Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wish to underscore and associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as an internationalist, I believe that the United States can and should intervene when a country violates international law and commits crimes against humanity. It is shameful that we waited as long as we did to intervene during World War II and the more recent genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda. Yesterday, before the Committee on International Relations, Senator Dole put the question, how many murders make a genocide? Mr. Chairman, do we wait until the deaths in Kosovo number hundreds of thousands as opposed to the 2,000 to 3,000, or do we intervene earlier? Europeans with whom I have discussed Kosovo are truly perplexed. I have had an occasion to discuss it often with my colleagues in Europe and the responsibility that I happily undertake as a rapporteur of the First Committee which deals with politics and security in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Four times a year I have traveled to those meetings for the last 3 years and talked constantly about this particular problem. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues in other bodies in Europe cannot fathom how any thinking person can oppose efforts to craft a solution to this enormous human conflict. This is not a local problem. Objective observers agree that the conflict could draw in Albania and Macedonia, threaten NATO allies Greece and Turkey, divide the NATO alliance, undermine NATO's credibility as a guarantor of peace, jeopardize the fragile situation in Bosnia, and initiate a massive refugee movement throughout Europe. The President is not considering a particularly large American presence. I believe that all of us know that he anticipates sending less than 4,000 Americans to join 28,000 in the NATO force. Included in the 28,000 will be 8,000 British soldiers, and 6,000 Germans. The fact that the Germans are planning to send ground troops is not insignificant; it is a testament to the importance of this issue for all of Europe and all of the world. America is truly the greatest country in the world. But perhaps because we are so large and diverse, we are often conflicted about our place in the world. Every time a post-Cold War Congress has had to consider committing United States troops to places such as Haiti or Rwanda or Bosnia or Iraq, it has been difficult to garner sufficient support from Congress. But we cannot expect to be a world leader, actually the only real superpower, without participating in international operations. We demand that the rest of the world cherish our democratic values and that NATO and the United Nations intervene in conflicts that we deem important. But when we are called upon to participate in missions which were not initiated by us, we balk. For many years, the goal of our foreign policy was the dissolution of the Communist system. We ultimately achieved success, but the erosion of communism created power vacuums around the world. We did not foresee the problems that would be created, and now that we can see them, we are unwilling to do anything to heal the fissures. While communism in its original form may be largely dead, it has been substituted in some places with brutality and instability. We seduced the Communists. We said, our way is better. It works. Come with us, we will help you. The people looked to the West, saw us and saw that it was good, so they took our advice. In some places, our example has worked. In the Balkans, it has not. Rather than help, some of us are prepared to close our eyes. We are telling them that they are on their own. It is your problem, not ours, we are saying. Well, I do not agree. It is our problem. And if this resolution fails today, we will leave our President and Commander in Chief flapping in the wind, along with the people of Kosovo, and we should be ashamed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the remarks of former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, at the Conference on Preventive Diplomacy and Preventive Disease on January 15, 1999, into the Congressional Record. As my colleague in Congress I had great respect for Mr. Hamilton, and I continue to hold him in high regard as the director of the Woodrow Wilson Program. I feel Mr. Hamilton has always offered insightful comments and observations on diplomacy, and it is my wish to share his comments with other members of Congress. Preventive Diplomacy/Preventive Defense--Conference on Preventive Diplomacy and Preventive Defense January 15, 1999 (By Hon. Lee H. Hamilton) I. Introduction It is a high privilege for me to participate in this timely and noteworthy conference on Preventive Diplomacy and Preventive Defense. I am especially delighted to join three highly esteemed statesmen--Warren Christopher, David Hamburg, and Bill Perry--at this conference. If I were to name a Hall of Fame of distinguished public officials, based on my 34 years in elective office, I would name each of them to it. Suffice it to say, they are among the preeminent public officials of our generation. Most of what I say tonight about preventive diplomacy and preventive defense, I have learned from them. They have made me believe that there are concrete steps we can take to prevent or contain the spread of conflict. Similarly, the folks associated with the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict and the Stanford- Harvard Preventive Defense Project merit our gratitude and our praise for their important contributions to the cause of conflict prevention. I commend their enterprise in arranging and staging this conference. I can tell you what goes on here will have a profound impact on policy makers and policy over time. II. The problem I speak to you this evening about a great and worthy mission--how to prevent conflict, both within nation-states, and between them. This issue is important, perhaps even transcendent. Today, there are more than two dozen deadly conflicts underway around the world. These conflicts have caused over 9.3 million casualties since 1990, and increased the number of refugees from 12 to 25 million. So conflict prevention is critical. No other issue facing the world today more deserves your attention. What do you want to do for your children and grandchildren? Many things, of course, but I hope among them will be a legacy of having tried in your own way to bequeath to them a less violent world, a world of concord, not conflict. Our task is to try to develop practical steps and a renewed commitment to preventive diplomacy and preventive defense. What more important task engages our attention than this great mission? Many of us had hoped that the end of the Cold War would mean a more peaceful international order. We had thought that much of the conflict in the world had its origins in the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the end of that rivalry, we had believed that the prospects for peace were improved, and that countries could be brought closer together. As it turns out, we were too optimistic. We find ourselves still residents in a dangerous world. Wherever we turn, there are unstable nations, disgruntled groups, and terrorists. Sadly, warfare and strife have not lessened. Human beings, it turns out, have a virtuoso capacity for violence. We were, in short, unprepared for the fragmented, disorderly world of the post-Cold War era. What we need now is a new strategy, a strategy similar to the Marshall Plan after World War II, which sought to prevent the conditions that would lead to another war--and it succeeded. During the Cold War we succeeded again, with policies of deterrence and containment. But today we live in a new world. It is a world where the United States exercises an influence far beyond anything it has ever had before. It is a world where we are indeed the indispensable nation. But alas, it is also a world that still has far too much conflict and violence. In such an era, what do we do? How do we lead? How can we keep these good times of peace and unprecedented influence going? What should our world strategy be? As I understand it, that is what this conference is all about. All of us recognize that deterrence must not be abandoned. After all, the North Koreans and the Iraqis are not going to magically disappear. Bosnia, Haiti, and other conflicts are still too much with us. But what about the really big challenges--a Russia on the brink of chaos, possibly losing control of its nuclear arsenal? A China that could grow hostile and uncooperative? A planet overrunning with weapons of mass destruction? A world where terrorism may be the number one threat to our national security? We continue to need deterrence, and military forces able to deter aggressors, and able to win wars quickly and decisively. But we need more. We need a broad strategy, using all the instruments of national power--political, economic, and military--to prevent conflict, to influence the world away from violence as a means of settling conflict, and to deal with a parade of challenges that threaten our survival and cause great disruption, pain and bloodshed. And so, we think tonight about preventive diplomacy and preventive defense. What do we really mean by these phrases? How practical are they? What capacities and tools do they require? What are the barriers to effective conflict prevention? Several features of conflict prevention impress me. We know more about it than you might initially think. A. Sources of conflict First, we know what causes conflict. The sources of the conflicts that have marred the 1990s are diverse. Weak, internally divided states, in Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Colombia, Algeria, Tajikistan, Cambodia, the Sudan. Unfortunately, the list goes on and on. Religious, political, or ethnic fanaticism and intolerance of every stripe--in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, the Indian subcontinent, and throughout Africa. Repression of racial, ethnic, or religious groups, in areas as diverse as Guatemala, Kosovo, Kashmir, and East Timor. Other conflicts have economic causes. Gross disparities in living standards, even economic growth and reform, so often the building blocks of stability, can contribute to strife. For example, growth has bypassed indigenous populations in many parts of Latin America, and the resulting inequality has contributed to armed revolt in Mexico and Peru. Competition for control of or access to resources. Scarce supplies of oil and water continue to be a source of contention--and bloodshed--in the Middle East. Population pressures and the accompanying environmental degradation can create a serious strain on limited resources as well. So can refugees. Most of the world's 15 million refugees today are the result of conflict, but massive refugee movements can also spread instability and strife. Deep-seated historical animosities, as we see in the Balkans, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Then there is the human element. We must always expect that a Hitler, a Stalin, a Pol Pot, or some other charismatic, inflammatory leader lurks just off stage, eager to take advantage of the social stresses in society in ways that almost guarantee new conflict. B. Importance of Conflict Prevention to the United States Second, we know how important conflict prevention is to the United States. We know that if we succeed at it, we will not have to expend blood and treasure tomorrow. We will pay fewer taxes and risk the lives of our offspring less often. Whenever or whatever a crisis erupts, the international community looks to the United States, as the world's indispensable nation, for help in resolving it. You and I resist a U.S. role as the world's policeman. We always want to know: What are the alternatives to sending in the Marines? But unless a better system of conflict prevention is developed, the burden on the United States in the coming years to respond to instability and conflict will be progressively greater, both financially and militarily. Americans often ask the question: Why should we care? It is a fair question. We should care because sometimes our vital national interests are at stake, as in the Persian Gulf, because we care about human values and human life (as in Somalia, where we could not tolerate those horrible pictures of starving children); and because waiting will only make the cost go up--in terms of death, the scale of relief efforts, and the damage to international standards. In other words, Preventive action can save money--and lives. It can also promote American interests--political, diplomatic, security, and economic. C. Role of American Leadership Third, we know that American leadership is essential to make conflict prevention work. When we sit on the sidelines, the world is a more dangerous place. No other country can take our place. Only when the United States acted did the killing stop in Bosnia. U.S. leadership restored political stability in Haiti and economic stability in Mexico. We pushed reform in Russia, and achieved remarkable progress toward peace in the Middle East. U.S. leadership helped broker a permanent extension of the Non-proliferation Treaty, the removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, and a freeze on North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities at Yongbyon. Leadership is inherent in our power and our values. We have a talent for it. We cannot evade it. We Can Predict Conflict Fourth, we can even predict conflict. Where there is no democracy, where there is alienation of major groups in society, gross economic imbalances, exclusion or discrimination of groups or historical grievances, the risks of conflict are very high. Conflicts occur in states which are undergoing major transition, or they spring from strong perceptions of inequity, uneven distribution of the good things in life, disputes over resources, repression, corruption, or a decline in the legitimacy of government. Responsibility for Conflict Prevention Fifth, we know that the primary responsibility for conflict prevention within countries lies with the government and the people of that country. The next responsibility lies with the international community, with the region assuming greater responsibility, and, when necessary, outside groups. Sovereignty always figures prominently here. Nations do not take lightly to outside intervention. But even here things are changing. Today the international community believes that with sovereignty comes responsibility. When nations cannot manage conflict, or do not show a respect for international standards and commitments, the international community sometimes steps in--as has been the case in Iraq. Prevention of Conflict Sixth, we even know what must be done to prevent conflict. 1. A Change in Attitudes First, we must change attitudes. We must foster the belief that the prevention of conflict is possible. We must not accept the view that violence is inevitable. Of course, prevention will often fail. We must be realistic. But the knowledge that we will not always succeed in staving off conflict is not an argument for not trying. There are even reasons for cautious optimism. From time to time the international community has intervened in a timely and decisive fashion either to prevent conflict or to stop it from spreading. It happened in Bosnia. In Haiti. In Sierra Leone. In the Middle East. Even the UN intervention in Cambodia in the early 1990s, as imperfect as the results have been, almost surely prevented bloodshed and saved lives. Violence usually results from human decision, not blind fate. Recognizing this reality is a necessary precondition for preventing conflict. In addition, busy policy makers, even as they are consumed with today's troubles, must learn to take time to look at tomorrow's problems. A domestic challenge is illustrative. Today we spend one percent of the American health care budget on prevention. And yet the experts are virtually unanimous in their judgment that we could save many lives and much money if we devoted a greater percentage of our total health care costs to prevention. The same is true of conflict prevention. I do not suggest it is easy to focus on a problem before it becomes a crisis, or to build into the decision making process a set of rewards and inducements that will encourage the harried policy maker to look beyond today's problems. And so, we need to foster a sense of urgency, a new way of thinking that gives precedence to the prevention, and not simply the management, of conflict, to avoid disaster, rather than dealing with the consequences after it hits. To do this requires that we get our facts straight, analyze situations objectively, keep an open mind, learn for one another, persist, and respect the importance and the difficulty of the task we have set out for ourselves. 2. Diplomacy We know what tools of diplomacy can work to prevent conflict. In many cases, the traditional tools of diplomacy-- dialogue, mediation, political and economic sticks and carrots, diplomatic pressure from the regional and international communities, sanctions--can, if utilized skillfully, prevent or minimize conflict. Economic measures, with both inducements and punishments, can be used to prevent conflict. Sustainable growth and the removal of economic inequities in a country can do amazing things toward the prevention of conflict. The absence of growth is an early warning signal of potential violence. Economic aid has to be directed toward achieving growth, and aid should be conditioned on good governance. If people's basic needs are met, conflict can usually be prevented. Economic aid can help correct the underlying causes of conflict and provide incentives and hope for improvement. Sanctions can serve as deterrents to unacceptable action. The promotion of the rule of law can help diffuse tensions within a country and reduce the incidence of conflict. Countries lacking good governance and equitable legal systems will be susceptible to internal violence. If, on the other hand, a country has effective political, economic, and legal mechanisms, tensions can be addressed before violence erupts. The political conditions needed to prevent conflict are not mysteries. They amount to good governance--managing diversity, building the infrastructure of democratic institutions, a robust civil society, and the active participation of women (who are increasingly playing the role we should expect from them--peacemakers), business leaders, the media (which can inform and highlight and not distort), and religious leaders, who can often play a positive role of reconciliation. The aim of all this is to put in place a strong system of values, reinforced by international norms. At the heart of conflict prevention must be a strong system of justice, legal systems available to all, that operate fairly and produce a sense of justice. Dispute resolution mechanisms and the promotion of confidence-building measures are other common diplomatic tools that can prevent conflict. The establishment of confidence building measures in central Europe in the 1970s and 1980s played a key role in convincing the Soviet Union that it could safely call an end to the cold war. CBMs build trust between countries. Openness about military budgets, plans, and policies may be an unusual concept in defense circles, but peace requires transparency and trust. U.S. training and education programs for foreign military establishments (IMET) bring nations together to learn how military establishments function in a democracy. It is striking to see officers from the former Soviet Union or from Latin American countries learning about the primacy of civilian authority, respect for human rights, the role of law, and the role of a parliament. To watch American military officers teach officers from newly democratic countries about professional military establishments under civilian control is prevention of conflict in action. It is good American policy to encourage contacts of our military with the militaries of our allies and other nations to help enlarge the community of free market democracies. Formal treaties and other accords can also help prevent conflicts. Although it is still very much a work in progress, the Wye River agreement may usher in a new era of reconciliation in the Middle East. The U.S. must also lead the way for the worldwide acceptance of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention and the Missile Technology Control Regime. We know we can reduce the risks of violence and conflict if we prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, not alone by dismantling Cold War nuclear arsenals, but also by reducing danger through arms control treaties. Arms control treaties of various sorts--from the SALT and START treaties to the biological and chemical weapons conventions to the limitations on conventional weapons in central Europe--have played a major role in reducing the interstate tensions that foment violence. Do not overlook the potential to prevent conflict by limitations on the transfer of small arms. After all, most violence is inflicted by small, not large, weapons. Regional organizations--the Organization of American States, the Organization of African Unity, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and others--can play a part in preventing conflict as well. These organizations should assume more responsibility for economic development and integration, the promotion of good governance, and the prevention of conflict within their specific regions. The problems within a particular region should be handled by states within that region, if possible. It is better, for example, if Africans deal with African problems, and Latin Americans with Latin American problems. Regional organizations should support confidence-building measures to increase military transparency, communication, and cooperation. They should develop the capability to apply pressure, offer assistance, and deploy regional forces to prevent conflict. Multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, can help prevent conflict. To help these international institutions be effective in preventing conflict, the international community needs to develop a better system of early warning and response. The genocides of Bosnia, Cambodia, and Rwanda caught us unaware and unprepared. Yet conflict seldom arises without warning. Persons knowledgeable about countries are rarely surprised when long-simmering problems escalate into full-scale conflict. President Clinton recently announced the creation of a Genocide Early Warning Center. This is an initiative to be cheered and encouraged. But early warning must be followed by timely action. The international community needs a capability for preventive action. This means the ability to deploy civilian personnel-- to mediate problems, to provide emergency economic relief, and to address the long-term issues that give rise to conflict. The United Nations can play a key role here. But this will require that the nations which make up the UN give a higher priority to conflict prevention. And this is unlikely to occur unless the United States takes the lead. Most fundamentally, the international community, using these and other multilateral institutions, must address the underlying political and economic causes of conflict. That means the world community must support political reform and the development of responsive and accountable government. Helping to establish and promote institutions of civil society such as political parties, trade unions, independent media, and the rule of law provides important safeguards for protecting human rights, fighting corruption, and fending off political demagoguery. The United States should work with the international community, especially the international financial institutions, to support long-term development assistance to achieve economic growth and promote economic opportunity and equality. Working through institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization, the U.S. should support market reform and regional economic integration to bolster growth. 3. Military intervention Military intervention is another tool in our prevention arsenal. We know that traditional diplomacy sometimes fails to prevent conflict, and that military intervention, if skillfully employed, can prevent conflict. There are, of course, many problems in developing the appropriate mechanisms for an international military capability to intervene in areas of potential or actual conflict. Answers to the difficult questions of ``when,'' ``how,'' ``who,'' ``how long,'' and ``for what purposes'' are often elusive. So the international community must improve its ability to respond militarily to conflicts once they reach the crisis stage. There is no inherent contradiction between the prevention of violence and the use of military force. To the contrary, the use of armed personnel has played a constructive role in Haiti, Bosnia, Macedonia, Western Sahara, Cyprus, and elsewhere. Military intervention can be either: 1) peacekeeping (after violence occurs and an agreement has been reached by the parties), or 2) preventative--as in Macedonia where American troops and others were introduced to prevent the spread of conflict from Bosnia. A multinational ``fire brigade'' is a well-tested idea with a demonstrated record of success. Used with discretion, it can be a highly effective tool for the prevention of conflict. The UN coordinates efforts by governments to train military forces and set aside necessary resources for future peacekeeping missions. The U.S. should support these efforts, so that the international community can act rapidly and effectively if a military response is required. I have come to the view that the international community needs some means of responding militarily to deteriorating situations in order to prevent conflicts, some kind of multinational, multi-functional rapid reaction standby capability, probably within the U.N. I do not underestimate the difficulties of this task, but I believe we must begin to explore ways and means to achieve that capacity. If we do not, the U.S. will be called on again and again as the power with the most developed intervention capabilities. Sometimes the threat of the use of force can be an effective deterrent-- though it may be a gamble and must be managed with great skill. 4. Private sector The private sector can also play a key role in conflict prevention. Just think for a moment about the helpful and talented contributions made toward peace and the prevention of violence by private groups from non-governmental organizations such as the Carter Center, or human rights groups around the world. From our religious and moral leaders. From schools. From the scholarly and intellectual communities. From the media. From the business community. And from influential non-governmental opinion leaders such as those here this evening. In recent years, this so-called Track II diplomacy has flourished. These efforts should be further encouraged. Unless the private sector engages itself in the business of conflict prevention and resolution, the task of moderating strife and violence will become infinitely more difficult. III. Congress and Preventive Diplomacy/Defense Let me conclude with a few remarks about the role of the U.S. Congress in matters of preventive diplomacy and preventive defense. I have been struck by how little of the literature--at least that which I have seen--mentions the American Congress. And yet, if the United States is to take a leading part in international efforts at conflict prevention, then the Congress is going to have to be brought in as a full-fledged partner in this effort. It seems to me that Congress might usefully take action in three areas: First, Congress must support the infrastructure of preventive action. This means that the Hill must be prepared to provide adequate funding for the State Department and the other agencies that promote American interest overseas. It also requires that Congress be willing to pay for the programs that are most likely to prevent conflict. This means money for economic development, for programs promoting the rule of law, for the creation and nourishment of the political, economic, and legal institution through which tensions can be addressed in ways short of conflict. Second, Congress must overcome its resistance to participation in multinational organizations, both civilian and military. When military force is called for, the presidents and the secretaries of state and defense who seek to persuade Congress to support preventive defense must emphasize the U.S. national interest that dictates such use of our armed forces. Members of Congress are above all hard-headed pragmatists. Show them how a military intervention serves the national interest and you are much closer to persuading them of the wisdom of such action. Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, Members of Congress are going to have to do better in adapting their mindsets to changed circumstances. There are Members of Congress today who are unable to utter the word ``China'' without preceding it with the adjective ``communist'' or ``Red.'' This inability to move beyond old Cold War views that have more to do with Stalinist Russia than with the China of the late 1990s have frequently led to congressional action that makes conflict with China more rather than less likely. Unless Members of Congress are prepared to look at old problems from a fresh perspective, the legislative branch is unlikely to be of much assistance in fostering a new ethos of preventive action. And without congressional participation, the United States will not play the leading role in conflict resolution that its strength and position in the global community demands. IV. Conclusion Where does all this leave us? We know the odds. We cannot eliminate all war and violence, any more than we can eliminate human folly. We know the United States cannot and should not be responsible for addressing all the ills of the world. We know that devoting more resources and greater attention to conflict prevention is a long-term investment that serves the U.S. national interest. Conflict prevention saves lives, saves money, and forestalls the human misery that lead to conflict. We know that conflict prevention requires the participation of the entire international community. No one leader, no one country, no one institution can carry the load. Conflict prevention responses must be tailored to fit each situation, with a plan, close coordination of the tools of response from among all the actors, internal and external, regional and international, civilian and military, public and private, official and non-official. The prevention of conflict is a great and worthy challenge. In our bones we know that it deserves a far higher priority from U.S. policy makers and from international organization, especially the U.N., than it has historically received. The problem is not so much in our lack of knowledge of what to do, but in our political will and commitment to do those things we know can and have prevented conflict. As I close, let me express my concern that the U.S. leadership needed to strengthen our conflict prevention capabilities is being eroded by budget cuts from the U.S. Congress and a general tendency among the American public to draw back from international responsibilities. It is a situation that demands political leadership of the highest order from the President and the Congress. Every president, every Cabinet official, every member of Congress should insist that conflict prevention constitute a central component of U.S. diplomatic and defense strategy-- and moreover, do a better job of educating the American people about this. We soon complete the 20th Century. It is a century of wars--the first in which world wars were fought. It is the first century also in which men and women of good will, drawing on the impact of world wars, have wrestled with the idea of conflict prevention and world peace. We have glimpsed that peace is possible because it is necessary. We have not won the day, but we have begun the understanding of what peace and conflict prevention can mean--quite simply it can change the course of history and the life of man more than anything we know or can do. We may not be able to rid the world of conflict. We can make it more livable. What more important task do you have on your agenda? Thank you.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time. I would like to say to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our distinguished colleagues, that perjury is applicable to this President as it is to all people once he leaves office. So that confused argument of what political perjury is and what perjury is in a court of law needs to be distinguished. Let me also make it very clear for you that if the President is charged with perjury when he leaves office, I predict for you that no one in this body can prove that he committed perjury. The gentleman, my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, who has been extremely studious with reference to these matters, indicated that censure was some kind of, and I apologize, some kind of fix he called it. I do not see it that way. I would like for you to recall that in the very cases regarding judges that were cited to as examples, censure was used and also, as we know, for two presidents. Additionally, the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), proposed what amounted to censure of the President over campaign finance issues just this past May. This House can work its will on censure and anything else. I was removed from office after being found not guilty, and here we are talking we cannot censure. Today we have reached the zenith of unfairness. Our military, under the aegis of our President, is attempting to downgrade weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we are en masse as a body degrading the institution of the presidency. It is not sad. It is irrational. I have appended to my remarks what I think would be helpful to this body so that you will understand the dynamics that take place in the Senate. The pleadings and motions stage, the trial preparation stage, a Senate trial, all of this certainly will take at least the 14 months that it took to remove me from office. And we are talking at least that amount of time, certainly as late as July, and probably all next year. And things regarding Social Security and matters that all of us want to take up for this Nation will be put on hold. The President has done a good job, and you have seen it. Consider before you vote what you might be doing to tie this entire Nation up. Our Nation is divided, and the House tomorrow will exacerbate that division. We are being unfair and unwise. We are being harsh to the institution of the presidency, harsh to our troops in harm's way, harsh to each other as colleagues and extremely harsh to this great country of ours. This is not a debate for the ages. Rather, it is a debate of the stages, partisan political stages. I ask you, how many of us have read this report that came to my office last night after the close of business? How many of us have read, other than Committee on the Judiciary, the evidence that supports the conclusion that the Republicans ask us to reach? Most of us will be voting in an uninformed, unintelligent manner. This Nation deserves better. You may win today, but the Nation will lose today and tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the information to which I referred: Ten years ago, on August 9th, 1988, this House voted to impeach a federal judge from the southern district of Florida. It was not until October 20th, 1989, fourteen months later, that the Senate voted upon those articles. By its vote ten years ago, the House decided to impose the burdens of Senate trial proceedings on a man. Today, the House must decide whether the charges and the evidence against the President warrant imposing the burdens of Senate trial proceedings on the Nation and the world. All Members should understand the nature and extent of the extraordinary burdens that a decision to impeach the President would impose. Although other Members have served as one of the House managers in proceedings before the Senate, I am the only Member who has experienced the burdens of developing a defense strategy and participating in its implementation. I have borne the burdens and I have observed the procedures in Senate impeachment trial proceedings. Professor Terence J. Anderson of the University of Miami School of Law represented me in the proceedings before this House and before the Senate. He has direct knowledge of what the Senate did and did not do there. I asked him to prepare a schedule projecting how the proceedings in the Senate might unfold. I have reviewed the projections he prepared and believe that they are conservative. I have appended to these remarks a statement of the ``Projected Proceedings Before the United States Senate if the House Votes to Impeach the President.'' That Projection provides a more detailed schedule of the steps that would be required in this case. I report and discuss the conclusions here. Under the best case scenario, the proceedings before the Senate are unlikely to be completed before late July and could extend until the end of the year. The proceedings in the Senate would unfold in three stages--a pleadings, procedures, and motions stage; a trial preparation stage; and a trial and judgment stage. The pleadings and motions stage in my case lasted seven months--from August 1988 through mid-March 1989. That first stage would take at least three months here. The second, the trial-preparation stage, took three-and-a-half months in my case; it would take three here. A Senate trial in this case, the final stage, would last at least seven weeks and could last for more than fourteen. The similarity between the way in which the House Judiciary Committee conducted the inquiry in my case and the way in which it conducted the inquiry here will require the Senate to accord to the President and his counsel, at a minimum, pretrial rights comparable to those that it accorded me and my counsel. The principal similarity between the two cases is that in neither did the House Judiciary Committee examine or cross-examine the witnesses upon which the articles of impeachment depended. In neither, did it call witnesses for the defense or seek documents that will be necessary to the defense. Instead, it relied primarily upon a report and materials transmitted by officials in another branch and upon the testimony of the author of that report, in my case John Doar and here Kenneth Starr. As a result, the Senate permitted my counsel to conduct limited discovery proceedings to obtain testimony and documents necessary to my defense. The Senate will, perforce, accord an accuse President liberal opportunities to use its subpoena power to depose witnesses and gather documents that his counsel seek as necessary for a fair trial. The two cases would be different in ways that would also influence the conduct of the proceedings that the House seems prepared to launch today. In my case, the Senate appointed an Impeachment Trial Committee and delegated to it the power to control the pretrial proceedings and to conduct the evidentiary hearings. That would not happen in proceedings against the President. The Rules Committee might be asked to guide the pretrial proceedings, but either side would have the right to insist that any decision be reviewed de novo by the full Senate. The Impeachment Trial Committee appointed in my case heard live testimony from fifty-seven witnesses and received more than 374 exhibits. Those hearings took eighteen full, eight-hour days. The Senate rules for the trial of an impeachment provide that the full Senate shall convene as a court of impeachment at noon during the trial of an impeachment; they, in effect, provide for half-day trial hearings. It is unlikely that the Senate could hear, on average, more than two witnesses a day. And it should be clear that witnesses such as Monica Lewinsky are likely to occupy the stand for several days. The materials submitted by Mr. Starr identify more than 120 potential trial witnesses and some 390 trial exhibits. Those materials do not identify, as witnesses, the FBI agents or OIC staff members who participated in the investigation and whose testimony will clearly be necessary. For example, each of the OIC staff and FBI agents who participated in the initial and each subsequent interview of Ms. Lewinsky had the opportunity to influence and shape her testimony in ways that bear upon her credibility and the relevance of the so-called ``corroborating'' detail offered by the Independent Counsel Starr. Those materials give little indication of the additional witnesses and exhibits the President would present in his defense. The debate in the Judiciary Committee makes it clear that the prospective House Managers would be unlikely to exercise restraint in presenting the case against the President. The presentations by counsel for the President have made it clear that the defense will be commensurately vigorous. Although the appended projections provide a more conservative estimate, it seems unlikely that the number of witnesses called to testify will be less that the 120 potential witnesses identified in the Starr report. If that occurred, the Nation and the world would watch for sixty days as the Chief Justice of the United States presided, while the House managers and counsel for the President examined and cross-examined witnesses presented audio and video tapes and other evidence before the Senate in what will appear to most viewers to be a tawdry, R-rated sex drama. Those who would vote to impeach the President should consider carefully the consequences. Over the next eight months, the attention of the Nation, of the full Senate, and of the Chief Justice of the United States would be devoted to hearing the evidence and arguments in this tawdry affair on at least thirty-five days. For at least eight months, a sword of Damocles would hang over the Nation, indeed over the world. Over the past two years, the Nation has seen its President play an active and intensive role in mediating a peace accord in Northern Ireland, in brokering the Wye accords, in working with the Congress to produce a balanced budget and reforming the welfare system, in protecting the Nation's economy and addressing the threats posed by collapse of economies elsewhere, and in acting to assure that Iraq's ability to make war against its neighbors is degraded. Those who would vote to impeach the President should consider, before they vote, what might have, or have not, happened had the President, the Senate, and the American people been preoccupied with protracted impeachment trial proceedings when any of those events occurred. Those who would vote to impeach the President should consider, before they vote, what may, or may not, happen if all are similarly preoccupied for the next eight months or more. Projected Proceedings Before the U.S. Senate If the House Votes to Impeach the President The proceedings in the Senate on the articles of impeachment that the House exhibited against then United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings provide the most recent and comparable precedents to guide the Senate in the proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton that will take place if the House adopts articles of impeachment. The following outlines projects how the proceedings against the President would unfold if the House impeaches him based upon the proceedings in the Hastings case and the materials released by the Judiciary Committee during its inquiry into the President's conduct. Weeks I. Preliminary Proceedings Min. Max. A. The First Step. The House Managers would exhibit its articles to the Senate and the Senate would issue a summons to the President requiring him to respond within fifteen to thirty days and would ask the Committee on Rules and Administration to consider and report issues that need to be addressed and special rules that should be adopted for the conduct of the proceedings................. 1 1 B. The Rules Committee. Since the Senate has not conducted proceedings against a President in the past century, the issues would be substantial. At least five steps would have to be taken before the committee could submit its report and recommendations to the Senate...................... 1. The committee meets and authorizes the Chair and Ranking Minority Member to send a letter asking the parties to file memoranda addressing issues identified by the Committee and other issues that either believes the committee should consider, probably allowing twenty to thirty days for initial memoranda and ten to twenty days for responses...................... 1 2 2. Each of the parties file memoranda........... 4 6 3. Each of the parties file memoranda responding to the other................................... 6 9 4. The committee holds hearings on the issues raised......................................... 7 11 5. The committee deliberates and prepares its report and recommendations and any necessary resolutions.................................... 9 13 C. Pleadings and Motions............................ 1. The President. It is hard to anticipate the defense strategy the President will adopt, but the House Judiciary Committee's proceedings and recommended articles of impeach suggest that counsel for the President would file:.......... a. Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Counsel for the President will raise at least one and probably two affirmative defenses--(i) the articles fail to allege facts sufficient to state an impeachable offense; and (ii) the misconduct of Independent Counsel Starr and the House's reliance upon the products of that misconduct require that the articles be dismissed............. 3 4 b. Motion to Dismiss. The motion would enable the Senate to consider whether it should dignify the President's improper conduct alleged in the articles of impeachment by classifying it as ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under the Constitution............................... 6 10 c. Demand for Bill of Particulars. The majority on House Judiciary Committee appear to shoot themselves in the foot by refusing to specify the precise statements made by the President that they claim were perjurious. If the pending articles are adopted, counsel for the President will demand and the Senate will almost surely order the House Managers to provide a bill of particulars. The real effect of the lack of specificity will further delay.......... 6 10 d. Alternative Motion to Strike Particular Allegations. If the Senate does not dismiss the articles in their entirety, counsel for the President are likely to ask that the Senate, after the bill of particulars has been filed, strike specific allegations in the article that remains................... 6 10 2. The House. The House managers would be required to file a Replication to the President's Answer and Affirmative Defenses and responses to the motions. If they opposed the demand for a bill of particulars, there would be a second round of briefing and further argument before the Senate after the House had complied with the Senate's order, adding an additional two weeks to the process............ 8 14 3. The President's Reply. Counsel for the President would file a reply and any supplemental memoranda made necessary by the House's bill of particulars.................... 10 16 D. Proceedings Before the Full Senate. The Senate would be likely to set aside two days to consider and act upon the report from the Rules Committee and to hear arguments on and decide the pending motions............................................ 12 18 II. Trial Preparation In Hastings, the Rules Committee recommended that the Senate appoint an Impeachment Trial Committee to regulate the preparation for evidentiary hearings and to conduct those hearings. If the House adopts articles here, the evidentiary hearings will be conducted before the full Senate. It is likely that the Senate and the Chief Justice will agree that the trial preparation duties that were performed by the Impeachment Trials Committee should be assigned to the Rules Committee (or to a special impeachment committee appointed for that purpose). Although the counsel for the President would request that trial preparation be deferred until the Senate had ruled on the President's motion to dismiss, the Rules Committee might determine that necessary preparation should proceed concurrently with other trial matters. However those duties were exercised, the steps would likely be the same. A. Discovery Proceedings. The need for discovery would be far greater in this case than it was in Hastings. Here, as it did in Hastings, the House Judiciary Committee relied primarily upon the report and materials transmitted to the House by another branch and upon the testimony of the investigator who prepared the report. Here, as it did in Hastings, the committee did not call and subject to examination and cross-examination the fact-witnesses identified by the Starr referral or those who might testify on behalf of the accused or obtain from the Independent Counsel or elsewhere documents other than those included in the materials transmitted. It is hard to conceive that the Senate here would not afford the President the time and the use of its subpoena power to take depositions and obtain relevant documents. Based upon Hastings and the materials available here, discovery would proceed in three stages. 1. Submissions by the Parties. If any articles remained after the motions to dismiss or strike had been decided, the Senate or a committee would have to decide whether and what discovery should be permitted. a. Counsel for the President would promptly submit a memorandum identifying witness and sources of documents that were likely to produce relevant evidence and explaining why the President should be permitted to subpoena each of the witnesses and other source to obtain that evidence. At a minimum, it seems almost certain that the counsel would seek to depose (i) lawyers for Paula Jones about their initial conversations with Linda Tripp and with members of the Office of Independent Counsel (``OIC'') staff; (ii) the members of the OIC staff and FBI agents who met with or interviewed Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinski; and (iii) other technical witnesses, such as those reconstructed materials from the hard drive in Ms. Lewinski's computer. It also seems certain that they would want access to the documents that the Independent Counsel did not transmit with his referral............. 12 20 b. The House managers would be directed to file a response agreeing with or objecting to the President's requests................ 14 22 c. The Senate or its committee would examine the president's request and the House's response and hold hearings and enter the appropriate order directing the issuance of appropriate subpoenas...................... 16 23 d. Independent Counsel Starr, Ms. Jones's lawyers, or others subpoenaed might object to some or all of the subpoena, in which event time-consuming enforcement proceedings would be necessary, at least three months............................... ........ 36 e. The depositions would be conducted and the documents produced and examined........ 16-24 36-44 B. Other Trial Preparation Proceedings. 1. The House managers and counsel for the President would propose stipulations or submit requests for admissions. The Senate or its committee would encourage the parties to stipulate at least to the authenticity and/or admissibility of various documents and other potential exhibits. Responses would be exchanged and negotiations would proceed....... 12 20 2. The Senate or its committee would direct the parties to file and exchange ten days after the close of discovery, pre-trial memoranda identifying witnesses each intended to call and exhibits each intended to introduce............ 25 45 3. The Senate or its committee would enter a final pre-trial order establishing the date for and procedures to be followed at trial......... 26 46 III. The Trial of a President Rules XII and XIII of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials provide that, unless otherwise ordered, the proceedings shall commence at 12:30 p.m. on the first day and at 12:00 noon thereafter. In order to make it possible for the legislative and executive branches to tend to some of the government's business and to enable the Chief Justice to participate, in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, it seems likely that the Senate would not schedule the evidentiary proceedings to begin before 12:30 or would permit them to extend beyond 6:30 p.m. on a regular basis. A. The Presentation of Evidence by the House Managers. The managers presented the testimony of thirty-seven witnesses in Hastings. Only twenty- seven appeared before the Impeachment Trial Committee. The managers were permitted to introduce transcripts of prior testimony for the other ten. The House managers are likely to call most if not all of the 120 witnesses whose statements or testimony are included in the materials transmitted by Independent Counsel Starr. Depending upon the success of pre-trial negotiations, it might have to call several more to establish necessary foundations and the like. Forty to fifty would appear to the minimum number necessary to support the allegations the proposed article have borrowed from the Starr Report. No prior testimony will be admitted. The videotaped deposition and the videotaped grand jury testimony will be shown in their entirety, and many of the Tripp tapes will be played given by the president. The examination and cross-examination of the twenty-seven witnesses the House presented in Hastings consumed more than ten full days. If the President is impeached by this House, the presentation of testimony and other evidence will consume twenty [if forty witnesses called] to forty [120 witnesses] partial trial days before the full Senate............................. 27-30 47-50 B. The President's Case. It is impossible to project the number of witnesses that the President's counsel would call for his defense with any confidence. The Starr Report was not a balanced presentation of the available evidence. It seems clear that the number would be substantial and would include many of the 120 persons whom were identified in the Starr Report, but were not called by the managers. They would present all of the Tripp tapes that the managers did not introduce. They would call witnesses whose conduct might have influenced the testimony of Ms. Lewinski and other House witnesses and witnesses who had knowledge relevant to Ms. Lewinski's credibility. Twenty witnesses and ten days seems a safe minimum........ 31-32 51-52 C. The House Rebuttal. Given the passion and vigor displayed by Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, it seems likely the House managers would want to try to rebut the President's case, no matter how tired and angry the American people may have become. Might we hope for only a day or two... 33 53 D. Argument, Deliberations, and The Vote. Given the nature of the issues and the length of the projected trial, it seems likely that Senate would allot at least four hours to each side for closing arguments. Past precedent dictates that the Senate would close its doors to deliberate in executive session until its members have expressed their views. The vote would follow. With luck, the denouement might be completed in less than a week.. 34 54

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my absolute support for the steps that our President has taken to degrade Iraq's ability to terrorize her neighbors and destabilize the Persian Gulf. The international community has given Saddam Hussein more than enough opportunities to comply with United Nations resolutions. Unfortunately, he has chosen to ignore the United Nations and has repeatedly blocked the ability of U.N. weapons inspectors to access strategic sites. Saddam Hussein clearly has something to hide. I am appalled that Members of Congress in both bodies could be so crass and thoughtless as to suggest that President Clinton initiated this attack to avoid impending legislation addressing his office. To question the integrity of this decision is insidious, damaging, and can be destabilizing to the presidency and dangerous and demoralizing to our troops. Those, the leaders of our armed forces, need our support. They do not need doubts as regards their motives. I, for one, am proud of our President, our military leaders, and our men and women on the ground, the air, and the sea who are leading the strike force and showing the world once again that America is not afraid to do the right thing. I was with the President in the Middle East and witnessed his courageous actions in pursuing peace in that region. I was on Air Force One with the President, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and Republican and Democratic Members of Congress. The President and Secretary of State briefed us just before landing here at Andrews regarding the circumstances of Iraq's deliberate misconduct. Confluence of events notwithstanding, the President, with professionalism, dedication, patriotism, wisdom and courage, took the appropriate steps. We stand with the President and our troops and may God bless them and all of us.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I merely wish to thank our cosponsors of this measure. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) has spoken, but he did extraordinary work in ensuring that we were able to expedite this resolution. I would like to mention the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Sanford) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) and thank them for their assistance as well. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I offer this resolution today to support and strengthen democracy and democratic forces in Gabon. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Royce) of the Subcommittee on Africa for expediting this measure and working with us to ensure that we could get this before the House before we exit today or tomorrow or whenever. I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) because he has been conscientious in more ways than one; not just about Gabon, but about all of Africa and the concerns of the Committee on International Relations. Mr. Speaker, Gabon is well positioned to move forward to a stable and democratic nation. With a per capita income that is three times that of most nations of sub-Saharan Africa, a relatively high literacy rate, and a billion dollar oil industry, Gabon possesses all the necessary components for true democracy. However, despite these positive attributes, Gabon's elections have not always been transparent because of poor organization and poor execution. While I commend the Government of Gabon for its ongoing efforts to resolve conflicts in Central Africa, I personally would like to encourage that government to take further steps in ensuring that the December presidential election is credible and that the commission remains independent and impartial. This resolution gives the people of Gabon a chance to participate in free and fair presidential elections in December. It also calls on the international community to join the United States Government in offering their assistance toward conducting free and fair elections in Gabon, and urges the United States Government to continue to provide support, directly and through appropriate non-governmental organizations, toward free and fair elections in that nation. Mr. Speaker, the Gabonese people have demonstrated their strong support for freedom and democracy through their participation in previous elections. Thus, I believe it is incumbent upon us as leaders of democracy to help the forces of freedom in Gabon institute true democracy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who cannot be with us at this time, I rise in support of this timely, much-needed piece of legislation. H.R. 3494 is a comprehensive response to the horrifying menace of sex crimes against children, particularly assaults facilitated by computers. While there are currently no estimates as to the number of children victimized in cyberspace, the rate at which Federal, State and local law enforcement are confronted with these types of cases is growing at a rapid rate. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act seeks to address the challenges posed by the new computer age to these challenges by providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to investigate and bring to justice those individuals who prey on our Nation's children. The legislation makes a number of important changes, principally by targeting pedophiles who stalk children on the Internet and by cracking down on pedophiles who use and distribute child pornography to lure children into sexual encounters. This legislation passed the House unanimously last June. However, the Senate made several significant changes to that bill. Many of these changes are worthwhile. For example, this version of the bill contains no mandatory minimum sentences. Although none of us support the type of conduct covered by the bill, it is not productive to tie judges' hands with one-size-fits-all mandatory minimum sentences. The original House bill was also too broad in that it made it a crime to contact or attempt to contact a minor. This was so broad that it would have covered a simple ``hello'' in an Internet chat room. Targeting attempts to make contact is like prosecuting a thought crime. Another overbroad provision in the original House bill would have prohibited transmittal of identifying information about any person under 18 for the purpose of encouraging unlawful sexual activity. This would have had the absurd result of prohibiting a person under the age of 18 from e-mailing her own address or telephone number to her boyfriend. The Senate fixed this problem by making it clear that a violation must involve someone else's identifying information. Another problematic provision in the original House bill gives the Attorney General sweeping authority to subpoena records and witnesses in investigations involving crimes against children. We need to be extremely careful before we further extend the Justice Department's administrative subpoena authority. This gives Federal agents the power to compel disclosures without any oversight by a Federal judge. I am also pleased to announce that we have reached accommodation on new reporting requirements for Internet service providers. Under the bill, Internet service providers have a duty to make a report to law enforcement authorities when they obtain knowledge of a material from which a violation of the Federal child pornography laws is apparent. I believe this is stricter than the probable cause standard which has also been proposed and will reduce incentives for over-reporting. This standard is acceptable to providers such as America On Line. The principal concern that I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and other Members have, and so do I, with the revised bill, is that it excludes language from the Violence against Women Act II bill that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) introduced this year and which the House added unanimously. Although the Senate was not ready to expand the rights of women who are subject to horrible abuse, we will continue to fight for them in the future until this bill becomes law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the minority is in concurrence with this particular measure, and at this time we are prepared to agree.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I sat here listening to the two gentlemen that I have immense respect for, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member. I have immense respect for all of the members of the Committee on Appropriations. But we need to have something put in perspective. There are 435 Members of Congress, and if each one of them was given an opportunity to spend the money, they would spend it 435 different ways. It is also a bit unfair to criticize the President for traveling, even if it is in the nature of fund-raising. The White House travels with the President everywhere he is, all over the world. Not just Bill Clinton, any President. All of us know that. He is available at any point in time to undertake to do the business of this Nation. What we can say that we have not done, no matter the direction of the criticism, is we have not done managed care reform. We have not done a bill to reduce class size in modernizing our schools. We have done no action to safeguard the surplus for Social Security. We have not done a bill to reduce teen smoking. So those are some exacting criticisms.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand up today and speak on behalf of H.R. 3055, the Miccosukee Reserve Area Act. This is a very important bill which will carry out the long-standing intent of Congress in preserving and protecting the rights of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. This bill has been truly a bipartisan effort with my Florida colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) joining me as cosponsors. Additionally, the bill now enjoys the support of many other Members of the Florida delegation, and I appreciate their support of this legislation. I also want to point out, Madam Speaker, how appreciative I am of the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen). He has been working with me since the 104th Congress to move this bill expeditiously, and I thank the gentleman, as I do the ranking member and their respective staffs, who have worked tirelessly with me and with the United States Senate in trying to bring this matter to a resolution. Madam Speaker, these Native Americans seek nothing more than what we promised them when we passed the park bill in 1934, nothing more than what was said on the floor of this House, nothing more than the Department of the Interior confirmed in the special use permit. In 1960, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, ``Great nations, like great men, should keep their promise.'' With this bill, we will keep our promise to these Native Americans, to these fellow citizens of the United States. They deserve nothing less. I urge all of our colleagues to support the Miccosukee Reserve Area Act. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand up today and speak on behalf of H.R. 3055--The Miccosukee Reserved Area Act. This is a very important bill which will carry out the longstanding intent of Congress in preserving and protecting the rights of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. This bill has been a truly bipartisan effort, with my Florida colleagues Congresswoman Carrie Meek and Congressmen Lincoln Diaz- Balart, Mark Foley, and Joe Scarborough joining me as cosponsors. Additionally, the bill now enjoys the support of many other Members of the Florida delegation and I appreciate their support of this legislation. I also want to point out, Madam Speaker, how appreciative I am of Chairman Hansen. He has been working with me since the 104th Congress to move this bill expediously. This legislation allows for the good people of the Miccosukee Tribe to live in perpetuity in the so-called permit area of Everglades National Park. The Miccosukees have lived and worked for literally hundreds of years in this area. The rights of the Miccosukees are recognized by the Everglades National Park Enabling Act of 1934 and their special use permit. In 1934, the Everglades National Park Enabling Act specifically provided that rights of the Indians were protected. Subsequently, in 1962, and 1973, the tribe was guaranteed that they could build homes, schools, clinics, and other tribal buildings in the 300-plus acres identified in their special use permit. The intent of the Congress in 1934 was to guarantee the Indians the freedom to live, work, and govern themselves as they wish in this area, not to be governed by the National Park Service. This bill will allow for Miccosukee self-government to continue and prosper. Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that this bill enjoys not only bipartisan support, but bicameral support as well. A companion bill has been sponsored in the Senate by Senator Connie Mack and is supported by Senator Bob Graham. Additionally, we have worked tirelessly with the Administration to garner their support as well. I am pleased that Secretary Babbitt has visited the area at the heart of this bill and that he, too, agrees that it is necessary and worthy legislation. We have worked with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to make sure all of their concerns were addressed. In short, Madam Speaker, this has been an inclusive process from the very beginning and because of that we have a substantive, important bill that all sides see as meaningful and necessary. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me say that I take a great deal of pride in the fact that South Florida's premier environmental organization-- Friends of the Everglades--endorses this legislation. It was important to not only have the support of the tribe and the politicians, but also the support of the local environmental community who is most acutely aware of the challenges facing our fragile South Florida ecosystem. Madam Speaker, these native Americans seek nothing more than what we promised them when we passed the park bill in 1934, nothing more than was said on the floor of this House, nothing more than the Department of the Interior confirmed in the special use permit. In 1960, Justice Hugo Black wrote, ``Great nations, like great men, should keep their promise.'' With this bill, we keep our promise to these native Americans, to these fellow citizens of the United States. They deserve nothing less. I urge all of my colleagues to support The Miccosukee Reserved Area Act.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 295, and I commend the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) and our other colleagues and, of course, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations that works so actively and diligently with all of us working hard to get this matter to the floor today. Madam Speaker, sort of as an unnoticed surprise, I also would like to thank the staffs on both sides and particularly Elana Broitman, who is leaving us. This is her last day with us, and the work that she has done on the committee is deeply appreciated, I am sure, by all of our colleagues on the Committee on International Relations. This is a worthy resolution. Several members of this committee have cosponsored it. I urge its adoption. This resolution sends an important message from the Congress in commemorating the 65th anniversary of the famine in Ukraine. It sends the message that Congress remembers the victims of the famine, that Congress condemns the former Soviet Government's disregard for human life, human liberty and self-determination during the famine, that Congress sees today's Ukraine moving toward democracy, a free market economy and full respect for human rights and supports the United States assistance to Ukraine as it proceeds down this path. I wholeheartedly support this commemoration. I also endorse support to Ukraine's reform efforts. Achieving reform has been and will continue to be difficult, and we all recognize that Ukraine faces enormous economic and social challenges. Ukraine has taken important steps this summer towards reform as President Kuchma, with apparent support from the Ukrainian parliament, issued a long list of reformist decrees. This course best serves the interests of the Ukraine people and is the best insurance against future hardships in Ukraine. I think we should continue to support Ukraine's efforts as long as it stays the course. Again, Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to consider this very important piece of legislation today, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the members of the Committee on International Relations, as well as our other colleagues, for their expediting of this piece of legislation. Like us all, I shared the shock, sorrow and outrage of the entire Nation when I learned of the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Madam Speaker, like so many of us, people lost family and personal friends. I would ask the personal prerogative to do, as I am sure many Members could and likely did in their appropriate memorials in the Record, but a 40-year friend of mine, Jean DeLiza, was killed in the embassy bombing in Kenya. As sort of an extended family, her mother Rose, her sister Joyce, her children, Laurie and others, and her siblings and all of us were stunned. As a member of this committee, I have had the opportunity to visit many of our embassies, and a lot of them I have visited with the chairman of this committee, who has worked exceedingly diligently internationally and nationally to bring to the attention of this body and the world the needs of a stable and peaceful world. Our embassy workers do more than process visas. They promote investment in the United States, they facilitate the selling of American products overseas, and they assist Americans who are lost or who have lost their money or passports or are imprisoned in foreign countries. To murder these public servants because one has a grudge against the United States is ludicrous and pathetic. The thought that one can settle a vendetta against the United States or the West by planting a bomb in Africa would be laughable were it not for the loss of Americans' lives and others in Kenya and Tanzania. The governments, many that the chairman mentioned, the NGOs and courageous individuals whom we must thank for their assistance in the aftermath of the bombing are too numerous to mention at this time. First of all, the governments and the people of Kenya and Tanzania were instrumental in saving lives and property. The street demonstrations held in support of the United States by the peoples of Kenya and Tanzania were noted, and they are to be recognized as being deeply appreciated in this country. The quick thinking of the United States Embassy guards, many of them locals, was instrumental in preventing even more death and destruction. The people of the governments of Israel, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Australia and others provided vital assistance for which all Americans are extremely grateful. Numerous United States Federal and local agencies gathered quickly on the sites, and their outstanding work in securing the scenes paved the way for superlative investigative work which has already led to some arrests in these cases. This resolution expresses the intention of the House to examine whether the security needs of United States facilities overseas are being met. This issue is particularly relevant to the work that we do under the guidance and leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) in this committee. We must examine all of our facilities overseas and where weaknesses exist, reinforce those facilities. We must support this administration and the next administration in building alliances with like-minded friends to ensure that terrorists who wish to harm the United States are eliminated. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to echo and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I yield back the rest of our time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), one of the hardest-working Members of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3046, the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance program, an important change in Federal law that we should all be focused on today and proud to see enacted into law. I know that the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and other Members who are cosponsors originally of this matter stand proud for its coming forward today. This legislation, spearheaded by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), my colleague, of the Subcommittee on Crime, would amend the law to extend Federal educational assistance benefits to dependents of State and local law enforcement officials killed in the line of duty. We can all hope that the number of eligible beneficiaries of this change will, one day, be zero. But sadly, that will probably not be the case. It is the least that we can do to say to law enforcement officers, Federal and State who give their lives in the line of duty, that we will help take care of their children. This legislation comes too late for a police officer friend of mine named Reuben in Miami, Florida, who will be buried on tomorrow. His children, Rashedra, Jeanette and Shelton, would be beneficiaries that if this law were retroactive it would benefit. I stand to memorialize it in his name and the name of all officers that have died in the line of duty who have preceded this particular legislation. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and enact it into law today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3528, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998. As litigation increases, so do litigation costs. It is clear that we all agree Congress should do all it can to encourage opposing parties to try alternative dispute resolution. While I am concerned about the bill's provision making this process mandatory, since the overwhelming majority of Federal courts already have some form of alternative dispute resolution, the mandatory provision is a de jure insult but not so much de facto. As one who served in the Federal courts and in the State courts, I am mindful of the tremendous need for alternative dispute resolution. The Federal courts have been willing to implement alternative dispute resolution. This bill now says they must. I would prefer that the decision whether to adopt a particular court-annexed ADR program be left to the courts, but I think this bill has it both ways. It requires mandatory alternative dispute resolution but retains some flexibility for the courts to determine for themselves exactly what kind. The legislation has improved dramatically from what it reflected upon introduction. There is more flexibility for the courts to determine how to proceed once they set up an alternative dispute resolution program. I appreciate the positive changes that have been made and urge my colleagues to support this bill, and thank the sponsor and cosponsors, my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), for bringing this action for our consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a question of privilege pursuant to rule IX and call up House Resolution 545 for consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.