[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   THE HUMANITARIAN AID CORRIDOR ACT

                                 ______


                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 14, 1995
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The legislation is identical to the 
Dole-Simon bill, S. 230, which was introduced earlier this year in the 
Senate.
  The Humanitarian Air Corridor Act would prohibit U.S. assistance to 
any country which prohibits or restricts the transport or delivery of 
U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. The language may sound 
formal, but behind these abstract words are tired faces and gaunt 
bodies: the intended recipients of humanitarian aid are desperate 
people in need--men, women, and especially children, whose very 
existence hinges on the charity of outsiders. It is the moral 
obligation, and proud tradition, of the United States to be one of the 
world's main donors of food, clothing and medical supplies essential to 
keep them alive. Americans open their hearts to refugees and displaced 
persons in countries less fortunate than our own. That third countries 
should impede the delivery of such aid is unacceptable; it should be an 
obvious and unobjectionable principle of U.S. assistance that countries 
keeping U.S. humanitarian aid from reaching third countries should not 
receive U.S. aid.
  There may be times, however, when considerations of U.S. national 
security dictate that the United States should continue to provide aid 
even to obstructionist countries. For those instances, the Humanitarian 
Aid Corridor Act mandates that the President can make such a 
determination and inform Congress of his decision.
  Mr. Speaker, though the language of the bill is not country specific, 
it is widely known that Armenia and Turkey would be affected by the 
legislation. According to official Armenian sources, there are over 
300,000 refugees in the country, whom the United States Government has 
been providing with humanitarian aid. The most cost-effective and 
direct route for delivery of this assistance is through Turkey. 
Unfortunately, Turkey has refused to permit transshipment through its 
territory, which necessitates expensive, and not always reliable, 
rerouting through Georgia.
  Ankara has justified its refusal to allow transshipment of United 
States aid by pointing to the occupation of Azerbaijani territory by 
Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Turkey, however, is not a party to the 
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There is no reason for Turkey, whatever its 
ties to Azerbaijan, to block the delivery of United States humanitarian 
aid to Armenia. As a member of the OSCE, Turkey should implement the 
commitment in the 1991 Moscow document to ``cooperate fully to enable 
humanitarian relief operations to be undertaken speedily and 
effectively; to take all necessary steps to facilitate speedy and 
unhindered access for such relief operations; [and to] make the 
necessary arrangements for those relief operations to be carried out.'' 
Furthermore, Turkey is a member of the OSCE's Minsk group, which is 
charged with arbitrating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The OSCE 
document adopted last December in Budapest requests the OSCE's Minsk 
group to further implement confidence-building measures, particularly 
in the humanitarian field, and to provide humanitarian aid to people in 
the region, especially refugees.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not blind to the plight of refugees in Azerbaijan. 
I am well aware that fully one out of every seven people in that 
country is a refugee. Though section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support 
Act prohibits United States Government aid to the Government of 
Azerbaijan, humanitarian aid is being given through non-governmental 
organizations. About $30 million in technical assistance, $30 million 
in food assistance, and $20 million in humanitarian aid has been 
obligated, and over $60 million has been expended as of December 31, 
1994. The need, I know, is much greater, and I am open to considering 
enhanced aid to address this grave humanitarian situation.
  I am also conscious of the significance of Turkey to NATO, and 
Turkey's longstanding ties to Washington. Those relations are highly 
valued, and with good reason. It is not the intention of the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act to damage those relations or to 
exacerbate Turkey's already complicated domestic situation. The 
legislation has one purpose only: to expedite the delivery of U.S. 
humanitarian aid to people who need it, in the most economical and 
direct manner possible. I am convinced that the facilitated delivery of 
such aid will promote a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh 
conflict, and will help bring peace to a region that has more than its 
share of war and refugees. I hope that Ankara, and other capitals that 
can, or would be, affected by the provisions of the Humanitarian Aid 
Corridor Act, view the legislation as it is intended--as a means of 
helping people in need.


                          ____________________