Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me say I may consider the Lantos-Shays alternative imperfect, but it represents a credible political balancing and is clearly preferable to the underlying bill. But listening to the debate over the past 2 days, I sense a lack of perspective not only for treaty obligations but for the U.N. itself. Corruption exists in all societies. It is rife, indeed endemic, in some. At the U.N., it is isolated; it is not endemic. I have known hundreds and hundreds of people who have worked for the U.N. itself or U.N. agencies. They are honorable, decent people doing a decent job. It is true that a few thousand dollars here and a few thousand dollars there pretty soon adds up to a loss of confidence in institutions of governance, and we have that problem at the U.N. Hence, we cannot ignore scandal, but scandal does not define the United Nations; it defines a problem that must be dealt with there and elsewhere. We should do this, but we should do this with the understanding that the world would be a far worse place without the U.N. and that the activities and actions of its various organizations and agencies have made this a better world society. So improvement, not destruction, is the goal.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, as so ably demonstrated by the gentlemen from California (Mr. Lantos and Mr. Rohrabacher), the U.N. is crying out for reform. But let us not forget that the only oath we as Members take is to the Constitution and votes should reflect this obligation, not pique, not ideology, not well-intentioned concern for reform. Unfortunately, the approach contained in the bill before us contravenes the United Nations charter and undercuts the rule of law. It also misreads the constitutional prerogatives of Congress. It is true that under article 1 we have been given purse-string authority. It is not true that we have been provided the power to negotiate. That authority resides with the executive branch. There has been a suggestion made that only by threatening the withholding of resources can progress be made at the U.N. This assertion at first blush sounds like commonsense realism. But counterintuitively to utterers of this precept, historical experience reveals that prior U.S. withholding tactics have frequently embarrassed the United States and weakened, rather than strengthened, our diplomatic positions. Nobody likes to be threatened, especially when threats represent breaches of the law of nations. It is no accident that the Bush administration has voiced opposition to this bill and warned that unilaterally backing out of our financial obligations will undermine our credibility and effectiveness at the U.N. One obvious issue, especially for my Republican colleagues, is whether deference to the judgment of House leadership in matters of multilateral diplomacy is more compelling than deference to the President. But this quandary is secondary to the issue of the rule of law. The fundamental choice today is between deference to the law or to sovereign impunity. Any sense of history would suggest that now is not the time to denigrate law. The passions of men, no matter how understandable must be constrained by law if there is any hope for a more peaceful and just world. Accordingly, I intend to vote for the principal substitute to the committee bill, but against either the committee bill or the substitute on final passage. The former represents a congressional directive that in all likelihood will require the U.S. to declare financial war on the United Nations. The alternative approach, while more restrained, has the effect of authorizing the executive branch to conduct a financial war on the U.N. should the Secretary of State choose to do so. Both presumptuously imply that the United States is free of an international obligation to pay its assessment. This body would be wiser to abide by the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, not the politics of the moment. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is at times like this I am reminded of the warning of the English philosopher, John Locke, who once suggested that little is more dangerous than a good prince, because that prince is so respected it is hard to object when he may be wrong. Henry Hyde is not just a good prince, he is a great one. But I fear in this instance he may be wrong, and I would suggest to my colleagues that the most appropriate way to show our esteem is through respectful dissent to the finest in our midst. Mr. Chairman. At the outset, let me express my appreciation to Chairman Hyde and his staff for reaching out to consult with me as this legislation was developed. Although we have differing perspectives on this bill, I have the utmost respect for our distinguished Chairman, as well as his staff, who are among the finest on Capitol Hill. The Committee has done a quality job in assembling a panoply of United Nations reform proposals. Virtually all of the suggestions are compelling. The problem is the framework of their consideration. Unfortunately, in my judgment, the underlying Committee approach is thoroughly inappropriate. The Democratic substitute is better, but is inappropriate as well. All of us have pique of one kind or another about the U.N. As a supporter of the principles that underlie the founding of the United Nations, I must confess to profound disappointment in the conflicts of interest that developed in the oil-for-food program. Bizarrely, according to a federal indictment made public earlier this spring, a South Korean named Tongsun Park appears to be at the center point of one set of Iraqi oil transfers in which as a middleman he may have used part of his commissions to influence several U.N. officials. What is astonishingly ``deja vu'' about these charges is that Tongsun Park had been indicted on bribery and conspiracy charges in the late 1970s for using his role as a rice agent for the U.S. Food for Peace program to bestow money and gifts on Members of Congress who had legislated the guidelines that allowed commissions on those agricultural sales. The involvement of Tongsun Park in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal may be a footnote to the abuses that developed but it symbolically underscores the urgent need for reform, accountability and transparency in U.N. endeavors. Ironically, the oil-for-food program was authorized by the Security Council with U.S. support and every contract had to be approved by the government of the United States. It appears that proceeds from some of these contracts may have benefited influential individuals and institutions in various countries, including Russia and France, and thus had the effect of providing financial incentives for people in key foreign countries to oppose the policy perspectives of the United States. It also appears that conflicts of interest may have been precipitated with a small number of U.N. employees. Perspective is difficult to bring to issues of the day, but with regard to the oil-for-food program, it is apparent that the international system is vulnerable to corruption. It may be that relative to the multi-billion-dollar size of the program, the conflicts in New York may to some seem paltry. But it should be clear that a few thousand here and a few thousand there add up to a loss of confidence in institutions of governance. Bureaucratic waste and ineptitude are a challenge to any large organization, but of all institutions the U.N. should be the one most sensitive in the world to the problem of the ``two c's:'' corruption and conflicts of interest. The United Nations was created to promote the rule of law among and within nations. It was expected to be an honest and implacably neutral broker to help settle international disputes and advance international law in areas as diverse as arms control, trade, human rights, and the environment. In all these activities, political differences were to be expected, but integrity of purpose and deed was to be the U.N.'s hallmark. But tragically, no institution can fulfill its mission if its programs are subverted or its representatives conduct themselves in ways that are not respectful of the law. Corruption is the bitterest breach of trust, especially for the U.N., which in so many parts of the world represents the aspirations of people who live in desperate poverty and fear. In this regard, in December 2004, Congress directed the United States Institute of Peace to establish a Task Force on the United Nations. The 12-member bipartisan Task Force, chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, worked with leading public policy organizations to assess reforms that would enable the U.N. to better meet the goals of its 1945 charter and offer the U.S. government an actionable agenda to strengthen the U.N. The report recommends establishing a chief operating officer to be in charge of daily U.N. operations; empowering the Secretary General to replace his or her top officials; and creating an Independent Oversight Board with adequate audit powers to prevent another scandal like oil- for-food. In addition, the report suggests abolishing the current U.N. Human Rights Commission and establishing a new Human Rights Council, ideally to be composed of democratic governments committed to monitoring, promoting, and enforcing human rights. Over the years, there have been many reports advocating U.N. reform. By background, in the early 1990's I co-Chaired the United States Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations. The Commission held six hearings in regional centers across the country, receiving testimony from hundreds of witnesses representing a cross- section of philosophical perspectives. The report the commission put forth underlined a certain degree of optimism that the U.N. could play a constructive role in world affairs, but explicitly recognized ``serious management problems'' and lack of adequate financial accountability in the U.N. system, and called for the U.N. to establish a fully independent Inspector General's office. With respect to political and security issues, the Commission, like the Gingrich-Mitchell Commission, recognized that means must be found to make the Security Council more representative of power balances in the world today; accordingly, it recommended the expansion of permanent membership of the Security Council. I introduced a bill to this effect yesterday, House Resolution 321, and am hopeful it will receive serious Committee and House review at a later date. Also like the Gingrich-Mitchell Commission, the U.S. Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations recommended the establishment of a U.N. rapid reaction force to prevent acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. Arguably, these last recommendations--expansion of the Security Council and establishment of a U.N. rapid deployment force--are the two most important reform proposals the U.N. is considering today. The reform bill before us today is silent on each. While both the Gingrich-Mitchell Commission and the earlier U.N. Commission highlighted severe management concerns, neither advocated linking progress on U.N. reform to U.S. payment of dues to the organization. Indeed, eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations--Madeleine Albright, John Danforth, Richard Holbrooke, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Donald McHenry, Thomas Pickering, Bill Richardson and Andrew Young--urged Congress earlier this week to reject legislation that would withhold payments to the world body unless specific reform plans were enacted. Here, we must understand precisely what the meaning of a 50 percent cut in U.S. contributions to the U.N., as envisioned in the bill before us, implies. As the country in the world that most stands for the rule of law, we are proposing to circumvent it. The Committee approach represents a Congressional directive that in all likelihood will require the U.S. to declare financial war on the United Nations. The alternative Democratic approach, while more restrained, has the effect of authorizing the Executive Branch to conduct a financial war on the U.N. should the Secretary of State choose to do so. Both approaches contravene the U.N. Charter, a treaty binding all parties, including the United States. It specifies: ``The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly'' (Article 17(2)). In 1962, the International Court of Justice held--sustaining the position of the United States--that apportionment of expenses by the General Assembly creates the obligation of each Member to bear that part of the expenses apportioned to it. Both efforts, the first boldly, the second with an extra Executive Branch hurdle, presumptuously imply that the United States is free of an international obligation to pay its assessments. This position runs counter to elemental principles of international law. The Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties provides that: ``Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith'' (Article 26). It specifies that: ``A state party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of internal law as justification for its failure to perform the treaty'' (Article 21(1)). The only oath we as Members take is to the Constitution. Votes should reflect this obligation, not pique, not ideology, not well-intentioned concern for reform. The bill before us undercuts the rule of law. It also misreads the Constitutional prerogative of Congress. It is true under Article I that we have been given purse string authority. It is not true that we have been provided the power to negotiate. That authority resides with the Executive Branch. The legislation before us eviscerates the separation of powers that our founders so thoughtfully constructed. The Democratic alternative represents a credible political, but uncompelling legal balancing. The wiser way to go is to take the group of reform ideas assembled in the Committee bill, many of which, by the way have been derived from recommendations of various U.N. initiated panels, and simply direct the Executive to use its authority to seek to advance them in a way only it can. There has been a suggestion made that only by threatening the withholding of resources can progress at the U.N. be made. This assertion at first blush sounds like common-sense realism. But counter- intuitively to utterers of this precept, historical experience reveals that prior U.S. withholding tactics have frequently embarrassed the U.S. and weakened rather than strengthened U.S. diplomatic positions. Nobody likes to be threatened, especially when threats represent breaches of the law of nations. This bill, while frustratingly reflective of many legitimate sentiments, will almost certainly prove counterproductive. While it contains good ideas that many in the U.N. community support, the coercive methodology implicit in the threat of withholding legally obligated resources will jeopardize rather than advance prospects for reform. It is no accident that the Bush Administration has voiced opposition to this bill and warned that unilaterally backing out of our financial obligations will undermine our credibility and effectiveness at the U.N. We may be the greatest democracy in history but in a world where U.S. leadership has for so many lost its luster, good policy is far likelier to precipitate constructive results than big economic threats. One obvious issue, especially for my Republican colleagues, is whether on matters of multilateral diplomacy deference to the judgment of House leadership is more compelling than deference to the President. But this quandary is secondary to the issue of the rule of law. The fundamental choice today is between deference to the law or to sovereign impunity. Any sense of history would suggest that now is not the time to denigrate law. The passions of men, no matter how understandable, must be constrained by law, if there is any hope for a more peaceful and just world. Accordingly, I intend to vote for the principal substitute to the Committee bill, but against either the Committee or the substitute on final passage. It is the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, not the politics of the moment that should guide our consideration of this bill.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet, but the possibility is very real that stem cell research may be the greatest breakthrough in the history of science. There are deep and profound moral and philosophic issues surrounding the research, but our government should be very cautious about coming down on the wrong side of science, especially when the scientific endeavor is designed to lengthen and ennoble life. It has been suggested here today that no breakthrough therapies have yet been developed with stem cell research. This is simply not the case. Using, for example, the microenvironment of human embryonic stem cells, Dr. Mary Hendricks and her team of researchers at Chicago's Memorial Research Center have developed a methodology to slow the aggressive properties of metastatic cancer cells. How in heaven's name can we deny the promise of such research? There is consensus at this time in this body and in the research community that scientists should not play God in attempting to clone human beings, but we are at a stage of human existence where there is a practical possibility that a blastocyst that would otherwise be thrown away as waste can, in a petri dish, be used to help solve these incredible diseases, from Alzheimer's to Parkinson's to diabetes to cancer. If one believes that life matters, the balance of judgment should be to carefully open the door, as this bill, led so beautifully by my good friends the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), does. Not to open the door is to put our heads in the sands and foreclose the prospect of a better life for many, many Americans.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, this weekend was marked by the passing of Roy B. Keppy. Roy Keppy was a symbol of Iowa. No family farmer has ever been held in higher esteem. No hog producer has won more honors or been more revered. Roy's concerns were always for quality. Whether raising hogs, corn, soy beans or children, his work ethic was the same. Every moment of every day he worked to the best of his ability, and then some more. While Roy's formal education ended at J.B. Young Middle School in Davenport, he earned a Ph.D. in life. He was a leader: on the farm, in his community, for his country. At various points in time, he coaxed more corn and beans per acre from his wonderful Scott County soil than anyone in the state, and he raised hogs which won more state and national blue ribbons than anyone in the history of hog competitions. At the community level, he led, it seemed, every farm organization; at the national level, he headed Farmers for Ford and played a key agricultural role in the election of two presidents named Bush. As for Congress, there is no individual whose advice I respected more; no one to whom I am more indebted. Two anecdotes stand out. One was a comment the former Secretary of Agriculture Earle Butz made to me. He said one day that the finest agricultural speech he ever heard was given by Roy Keppy when it was announced he would lead President Ford's agricultural team. What was so impressive about this comment was the fact that Earle Butz was generally considered the best public speaker on agriculture in his generation. But he deferred to Roy Keppy. The second is about the time Roy manipulated a cord in his barn so that when his guest, George W. Bush, was speaking, gentle pieces of corn would fall on his slightly balding pate. The Secret Service never understood what a mischievous host the candidate they were assigned to protect had. Roy's passing symbolizes the end of an era in Iowa life. As we his friends contemplate and, in effect, celebrate, the meaning of his time on earth, we too are obligated to work hard to insure that Roy's death does not mark the end of a breed. Roy will always stand out, but our country will be diminished if he is the last of the hands- on farmers who by second nature serve their community and then by acclamation of their peers, unrelated to gall or personal ambition, are asked to provide leadership to their country. Roy Keppy will be much missed. Most poignantly by this Member of Congress.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, one of the most talked-about issues in foreign policy today relates to the nature and possibility of United Nations reform, including the question of whether to expand the number of permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Not unexpectedly, the People's Republic of China has expressed great angst about several of the proposed methodologies for expanding the number of permanent members--possibly because of historical friction between China and Japan and, to a lesser extent, India. My sense is that the issue of the make-up of the Security Council should be the subject of serious review. As a former member of the United States Delegation to the U.N. as well as a former co-Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the U.N., I am convinced that constructive reform of the Security Council is in order. It is in the world's interest and the U.S. national interest to expand the Security Council. The claim of India, Japan and Germany for a permanent seat is compelling. Likewise, there is a credible case that the Security Council could be modestly expanded on a shared co-country basis as well. For example, Brazil and Mexico might be awarded a seat in which they would alternate terms. In a similar way, Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa might be given the right to alternate terms with each other, as might the Muslim-majority countries of Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Such an approach would expand the Security Council by six seats, involving the granting of new rights to eleven countries. The case for granting veto power to new full-time members may be credible, but for various reasons one or another of the current five permanent members can be expected to object to the dilution of their own veto authority. Hence, realistically membership but not veto expansion is likely to be the agenda issue subject to serious review at this time. Expansion of the number of permanent seats under this approach would involve a substantial change in the Security Council, but this change would be more likely to be stabilizing than destabilizing because it would better reflect power balances in the world today and lead to more equitable financial burden-sharing of U.N. actions. It would cause the Council to reflect greater religious and racial diversity and also be composed of a higher percentage of the world's population. Such a new Security Council arrangement would underscore the role of Asia in world affairs as well as reflect a more credible African and Latin American presence. In any regard, I would hope that the Executive Branch as well as other member countries of the U.N. might give this and other comparable approaches serious consideration.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Out of deference to the chairman, I will be very brief, but I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for raising this at this time; and he has done a wonderful job in leading this effort. I would just like to stress the dual dimension of bipartisanship of this amendment. One, its legislative approach was introduced in the last Congress, and with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) I reintroduced it in this Congress. Secondly, as we think back to the Truman Commission, which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) referenced, it is very impressive that that commission was established by the party in power at the time, and so it was the party in power that wanted to look at itself. Thirdly, the Truman Commission was established at a time that Senator Truman was very concerned that a very small number of contracts were let to a very small number of companies in a very narrow part of the country. At the time, he was concerned about American manufacturing being held by too few in a contract sense. Now we are looking at services where it looks like a very small number of companies have gotten very large contracts. It is more complicated today because, in addition, some contracts are going to foreign firms. So this is a very delicate area. I personally believe that the only way you can maintain a support for national policy, however controversial, is to have complete confidence that things are being pursued in the most honest way possible. I think the time has come for this type of approach. I would hope this Congress would look at it.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize that last week was National Peace Corps Week and to applaud the thousands of Americans who have represented the U.S. since 1961 in the Peace Corps in 138 countries. Emblematic of the idealism of America are the 15 volunteers from my district in Southeast Iowa who are currently serving on four continents, in desert villages, mountain towns and city centers from Ukraine to Panama and Morocco. A Peace Corps volunteer is charged with three missions: the first is to help the people of host countries in meeting their need for trained professionals; the second is to help promote understanding of America around the world; and the third is to help expand American understanding of other peoples and countries. Thus, the job of the Peace Corps volunteer is not over when their assignment is completed. Volunteers maintain a duty to share their grasp of the people, the language and the culture of the countries in which they served. Not long ago, in a speech at Yale University, the first Peace Corps Director, Sargent Shriver, declared that he wanted to add a fourth goal: to ``bind all human beings together in a common cause to assure peace and survival for all.'' No mission is more altruistic; nor more consequential. Geopolitical realists might consider such majesty of purpose to be naive. Actually, there is no rational alternative in a world where history has known few generations unaffected by the strife of war; where the creation of weapons of mass destruction has increased the vulnerability of the human race. As Einstein noted, splitting the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking. It is the capacity to think that, at its best, characterizes mankind, but, at its least impressive, has yet to be harnessed in such a way as to give confidence that modern man can live with modern technology. It is in the context of concern for the common fate of all mankind the Peace Corps stands out as the singular institution in American society that provides a model for hope and a cause for optimism.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize that last week was National Peace Corps Week and to applaud the thousands of Americans who have represented the U.S. since 1961 in the Peace Corps in 138 countries. Emblematic of the idealism of America are the 15 volunteers from my district in Southeast Iowa who are currently serving on four continents, in desert villages, mountain towns and city centers from Ukraine to Panama and Morocco. A Peace Corps volunteer is charged with three missions: the first is to help the people of host countries in meeting their need for trained professionals; the second is to help promote understanding of America around the world; and the third is to help expand American understanding of other peoples and countries. Thus, the job of the Peace Corps volunteer is not over when their assignment is completed. Volunteers maintain a duty to share their grasp of the people, the language and the culture of the countries in which they served. Not long ago, in a speech at Yale University, the first Peace Corps Director, Sargent Shriver, declared that he wanted to add a fourth goal: to ``bind all human beings together in a common cause to assure peace and survival for all'' No mission is more altruistic; nor more consequential. Geopolitical realists might consider such majesty of purpose to be naive. Actually, there is no rational alternative in a world where history has known few generations unaffected by the strife of war; where the creation of weapons of mass destruction has increased the vulnerability of the human race. As Einstein noted, splitting the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking. It is the capacity to think that, at its best, characterizes mankind, but, at its least impressive, has yet to be harnessed in such a way as to give confidence that modern man can live with modern technology. In this context of concern for the common fate of all mankind, the Peace Corps stands out as the singular institution in American society that provides a model for hope and a cause for optimism.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman and distinguished ranking member for bringing this very thoughtful resolution to the floor. What the world is witnessing with this tsunami in the Indian Ocean is a tragedy of awesome dimensions which the executive branch of the United States, the Congress, and the American people are determined to address in the most compassionate way possible. I stress the word ``compassion'' because in international affairs today, the issue of motives is on everybody's mind. I would like to make it very clear that the only motive of the American people is compassion. There may be geopolitical spinoffs to any actions any government at any time makes or does not make, but this is an issue of people; and it is the obligation of the people's House of the United States to reflect the heart and soul of our constituents, and this we are doing in this resolution. It is true that this issue is a long way from home. It is also true that it is expensive. Beyond that, it is impressive to me how unprecedented the initial reaction has been. In less than 2 weeks, hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance have already been brought to bear. Indeed, a kind of competitive compassion has been precipitated involving nation states, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and faith-based institutions. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned, it is particularly impressive what the United States military has been able to do in very short order. It is the institution of our society that can act the quickest in the face of every kind of emergencies. Our military has become, in essence, an instrument of peace in a way that it was not necessarily designed to be, but which we as the American people want it to perform. Finally, let me stress that in addition to the issue at stake, this is an incredibly important time in human history to attempt to develop models of concern and action that bring people together rather than tear them apart. To the degree that a model of compassion which may or may not be competitive is contrasted with models of accelerating hate, we have hope that other kinds of disasters that may be man-made instead of nature-made can be addressed in similar kinds of ways. This is a beginning, somewhat hortatory resolution of the United States Congress; but it is meaningful because it is a commitment. I would simply like to stress how impressed I am how every Member of Congress, every constituent that has talked to me, every member of the executive branch is committed to doing the utmost we conceivably can. This is an issue, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned, of a human dimension, not any other kind.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, history unfolds at an unpredictable pace. While we've been pre-occupied with ``Iraq and our own elections at home, dramatic events have shaken Ukraine for the past fortnight. They must not be overlooked or their implications misunderstood. Once again in the former Soviet empire, we are witnessing the courage of the human soul and the lengths to which oppressed people will go to seize freedom. In Ukraine, a country besieged in the last century by two of mankind's greatest `isms' of hate--fascism and communism--a populace has risen against another kind of `ism'--corruptionism. We are now witness to the power of the individual standing up against forces of injustice and oppression. We are also witness to the continuing saga of a people aspiring to shape its own destiny, clear of the shadows cast for centuries by powerful neighbors. At issue is the question of freedom and its transforming effects. Democracy implies more than elections. It implies integrity of process, and when that integrity is lacking, the charade of stolen elections can be more debilitating than unabashed authoritarian rule. There are geostrategic as well as philosophical dimensions to the Ukraine situation that need to be understood in the broad context of the region and its history. Geopolitically, Ukraine is a large expanse about the size of Texas, with a population of nearly 48 million people, stretching from the wheat fields along a line between Warsaw and Moscow to the palm trees of Yalta, on the Black Sea. The Ukraine was the breadbasket of the old Soviet Union; today, it is an economic and political hinge between the European Union and NATO on the one hand, and the Russian Federation and the Asian landmass, on the other. The western, Ukrainian-speaking half of the country looks to Warsaw and Berlin, Paris and Washington; eastern Ukraine, with its Russian-speaking population, looks more to Moscow. Language creates cultural divisions, but the forces of political cohesion are strong. Both population groups are committed to independence and undiluted Ukrainian sovereignty. So, in addition to democracy, at issue is Russian imperialism. Instability in Ukraine can only strengthen the hand of an increasingly authoritarian Kremlin. By contrast, a genuinely free election in Ukraine would not only enhance national solidarity but encourage democratic forces in the rest of the former Soviet Union, not least within Russia itself. Those committed to democracy anywhere in the world should not hesitate to identify with aspirations of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine may be on the distant side of Europe from the United States, but our countries are bound by a common heritage and an inalienable urge for freedom. As Taras Shevchenko, the 19th century Ukrainian poet, wrote: ``It makes no difference to me / If I shall live or not in Ukraine / Or whether any one shall think / Of me mid' foreign snow and rain / It makes no difference to me . . . It makes great difference to me / That evil folk and wicked men / Attack our Ukraine, once so free / And rob and plunder at will / That makes great difference to me.'' So far courageous Ukrainians have succeeded in halting a fraudulent election. Sensing political winds blowing from a new direction, the once docile supreme court has, startlingly, done an honest job, erasing an injustice and calling for a new election. But the outcome is still in doubt. There is plenty of opportunity before the court-ordered runoff for status quo authorities to attempt, once more, to subvert the democratic process. There can be little doubt they will try to do so. For the KGB alumni who dominate the Kremlin, Ukrainian democracy is more than an embarrassment. It is a threat to their power and wealth and, for some, to their dream of restoring the Russian empire. No one wishes to poison relations with Russia, but free elections are not an issue on which the United States should or, indeed, can compromise without sullying its principles. Nor need we respect the threat of those who are so fearful of losing power that they hint of promoting a division of Ukraine into western and eastern parts. Separatism mis-serves the Ukrainian people. It is a trend that Russia, grappling with Chechnya and other non-Russian regions, can only endorse at great risk. Differing with Russia may be politically awkward, but once the flame of freedom is ignited, the U.S. and other western democracies have no ethical choice except to stand up in support of the people of Ukraine. The march to freedom in Poland, Czechoslovakia and other former communist-bloc countries has shown that the risk of an outbreak of destabilizing violence is far greater in situations where the popular will is suppressed than in those where it is allowed to find full expression. The Ukrainian election set for December 26 is one of the seminal events of this new century. As members of the American people's House, we are obligated to express our support for the aspirations of Ukrainians.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, there are few areas of the world with a more troubling mix of geopolitical problems than the Middle East. The irony is that the war in Iraq which has consumed so much of our country's political and economic capital may hold less far-reaching consequences than challenges posed in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. To the West, the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off remains the sorest point in world relations, although new opportunities for reconciliation between the two sides have presented themselves in the wake of Yasser Arafat's passing. To the East, the sobering prospect of Iran joining the nuclear club stands out. It is this East of Baghdad trauma that I wish to address this afternoon. In life, individuals and countries sometimes face circumstances in which all judgments and options are bad. The Iranian dilemma is a case- in-point. But it is more than just an abstract bad option model because at issue are nuclear weapons in the hands of a mullah-controlled society which has actively aided and abetted regional terrorists for years. In reference to recent disclosures of enhanced Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons as well as missile delivery systems to carry such weapons, concerned outside parties are actively reviewing options. The Europeans have led with diplomatic entreaties; the Israelis, with requests for the provision by the United States of sophisticated bunker-busting bombs; American policy-makers, with open-option planning, with neo-con muscularity being the principal reported theme. In the background are references to the 1981 preemptive strike by the Israeli Air Force against Iraq's Osirak reactor. At issue is the question of whether preemption is justified; if so, how it should be carried out; and, if carried out, whether intervention would lead to a more conciliatory, non-nuclear Iran or whether the effects of military action would be short-term, perhaps pushing back nuclear development a year or two, but precipitating a new level of hostility against the United States and Israel in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world which could continue for decades, if not centuries. Since the American hostage crisis which so bedeviled the Carter administration in the late 1970s, we have had a policy of economic sanctions coupled with comprehensive efforts to politically isolate Iran. Four years ago, Senator Arlen Specter and I invited Iran's U.N. Ambassador to Capitol Hill, the first visit to Washington by a high- level Iranian representative since the hostage crisis. On the subject of possible movement toward normalization of relations with Iran, I told the ambassador that while many would like to see a warming of relations, it would be inconceivable for the United States to consider normalizing our relationship so long as Iran continued its support of Hamas and Hezbollah. The ambassador forthrightly acknowledged that Iran provided help to both these terrorist organizations, but also noted, in what was the most optimistic thing he said that day, that his government was prepared to cease support to anti-Israeli terrorist groups the moment a Palestinian state was established with borders acceptable to Palestinians. For decades in the Muslim world, debate has been on-going whether to embrace a credible two state (Israel and Palestine) approach or advance an irrevocable push-Israel-to-the-sea agenda. The implicit Iranian position, as articulated by the ambassador, is support for a two-state approach, but if the United States on its own, or Israel as a perceived surrogate, were to attack Iran, the possibility that such a compromise can ever become possible deteriorates. While angst-ridden, the Muslim world understands the rationale for our intervention in Afghanistan where the plotting for the 9/11 attack on the United States occurred. It has no sympathy for our engagement in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, but if these two interventions were followed by a third in Iran, the likelihood is that such would be perceived in the vocabulary of the Harvard historian, Samuel Huntington, as an all-out ``clash of civilizations,'' pitting the Judeo-Christian against the Muslim world. In the Middle East it would be considered a war of choice precipitated by the United States. We might want it to be seen as a short-term action to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, but the Muslim world would more likely view it as a continuance of the Crusades: a religious conflict of centuries' dimensions, with a revived future. If military action is deemed necessary, the United States broadly has only three tactical options: (a) Full scale invasion a la Iraq; (b) surgical strikes of Iranian nuclear and missile installations; or (c) a surrogate strike by Israel, modeled along the lines of Osirak. The first can be described as manifestly more difficult than our engagement in Iraq, particularly a post-conflict occupation. The second presents a number of difficulties, including the comprehensiveness of such a strike and the question of whether all aspects of a program that is clandestine can be eliminated. The third makes the United States accountable for Israeli actions, which themselves are likely to be more physically destructive but less effective than the 1981 strike against Osirak. In thinking through the consequences of military action, even if projected to be successfully carried out, policymakers must put themselves in the place of a potential adversary. A strike that merely buys time may also be a strike that changes the manner and rationale of Iranian support for terrorist organizations. It may also change the geo-strategic reason for a country like Iran to garner control of nuclear weapons. It is presumed that the major reasons that Iran currently seeks nuclear weapons relates to: (1) Pride: a belief that a 5,000-year-old society has as much right to control the most modern of weapons systems as a younger civilization like America or its neighbors to the west, Israel, and to the east, Pakistan; (2) power: the implications of control of nuclear weapons with regard to its perceived hegemony as the largest and most powerful country in the Persian Gulf, particularly with regard to its nemesis, Iraq, which not only once attacked Kuwait, but Iran itself using chemical weapons; and (3) politics: the concern that Israeli military dominance is based in part on the control of weapons that cannot be balanced in the Muslim world, except by a very distant Pakistan. The issue of the day from an American perspective is weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their development and potential proliferation to nation-states and non-national terrorist groups. The question that cannot be ducked is whether military action against Iran might add to the list of reasons Iran may wish to control such weapons: their potential use against the United States. Perhaps as significantly, American policymakers must think through the new world of terrorism and what might be described as lesser weapons of mass destruction, which might be dubbed, ``LWMD.'' Any strike on Iran would be expected to immediately precipitate a violent reaction in the Shi'a part of Iraq, where the United States has some support today. With ease, Iranian influence on the majority Shi'a of Iraq could make our ability to constructively influence the direction of change in Iraq near hopeless. And there should be little doubt that in a world in which ``tit for tat'' is the norm, a strike on Iran would increase the prospect of counter-strikes on American assets around the world and American territory itself. The asymmetrical nature of modern warfare is such that traditional armies will not be challenged in traditional ways. Nation-states which are attacked may feel they have little option except to ally themselves with terrorist groups to advance national interests. We view terrorism as an illegitimate tool of uncivilized agents of change. In other parts of the world, increasing numbers of people view terrorist acts as legitimate responses of societies and, in some cases, groups within societies who are oppressed, against those who have stronger military forces. If Afghanistan, an impoverished country as distant from our shores as any in the world, could become a plotting place for international terrorism, such danger would increase manifoldly with an increase in Iranian hostility, especially if based on an American attack. If there exists today something like a one-in-three chance of another 9/11-type incident or set of incidents in the United States in the next few years, a preemptive strike against Iran must be assumed to increase the prospect to two-in-three. And Iran, far more than Osama bin-Laden, has within its power the ability not only to destabilize world politics, but world economies as well. Oil is, after all, the grease of economic activity, and a devastating Iranian-led cutback in supply cannot be ruled out. Given the risk, if not the untenability, of military action, policymakers are obligated to review other than military options. One, which has characterized our post-hostage taking Iranian policy for a full generation, is isolation of Iran. This policy can be continued, but as tempting as it is, there is little prospect of ratcheting it up much more, except in ways, such as a naval embargo on Iranian oil, that would be difficult to garner international support for and would, in any regard, damage us more than Iran. The only logical alternative is to consider advancing carrots, without abandoning the possibility of future sticks, and increase our dialogue with this very difficult government. A proposal that might be suggested is negotiation of a Persian Gulf nuclear-free zone, which would reduce, although given the high possibility of cheating, not eliminate entirely one of the reasons Iran presumably seeks nuclear weapons--fear that it may be at a disadvantage in a conflict with an oil-rich neighbor. In return, America could offer not only normalization of relations in trade but the prospect of a free trade agreement and expanded country-to-country cultural ties with Iran. Here, it should be stressed, hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been educated in the United States. The country has strong democratic proclivities. While the apparatus of democratic governance is extensive, real power is controlled by the mullahs. Nevertheless, few societies in the world have more potential to move quickly in a democratic direction than Iran. And just as it is hard to believe that outside military intervention would lead to anything except greater ensconcement of authoritarian mullah rule, the prospect of a bettering of U.S. relations with Iran implies a greater prospect of a better Iranian society. Finally, a note about arms control. If the United States wishes to lead in multilateral restraint, we might want to consider joining rather than rebuking the international community in development of a comprehensive test ban (CTB). All American administrations from Eisenhower on favored negotiation of a CTB. This one has taken the position the Senate took when it irrationally rejected such a ban 5 years ago. The Senate took its angst against the strategic leadership of the Clinton administration out on the wrong issue. This partisan, ideological posturing demands reconsideration. We simply cannot expect others to restrain themselves when we refuse to put constraints on ourselves. We are in a world where use of force can not be ruled out. But we are also in a world where alternatives are vastly preferable. They must be put forthrightly on the table.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, since February 2003, over 50,000 deaths have occurred during the conflict in Darfur. The execution of civilians, mass rapes, and the raiding and burning of villages which characterize this conflict have resulted in massive displacement to areas that cannot provide vital sustenance. Of the 1.65 million people that have been displaced, over 200,000 have fled to neighboring Chad with projections that more lives may now be jeopardized by hunger, disease and inadequate shelter than by bullets and clubs. The President, Secretary of State and Congress, all have formally declared that the tragedy underway in Darfur is genocide. Such deeds can't be considered in the abstract or simply ignored; nor can the legal responsibilities of the U.S. be ducked. Under the Genocide Convention of 1951, to which the U.S. is a party, we have a legal as well as a moral obligation to act. In contemplating actions, we would be wise to review our failed policies in the 1990s in East Africa. In Somalia, the initial decision to use U.S. armed forces to intervene for humanitarian purposes began as a justifiable, perhaps even noble, exercise of American power. But the chaos associated with an on-going civil war frustrated our ability to provide sustainable support, causing us to choose sides in a conflict for which we had inadequate intelligence and no clear tactical plan. The trauma of becoming engaged in a civil war not of our choosing or clear understanding led to a decision to disengage and a subsequent reluctance to re-engage in East Africa when a neighboring country, Rwanda, became gripped several years later by genocidal forces. Lack of strategic clarity embarrased Washington in the first instance. Lack of confidence hamstrung decision-makers in the second. Consequently, the world witnessed avoidable tragedies: the massacres of hundreds of thousands of innocents. The challenge today in Sudan is to accept an obligation to act on the diplomatic and humanitarian front without becoming militarily engaged. The killing and displacement must be stopped, but little could be more counter-productive than a perceived U.S. military intervention against a third Muslim nation at this time. In this year's presidential race there is a profound debate about whether a U.N. mandate is necessary before America can act militarily. Both major party candidates have properly noted that the U.S. reserves the right to act alone. While each gives different emphasis to the wisdom of receiving international sanction, each also recognizes the preferability, although not necessity, of obtaining international support. What hasn't been discussed is the question of whether the U.S. reserves the right not to engage militarily even if there is a U.N. mandate to act. The answer is clearly yes. We reserve the right not to use force, just as we reserve the right to defend ourselves. Sudan is a case in point. The U.S. is attempting to nudge the Security Council in a more attentive way, but our emphasis is properly on pressing for African Union rather than U.S. force deployment, with the understanding that we may have to give material and logistic support to African soldiers. Such an approach was well envisioned by the founders of the U.N. Indeed, with the principal exception of the Korean war, the Big Five of the Security Council have traditionally provided the funding for peacekeeping forces, while the troops themselves have generally been drawn from smaller or non-aligned countries, such as Canada, Nigeria and India. In this context, an operation to bring peace to Darfur should involve many countries and, as the Special Representative to the Secretary General for Sudan Jan Pronk said, be ``broad, big, and quick.'' U.S. focus should be on: 1. Humanitarian assistance. Some aid is already en route, purchased with money diverted from Iraq. More is required. The need is dire and urgent. People of Darfur lack adequate shelter, potable water and health care facilities. They do not expect to see a usable harvest until January 2006. 2. Regional Organizations. To carry out its mission, the African Union needs a broad mandate for at least 3,500 armed and unarmed troops and authority to use force if necessary. As it is, the AU, currently has a limited mandate for a 305-person armed force serving to protect 100 or so unarmed monitors of the April 8th cease fire between the Sudan Liberation Army, the Justice and Equity Movement and government forces. 3. Negotiations. These must be pursued on two fronts. One, to settle the 21-year-old conflict between the North (the government) and the South of Sudan; the other, to bring peace to Darfur. The two situations are interrelated and neither can be credibly brought to a close without the other. An agreement between the North and the South hopefully can provide a framework for a settlement between the rebels and the Sudanese government in Darfur, but progress on the first front should not be a condition to seek progress on the second. 4. Leverage. The U.S. and the U.N. are preparing a list of sanctions to induce the Sudanese government to comply. In the bill before us, H.R. 5061, the President is empowered to freeze Sundanese assets, restrict travel and impose other sanctions. It is a mistake, however, to put the heat solely on the Sudanese government. Pressure must also be applied on the rebels to stop ambushing humanitarian aid convoys. A strong international approach to Darfur has the prospect of stabilizing a dire situation and serving as a reminder to all governments that sovereignty is not a shield behind which genocidalists can hide. Combating genocide is a world responsibility. With humanitarian aid, support for the AU, a double-pronged negotiating strategy and a carrot-and-stick approach, the prospect that Sudan can move toward greater peace and security for its citizens is promising. But a timely commitment of the international community is key. It has yet to be established. This resolution is modest but important step in the right direction. I urge its passage.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my growing concern at the increasing levels of politically-motivated violence and the rising risks to peace in Sri Lanka. As my colleagues may know, Sri Lanka (or Serendib, as it was known in older times) is a tear drop shaped island located about 20 miles off the southeastern coast of India. The population of about 20 million is roughly three-quarters Sinhalese and a little less than 20% Tamil. The island was occupied by the Portuguese in the 16th century, the Dutch in the 17th century, and then ceded to the British in 1802. Known as Ceylon it became independent in 1948; the name of the country was changed to Sri Lanka in 1972. By way of background, tensions between the Sinhalese majority and minority Tamils, which had existed since independence, escalated dramatically in the early 1980s. Devastating anti-Tamil riots, as well as acts of repression and discrimination by the majority Sinhalese, led to the rise of an armed Tamil insurgency. By the mid-1980s, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) emerged as the strongest Tamil separatist force. In a grim harbinger of the Tiger's ruthless reliance on violence (which includes the use of ``Black Tiger'' suicide squads), the LTTE came to dominate the separatist movement by systematically eliminating all rivals for leadership. The LTTE is currently designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and several other countries. Originally, LTTE sought an independent homeland for the Tamils, but it eventually dropped that demand and expressed a willingness to negotiate devolution of autonomy under a federal model of governance. Meanwhile, the human and financial toll of the rebellion has been enormous: some 64,000 people have been killed and roughly 800,000 displaced, with commensurate losses to the island's economic growth and development. In 2002, Norway brokered a ceasefire, which is still in effect today and also acted as a mediator in stalled peace talks. In April 2003, however, the LTTE pulled out of the talks, claiming that it was being marginalized. In late 2003, the situation was further complicated by a political struggle between Sri Lanka's President Chandrika Kumaratunga and then Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe. In April 2004, Kumaratunga's party defeated Wickramasinghe in the general election and an ally of the President became the new prime minister. Although the new coalition government includes a hard-line party that is at best deeply skeptical of continued negotiations with the insurgents, the President has nevertheless remained committed to the peace process and invited Norway to approach the LTTE and to resume mediation. Prospects for a resumption of dialogue between the government and the LTTE at this time, however, appear bleak. In the first instance, the LTTE insists that the establishment of an interim administration over the ``northeast''--modeled on the LTTE's proposed Interim Self Governing Authority (ISGA) that would give it sweeping powers over law enforcement, tax collection, military affairs, administration of foreign aid and other matters currently in the domain of the central government (GSL)--is an essential precondition for the resumption of peace negotiations. While at one level this stance might be thought to simply represent a maximalist bargaining position, at another level it might be thought to cast serious doubt on the sincerity of the LTTE's commitment to the peace process. Even more concerning has been the LTTE's assertion that it is entitled to act as the ``sole representative'' of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. In practical terms, the LTTE's diktat means that Tamils who dare to advocate democratic change, independently contest elections and speak out against or actively oppose the Tigers will be targeted for assassination. As noted earlier, this despicable practice of eliminating critics goes back almost to the group's inception. It has once again become acute in the wake of an attempt by a senior LTTE commander named Colonel ``Karuna'' to break away from the organization. Beginning in March 2004, a new escalation of killings, attacks and abductions of the LTTE's suspected opponents began to take place on almost a daily basis. For its part, the LTTE reportedly suspects the GSL of assisting the Karuna faction. In any case, through mid-August 2004, according to human rights advocates, there have been more than 40 such murders. As the Indian newspaper The Hindu editorialized on September 30, ``It is time for all concerned to acknowledge that the LTTE has done nothing less than unleash a terrorist campaign amounting to a sub-guerrilla war against the very people it claims to represent. From the recruitment of children, which continues unabated despite international outrage, to the harassment of Muslims, the discrimination against eastern Tamils, and the killings of opponents, the LTTE demonstrates on a daily basis that its rule is by fear and terror.'' In this troubling circumstance, it is clear that the international community needs to consider additional steps to put pressure on the LTTE to abandon its tactics of terror and prove that its days of violence are over. It is remarkable, for example, that only four countries--the U.S., U.K., Australia, and India--have declared the LTTE to be sponsors of terrorism, frozen their assets and prohibited financial transactions with the Tigers. It is well reported that alongside a finely tuned propaganda campaign, the LTTE also run a sophisticated international fundraising campaign. The majority of financial support comes from the Tamil Diaspora in countries where there is no ban on transactions with the Tigers, including Switzerland, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries. It is my understanding that the LTTE's overseas financing includes investments in real estate, restaurants, stocks, and money market funds. Even film, food festivals, and cultural events may contribute to insurgent income. The U.S. Department of State also reports that expatriate Tamil communities in Europe have been tied to narcotics smuggling, another potential source of funding. In this context, surely the stark record of LTTE terrorism demands a firmer response from our friends and allies abroad. Likewise, in view of the current stalemate in the peace process and the new campaign of violence by the LTTE, it is appropriate that the U.S. review the adequacy of current levels of security assistance to Colombo. In particular, in view of the mixed operational success of the armed forces of Sri Lanka, the Department of Defense and U.S. Pacific Command may want to consider increasing senior level military exchanges as well as boosting technical assistance. In this regard, I understand that in recent months senior officials with PACOM visited Sri Lanka, including the Jaffna peninsula. Similarly, given the long and sordid track record of the Tigers-- including continued abductions of child soldiers--as well as ongoing concerns about disappearances and other abuses in government controlled areas, it is also high time to place on the table an explicit inclusion of human rights and humanitarian considerations in either the current cease-fire agreement or in a separate understanding between the GSL and the LTTE. All parties must promptly take steps to end ongoing grave human rights abuses. Finally, it is imperative that all parties take steps to work to rebuild trust and schedule the promised talks as soon as possible. In particular, it is incumbent on the LTTE to show that it is committed to a political solution and to peace. Clearly, the ceasefire and a return to negotiations represent the best hope for Sri Lanka's future as a peaceful, prosperous, and unified nation. As the Department of State has made clear, the United States stands ready to implement commitments to aid in Sri Lanka's reconstruction, but this will only be possible through a continuation of the peace process.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 2004, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won a decisive victory in the final round of the first direct presidential election in the history of the Republic of Indonesia. However, the election was an even greater victory for the people of Indonesia in their remarkable transition to democracy. This has been a pivotal year for democratic institutions in Indonesia. Indonesia has conducted not one, but three complex national elections in 2004. They were the largest single-day elections in the world, and involved hundreds of millions of ballots, and more than 500,000 polling stations spread across that vast archipelago. In April, I had the opportunity to visit the Indonesian National Elections Commission in Jakarta, and was impressed by the energy and determination with which its officials were confronting those logistical challenges. By any measure, their efforts were a profound success. Approximately 116 million people voted in the final round of the presidential election, over 10 million more than voted in the last presidential election in the United States. The people of Indonesia have effected credible, orderly, and peaceful elections of which they are deservedly proud. The magnitude of this accomplishment becomes apparent when we recall that Indonesia emerged from authoritarianism only six years ago, during an extended period of acute economic and social turmoil. Other observers have correctly cited Indonesia as proof that Islam and democracy can coexist, but it is more than that. Civil Islam in Indonesia has not been merely passive or coincidental with democratization, it has been a catalyst. We understand and appreciate the critical role that Islamic civil society has played in promoting democracy in Indonesia. I fully expect that Islamic mass organizations, universities, pesantren, and non-governmental organizations will continue to play an important part in developing the political culture and public expectations necessary to make Indonesia's nascent democratic institutions truly representative. We have high hopes for the new administration as it begins to address the significant challenges facing Indonesia. We wish them every success in promoting economic growth, peacefully resolving separatist and communal conflicts, improving the implementation of decentralization and regional autonomy, combating terrorism, and ensuring that the institutions that wield public power are fully accountable to the people of Indonesia. In sum, we share the aspiration of the Indonesian people for expanding and deepening the process of reformasi--the reformation of public institutions away from the corruption, collusion, and nepotism that have weakened them in years past. I would like to extend my personal congratulations to President-elect Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President-elect Jusuf Kalla on their recent victory, and to thank President Megawati Sukarnoputri for her leadership and service to her country during the past three years. We look forward to the continuation of the cooperative relationship between our nations, and the steady growth in friendship between our peoples.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 768, a measure symbolizing the deep concern of the House of Representatives with the deplorable situation in Burma. Burma presents one of the most complicated and vexing foreign policy challenges in Asia for the United States and the world community. Numerous political prisoners remain in detention, including one of the most remarkable and courageous leaders of our time, Aung San Suu Kyi. The issue is how the U.S. can best secure their release and help start a meaningful political dialogue in Burma, while also endeavoring to advance a panoply of other priorities, including stable democratic governance, human rights, counternarcotics, regional stability, combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as economic and human development. As we all understand, in response to repeated efforts by the ruling military to thwart the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people as well as to ongoing serious human rights violations, the U.S. has been compelled to utilize sanctions and coercive diplomacy as the centerpiece of our policy. those sanctions were renewed earlier this year. In this context, it should be self-evident that the U.S. is confronted by multiple dilemmas in pursuing our objectives in Burma. For illustrative purposes, I would note just a few: the strongly nationalistic, self-centered outlook of the ruling regime; the reliance by the military elite on an illicit, underground economy for power and survival; the inability of major industrial countries to agree on comprehensive sanctions as the basis for a common strategy; competition for geopolitical influence in Burma between China and India; and the ongoing humanitarian crisis for the people of Burma--including for many ethnic minority groups along the country's borders--that calls out for a more robust and humane international response. In this regard, as we look at analogies in human history, one that appears credible and reasonable from an American perspective in south Africa. As we examine the south African analogy of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress to Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy, it is important to note that when we considered sanctions in the United States it was a very serious debate, and Congress weighted heavily the fact that Mandela and the ANC were supportive of sanctions. The second aspect of the South African analogy, and here is where the analogy begins to break down, the United States was supported by a number of countries in Western Europe. In fact, if anything, our traditional western European allies were stronger supporters of sanctions than the United States. Although America became the linchpin country, several European countries that had long-term relations with South Africa were more forward-leaning than the United States and very supportive of sanctions. In this regard, from a leadership perspective, there is some discomfort that the rest of the world is not following the American lead on Burma, not only in Asia and most particularly ASEAN, but also Western Europe. As a general proposition in international affairs, and we are seeing this most clearly in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, Europe is looking at American leadership as being too inclined to draw ``lines in the sand'' and not sufficiently attuned to nuance distinctions in foreign affairs. There may be some truth in this critique, but I think Burma is the one circumstance where they are most clearly wrong, that this is a ``line in the sand'' place, and this is a situation in which we should be expecting far more from Europe. The good news is that the EU has begun to put a bit more pressure on the SPDC by demanding, for example, that ASEAN downgrade Burma's first- ever representation at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Hanoi in October. The forum, begun in 1996, brings together the European Union and 10 Asian nations, including China, Japan, and South Korea. This year marks the group's formal enlargement, adding the 10 new EU members who joined in May along with Burma, Cambodia and Laos. The summit formally opens on October 8, 2004. Here it is positive that the EU has set a deadline for this Friday-- the start of the summit--for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest and for allowing her National League for Democracy party an integral role in drafting a new constitution. My understanding is that if the deadline elapsed without progress, the EU is prepared to enact a set of ``intensified sanctions'' reportedly consisting of a visa ban on junta officials and a halt to international funding for Burma. Having said that, it should be understood that these enhanced sanctions are rather modest in their scope and effect, in that the EU has imposed a visa ban since 1996 and that for well over a decade Burma has been effectively barred from lending by the international financial institutions. It is also a hopeful sign that United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is also taking increased interest in the situation in Burma. The United States was appreciative of the fact that on September 29 the Secretary General convened a meeting with his special envoy to Burma Ambassador Razali Ismail and concerned U.N. members to discuss the lack of progress toward democracy and national reconciliation in Burma. The Congress joins with the executive branch in urging the Secretary General to remain focused on this matter and we hope and expect that his engagement will generate more international community cooperation on this vital issue. In this context, I would urge the Burmese authorities to promptly allow Ambassador Razali to return to Burma and to conduct additional visits as he deems necessary. All Americans remain deeply concerned by the continued detention of courageous democracy advocate and Nobel peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the failure of the junta to permit the National League for Democracy (NLD) to open its offices nationwide and operate freely, the junta's refusal to release over a thousand political prisoners, the recent arrest of political activists and the sentencing of four NLD members for illegal political activities. As noted by the Department of State, America's position is clear: ``the Burmese people's desire for a national reconciliation and the establishment of democracy must be respected.'' We again call upon the Burmese leadership to take tangible steps, including the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, the full and free participation of the National League for Democracy and representatives of the ethnic minorities in the National Convention and the initiation of a meaningful dialogue to advance national reconciliation and the establishment of democracy. I urge support for the resolution.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4011) to promote human rights and freedom in the Democratic Republic of Korea, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4011.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4011, the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004. As approved unanimously by the Senate last week, the bill contains three modest changes from the text passed by this body in July. First it expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should explore the possibility of a regional dialogue on human rights with North Korea. Second, it mandates the appointment of a special envoy on human rights in North Korea within the State Department. Finally, it enhances the discretion of the executive branch by recasting conditions on assistance to the North Korean government as a sense of Congress provision. I deeply appreciate the efforts of the Senate to ensure that the 108th Congress speaks with a unanimous, bipartisan voice on these issues of shared concern. In this connection, I would like to express my particular gratitude to Senators Brownback, Bayh, Lugar, Biden and their capable staff members. During the past 2\1/2\ years, the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific has received testimony from a number of North Koreans who have survived some of the gravest rigors of the human condition. Their accounts buttress the growing awareness that the people of North Korea have endured some of the most acute humanitarian traumas of our time. Inside North Korea they suffer at the hands of a totalitarian dynasty that permits no dissent and strictly curtails freedoms of speech, press, religion, and assembly. The regime maintains a brutal system of prison camps that house an estimated 200,000 political inmates who are subjected to slave labor, torture, and even lethal chemical experimentation. Since the collapse of the centralized agricultural system in the 1990s, more than 2 million North Koreans are estimated to have died of starvation. North Koreans outside of North Korea are also uniquely vulnerable. Many thousands are hiding inside China, which currently refuses to allow the U.N. High Commissioner For Refugees to evaluate and identify genuine refugees among the North Korea migrant population. China forcibly returns North Koreans to North Korea, where they routinely face imprisonment, torture, and sometimes execution. Inside China, North Korean women and girls are particularly vulnerable to trafficking and sexual exploitation. Provoked by these crises, this broadly bipartisan legislation aims to promote international cooperation on human rights and refugee protection and increased transparency in the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of North Korea. On the human rights front, this bill underscores the importance of human rights issues in future negotiations with North Korea. It authorizes funds for programs to promote human rights, democracy, rule of law, market economy, and freedom of information. It also urges additional North Korea-specific attention by appropriate U.N. human rights authorities. On the humanitarian front, the bill authorizes increased funding for assistance to North Koreans outside of North Korea, including refugees, orphans, and trafficking victims. It endorses but also seeks greater transparency for the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid inside North Korea. Finally, it outlines human rights and humanitarian principles that should govern future direct aid to the North Korean government. In terms of refugee protection, the bill requires a formal clarification of U.S. policy and affirms the eligibility of North Koreans to seek protection as refugees under United States law. It also urges the U.N. High Commissioner For Refugees to use all available means to gain access to North Koreans in China. Although the principal responsibility for North Korean refugee resettlement naturally falls with the government of South Korea, the United States should play a leadership role in focusing international attention on the plight of these refugees in formulating shared international solutions to their profound humanitarian dilemma. I wanted to remove any misapprehension that overseas audiences may have about the intent, content, or motives behind this bill. Unequivocally, I would state this legislation is a purely humanitarian endeavor. There are no hidden agendas related to geostrategic concerns and strategies. Indeed, the committee of jurisdiction is deeply indebted to the concerns expressed by thousands of American citizens of Korean descent, who are convinced that for too long the international community has largely ignored the plight of their brethren in the north. As explained in the report of the Committee on International Relations: ``H.R. 4011 is motivated by a genuine desire for improvements in human rights, refugee protection and humanitarian transparency. ``It is not a pretext for a hidden strategy to provoke regime collapse or to seek collateral advantage in ongoing strategic negotiations. While the legislation highlights numerous egregious abuses, the Congress remains willing to recognize progress in the future, and hopes for such an opportunity.'' Similarly, with regard to China, this bill is not solely critical; it is also aspirational. It makes clear that the United States and the international community stand ready to provide more assistance to help defray the costs associated with North Korean migrant presence when China begins fulfilling its obligations as a party to the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention. We genuinely hope for that opportunity. I would like to thank my colleagues for their strong bipartisan endorsement of this bill. I also would like to thank the many nongovernmental and civic organizations who have informed and supported this legislation. In this regard, the pivotal efforts of the North Korea Freedom Coalition, a group of more than 40 nonpartisan NGOs, deserves particular mention. Finally, I would like to note the particular contributions of Senator Sam Brownback, whose leadership in the other body has inspired House action on this issue. And in this body, the attention and insight of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) on the Democratic side, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on this side of the aisle are deeply appreciated. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4011 is a responsible, creative approach to an ongoing human rights tragedy and deserves our unanimous support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the House's great leader on human rights issues.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, let me just stress as strongly as I can that the regime in North Korea is one of the most difficult in the world. Economically, it is based upon the selling of weapons, the selling of drugs, and the selling of counterfeit money. We would like what is best for the North Korean people, that is, the possibility that this regime can come into this new century in a way that is acceptable in behavior to the international community and, therefore, in a manner that gives hope and prosperity to the North Korean people. We would like a rogue state that, quite frankly, is partly a criminal state, to become a civilized community. But we have nothing in this bill that is aimed at doing anything except providing incentives for a regime to do better and for a society to be better off. With that emphasis on a humanitarian goal, not a geo-strategic one, a humanitarian one, we urge the greatest possible support from this body and for a new policy and a new kind of era for United States and North Korean relations.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 767, condemning the terrorist attack in Jakarta, Indonesia that occurred on September 9, 2004. I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, for introducing this timely and thoughtful measure. Mr. Speaker, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate known as Jemaah Islamiah detonated a car-bomb outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Thursday, 9 Sept. 2004, killing nine people and wounding approximately 180 people. While no one inside the Embassy compound was killed, several Australian and other foreign citizens were wounded in the attack. The great bulk of the casualties were suffered by Indonesians who worked in the area or were simply passing by. The Australian Embassy bombing is the third major attack in Indonesia perpetrated by the Islamic militants, including the deadly Bali bombings in 2002 and a blast at Jakarta's Marriott hotel last year. Mr. Speaker, all Americans strongly condemn this latest terrorist outrage act of violence. We extend our deepest sympathies to the victims and families of this outrageous crime as well as to the peoples of Indonesia and Australia. We stand with the people of Indonesia and Australia in opposition to the use of terror, and we salute their individual and collective efforts to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice. Barbarous acts of this kind, whether precipitated in New York and Washington, or Jakarta, Istanbul and Madrid, are more crimes against civilization and humanity than attacks on any particular nation. Hence as we seek accountability we look for the support of faithful people and justice seekers of all societies in a war to eliminate the cowardice of terrorism. The despicable act that occurred in Jakarta earlier this month does not put the Indonesian or Australian democracies at particular risk. It is civilization and civilized values which demand protection. I urge support for the resolution.