Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of the most essential pieces of legislation I have seen in the last several years, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for the work he has done to bring it to the floor, and I condemn the underhanded actions of the Republican leadership of this House in allowing poison pill amendments to put those of us who think this bill essential in a quandary in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I will talk more during the general debate about why this bill is essential, but the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) hit it on the head. An HMO comes into town, signs up the employers, controls all the health care, controls all the patients, and says to the doctors: sign on the bottom line. Take it or leave it. If they do not want to have to treat 20 patients an hour, 5 minutes apiece, if they think it requires more time to give them decent treatment, too bad. They do not have to sign up with us; we will get plenty of doctors who will not have such scruples. The bill authored by the gentleman from California will enable the doctors to get together and say: no, we need time to talk to our patients and we need time to do proper services. Mr. Speaker, this is profoundly in the interests of the patients of the United States. This is easily as important as the Patients' Bill of Rights in destroying the tyranny the HMOs have taken over the doctors and patients in this country. But then we have the Coburn amendment made in order as a poison pill with one purpose and one purpose only. Nothing to do with abortion. That is the fig leaf. The real purpose of this amendment is to get people to vote against the rule and vote against the bill who otherwise would vote for it. The real purpose of this amendment is to get people who would vote against the insurance interests and for patients' rights, which is what this bill is about, to put them in a quandary so they cannot do it. Mr. Speaker, I urge that Members vote against the previous question so that we can rewrite the rule. If the previous question motion is passed, I will reluctantly vote for the rule and hope that we can then defeat the Coburn amendment. Because this bill is as important a bill as any bill we have seen on this floor; and we should not allow a leadership that does not dare get up and say its real purpose, that we are beholden to the insurance companies and we do not want to serve the patients of the United States, we want doctors to be slaves to the insurance companies, so let us hide behind the fig leaf of an extraneous issue. We should not hide behind that issue.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, first let me join in the encomiums to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his great work over the years and the decades, and we will miss him. Let me say that it is true that part of the port of New York is now bustling again and part of it still needs major development. The channels we are talking about are in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), and I appreciate his leadership on this project. I rise on this because I believe this project is vital not only to the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) but to the entire port region of New York and New Jersey. The Kill Van Kull is the boundary between Staten Island on the south and Bayonne on the north and leads from New York Harbor to New York Bay, and we are presently dredging that to achieve a depth of 45 feet, blasting through solid rock to get to 45 feet. If achieved or when achieved, I should say, this will open up access to the ports of Newark and Elizabeth. The Arthur Kill is an extension of the Kill Van Kull where the shore of Staten Island turns a little south, and that has to be part of the same project. That will afford access to Howland Hook and Staten Island. Without that part of it, the Kill Van Kull project helps New Jersey but does not help New York. With that part, the Kill Van Kull project helps both States. It was always anticipated and intended that the ports of New York and New Jersey would be for the benefit of both States, and the little added piece of the Arthur Kill is critical to enabling the New York as well as the New Jersey side of the port to be accessed by the existing Kill Van Kull project. So this project has to be looked at as a unified whole, and the Arthur Kill as an extension of the existing Kill Van Kull project. When completed, the project together will afford the ability of bigger ships to get to New York, Elizabeth, and Howland Hook and will give us a leg up on retaining our port business in the United States as against the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, which is not in the United States, obviously. So I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman in helping us to achieve this dual nature project.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate the proposed draconian 59 percent cut in the appropriations for Legal Services. Legal Services Corporation makes a real difference in the lives of those low-income Americans who need legal representation. Without the Legal Services Corporation, we would truly have the best legal rights that money can buy. It is bad enough that we have failed to enact campaign finance reform, so that Will Rogers' quip that we have the best government money can buy has more than a slight ring of truth. Without Legal Services, only those with money would have any real chance of finding justice in our courts. There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability of low-income people to receive basic Legal Services. The annual assault on Legal Services Corporation would suggest that this is the case. In fact, the Legal Services Corporation does the opposite of what the money-driven politics which too often tends to rule this House these days would command. The Legal Services Corporation helps the poor and powerless assert their rights against the wealthy and powerful. It represents tenants against landlords, it represents victims of toxic pollution against corporate polluters, it represents those who have suffered discrimination against those who discriminate, it represents victims of domestic violence against those who perpetuate domestic violence. No wonder it is so unpopular. But, Mr. Chairman, the poor, just like the wealthy, should be entitled to fair legal representation. A right without ability to enforce it legally is not meaningful. If any Member of this House had a dispute or a legal problem, he or she would seek out the best legal services he or she could afford or could raise the money to afford. So there is a general recognition that to have meaningful rights, you need competent legal representation in this society. In criminal proceedings, that need is so obvious that the Constitution requires publicly funded counsel. But that requirement has not been deemed to extend to protection of rights outside the criminal court, to family court, housing court or civil court. That is the job of Legal Services. We are not forced by the Constitution to do this, but simple decency and a commitment to equal justice under law should be enough. It was enough for President Nixon and for the bipartisan coalition that brought Legal Services into being and it should be enough now. Some have argued that Legal Services Corporation has failed to live up to Congress' expectations for record keeping and accounting. Some have argued there is some waste and fraud and even abuse in Legal Services. I believe the wild claims that LSC is wasting or misusing large sums of taxpayers' money bear little relation to reality. But imagine if we applied the sort of rigorous accounting rules and this reasoning, the kind of reasoning we heard from the last speaker, to some other programs, like, for instance, the Defense Department. No one has ever suggested that because there is obviously waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, we should abolish the defense budget, zero out of the defense budget. That would be absurd. Mr. Chairman, there is incredible cynicism in this country. The newspapers, the press have pointed out that the polls show that people feel that government responds to the rich and the powerful, that we do not particularly care about what ordinary people think. There is substantial truth to this. Who gets their phone calls returned from Congress or the executive branch more quickly, the ordinary voter or the $100,000 contributor? The answer is obvious. That is bad enough in the legislative and executive branches. Only the Legal Services Corporation prevents this from also being true in our courts of law, in the judicial branch, too. We must adopt this amendment to protect the honesty and the integrity of the judicial branch and to protect the faith of our citizens and the fact that if they are hauled before the judicial branch, if they need the services of the judicial branch and if they cannot afford legal representation on their own, they will have the ability to have fair representation. This amendment must be passed to protect the integrity and the honesty and the due regard of our people for the judicial branch of government and for what we claim to be our regard for equal justice under law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we struggled with this question in the Committee on the Judiciary 4 years ago when this was adopted. I yield to no person in my abhorrence and opposition to terrorism. The World Trade Center explosion occurred in my district about 6 weeks into my first term of office. But I also yield to no one in my regard for due process of law and for the basic protections that we have held to protect the liberties of people ever since Magna Carta. And the use of secret evidence is fundamentally abhorrent to every concept of due process and the rule of law of every Anglo-Saxon legislative chamber and concept of law we have had for the last 900 years or so. We have to balance some considerations. There are terrorists in this world, and they pose a threat. There are also spies who steal atomic secrets, and they pose a threat. This Congress passed a number of years ago the Classified Information Protection Act, CIPA, which deals with crimes, not with immigration; which deals with espionage, and gives people accused of serious crimes of espionage far more rights when secret evidence is sought to be used than does this law with respect to immigrants of whom we suspect they may be involved with terrorism. There is no reason why we should not give those immigrants the same due process rights, if they are accused of terrorism, as we give to people accused of stealing atomic or other secrets or of espionage or of other serious crimes. I am not comforted to hear a colleague talk about how the State Department assures us, or the Immigration and Naturalization Service assures us that they use this terrible power of prosecuting people with secret evidence sparingly and with discretion and with sensitivity. If history teaches us anything, it is that we trust no man with such power because that way lies tyranny. We can strike a much better balance. This law, which this amendment seeks to render inoperative, says that if in the judgment of somebody, if they can go to the judge and persuade him that evidence is too sensitive to be made public, then that evidence can be used against the accused if they give him a summary of the evidence sufficient to provide a defense. Not as good a defense as if he knew the evidence, but a defense. Any old defense. And if they judge even that too dangerous, they can still use the evidence. So a man can be placed on trial, or a woman, and ask: What am I accused of? We can't tell you. Who are the witnesses? We can't tell you. What are the allegations? We can't tell you. What is the evidence? We can't tell you. Go defend yourself. Ridiculous. Impossible. The Classified Information Protection Act says, and this is what we rely on in espionage and other serious criminal cases, if evidence is too sensitive to reveal, the evidence can be used if a summary is provided to the accused sufficient, in the opinion of the judge, to enable the accused to mount a defense as effective and as good as if he had seen the evidence itself. Not any old defense. And if he cannot be given such a summary sufficient to enable him to mount as good a defense, because it is thought to be too sensitive, then the information cannot be used. We think the safety of this country has been adequately served against atomic spies and against people who seek to do all sorts of other crimes against this country with this use of secret information, this limited use of secret information and this balancing of the rights of the accused. Why should people accused of terrorism who are immigrants be any different? This CIPA law strikes a much better balance. It gives adequate protection to the need for the public for safety, but it does not rip asunder every tradition we have had that makes us different from totalitarian countries. So I applaud the gentlemen for offering this amendment. I hope it is adopted. And I hope whether it is adopted or not, it will spur us to do the one simple act that will properly safeguard our liberties and our safety, and that is to extend the CIPA law from criminal law, which it covers, to the question of immigration, which it should equally cover; and we will then not need that Draconian and this insensitive and this illiberal and this anti-libertarian law.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment to strike the ban on abortion funding for women in Federal prison. This ban is cruel, unnecessary, and unwarranted. A woman's sentence to prison should not include the penalty of depriving her of her constitutional right to decide for herself whether to carry her pregnancy to term. Most women in prison are poor, have little or no access to outside financial help, and they earn extremely low wages from prison jobs. Inmates in general work up to 40 hours per week and earn up to 12 to 40 cents an hour. They are totally dependent for the health services they receive on their institutions. Most female prisoners are unable to finance their own abortions, should they choose them, and, therefore, in effect are denied their constitutional right to an abortion if they choose them. Many women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse and are pregnant before entering prison. In addition, they will almost certainly be forced to give up their children at birth. Why should we add to their anguish by denying them access to reproductive services? We ought to keep this debate in perspective. We are not talking about big numbers. Statistics show that in 1997, for example, of the approximately 8,000 women in Federal prison, 16, one-six, had abortions, and there were 75 births. So it is a small number of people we are talking about, and we should understand that as we continue this debate. The ban on abortions does not stop thousands of abortions from taking place; rather, it places an unconstitutional burden on a few women in a difficult situation. I know full well that the authors of this ban would take away the right to choose from all American women if they could, but since they are prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court and by the popular will of the American people who overwhelmingly support freedom of choice, they have instead targeted their restrictions on women in prison, women in prison who are perhaps the least likely to be able to object. Let me also comment on some of the statements we have heard in this debate so far. We know that some people believe, and obviously the authors of this ban, and we heard some of them say so a few minutes ago, that abortion, all abortion, is taking of innocent human life, is murder. That is a legitimate, defensible point of view; but that is all it is, a point of view. It is not a fact. There are some people who believe that a person is a full human being at conception, that there are some religions that teach that. There are other religions that teach that life in effect begins at some later stage of pregnancy. Those are religious points of view. They are not susceptible to scientific decision. For myself, I do not know where life begins. I do know that I could not countenance, that I see no difference between a 9-month term baby the moment before it is delivered and the moment after it is delivered. On the other hand, I see no human value, no sacred spark of light that must be protected at all cost in a 10 or 8 or 16 cell blastula, and somewhere in between those two stages something changes. Perhaps when the fetus develops feelings, I do not know. But these are very personal questions, and questions that nobody has the right to impose an answer on for someone else. And that is why we favor choice. Let each individual woman who has to struggle with that pregnancy and with that decision make her own moral decision. Nobody has the authority to tell that woman, to impose on that woman, their own view of when that fetus, when that blastula, when that embryo, when that zygote becomes a human being and force that decision on her. None of us has that authority; none of us has that wisdom. Some of us have the thought that we should impose our own thoughts or religious views on the woman. I do not think we have the right to do so, and the Supreme Court has said we do not have the right to do so, and that reduces this debate to a debate over whether we should use our ability to control some funds to impose on a few unfortunate women in prison our opinion as to when the life begins in their uterus and our opinion or our fiat that they should be deprived of their constitutional right to make that moral and humbling choice for themselves. I do not think we ought to do that.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, I do. As I said a moment or two ago, I do not see a difference between the baby a moment before or a moment after delivery at full term. When that dividing line is, I do not claim to know. I certainly do not claim to impose my opinion on any woman who has to make that decision for herself with respect to her own pregnancy. She must make the decision as to the morality and the rightness of what she chooses to do, and that is why I favor freedom of choice, because I cannot impose my opinion on that question on anyone else. I am not even sure of the answer for myself. Therefore, this comes basically down to just another way of trying to get around a woman's constitutional right to make that choice for herself, and to impose some of our opinions, some of the opinions of those of us in this Chamber on every individual woman, and that we have no right, no moral right, and the Supreme Court has said to us we have no constitutional right to do; and that is why this amendment should be adopted.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, for over 25 years, the General Electric Company in New York has been thwarting any effort to clean up the Hudson River of the tons and tons of PCB they dumped into that river. For 20 years, they demanded study after study after study. For 20 years, they told us the river itself would eliminate the sediments. It has been studied. It has been studied and studied and studied to death for 20 years. We know that the river itself did not eliminate the sediments. We know they must be required to do so. The EPA, having finished its findings, is finally requiring GE to clean up the crud that they put in the river that is poisoning the ability of communities downstream to use the water, to drink the water, to use it for other purposes. Now we have this language that says, in the interest of General Electric, we will tell millions of people you cannot clean up your water. This language is foul. It is intended to protect the foulness of our water. I urge everybody to unfoul it by supporting the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be granted one additional minute.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) is offering amendments to weaken HUD's ability to fight crime in our neighborhoods. The Republican leadership in the House has done everything in its power to promote the NRA agenda. They have killed the common sense gun safety measures that the American people have demanded for over a year. They have blocked trigger locks and failed to close the gun show loophole. They have blatantly ignored the request of the Million Mom March for licensing and registration of all handguns. Now the Republicans are trying to prevent gun makers from making safer products. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) wants to prevent Smith & Wesson from developing safer guns with internal trigger locks and safe gun technology. I guess the purpose must be the guns should be as unsafe and dangerous as possible. It is truly unbelievable. Over 400 communities are participating in HUD's Communities for Safer Guns Coalition, working to make our streets a little safer. Because of their actions at local levels, Smith & Wesson agreed to require their dealers to close the gun show loophole, require background checks for all sales, limit the delivery of multiple purchases, limit children's access to weapons, and a few other things to keep guns out of the hand of criminals and children. We should be doing everything we can to support these communities in the struggle to limit gun violence. The Hostettler amendment is actually worse than anything else the Republican leadership has proposed this year in this respect. In the past, we were fighting for additional protections to save our people from gun violence. Today, we are fighting to preserve what little protections we have managed to achieve already. This is a dangerous proposal, and I fear the American people will pay for it dearly in communities across the Nation. Secretary Cuomo and HUD should be commended, and this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in the last 2 years we, this Congress, funded respectively 50,000 new vouchers and 60,000 new vouchers, after a number of years at zero. Now we are told we are going back to zero. The Administration requested 120,000 new Section 8 vouchers. The bill provides none. The amendment asks for 60,000. We are told that the bill does provide for new vouchers from recaptures. The fact is, the expected amount of recapture money available is already anticipated in the bill and has been given to four other priorities before new Section 8 vouchers, so we do not expect that there will be any new substantial amount of money from those recaptures available for new vouchers, number one. Number two, there are millions and millions of people at need. We should be doing hundreds of thousands, and even if some of that money is recaptured, it is not nearly sufficient for the need. Now we are told we should not take this money, 16 percent, we should not reduce the budget for the Space Station by 16 percent in order to provide half as many new vouchers as the administration requested. I voted against the Space Station, so I cannot say I would like to see the money given. But the fact is, even if Members support the Space Station, a 16 percent reduction will not materially delay it. It is certainly worth providing 60,000 people with decent housing. Mr. Chairman, I will also say that this is a decentralized program. Not every local housing authority is tremendously efficient. Therefore, they do not use every one. Also, very often when people get a Section 8 voucher it takes them months to find housing within the limits, or maybe they cannot even afford it. That is why money is not spent, necessarily. It does not mean we do not need the money. I would urge that we adopt this amendment and provide the money we need.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and I are offering this amendment to increase funding to provide for 60,000 new section 8 vouchers to help low-income families afford safe, decent housing. The bill before us provides for zero new section 8 vouchers. The need for housing assistance remains staggering. The Nation's robust economic growth has sent housing prices soaring. Today, a record 5.4 million low-income families pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent, or live in severely substandard housing. Not one of these 5.4 million families receives any Federal housing assistance. Their needs are desperate, and we must not ignore the severity of these needs any longer. I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. The approximately 3 million families, that is almost 7 million Americans, receive section 8 vouchers. For these families, section 8 is more than a contract or a subsidy, it is often the foundation upon which they can build lifelong economic self- sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the private housing market and choose where they want to live, helping them to escape from the cycle of poverty and creating better income mixes throughout our communities. As was said yesterday, section 8 is a free-market approach pioneered by the radical Nixon administration. The bill in its current form does a terrible disservice to those most in need. The administration's request for 120,000 new section 8 vouchers has been ignored, and there is not one dollar in this bill for new vouchers to address the worst case housing needs of our most vulnerable citizens. The bill merely holds out the possibility of 20,000 vouchers, unlikely to be funded since they are contingent on overly optimistic levels of section 8 recaptures. Rather than building on the successful provision of 50,000 or 60,000 incremental vouchers the past 2 years, this bill would contribute to the growing backlog of families who cannot afford decent, safe and sanitary housing, by going from 60,000 new housing vouchers last year to zero this year, this at a time of incredible prosperity and huge budget surpluses. Let me mention one other point. Some may ask why we ought to provide new housing for vouchers when existing funding is not spent quickly. Why is desperately needed money not spent right away? The answer is that the housing crisis is so severe right now that many families are having real difficulty using vouchers because they cannot find any apartments to rent that are affordable, that are within the limits of the voucher. The Federal Government should be doing more to build affordable housing, but this bill actually reduces Federal assistance for production of new low-income housing. But that is beyond the scope of this amendment. Our amendment will allow 60,000 more families to live in safe, affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We only ask that we meet about 1 percent of the need for affordable housing in our Nation. The money is there. In fact 100,000 new section 8 vouchers have been authorized for this coming fiscal year. The bill as currently written reneges on the national commitment to create decent, affordable housing, and fails to fulfill the promise Congress made to poor families in the Housing Act of 1998, which authorized 100,000 new section 8 vouchers for next year. Mr. Chairman, we must house our people. We ought to fulfill that promise and adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I am not here to defend the Administration, whatever it uses or does not use recaptured funds for. I am simply saying, 60,000 new Section 8 units, even if we could recapture some and get 10,000 more, that is little enough, a piddling sum. We should not be in the position of having to choose between the Space Station and 60,000 new vouchers.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA, program by $18 million. This was $10 million less than the President requested and far less than is truly needed to adequately fund this program, but represents the amount necessary to ensure that those already in the program do not receive a cut in service. I am delighted by the bipartisan nature of this amendment, and I would like to specifically thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for joining me in offering this amendment and demonstrating the bipartisan support that this program enjoys.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to support this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the enclosed statement into the Record. Statement of Eli Haas, President, Diamond Dealers Club (For the hearing on Africa's Diamonds: Precious, Perilous Too? By the Subcommittee on Africa, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, May 9, 2000) On behalf of the Diamond Dealers Club we welcome this opportunity to present this statement on ``Africa's Diamonds: Precious, Perilous Too?'' The Diamond Dealers Club is a trade association of close to 2,000 diamond dealers, brokers and manufacturers. Conceived in 1931, we have since our beginning been located in New York City. Our members come from more than 30 different countries and import the overwhelming percentage of diamonds that enter the United States. Pursuant to our By-Laws, we early recognized that a key goal of our organization is ``to cooperate with governmental agencies.'' This statement is presented with that goal in mind. The tragic consequences of the use of diamonds to finance civil wars in Africa, particularly Angola, have in recent months received considerable public and private attention both in the United States and worldwide. The focus of the articles, discussions and meetings on this subject is that diamonds have been used by rebels to pay for weapons in Angola, Sierra Leone and Congo, weapons that have led to the deaths and amputations of limbs of tens of thousands of innocent victims of these conflicts. Two years ago the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution that prohibited the purchase of diamonds from UNITA forces in Angola. Endorsed by the United States, these sanctions prohibit nations from the ``direct or indirect import from Angola'' to their territory of all diamonds that are not controlled through certificates provided by Angola's recognized government. The resolution's basic objective was that without funds generated by such sales the rebel forces led by Jonas Savimbi would no longer be able to continue the campaign of terror and rebellion against Angola's government. Since then, the UN Security Council Committee on Angola, chaired by Canadian Ambassador Robert Fowler, issued a report in March 2000 which found that the UN sanctions are frequently violated. According to the UN report, UNITA's military activities are sustained by its ``ability to sell rough diamonds for cash and to exchange rough diamonds for weapons.'' The investigation of UNITA'S diamond sales led by the former Swedish ambassador to Angola implicated the presidents of Togo and Burkina Faso as involved in the illegal trading operations with Mr. Savimbi's forces. It also concluded that Bulgarians were shipping arms to UNITA and that the Antwerp diamond industry played a role in the illegal trade. Several months before the March report, Ohio Congressman Tony Hall, a person long devoted to human rights causes and combating world hunger, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives the ``Consumer Access to a Responsible Accounting of Trade Act (CARAT)'' a bill mandating that any diamond ``sold in the United States'' that retails for more than $100 be accompanied by a certificate stating the name of the country in which the diamond was mined. According to the Congressman this would encourage consumers to ``participate in a global human rights campaign'' thus removing the financial support for some of Africa's civil wars. We feel that Congressman Hall's bill has the worthwhile purpose of protecting innocent people caught in brutal internal conflicts. Each of us has seen photos of the frightened victims of these conflicts, victims who may have been killed or had limbs amputated simply because they were in the path of maniacal, well-armed thugs (often teenagers). All of us deplore these acts of terrorism. Unfortunately for the innocent victims of these ongoing conflicts, the Hall proposal, however well-intentioned, would neither lead to the successful implementation of the UN sanctions nor end the ongoing civil wars and the concomitant deaths of innocent civilians. Rather, it would harm the diamond industry worldwide and have serious negative implications for stable and developing countries in southern Africa. Even if enacted and implemented, the Congressman's proposal would have but negligible impact on the UN sanctions. Diamonds are fungible and tens of millions of them are mined annually. No organization in existence today is qualified to certify that a stone sold in Rwanda was not mined in Angola, two nations which share a porous border several hundred miles long. Furthermore, rampant corruption and fraud easily leads to the fraudulent certification of stones from rebel areas-- something which Ambassador Fowler's report documents. Moreover, mandating that certificates accompany all diamonds ``retailing'' for more than $100 would mean that tens of millions of certificates would have to be issued annually. The record keeping for this task would be monumental and costly and would inevitably harm the retail jewelry industry which is dominated by small businesses. It is also important to understand that De Beers, the company that sells most of the world's rough diamonds reported that it no longer purchases any from conflict areas. In March it announced that it would henceforth provide written guarantees that its diamonds do not originate with African rebels. While there is some discussion of the development of a technology to come up with identifying marks or fingerprints to determine particular countries of origin of diamonds, no such technology is currently available. Indeed, even those involved in this research and development report that at best success is years away. Furthermore, even if country of origin was determinable, it would still not indicate whether a diamond comes from mines in government-held territory or from rebel-held mines. In fact the proposed legislation would penalize and have a harmful impact on legitimate and responsible African producers of diamonds such as Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. In these countries diamonds provide the engine for economic growth and account for a substantial percentage of the gross domestic product. Diamond production has been so successful for Botswana that it now has one of the most rapidly growing economies in the world. In South Africa, former President Nelson Mandela has expressed concern that his nation's vital diamond industry is not damaged by ``an international campaign.'' Surely, the U.S. Congress does not wish to retard economic development in friendly developing countries because it is fueled by diamonds. In fact, this ``unintended consequence'' would follow from this legislation. The American diamond and jewelry industry is united in both its abhorrence of terrorism in the Congo, Sierra Leone and Angola and in support of the UN sanctions regarding the latter. To successfully keep conflict diamonds out of the world diamond market we believe the problem must be attacked at the source. We feel that the efforts of the international community should be concentrated on the small number of firms and individuals who are actively engaged in helping illicit diamonds enter the mainstream of the legitimate diamond commerce. The international community has already achieved significant positive results with its efforts to cast light on firms, individuals and countries involved in trading with the rebel forces. While the portability of diamonds means that some stones from conflict areas will continue to enter the world economy, a greater international effort can reduce this to a minimum. Members of the organized diamond community, including the close to 2000 member Diamond Dealers Club in the United States, strongly oppose the sale of diamonds that do not comply with the UN resolution. Indeed, in July 1999, months before the current media attention, the DDC's Board of Directors went on record in support of the UN sanctions prohibiting our members from trading in diamonds which do not comply with the position taken by the UN and the U.S. government. While the above is important in preventing the sale of unlicensed diamonds, to be truly effective we believe it is necessary to initiate a proactive approach, one that will encourage stability, accountability and transparency. More specifically, we must establish a direct relationship between African diamond mining nations and the American diamond cutting industry. This means that the American diamond industry should be able to deal directly on a business-to- business basis with African diamond producing nations to purchase stones that have been licensed for export by legitimate governments. In doing so we would pay the world market price, a price which is substantially above the payments received for diamonds that are now being used to contribute to the internal conflicts. One other major advantage of this proposal is that the transparency and accountability which is the hallmark of the American industry's style of operation surely would lead to a decline in corruption and other illegal activities. This would result in fewer stones sold through either ``leakage'' or other unauthorized sources as well as reduce the corruption that is often associated with diamond commerce in several producing nations. The benefit to African diamond producing nations is clear. With U.S. government involvement, the American diamond industry would also benefit since the establishment of a direct pipeline would play a significant role in overcoming the current shortage of rough diamonds. In turn, this would revitalize our cutting and polishing industry. Ultimately, we believe that our proposal represents a win- win situation for the American diamond industry and the diamond producing nations of Africa. Instead of diamonds being used to finance internal conflicts and the death and destruction of innocent civilians, they would become--as is already the case in the other African nations--a major opportunity for gainful employment for tens of thousands of people and a major source for economic development in the diamond producing nations of Africa. At the same time, diamonds would strengthen the American industry, thereby providing new opportunities for employment, and tax revenues.