Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, free trade for corporations or fair trade for people? I vote for the people every time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because, as with all trade agreements that come before this House, it lacks a very important component, a minimum code of conduct by which American companies should abide. Most Americans know the story of sweatshops in Latin America and Southeast Asia, but do Americans know about Guess Jeans? Guess was cited for violation of wage and hour laws in the United States. Not surprisingly, it has now moved 40 percent of its manufacturing to Mexico and South America, thereby escaping union organizers and Department of Labor oversight. Ironically, they have subsequently run an advertising campaign that claims that their jeans are 100 percent sweatshop free. Or do Americans know about accounting audit reports of Nike that were uncovered by TRAC, the Transnational Research and Action Center? Manufacturers of Nike products are paying wages of less than $2 per day in factories in China and Vietnam. But only because of public pressure and bad press, Nike has promised to do better. Adoption of our code of conduct will assure that they do better. Unfortunately, U.S. companies are engaging in even grosser abuses as they operate free from the deterrence of media, public scrutiny or U.S. law. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and accept my amendment which establishes a code of conduct for American corporations. Otherwise, we will have to live with the fact that the shoes on our feet and the blue jeans on our bodies might just be made from the sweat of children living in squalor.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Assistant Secretary Susan Rice along with the other witnesses. I look forward to their testimony. Twelve years ago Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni marched a 20,000- strong rebel army to Uganda's capital, Kampala, and liberated the Ugandan people from the reign of two of the most oppressive dictatorships the world has ever seen. During their successive regimes Amin and Obote murdered over one million people. While the United States and the Western Powers did nothing, Museveni took action. Since then, the story of Uganda is nothing short of phenomenal. President Museveni immediately formed a Human Rights Commission to investigate the atrocities committed under the former dictators. Today the Commission is chaired by a judge and overseen by Members of the High Court. The mandate of the organization is to serve as a watch-dog by monitoring government activities, and to educate the public about respect for human rights. After the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, President Museveni began assembling judges, lawyers, and other scholars for the purpose of drafting Uganda's Constitution. His administration actively solicited the involvement of men and women at the grass-roots level. Several thousand Ugandans submitted memorandums offering suggestions. An important component of the Constitution is a provision institutionalizing the Human Rights Commission. Perhaps most astonishing has been Uganda's economic growth under President Museveni. Real GDP growth has averaged 6.7% over the last ten years. Inflation has been reduced from 250% to 6%. The country has liberal current and capital accounts, so there is no restrictions on foreign exchange. To ease the concerns of foreign investors, Uganda now offers insurance to investors through the Multi-lateral Insurance Guarantee Agency of the World Bank. Under Amin, Ugandans of South Asian heritage were stripped of their properties and forced to leave the country. President Museveni has allowed them to return, and has given back their businesses and land. To encourage American tourists and investors, citizens of the United States no longer need visas to travel to Uganda. Understanding that an exclusively government breeds its own opposition, President Museveni held elections and has an administration that reflects the diversity of Ugandan society. In 1987 a reporter asked him how he could afford to have such a large and diverse government. His answer was a simple one: ``It is cheaper than war.'' Mr. Chairman, this is what President Museveni has built in just twelve years. But even more important than what he has done for Uganda, President Museveni is perhaps the first of a new breed of leader on the Continent. He has proven that African leaders no longer need to follow the orders of their colonial masters to achieve success. Independence and security, Museveni has shown, are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, all of this is threatened by an entity as evil as the world has even seen. Northern Uganda is plagued by a rebel insurgency known as the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), led by Joseph Kony. The LRA is notorious for looting homes, and abducting and enslaving thousands of Ugandan children. Boys as young as 11 years old are forced to serve as soldiers and to participate in extreme act of violence. Girls of the same age are made into sexual slaves. Nearly all of the children who escape from the LRA are found to be HIV positive. The UN Children's Fund estimates that up to 10,000 youngsters have been victims of rebel atrocities. Backed by an oppressive and terrorist regime in Sudan, the LRA is a direct affront on the new Africa. Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress and the Clinton Administration to embrace President Museveni and Uganda as a partner for peace and stability on the African Continent. We must make a decision. Will the United States continue its centuries old neglect of Africa? Will it continue to support only the Mobutu Sese Sekos and Jonas Savimbis of Africa? Or, if President Clinton's trip truly marked a new beginning in relations between the United States and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, will we support those that are doing the right thing? The current crisis in Northern Uganda poses this question. I, along the countless others who care about the future of Africa, await the answer.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the census is America's family portrait. I would like to bring attention to my staff. We thought we would take a family portrait. Unfortunately, this is what my staff would look like after a Republican census. If the Republicans have their way, some of my staff will disappear, because the Republicans do not want a fair and accurate census. Republicans are absolutely satisfied with certain people not being counted because it preserves their political power. In the year 2000, the only way we are going to make sure that every man, woman and child is included in America's family portrait is by putting Republican racial fearmongering aside and let the Census Bureau do its job. America needs a fair and accurate census.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for the assistance that he has given me, but right now I rise against Republican Census politics. It does not make much sense, by the way, either. If Republicans have their way, it will return us to the days where poor people and people of color either do not count, or, at best, count as three-fifths of a person. During the last Census in Georgia, counters came from rural Alabama to count people in Atlanta public housing. This was not just a funny story about the country mouse visiting his city slicker cousin, it was Dixie politics. Do Members think it was an accident that the residents in Atlanta public housing did not get counted? Let me assure every Member in this House that that was no mistake. Nationally, this same Census missed one in ten African American males, one in 20 Hispanics, and one in 10 young Asian males. That is why every major civil rights group has endorsed the plan created by the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences to correct the undercount, using the most modern statistical methods available. But the Republicans, for purely partisan political reasons, would like to hold the funding for the Census Bureau hostage so they can force the Bureau to use outdated techniques that are guaranteed to lead to an inaccurate count. Mr. Chairman, the Census is America's family portrait. I recently took a portrait of my Washington, D.C. staff, which looks very much like America. If the Republicans have their way some of my staff will disappear, because the Republicans do not want a fair and accurate Census. This is my staff, which looks very much like America. I call it my rainbow staff, and some of them are in the gallery now. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this is my staff after a Republican Census. If I am not careful, I would not even be counted in the Republican Census. It appears that Republicans are absolutely satisfied with certain people not being counted because it preserves their political power. The only way we are going to make sure that every man, woman, and child is included in America's family portrait is by putting Republican racial fear-mongering aside and let the Census Bureau do its job. America needs a fair and accurate Census.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I, too, would like to join my colleagues in commending what I call America's Congresswoman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), for shepherding this legislation through the process onto the floor of the House tonight. As this body recognizes the 50th anniversary of the integration of the Armed Forces, we must remember the historic role that President Truman's executive order played, not only in opening the military to African Americans, but in advancing the March for civil rights for all outside the military. His signature paved the way for today's Army. Today 27 percent of the Army is black. These proud men and women comprise 12 percent of the officers and 30 percent of the enlisted soldiers. Eight percent of all generals are black. Prior to Truman's executive order, successful African American soldiers were recognized as exceptional, as distinct. In 1939, the government established a segregated program at the Tuskegee Institute to train blacks as civilian pilots. These young men became known as the Tuskegee Airmen, and became successful World War II pilots. These brave and accomplished flyers never lost a bomber that they accompanied. Truman's executive order provided African Americans with the opportunity to be more than just the exception. They were the backbone of our enlisted soldiers, and they are our leaders. They are the heroes, like the Tuskegee Airmen, and they are role models for American society, both black and white. General Colin Powell in the U.S. Army, Lieutenant General Benjamin O. Davis in the U.S. Air Force, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Togo West, in today's society our young people cannot have too many honorable role models to help instill in them discipline, confidence, and self-respect. As we honor the integration of the military, we must not forget the steps it took to get us here. The road has not been easy, and we still have a long way to go. The military must still guard against extremists and racist attacks within its ranks, like the tragic incident at Fort Bragg where two black civilians were gunned down by Lieutenant Burmeister. We must be wary of differential treatments for blacks and whites in legal proceedings. While some white officers are allowed to retire quietly, other black enlisted personnel are sent to courts-martial. Let me tell Members about a recent case that has come to my attention. This case is of Sgt. Aidens. Sgt. Aidens became the target of an investigation after he refused to lie that he knew about the misconduct of another black serviceman. Coincidentally, Sgt. Aidens just last night was found to be guilty of using crack cocaine. The evidence used to find him guilty was a pubic hair sample taken by army investigators. Most of America is not aware of this form of drug testing because it is not proven, it is controversial, and gives false positives for African Americans. However, pubic hair testing has been used in military courts as evidence when accompanied with an urinalysis. Yet, in Sgt. Aiden's case, the Army did not give him a urinalysis. If Sgt. Aidens' verdict is upheld, I am very concerned for every African American in our Armed Forces. A recent article by Charles Moskos lays out some lessons that we can learn on race in the Army. He suggests, one, we focus on black opportunity channels; two, be ruthless against discrimination; three, affirmative action must be linked to standards; four, a level playing field is not enough. We need to recognize the disadvantages that minorities have and compensate those with additional help. I hope when we recognize the next 50 years of integration of our Armed Forces, that we look at each shortcoming and racist act not only as a battle lost, but a serious chipping away at the war of what it means to be an American and what America means to the world. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, the emperor has no clothes. The United States has been stripped naked by the Chinese communists, and ``the sight ain't a pretty one.'' Madam Speaker, our own policies support a regime that is repugnant to the American values we espouse so sincerely, yet we continue down the same dangerous path. First of all, we sell invaluable technology to the Chinese that increases the accuracy of their missiles. And what do they do? Point those very same missiles back at us. Then President Clinton pays Beijing a courtesy call and at the same time they embark on a building program for ICBMs that shakes Asian stability, China's neighbors, and our friends. So little respect do the Chinese have for our government that they have led us from one embarrassing event to another. The message we send to the Chinese is that we really do not care about those values we talk about, as long as they keep signing those contracts. The litany is a long one. China's violation of human rights; her unfair trade practices and obstacles to market access; China's lack of legal and regulatory transparency; her outrageously uncooperative attitude in weapons and nuclear nonproliferation; the large and growing U.S. trade deficit with China; and, more recently, the allegedly illegal Chinese donations. Candidate Bill Clinton said, ``We will link China's trading privileges with its human rights record and its conduct on trade and weapons sales.'' But Bill Clinton's own State Department has this to say about China: ``The government continued to commit widespread and documented human rights abuses in violation of internationally accepted norms.'' Maybe the United States is following the bad advice of a fortune cookie, or it is the pressure of too many Gucci-clad lobbyists trying to help corporate America make a fortune at the expense of American values, the Chinese people, and American workers. Madam Speaker, the Chinese have learned all too well that for the United States money talks and everything else walks.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I had the pleasure of hosting, my pastor, Bishop Eddie L. Long, who was the House Guest Chaplain for the Day. Bishop Long is the pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Georgia's Fourth Congressional District. Through Bishop Long's leadership, New Birth Missionary Baptist Church has grown from 300 members in 1984 to nearly 22,000 members. New Birth Missionary Baptist Church has worked to focus the community efforts on saving at-risk youth. Through a program called Project Impact, members of the new Birth Missionary Baptist Church work within the state judicial system to rehabilitate first-time juvenile nonviolent offenders. Without this program, many of these first-time offenders would be incarcerated in our already overcrowded juvenile system with a greater likelihood that they would commit more serious offenses. Bishop Eddie Long is not only the leader of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church but also a leader within the community and the world. He is an active member of the Morehouse School of Religion Board of Directors and also serves as a moderator of the American Baptist Churches of the South. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in welcoming Bishop Eddie L. Long to the United States House of Representatives.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for this Congressional Record the enclosed prize winning script written by Ms. Hannah Leatherbury. My Voice in our Democracy 1997-98 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition--Georgia Winner (By Hannah Leatherbury) This morning I woke up and fixed myself a bowl of Lucky Charms. I sat down with my cereal and turned on the T.V. to the ``Today'' news program. At the news desk, Anne Currey was reporting on the events of the U.P.S. strike, and the effectiveness of the postal workers' protest. After the commercial break, Katie Couric began speaking to a woman in Illinois who was holding her own protest. This woman was protesting the behavior of her children. She had climbed a tree in her front yard and was remaining ``on strike'' until her children agreed to do their chores and adjust their attitudes. Katie asked the woman if her protest had succeeded and the mother triumphantly replied: ``Yes.'' At first I asked myself how this story qualified as NEWS; and suddenly it dawned on me that even the commonplace person has the right to be heard. Here was a lady from Illinois who was being interviewed on national television because in our democracy she had the right to state her opinion and to have it be heard. This irritated mother was being listened to as widely as the participants of the U.P.S. strike. My voice, like hers, has the ability to sound as loud and as clear as the liberty bell itself. I can express my opinions through writing. I can write my local newspaper and state my views on important issues. Not only can my letter influence the topic of the next editorial, but I can even be printed in conjunction with the editorial. I can write for my school newspaper and voice my opinion to my peers. I can write letters to my local congressman explaining my concerns with the decisions being made in the legislature. I can even voice my opinion in a letter to the president. In our democracy I can be confident that, through my writing, my voice is heard in even the highest branches of the government. As a consumer I can call or write businesses and respond to the quality of their products. If my whip cream isn't satisfactory all I need to do is write the consumer goods services and wait for a reply. On paper my voice is one of an opinionated person, not one of an insignificant teenager. My voice can be heard by joining and organizing groups that share in my beliefs in my community. The student government in my school allows students to share their ideas in improving their school P.L.A.N.E.T. (the school organized environmental group) allows young people my age to take a stand against pollution. There are so many organizations in a community's schools, churches, and businesses which give us all the opportunity to speak up. I can even organize my own protests if my opinion is strong enough. I have the ability to boycott and convince others to boycott businesses. If there is a legitimate reason for opposition, your age and social status does not matter; you can be heard. I can speak of the absurdity and lack of intelligence in our nation's top positions and not have to worry about being slapped with a charge of treason. I can laugh out loud and comment on the editorial cartoon making fun of the government without going to jail. The United States Constitution grants us all the freedom of choosing to use our voices. Without democracy, this morning and every morning of my life would be dramatically different. The government could ban Lucky Charms from the shelves for its high sugar content, and I would have no right to protest the decision. The news would be filled with the same faces of rich powerful government officials. Instead of the cheerful Katie Couric, we would be greeted each morning by a government appointed figure (similar to the teacher of Ferris Buler) with a monotonous voice and a personality comparable to that of an inchworm. The government would have the authority to tell the American people what they wanted us to hear, thus we would repeat what our government wanted us to repeat without question. We would hear only of ``important'' people and the woman in Illinois could forget about having her voice heard. In a country without democracy, my voice would be one among thousands of precious pearls locked in a safe never to be displayed in public. Fortunately, democracy enables my tiny pearl of wisdom to be removed from its safe and placed on a necklace to be worn at a grand banquet.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, during World War II, the world stood by and watched as innocent men, women, and children were exterminated for no other reason than their ethnicity. The world said never again. Well, 50 years later in Rwanda, the world stood by and watched as innocent men, women, and children were exterminated for no other reason than their ethnicity. Knowing that a genocide was about to occur, the world turned away or said this is not my problem. During the genocide, many said this is bad, but they did not act. After the genocide, the world offered reasons and apologies for its inaction. Mr. Speaker, the world forgot the promise it made right after World War II. Indeed, the promise of ``never again'' was left tragically unfulfilled. In 1994, close to 1 million people were killed in a planned and systematic genocide. Today the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations held an important hearing to begin answering some important questions. How could the world tolerate such violence? Who is responsible? Why did the international community fail to respond? How can we stop the continuing cycle of violence in the Great Lakes region? I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Smith) for his courage and compassion for addressing this important issue. I think it is important that people understand the history of the relationship between the indigenous peoples of Rwanda. Prior to the 20th century colonialism, Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis were identified, not by their ethnicity, but by their economic status. For example a Tutsi was considered a wealthy and prominent person in the community, while Hutus were often poor. However, if a Tutsi were to lose his or her wealth, they would then be considered a Hutu. Similarly, a Hutu who had climbed an economic ladder would then be considered a Tutsi. Thus, a distinction was not based on ethnicity but by standing in the community. However, after centuries of living together in relative peace, Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis were taught to fear and mistrust one another because of disparaging treatment at the hands of Belgian colonialists. The Belgians treated Tutsis as an upper class, providing them with an education and important government positions, while relegating the majority Hutu population to agricultural work and manual labor. Furthermore, the Belgians began requiring Hutus and Tutsis to carry identification cards, further creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred. The strong animosity created by the colonialists was maintained after independence as extremist Hutu leaders sought to strike back at Tutsis by removing them from all positions of power and refraining from punishing those who committed acts of violence against Tutsi civilians. The ethnic cleansing of Tutsis in the early 1960s led to an exile population that was spread across Uganda, Zaire, Burundi, and Tanzania. Persecution and expulsion of minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus continued throughout the 1980s and early 1990s until the tragic events unfolded that led to the 1994 genocide. I provide this history, Mr. Speaker, to enlighten those who find it convenient to attribute the Rwandan genocide to the irrational, quote, ``tribal hatred and bloodthirstiness of Africans.'' Rather, what subsequent investigations have revealed is that the killings were not spontaneous expressions of inevitable hatred, but a well- orchestrated, patterned genocide planned for and prepared by extremists, indeed, ethnic extremists to be sure, but essentially extremists concerned with holding on to power and wealth that they had come to control after 20 years in power. The tribal card was played by these extremists who accused any Hutu who did not join in their cause of betraying Hutus and using propaganda and fear, the twin tactics of Nazis and Fascists in Europe, to intimidate many to join them in killing. Those who resisted, many of them being moderate Hutus, were themselves murdered. What makes the genocide even more tragic, Mr. Speaker, is that the United States, United Nations as well as the United States and its allies, could easily have prevented this slaughter. After the death of 10 Belgian United Nations peacekeepers at the hands of extremist militias known as Interahamwe, Belgium decided to remove all of their troops. To keep from appearing as if they were acting alone, the Belgian Foreign Minister telephoned U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher and asked if the United States would call for the withdrawal of all UNAMIR troops. The United States agreed, and despite the calls for additional assistance from General Romeo Dallaire, the United Nation's Supreme Commander in Rwanda, the Security Council voted to withdraw all but a few of the peacekeepers. Most of the Interahamwe were armed with nothing more than machetes and clubs. Thus, a well-armed force of a few thousand strategically placed peacekeepers could have stopped or at least greatly reduced the killing. Regardless, eventually the truth will be known. It is interesting that Secretary General Kofi Annan will be in Kigali tomorrow. Perhaps his visit will shed some light on the reasons why the United Nations and the international community abdicated its responsibility in 1994. Mr. Speaker, there is a definition for the word genocide. However, just as the Holocaust can only be appreciated after viewing the tragic footage taken during and immediately after World War II, I have brought some visual aids that truly define the Rwandan genocide. These photographs are the result of the inaction of the United States, the United Nations, and U.S. allies. Mr. Speaker, I have personally seen images like the ones that I will show when I traveled to Rwanda. And as disturbing as these photographs are, I assure my colleagues that the effect in person is much greater. I would like to thank the witnesses that testified in our hearing today, some of whom traveled great distances to be with us. They came because of the tragedy that the world knows as Rwanda. They came because they viewed the hearing as an important step in informing the Congress and the American people of what went wrong in Rwanda and how we can help to make things right. But although these witnesses traveled great distances to be with us, I regret that the United States Department of State deemed the hearing investigating this tragedy, the death of 1 million men, women, and children, unworthy of their traveling just across town. In the weeks leading up to today, State Department officials telephoned my office on more than one occasion expressing their displeasure with the idea of this hearing. One person actually raised their voice at my staff, asserting that this hearing was completely unnecessary. All of this opposition raises the question as to whether certain State Department officials believe that such efforts are truly unworthy of their participation, or perhaps there is another reason why they did not want the event of today to take place. Mr. Speaker, I must state that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I, along with the other members of the committee, are not engaging in this exercise simply to embarrass specific leaders and individuals; rather, we proceed with the recognition that to change the future one must first recognize the mistakes of the past. President Clinton's historic trip to Rwanda was an important first step toward the United States rehabilitating itself for abdicating its leadership and morality in 1994. However, we must go further. We must begin to work in partnership with the Rwandan Government so that its people and the people of central Africa can begin to recover from this horrendous chapter in world history. Formulating an effective policy can only be accomplished through learning from previous mistakes, from rehabilitation. And so it must be clear that our purpose for asking how and why is not simply to condemn, but rather to ensure that never again really means never again. The Great Lakes region has vast natural and human resources, offering enormous economic potential. Crafting an effective partnership with this region will benefit the people of central Africa and the United States. And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a colleague of mine who serves on the House Committee on International Relations with myself, the gentleman from the great State of Alabama (Mr. Earl Hilliard).

Ms. McKINNEY. I would just like to draw the gentleman's attention to the fact that the African-American foreign service officers have filed a lawsuit against the State Department, because they have reached a point where they are frustrated with their inability to be promoted and the inability of the State Department to move African Americans up through the system and utilize all of their talents. As a result of that, unfortunately, rather than trying to settle this lawsuit, the State Department is fighting the lawsuit, is fighting settling the lawsuit. And so that would be one indication of an attitude that may exist at the State Department, that might explain why it is that it is so difficult for certain decisions that would benefit the people, the world, of people of color to be made.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). But before I yield to my colleague, I would like to just point to my map so that we can be clear as to exactly what we are talking about. The country of Rwanda is a very, very small, densely populated country in the Great Lakes region of Africa, in east central Africa, bordered on the north by Uganda, here on the east by Tanzania, on the south by Burundi, and in the west by the Democratic Republic of Congo. We have got an active war situation that is going on in Burundi and in Rwanda; and unfortunately, with the instability that is emanating basically from Rwanda, it is spilling over into all of these other countries in the region. We know that the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, sits in the heart of Africa. And, therefore, if we are interested in stability, rehabilitation, democratization in central Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo, we have got to do our level best to contain the instability in this region. Because it is this instability that caused the instability and the march westward of Laurent Kabila who eventually over took Mobutu in the first place. So I wanted to point out exactly the area that we are talking about and why this is so important. Because literally all of central Africa depends on peace, stability, rehabilitation, economic development in this area right here and settling this question once and for all. I now yield to my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, throughout the 20th century there has been outside involvement on the continent of Africa; and unfortunately, the African peoples are dealing today with the ramifications and the effects of that outside intervention. Even the lines that are drawn that represent country boundaries are nothing in relation to the boundaries of the kingdoms that were existent before the arrival of the European colonialists. And, unfortunately, the history of U.S. involvement on the African continent has always been a nod and a wink to our European allies to allow them to work their will, to do whatever they wanted to do on the African continent; and they knew that as long as they were acting in their national interest that they would have the backing of the United States. That is why the United States, my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), was at first on the wrong side in South Africa's fight. They were on the wrong side in Mozambique and in Angola. They were on the wrong side in countless example after example of interaction on the African continent to suppress the voices of those authentic African voices that were struggling for nationalism and liberalization from the colonial yoke and to promote those that would become mere puppets of the colonial empires.

Ms. McKINNEY. Well, absolutely. What the French are doing right now is having an investigation of what their role was.

Ms. McKINNEY. That is right. Because there were members of parliament who did not know, who were uninformed about what the French Government was actually doing on the ground. And then, of course, we have read in newspaper reports emanating from France that the attitude of the Mitterand government was that these are just black people killing each other and that is what black people do. And so then, of course, it was all right for the French to continue to arm the Rwandans despite the fact that this is the kind of thing that was happening. This is genocide.

Ms. McKINNEY. Yes.

Ms. McKINNEY. They continued. This is an example of what was happening. Here is a baby that was hacked to death, as my colleagues can see, its limbs hacked off. This is one genocide site. And people went to seek shelter and refuge in churches and in schools because they were told that this was a place of safe haven. Even in the churches they were shot to death, macheted to death, hacked to death by the thousands. Here we can see the remaining skulls at one of these genocide sites, obviously a school or a church. Here is a young woman who has been hacked. This is what was happening on the ground while we in Washington and in Belgium and in Paris looked the other way. This is what was happening on the ground in Rwanda.

Ms. McKINNEY. This was a civil war as well as a genocide.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I visited Gekangordo, which is a site of genocide at a school. In Gekangordo, the stench of death hangs in the air. This is 3 years after the killing. At Gekangordo, there are 27,000 bodies that have been unearthed thus far. There may be more there. When you go there and you see what happened, it is impossible to walk away from that and not be deeply, deeply affected. Unfortunately, at the hearing today, the New Yorker article that came out, the New Yorker article came out yesterday about the genocide facts. This article was written by Phillip Gorovich, who talks about the fact that General Dallaire, who was the United Nations representative, general on the ground, sent a fax up to the United Nations and said, we have got an informant who only requires safe haven asylum in either France, the United States or Belgium. This informant has told us that there are plans for an extermination of the Tutsi people. I am going to go in and remove the weapons caches within 36 hours. We now know that the chief of staff to Kofi Annan sent a response back to General Dallaire to not go, to not remove those arms caches, and instead go tell the extremist Rwandan government that we know what you are going to do. So the United Nations itself now then becomes complicit because the United Nations had the information.

Ms. McKINNEY. And failed to act. The gentleman is absolutely right.

Ms. McKINNEY. Further, I would just like to add that the United Nations allowed a general to testify in the Senate and talk about the success of the United Nations in Bosnia. We for our hearing today requested that General Dallaire be allowed to testify at our hearing. General Dallaire was willing to testify at our hearing, but the United Nations declined an acceptance or declined permission for him to testify and so he did not testify at our hearing today. Nor did General Dallaire or Kofi Annan appear before the Belgian parliament and its own inquiry of what happened. They invoked diplomatic immunity.

Ms. McKINNEY. I would like to mention and commend other Members of Congress who at least spoke out on this issue at the time. We know that from the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) submitted those three letters to the President three times and to the State Department, and three times he received absolutely no response. But the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) also spoke out on this issue and the need for U.S. intervention to stop the genocide, to stop what was happening, to save those innocent lives. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) also spoke out against what he saw as inaction on the part of the administration. I would also like to thank the people who came to the hearing today and testified. Mr. Dick McCall from USAID was the only person who was given authorization to show up at the hearing today. And so the absence of the State Department then raises more questions than it answers. Because as we got testimony from all of the witnesses, we understand that there are some answers that reside within the highest levels of the State Department, and the American people and the Members of Congress and the Congressional Black Caucus and all of the people who did speak out and the countless Americans who were concerned at the time and who are now concerned deserve to know the answers. We also had Ambassador Shaharyar Khan travel all the way from Pakistan to be with us. Senator Alain Destexhe, who promoted the investigation in Belgium, traveled all the way from Belgium to be with us. Kathi Austin, Holly Burkhalter, Alison Des Forges, Jeff Drumtra and Mr. Francois-Xavier Nsanzuwera all came from various points around the globe to be with us today at today's hearing. Yet the State Department could not emerge from Foggy Bottom to tell us what the heck was going on, what did they know, and when did they know it.

Ms. McKINNEY. I would just like to say that we know what happened in Rwanda. I have not made it through all 1,180 pages of this book, Rwanda, Death, Despair and Defiance, which was written by Rakiya Omaar at African Rights in London. I went to London to meet with Rakiya, to hear firsthand what she had to say as she interviewed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of genocide survivors and of the genocide there in the prisons in Rwanda. We know what happened in Rwanda, thanks to Rakiya Omaar. Thanks to Senator Alain Destexhe in Belgium we know what happened in Belgium. We know why the Belgian troops withdrew, and he has come to the United States to help us to understand what happened in Belgium. Thanks to French parliamentarians we are beginning to understand what happened in Paris, what motivated Paris French behavior on the ground in Rwanda. Three governments were forewarned, and two of them are now asking themselves why they stood by and let 1 million people be slaughtered. The United States and the United Nations must do the same. Senator Destexhe delivered a letter to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) today and to our committee requesting that the United States hold a similar investigation; since the United States was one of three countries privy to the information that a genocide was about to take place, that the United States ought to look at it in critical self-examination to make sure that never again means never again. I yield to my colleague from Alabama.

Ms. McKINNEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time to make this presentation to our colleagues and the Congress and to our audience, the American people. Never again is supposed to mean never again, and we now must demand that we understand fully what happened and why it happened. Unfortunately, the State Department chose to not show up at a very important hearing. They chose to duck the answers of the people who came to present their questions. And in response to that, then, I have to add my voice to the tens of other people who were at that hearing today who were calling for an investigation. I now call for an investigation of what happened so that indeed when we say never again the world community will know that never again means never again. Bruxelles, Belgium, May 5, 1998. Hon. Benjamin Gilman, Chairman, House Committee on International Relations, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Gilman: I am writing to recommend that the United States Congress undertake an investigation into the events surrounding the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. During that time, I was the Secretary General of Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders). In this capacity, I visited Rwanda just before and just after the genocide. In 1995, I became a Member of Parliament and initiated the Belgian Senate Committee of Inquiry on the Rwanda genocide. Our Committee of Inquiry heard testimony from 95 witnesses, including Belgian Ministers, Diplomats and members of the Military. The Committee also consulted all documents from 1993 and 1994 in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministries, including all correspondence between Kigali and Brussels. Two main questions were addressed: Before the genocide, were the Belgian authorities and others aware of the fact that it was under preparation? After the genocide started on 7 April, 1994, why did the UN decide to withdraw almost all its forces from Rwanda? Concerning the period before the genocide, our Committee concluded that: ``. . . at the latest in mid-January 1994, the Belgian authorities had a series of relevant information regarding, if not the preparation of genocide, at least the existence of the preparation of large scale massacres . . . On the other hand, several actors (UN, other states . . .) that had the same type of information did not give it the necessary importance . . . .'' (page 506) Although the Committee decided not to be more specific about the ``other states,'' this is clearly a reference to France and the United States. We based that conclusion on various evidence, in particular documents from the files of the Belgian Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs. Among others, we found 19 documents in which there is mention of a Machiavellian plan of destabilization and massacres. There is no reason to believe that similar information was not at the disposal of the American and French Ambassadors and the UN Representatives. Most important is a cable sent on January 11, 1994, almost three months before the genocide, by General Dallaire, the Commander of the UN forces in Rwanda (UNAMIR), to the UN Headquarters in New York, based on information provided to him by a key informer. This cable revealed a fairly detailed plan explaining how the genocide was organized in Kigali. It mentions that the principal aim of Interhamwe (the militia of the President's party) in the past was to protect Kigali from the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). He noted that a campaign was under way by Interhamwe to register all Tutsi in Kigali, he says he suspected that this was for their extermination. He quotes an Interhamwe informant as saying that in twenty minutes his personnel could kill up to 1,000 Tutsi. This cable's importance cannot be overestimated. How many times has the United Nations received from its Force Commander in a country a warning of a possible, even probable, extermination? In the cable, General Dallaire announced his intention to take action within 48 hours and requested protection for his informer. UN Headquarters answered that the action he had planned to take was not authorized because it did not fall within the UNAMIR mandate. Dallaire was instructed to contact the three ambassadors from Belgium, France and the United States, and ask them to intervene with President Habyarimana of Rwanda. He was also instructed to request from these countries protection and asylum for his informer. The contents of the cable shared with the American, French and Belgian Ambassadors in Kigali. According to the special representative of Secretary General Boutros Ghali, ``They expressed serious concern and indicated that they would consult with their capital and would act accordingly.'' On January 13, 1994, all three ambassadors met President Habyarimana and expressed their concern that the Arusha Peace Agreements (which were supposed to bring a peaceful transition in Rwanda) were being violated by his political party and his supporters. Apart from this, very little was done to stop the perpetrators of the genocide. I strongly believe that if General Dallaire's cable had been widely publicized at the time, the genocide could have been avoided. We should remember that nearly one million people were killed in less than three months in Rwanda in 1994. We should also recall that the Rwandan killings were an attempt to eradicate an entire people, and as such constitute one of very few unequivocal genocides in the twentieth century. A crime of this nature and scale demands full investigation. The Rwandan genocide demonstrated that the lesson of the Holocaust still has not been learned. At the end of the day, everyone is accountable for their actions when genocide crimes against humanity are at stake. Belgium, France, the United States and the United Nations also share a responsibility for not doing more--indeed, doing almost nothing--to prevent or stop the killings. The genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda took place in a country where 2,500 UN blue helmets were deployed and supposed to maintain peace and protect human lives. They could have prevented the killings, both before and during the genocide. The role of Belgium in this tragedy has been fully examined by the Belgian Senate Committee. That of France is currently being investigated in the French Parliament. The victims, but also humanity at large, deserve to know the full truth concerning the two others major international players--the United States and the United Nations. To conclude, I would first like to note that I fully welcome the initiatives of the Clinton Administration to prevent further genocide and bring justice in the Great Lakes region, initiatives which were taken after the presidential trip to Africa. However, more needs to be done. A full investigation on the part of the United States can help to improve the chances that such suffering will not be repeated. In attempting to move forward, the past must be taken in account. The 1994 genocide remains a central issue to understanding the situation in the Great Lakes region. It also highlighted the deep inadequacies in the way the international community responds to signs of impending crisis. We cannot prevent future tragedies if we do not come to terms with the past; in the United States as in Belgium, that process must involve examining the role this government played in Rwanda in 1994. Sincerely, Alain Destexhe, Member of the Parliament of Belgium, President, International Crisis Group

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who will retire in January on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. For over 30 years Dr. Lowery's was the voice of equality, reason and self-reliance both in this country and abroad. Dr. Lowery is best known for his leadership of SCLC, which he cofounded with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., in 1957. Since then his life and his career have become synonymous with justice, equality, and human rights. From the early days of the civil rights movement in Mobile, AL, to the founding of the SCLC in 1957, to the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and on to the fight against apartheid in South Africa, Dr. Lowery's views, voice, and vision have guided two generations of civil rights activism. Even in his retirement, Dr. Lowery will continue to guide and inspire us in our fight for equality, justice, and human dignity for many years to come. Reverend Lowery, Mrs. Lowery, I wish you the best in your retirement.