the Secretary-General to lend his assistance
to make arrangements with Iraq and Kuwait to demonstrate the
boundary between Iraq and Kuwait, drawing on appropriate
material, including the map transmitted by Security Council
document S/22412 and to report back to the Security Council
within one month;
4. Decides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-
mentioned international boundary and to take as appropriate
all necessary measures to that end in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations;
B
5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with
Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security
Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment
of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor
Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby
established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five
kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the
``Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic
of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations,
Recognition and Related Matters'' of 4 October 1963; to deter
violations of the boundary through its presence in and
surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any
hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the
territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-
General to report regularly to the Security Council on the
operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious
violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;
6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the
Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the
United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be
established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in
accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military
presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686
(1991);
C
7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations
under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in
War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17
June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of
the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on
Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the
destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under
international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of
agents and all related subsystems and components and all
research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150
kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production
facilities;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above,
the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within
fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a
declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items
specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site
inspection as specified below;
(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the
appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the
Director-General of the World Health Organization, within
forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution,
shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan
calling for the completion of the following acts within
forty-five days of such approval:
(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry
out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological,
chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's
declarations and the designation of any additional locations
by the Special Commission itself;
(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special
Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless,
taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all
items specified under paragraph 8(a) above, including items
at the additional locations designated by the Special
Commission under paragraph 9(b)(i) above and the destruction
by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of
all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as
specified under paragraph 8(b) above;
(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the
assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12
and 13 below;
10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not
to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items
specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the
Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special
Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing
monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this
paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for
approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of
this resolution;
11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its
obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968;
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to
acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable
material or any subsystems or components or any research,
development, support or manufacturing facilities related to
the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the
Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution
a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all
items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-
usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and
removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the
assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as
provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed
in paragraph 9(b) above; to accept, in accordance with the
arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-
site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering
harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to
accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the
future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance
with these undertakings;
13. Requests the Director-General of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, through the Secretary-General, with the
assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as
provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General in
paragraph 9(b) above, to carry out immediate on-site
inspection of Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on Iraq's
declarations and the designation of any additional locations
by the Special Commission; to develop a plan for submission
to the Security Council within forty-five days calling for
the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless as
appropriate of all items listed in paragraph 12 above; to
carry out the plan within forty-five days following approval
by the Security Council; and to develop a plan, taking into
account the rights and obligations of Iraq under the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,
for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's
compliance with paragraph 12 above, including an inventory of
all nuclear material in Iraq subject to the Agency's
verification and inspections to confirm that Agency
safeguards cover all relevant nuclear activities in Iraq, to
be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one
hundred and twenty days of the passage of the present
resolutions;
14. Takes note that the actions to be taken by Iraq in
paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the present resolution
represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the
Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and
all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global
ban on chemical weapons;
d
15. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the
Security Council on the steps taken to facilitate the return
of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, including a list of
any property that Kuwait claims has not been returned or
which has not been returned intact;
E
16. Reaffirm that Iraq, without prejudice to the debts and
obligations of Iraq arising prior to 2 August 1990, which
will be addressed through the normal mechanisms, is liable
under international law for any direct loss, damage,
including environmental damage and the depletion of natural
resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and
corporations, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and
occupation of Kuwait;
17. Decides that all Iraqi statements made since 2 August
1990 repudiating its foreign debt are null and void, and
demands that Iraq adhere scrupulously to all of its
obligations concerning servicing and repayment of its foreign
debt;
18. Decides also to create a fund to pay compensation for
claims that fall within paragraph 16 above and to establish a
Commission that will administer the fund;
19. Directs the Secretary-General to develop and present to
the Security Council for decision, no later than thirty days
following the adoption of the present resolution,
recommendations for the fund to meet the requirement for the
payment of claims established in accordance with paragraph 18
above and for a programme to implement the decisions in
paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 above, including: administration of
the fund; mechanisms for determining the appropriate level of
Iraq's contribution to the fund based on a percentage of the
value of the exports of petroleum and petroleum products from
Iraq not to exceed a figure to be suggested to the Council by
the Secretary-General, taking into account the requirements
of the people of Iraq, Iraq's payment capacity as assessed in
conjunction with the international financial institutions
taking into consideration external debt service, and the
needs of the Iraqi economy; arrangements for ensuring that
payments are made to the fund; the process by which funds
will be allocated and claims paid; appropriate procedures for
evaluating losses, listing claims and verifying their
validity and resolving disputed claims in respect of Iraq's
liability as specified in paragraph 16 above; and the
composition of the Commission designated above;
F
20. Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions
against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or
products, other than medicine and health supplies, and
prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto
contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall not apply to
foodstuffs notified to the Security Council Committee
established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation
between Iraq and Kuwait or, with the approval of that
Committee, under the simplified and accelerated ``no-
objection'' procedure, to materials and supplies for
essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the
Secretary-General dated 20 March 1991,\9\ and in any further
findings of humanitarian need by the Committee;
21. Decides that the Security Council shall review the
provisions of paragraph 20 above every sixty days in the
light of the policies and practices of the Government of
Iraq, including the implementation of all relevant
resolutions of the Security Council, for the purpose of
determining whether to reduce or lift the prohibitions
referred to therein:
22. Decides that upon the approval by the Security Council
of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon
Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions
contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the
prohibitions against the import of commodities and products
originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial
transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661
(1990) shall have no further force or effect;
23. Decides that, pending action by the Security Council
under paragraph 22 above, the Security Council Committee
established by resolution 661 (1990) shall be empowered to
approve, when required to assure adequate financial resources
on the part of Iraq to carry out the activities under
paragraph 20 above, exceptions to the prohibition against the
import of commodities and products originating in Iraq;
24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990)
and subsequent related resolutions and until a further
decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall
continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or
facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their
nationals, or from their territories or using their flag
vessels or aircraft, of:
(a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically
including the sale or transfer through other means of all
forms of conventional military equipment, including for
paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their
means of production, for such equipment;
(b) Items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12
above not otherwise covered above;
(c) Technology under licensing or other transfer
arrangements used in the production, utilization or
stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b)
above;
(d) Personnel or materials for training or technical
support services relating to the design, development,
manufacture, use, maintenance or support of items specified
in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;
25. Calls upon all States and international organizations
to act strictly in accordance with paragraph 24 above,
notwithstanding the existence of any contracts, agreements,
licences or any other arrangements;
26. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with
appropriate Governments, to develop within sixty days, for
the approval of the Security Council, guidelines to
facilitate full international implementation of paragraphs 24
and 25 above and paragraph 27 below, and to make them
available to all States and to establish a procedure for
updating these guidelines periodically;
27. Calls upon all States to maintain such national
controls and procedures and to take such other actions
consistent with the guidelines to be established by the
Security Council under paragraph 26 above as may be necessary
to ensure compliance with the terms of paragraph 24 above,
and calls upon international organizations to take all
appropriate steps to assist in ensuring such full compliance;
28. Agrees to review its decisions in paragraphs 22, 23, 24
and 25 above, except for the items specified and defined in
paragraphs 8 and 12 above, on a regular basis and in any case
one hundred and twenty days following passage of the present
resolution, taking into account Iraq's compliance with the
resolution and general progress towards the control of
armaments in the region;
29. Decides that all States, including Iraq, shall take the
necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the
instance of the Government of Iraq, or of any person or body
in Iraq, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit
of any such person or body, in connection with any contract
or other transaction where its performance was affected by
reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in
resolution 661 (1990) and related resolutions;
g
30. Decides that, in furtherance of its commitment to
facilitate the repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third country
nationals, Iraq shall extend all necessary cooperation to the
International Committee of the Red Cross, providing lists of
such persons, facilitating the access of the International
Committee of the Red Cross to all such persons wherever
located or detained and facilitating the search by the
International Committee of the Red Cross for those Kuwaiti
and third country nationals still unaccounted for;
31. Invites the International Committee of the Red Cross to
keep the Secretary-General apprised as appropriate of all
activities undertaken in connection with facilitating the
repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country
nationals or their remains present in Iraq on or after 2
August 1990;
H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it
will not commit or support any act of international terrorism
or allow any organization directed towards commission of such
acts to operate within its territory and to condemn
unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of
terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to
the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its
acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is
effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States
cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678
(1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such
further steps as may be required for the implementation of
the present resolution and to secure peace and security in
the area.
footnotes
*S. Res. 687 (1991)--reissued for technical reasons.
\1\S/22275, annex.
\2\S/22273, S/22276, S/22320, S/22321 and S/22330.
\3\League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. XCIV (1929), No.
2138.
\4\General Assembly resolution 2826 (XXVI), annex.
\5\General Assembly resolution 2373 (XXII).
\6\General Assembly resolution 34/146.
\7\S/22366.
\8\S/22409.
\9\S/22366.
____
First Session of the Governing Council of the United Nations
Compensation Commission
Criteria for Expedited Processing of Urgent Claims
1. The following criteria will govern the submission of the
most urgent claims pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) for the
first categories to be considered by the Commission. It
provides for simple and expedited procedures by which
Governments may submit consolidated claims and receive
payments on behalf of the many individuals who suffered
personal losses as a result of the invasion and occupation of
Kuwait. For a great many persons these procedures would
provide prompt compensation in full; for others they will
provide substantial interim relief while their larger or more
complex claims are being processed, including those suffering
business losses.
2. These criteria are without prejudice to future Council
decisions with respect to criteria for other categories of
claims, which will be approved separately as promptly as
possible, with expert advice from Commissioners as may be
required.
3. The following criteria are not intended to resolve every
issue that may arise with respect to these claims. Rather,
they are intended to provide sufficient guidance to enable
Governments to prepare consolidated claims submissions. It
will likely be necessary for the Council to make further
decisions on the processing of claims after receiving expert
advice where needed.
4. Each Government may submit one or more consolidated
claims for each category established by the Council. Thus,
each Government may make separate consolidated submissions
covering claims in each of the categories set forth below;
and it may later submit separate consolidated claims for each
additional category to be established by the Council.
5. The Council will promptly establish criteria for
additional categories of claims, to permit consolidated
submissions by Governments for all losses covered by
paragraph 16 of resolution 687 (1991). Business losses of
individuals may be part of consolidated claims under the
expedited procedures set forth below. The Council will
provide further advice on an urgent basis as to the types of
business losses eligible for consideration under the
expedited procedures. Business losses of corporations and
other legal entities will be covered in other criteria to be
established. The Council will also separately consider claims
on behalf of third parties, such as Governments, insurance
companies, relief agencies and employers, which have made
payments or provided relief to persons suffering compensable
losses.
6. The Council will consider promptly, after receiving
expert advice, the circumstances in which claims for mental
pain and anguish may be admitted, the amounts to be awarded,
and the limits to be imposed thereon.
7. The Council will separately examine the question of the
eligibility or otherwise of claims by or in respect of
members of the allied coalition armed forces; the Executive
Secretary will have available, inter alia, the provisions of
the relevant national legislation of the Governments
concerned.
8. The Commission will process the claims in the initial
categories in paragraphs 10 to 16 on an expedited basis.
While decisions on the precise method of processing these
claims will be made at a later stage, the following steps are
contemplated. As the claims are received they would be
submitted to a panel of Commissioners for review within a set
time limit. If, as expected, the volume of claims in these
categories is large, the Commissioners would be instructed to
adopt expedited procedures to process them, such as checking
individual claims on a sample basis, with further
verification only if circumstances warranted. The
Commissioners would be asked to report to the Council on the
claims received and the amount recommended for the claims
submitted by each Government. The council would then decide
on the total amount to be allocated to each government. To
the extent necessary, the Council would seek expert advice
(for example, on what constitutes serious personal injury) at
any stage of the process.
9. As contributions are made to the Fund, the Council will
allocate those funds among the various categories of claims.
If resources of the Fund are insufficient with respect to all
claims processed to date, pro rata payments would be made to
Governments periodically as funds become available. The
Council will decide on the priority for payment of various
categories of claims.
payment of fixed amounts
10. These payments are available with respect to any person
who, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation
of Kuwait: (a) departed from Iraq or Kuwait during the period
of 2 August 1990 to 2 March 1991; (b) suffered serious
personal injury; or (c) whose spouse, child or parent died.
11. In the case of departures, $2,500 will be provided
where there is simple documentation of the fact and date of
departure from Iraq or Kuwait. Documentation of the actual
amount of loss will not be required. Claims submitted under
this procedure for departure from Iraq or Kuwait cannot be
resubmitted for a greater amount in any other category. If
the loss in question was greater than $2,500 and can be
documented, it may instead be submitted under paragraph 14
and in other appropriate categories.
12. In addition, in the case of serious personal injury not
resulting in death, $2,500 will be provided where there is
simple documentation of the fact and date of the injury; and
in the case of death, $2,500 will be provided where there is
simple documentation of the death and family relationship.
Documentation of the actual amount of loss resulting from the
death or injury will not be required. If the actual loss in
question was greater than $2,500, these payments will be
treated as interim relief, and claims for additional amounts
may also be submitted under paragraph 14 and in other
appropriate categories.
13. These amounts are payable cumulatively where more than
one situation applies with respect to a particular person.
However, no more than $10,000 will be paid for death, and no
more than $5,000 for departure, with respect to any one
family (consisting of any person and his or her spouse,
children and parents).
consideration of claims for up to $100,000 of actual losses per person
14. These payments are available with respect to death or
personal injury, or losses of income, support, housing or
personal property, or medical expenses or costs of departure,
as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of
Kuwait. The Commission will give expedited priority
consideration to claims for such losses up to $100,000 per
person.
15. (a) Such claims must be documented by appropriate
evidence of the circumstances and the amount of the claimed
loss. The evidence required will be the reasonable minimum
that is appropriate under the circumstances involved, and a
lesser degree of documentary evidence would ordinarily be
required for smaller claims, such as those below $20,000.
(b) If the loss in question was greater than $100,000,
claims for additional amounts may also be submitted in other
appropriate categories. Criteria for the submission of claims
in excess of $100,000 will be approved separately. Claims
larger than $100,000 may be submitted in their entirety at a
later date under those separate procedures, or the first
$100,000 may be submitted at this time and the remainder
separately.
16. Compensation will not be provided for losses suffered
as a result of the trade embargo and related measures, nor
will costs of attorneys' fees or other expenses for claims
preparation be compensated under this category. Any
compensation, whether in funds or in kind, already received
from any source will be deducted from the total amount of
losses suffered.
requirements applicable under both categories
17. Claims will not be considered on behalf of Iraqi
nationals who do not have bona fide nationality of any other
State.
18. Claims must be for death, personal injury or other
direct loss to individuals as a result of Iraq's unlawful
invasion and occupation of Kuwait. This will include any loss
suffered as a result of:
(a) military operations or threat of military action by
either side during the period 2 August 1990 to 2 March 1991;
(b) departure from or inability to leave Iraq or Kuwait (or
a decision not to return) during that period;
(c) actions by officials, employees or agents of the
Government of Iraq or its controlled entities during that
period in connection with the invasion or occupation;
(d) the breakdown of civil order in Kuwait or Iraq during
that period; or
(e) hostage-taking or other illegal detention.
19. Claims will be submitted by Governments. Each
Government will normally submit claims on behalf of its
nationals; each Government may, in its discretion, also
submit the claims of other persons resident in its territory.
In addition, the Council may request an appropriate person,
authority or body to submit claims on behalf of persons who
are not in a position to have their claims submitted by a
Government. Each Government shall make one or more
consolidated submissions of all such claims for each
category. The Council encourages the submission of such
claims within six months from the date on which the Executive
Secretary circulates to Governments the claims forms
described below; and the Commission will thereupon give
consideration to such claims as provided herein. The Council
will consider at a later time be period within which all such
claims must be submitted.
20. Each consolidated claim must include:
(a) a signed statement by each individual covered
containing:
(i) his or her name and address, and any passport number or
other identifying national number;
(ii) for claims under paragraph 14, the amount, type, and
reason for each element of the loss, and any compensation,
whether in funds or in kind already received from any source
for the claim asserted;
(iii) any documents evidencing the matters set forth in the
definition of each category, as well as the items set forth
in the preceding subparagraph; and
(iv) his or her affirmation that the foregoing information
is correct, and that no other claim for the same loss has
been submitted to the Commission;
(b) the affirmation of the Government submitting the claim
that, to the best of the information available to it, the
individuals in question are its nationals or residents, and
the affirmation of the Government or of the person, authority
or body as referred to in paragraph 19 that it has no reason
to believe that the information stated is incorrect.
21. The Executive Secretary (or a Commissioner) will
prepare and the Executive Secretary will distribute a
standard form for submission of claims within each category,
incorporating the above elements in a clear and concise
manner. Except as may otherwise be agreed between the
Executive Secretary and the Government in question, claims
will be submitted to the Executive Secretary by Governments
or by persons, authorities or bodies as referred to in
paragraph 19 on the standard form and must include the
information in an official language of the United Nations.
Each Government may adopt such procedures as it finds
appropriate in preparing its consolidated claim. The
Executive Secretary (or a Commissioner) will be available to
answer questions or provide assistance to any Governments
which may request it.
United Nations Compensation Commission Governing Council Sixth Session
Geneva, June 22-26, 1992
decision taken by the governing council of the United Nations
compensation commission at its sixth session, 27th meeting held on June
26, 1992--Eligibility for Compensation of Members of the Allied
Coalition Armed Forces
The Governing Council decides that members of the Allied
Coalition Armed Forces are not eligible for compensation for
loss or injury arising as a consequence of their involvement
in Coalition military operations against Iraq, except if the
following three conditions are met:
(a) the compensation is awarded in accordance with the
general criteria already adopted; and
(b) they were prisoners of war as a consequence of their
involvement in Coalition military operations against Iraq in
response to its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait;
and
(c) the loss or injury resulted from mistreatment in
violation of international humanitarian law (including the
Geneva Conventions of 1949).
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks,
and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of
efforts to revise our current Iraqi prisoner of war [POW] resettlement
policy.
It is difficult to imagine that the Government is currently
resettling our former enemies--not in prisons--but in neighborhoods
across the country. Just think, when the administration was cutting
military and veterans' benefits it was, and is presently, providing
rent assistance, job placement, medical care, and cash subsidies to our
former enemy. It is expected that some 4,600 Iraqis will be admitted
into the United States this year alone--costing the American taxpayers
$32 million--approximately $7,000 per Iraqi.
Section 10 of the ``Iraqi Claims Act'' expresses the sense of the
Congress that no former Iraqi POW's should be admitted to the United
States except in exceptional circumstances. I support this provision
and hope it is adopted by the House.
In response to the resettlement of Iraqi POW's in the United States,
I personally introduced H.R. 3173 on September 29, 1993, which will
prevent our former enemy from immigrating into the United States. I
believe that former Iraqi POW's should not be permitted to immigrate to
the United States except in extreme cases.
But I would like to stress those extreme cases where they have
assisted the United States or the United Nations forces during the
Persian Gulf conflict and when it can be shown they did not commit or
participate in any war crimes.
Certainly, if they helped us, whether by intelligence efforts or
what, if you get in there and win one of the most lopsided victories in
history and the army can say that they were assisting us in the
process, I do not see how we could turn our back on those people.
Madam Chairman, I strongly support section 10 and urge my colleagues
to cosponsor my bill, H.R. 3173. While the enactment of this sense of
Congress is an important first step only, the passage of my bill will
actually stop the administration from resettling more Iraqi prisoners-
of-war in the United States.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
his remarks.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Gallegly], a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.
{time} 1410
Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3221,
which puts Congress on record in opposing further resettlement in this
country of Iraqi prisoners of war who fought and killed our brave men
and women during the Persian Gulf conflict. This language, which I
offered, responds directly to wide-scale outrage at a policy that is
clearly out of touch with mainstream America. Today, I am very
gratified to tell the hundreds of individuals who have contacted me
that, by adopting this legislation, Congress is saying ``no'' to a
policy that would resettle Iraqi prisoners of war in the United States,
with full benefits, at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of approximately $70
million.
The original rationale behind the resettlement of Iraqi's and their
families was the belief that these POW's could face imprisonment or
even execution by the government of Saddam Hussein if they returned to
Iraq. Many were deserters who fled their units in fear for their lives
in the hours and days before the American led coalition forces sliced
through the Iraqi lines. However, nowhere and at no time did the United
States ever promise resettlement. As my good friend and colleague, Jan
Meyers from Kansas, stated during committee consideration, ``the help
promised to Iraqi deserters was to feed them and not to shoot them.''
The bottom line is clear: It is an insult to all Americans for our
Government to take on this responsibility--forsaking our own people and
particularly our own veterans, whose entitlements are being steadily
eroded. The U.S. Government has no business putting enemy soldiers
ahead of some 9 million unemployed Americans, and 250,000 homeless
American veterans, including veterans of Operation Desert Storm.
I have been astounded by the outpouring of telephone calls and
letters from across the Nation pleading for an end to this ludicrous
policy.
Madam Chairman, I am proud to say that Congress, with the passage of
this bill, can tell our constituents, can tell our young men and women
who have served in the Armed Forces--and can tell ourselves--that we
have listened and we have responded by officially opposing any further
resettlement of Iraqi POW's.
I urge my colleagues' support for this legislation.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I listened to the plea and the
argument of the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. But then, as
I understand it, he is not going to offer a motion to recommit so that
these people cannot come in. He is only going to support this little
weak, wimpy statement----
Mr. GALLEGLY. If----
Mr. KANJORSKI. It is the sense of the Congress----
Mr. GALLEGLY. To respond to the gentleman, my bill originally
eliminated--if the gentleman would let me finish, my bill----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Gallegly] has expired.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Chairman, the bill I offered in the form of a
germane amendment that is now in the text of this----
Mr. KANJORSKI. Is this the gentleman's bill that is in this
legislation?
If this were the gentleman's bill, just a sense of the Congress, we
would only be wishing the State Department would not do the things that
they are doing. It would not cost us $7,000 a year, an Iraqi; $30,000--
--
Mr. GALLEGLY. That is correct, inasmuch as this is in a foreign
affairs bill----
Mr. KANJORSKI. We could----
Mr. GALLEGLY. Be in the judiciary, but I could not get the bill heard
in----
Mr. KANJORSKI. We could argue the proposition though that, if it is
only a sense of the Congress and if the gentleman does not agree to
offer this motion to recommit, which would make it--notwithstanding any
other law they cannot do it----
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Kanjorski----
Mr. KANJORSKI. The gentleman does not favor----
Mr. GALLEGLY. I have the commitment from the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, where this should be held, that he will
bring this up and hear it, and that is the appropriate place to put
more teeth into----
Mr. KANJORSKI. Why do we not put more teeth in until we define and
describe what we are doing? We have got how many thousand Iraqi
refugees in this country now? They are costing us $30 million a year.
When we finally get a bill to the Committee on the Judiciary and any
other committee that may be necessary 5 years from now, we may be in
the next war.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Gallegly] has expired.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
(Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3221,
especially to the extent that it would give Persian Gulf war veterans
or their survivors first priority in filing claims against frozen Iraqi
assets for injuries or deaths resulting from their participation in the
war against Iraq.
I understand that potential claims against these assets may exceed $5
billion. Since there are only about $1.2 billion in frozen assets, it
is only right that, if any group of injured parties should be
compensated by the Iraqi Government, it should be those who fought and
suffered injury to defeat the forces of Saddam Hussein in the
liberation of Kuwait.
I would remind my colleagues that, to the extent that these veterans
have suffered injury, disability, or death while serving in the Armed
Forces, we have a comprehensive benefits system in place that is
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The vast majority
of disabilities suffered by these veterans already result in benefit
entitlements from the U.S. Government. The bill would not infringe on
any veteran's right to receive benefits from the VA, but it does
incorporate certain offset provisions that could reduce the amount of
an award provided under this bill.
Madam Chairman, we do not know how many veterans may benefit by this
bill. However, we believe that it may benefit some Persian Gulf
veterans whose illnesses have not yet been linked to service and, to
the degree that it puts veterans at the head of the line, we should
support it.
I commend the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee
for bringing this measure to the floor and for his strong commitment to
the well-being of our Nation's veterans.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Lancaster].
(Mr. LANCASTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LANCASTER. Madam Chairman, a number of United States exporters,
acting entirely lawfully and with the encouragement of the United
States Government, engaged in commercial sales of their products to
Iraq before our trade embargo against that country. The exporters
actually shipped their goods, and Iraq received them. Iraq authorized
its financial agents in this country to pay these particular debts, but
before payment could be delivered, hostilities broke out and the United
States Government ordered all Iraqi assets frozen. They remain so
today, and the exporters have never been paid.
Among the companies caught in this situation are tobacco exporters
from North Carolina. The North Carolina exporters in my area felt they
had fully protected their financial interests by having letters of
credit issued, a system of payment used routinely in commercial
transactions and never before having been abrogated in any trade
setting except, I believe, in some Nigerian transactions several years
ago.
The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] believes, as do I, that
these companies deserve to have a higher priority against the frozen
Iraqi assets than should other commercial claimants. Unfortunately, HR.
3221 as reported from committee lumps all commercial claimants
together.
The committee's bill deliberately gives the highest priority to
claims from individuals who served in the U.S. armed services during
the Persian Gulf war. The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], which I understand will not be offered, would
not disturb the bill's emphasis on compensation of Persian Gulf war
veterans. The Bereuter amendment would make the bill fairer to those
companies, including the exporters from North Carolina who, in good
faith, completed their part of a commercial contract, but have yet to
receive their payment. I regret that it will not be offered but hope
that this issue will be addressed in the future.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].
Mr. McHALE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton] for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, I have now had the opportunity to review section 10
of this bill in some detail. I find this to be a bone in the throat of
every gulf war veteran.
Immediately prior to the gulf war, Madam Chairman, I stood in the
chow line in northeastern Saudi Arabia, and I happened to look at the
helmet of the marine who stood in front of me in that line, and in the
handwriting that marines from time to time put on their helmet covers
this young marine had written, quote, ``It's not about oil,'' end of
quote.
As I see in here today, Madam Chairman, I would remind my colleagues
that it is not about money.
I have heard a description of section 10 that simply does not conform
to the language printed on the piece of paper. ``Exceptional
circumstances'' is not defined. There is no recognition of those who
aided American forces or, perhaps, did not pull a trigger. It is simply
a broad generic term, exceptional circumstances, and worse than that,
immediately after that phrase it states, and I quote, ``Until all
claims certified under section 2b of this act have been paid in full,''
which is to say, once money has changed hands, it is perfectly
acceptable, even without exceptional circumstances, to allow those who
took up arms in opposition to the United States to be brought into our
country.
Madam Chairman, if we vote for this today, it is a slap in the face
to every gulf war veteran who put his or her life on the line for our
country. Those who raised arms in opposition to the United Sates,
before or after the bills are paid, should not be allowed to come into
our country, and, under truly exceptional circumstances, where mercy
should be shown, where in an isolated individual case an Iraqi soldier
clearly did aid American forces, perhaps after he had no choice in
doing so, then it seems to me that our allies in that fight, perhaps
Saudi Arabia, or those who provided aid and comfort to our enemy,
perhaps Jordan, should provide an appropriate residency for those who
seek asylum. But how can we pass section 10 and go home to our
constituents, those who served in the gulf war, and say to them, ``It
was about oil, it is about money, and, as soon as bills are paid, your
former enemies will be allowed to be your next-door neighbors''.
Madam Chairman, I find that to be disgraceful, and under any
circumstances, from now until the day I leave this Chamber, I will
oppose the contents of section 10.
{time} 1420
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 additional
minute, to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, let me say that I agree 100 percent
with the remarks of the previous speaker. I would call the attention of
the body to page 16, the minority and dissenting views in the full
report of the Iraqi Claims Act of 1993. In there it states that because
of the outrage that has just been expressed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, going back almost a year ago, we started working with the
State Department, so that the policy of the State Department has come
to a situation now where the language that appears on page 16 is their
former policy. In other words, only those ex-Iraqi POW's and ex-Iraqi
soldiers who, No. 1, did not fire on United States personnel and, No.
2, gave tangible assistance to the allied forces in terms of
reconnaissance and things of that nature, unless they meet those
criteria, they would not be allowed to settle in the United States.
Anybody who gave tangible assistance to Saddam Hussein would be in a
position to be in harm's way, and that would be the situation.
Mr. McHALE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]
has expired.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding more
time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] has some further remarks
to make, and I yield to him in order that he may complete his remarks.
Mr. McHALE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
extraordinary courtesy under the circumstances where he and I obviously
have a different position on the pending piece of legislation.
The gentleman has accurately quoted from the minority report. What I
would stress to my colleague is that the language which he cites
appears nowhere in H.R. 3221.
H.R. 3221, which is the relevant legislation now before the House,
simply says that under exceptional circumstances, not defined, even
before the claims are paid, individuals who took up arms against the
United States may be brought into our country. That is a legal issue.
The language in H.R. 3221 simply does not conform to the minority
report which the gentleman quotes.
But more importantly, in the real world of a battlefield,
particularly in armored and mechanized conflict, there is absolutely no
way to tell who has or who has not overtly engaged in hostile
activities. The war in the gulf was fought at a distance of 2,000 to
3,000 meters where antiarmor weapons were fired at one another. Very
little infantry conflict occurred. We simply do not know, nor does
anyone else, who actually fired during the course of the war.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I want to try to clarify what the committee position is. I think the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] has stated the language
accurately. We did try to wrestle with this question of exceptional
circumstances, but I think the important point to make is really a
point that is in agreement with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and
that is that as a matter of United States policy, the committee
believes that any individual who served in the Iraqi Armed F orces
should not be admitted to the United States as a refugee. We believe
that should be the policy. Those who have spoken against this section
believe that should be the policy.
The differences arise over this phrase that we put into the language
of the bill, ``except in exceptional circumstances,'' and we tried to
define that in the committee report, which would be part of the
legislative language, and we made two exceptions. One of them was the
active involvement in the rebellion against Saddam Hussein at the
request of the United States, or forced enlistment in the armed forces
of an ethnic or religious minority--and there are several, of course,
in Iraq.
The second exception was an Iraqi soldier who provided tangible
assistance to the United States or coalition forces during the Persian
Gulf war. I do not know if we have exactly the right language here with
respect to these exceptions, but the committee, with the help of the
gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from California, worked very,
very hard to get the right language, and I am quite prepared to work
further on it.
I did want to try to clarify the language of the committee here, but
the basic point is that we are all in agreement, and that is that as a
matter of policy an individual who served in the forces of the country
of Iraq should not be admitted to the United States as a refugee.
Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] has
asked for 1 additional minute, and I will yield that to him before I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHALE. Madam Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for their
extraordinary courtesy.
The point I want to make goes beyond the question of how we are to
define exceptional circumstances. If we are to be intellectually honest
on this issue, we must recognize that under the language of H.R. 3221,
once the crimes are satisfied in full, the issue of exceptional
circumstances becomes moot. Under the language of H.R. 3221, once the
claims are paid and certified, the issue of exceptional circumstances
is no longer to be applied. At that point those who took up arms
against the United States are to be admitted wholly independent of the
question of exceptional circumstances.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, that is
not how the language reads. It has never been the intent of the
committee, because the committee chairman in a bipartisan manner worked
extremely diligently to make sure the things the gentleman just said
would come to pass.
Mr. McHALE. Madam Chairman, I do not doubt the gentleman's intent. I
am reading the language of the legislation. This says, ``except in
exceptional circumstances, until all claims certified under section
2(b) of this Act have been paid in full.'' The language is clear.
Mr. MANZULLO. After the ``circumstances,'' there is a comma.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McHale] has expired.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the
committee, who, I think, can give us a succinct description as to
exactly what happened.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think the point to be made here under the language the gentleman
from Pennsylvania is pointing out is that we have, we estimate, $1.2
billion available. As nearly as we can estimate, we have claims well in
excess of $5 billion, so the claims are not going to be certified in
full.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 3221, the Iraqi
Claims Act. I urge the House to approve this vital legislation.
The purpose of H.R. 3221 is to provide a fair and orderly system for
adjudicating the claims of United States nationals against Iraq. Such
claims include losses, damage, or injury suffered by individuals and
corporations as a result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait or
events preceding the invasion.
The bill authorizes the United States Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission to use available Iraqi assets under United States control to
pay valid claims. For most American claimants, these frozen assets are
the only current means of obtaining reimbursement from the Iraqi
Government.
I particularly want to express my support for the Bonior amendment
expressing the sense of Congress that we should immediately provide
basic medical assistance through nongovernmental and international
organizations to the people of Iraq, who continue to suffer under the
oppressive policies of Saddam Hussein. The amendment also calls on the
administration to seek reimbursement for the cost of such aid from
Iraqi assets.
Passage of H.R. 3221 is the right thing to do. I urge the House to
approve this legislation.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment, and each section is considered as read.
No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
is in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
The amendment by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] relating
to certain commercial claims may amend portions of the bill not yet
read for amendment.
After disposition of all other amendments to the committee
substitute, it shall be in order to consider the following amendments
in this order:
First, the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]
relating to humanitarian assistance; and
Second, the amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
relating to war crimes.
After disposition of those amendments, no further amendment to the
committee substitute is in order.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
H.R. 3221
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Iraq Claims Act of 1993''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS.
(a) Certain Claims Within the Jurisdiction of UN
Commission.--The United States Commission is authorized to
receive and determine the validity and amounts of any claims
referred to it by the Secretary of State with respect to
which the United States has received lump-sum payments from
the United Nations Commission.
(b) Other Claims Against Iraq.--The United States
Commission is authorized to receive and determine the
validity and amounts of any claims by nationals of the United
States against the Government of Iraq that are determined by
the Secretary of State to be outside the jurisdiction of the
United Nations Commission.
(c) Decision Rules.--In deciding claims under subsection
(a) or (b), the United States Commission shall apply, in the
following order--
(1) in the case of claims under subsection (a), relevant
decisions of the United Nations Security Council and the
United Nations Commission;
(2) applicable substantive law, including international
law; and
(3) applicable principles of justice and equity.
(d) Priority Claims.--Before deciding any other claim
against the Government of Iraq, the United States Commission
shall, to the extent practical, decide all pending non-
commercial claims of members of the United States Armed
Forces and other individuals arising out of Iraq's invasion
and occupation of Kuwait or out of the 1987 attack on the USS
Stark.
(e) Applicability of International Claims Settlement Act.--
To the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act, the provisions of title I (other than section
2(c)) and title VII of the International Claims Settlement
Act of 1949 (22 U.S.C. 1621-1627 and 1645-1645o) shall apply
with respect to claims under this Act and the funds
established pursuant to sections 3(a) and 3(c).
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. CLAIMS FUNDS.
(a) UN Commission Claims Funds.--The Secretary of the
Treasury is authorized to establish in the Treasury of the
United States one or more funds (hereinafter in this Act
referred to as the ``UN Commission Claims Funds'') for
payment of claims under section 2(a). The Secretary of the
Treasury shall cover into the UN Commission Claims Funds such
amounts as are allocated to such funds pursuant to subsection
(b)(1).
(b) Allocation of Funds Received From UN Commission.--The
Secretary of State shall allocate funds received by the
United States from the United Nations Commission, in the
manner the Secretary determines appropriate, between--
(1) the UN Commission Claims Funds; and
(2) funds established under the authority of the paragraphs
under the heading ``TRUST FUNDS'' in the Act entitled ``An
Act making appropriations for the diplomatic and consular
service for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen
hundred and ninety-seven'', approved February 26, 1896 (22
U.S.C. 2668a).
(c) Iraq Claims Fund.--The Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized to establish in the Treasury of the United States
a fund (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Iraq
Claims Fund'') for payment of claims under section 2(b). The
Secretary of the Treasury shall cover into the Iraq Claims
Fund such amounts as are allocated to such fund pursuant to
subsection (d).
(d) Allocation of Proceeds From Iraqi Asset Liquidation.--
(1) In general.--The President shall allocate funds
resulting from the liquidation of assets pursuant to section
4 in the manner the President determines appropriate between
the Iraq Claims Fund and such other accounts as are
appropriate for the payment of claims of the United States
Government, subject to the limitation in paragraph (2).
(2) Limitation.--The amount allocated pursuant to this
subsection for payment of claims of the United States
Government may not exceed the amount which bears the same
relation to the amount allocated to the Iraq Claims Fund
pursuant to this subsection as the sum of all certified
claims of the United States Government bears to the sum of
all claims certified under section 2(b). As used in this
paragraph, the term ``certified claims of the United States
Government'' means those claims of the United States
Government which are determined by the Secretary of State to
be outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations Commission
and which are determined to be valid, and whose amount has
been certified, under such procedures as the President may
establish.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 4.
The text of section 4 is as follows:
SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO VEST IRAQI ASSETS.
The President is authorized to vest and liquidate as much
of the assets of the Government of Iraq in the United States
that have been blocked pursuant to the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) as may
be necessary to satisfy claims under section 2(b), as well as
claims of the United States Government against Iraq which are
determined by the Secretary of State to be outside the
jurisdiction of the United Nations Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 5.
The text of section 5 is as follows:
SEC. 5. REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Deduction.--In order to reimburse the United States
Government for its expenses in administering the Iraq claims
program and this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
deduct--
(1) 1.5 percent of any amount covered into the UN
Commission Claims Funds or the Iraq Claims Fund; and
(2) 1.5 percent of any amount the Secretary of State
receives from the United Nations Commission that is not
covered into the UN Commission Claims funds and that is not
in payment of a claim of the United States Government.
(b) Deductions Treated as Miscellaneous Receipts.--Amounts
deducted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be deposited in the
Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
The text of section 6 is as follows:
SEC. 6. PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--The United States Commission shall certify
to the Secretary of the Treasury each award made pursuant to
section 2. The Secretary of the Treasury shall make payment,
out of the appropriate fund established pursuant to section
3(a) or 3(c), in the following order of priority to the
extent funds are available in such fund:
(1) Payments of $10,000 or the principal amount of the
award, whichever is less.
(2) For each claim that has priority under section 2(d),
payment of a further $90,000 toward the unpaid balance of the
principal amount of the award.
(3) Payments from time to time in ratable proportions on
account of the unpaid balance of the principal amounts of all
awards according to the proportions which the unpaid balance
of such awards bear to the total amount in the appropriate
claims fund that is available for distribution at the time
such payments are made.
(4) After payment has been made of the principal amounts of
all such awards, pro rata payments on account of accrued
interest on such awards as bear interest.
(5) After payment has been made in full of all the awards
payable out of a fund established pursuant to section 3(a) or
3(c), any funds remaining in that fund shall be transferred
to the other claims fund established pursuant to section 3(a)
or 3(c), except that any funds received by the United States
from the United Nations Commission shall be so transferred
only to the extent not inconsistent with requirements of the
United Nations Commission.
(b) Unsatisfied Claims.--Payment of any award made pursuant
to this Act shall not extinguish any unsatisfied claim, or be
construed to have divested any claimant, or the United States
on his or her behalf, of any rights against the Government of
Iraq with respect to any unsatisfied claim.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 6?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 7.
The text of section 7 is as follows:
SEC 7. RECORDS.
(a) Transfer to Commission.--The head of any Executive
agency may transfer or otherwise make available to the United
States Commission such records and documents relating to
claims authorized to be adjudicated by this Act as may be
required by the United States Commission in carrying out its
functions under this Act.
(b) Public Disclosure.--Section 552 of title 5 of the
United States Code (commonly referred to as the ``Freedom of
Information Act'') shall not apply with respect to records
that, as determined by the Secretary of State, are required
under the rules and decisions of the United Nations
Commission to be withheld from public disclosure.
The Chairman, are there any amendments to section 7?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 8.
The text of section 8 is as follows:
SEC 8. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; DISPOSITION OF UNUSED FUNDS.
(a) Statute of Limitations.--Any demand or claim of payment
on account of an award that is certified under the Iraq
claims program shall be barred one year after the publication
date of the notice required by subsection (b).
(b) Publication of Notice.--
(1) In general.--At the end of the 9-year period specified
in paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Treasury shall publish
a notice in the Federal Register detailing the statute of
limitations provided for subsection (a) and identifying the
claim numbers and awardee names of unpaid certified claims.
(2) Publication date.--The notice required by paragraph (1)
shall be published 9 years after the latter of--
(A) the last date on which the Secretary of the Treasury
covers into any of the UN Commission Claims Funds, or into
any fund described in section 3(b)(2), amounts allocated to
that fund pursuant to section 3(b); or
(B) the last date on which the Secretary of the Treasury
covers into the Iraq Claims Fund amounts allocated to that
fund pursuant to section 3(d).
(c) Disposition of Unused Funds.--
(1) Disposition.--At the end of the 2-year period beginning
on the publication date of the notice required by subsection
(b), the Secretary of the Treasury shall dispose of all
unused funds described in paragraph (2) as follows:
(A) By making additional payments pursuant to the Iraq
claims program.
(B) By depositing in the Treasury of the United States as
miscellaneous receipts any such funds that are not used for
such additional payments.
(2) Unused funds.--The unused funds referred to in
paragraph (1) are--
(A) any remaining balance in the UN Commission Claims Funds
or in the Iraq Claims Funds, including the amount of any
unpaid certified claim under the Iraq claims program; and
(B) any remaining balance in any fund referred in section
3(b)(2) to the extent such balance reflects amounts deposited
pursuant to that section.
{time} 1430
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 8? If not, the
Clerk will designate section 9.
The text of section 9 is as follows:
SEC 9. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``Government of Iraq'' includes agencies,
instrumentalities, and controlled entities (including public
sector enterprises) of that government;
(2) the term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given
that term by section 105 of title 5, United States Code;
(3) the term ``Iraq claims program'' means the claims whose
adjudication is provided for in this Act and any other claims
that are within the jurisdiction of the United Nations
Commission;
(4) the term ``United Nations Commission'' means United
Nations Compensation Commission established pursuant to the
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991); and
(5) the term ``United States Commission'' means the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 9? If not, the
Clerk will designate section 10.
The text of section 10 is as follows:
SEC 10. ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES AS REFUGEES OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES OF
IRAQ DURING THE PERSIAN GULF CONFLICT.
(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress
that individuals who have served in the armed forces of Iraq
during the Persian Gulf conflict should not be admitted to
the United States as refugees under the Immigration and
Nationality Act except in exceptional circumstances until all
claims under section 2(b) of this Act have been paid in full.
(b) Persian Gulf Conflict Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``Persian Gulf conflict'' means the period
beginning on August 2, 1990, and ending on February 27, 1991.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 10? If not, it is
in order to consider the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior].
amendment offered by mr. bonior
Mr. BONIOR. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bonior: On page 12, after line 15,
add the following:
SEC. 11. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) Saddam Hussein has been condemned by the international
community for his unwillingness to take the steps necessary
to provide for the basic humanitarian needs of the Iraqi
people;
(2) dire shortages of food, medicine, and basic medical
supplies (including insulin, anesthetics, and antibiotics)
have resulted in a continuing humanitarian disaster in Iraq,
including massive human suffering and the death of hundreds
of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians during the past 4
years;
(3) This humanitarian tragedy is occurring throughout Iraq;
(4) the United States has a long history of providing
humanitarian assistance to alleviate human suffering in many
parts of the world; and
(5) the United States Agency for International Development
has the authority under chapter 9 of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to international disaster
assistance) and other provisions of law to provide assistance
to address humanitarian needs throughout Iraq.
(b) Statement of Congressional Policy.--It is the sense of
the Congress that--
(1) the United States should immediately provide additional
humanitarian assistance, particularly medicine and medical
supplies, to alleviate the humanitarian disaster throughout
Iraq;
(2) such assistance should be provided through independent
nongovernmental organizations and through international
organizations so that this desperately needed assistance can
reach all areas of need, in particular those outside the
United Nations protected areas; and
(3) the costs of such assistance should be reimbursed from
any available Iraqi resources, including the Iraqi assets
that have been blocked pursuant to the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act so long as such reimbursement
does not reduce the amount paid on those priority claims of
members of the United States Armed Forces and other described
in section 2(d) of this Act and does not delay payment on
those claims.
Mr. BONIOR (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. BONIOR. Madam Chairman, there is a great deal of tragedy
occurring in the world today.
Places like Bosnia, Haiti, and Rwanda capture our attention each and
every night, and we mourn the loss of life in each of those places.
But ever since CNN and all the foreign correspondents left Baghdad 3
years ago, we haven't paid much attention to Iraq.
But 3 years after the gulf war ended, one of the great humanitarian
tragedies of our time is occurring in Iraq today.
Estimates are that 120,000 children under the age of 5 have died in
Iraq in the past 3 years alone.
Iraq today is a place where mothers see their babies scream in agony
because operations must be performed without anesthesia.
It is a place where diabetics lapse into comas because there is no
insulin.
A place where children suffering from leukemia are routinely sent
home from hospitals because there is no medicine to provide them care.
Three years after international sanctions were levied on the people
of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of civilians in that country are dying
today due to a lack of food, water, and basic medicine.
Make no mistake about it, Madam Chairman, Saddam Hussein and Saddam
Hussein alone bears responsibility for this tragedy. He continues to
turn a blind eye to the suffering of his own people.
And at this point, I suppose we could just throw up our hands, turn a
blind eye, point a finger at Saddam, and say we tried.
But I believe we are a better nation than that, Madam Chairman.
I believe we have a continuing responsibility as a compassionate
nation to provide humanitarian relief to the mothers and children who
are dying in Iraq today.
And the fact is, we do not have to send in troops to do it.
There are independent organizations in place right now--organizations
like Oxfam, and CARE, and UNICEF, and the World Health Organization,
and the Chaldean community, and Red Crescent, and other Moslem relief
organizations--who are administering some relief to the people of Iraq
as we speak.
But their combined efforts meet less than 5 percent of the needs of
the Iraqi people. Any medicine we could send would go a long way toward
ending the suffering in Iraq.
Yet current United States policy prohibits Iraq from purchasing
medicine here, even with assets still in Iraq.
This amendment simply expresses the sense of the Congress that the
United States should immediately provide medicine to Iraqi citizens
through these nongovernmental and international organizations,
particularly in those areas outside the U.N.-protected area.
It says that this aid should be provided through already-appointed
disaster assistance funds or other sources.
And it says that we should seek reimbursement for this aid from any
Iraqi resources--including the $1.2 billion in frozen assets--but in a
way that does not reduce or delay payment to claims filed by United
States veterans of the Persian Gulf war, and the U.S.S. Stark.
Anything we can do would go a long way toward alleviating the
suffering of the people of Iraq.
And what could be more galling to Saddam Hussein than the money he
sees as his, and for his use alone, go to the people he continues to
oppress.
And Madam Chairman, what could be more in line with the point
President Bush made time and time again during the gulf war: that we
did not wage war against the civilian population of Iraq.
They were not our enemy.
And now, there are concrete steps we can and must take to save the
lives of people caught up in a war that was none of their doing, and
which none of them wanted.
Saddam Hussein may do nothing to help his own suffering people. But
we are a better nation than that.
And I do not believe that we, in good conscience, can stand by and do
nothing.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I just want to thank the distinguished whip, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], for his amendment. I think the
gentleman has pointed to a very real problem. The humanitarian
suffering in Iraq has been enormous, and the gentleman has put his
finger on it.
Madam Chairman, this is a good amendment, and we accept it.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word and I rise
in support of the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Bonior amendment that
expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should
provide immediate assistance through nongovernmental organizations to
alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
As this resolution point out, shortages of medicine and food exist
throughout Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government continue to
maintain a virtual embargo against the Kurds in the north and the Shia
Arabs in the south and, as a result, humanitarian supplies go only to
regime supporters and the military.
The U.N. sanctions regime, in contrast, exempts medicine and, in the
case of foodstuffs, requires only that the Sanctions Committee be
notified of food shipments. The committee also routinely considers and
approves requests to send supplies for essential civilian needs.
Regrettably, the supplies only seem to reach the so-called U.N.-
protected areas.
This amendment would attempt to meet the humanitarian crisis
throughout the entire country. I urge its adoption.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Madam Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered by my good
colleague from the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior].
Madam Chairman, at the time of the Persian Gulf crisis, President
Bush said many times that America had no argument with the people of
Iraq. President Clinton has reiterated that same point. Indeed, I think
that it could be said that the American people have never borne any
personal animosity toward the Iraqi people.
{time} 1440
Our problem continues to be with the dictatorial regime of Saddam
Hussein, a tyrant who is utterly without a shred of conscience, a man
who has inflicted unspeakable suffering on this own people.
The amendment by the gentleman from Michigan is terribly, terribly
important. Our country has a long history of offering a helping hand to
the people of other countries. I hope that the initiative being made
today by the gentleman from Michigan will result in some very necessary
humanitarian assistance reaching the people of Iraq who have suffered
so much and, indeed, who continue to suffer today under unmerciful
atrocities by this tyrant.
Madame Chairman, I strongly urge support of the Bonior amendment, as
well as the one I will be offering immediately after adoption of the
pending amendment. I will offer a sense-of-Congress amendment which
would ask the United Nations to create a war crimes tribunal to charge
Saddam Hussein with atrocities against human beings in neighboring
countries and amongst his own people.
I urge support of the Bonior amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, in the aftermath of the gulf war,
the Government of Iraq has been responsible for terrible acts of
repression and neglect for its citizens. The many victims include
children, the elderly, the sick, and Iraq's religious minorities.
Rather than addressing its suffering and needy citizens, the Iraqi
Government has chosen to spend its scarce money elsewhere, including
the construction of a tower to honor Saddam Hussein.
The Iraqi Government has a lot of debts to pay; debts to our service
men and women, American business people, as well as the Iraqi citizens
who remain victims of their own Government.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
On Page 12, after line 2, insert the following:
SEC. 11. PROSECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN AND OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT FOR WAR CRIMES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) as ordered by Saddam Hussein, Iraq engaged in
unprovoked aggression in its conquest and occupation of
Kuwait;
(2) the Iraqi occupation force treated Kuwaiti citizens
barbarously;
(3) Saddam Hussein used American and European civilians as
``human shields'' in an attempt to protect strategic
facilities throughout Iraq and directed that captured
American and allied prisoners of war be used for the same
purposes;
(4) Saddam Hussein ordered his military to launch missile
attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and Saudi
Arabia; and
(5) former President Bush and President Clinton rightly
warned Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Government officials that
they would be held responsible for any abuses they have
caused.
(b) Establishment of Tribunal.--The Congress urges the
President to request the United Nations to establish a
tribunal to charge Saddam Hussein and other responsible Iraqi
Government officials for war crimes, acts of aggression, and
crimes against humanity they have committed.
Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
modification of amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be modified to comport with page and line numbering in the
Union Calendar No. 236 version of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: In the
instructions, strike ``line 2,'' and insert ``line 15.''
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment, as modified.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Chairman, my amendment to this bill is short,
simple, and to the point. I trust it will be noncontroversial. It
simply expresses the sense of Congress that the President should
request that the United Nations establish a tribunal to charge Saddam
Hussein and other responsible Iraqi officials for war crimes, acts of
aggression, and crimes against humanity.
Madam Chairman, this amendment's simplicity does not detract from its
importance. This amendment, along with the excellent amendment of the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] concerning the humanitarian
situation in Iraq, will send a strong message to the rest of the world
that the United States Congress has not forgotten the heinous crimes
that Saddam Hussein has committed and continues to commit against his
own people, the people of Kuwait, the people of Israel and, frankly, of
all of the people throughout the Middle East. If he is allowed to
continue, the list of victims will be even longer than that.
Madam Chairman, I do not need to remind anyone here today about just
how abominable this man's crimes have been. Let me just talk about a
few for the record.
This war criminal, Saddam Hussein, gassed his own citizens in 1988.
He engaged in unprovoked aggression against the peaceful country of
Kuwait in 1990. He then proceeded to mass troops on the Saudi Arabian
border and, while subjecting Kuwait's citizens to unbelievable
barbarous cruelty, which Members all remember, this war criminal took
Americans and European civilians hostage and used them as human
shields.
During the war, he launched missile attacks against civilians in
neighboring countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
As the war was winding down, he lit hundreds of oil wells on fire,
destroying millions of dollars of wealth and releasing incalculable
levels of poison into our atmosphere, seriously affecting not only
innocent women and children and others who could not help themselves
but American soldiers serving there as well. Our soldiers are this very
day suffering from the illnesses caused by that environmental debacle.
After the war, Madam Chairman, he unleashed brutal attacks against
his own population, the Kurds and others in the north and the Shiites
in the south.
Madam Chairman, after World War II, the civilized world did the right
thing and brought the Nazi criminals to justice. Even if the number of
Saddam's victims may not approach those of Hitler's millions, the
crimes of Saddam Hussein and his accomplices are just as heinous and
those heinous crimes continue right today.
Even if we do not see them on the front pages of the newspapers, even
if we do not see them on the nightly newscasts, they are there. And
they are just as bad as what is happening in Bosnia today and, in many
cases, even worse. The cruelty and barbarity of Saddam Hussein knows no
bounds.
Madam Chairman, this unspeakable dictator must be brought to justice.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment overwhelmingly, to show
the support of this Congress to go on record as favoring this course of
action.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton], one of the most respected Members of this House and chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Chairman, I rise for the purpose of commending
the gentleman for this amendment. It is a very, very worthy amendment.
He has made an excellent, eloquent statement in support of it. We
support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman very, very much.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the ranking
Republican on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of
the amendment being offered by our good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
This amendment urges the President to request that the United Nations
establish a tribunal to charge Saddam Hussein and other responsible
Iraqi Government officials with war crimes and other crimes against
humanity. We cannot forgive or forget those atrocities committed
against Kuwaiti and Iraqi civilians alike.
Those officials who ordered the deliberate attacks against civilians
in neighboring Isreal and in Saudi Arabia must know that they are going
to ultimately be held responsible. And lest anyone think that we can
simply close the book on Iraq and turn our attention to other areas of
the world, the United Nations has recently declared that Iraq has not
met its obligations toward Kuwait and third country nationals it
detained during the war. Iraq continues its refusal to cooperate with
the International Committee of the Red Cross in accounting for more
than 600 missing individuals.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to adopt the Solomon amendment,
thereby keeping the spotlight focused on this outlaw regime that
refuses to adhere to the norms of international behavior.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
(Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I understand that there is bipartisan
support for the bill, and a number of veteran service organizations
support it.
Personally, however, I am concerned that the bill sets up a precedent
for compensating veterans from a pool of our enemy's assets.
Except in the instance of POW abuse, I am informed that this has
never been done before.
It is a precedent that upon careful examination, I believe, is not as
good as it may first appear.
One almost wonders whether it creates a lottery situation for
veterans contingent upon whether the soldier's call to arms will be in
a rich country or poor one.
I sympathize with my colleague's desire to incorporate some form of
relief to veterans in this bill.
However, these veterans should be fully compensated for their
sacrifices in the Persian Gulf war, as is the case with other veterans,
under the current programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Clearly the Foreign Affairs Committee intends to recognize the
problems faced by some of those who return from the Persian Gulf war.
The Veterans' Affairs Committee has also done this by expediting
legislation to give priority treatment in Department of Veterans
Affairs facilities to veterans who were exposed to toxic or
environmental hazards during their service in the Persian Gulf war.
To the degree this bill puts veterans first in line for compensation
from Iraq, it helps make up for the inadequacies of the Clinton budget
for veterans and the VA.
But I would rather have members of the Foreign Affairs Committee
pushing for greater VA funding, than providing for individual veterans.
We are well aware that the administration's VA budget falls short of
what is required for veterans in nearly every category.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs bipartisan report to the Committee
on the Budget justly puts it this way:
In striking contrast to the needs which VA faces in fiscal
year 1995 and beyond, the administration requested a level of
funding substantially below what is needed to maintain
current services to veterans.
I hope that we would not again seek to use this type of compensation
mechanism in the future.
It is our Nation's obligation to care for the soldier who answers
this country's call and for surviving family members and that is where
it should remain.
The compensation regime contemplated in the Iraq Claims Act of 1993
stands in stark contrast to that provided to veterans of the Somalian
effort, yet their sacrifice is no less.
Shouldn't Congress look to find a more inclusive and equitable
approach consistent for all veterans?
With a budget of nearly $1.5 trillion, there should be ample room for
Congress to meet the Nation's obligation to its veterans.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
{time} 1450
Accordingly, the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kleczka) having assumed the chair, Ms. Eshoo, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3221) to
provide for the adjudication of certain claims against the Government
of Iraq, pursuant to House Resolution 410, reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. MANZULLO. I am opposed to the bill in its present form, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MANZULLO moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 3221) to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, with instructions to report the
bill back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Strike section 10(a) and insert the following:
``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law,
individuals who have served in the armed forces of Iraq
during the Persian Gulf conflict may not be admitted to the
United States as refugees under the Immigration and
Nationality Act.''.
point of order
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the motion to recommit and
make a point of order against it.
Mr. Speaker, I think the motion to recommit is not germane, because
as I understand it, and I have not had the opportunity to see it, but I
was trying to listen very carefully. As I understand it, it tries to
change the basic immigration law that is the law of the land. I
therefore think it should be subject to a point of order as not
germane.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member care to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join with the distinguished chairman of
the Committee in raising the issue that this is a nongermane amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Manzullo] wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. MANZULLO. I wish to be heard on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, under these very exceptional circumstances
as to this rough language that was found in this bill as brought to the
house by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I think it would be in the
best order and in the best interests of the American public to defeat
this bill in final passage and sent it back to the full Committee on
Foreign Affairs to redo the language.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I wish to be heard on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague on the
Republican side, and compliment him for rising to the occasion to offer
our motion to recommit. We join him in that.
I agree, I think it is very unfortunate that we have had to come to
this point. Perhaps it is part of all of our faults, and certainly not
the fault of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He knew
least of this of anyone here.
Very clearly, I want to state to my colleagues that are going to be
called to vote on this bill that if we send this out there, we are
saying that ``you can buy refugee status in the United States if you
have worn a uniform and fired on American troops,'' and it is going on
and will continue to go on, and we will have no way to stop it until
years down the road, when finally this body or someone else does.
I urge all my colleagues on all sides, in honor of the people that
have served in the Gulf----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman should restrict his statements
to the point of order.
Mr. KANJORSKI. The point of order is that it is most unfortunate that
my colleagues on either side have raised the point of order. I think
the motion to recommit is very clear, what the intention of this
Congress should be. I have urged my colleagues, if possible, that they
relinquish their point of order so we can have an up-and-down vote on
the true meaning in the language of the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member desire to be heard on
the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] makes a point of order that
the amendment contained in the motion to recommit with instructions is
not germane. The test of germaneness in this situation is to measure
the amendment against the bill in its perfected form. The bill, as
amended, appears to confine changes in law to those within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
While section 10 does express the sense of Congress relating to Iraqi
refugees, the bill does not change the Immigration and Nationality Act,
other laws relating to admission of refugees, or contain other matter
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Since the amendment would change immigration law and the bill would
not, the Chair sustains the point of order.
motion to recommit offered by Mr. manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Manzullo moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 3221) to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, with instructions to report the
bill back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment: Strike section 10(a) and insert the following:
SEC. 10. ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES AS REFUGEES OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES OF
IRAQ DURING THE PERSIAN GULF CONFLICT.
(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress
that individuals who have served in the armed forces of Iraq
during the Persian Gulf conflict should not be admitted to
the United States as refugees under the Immigration and
Nationality Act except in exceptional circumstances.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit is debatable for 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], the
author of the motion, for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman to yield just to
clarify that the gentleman is accepting the language of the bill as the
committee has reported it, except that the gentleman is striking the
words on line 21, beginning with the word ``until,'' and the balance of
that sentence, is that correct?
Mr. MANZULLO. That is line 10, beginning at line 10, through the
remainder of the bill.
Mr. HAMILTON. I apologize. We are reading from different bills.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is striking the words ``until all claims
certified under section 2(b) of this Act have been paid in full,'' is
that correct?
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. It is beginning on line
10, the word ``until'' through the end of line 11.
Mr. HAMILTON. The gentleman is retaining subsection (b)?
Mr. MANZULLO. That is correct.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, we accept that on this side.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Kanjorski], who fought in the Persian Gulf war.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion to recommit is simply to make
it clear once and for all that there are very limited circumstances
under which a former Iraqi ex-POW can make his way to the United States
under refugee status. By sending this back on a motion to recommit,
this will have the effect of removing from it the time element frame
with which the gentleman from Pennsylvania had concern.
His concern was as follows: That he initially agrees with the fact
that individuals who have served in the Iraqi Army in the Persian Gulf
conflict should be admitted to the United States as refugees under only
very, very limited circumstances. Those limited circumstances are set
forth in the committee report. The gentleman was concerned that the
phrase that we have just stricken, ``until all claims certified,''
meant that once all claims certified had been paid, then the door would
be open to any ex-Iraqi POW, and I thank the gentleman for that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit?
If not, the question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House,
I report the bill, H.R. 3221, back to the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment: Strike section 10(a) and insert the following:
SEC. 10. ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES AS REFUGEES OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES OF
IRAQ DURING THE PERSIAN GULF CONFLICT.
(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress
that individuals who have served in the armed forces of Iraq
during the Persian Gulf conflict should not be admitted to
the United States as refugees under the Immigration and
Nationality Act except in exceptional circumstances.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No debate is in order on the amendment.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1500
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 398,
nays 5, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 146]
YEAS--398
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--5
Filner
Holden
Kanjorski
Klink
McHale
NOT VOTING--29
Barlow
Bryant
Calvert
Clay
Condit
DeFazio
DeLauro
Derrick
English
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frost
Goodlatte
Gordon
Grandy
Huffington
Istook
Kyl
Lloyd
Murphy
Murtha
Pelosi
Quinn
Rush
Slattery
Stokes
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Washington
{time} 1523
Mr. HOLDEN and Mr. FILNER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CAMP and Mr. COX changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________