[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26839-26842]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           CELEBRATING 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 102) celebrating the 50th 
anniversary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and recognizing the 
humanitarian safeguards these treaties provide in times of armed 
conflict.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 102

       Whereas the Geneva Conventions of 1949 set basic humane 
     standards of behavior during armed conflict, and are the 
     major written source of international humanitarian law;
       Whereas these Conventions prescribe humane treatment for 
     civilian populations, wounded, sick and shipwrecked military 
     personnel, and prisoners of war during armed conflict;
       Whereas these Conventions recognize the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross as an independent and neutral 
     organization whose humanitarian mission is to protect and 
     assist civilians, prisoners of war, and other victims of 
     armed conflict;
       Whereas ``the red cross in a field of white'' is not an 
     ordinary organizational symbol, but one to which the 
     international community has granted the ability to impose 
     restraint during war and to protect human life;
       Whereas the American Red Cross and its sister national 
     societies are members of a world-wide organization rooted in 
     the provisions of international humanitarian law and 
     dedicated to the promulgation of its principles, among which 
     are the Geneva Conventions of 1949;
       Whereas the international programs of the American Red 
     Cross bring relief from natural and manmade disasters abroad, 
     contribute to the development of nonprofit relief 
     organizations abroad, and include the teaching of 
     international humanitarian law throughout the United States;
       Whereas many domestic programs of the Red Cross in health 
     and safety, disaster, blood, youth, and service to the 
     members of the Armed Forces of the United States grew out of 
     a response to armed conflict;
       Whereas, thanks to the efforts of Clara Barton and 
     Frederick Douglass, the United States ratified in 1882 the 
     first convention for the amelioration of the condition of 
     wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field;
       Whereas in 1955 the United States ratified the Geneva 
     Conventions of 1949; and
       Whereas the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are among the most 
     universally ratified treaties in the world: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       The Congress--
       (1) recognizes the historic and humanitarian significance 
     of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and celebrates the 50th 
     anniversary of the signing of these treaties;
       (2) exhorts combatants everywhere to respect the red cross 
     emblem in order to protect innocent and vulnerable 
     populations on every side of conflicts;
       (3) commends the International Committee of the Red Cross 
     and the more than 175 national Red Cross and Red Crescent 
     societies, including the American Red Cross, on their 
     continuing work in providing relief and assistance to the 
     victims of war as prescribed by these Conventions;
       (4) applauds the Promise of Humanity gathering organized by 
     the American Red Cross in 1999 in Washington, D.C., as an 
     important reminder of our responsibilities to educate future 
     generations about the principles of international 
     humanitarian law;
       (5) commends the efforts of the International Committee of 
     the Red Cross and the more than 175 national Red Cross and 
     Red Crescent societies, including the American Red Cross, for 
     their work in educating the world's citizens about the 
     humanitarian principles of international humanitarian law as 
     embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 1949;
       (6) invites the American Red Cross during this anniversary 
     year to assist Congress in educating its Members and staff 
     about the Geneva Conventions of 1949;
       (7) supports the anniversary theme of the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross that ``Even War Has Limits''; and
       (8) calls upon the President to issue a proclamation 
     recognizing the anniversary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 
     and recognizing the Conventions themselves as critically 
     important instruments for protecting human dignity in times 
     of armed conflict and limiting the savagery of war.

     SEC. 2. GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 1949 DEFINED.

       In this concurrent resolution, the term ``Geneva 
     Conventions of 1949'' means the following conventions, done 
     at Geneva in 1949:
       (1) Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the 
     Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (6 UST 3114).
       (2) Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of 
     Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at 
     Sea (6 UST 3217).
       (3) Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of 
     War (6 UST 3316).
       (4) Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian 
     Persons in Time of War (6 UST 3516).

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the sponsor of this resolution.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 
50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. In 1949, the Geneva 
Conventions were formally adopted which set the rules for safeguarding 
members of the armed forces who are wounded, sick, shipwrecked, 
prisoners of war and civilian workers of the military. At the same 
time, the dream of Henry Dunant was realized. Henry was the founder of 
the Red Cross movement, and in 1859 he originally proposed the 
establishment of a civilian volunteer relief corps to care for the 
wounded.

[[Page 26840]]

  It was in 1949, nearly 100 years later, that the Geneva Conventions 
were formally ratified. In the old days, they did not take prisoners. 
They killed them. As it evolved through the years, beginning in 1859 
when Henry Dunant started the program, we began to be more humane in 
our treatment of war. So in 1949, nearly 100 years later, the Geneva 
Conventions were formally ratified, and the Red Cross was recognized as 
the world's humanitarian organization.
  Through his vision and determination, an organization was built that 
has educated, protected, given hope, provided comfort and relief to 
millions of people all over the world. Today virtually every country in 
the world is part of the Geneva Conventions. It was because of Mr. 
Dunant and these conventions that I and my family had hope during my 7 
years of captivity as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. After I was shot 
down over Vietnam, a Vietnamese officer came up to me with a Red Cross 
on his lapel and said I could write a letter. Seeing the cross, I 
assumed he was working for the Red Cross and was visiting me to ensure 
that I would be treated humanely as the Geneva Conventions dictated. As 
Members know, our wars with both Korea and Vietnam, those two countries 
did not formally adopt the Geneva Conventions. They signed them but 
they did not adhere to them.
  After we spoke, he asked me if I wanted to write a letter. I wrote 
the letter and later learned it was never sent. I found out later that 
in Communist countries, there are not many left nowadays, the military 
runs the Red Cross and they do it the way they want to and not the way 
a humanitarian Red Cross that we know our Red Cross in America by and 
in other nations, the international one, does. They are not volunteers 
with humanitarian goals in mind.
  Later on during my captivity, a real Red Cross representative finally 
visited me and some of my letters made it home, through the Red Cross, 
and my family was able to send some that way as well. Those letters 
were some of the only comfort my family and friends here in America 
received during my nearly 7 years in captivity, and they were possible 
because the American Red Cross was there to make sure that the Geneva 
Conventions were followed.
  I tell that story simply to illustrate the power and respect that the 
symbol of the Red Cross holds throughout the world. The Red Cross and 
its affiliates are the organizations that are there in time of need, 
whether it be to ensure the human rights of political prisoners or to 
help reconstruct the homes and lives of victims of national disasters. 
The Red Cross is always there.
  In my case they were there to uphold the most powerful of human 
rights treaties, the Geneva Conventions. That is why today I 
congratulate and say ``thank you'' to the Red Cross, the American Red 
Cross and the International Red Cross on the 50th anniversary of the 
Geneva Conventions. I know that my family and I are very grateful to 
the Red Cross, to the volunteers who selflessly continue to serve so 
that human dignity is not compromised and human suffering is 
eliminated. I congratulate the Red Cross and the international 
movement, and again commemorate the anniversary of these important 
international treaties.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson) for bringing this important measure before this body at this 
time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me first pay public tribute to my good friend and distinguished 
colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for bringing this 
matter to the body and for his heroic service to our Nation. We are 
deeply in his debt. I also want to commend the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, for sponsoring this legislation.
  I am, of course, delighted to ask all of my colleagues to support H. 
Con. Res. 102. The Geneva Conventions, Mr. Speaker, were concluded in 
1949, 50 years ago, to address the terrible practices that occurred 
during the Second World War. They established a comprehensive framework 
for dealing with treatment of combatants and civilians alike. The 
conventions include a wide range of protections. Persons who are not or 
are no longer taking part in hostilities according to the conventions 
need to be respected, protected and treated humanely. They must be 
given appropriate care, without discrimination of any kind. Captured 
combatants and other persons whose freedom has been restricted must be 
treated humanely. They need to be protected against all acts of 
violence, particularly against torture. If they are put on trial, they 
must enjoy the fundamental guarantees of proper judicial procedures. 
The right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods of warfare 
are not unlimited. There must be no unnecessary or superfluous injury 
or suffering inflicted. In order to spare the civilian population, 
armed forces at all times must distinguish between civilian populations 
and civilian objectives on the one hand and military objectives on the 
other hand.
  I think it is extremely important for us to state with pride that the 
American armed forces have gone out of their way to minimize or to 
eliminate what is typically called collateral damage, damage to 
civilian populations.
  Since 1949, these and other protections have been critical in 
stopping at least some of the violence and abuse of both combatants and 
civilians. Through the good offices of the International Committee of 
the Red Cross, large numbers of American soldiers and citizens have 
been assisted in the invocation of these conventions.
  In this connection, I want to pay tribute to Elizabeth Dole, who led 
the American Red Cross with such distinction over a long period of 
time. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this 50th commemorative 
celebration of the Geneva Conventions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution celebrating the 50th anniversary of the 
Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognizes the important contributions the 
Geneva Conventions of 1949 made to international humanitarian law. Last 
August we observed the 50th anniversary of these treaties. During this 
century, we have seen the scope and devastation of conflict and warfare 
reach hitherto unimaginable bounds. In order to ameliorate the far 
reaching, devastating consequences of battle and conflict, the states 
parties to the Geneva Conventions have undertaken to recognize certain 
limitations and to humanize the laws of war. I commend the author of 
the measure the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) who through his 
own heroic experience as a POW during the Vietnam War has firsthand 
knowledge of the significance of these conventions. His North 
Vietnamese captors attempted to derogate from their obligations under 
the Geneva Conventions by injecting political issues into whether or 
not they had to be applied to U.S. airmen and other servicemen taken 
prisoner. Condemnation in the U.N. and elsewhere of its position forced 
Hanoi to apply these nonpolitical and humanitarian instruments 
regardless of any other political considerations.
  Other provisions of the Geneva Conventions concerning the treatment 
of civilians during war or internal conflict have been shown by the 
events we have witnessed in this decade in the former Yugoslavia, in 
Central Africa and now in East Timor to be highly relevant. It is the 
Geneva Conventions that have by and large provided the basis for the 
indictment of numerous suspected war criminals by the Hague Tribunal. 
When these vital pieces of international humanitarian law are 
respected, the Geneva Conventions can and do temper the devastation of 
modern conflict. And when they are not, those violators who breach 
their provisions risk being considered as beyond the bounds of 
humanity, and the civilized world.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to 
approve H. Con. Res. 102, calling for appropriate recognition of the 
50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 26841]]


  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). As the ranking member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, the issues I deal with on a daily basis address the human 
costs exacted by war. Whether it be the millions of disabled veterans 
who still seek care from the VA or the innocent men, women and children 
who have been maimed by land mines, the scope of the carnage caused by 
war is breathtaking. We have come to take for granted that it is a 
barbaric enterprise, a part of the human condition that will always 
remain with us. However, the Geneva Conventions have helped bring some 
measure of sanity to the insanity we call war. It has helped to act as 
a safety net for the innocents of the world as well as foster respect 
for the basic human rights of combatants. While it has never by any 
stretch of the imagination been a perfect instrument, it is hard to 
imagine the pain and suffering that would have happened in our world 
without its existence.
  If the Geneva Convention is to remain a living and important 
document, we must do all we can to ensure its relevance to the nations 
of the world and to all combatants. Today's resolution honoring the 
50th anniversary of their creation will send an important message to 
the world that the United States believes in and embodies the 
humanitarian principles inherent in these accords.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVANS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. I think the gentleman hit it right on the head when he 
used the phrase ``some measure of sanity.'' This, of course, is the 
very best in a very difficult world. But I wholeheartedly support this 
resolution and I compliment the gentleman on his comments. I thank the 
ranking member and the chairman for bringing this resolution to the 
floor. I certainly hope that it will pass, not only pass but do so 
unanimously.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time and want to say what a privilege it is to be in 
this Congress with him, he being one of the foremost champions of human 
rights not only in this Congress but throughout the world. I am very 
grateful for the commitment that he has made because if there are 
Members who exemplify what the Geneva Convention stands for in its 
unfolding of principles of humanity, it is the gentleman from 
California. I think we could also say that the esteemed chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations also is someone who celebrates 
these high principles.
  I am certainly here in support of this resolution which celebrates 
the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions.

                              {time}  1330

  It is important that we understand that the Geneva Conventions embody 
an agreement to try to bring principles of humanity into one of the 
most inhumane of circumstances in human conduct, the conduct of war, 
and Geneva Conventions brought together leaders from around the world 
50 years ago with the express purpose of trying to find a way where, as 
we see a world slip into war, we could still say that there are some 
things that even in war are not going to be tolerated.
  I have to say that in reflecting back in the last year in events 
which have been well publicized around the world I think it is 
important, when we speak of the Geneva Conventions, to also review the 
military objectives of NATO and Kosovo just 5 months ago which would 
seem to violate the very prohibition which the Geneva Convention has 
for deliberate attacks on civilians, and I cite from the Geneva 
Conventions here, Schedule 5, Article 52.1, which states that civilians 
shall not be the subject of an attack, while Schedule 6, Article 13.3, 
states, and I quote, civilians shall enjoy protection unless they take 
direct part in hostilities, end of quote.
  Now the Conventions, in order for them to be effective must be 
applied to everyone whether we happen to like a given nation or not, 
and they would seem, if my colleagues read them, to apply to everyone 
in the world, including those Serbian civilians in Yugoslavia. For 
instance, Convention 4, Part 2, Article 13, states the provision of 
Part 2 covers the whole population of the countries in conflict without 
any adverse distinction based in particular on race, nationality, 
religion or political opinion and are intended to alleviate the 
sufferings caused by war, end of quote.
  Well, we know for a fact that NATO targeted Serb civilians and 
civilian infrastructures. There is no one who would contest this now. 
For instance, the attack on the Serbian TV station caused the death of 
20 civilians. NATO planes and missiles deliberately targeted the 
electric power infrastructure of Serbia. One State Department official 
has been quoted as saying that the attack on a TV station was intended 
to send a message to the Serbian populace, and this is a quote, to put 
pressure on the leadership to end this, unquote.
  Now did NATO's aerial bombardment violate international humanitarian 
law as set forth in the Geneva Conventions of 1949? Did the bombing 
also violate the first additional protocol of 1977, which many of the 
NATO countries have ratified? The basic rule in Article 48 of Protocol 
1 is that civilian populations and objects are to be distinguished from 
military objectives and that only military objectives are to be bombed. 
In addition, bombings which are intended to spread terror, and I will 
read that again, bombings which are intended to spread terror or attack 
civilian morale are expressly prohibited by Article 51. When NATO 
admittedly targeted the infrastructure of Yugoslavia, including water 
works, electricity plants, bridges, factories, television and radio 
locations in efforts to harm the morale of the people and to get them 
to overthrow their leadership, I wonder if NATO considered Article 51 
which prohibited such actions.
  NATO also targeted civilians when it attacked the Serbian TV station 
killing 20 civilians. Rules 51 and 57 also prohibit attacks on military 
targets that will cause excessive civilian deaths and prohibit 
disproportionate indiscriminate attacks. NATO bombing caused excessive 
loss of life and injury to civilians and possibly killed thousands.
  Now we should celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Geneva 
Conventions and pass this legislation, but our words will ring hollow 
when our actions contradict them. Let us follow up this resolution with 
a study that honestly and independently determines how, if at all, 
recent military action in Kosovo contravened the Geneva Conventions.
  I urge passage of the resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to make a comment concerning my good friend's 
observations concerning NATO's participation in the recent hostilities 
in the former Yugoslavia.
  Mr. Speaker, probably at no time in military history has there been 
such a deliberate attempt to minimize civilian casualties as was the 
case on the part of NATO. As a matter of fact, the NATO command went 
out of its way, even jeopardizing its own pilots, to minimize to the 
maximum possible extent civilian casualties. But I think it is self-
evident that in a society where civilian and military facilities and 
infrastructure are intertwined and adjacent and contiguous the notion 
that warfare can be conducted without any civilian casualties is simply 
not realistic. The Geneva Convention makes a very clear distinction 
between tragic

[[Page 26842]]

civilian casualties, unintended, inadvertent, and the deliberate 
punishment, maiming, killing of civilians. Let the record show that at 
no time did NATO do anything to deliberately injure civilians.
  Now I think a special comment needs to be made with respect to 
Milosevic's television facilities. As any dictator, Milosevic has used 
the propaganda apparatus of the Serbian television network to spread 
falsehood, rumors, disinformation, thereby prolonging this tragic war. 
It would have been unthinkable for NATO not to take out Serbian 
television, and the post mortems following the conclusion of military 
activities has concluded as one of the main criticisms of NATO's action 
that the television facilities were not taken out earlier. I think we 
need to draw a very sharp line of demarcation between the deliberate 
injuring of civilians and the inevitable civilian losses which are 
entailed in military activities.
  NATO must indeed be proud of its extraordinary efforts to protect all 
civilians and all civilian facilities. Railroad stations, bridges, 
radio stations, television stations are part and parcel of today's war, 
and to attempt to conduct a war where military and civilian facilities 
are so inextricably intertwined, as they are in all modern 
industrialized societies, is simply absurd. I think it is incumbent 
upon all of us not to misread or misinterpret the Geneva Conventions. 
The Geneva Conventions deal with deliberate injury, maiming and killing 
of civilians. The Geneva Conventions realistically understand that in 
the tragic event of war there will be civilian casualties, and that is 
what happened in the case of the Kosovo encounter.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANTOS. I yield to my good friend from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that one of the 
great celebrations that NATO had in this conflict was its ability to 
precisely target certain facilities, notwithstanding the unfortunate 
episode at the Chinese embassy, and that being the case, NATO together 
with the intelligence it was receiving absolutely understood that there 
were civilians in that TV station.
  Now I respectfully submit that Rules 51 and 57 in this Convention, 
which the gentleman and I both agree ought to be honored, prohibits 
attacks on military targets which would cause excessive civilian 
deaths, and while we could engage in a debate on, I suppose, what would 
constitute excessive civilian deaths, I humbly submit the possibility 
that NATO may have gone along the line of challenging this very 
provision which is in the Geneva Convention, and I think that the 
gentleman and I both agree in our service in this Congress that we want 
to see the highest principles of humanity upheld, and we both 
understand how terribly difficult it is for all of us to have to 
grapple with the decisions that are made during a war because I think 
we would both agree that war is something that needs to be avoided at 
all cost, and when it is finally something that is enacted, that we 
observe the Geneva Conventions.
  My statement here on this floor is to point out that while we can all 
admire the ideals that are expressed in the Geneva Conventions that it 
is important, I think, to review a recent history which may suggest 
that the Geneva Conventions could be fully exemplified in the conduct 
of combatants.
  I would agree with the gentleman from California that Mr. Milosevic 
is not someone who at any point ought to be regarded for his role in 
this. He has certainly done everything he can to undermine democracy 
and freedom and Serbia, and I think we would all agree that he ought to 
be ousted. But the people who are Serbian civilians who had no role in 
supporting the Milosevic regime and in some cases tried to overturn him 
ought to be accorded the full privileges of that same Convention which 
we would accord to all other nations in the world, and I want to thank 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his indulgence and his 
kindness.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for 
his comments, and let me just conclude by saying that the Chairman of 
our Joint Chiefs, General Shelton, General Wesley Clark, the head of 
NATO, are no less committed to fully observing the Geneva Conventions 
than are all the Members of this body, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand in support of H. 
Con. Res. 102, introduced by my friend, the Vietnam War hero from Texas 
(Mr. Sam Johnson), celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Geneva 
Conventions.
  This is not a theoretical matter for me. I know this is not a 
theoretical or abstract matter for the sponsor of this resolution. This 
resolution is about saving and honoring the lives of men and women who 
risk their lives in service to their country, and their families, and 
the innocent civilian victims of warfare.
  I came precariously close to needing the protections of the Geneva 
Conventions myself.
  On May 10, 1972, I flew my 300th air mission over Vietnam. I downed 
three North Vietnamese MiGs that day; together with the two I had 
previously shot down, I had just become the first U.S. Navy Ace of the 
Vietnam War. I was making the turn back home when forty miles inland, 
my F-4 Phantom was severely damaged by an enemy surface-to-air missile. 
I barrel-rolled that airplane until we reached the mouth of the Red 
River. My RIO, Willie Driscoll, and I ejected just as the Phantom 
exploded.
  As we floated down to the water, there was no bravado, no silk scarf, 
no Benson and Hedges. I was scared to death. I saw the Viet Cong 
approaching my landing place from the beach. But I was blessed to be 
rescued by Americans. The Viet Cong did not capture me. I was spared 
the fate of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), 
of being a prisoner of war. We are all in his debt.
  These individual stories, of people whose lives were risked in war, 
and of people who were taken prisoner in war, point to the 
justification for the Geneva Conventions. It is that war is between 
nations, not between individual men and women; and that the men and 
women who risk their lives in war should be honored and treated with 
respect and dignity by the combatant nations involved.
  Two miles west of the floor of this House lies ``the wall,'' the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial. On its surface are the names of the men and 
women who gave their last full measure of devotion to their country 
during the war in Indochina. Each of them had parents and loved ones. 
Many had siblings and families of their own. The names of these family 
members and loved ones are not inscribed on the Wall, but in their 
grief, they are also casualties of the Vietnam War.
  For them, and for the men and women serving America's armed forces 
today, the Geneva Conventions are very real. They mean the difference 
between life and death. They define the difference between a civilized 
world, and barbarism.
  The Geneva Conventions, and the international organization that helps 
implement them, the Red Cross, deserve the honor of Congress today.
  I am grateful to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson) for sponsoring this resolution, and I urge all Members to 
support it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 
102.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________