[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5865-H5868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPANDED WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1997
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1348) to amend title 18, United States Code, relating to war
crimes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1348
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 ``Expanded War Crimes Act of
1997''.
[[Page H5866]]
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF WAR CRIMES.
Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``grave breach of the
Geneva Conventions'' and inserting ``war crime'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``breach'' each place it
appears and inserting ``war crime''; and
(3) so that subsection (c) reads as follows:
``(c) Definition.--As used in this section the term `war
crime' means any conduct--
``(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international
conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol
to such convention to which the United States is a party;
``(2) prohibited by Articles 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex
to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs
of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
``(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of
the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August
1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United
States is a party and which deals with non-international
armed conflict; or
``(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and
contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or
Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other
Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as
amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to
such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to
civilians.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Jenkins] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers],
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Jenkins].
General Leave
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last year the House passed and President Clinton signed
into law our colleague's, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Jones], War Crimes Act of 1996.
That bill fulfilled the obligation the United States undertook in
1955 when the Senate ratified the Geneva Conventions for the Protection
of Victims of War. The Conventions require that signatory countries
enact legislation punishing grave breaches of the Conventions.
The Jones bill created a new section 2441 of title 18. The section
provides that the perpetrator of a grave breach of the Geneva
Conventions taking place inside or outside the United States shall be
fined, imprisoned or, where death results, subject to the penalty of
death.
The section grants jurisdiction to Federal courts where the
perpetrator or the victim is a member of the armed forces of the United
States or a national of the United States.
Today we are considering the Jones followup legislation. At a hearing
the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee held last Congress, the State
Department and noted scholars of international law urged that we modify
the Jones bill by expanding the criminalization of war crimes to cover
a number of other offenses. That is what the present Jones bill, H.R.
1348, does.
As recommended by the State Department, H.R. 1348 would expand
section 2441 to cover violations of common article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions and articles 23, 25, 27, and 28 of the Hague Convention of
1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War. The United States is a
signatory to all those conventions.
These provisions forbid atrocities occurring in both civil wars and
wars between nations. They cover atrocities that have been recognized
by the civilized world as abhorrent such as the torture or murder of
civilians and prisoners of war, the use of weapons that cause
unnecessary suffering, the bombardment of undefended towns, the
unnecessary bombardment of hospitals or religious structures and the
pillaging of towns.
Also, H.R. 1348 would expand section 2441 to cover other offenses at
such time in the future that the United States ratifies the underlying
treaties. These would include certain violations of the Protocol on
Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and other
Devices, currently before the Senate.
Violations would include the willful killing or serious injuring of
civilians as a result of the deployment of land mines in civilian areas
with no military justification or the booby-trapping of wounded or dead
soldiers or of medical supplies.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1348, the
Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997. This is a companion bill to
legislation passed last year establishing Federal jurisdiction over war
crimes.
I think that every Member of this body agrees that we must actively
and aggressively support civility, that we must oppose oppression and
war crimes and that we need to bring those to justice who commit crimes
against humanity. During the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia,
the civil war in Bosnia and the massacres in Rwanda, many perpetrators
acted without fear of retribution, and we must do more to change this
attitude.
This bill expands the definition of war crimes to include violations
of any convention signed by the United States, including the Hague
Convention, an important source of international humanitarian law, and
I urge support of this legislation.
I would like to note that, although there was strong support on both
sides of the aisle for this bill, there are those in this House who on
principle oppose the death penalty. I am not among those Members but I
do respect those whose religious beliefs have led them to the
conclusion that they cannot support the death penalty. I think that we
ought to respect those differences of opinion among us and also
understand that even those who feel that the death penalty is an
inappropriate sanction because of their own religious beliefs still do
condemn war crimes and still do believe that we ought to do our very
best to oppose crimes against humanity and war crimes throughout the
world.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones], sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and his committee members and their
staff for their work and efforts to bring this important legislation to
the floor of the House.
Last year this body passed the original War Crimes Act of 1996. It
was quickly considered by the Senate and signed into law. The bill
enhanced U.S. authority to prosecute certain war crimes and further
U.S. implementation of the 1949 Geneva Convention.
{time} 1715
It was an important time in United States history as we finally gave
our men and women in uniform serving our country overseas the
protection of the United States judicial system. While the passage of
the original war crimes bill was a significant step for the United
States in the protection of victims of war, today we have another
opportunity to make an equally important step.
This bill which is before the House today reaches beyond the grave
breaches of the Geneva Convention. Specifically, H.R. 1348 expands the
definition of war crimes to include a more general category of war
crimes, to include important sections of the fourth Hague Convention
respecting laws and customs of war and land; Common Article 3 of the
Geneva Convention dealing with noninternational armed conflict; and
Protocol II on landmines.
This expansion will allow U.S. courts to fully protect victims of war
by including these additional conventions and protocols which the
United States has signed.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that President Clinton called
for Congress to further strengthen the law in this area by enacting the
very expansion proposed in this bill before us today. In fact, the
Department of Defense, the State Department, the Department of Justice
and the American Red Cross have also voiced their support for this
expansion of the original War Crimes Act of 1996.
Mr. Speaker, this is a strong bipartisan bill which will rectify the
existing
[[Page H5867]]
discrepancies between our Nation's intolerance for war crimes and our
inability to prosecute all war criminals.
Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde],
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Members on both
sides of the aisle for their support. This bill is supported by the
President of the United States, and over 50 Members of the House have
signed this bill. I urge my fellow Members to support this important
bill and pass H.R. 1348.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with the conservatives in the House
reminding me that the President supports this bill, what am I here for?
That is about it, once the Democrats and the Republicans put their arms
around a measure.
There are only a couple of things I want to point out, with all due
respect to the author of the bill and the gentleman from Tennessee who
brings it to the floor today.
In expanding the definition of war crimes in this bill to include not
only grave breaches of the Geneva Convention but also breaches of any
other convention or protocol to which the U.S. is or becomes a
signatory, this becomes prospective. Maybe somebody can explain this to
me. Why are we writing legislation to cover protocols and agreements
into the future, maybe long beyond the time any of us might be serving
in this distinguished body? Do any of my colleagues know the answer to
that?
I will research it for us and get back to my colleagues on that.
Now, this companion piece of legislation establishes jurisdiction
over the war crimes, and it became law in the last Congress. It
includes a provision which permitted the imposition of the death
penalty in cases where the victim of the war crime was killed, and
therein lies the problem. We support our war crime legislation, but we
do not believe such legislation should include a death penalty in order
to be effective.
Does anybody here disagree with that? In other words, if we had left
the death penalty out, we would not be here today. We would be saying
President Clinton, the Republicans and the gentleman from Michigan are
all in agreement.
So we want to make it clear, as the gentlewoman from California did,
that we are not against war crimes legislation. We are against the
implementation of the death penalty wherever it appears.
So my question number two is, would my colleagues have blown a gasket
if the death penalty was not in there? And I assume the answer is no,
they would not have.
In effect, then, our limited objection is to the net effect of this
measure broadening the scope of the death penalty. That is our only
problem with this legislation. And so a number of us on the Committee
on the Judiciary have opposed it and we continue to oppose it.
Why do we oppose it? Well, because the death penalty is frequently
applied racially; race plays a role in the imposition of the death
penalty, according to the studies that we keep looking at year in and
year out. It has been like that for a long time.
So it is because of that, for some of us. Some people would probably
oppose the death penalty even if it were not racially discriminatory.
But that is the big hangup inside the United States where the death
penalty is law and in certain instances and in certain places. We
oppose it because we have seen the racial bias that can occur.
I would like to draw the attention of the author of the bill and the
Member from Tennessee that is moving this, that is managing it on the
floor, to the fact that the Death Penalty Information Center, which has
put out a report that is called ``Innocence and the Death Penalty: The
Increasing Danger of Mistaken Executions,'' describes 69 instances
since 1973 in the United States in which condemned prisoners had to be
released from death row because mistakes had led to their wrongful
conviction in the first place.
Now, of course, we do not know how many people went to their death
despite their innocence and because no one got to them in time. And by
the way, my colleagues know also that frequently many people of less
financial means are not able to get the lawyers that can make sure all
these kinds of technicalities are adhered to in the courts.
So this is the reason we oppose the death penalty, because of the
racial implications in the administration of the death penalty. My
lawyer colleagues will be pleased to know that the American Bar
Association this year passed a resolution declaring that the system for
administering the death penalty in the United States is unfair and
lacks adequate safeguards. The resolution further declared that the
executions ought to be stopped until a greater degree of fairness and
due process can be achieved, which is exactly what the Supreme Court
said in an earlier period in the Furman versus Georgia death penalty
case, in which they suspended the death penalty at the Federal level.
Now, it is that same problem, Mr. Speaker, that we have seen in the
experience of the United States, that we can see in the context of
international justice. The tribunal in the Hague which prosecutes war
crimes against Bosnians has received excellent resources and quite a
bit of attention. But in Africa, the Rwandan War Crimes Tribunal in
Zimbabwe is poorly staffed and has not been able to prosecute a single
case.
I think it is fair to say that millions of people have been
assassinated, prosecuted, oppressed over there in their very troubled
situation. The war crimes against Africans in an international context
seem to be less pressing than the war crimes against Europeans. I am
not trying to extrapolate in generalities, but there is a stunning
similarity about how the death penalty is imposed, even in the
international arena as well as domestically.
Now, here is question number three for my conservative friends in the
Congress. How many of my colleagues would like to be allied with Cuba,
Syria, Iraq, Iran, China and Libya? Let us raise our hands. Not all at
once.
The only issue that binds us, the United States, to Cuba, Syria,
Iraq, Iran, China and Libya is that we are the only nations that impose
the death penalty. The only ones. Now, I am embarrassed by that. Some
of my colleagues are proud of that. Some of my colleagues are happy to
join with America's friends from these countries and support our death
penalty, as they support their own death penalty, if there were
democracies in any of those countries. But everywhere else there is not
a death penalty.
So I just ask my colleagues to think about this with me and join with
me, and let us vote down this resolution and go back and take out the
death penalty. Let us keep war crimes legislation but remove the death
penalty.
Could my colleagues go along with me on that? That is the fourth and
last question. If they can, I think my colleagues will sleep better in
their beds at night.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to note that the gentleman from Michigan referred to the remarks of the
gentlewoman from California, and I think she appropriately pointed out
that there are many people in this country who have deep-seated
feelings in opposition to capital punishment.
I respect those feelings and I respect the feelings of the gentleman
from Michigan. But I believe in, and have always supported, capital
punishment, as a legislator in a State legislative body. And I believe
that there are occasions when society requires the imposition of the
death penalty for certain crimes.
I believe that a majority of the people who serve in this House of
Representatives agree with that. I believe that a vast majority of
Americans across this land support capital punishment in some
instances.
I would simply say, in respecting the viewpoint of the gentleman from
Michigan, that I would disagree. I believe that it is appropriate in
some circumstances, and in this circumstance, the circumstance
contemplated by this bill, that there be the imposition of the death
penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
[[Page H5868]]
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a brief comment because of
the tenor of this discussion.
As someone who has reached a conclusion that there are occasions when
capital punishment is appropriate, I am aware that other people have
reached a different conclusion. I can respect those people. And this is
a first time as a Member of this body that I have heard this discussion
without the implication that those who have reached a different
conclusion are somehow less concerned about crime or less opposed to
wrongdoing. I wanted to note that and thank the gentleman from
Tennessee for understanding that we can have different beliefs and yet
be united in opposition to crime.
{time} 1730
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Jenkins] that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1348, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________