Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is Rwanda all over again. Thousands of people are being murdered in East Timor while the international community dawdles. I applaud the Australian government for volunteering its forces to peacekeeping efforts long before our own country recognized the need for action. In a brutal takeover of East Timor over 20 years ago sanctioned by the United States, the people of East Timor have been subjected to an ethnic cleansing of one-third of the entire indigenous population. All the while the U.S. and Australian Armed Forces provided training to the very units that are on the rampage right now. Yet again, the U.S. Government has blood on its hands. We apologize for Rwanda after letting 1 million innocents die. We apologize for Guatemala after condoning the brutal murders of even U.S. citizens. When will we apologize for East Timor, when it is too late? Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now. The administration should stop dawdling and start packing to save the lives of the innocent East Timor people. What is taking this administration so long to get it right?

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year President Clinton traveled to Central America. Unfortunately, from Guatemala to El Salvador, he was forced to acknowledge and apologize for U.S. past mistakes in the region. Further, the School of Americas can be traced directly to many of the problems associated with past policy in the region. So I rise today, to encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting an amendment offered by Representative Moakley to close the United States Army School of the Americas located in Fort Benning, Georgia. The legacy of the School of the Americas, better known throughout this hemisphere as the School of Assassins, brings shame on the United States military and upon our nation. As a Georgian, I am embarrassed that the SOA is based in the State that I am so proud to represent. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am extremely frustrated by the dismissive attitude of some of our military establishment to the revelations that our soldiers trained others to murder, torture, and terrorize civilians. And as a woman of color, I am indignant that the School of Americas has played such a prominent role in the brutal oppression of people of color throughout the America's. Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago I received a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that featured a lengthy editorial written by former U.S. Ambassador to Panama Ambler Moss, stating his support for the School of the Americas. The editorial is representative of the misinformation being promulgated about the SOA and I believe that some clarification of his statement is in order. Mr. Moss writes that Members of Congress who oppose the school claim it is a ``school of assassins.'' In fact, it was Panamanians who dubbed the SOA the School of Assassins, long before SOA graduate and Panamanian dictator Manuel Noreiga became a guest of the State of Florida. Mr. Moss goes on to state that blaming the school for the atrocities of its graduates is akin to ``vilify[ing] Harvard because its alumnus Ted Kaczynsky'' is the Unibomber. It is an absurd comparison. I would suggest that if thousands of Harvard graduates went on to careers in murder, rape, and torture, its trustees would be in prison and its doors closed. In a rather cynical distortion of the truth, the editorial would have us believe that the ``new and improved'' emphasis of the training at the SOA is now respect for civilian control of the military and respect for human rights. That is false. Of the 33 courses offered at the SOA, only five are related to human rights or democracy and less than ten percent of the students took those last year. None have taken the human rights trainer course. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the author notes that the ``bad name [the SOA] gave the United States continues to undermine our image with many Latin Americans of democratic persuasion.'' That, at least, he got right. Other myths abound about the School of the Americas. To name a few, some have made the claim that the SOA is critical to the war on drugs, but the truth is that fewer than 8% of the students took counter- narcotics courses in 1997. I am particularly concerned by the counter-narcotics myth because I fear the war on drugs, like anti-communism before it, provides too convenient an excuse for turning a blind eye to gross violations of human rights in pursuit of our so-called just cause. Another pernicious myth about the SOA that is routinely touted as fact is that abuse by its graduates is, like the cold war, a thing of the past. Yet just last year a State Department report shows a SOA graduate commanded Columbia's notorious 20th brigade which had to be disbanded because of its involvement in human rights abuses including political assassination. The same report shows that another SOA graduate is under investigation for his complicity in the 1997 Majpiripan massacre of 30 peasants. The Department of Defense is to be commended for acknowledging that training manuals used at the school as recently as 1991 recommended forms of coercion against insurgents that included blackmail, torture and execution. However, the DOD continues to resist efforts by Congress to reform the School of the Americas. In 1995, the House Appropriations Committee strongly urged the Department to incorporate human rights training into the schools regular training curriculum and ``to rigorously screen potential students to make certain they have not taken part in past human rights abuses.'' Unsatisfied, in 1996 the Committee included in its report to the FY 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill similar language and required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the school by January 15, 1997. Still unsatisfied, in 1997 the House version of the FY 1998 foreign operations appropriations bill sought to cut off International Military Education and Training funds to be school unless the Secretary of Defense: (1) certified that the schools training is consistent with respect to human rights; (2) certified that there was adequate screening of prospective students and (3) provided to Congress a report detailing the training at the school and an assessment of its graduates. After receiving the report mandated in 1996 in June, more than six months late, the Committee asserted that it was ``woefully inadequate'' and did not respond to the Committee's specific request. Mr. Speaker, efforts at Congressional oversight and reform of the School of the Americas have been met with bureaucratic indifference, token reform and a substantial public relations campaign to clean up the schools image. We can no longer allow the shameful legacy of the School of the Americas to besmirch the honor and reputation of American soldiers, our nation, or the great state of Georgia. I urge all of my colleagues in the strongest terms, to join me in voting to close the School of Assassins.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, in the 1980s, at the height of the so- called Reagan revolution, Congress passed a Budget Act which made trickle down economics the policy of the land. Under the banner of fiscal conservatism, that budget provided for large increases in military spending, along with sweeping tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy. The theory was that the money would trickle down to regular folks, but we regular folks only got trickled on. In fact, we got so tired of being trickled on that we voted George Bush out of the White House and put Bill Clinton in. The result, as was predicted by the liberals at the time, was the largest debt in the history of the world. However, let us fast forward to the 1990s where the Republican Contract on America has been totally discredited and they would like us to forget that they shut down the government in order to force our President to accept their twisted priorities. Instead, because Democrats stood up to the Republican bullying, we are now experiencing Bill Clinton's economy where job growth is up, unemployment is down, homeownership is up and interest rates are down. The deficit is down and the budget surplus is up. Unfortunately, the Republican Congress' response to all of this is predictable. Increase military spending and go back to the same old trickle down theories that produced the largest debt in the history of the free world; this time a trillion dollar tax cut to their wealthy fat cat buddies and an increase in military spending as they embark upon a desperate effort to recapture the glory days of Ronald Reagan's trickle down. Amazingly, they think we have forgotten. They figure that by changing the name to compassionate conservatism they can fool us, but that is just not so. In the FY 2000 budget, the United States will spend more on the interest on Ronald Reagan's debt than on the entire Medicare program. The FY 2000 budget also commits half of all Federal discretionary spending to military programs. Now, there are some good things in the military budget that I strongly support: Cooperative threat reduction programs, increases in pay for members of our uniformed services, and increased benefits for America's veterans. However, the tremendous excesses in the military budget compelled me to oppose it. The current defense strategy calls on the military to be prepared to fight two significant wars at the same time, without any allies, and while maintaining a credible military reserve. The bottom line is that we maintain a Cold War era military and its incumbent costs irrespective of any realistic assessment of the threat to our national security. We also maintain at tremendous expense a Cold War nuclear arsenal. I strongly believe we must leave behind the military structure and devices that we depended upon to win the Cold War and prepare for the real world of today and tomorrow. Instead, we are layering unrealistic demands on top of Cold War needs. As a result, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill became a Christmas tree, laden with gifts of pork for everyone, and the rate of the increase in military spending now threatens Social Security, low income housing and nutrition programs. It is clear to me that our national security cannot be measured in bombers alone. I believe our national security depends equally on our domestic programs and on constructive foreign policy initiatives. We can no longer continue to spend nearly half of all of our Federal discretionary dollars on military programs. This misplaced priority compromises our national security by shortchanging our investments in programs that make for real security: A healthy, well-educated, properly housed citizenry. Does the U.S. really need a military that is big enough to simultaneously fight two major regional wars alone? Why does the U.S. need to continue to station 100,000 troops in Europe? Europe cannot defend itself? Why is the United States spending $35 billion per year to maintain over 6,000 nuclear weapons on high alert against an enemy that no longer exists? Why should the U.S. spend another $11 billion on a missile defense system that is technologically infeasible and strategically destabilizing? Why not close the military bases that the Department of Defense no longer needs and support converting them into profitable commercial and industrial centers? Why should the DOD get more money when it cannot even find over $9 billion worth of inventory and continues to give away millions in over payments to contractors? More money is not the answer to Pentagon waste. Instead, we should end the obsolete U.S. Cold War military, invest instead in developing multilateral civil institutions such as the organization for cooperation and security in Europe. These steps will reduce the cost of the U.S. Government by more than $40 billion a year.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, have my colleagues ever seen a bully on the playground and they knew it was not right? Well, that is exactly what our own State Department is doing right now to South Africa. We can tell a lot about a country the way they act when they think no one is watching. The State Department of the world's indispensable Nation has decided that poor Africans dying of preventable and treatable diseases is okay. In South Africa, thousands of people are dying every week because they cannot afford to treat deadly but preventable and treatable diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and typhoid. In South Africa, it costs more to get a prescription filled than to go to the doctor's office. Therefore, they can go to the doctor to find out what is wrong, but they cannot treat it; they cannot treat the illness. Accordingly, South Africa decided to fight back. South Africa went to the free market to buy its prescription drugs rather than to the pharmaceutical cartel and the State Department objects to that. Once again, seems to prefer corporate profits over healthy people. It looks to me like the State Department is the bully on the playground and they think no one is watching. Well, let them see that the Congress is watching by supporting the Sanders amendment.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on April 5 of this year, 25 men, women, and children were murdered in a church yard in Liquica, a town about 20 miles west of East Timor's capital. Two weeks later, militia members burst into the home of a prominent independence organizer and murdered his son as well as 14 other people. These attacks and others including attacks upon U.N. referendum monitors are being carried out by bands of paramilitary thugs with the backing of Indonesia's military who are intent on preserving Indonesia's illegal military occupation of East Timor. They have chosen the tactics of terror over the ballot because it is clear that if the August U.N.-sponsored referendum on independence is free and fair, the people will choose freedom and independence. But the outcome of the referendum is very much in doubt. The people of East Timor know very well the brutality of Indonesia. Since Indonesia illegally invaded and occupied East Timor 24 years ago, 200,000 East Timorese have lost their lives to political violence. Those 200,000 deaths lend a haunting credence to the threats of the paramilitary bands. Today we have an opportunity to send a very different message to the people of East Timor. Today we can join our colleagues in the Senate who voted unanimously last month to support disarming, the militia's release of political prisoners, and a free referendum on independence for the people of East Timor. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McKINNEY. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman). (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our security assistance ought to be about U.S. security and not about the United Nations. This amendment unfortunately establishes an iron link between a country's voting pattern in the U.N. and whether or not it could receive security assistance from our country. While I understand the value of working to obtain greater support for our positions in the general assembly, this is the wrong way to go about it. We should give security assistance based on whether or not this assistance contributes to the security of the United States. That decision has absolutely nothing to do with how a country votes at the U.N. If this amendment passes, we could be restricted in providing security assistance even when it makes our citizens safer. That makes absolutely no sense. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the most important part of this amendment calls for the release of an American citizen, Lori Berenson, who was convicted of involvement with terrorist groups after a trial before hooded military judges in which there was no due process whatever. We have asked the Peruvian government to give her a fair civilian trial. President Fujimori himself has publicly refused. Now it is time to do something about this. If Lori Berenson is not going to get a fair trial, and she is not, then she deserves to be set free. That is what we would do here for people who are tried unfairly, and we have no right letting a foreign government get away with less when Americans are involved. The Waters amendment is about whether Americans overseas should get fair trials when they are arrested and whether we believe the rule of law and due process are important. They should, and they are. Join me in supporting fairness for our citizens, due process and the rule of law. Vote for the Waters amendment.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to lend my voice of support for this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. It gets rid of raw sewage that originates in Mexico and finds its way on to our shores. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen from California have found a way to clean up this issue and to protect American soil. It is very important that we support this amendment, and I am pleased to lend my voice of support.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, we have before us in H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of 1999, a bill that has been the result of extensive bipartisan effort, especially by my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), by the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and by my chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). They recommend that we pass this bill; and although it has some reservations, so does the administration. The Embassy Security Act has a number of outstanding provisions. The most important element is the one for which the bill is named. Mr. Chairman, Americans all over the globe were shocked as our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya were rocked by bomb blasts. This was able to happen, in part, because most of our diplomatic posts are housed in buildings over 40 years old, and 85 percent of our embassy buildings do not meet appropriate security standards. This bill authorizes $1.5 billion for embassy construction and security upgrades, an amount recommended to us by the independent commission headed by Admiral Crowe that looked into security at our diplomatic posts after the Dar and Nairobi bombings. By taking this strong stand for security, we will avoid having on our hands the blood of diplomats and their families who will be killed in future attacks if we did nothing. We also protect the functions of the many agencies involved in such activities as law enforcement, business promotion, and military operations that are housed in our embassies. While this is a big step, let us remember that this is only the first step. We will need a long-term commitment to make this happen, and we need to be prepared to do this. Unfortunately, in order to move this bill to the floor, we were required to replace most of the other authorization levels with such sums as necessary to accomplish these ends, with us leaving this matter to conference where I and many of my colleagues intend to fight for the funding levels originally approved by the committee. We have had to leave the issue of U.N. arrears to another day as well. The authorization levels still in the bill provide for strong programs in important areas. Apart from embassy security, the amounts authorized for refugee programs will keep a strong humanitarian element in our foreign policy, and other amounts in the bill will enable the Department of State to strengthen its minority recruitment, help those in need from Kosovo to Sierra Leone, fortify its efforts on human rights, and reduce delays in immigrant visa processing. Another important section of this bill would ensure appropriate management of Vietnamese refugee programs. The American Legion, the International Rescue Committee and many religiously-related refugee organizations support these provisions. The people affected by these provisions worked with us and fought with us during the war. Although the administration has some concerns about this section, our bill ensures that these brave supporters of the United States are not left in the lurch because it has become politically expedient to do so. I have been a sponsor of this bill from the beginning. While it is not a perfect bill, it is a strong effort to address many important issues, and I urge that we adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time each side has?

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?