HR398 Genocide recognition

[Guest]

What do you mean, Berj?

[Guest]

My congressman, Johnny Isakson, has sent the following letter in reply to the urge to support the passage of HR398.

 

“Dear xxxx,

 

Thank you for contacting my office regarding House Resolution 398. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

 

As you know, the resolution, introduced by Rep. Radanovich (R-CA), would clearly establish the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide by sending strong message that genocide and ethnic cleansing must not go unchecked. It would also continue America’s commitment to the people of Armenia. In addition, it would provide for the training of diplomatic personnel to more effectively respond to issues relating to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

 

I certainly believe that we must strongly condemn ethnic cleansing wherever it occurs. In order to prevent future crimes against humanity, we must not forget the tragic events of 1915 and 1923, and America’s response. At the same time, we must be mindful of the contributions that other nations have made to keeping peace in the region. I am confident that our State Department and the Administration will be able to conduct foreign policy accordingly. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in my mind should this issue come before the full House.

 

Thank you again for your ideas and input. If I may ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Sincerely,

Johnny Isakson "

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited October 02, 2000).]

[Guest]

I mean they are trying to push Turkey and Russia against eachother.

 

[This message has been edited by Berj (edited October 02, 2000).]

[Guest]

Media Advisory

10/2/00

 

COMMITTEE VOTE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

RESOLUTION TO BE WEBCAST LIVE

 

-- Visit http://www.house.gov/international_relations

 

The House International Relations Committee has indicated that its

continued consideration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution

(H.Res.596) will be webcast live on its website at 10:00 am

(Eastern Time) on Tuesday, October 3rd.

http://www.house.gov/international_relations

 

The Committee is scheduled to debate and vote on the measure. The

cybercast will also be archived at the Committee's website for

later viewing.

 

 

Members of the H. Res. 398 Committee include:

 

Apostolic Exarchate for Armenian Catholics

Armenian Assembly of America

Armenian Bar Association

Armenian Evangelical World Council

Armenian General Benevolent Union

Armenian Missionary Association of America

Armenian National Committee of America

Armenian Relief Society of North America

Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - East

Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - West

Knights of Vartan

Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - East

Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - West

[Guest]

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS

Congressional Hearings

Sept. 28, 2000

 

House International Relations Committee Holds Markup on H.Res. 596,

Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide

LIST OF SPEAKERS

 

GILMAN:

Committee on International Relations meets today in open session.

Meeting will come to order. Members, please take their seats.

 

Committee is meeting today on notice to take up several legislative

items. We'll first consider H.Res. 596, relating to the way the foreign

policy of our nation reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity

relating to the Armenian genocide.

 

Chair lays the resolution before the committee.

 

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

 

 

CLERK:

H.Res. 596, a resolution calling upon the president to ensure that the

foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and

sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and

genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian

genocide and for other purposes.

 

 

GILMAN:

Without objection, the first reading of the resolution will be dispensed

with. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble text of the

resolution in that order for amendment.

 

 

CLERK:

Resolve Section one, short title. This resolution may be cited as the

"affirmation of the United States record on the Armenian genocide"

resolution.

 

 

GILMAN:

Without objection, the resolution is considered to having been read and

is open for amendment at any point.

 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich, the

sponsor of the resolution, to introduce it to the committee.

 

Mr. Radanovich?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

 

I do have about a four-minute video I'd like to play before the hearing,

if there might be no objection.

 

 

GILMAN:

Is there objection?

 

 

BURTON:

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman...

 

 

GILMAN:

It'll be part of the gentleman's time.

 

Yes, Mr. Burton?

 

 

BURTON:

I'm reserving the right to object. I was in consultation with my staff.

What was the...

 

 

GILMAN:

Will the gentleman repeat his request?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Yes. It's been requested that we have a four-minute video that we'd like

to play before the markup, if I may?

 

 

BURTON:

I have no objection.

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman has made a unanimous consent request. Is there any

objection?

 

If not, gentlemen, may proceed, but, bear in mind, it's going to be

taken from your time.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Would the gentleman like to speak on the measure while we're waiting for

the equipment to be put in place?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

I'd be happy to.

 

Mr. Chairman, today I'm introducing a new bill regarding the affirmation

of the U.S. record on the Armenian genocide.

 

As the sponsor of this resolution, I have carefully followed all of the

testimony and communications from proponents and opponents. I note that...

 

(VIDEOTAPE PRESENTATION)

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Radanovich?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for bringing up this bill today.

 

I am introducing a new bill regarding the affirmation of the U.S. record

on the Armenian genocide. As the sponsor of this resolution, I have

carefully followed all of the testimony and communications from proponents

and opponents. And I note that some members have expressed concern with the

training component of this former bill, House Resolution 398, specifically

the complexity of implementing the clause.

 

I also note that during the subcommittee hearing, Ambassador Grossman

testified that the Foreign Service Institute already includes the Armenian

genocide in its training program. This was later confirmed by a State

Department spokesman. Therefore, taking into account the concerns of some of

my colleagues and the statements of the department, and with the support of

Chairman Smith, I submit this new bill.

 

All references to training have been removed, and I trust that this

change will enjoy the support of this committee and will also make expedited

floor consideration possible.

 

H.Res. 398 enjoyed the bipartisan support of some 140 members, and I

rest assured that H.Res. 596 maintains the intent of my original bill. The

new resolution enjoys the support of the speaker, the House minority whip,

the chairman and ranking minority member of this committee, as well as the

chairman and ranking minority member of the International Operations and

Human Rights Subcommittee. I thank all for their support and cooperation.

 

 

GILMAN:

Gentleman's time has expired. I'm going to have to keep a tight time

control, since we have 10 measures and will be interrupted by the

proceedings on the floor. We want to get to you today.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman, I would request that my statement...

 

 

GILMAN:

Without objection, the full statement may be made part of the record.

 

Mr. Burton?

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman, first of all...

 

 

GILMAN:

Before recognizing Mr. Burton, I -- Mr. Gejdenson is recognized in

proper order.

 

 

GEJDENSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I join with, I think, the majority of my colleagues in urging their

support for this resolution. It's clear that these kinds of acts didn't end

in the early 1900s or in the 1940s, but we face them today in many places in

the world. Not but a few days ago in this hearing room, Mr. Royce had a

hearing on what was happening in West Africa, seeing children with their

arms cut off and legs cut off, ears cut off, and many others killed.

 

I think that our action here today has to speak very directly on this

outrage against humanity that occurred so long ago but is still not

recognized by all too many. It's clear that this is not directed against the

modern Turkish government, except for the modern Turkish government makes

the mistake that it feels it needs to defend the actions of a predecessor

regime.

 

Now, I would suggest to the Turkish government that they take their

lesson from the German government that recognize the mistakes of the past of

the country, and that now moves forward and holds its head high among the

civilized nations of the world, who participate in trying to make this a

world with less barbarism in it.

 

The vote here today is not a vote against Turkey. It's a vote to

recognize history and a vote that clearly states that these American people

that we represent will not let history be forgotten.

 

 

GEJDENSON:

So many have warned us about forgetting history and the consequences of

that. What we've just seen on television has been told to us by many

survivors and their families.

 

There are always debates about the complexities of an issue, but what is

clear here is that innocent civilians in large numbers were massacred and

starved to death. Our own officials at the time recognized this. The

historic evidence is clear. We need to move forward and pass this

resolution.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank the gentleman.

 

Mr. Burton?

 

 

BURTON:

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have watched that Peter Jennings report

before. And I think anybody that sees that would say that their hearts go

out to the people who suffered those kinds of atrocities.

 

But I hate to think that the Congress of the United States is going to

be swayed in any way by watching, violins in the background, when somebody

talks. I mean, the lady that was talking, could you hear the violins in the

background? I mean, that was designed -- this is what we call advocacy

journalism where they're trying to put forth a position on an issue by

swaying the audience with what they see.

 

Now, there's no question that genocides occur, and there's no question

that a lot of people died in that conflict. But the fact is, I hope nobody's

swayed just by that report.

 

Now just let me say this, 3 million Turks, 3 million Turks died, many of

them in what's called the genocide during the conflict we're talking about

in 1915 through 1920. And there's no question that Armenians died as well,

but the fact is, this happened 85 years ago.

 

There is a divergence of opinion. I've debated this issue over the past

18 years. We've gone to the floor with huge copies of books, volumes of

books on both sides that explain what happened. And there's a divergence of

opinion among historians about what actually happened back then and whether

or not there was an Armenian genocide or a Turkish genocide.

 

And the fact is, because of the difference of opinion, the Turks have

never said that this actually happened. They haven't owned up to it. And I

don't they should.

 

Now the second thing I'd like to say is this: Turkey has been an ally of

ours through thick and thin. During the Iraqi war, we used their bases to

stop Saddam Hussein. We might not have been successful had it not been for

their help. They lost billions of dollars by cutting off the oil supplies

that were coming from Iraq into the coffers of the rest of the world -- into

the tanks of the rest of the world. And they lost billions that they've

never recovered.

 

They've been an ally of ours time and time again. This is a major issue.

It's all over the front pages over there in Turkey. And what are we going to

do today? We're going to kick our friends right in the teeth one more time

about something that allegedly happened 85 years ago. In war, horrible

things happen.

 

I'm going to talk about an amendment in just a minute, Mr. Chairman,

which talks about the Armenian forces and what they've done in the last 10

years to the Azerbaijanis. They forced people out of their villages.

There've been massacres. But nobody's talking about that. We're going back

85 years.

 

So all I want to say is that I protest this. And the other thing I want

to say is that this bill was going to be jointly referred to my committee. I

went to the parliamentarian and asked if it -- because of the retraining

mechanism in this bill, if I had jurisdiction. They said yes. And it was

going to be referred to my committee.

 

So what happens after it goes through the subcommittee? They changed the

bill in the middle of the night, with the help of leaders on both sides of

the aisle. And now they're taking that section out so I won't have joint

referral.

 

So I want to tell you, this thing's on rails. I think everybody knows

it's on rails. It's going to fly through this committee and it's going to go

to the floor. But I want you to know, I object strenuously to the tactics

that are being used and for kicking our friend for years and years right in

the teeth when they've been with us day in and day out, year in and year

out.

 

Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Burton.

 

Mr. Lantos?

 

 

LANTOS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Mr. Chairman, as the only member of Congress ever elected who is a

survivor of a holocaust, I yield to no one in my concern for human rights

past and present. But I think it's appropriate to ask, as we deal with this

issue in the waning hours of this congressional session, as to why this

issue is before us today.

 

We all know why this issue is before us. It is before us because a

member of Congress, who is in a very close congressional race, persuaded the

speaker to put this on the agenda for political reasons. We are not dealing

with a human rights issue, we are dealing with a partisan political issue

which has been defused by the fact that the Democrat in that race also

supports this legislation, which enables us now to deal with the merits of

the issue rather than with the politics of the case. This is not a partisan

issue anymore, so we can deal with the merits.

 

Now, there is little doubt of the incredible amount of suffering of the

Armenian people during this period. And in recognition of that suffering,

the president of the United States annually issues a powerful statement

recognizing that suffering and paying tribute to the victims. This is as it

should be.

 

But of course, serious statesmanship always compels us to look at all

the ramifications of legislative measures. And one of the ramifications, of

course, the U.S. national interest, not 84 years ago, but in the year 2000.

It is self-evident to every single member of this committee and of the whole

Congress that U.S. national interest compels us to vote against this measure

at this time.

 

There is a long list of reasons why our NATO ally, at this point, should

not be humiliated. It will be counterproductive to Turkish- Armenian

relations. It will be counterproductive to Turkish-Greek relations. It

certainly will be counterproductive to Turkish-U.S. relations. It will be

welcomed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein will be the prime beneficiary of

this legislation.

 

And before my colleagues take the politically easy road, they should ask

themselves whether in fact by taking the politically convenient road, they

really want to benefit Saddam Hussein against whom our policies could not be

pursued with anywhere near the effectiveness without Turkish support.

 

My feeling is, Mr. Chairman, that there is always room for honoring and

recognizing past tragedies. But the manner and the mechanism needs to be

cast in the context of U.S. current national interest. This piece of

legislation, at this moment in U.S.-Turkish relations, is singularly

counterproductive to our national interest.

 

I am all in favor of the president's annual declaration. I have spoken

on countless occasions memorializing this tragedy. I will not be part to

diminishing U.S. national interests to participate in what was intended to

be a political ploy in a congressional district in California. That

political ploy has now been defused by both the Democrat and the Republican

favoring this legislation. Therefore, the merits of the legislation is now

before us.

 

On the merits, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

 

 

SMITH:

Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank Mr. Lantos.

 

Mr. Smith?

 

 

SMITH:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman, on September 12th I received a letter -- and I'll just quote

it briefly.

 

"I'm writing you to urge you, Chairman Smith and members of the

International Operations Subcommittee, to speak and vote in favor of the

Armenian genocide resolution. This resolution is to come on Thursday,

September 14th," which it did. "It is my hope," he writes, "that the House

will go on record calling upon the president to make sure that all U.S.

officials dealing with human rights are educated about the memory of the

Armenian genocide. And also urging the president to incorporate, into his

April 24th address, a statement calling on our nation to remember the

Armenian massacres. It is crucial that the president provide appropriate

materials," and he goes on and on.

 

That was signed by Eli Wiesel, the quintessential humanitarian and

Holocaust survivor, asking that this resolution be passed into law -- or be

approved by the House of Representatives as quickly as possible.

 

I don't know if Eli Wiesel is a Democrat or a Republican. I have no

idea. But the humanitarian who I think speaks with incredible, impeccable

standing has said, "Pass this resolution which has been introduced by Mr.

Radanovich, Mr. Rogan and Mr. Bonior, the gentleman from Michigan."

 

Mr. Chairman, in 1915 there were about 2 million Armenians living in

what was then the Ottoman Empire, in a region they had inhabited for 2,500

years. By 1923, well over 90 percent of these Armenians had disappeared.

Most of them, as many as 1.5 million, were dead. The remainder had been

forced into exile.

 

The United States ambassador to Turkey at the time, Henry Morgenthal

(ph), accused the government of the empire of a campaign of race

extermination. The British government, French and Russian governments

accused the young Turk government of a crime against humanity. Even the

government of the Republic of Turkey, the successor state, tried and

convicted a number of high-ranking young Turk officials for what the Turkish

government called "the massacre and destruction of the Armenians."

 

When the term genocide was invented in 1944, it's author, Rafael Lemkin

(ph) illustrated the term by saying, "It was the sort of thing Hitler did to

the Jews and the Turks did to the Armenians."

 

Unfortunately, memories seem to have faded. The government of the

Republic of Turkey and some of those who apologized for it, or at least

tried to downgrade the idea that it was a genocide, suggest that it never

even happened.

 

I would just point out, when we heard at our hearing just a few days ago

from Ambassador Aktan, he made that point -- and I just think this doesn't

pass the straight-face test -- Turks have never harbored any

anti-Armenianism. I mean, if we want to believe that -- the Turks

routinely -- I've had four hearings and briefings, in the Commission of

Security and Cooperation, on current use of torture in Turkey.

 

Every time we wanted to schedule a hearing and talk about what was going

on in Turkey, there was a mammoth amount -- an enormous amount of protest

about even having the hearing, because it might injure this delicate balance

between ourselves and Turkey. We need to speak the truth to power.

 

You know, you look at the country reports and human rights practices

today, not 84, 85 years ago. Human rights monitors say that security

officials increasingly use methods that do not leave physical traces -- this

is in talk about torture -- such as beating with weighted bags instead of

clubs and fists. Commonly employed methods of torture reported by Human

Rights Foundation treatment centers include systematic beatings, stripping

and blindfolding, exposure to extreme cold or high pressure, cold water

hoses, electric shocks, beating on the soles of the feet and genitalia,

hanging by the arms, food and sleep -- and you get the idea. And it goes on

and on. That's current and that's today.

 

Yes, some in Turkey -- and thank God some in Turkey have spoken about

against that kind of abuse. But now we have a situation where the

overwhelming body of evidence clearly points to a genocide -- and I remind

members, read the genocide convention. "Whole or in part, the

extermination -- the ending of a group of people." If I don't -- this

clearly is what has happened. And I would hope that we would be very clear

in our statement and not shrink from calling a genocide a genocide.

 

At our hearing, Dr. Melson, from Purdue University, testified, and I

quote, "The Armenian genocide and the Holocaust are the quintessential

instances of total genocide in the 20th century." He testified, "In both

instances, a deliberate attempt was made by the government of the day to

destroy, in part or in whole, an ethno- religious community of ancient group

that had existed as a segment of the government's own society. In both

instances, genocide was perpetrated after the fall of an old regime and

during the reign of a revolutionary movement that was motivated by an

ideology of social, political and cultural transformation. And in both

cases, genocide occurred in the (inaudible) of world wars."

 

 

GILMAN:

Gentleman's time has expired.

 

 

SMITH:

I urge support for this resolution. And I do have several other

instances backing up this up. And I do hope that members will back Mr.

Radanovich in his resolution.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Sherman?

 

 

SHERMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

This resolution is supported by 126 Holocaust scholars, including Eli

Wiesel.

 

The facts are obvious, if you just look at current demographics. For

2,500 years, Armenians lived in eastern Anatolia and now they're gone. Are

we to assume that they just vanished? The fact is that over 1 million, 1.5

million were killed in the first genocide of the 20th century. No wonder our

subcommittee passed this resolution and this full committee should do so as

well.

 

But let me confront what I think is the most repeated and least

acceptable argument against the resolution, and that is that it is

inconsistent with America's current geopolitical convenience.

 

Yes, Turkey is a NATO ally and a powerful one at that. And yes it played

a role in Desert Storm and Desert Shield. But let us look at how powerful

Germany is, a NATO ally that has played a critical role in winning the Cold

War and in winning Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Today the German

government recognizes the Holocaust, but what about 10 or 20 or 30 years

from now? A new government may arise in Germany that demands that, for

U.S.-German relations, we march down from this hall and dismantle the

Holocaust Museum brick by brick.

 

If we're going to ignore the Armenian genocide because it meets our

geopolitical needs today, then will we tear down the Holocaust Museum

tomorrow because some future German government or some future Austrian

government insists upon it?

 

I think the power of America is not in whether it moves pawns and pieces

on the chess board of the world, but whether we are respected for our

commitment to human rights and our commitment to ideals. And if we reject

this resolution because it's bad for basing rights, then what credibility do

we have in the world?

 

And if those who say it is important to our geopolitical convenience

that we ignore this genocide vote against this resolution, then are we also

prepared to whitewash the Holocaust if, in some future decade, that becomes

politically convenient or helpful for basing rights or for our relationship

with some NATO country?

 

I think that history speaks for itself. And we do America proud if we

stand up for human rights and for what really happened.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Sherman.

 

Mr. Bereuter?

 

 

BEREUTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, colleagues.

 

We see the emergence of the Armenian genocide resolution from time to

time. And in part -- and I emphasize in part -- it is driven by California

politics.

 

Over the last 20 years, this committee, unfortunately, has evolved to

the point where we focus an extraordinary amount of our time and effort on

condemning and commending by resolution instead of being focused on our

authorizing responsibilities. I don't think that much that will be said here

today by members will influence this vote one way or another. Hope springs

eternal that it might, but I don't think that's the case.

 

I'm fortunate to follow our colleague from California, Mr. Lantos, who

speaks with tragic, cogent authority on a subject like this. Few people who

will argue against this resolution argue that there was no genocidal action.

The only question is, who and how much and which sides and who is

responsible?

 

I think we need to be reminded always about what our responsibilities

are to the national interest. I'm sure all of you have been contacted by

people from the State Department, the Defense Department, the national

security advisers, not only of this administration, but the Carter

administration, the Bush administration, the Reagan administration, saying

that the passage of this resolution is very much, very much contrary to our

national interest. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, has explained

very eloquently some of the many reasons why that is the case.

 

Sometimes I think there should be a big banner across the back of this

room saying -- reminding us with a question, "What is our national

interest?" so that we're focused on it time and again.

 

This is not a matter of geopolitical convenience I would say to the

gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, this is a matter of our national

interest. We are being advised by the best minds that have served this

country over the last 20 plus years that the passage of this resolution is

not in our national interest. Therefore, I will not vote for it.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

 

Mr. Rothman?

 

 

ROTHMAN:

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the ranking member

for bringing this measure before our committee today. This is not an easy

decision we make today.

 

I am extraordinarily mindful of the role that Turkey plays in securing

America's interests around the world. And I want to begin my remarks by

thanking the Republic of Turkey for all that they do for our country and for

all of our allies around the world. There's no question that Turkey is an

important friend of the United States and a strategic partner in NATO.

 

But we are here today not to talk about modern Turkey. We're not here to

talk about the importance of Turkey to our military alliance. We are asked a

question today: Do we acknowledge the truth or not? Do we acknowledge the

truth or not?

 

Now maybe many of us would rather have not had that question asked of

us, but we are now confronted with it. And certainly when it comes to the

issue of genocide, the question becomes probably a little easier, certainly

for those of us who remember our history and who have, perhaps, a personal

stake in never forgetting history.

 

We're here today to mark up a resolution that honors the memory of 1.5

million human beings. Should we do that? Should we recognize the truth of

their slaughter, or should we say it didn't happen?

 

I'd like to read from a letter that Robert J. Lifton wrote to

Congressman Smith on September 13th -- my colleague from New Jersey who I'm

proud to sit with.

 

And by the way, let me say this: I have read everything submitted to me

from every side, from the Turkish government, those who support the Turkish

government, and all those who support this resolution.

 

Dr. Lifton wrote, "Genocide is ignored at a terrible peril. Whether in

the case of Nazi genocide of Jews during the 1940s, the Cambodian genocide

of the late 1970s or the Turkish genocide of the Armenians in 1915,

confronting the causes and human effects of such systematic mass killing is

crucial to the world at large. The failure to confront these events

contributes to a false consciousness to the effect that murderers did not

really murder, victims were not really killed and all evidence of such

killing should be ignored, glossed over. This kind of psychic numbing

encourages, indeed invites, repetitions of the original crime.

 

"When Hitler asked the rhetorical question to his S.S. generals, 'Who,

after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?', he was here

invoking a deadly dynamic in which unopposed genocide begets new genocide."

 

 

ROTHMAN:

Resolution 398 interrupts that dangerous dynamic and asks, instead, that

we and our diplomatic representatives acknowledge and learn from the events

of history, however painful. In this way we serve the historical truth, our

own integrity as a nation and the overall human future.

 

If we believe that unrecognized genocide contributes to future

genocides, don't we have an obligation to assure that our diplomatic staff

and those who advice our leaders, learn about this history, learn about this

genocide?

 

This is an excruciatingly difficult choice that we're asked to make

today. I understand that, my friends and colleagues.

 

Turkey is an extremely important ally and friend of the United States,

but this has nothing do with whether we acknowledge that fact. It has to do

with whether we will speak the truth or say the truth -- say that these

events never occurred.

 

I'm not prepared to deny the truth, certainly not to deny the truth of

this slaughter of 1.5 million people. And I will be supporting this

resolution.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Rothman.

 

Mr. Ballenger?

 

 

BALLENGER:

Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this room recognizes that there

may -- there probably was a genocide that occurred, according to this

resolution we have here. But let me ask a question. How many genocides --

how many resolutions do we need in this committee to go back over genocides?

I mean, Rwanda, Tibet under Red China, Russia and the Kulaks (ph), Cambodia,

Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In each of these is something that most people

would recognize.

 

And I have one that actually occurred in my own home state of North

Carolina. I don't know how many of you remember the Trail of Tears, where

the Cherokees were forced by Andrew Jackson, with an army, to move all the

way -- the ones that could move alive, from all the way from North Carolina

to Oklahoma.

 

I think it's -- genocides are terrible, and I realize that basically no

body wants to recognize that we did all these various and sundry things, but

we've done them, many times. And I think we're being somewhat hypocritical

to pick out one amongst many.

 

In my own considered opinion, the Turks are our friends. They have been

our allies through the years. And in my considered opinion, we need to at

least avoid embarrassing that government, which was not even in existence

when this occurred. And so I plan on voting against it -- the resolution.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Will the gentleman yield?

 

 

BALLENGER:

Whom am I talking to?

 

Oh, yes, sure. Fire away.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.

 

I just wanted to state that during the workings out of this previous

bill, the offer was made to those that had opposed the bill to not only

includes the Armenian genocide, but other genocides that had happened

throughout history and there was no take up on that offer. So we're open to

including that type of language in the bill, but nothing came forward.

 

I yield back.

 

 

(UNKNOWN)

Well, nobody asked me. I'd be glad...

 

 

BURTON:

Would the gentleman yield?

 

 

BALLENGER:

Sure.

 

 

BURTON:

I did talk about that. I talked about a number of genocides. And I have

some amendments today, which will go to that issue. And I hope the gentleman

and everybody else will support those as an addition to the bill.

 

Thank, the gentleman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.

 

Mr. Davis?

 

 

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I'd like to express some concerns about the resolution and also offer

them in the form of questions to those members of this committee that are

trying to encourage some of us who have not made up their minds to vote for

the resolution.

 

The first very basic question, in my mind, in this resolution is what

are we intending to accomplish by adopting this resolution? I think it's

fair to say that every member of this committee stipulates that what

occurred in history was a terrible thing for which the Turkish government

and its leaders share immense culpability. It seems to me today, that a lot

of the debate centers over the choice of words and the label "genocide."

 

The only specific reference in the bill as to what we intend to

accomplish are contained in the declaration of policy. And I haven't heard

anything to convince me that this is not already the policy of the United

States government, as far as the president's decision to speak on April 24

to condemn what occurred, as far as the information that's provided to our

foreign service about what occurred.

 

I know there's legislation pending in the California legislature that's

intended to set up a compensation system, and, perhaps, that's ultimately

we're debating here today. And if that's the case, let's go ahead and

discuss it openly and honestly.

 

But I would just conclude by saying that I join those members who

support and oppose the resolution in condemning what occurred, but I remain

perplexed exactly what we're trying to accomplish today. And without a clear

and convincing end to that, I do not intend to vote in favor of this

resolution.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Davis.

 

Mr. Royce?

 

 

ROYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I would like to express my strong support for this resolution and I want

to commend its author, Mr. Radanovich.

 

And I want to address one objection, in particular that we've heard and

that is the issue of, will this undermine our strategic interests? It's been

said that passing this resolution could hurt our relationship with our good

ally, Turkey. And Turkey is an important ally and there's no doubt that.

It's strategic, in terms of that alliance. And I'm glad that Turkey has

taken the action it has to support America.

 

But I think we need to think about what it means to be an ally.

Underlining some of the statements that we've heard is the notion that

Turkey is America's ally and it has taken these actions out of some sense of

gratitude. Well, the fact is, that nations are in NATO or are otherwise

allies with the United States for one reason and one reason alone: because

it suits their interests.

 

International politics runs deeper than flattery. It's about nations

acting on their own interests. And we're fortunate enough to share strategic

interests with Turkey. That is why Turkey is an ally.

 

Now, it's been suggested that the Turkish government will have a harder

time managing public opinion and maintaining its commitment to NATO if we

pass this resolution.

 

So it's a sense of the House resolution on a genocide committed 85 years

ago by a previous government -- we don't even mention Turkey in this

resolution, we say "the Ottoman Empire" -- is going to undermine the

strategic interests that we have with Turkey and have had for 50 years. I

don't think that's true. I'm confident that Turkey and our security

relationship is stronger than that.

 

And for those members who may wonder why risk it, why pass this

resolution if there's the slightest risk of undermining our relations with

Turkey, I'd say, because there is genocide denial in Turkey. That is what

this is about.

 

And there's another reason. We've heard it suggested that the extremists

in Turkey who would use this resolution to attack Turkey's relationship with

the United States, should we pass it, and might do so -- but there's another

way of looking at it. If the extremists who are the biggest deniers of the

Armenian genocide defeat this resolution, then we are siding with them.

 

Now, for some years, German-Americans have kept a running dialogue with

my father, because unfortunately he was at Dachau and took photographs,

which frankly are the most horrific pictures I've ever seen in my life of

people dead and half-dead. And they continue to insist that that holocaust

never occurred -- that that genocide never occurred. And every year there's

a new book out about how it never occurred.

 

And unfortunate for them, there's many people around, just as there are

Armenians around, whom I'm sure have talked to some of you about how they

survived this genocide; how, perhaps, they were the only one in their

village out of a village of a thousand people to have survived. For us to

aid those who deny a genocide is a mistake, my colleagues.

 

You know, three years ago, during debates on the foreign ops

appropriations bill, more than 300 members voted to withhold economic

assistance to Turkey until it acknowledged the genocide, but that provision

was removed in conference. That was 300 of us. We're not talking about

withholding economic aid here. We don't want to do that. We're not even

talking about Turkey. We're talking about a fact that occurred in the

Ottoman Empire. And we should go forward and for the record, be prepared to

say it. And that is my feeling.

 

 

SMITH:

Will the gentleman yield?

 

 

ROYCE:

I will certainly yield some time.

 

 

SMITH:

I thank my good friend for yielding.

 

And I think you've answered in part and maybe in whole, Mr. Davis'

question, a very legitimate question.

 

You know, at our hearing, Ambassador Aktan from Turkey said, "The

crucial question is why the Armenians, not content with the word 'tragedy'

or 'catastrophe,' insist on 'genocide'." It is because of this aggressive,

persistent, pervasive over the years effort to deny that a holocaust

actually occurred. And if you apply that, just lift it and apply it to the

Nazi Holocaust, which occurred in the Second World War -- this was in the

First -- you get the same kind of reaction. We need to call a holocaust a

holocaust.

 

And if you read the genocide convention by the UN: "Deliberately

inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its

physical destruction in whole or in part."

 

One of our witnesses -- and if the gentleman will continue yielding --

pointed out Dr. Smith, the professor of government for William and Mary --

that he says, as early as July of 1915 the German ambassador reported to

Berlin the Germans obviously were alive with the Ottoman Empire, and I

quote, "Turks began deportations from areas which now were not threatened by

invasions."

 

 

GILMAN:

Gentleman's time has expired.

 

Mr. Pomeroy?

 

 

POMEROY:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I commend my colleagues for their speeches. I think there've been some

very interesting comments made in the course of this hearing. And you might

think that we get together every week and try and unravel tragedies of the

20th century, evaluate carefully and consider these matters. In fact, we

don't operate like that at all.

 

This is a highly unusual forum that we're having today and I think it

behooves us to ask, what is going on here? Why are we doing this?

 

Well, I looked for some answer to that question in a memo written by the

Center for Security Policy. Now, the Center for Security Policy is a

Republican-leaning think tank in town -- among others included in this

outfit are former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. And they write

as follows -- and I'm going to offer this into the record of this hearing

this morning.

 

I quote, and I'm going to quote for the next few minutes reading from

it. "It is no secret that control of the 107th Congress hangs in the balance

as the days before the November election slips away. Speaker Dennis Hastert

and his colleagues have been in the unenviable position of having to accept

terms, from raising the minimum wage to new entitlement programs to busting

the budget gaps, that would have been unthinkable under other circumstances.

Whether their constituents will, come November, reward or punish legislators

at the polls for such behavior, remains to be unseen. What is far less

predictable, however, are the repercussions of allowing the strategy to

leach into the foreign policy arena.

 

"If the full House of Representatives approves an Armenian genocide

resolution scheduled to be marked-up today by House International Relations

Subcommittee, U.S. relations with Turkey will suffer serious and possible --

possibly irreparable harm."

 

I quote, continued from the memo. "There is little doubt that among the

repercussions will be the alienation of the pro-U.S. government in Turkey,

the undermining of support at home for its policies and the shot in the arm

for Turkey's anti-Western Islamic opposition.

 

"All the more regrettable, insofar as it -- this is all the more

regrettable because it should not fall to the Congress to adjudicate the

arcane and bitterly debated question of whether the undisputed murder of

hundreds of thousands of Armenians was essentially a planned and systematic

act of the Ottoman-Turk government that would therefore meet the definition

of genocide, or alternatively was at the result of widespread by

uncoordinated ethnic warfare.

 

"It is hard to believe any of those legislators who will shortly be

asked to render judgment on this matter have done their homework. The

speaker feels impelled to take such a course out of an understandable desire

to help a valued, endangered colleague, Jim Rogan of California, whose role

as an impeachment manager has made his defeat this November a priority for

the Clinton team and its allies. Saving Mr. Rogan takes on an additional

importance as the two parties battle for every single seat in the highly

contested and increasingly desperate struggle for control of Congress.

 

"As impelling as Speaker Hastert's considerations are for pursuing this

Armenian genocide initiative, they risk a potentially serious, if gratuitous

and unnecessary, rupture with one of its most important strategic partners,

Turkey. A stable, secure Turkey, closely tied to the West, is an

indispensable counterweight to these and a number of other worrisome

developments. It behooves the House Republican leadership, therefore, to

find ways to secure a renewed mandate without jeopardizing vital national

interests."

 

Now, if this is not in our national interests, as some experts, again,

from a Republican-based think tank, would have us understand, then let us

consider whether it is in the interests of the parties themselves, the

parties in the region that live together, that live side by side and face

the ongoing risk from inflamed circumstances.

 

Speaking to this point is the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul. A key --

virtually the spiritual leader of the Armenian community continuing to

reside in Turkey. Some would say he's essentially a captive in Turkey and

therefore not to be trusted. Others would say he's a critical figure,

representing the -- one of the leaders of the Armenian minority in Turkey

today.

 

He writes, "It is unhelpful to see resolutions affecting Armenian and

Turkish relations adopted by third-party parliaments." It could be no doubts

he's talking about us here. "However, it is our expectation that this sort

of interference will be sustained as long as the current unsatisfactory

status quo prevails and the two parties do not engage in fruitful dialogue

to resolve significant issues." Good point.

 

"We do not think that the third-party parliament action is a positive

substitute for dialogue. Above all, utmost caution should be exercised so

that this issue is not exploited for the benefit of a variety of political

interests.

 

"Nor do we think the present situation is helpful at all. On the

contrary, it is harmful to Turkish and Armenian relations. Any undertaking

which hinders dialogue, peace and friendship is regrettable. We pray for the

Armenian and the Turkish peoples."

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman's time has expired.

 

Mr. Brady?

 

 

BRADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

First, let me -- in regard to Mr. Pomeroy's remarks, my Democratic

colleague's complaining about election-year politics is like Madonna

complaining about promiscuity. There's not much substance there.

 

And, secondly, let me tell you, while I oppose this resolution, I

greatly respect Mr. Radanovich and I believe this is something he feels

strongly about in his heart.

 

The Republic of Turkey has been one of our strongest allies. They've

fought with us in every major challenge. They're the only Muslim secular

democracy with a free market economy. They have an excellent relationship

with Israel in which it has overlapping security, economic and political

interests.

 

Here, the question is not do we acknowledge the truth, but which

historic version do we endorse? In reading the materials and listening to

the disputed testimony and recognizing that the archives of Russia, France

and Armenia remain closed today, I don't feel qualified, as a member of this

committee, to endorse a version. This is an issue that the historians should

address, not members of Congress.

 

And as to Mr. Bereuter's question, "Is this in the U.S. interest? Is

this in American interest?" he is correct. This does not contribute to peace

and stability in that region. On the contrary, it harms us.

 

As the Armenian patriarch said, this is harmful to Turkish and Armenian

relationships, this does not make this region more stable and it is not a

positive substitute for dialogue between the two nations.

 

Finally, recent news stories have alerted us that the tension between

Iraq and Kuwait is increasing once again. I think it would be important to

remember that the last time a similar resolution was considered in Congress,

it was in February 1990. Senator Byrd strongly opposed it on the grounds it

would damage our relationship with Turkey and U.S. security interests.

Several months later, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and we relied on the Turkish

government to cut off the Iraqi oil pipeline, station Turkish troops on the

border with Iraq and to permit the use of their bases. Had the resolution

passed in the Senate, no Turkish government would have been able to be as

forthcoming as it was in 1990. None of us know the security threats we will

face in the future.

 

I recognize this resolution is important to our Armenian friends, but

this is not in the American interest, which is our job and obligation as a

committee.

 

And I yield the balance of my time.

 

 

BURTON:

Would the gentleman yield real briefly?

 

 

BRADY:

Yes.

 

 

BURTON:

I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have the new U.S. ambassador

to Turkey here with us today. And I would urge the chairman to allow Mr.

Robert Pearson to address the committee, because he's very much aware, being

on the scene, of the problems that this might create.

 

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

 

 

BERMAN (?):

Will the gentleman yield?

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Brady has the time.

 

 

BERMAN (?):

Mr. Brady, will you yield?

 

 

BRADY:

Yes, I would be happy to yield.

 

 

BERMAN (?):

I just want to comment on this idea that only those who are in support

of the resolution are benefiting from any political impetus.

 

Let us remember the power of the oil companies that are pushing against

this resolution, the defense contractors that have been lobbying against

this resolution, and let us realize that it is certainly -- if any votes are

swayed on this resolution to vote in favor of it because of the input of

Armenian-Americans in California and throughout this country, that is, I

think, at least as legitimate, I would say more legitimate than those votes

that are swayed by oil company lobbying, defense contractor lobbying, et

cetera.

 

 

BRADY:

Reclaiming my time, if I may.

 

Mr. Chairman, let me just commend my friend from California on the

record amount of soft money contributions and hard-dollar PAC contributions

you've received this year, and give you that praise.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

I yield the balance of my time.

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman's time has expired.

 

Let me remind our members before we go to vote that there will a number

of amendments; there will be roll calls. We have a number of measures to be

taken up when we return. We had a request by Mr. Burton to have the

ambassador speak, which we'll do when we get back, by unanimous consent.

 

The committee stands in recess.

 

(RECESS)

[Guest]

GILMAN:

The committee will come to order.

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman?

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Burton?

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman, before the break I referred to our new ambassador to

Turkey, and asked that Mr. Pearson be allowed to address the committee. So I

ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to address the committee at this

time.

 

 

GILMAN:

By unanimous consent. Any objection? If not...

 

 

LANTOS:

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object...

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Lantos?

 

 

LANTOS:

I think Mr. Burton's suggestion is an excellent one. No one is more

qualified to discuss more authoritatively U.S. national interests vis-a-vis

Turkey than our ambassador. And I join Mr. Burton in his request.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

 

I'll now request Ambassador Robert Pearson to come up to the committee

table.

 

And Ambassador Pearson was very recently sworn in as our representative

in Ankara to speak. I might note that before becoming U.S. ambassador to

Turkey, Ambassador Pearson served as deputy chief of mission at NATO.

 

And we appreciate your willingness to make yourself available to the

committee as we debate the measure. Mr. Ambassador, I now give you the

floor.

 

 

PEARSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I'm very happy to be here and very happy to answer questions from the

committee.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Ambassador, the question has arisen with regard to the Armenian

resolution. We'd welcome any comments you may have on it.

 

 

PEARSON:

I've just come from Ankara, Mr. Chairman. I flew in last night. Had a

chance, over the last week, to talk to a number of Turkish officials about

this issue. I think if you look at a map of Turkey, you see on its frontiers

are countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran. Of course Armenia is a neighbor of

Turkey. The Black Sea, the countries bordering the Black Sea, all of

Southeast Europe, Greece, the issue of Cyprus.

 

I think that I can state authoritatively to you, Mr. Chairman, that if a

vote is taken in the committee and this resolution passes, and if it passes

the floor of the House, there will be a strong Turkish reaction to it.

 

The Turks provide the base from which we fly over northern Iraq. That

permission to perform that monitoring exercise under UN resolutions comes up

for a debate in the Turkish parliament every six months. And the next debate

will be in December of this year.

 

We are, of course, very much involved and have been for years with the

Turks trying to find a resolution to the issue of Nagorno- Artsax.

Relations between Turkey and Armenia are very important to finding a

peaceful solution to that issue. I think that passage of this resolution

could affect that process harmfully.

 

The Turks have been working with us, of course, on the issue of Cyprus.

Turkey and Greece have been very heavily involved in a joint exercise to

lower tensions and to build stronger relations between those two countries

and also, of course, concerning issues in the Aegean.

 

Turkey provided the bases for us in the Kosovo campaign. They took in

19,000 refugees during that period of time. It's ironic that they were there

just last year to help all of us in a campaign against ethnic cleansing, to

face a resolution like this one today.

 

There are -- I'll simply add, something like two-thirds of a billion

dollars worth of agricultural trade between the two countries. I, before I

left, counted something like 19 major energy projects in which American

companies are involved, very large contracts for provision of new energy to

Turkey through gas pipelines and oil pipelines in the Caucasus.

 

I think my contribution today, Mr. Chairman, was simply to be to say

that there's a lot on the table.

 

 

GILMAN:

Well, thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

 

Mr. Bereuter?

 

 

BEREUTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Ambassador Pearson, thank you for your statement. Beyond that, I have

understood that Turkey is playing a more positive role now in the Caucasus

region, even informally with Armenia, and I wonder if you could address its

role in the Caucasus countries.

 

 

PEARSON:

Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

 

They are playing a more active role in the Caucasus. Former President

Demirel made a number of trips to the Caucasus. The new president, President

Sezer, is planning a major trip to the Caucasus at the end of October.

 

We have been working very closely with Turkey, as I mentioned, on oil

and gas energy in the Caspian region. Turkey is a partner in the process

called the Minsk process to try to find a resolution to the Nagorno-Artsax

issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And of course, Turkey is in favor of

improved relations with Armenia.

 

Thank you.

 

 

SMITH:

Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Smith?

 

 

SMITH:

If I could just ask our distinguished ambassador if he could just

respond to the Radanovich resolution, Section 3, declaration of policy. Do

you agree or disagree with the second clause which, "calls upon the

president, in the president's annual message commemorating the Armenian

genocide issue on or about April 24th. to characterize the systematic and

deliberate annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide and to recall

the proud history of the United States intervention in opposition to the

Armenian genocide"?

 

Is that an accurate or an inaccurate characterization?

 

 

PEARSON:

Mr. Smith, I, of course, am here to talk principally about my

perspective on the relationship from Ankara, and not to characterize the

events in the resolution. And I think the administration has stated its

position on that point.

 

 

SMITH:

But I'm asking you...

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman's time is expired.

 

I'm going to ask unanimous consent that the ambassador be granted -- or

that we give an additional five minutes for questions for the ambassador.

 

Mr. Lantos?

 

 

LANTOS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Mr. Ambassador, I would like to explore with you the internal

ramifications of the possible passage of this resolution.

 

Now those of us who have followed developments in Turkey closely for a

long time know that there are strong pro-U.S. elements and strong anti-U.S.

elements within the political firmament of Turkey. Which of these elements

would be aided by the passage of this resolution, the pro-U.S. forces or the

anti-U.S. forces?

 

 

PEARSON:

Mr. Lantos, one of the last things a senior Turkish official told me

before I left Ankara was that one of their chief concerns was that people

who wanted to drive a wedge between American and Turkish relations would use

this issue specifically to that effect.

 

There is a lively debate in Turkey about how to deal with this issue.

One can look at the press even over the last three weeks and see that

there's a great deal of open debate. But I think that the general feeling

there is clear, that this is designed to make Turkish- American relations

and the working out of the issues we're both trying to work on more

difficult.

 

 

LANTOS:

If I may follow-up, there is a strong Islamic fundamentalist force

within Turkey and there is a powerful secular force in Turkey. The passage

of this resolution, in my judgment, would powerfully assist the Islamic

fundamentalist forces and diminish the influence of the secular forces. Do

you agree with my assessment?

 

 

PEARSON:

Well, Mr. Lantos, rather than try to specifically characterize

individual groups inside Turkey, I would just say that the people who are

committed to the long-term benefits of this relationship would suffer as a

result of the passage of this resolution in the committee and in the House.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Salmon?

 

 

LANTOS:

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

 

 

SALMON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Mr. Ambassador, this has been a very, very difficult issue for many of

us for a lot of reasons. I think some of the rhetorical questions have been

asked today, as why are we doing this now? I love to study history. In my

bachelor's and my master's degree, I did quite a bit of studying of history

and world religion. History, I've always been fascinated by it.

 

And I think that if there's a reason for addressing a resolution and if

the reason is to affect the here and now, then it's a good point. But some

have raised the specter of why here and now?

 

We talk about the atrocities that man has committed against man over the

ages, look at the Spanish Inquisition, and yet I don't see us sponsoring

some resolution to condemn the Catholic Church or the Roman crucifixion of

Jesus Christ. We don't have a denunciation of the Romans right now.

 

And in more recent history, just over 100 years ago in our own country,

my people, the Mormons were chased out of Missouri and the governor signed

an extermination order; they could be killed if they didn't leave. Yet I

have never seen a resolution denouncing Missouri.

 

I do believe that history is valuable as long as we're using it at this

present time for some great good.

 

And so my question would be, after all is said and done, obviously the

motive must be to impact current relations between Armenia and Turkey. What

will passage of this resolution do to the relationship between Armenia and

Turkey?

 

What's your opinion?

 

 

PEARSON:

Thank you, Congressman.

 

Of course I understand the sentiment in the resolution. I think all

Americans understand the sentiment in the resolution. The passage of this

resolution, however, would make Armenian-Turkish relations more difficult.

There's a closed border today between Armenia and Turkey and there have been

efforts as I have recounted in the past few years to try to improve those

relations.

 

Turkey has, in an attempt to further this process, opened an air

corridor -- a limited air corridor. I think there are some limited visa

provisions that have been put into effect that are helpful. There is a

common -- there has been -- let me say, there has been a common commitment

to try to work toward a resolution. When I talked with Turkish officials

prior to coming here yesterday, they all repeated their desire to find a way

to work more effectively with Armenia.

 

So I believe that this would specifically set back or risk setting back

a lot of hard work that the United States has engaged in for a number of

years. And frankly, not just us but a number of other countries in the

region as well.

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman's time has expired.

 

I'm going to ask consent to extend the time for Mr. Gejdenson's

questions and then we'll close the opportunity for the ambassador.

 

 

GEJDENSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I just want to briefly state that I think it's a mistake to place this

as either you tell the truth or you attack the present Turkish government.

The reality is that the present Turkish government is an important partner

in the region. The present Turkish government is one that we have not

just -- they're not serving America's interests in the region. We have

mutual concerns in the region where our own individual national interests

coincide.

 

Turkey and the United States work together on a regular basis. I've

worked with the Turkish government on a number of issues that are important

to both of us. This Turkish government is making important efforts in the

relationship with Greece, starting to address issues of Cyprus. There are

lots of things we agree with them on. I don't think it's acceptable that we

simply say, because of these things, we're not able to recognize an outrage

in history.

 

And I think it's important to look at the German experience. You know,

if you look at the German experience, my father's family, without exception,

was exterminated in World War II. He is the only member of his family to

survive. My mother lost most of her family. We've dealt with that. The

German government has recognized what happened. Israel and Germany have a

very positive relationship. We deal with the German government again because

of our mutual national interests as democracies.

 

And so I think there may be people that vote on different sides of this

issue today for lots of reasons. But I don't think anybody who plans to vote

for this resolution does so thinking that we should in any way diminish our

relationship with the Turkish government. It's an easy way to argue against

recognizing history.

 

Turkey is an important ally. Turkey does cooperate with us because it is

in our interest, it is in their interest. We need to work more with the

Turkish government. They've got to work toward democratizing their society.

It's the only course for all of us.

 

So it seems to me, Mr. Ambassador, with the greatest respect for the

present Turkish government and the Turkish people, for the many great things

they've done throughout history and the contributions they made to

civilization, there is this issue that needs to be addressed. That's all

this is all about.

 

Not to condemn the present Turkish government, not to insult the present

Turkish people. We don't insult the German people when we recognize what

happened in World War II. No.

 

 

GILMAN:

We have now concluded the ambassador's time.

 

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for...

 

 

PEARSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Ms. Lee?

 

 

LEE:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

And I want to thank you and Mr. Gejdenson for bringing this resolution

to the committee for full discussion and debate.

 

We are here participating in it could be said a history lesson. That

history also is, as we've heard, highly contested terrain. In the First

World War, millions of people were killed or made homeless and the deaths of

some 1.5 million Armenians must be viewed within the context of this larger

human tragedy.

 

I would certainly support efforts to educate Americans, especially our

diplomatic representatives, about the complex events that occurred during

this tragic period in world history, including the losses suffered by the

Turks and others in the Ottoman Empire.

 

It is not the intention of this resolution to offend the government of

Turkey or damage an important international relationship, which I believe

our ranking member just laid out very eloquently. Nor is it the intent to

minimize the heavy losses suffered by other groups within the Ottoman Empire

during World War I or for that matter those in Russia, France, Germany,

Japan or any other country.

 

It is my belief that Americans will benefit from learning more about

this period and the tremendous loss of life on all sides and that such

education will help all of us avoid such conflicts in the future. And I

agree that such education efforts should be framed within their full

historical context rather than in isolation.

 

This resolution does not preclude such an approach. As we seek to

confront the violence and tragedy of our own country's past, we must also

seek to more fully understand international events as well. History lessons

are neither easy nor painless and it's imperative that they be looked at

from all sides, but we all benefit from looking at the past.

 

When I was in the California legislature, I co-sponsored legislation to

require that the curriculum in our schools' curriculum reflect courses that

reflected a study of the deplorable institution of slavery in our own

country, which our own country still has yet to apologize for. We also

required that this curriculum study the inhumanity of the Holocaust and the

horrible inhumane treatment of our Native Americans. Awareness and education

regarding crimes against humanity must always be remembered, so that they

will never happen again.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Ms. Lee.

 

Mr. King?

 

 

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Radanovich.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

And I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

 

I'd like to take a moment to address an argument that persistently comes

up regarding this resolution. Each time this body attempts to come to

closure on this subject, opponents usually ask "Why now?" They may even say

that the interests -- the intent of the resolution is commendable, but the

timing is inopportune.

 

Mr. Chairman, unless the Turkish government ends its ongoing campaign to

deny the facts of the Armenian genocide, the only time acceptable to our

ally is never. And I regret to say that our State Department readily concurs

with Turkey.

 

Why now? Because later accomplishes nothing. Turkey remains adamant in

its denial and its reprehensible tactics of threats and coercion are

rewarded.

 

Why now? Because the passage of this resolution today by this committee

and subsequently on the House floor will end denial, which, expressed

differently, is the killing of truth. At least one branch of my government

will say categorically to all deniers that they have failed.

 

I implore my colleagues here today to understand that this resolution is

a sense of the House resolution regarding the United States' record. Despite

all of its threats emanating from Turkey regarding U.S. bases, U.S.

contracts, jobs, et cetera, this resolution is not an assault on the

Republic of Turkey.

 

Furthermore, I reject Turkey's presumption that it can impose its views

regarding the American response to the Armenian genocide on this committee.

If we bow to Turkish pressure over a House-only resolution regarding our

record, there's not telling what else the U.S. will be called upon to give

in to the next time Turkey threatens a doomsday scenario.

 

I believe that this is a matter of principle. Congress must not let any

foreign government dictate what legislation, especially legislation

affirming America's record, it can or cannot adopt.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I yield back.

 

 

LANTOS:

Would the gentleman yield?

 

 

KING:

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman...

 

 

GILMAN:

It's Mr. King's time.

 

 

KING:

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Royce.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Royce?

 

 

ROYCE:

I thank you.

 

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the ambassador one question, if I

could.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Ambassador, would you take the witness table again?

 

 

ROYCE:

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Mr. Ambassador, one of your tasks as ambassador is explaining American

perspectives. This is a House resolution with over 100 co- sponsors, and I

am sure you've anticipated that it may pass.

 

How have you been explaining to Turkish authorities that this is not

about the government of Turkey today? This is about the Ottoman Empire

which, you know, committed a genocide, but did expire in 1918. How have you

done that, if I could ask?

 

 

PEARSON:

Thank you, Congressman. I think that's an excellent question.

 

I have tried and explained in great detail what this resolution says and

its terms and so on. I have to tell you, quite honestly, that people in

Turkey regard this as directed against them. They understand that this has

in it the words referring to the Ottoman Empire, but it looks to them as if

it's referring to them.

 

 

ROYCE:

And you've explained to them, though, that this is about something in

history, that this is not about the Turkish government, this is about a

genocide that occurred under a prior regime?

 

 

PEARSON:

I have...

 

 

ROYCE:

And this is part of our democratic process here of passing resolutions

in the House.

 

 

PEARSON:

I have indeed, Congressman, but they firmly see this as directed against

the current state of Turkey and they see it within the context of a firm

alliance. And that's why they find it so difficult to comprehend. But I

absolutely have explained this resolution in detail to them.

 

Thank you.

 

 

ROYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. King?

 

 

KING:

I yield back the balance of my time.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. King.

 

Mr. Crowley?

 

 

CROWLEY:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me to take a moment to address

the Armenian genocide resolution before us.

 

I commend Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Bonior for bringing this matter before

the Congress.

 

The tragic occurrence perpetrated against the Armenian people between

1915 and 1925 by the Ottoman Turkish Empire is of great concern to me and to

members of my constituency. During this relatively brief timeframe, over 1.5

million Armenians were massacred and thousands more were forced into exile.

 

Unfortunately, the Turkish government of today has not recognized these

brutal acts of genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire, nor is it willing

to come to terms with its participation in many of these horrific events.

 

Prior to the Armenian genocide, these brave people, with a history of

over 2,500 years in their region, was subjected to numerous indignities and

periodic massacres by the sultans of the Ottoman Empire. The worst of these

massacres prior to 1915 occurred in 1895, when as many as 300,000 Armenian

people were murdered and those who survived were left completely destitute.

Despite these events, Armenians have survived as a people and a culture

throughout Europe and the United States as well. The present Turkish

government needs to come to terms with the past and work towards improving

the future.

 

I have taken the time to hear the perspective of Turkish groups who

remain strongly opposed to this resolution. Their contention is that the

historic account of these events is flawed and inaccurate. They suggest that

since Turks were also killed at the time, it should not be considered a

genocide.

 

Obviously, there is some conflict as to the definition of genocide. I

want to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Genocide, as was

mentioned before by Mr. Smith, is a systematic, planned annihilation of a

racial, political or cultural group. Did it happened to the Jews and others

in Germany? Yes. Did it happen to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire? It

certainly did.

 

I am well-aware of the importance of Turkey as an ally in an unstable

region, in a front-line NATO state. While we do not hold the current

citizens of Turkey accountable for what their grandparents and ancestors

did, that does not mean we should not commemorate and honor those who were

slaughtered during this campaign.

 

A vote against this measure will send a measure to Ankara that the U.S.

is willing to look the other way as long as those who have committed acts of

genocide hold a strategic position in our foreign policy.

 

I believe that by failing to recognize such barbaric acts, one becomes

complicit in them. For that reason, I must vote and urge my colleagues to

vote in favor of this resolution that is before us today.

 

I too have concerns about our national interests and the message we send

with this committee. What message will we send to those victims and to human

rights victims if this measure is defeated?

 

Was it in the national interests of the United States to involve itself

in the affairs of the Irish people in Northern Ireland? I don't think there

were any national interests at stake, at least not by definitions that have

been brought out today. To involve ourselves in the affairs of our greatest

ally, Great Britain? And, by the way, I believe the State Department also

opposed our involvement in that affair as well.

 

But even Great Britain's leader, Tony Blair, recognized that he had to

recognize the abuses of the British people, past government, although the

exact same government in terms of tradition that exists today in Britain, to

recognize the ills perpetrated on the Irish people before they could move

forward with their peace process and come to terms with their own past.

 

So, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse and support this measure. And

I will be voting in the affirmative.

 

I yield back the balance of my time.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Crowley.

 

Mr. Wexler?

 

 

WEXLER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

First, I would very much like to associate myself with the remarks of

Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Lantos and Mr. Davis.

 

Heaven forbid anybody on this committee or any American in any respect

ignore or minimize or deny the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians

during the period of World War I. That would be an extraordinary tragedy.

 

We, in this country, each and every year at this point on April 24

commemorate Armenian Remembrance Day, which allows the president and other

officials and all Americans to pay proper tribute to the graveness of the

tragedy that occurred some 90 years ago.

 

It seems to me, in light of what Mr. Bereuter said in terms of what is

our national interest and that that ought to be our guiding principle, then

the question we must ask, not of just this resolution but any resolution,

what is the specific purpose of the resolution? What does it accomplish?

 

And it seems to me, although in some ways not particularly specific in

terms of why this resolution would in any way change America's foreign

policy, in fact, it's essentially a very basic goal that our foreign policy

reflect appropriate understanding of the sensitivity of the issue concerned.

 

And it would seem to me if we were debating today whether or not America

should build a museum or a place of learning regarding this tragedy, that

would be a very appropriate debate. If we were debating whether or not

America has any role to play with respect to reparations of the families who

were the victims of this tragedy, that, to me, would be a very appropriate

debate.

 

But to debate whether or not our foreign policy should reflect a

sensitivity related to the human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide

documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian genocide, I

would respectfully suggest I see nothing in our own foreign policy behavior

to suggest that we don't already do that.

 

And with an issue that seems to have presented so much controversy, and

like our ambassador says, with so much on the table, it is almost

unfathomable to me that, with so much controversy, that almost in a uniform

position the best experts from the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations

all agree that this is not in the best interests -- security interests of

the United States, uniformly, from a variety of different political

perspectives.

 

So what are we gaining if we pass this resolution? And it seems to me

we're gaining language that doesn't in any significant way affect the

current administration in Turkey.

 

But what are we losing potentially? And that argument has been made over

and over again. And whether or not you think it's a justifiable loss or not

is almost irrelevant. I think it is uniformly concluded that there will be a

grave result in terms of U.S. and Turkish relations, Turkish and Armenian

relations.

 

And what have the Armenian people and America gained by this? Do they

have a museum so that hundreds of thousands of people can march through it

and learn and children can learn of the tragedy? No. Do the Armenian

families in America get paid reparations for their grave losses? No. They

get fluff language -- and I don't mean to denigrate it, it's extremely

important.

 

But we're not changing our economic relationship with Turkey on paper.

We're not creating museums. We're not creating learning. We have a day of

commemoration.

 

So it seems to me it is in fact an appropriate analysis to say what do

we potentially lose? And what do we potentially gain? And going back to Mr.

Bereuter's original comments, what is in the national interests of the

United States?

 

And it seems that those that I will defer to in terms of their

extraordinary expertise in both the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton

administrations all agree that the equity is on the side of not passing the

resolution.

 

And, Mr. Chairman, that's why I will choose to stick with that position.

Thank you.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Wexler.

 

Mr. Berman?

 

 

BERMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I'll try to be brief. I just want to pick up on a point made earlier, I

think, by my colleague from California, Mr. Royce. I am a supporter of this

resolution and intend to vote for it.

 

 

BERMAN:

The State Department -- this resolution creates a problem for our

executive branch, I recognize. But in and of itself, that does not justify

opposing the resolution. Nations as people work themselves into curious

states of mind about different actions.

 

Entirely different kinds of issues have come up recently which have

resonance with me in terms of the administration's response on this issue.

China has a view of Taiwan. China is very important to us. China's view on

Taiwan is so deeply felt that, because of China's importance to us, we here

should not do what seemed like, sort of, common-sense things with respect to

Taiwan, like if the duly elected democratic leader of Taiwan is coming to

the United States and wants to talk to a congressman, we will be massively

undermining U.S.-China relationships by doing this. China's position is

fundamentally irrational, because it's not based on policy. It's deeply

felt, it's understandable, but in the end it can't sustain itself.

 

And while I recognize that support for this resolution puts a special

burden on the executive branch, the State Department and our diplomats in

particular, it is going to have to be your job to communicate to these

people the reality of what we're saying, rather than the atmospherics and

the hysterics that they have come to believe.

 

I heard a quote from the gentleman from North Dakota about the patriarch

of the Armenian Church in Armenia saying that third-party resolutions are a

poor substitute for dialogue. That's true. But in the end sometimes

third-party resolutions, after a period of anger and reaction, become the

basis for the dialogue.

 

That dialogue is not taking place. The denial is not being confronted.

And sometimes we have to do things which other people perceive in a certain

way, that we do not intend, but once the acceptance of that becomes a move

forward and a move up.

 

And I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. It's historically

valid. It's true. It is not an effort to destroy or undermine our

relationship with Turkey or in any way a slap at modern- day Turkey in any

way. And because they feel it is does not make it so.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Berman. I appreciate you being so brief.

 

Now, I'd like to recognize Mr. Sanford.

 

 

SANFORD:

I would just like to associate my words with the words of Mr. Ackerman,

in that I basically put myself in the same camp.

 

 

ACKERMAN:

I have not spoken. I think you mean Mr. Berman.

 

 

SANFORD:

Oh, excuse me. I'm looking down -- I apologize. Thank you very much.

 

 

ACKERMAN:

But I will if the chairman recognizes me. I'm the heavy-set guy without

a carnation.

 

 

SANFORD:

But I think he gets at a very valid point, which is a lot of us have

struggled on what to do on this thing. And I am just most pleased that the

committee took out the proactive language, asking State Department to do

certain things, because I think we have a real problem in this country with

foreign policy by congressional district. And my concern overall with this

original amendment when it came up was that we would once again have foreign

policy driven by a given congressional district.

 

Now that that language has come out, and now that, as I understand it,

Tancredo is going to offer an amendment that would further make clear that

this is not a fight against present-day folks in Turkey, but simply

recognition of something that happened in history, I'm going to be able to

support it, and, again, I would associate my words with Mr. Berman, my

colleague.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Sanford.

 

Mr. Meeks? Mr. Meeks is not present.

 

Mr. Menendez?

 

 

MENENDEZ:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I want to commend you and Ranking Member Gejdenson for bringing this

resolution before us, and Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Ms. McKinney for

favorably reporting it out of their subcommittee, and, of course, Mr.

Radanovich and Mr. Bonior for their authorship.

 

You know, this moment is a long time coming, not only for myself and the

139 other co-sponsors of the resolution -- many of us have worked on this

issues for years and years. It's a long time coming for the 3.5 million

citizens of Armenia and the millions of Americans of Armenian descent here

in this country. It comes too late for the 1.5 million Armenians killed in

genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. It comes too late, too, for the

6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

 

I won't spend time making the case that we are, indeed, talking about a

genocide. The resolution, through its numerous findings, does that admirably

and convincingly. I implore anyone who still has a doubt to read the

findings of the resolution and check their original source or go back to The

New York Times pages of 1915 and 1916, as I have.

 

Though it's never too early, it's also not too late to educate ourselves

about the Armenian genocide, and that's what this bill aims to do. As with

the Holocaust, we have a responsibility to society to recount the history of

the Armenian genocide, so that we do not forget its victims, and so that we

remember man's capacity to destroy others who differ in their opinions based

on race, religion or ethnicity.

 

Genocide is the most egregious crime. It is not a crime of passion or

revenge, but rather of hate. Its innocent victims are guilty only of being

born to a different mother. To those who continue to resist the truth, I say

shame on you. And I can only believe that those who have chosen to ignore

the cold, hard facts in order to indulge their shame.

 

Denying the genocide, like denying the occurrence of the Holocaust, does

not erase the tragedy, restore the lives lost, or compensate those driven

from their homeland. Indeed, it makes reconciliation harder, longer and more

costly.

 

Look at our relationship with Germany. In pressing the Germans, we

strengthened their commitment to ensure that another Holocaust would never

occur again. And we strengthened, not weakened, our relationship with

Germany, a significant NATO ally.

 

Yes, Turkey has been an important ally. We recognize that. But that does

not mean that Turkey has been an unconditional ally, and it must prove its

commitment to the principles of international law, democracy and human

rights. I believe the United States must be willing to stand up even to our

closest allies, when they are wrong, and when, in fact, in this particular

case, we are not saying that the modern Turkey, in fact, is responsible. But

what we are saying is that this time in history needs to be remembered

because what is past is often prologue, and, in fact, failure to remember,

failure to recognize, sweeping under the carpet of history is a mistake

that, ultimately, we are doomed to repeat time and time again.

 

I urge the adoption of the resolution.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Menendez.

 

Mr. Ackerman?

 

 

ACKERMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I had not originally intended to speak on this resolution, but I feel

moved to do so by some of the questions that have been raised by our

colleagues during this discussion, which I find important as well as

intriguing. Questions such as, what do we lose? And what do we gain? And

what is in our national interest?

 

It seems to me, when we talk about genocides or holocausts, that even

the survivors do not completely survive; that those of us, who, either

ourselves or our parents have gone through such a thing, feel and understand

it ever so deeply. And some of us should also note that when we, as well as

others, said things like "never again," we should not only be talking about

the future, but we should not be pressed by historical revisionists to also

say "never before."

 

The question of what's in our national interests -- I think it's in our

national interests to speak the truth. I think it's in our national

interests to do what's right. I think it's in our national interests to lead

by example. And I think it's in our national interests to be or become the

moral leaders that we think we are. I think it's also unfair to say that

victims who fight back, because they fight back, should also be counted as

aggressors.

 

As to what we gain and what we lose by doing this today, by speaking the

truth to our friends, I think we strengthen them and prove our friendship. I

think we make them better for it. I think when they confront the realities

and admit that things happened that were not within their immediate

historical control and can also express their regrets about it, that we can

all move on.

 

And what do we, as a Congress, stand to gain, or what we might stand to

lose by either doing or not doing this today? I think the answer might be

our integrity.

 

I yield back the balance of my time.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

 

Mr. Meeks?

 

 

MEEKS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Let me just pick up on that last word that Mr. Ackerman just spoke on,

integrity, which, to me, becomes tremendously, and is tremendously,

important. And I don't know, even as I sit here at this late hour, which way

I'm going to vote on this bill. But integrity is tremendously important, and

integrity, to me, also starts at home.

 

And when I think of a bill that recently was circulating in this

Congress, just asking this Congress to apologize to African-Americans for

slavery, and when I looked at the number of individuals who signed up on

that bill, it was minuscule.

 

Integrity, integrity starts at home. When I think of what has happened

to the Native Americans and this land, and, yet, we do not teach it in the

manner that it should be taught. When I look at my children's classes, and

my young daughter, who is now 16 years of age, and every year in this

country they have what we call Black History Month, and during that month

she has come and told me, "Dad, I'm tired of learning the same thing over

and over again about black history. And the only thing that they teach me,

and I know and I respect his role in history, is Dr. King and civil rights

movement, but they never acknowledge and teach me about the middle passage

and what happened to millions of Africans being brought over here in chains

in the hulls of slave ships." Integrity.

 

Integrity is when, in New York City, from which I come, we tried to have

a curriculum of inclusion, to include everyone. And that was denied.

Integrity.

 

So it gives me a problem -- and I understand history, and we've got to

make sure that history is known so that it never repeats itself, but what

gives me -- and so it should be that I have -- should have no hesitation in

regard to this bill. But the hesitation is because of the credibility of the

integrity of the body that is trying to say it to another body when, yet, we

don't do it at home to ourselves. If we did it to ourselves, then it's easy

to say that we have and stand on the moral ground to do it for someone else.

 

And, so, I don't know which way I'm going to vote, Mr. Chairman. I know

that we do, and we must, acknowledge genocide where ever it is so that it

never repeats itself. But I also know that we, as a body, and sometimes

we -- and this is a moral issue in my opinion -- have to forget politics,

and politics is playing a role in this, because I don't know how we got

where we are today, other than it has to be politics.

 

But we have to, as a body, at some time decide that we're going to do

the right thing, ourselves, and acknowledge the wrong that we have committed

to other people. And then, I think, we stand on the high moral ground to

tell everyone else that you have to acknowledge the wrong that you've done.

 

I yield back.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Meeks.

 

We'll now proceed with the amendments.

 

Mr. Tancredo?

 

 

LANTOS:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

 

 

GILMAN:

I've recognized Mr. Tancredo.

 

 

TANCREDO:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

 

 

GILMAN:

The clerk will read the amendment.

 

 

CLERK:

Amendment authored by Mr. Tancredo.

 

Page 11, line 17: strike "and."

 

Page 11, line 24: strike the period and insert "and."

 

Page 11, after line 24, insert the following: "3) Cause upon the

president..."

 

 

GILMAN:

OK. The amendment will be considered as having been read, without

objection.

 

Mr. Tancredo is now recognized for five minutes in support of his

amendment.

 

 

TANCREDO:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I will take that much time.

 

The purpose of my amendment is to simply help clarify the intent of the

resolution. If the purpose of the resolution is, as has been expressed

often, to identify the sense of the Congress regarding the horrendous events

taken place in this area of the world 84 years ago, then it seems to me that

we should do just that.

 

If we are not intent upon assessing blame to the present government of

Turkey, which has been a statement uttered several times by many members of

this committee, then I think it behooves us to also state that very clearly

and in as unambiguous a manner as possible.

 

That is the purpose of my amendment. It is a short one, and I think

nothing more needs to, really, be said, at least by me. And I will just ask

for its adoption.

 

 

LANTOS:

Mr. Chairman...

 

 

GILMAN:

Anyone seeking time? Mr. Lantos?

 

 

LANTOS:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, Congressman Tancredo,

for his amendment, and I will support his amendment. I think it's important

to realize that, while his amendment is a constructive one -- and I trust

all of my colleagues will vote for it -- it does not solve the underlying --

Mr. Chairman, the House is not in session. The committee is not in order.

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman is correct. The committee will come to order. Gentleman

should be heard.

 

You may proceed, Mr. Lantos.

 

 

LANTOS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

While Mr. Tancredo's amendment is a constructive amendment which I will

support -- and I hope all of my colleagues will -- it does not address the

underlying issue. The underlying issue is a very simple one. The government

of Turkey and the Turkish people do not view the House International

Relations Committee or, indeed, the Congress as a whole, as a pedagogic

instrument. That is not our role in their eyes.

 

And I think it takes an enormous degree of unrealistic self-image to

pretend that, although our intentions are noble and we clearly talk about

events in the past, and while, if we adopt this amendment, we again

underscore that we do not wish to criticize the current government of

Turkey, that is not how the underlying resolution is perceived.

 

And I think it's, sort of, important for all of us to be very conscious

of this. Mr. Tancredo's amendment improves the underlying piece of

legislation, but it does not address the fundamental issue of the underlying

legislation, as I believe several earlier comments did not.

 

One of my colleagues referred to Eli Wiesel, and I think several

referred to scores of Holocaust specialists. I am probably as close to Eli

Wiesel as anybody in the Congress of the United States. I have untold

admiration and respect, friendship and affection for him. We are friends.

But I do not view Eli Wiesel as an expert on U.S. foreign policy in the 21st

century. Eli Wiesel is an expert on the Holocaust in Europe in the 1930s and

'40s. He does not claim expertise beyond that.

 

I am as annoyed as I take it as everybody in this room is when Michael

Jordan tells me what telephone to use. That is not his field of expertise.

And to drag Eli Wiesel and other Holocaust scholars into a debate on U.S.

national interest in a critical region of the world in the 21st century,

with all due respect, is an absurdity. These would be the first people to

claim that they have no expertise in this field.

 

Our job, domestically and internationally, is to promote the national

interests of the United States, not to listen to Holocaust scholars on what

they think about resolutions, which have a national foreign policy impact,

about which they have no expertise.

 

So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. Tancredo's amendment and urge

all of my colleagues to vote for it.

 

Yield back the balance of my time.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

 

Any other members seeking recognition?

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman?

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Burton?

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague that this is a worthwhile

amendment, but I also agree with what he said about this doesn't change the

underlying problem.

 

I think we have a bad case of what we call selective righteousness which

is being expressed today. And the reason I say that is because of the

following, and Mr. Meeks hit right on it. I don't know how he's going to

vote, but I think he hit right on it.

 

We have not passed a resolution on African slave trade involving the

United States, but 18 million Africans were carried into slavery, 18 million

were stuffed into boats and brought over to the United States and I don't

recall ever seeing a resolution passed by the Congress condemning our

forefathers for allowing us to involve ourselves in slave trade. Why don't

we do that?

 

Let's talk about the decimation of American Indians. When we first came

to this country, there were between -- there were about 7 million Indians in

this country. In 1890, that was reduced to 300,000. It went from 7 million

to 300,000. What do you think happened to all those people? They were

murdered. They were run off their property and put into reservations. My

colleague from North Carolina talked about the Trail of Tears, where Indians

were taken by the hundreds and thousands to Oklahoma, and many, many died

and starved to death because of that forced migration.

 

The Congo Free State. The Congo Free State, we haven't heard anything

about that. The Congo Free State. Ten million indigenous Congolese died at

the hands of the Belgians. Where's the resolution on that? Ten million. That

was the first one in the 20th century. Now we're going back 85 years. Why

don't we go back another seven years to 1908, when 10 million Congolese were

massacred?

 

How about in the 20th century with Joseph Stalin? Where's the resolution

(to be continued)

[Guest]

on Russia before the Soviet Union? Stalin killed 50 million. I don't hear

anything about that. I haven't seen a resolution like that.

 

Mao Zedong. Oh, we're really buddies with China right now. They're still

a communist state. Killed 50 million, 50 million. How come we don't have a

resolution on that?

 

Religious minorities in India. India's one of our friends and allies. I

never hear any criticism about them, but the fact of the matter is the

Sikhs -- the Christians in Nagaland, the Sikhs in Punjab, the Muslims in

Kashmir, by the hundreds of thousands, have been killed and persecuted.

 

In Cambodia -- there was a resolution on Cambodia, but it did not deal

with the massacre and the intentional killing of anybody who wore glasses

because they could read and anybody who was educated. Millions died there.

 

The Sudan, the Sudan. What about the millions that have died there just

recently? In Rwanda, 800,000 to 1.5 million people were murdered, another 2

million fled to neighboring countries since 1994.

 

And I can go on, if you want to, to Australia and the Aborigines and how

they've been mistreated by the Australians over the years, if you want to do

that. China, the treatment of Tibet. France, the Calvinist executions of the

Christians, we haven't talked about that. Spain, the Spanish Inquisition,

the Spanish Inquisition.

 

You know, we could go on and on and on, and you could go right up to the

present day that these things are going on, between the Hutus and the Tutsis

over in Africa. And yet we're being very selective in saying, "Oh my gosh,

we got to do something about the so-called Armenian genocide." Well, today,

today, the Armenians are taking their wrath out on the Azerbaijanis. Are we

going to have a resolution on that? I mean, how far do we go?

 

The point I'm trying to make is we could go on ad infinitum condemning

people for atrocities that have taken place, and they have taken place.

There's no question about it. But the thing that we ought to consider today

is, what is in the national interests on the United States?

 

The Turks, if you look at their papers and their television today, they

are extremely upset. Our ambassador just told you that this could upset the

entire relationship we have with them over there. Our bases, Iraq, Iran,

Syria, the entire Middle East. I mean, you know, we don't know what could

happen. But I can tell you this kind of thing is full of mischief, and if

we're going to do it -- if you're going to condemn all these atrocities that

have taken place in history, then let's do it right. Let's make a bill that

covers as many of them as possible, and if we find more, bring up another

bill to do it.

 

But let's not have selective righteousness today, especially when we

killed 7 million or 8 million Indians to take over this country. This was

theirs. They're living on reservations today. I'm not saying that I want to

go back to the situation we had, but the fact is that did take place, and

I've never heard one resolution condemning that.

 

 

GILMAN:

Gentleman's time has expired.

 

Mr. Radanovich?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman...

 

 

GILMAN:

No, I'm sorry.

 

Mr. Sherman?

 

 

SHERMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

The argument is we can't pass this resolution because it doesn't deal

with every problem. Look at all the other resolutions we're going to deal

with today. Look at what this committee does day after day, week after week.

 

We have a resolution coming up on Sudan. Are we going to be told we

can't pass a resolution about Sudan because it doesn't mention Rwanda or

Cambodia or East Timor? We have a resolution coming up about Afghanistan.

Are we going to be told we can't pass that resolution because it doesn't

deal with atrocities in Columbia? Or that we can't pass a resolution -- the

next one's coming up -- on Kenya, but it doesn't deal with some of the most

frightful things that have happened in other places? The resolution on Kenya

deals with assassination. Are we going to be told that we can't pass that

resolution because we have had terrible assassinations here in the United

States, some of which remain unsolved?

 

Each resolution stands on its own. Each resolution is part of a brick

wall where we try to build an edifice dedicated to human rights. And if we

are told that no brick can be put in place because it does not encompass

everything, then we will never build the wall. Of course, we should often

recognize the horrors of slavery and the genocide of American against so

many American Indian tribes, or Native American tribes, but is that a reason

that we would not pass a resolution about Cambodia or Afghanistan or Rwanda

or Sudan or Armenia?

 

Second, we are told that we are unworthy of passing a resolution judging

others. Yet we pass resolutions every day or every week praising Benin

for -- or some other country for successfully completing its democratic

elections. Are we going to halt all resolutions praising the successful

democratic elections in other countries because there are flaws in our own

democracy?

 

We have got to deal with this resolution as an individual resolution. I

would point out that the European Parliament, the Russian Duma, the Canadian

House of Commons, the Belgium Senate and the French National Assembly, not

to mention the parliaments of Sweden and Lebanon, have all passed

resolutions along the same lines in the last 15 years. Are we to say that

they are worthy to pass resolutions ignoring -- as the gentleman points out,

what happened in the Belgian Congo?

 

I don't think that we should ignore human rights or history simply

because we ourselves are guilty of terrible abuses or simply because no one

resolution can encompass all of these facts.

 

We are told that our national interest requires us to ignore the

Armenian genocide. I will repeat again, if in 20 years it becomes, in the

short-term, alleged national interest of this country to march down and tear

down the Holocaust Museum because a new powerful German government insists

upon it or requests it, is there anyone here willing to march down with

picks and blow torches ready to destroy the Holocaust Museum should some

powerful ally of the United States request that in some subsequent decade?

 

I don't think we're willing to ignore the Holocaust no matter what the

short-term political, international exigencies, nor do I think that we can

ignore the Armenian genocide for the same reason. Our strength comes from

integrity, as the gentleman from New York said.

 

And if we think that a few months of bad press in Ankara is more

important than the integrity and the image of the United States for caring

about human rights and caring about integrity and caring about the

historical record, then I don't think that the rest of the world will judge

us as fit to be the world's only superpower, a role that we hold in large

part because of the respect that we have around the world.

 

So I look forward to the passage of this resolution. I think the

amendment strengthens the resolution and demonstrates to the people of

Turkey that we regard these as important historical facts committed by

another government.

 

 

GILMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Smith. The gentleman's time is expired.

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Gejdenson?

 

 

GEJDENSON:

Mr. Chairman, we're running out of time here. I'd just ask unanimous

consent that we move the amendment at this time.

 

 

BURTON:

Reserving the right to object.

 

 

GILMAN:

Well -- Mr. Burton reserves the right.

 

 

BURTON:

Yes. I believe that each one of these -- I'm going to support this

amendment, but I believe that every member ought to have a right to --

because of the significance of this legislation, every member ought to have

a right to express themselves on these amendments. And therefore, if there's

other members that want to express their views on this amendment, then I

think that they should.

 

And so, pending finding out if other members want to speak on this, I

object.

 

 

GILMAN:

We have a request by Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Royce to speak.

Do these gentlemen object to our taking up the amendment at this time?

 

 

CAMPBELL:

I do not object.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

I don't object.

 

 

ROYCE:

I do not object.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Radanovich?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

I support the amendment and don't object.

 

 

GILMAN:

All right. At this time then, without objection, the question is now on

the amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.

 

 

MEMBERS:

Aye.

 

 

GILMAN:

Opposed.

 

The amendment's carried.

 

Any further amendments?

 

Well, let me say this. Since we have a vote -- are there any further

amendments?

 

 

LANTOS:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which I think will

entail considerable debate. I would suggest we take a break and we return.

 

 

GILMAN:

All right. Report the amendment at least and then we'll take a break and

come back after the votes.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman, on this amendment I reserve a point of order.

 

 

GILMAN:

Well, we haven't had the amendment yet. Will the gentleman present the

amendment? The clerk will report the amendment.

 

 

CLERK:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Lantos. Strike

all that follows...

 

 

GILMAN:

Without objection, further reading of the amendment's not -- agreed

to -- not -- dispensed with.

 

Mr. Tancredo? Not Tancredo -- Mr. Radanovich reserves a point of order.

 

Mr. Radanovich? Mr. Radanovich? Mr. Radanovich, we're now on the Lantos

amendment. You reserved a point of order.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman, may I reserve a point of order please?

 

 

GILMAN:

Yes, you have reserved a point of order.

 

All right, we now have -- we'll resume proceedings at 1. The committee

stands in recess.

 

(RECESS)

 

 

GILMAN:

The committee will come to order.

 

Mr. Lantos is recognized for five minutes on this amendment.

 

 

LANTOS:

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

 

Mr. Chairman, let me first commend all of my colleagues on all sides of

this issue because they have brought valuable insights to what is a very

complex problem.

 

My substitute, I believe, takes care of most of the concerns and

objections and goals of all of my colleagues. Before presenting the

amendment, let me just state a few facts.

 

During the course of the last 20 years, every single American president,

every single American secretary of state, every single American secretary of

defense, every single American national security advisor, deemed this

resolution that was originally introduced -- not my substitute -- the

original resolution contrary to U.S. national interests.

 

From Ronald Reagan to George Bush to William Clinton, from George

Schultz to Madeleine Albright, from Colin Powell to you name it, all of our

top officials in the foreign policy and the national security field have

deemed my colleague's amendment, my colleague's resolution severely damaging

to U.S. national interests. Nothing has changed.

 

Some of my colleagues raised the issue earlier that occasionally we deal

with other specific issues, and there is no objection.

 

Well, sure. When there are no heavy national security interests

adversely affected, we pass resolutions perhaps without the necessary

scrutiny and without the necessary debate.

 

I am delighted we have had this debate.

 

I want to deal for a moment, Mr. Chairman, with the German case. Several

of my colleagues indicated, "Well, why can't the Turkish government take the

same position the German government does?"

 

Well, I wish they did. I think the German government's approach,

beginning with the regime of Konrad Adenauer and all through the decades,

has been a very farsighted, very mature, very judicious and very intelligent

approach. And our job would be a great deal more manageable if the

government of Turkey would have the same farsighted approach saying "Mea

culpa. Mea maxima culpa," and we move on from there.

 

Those are not the facts. It's regrettable that those are not the facts.

But American national security and foreign policy interests must take

precedent over satisfying any lobby, any lobby in this country.

 

We have also heard some comments about unintended consequences. Well,

there are unintended consequences in two ways. There are unintended

consequences which are not pointed out, and there are unintended

consequences which are highlighted. I am trying to highlight the unintended

consequences of this well-intentioned resolution of my colleague.

 

Those consequences will be devastating. They will be devastating across

the board with respect to all of the issues in which Turkey is involved,

including Turkish-Armenian relations.

 

Mr. Meeks and others have indicated the tremendous range of human rights

violations over the years. My resolution deals with all of them without

singling out any of them. And if I may just deal with one paragraph in this

resolution, despite the best efforts of democratic nations and the

ameliorating influence of universal religious and humanist traditions, the

20th century was the bloodiest in history with an estimated 175 million

people worldwide having lost their lives because of politically motivated

violence, genocide, ethnic cleansing, planned starvation and other forms of

exploitation and basic cruelty.

 

My substitute Mr. Chairman, deals with the tragedy of Armenia. It fully

recognizes the horrendous human suffering, anguish and devastation that

unfolded in the case of Armenia. But it does not single out Turkey, an

important NATO ally, where current and future U.S. national security

interests and foreign policy interests are so important.

 

I strongly urge the adoption of the substitute and I yield back the

balance of my time.

 

 

GEJDENSON:

Mr. Chairman?

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Gejdenson?

 

 

GEJDENSON:

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment and

simply say that, again, I think Mr. Lantos earnestly and I think many of us

are concerned about the impact on Turkish- American relations. I think that,

again, I believe Turkish-American relations are based on mutual interests.

They are strong allies in the region. They share many of our same concern

for security and stability in the region, and that should continue.

 

I do think that the authors of this resolution deserve to have an

up-and-down vote on the resolution, that there is a process that one has to

confront the horrors of the past and I do think the original text does that.

It does so specially with the amendment that I worked out with Mr. Tancredo,

that is not intended in any way to be an affront to the modern Turkish

government; that this is a recognition of a horror that happened in history

and we should simply vote our conscience on that up or down.

 

The gentleman's amendment might be a nice and worthy resolution, but it

does not meet the needs of what we're discussing here today.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Royce?

 

Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

 

 

ROYCE:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I would just point out we do speak out on

genocide and we do speak out to condemn other governments. As a matter of

fact, we have agreed to bring up a resolution by Mr. Lantos criticizing

Kenya, and yet Mombasa is a strategic port.

 

Earlier this year we brought up the resolution to condemn the Sudanese

government for its genocidal war in Southern Sudan. And I will remind the

members that vote on the House floor passed by 416 to one. So -- and in

doing so, that resolution found that the Sudanese government is deliberately

and systematically committing genocide in southern Sudan.

 

 

LANTOS:

Will my colleague yield for a moment?

 

 

ROYCE:

I will yield and I am pointing -- I will yield.

 

 

LANTOS:

There are two profound differences in the example my good friend raises.

The first one is that the Sudanese government -- the current Sudanese

government is currently engaged in human rights violations of the most

egregious types.

 

Number two, Sudan is not a major NATO ally.

 

So, with all due respect to my colleagues, to lump this resolution

together with a long-overdue denunciation of the dictatorial regime in the

Sudan which is, as we sit here, killing people for religious and other

reasons, I don't think is a very accurate comparison.

 

 

ROYCE:

Well, it's not the only comparison I made if I could reclaim my time. I

also pointed our your resolution that we've agreed to bring up, criticizing

the government of Kenya, despite the fact that we have a strategic port

there. And my point is that, regardless of whether Sudan was an ally or not

an ally, I think I'm glad we've spoken out on Sudan. I wish the U.S.

Congress had spoken out at the time of the Armenian genocide. And what we

can do now is to move to set this record straight, and I suggest we do.

 

 

SMITH:

Mr. Chairman?

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Smith?

 

 

SMITH:

I want to take a very brief moment just to rise in opposition to the

amendment in the nature of a substitute to point out that the language in

the amendment is certainly not objectionable. As a matter of fact it's

laudable language but it is the fact that it is being offered in lieu of the

pending resolution as a way of not getting to the underlying.

 

As a free-standing amendment, perhaps as an introduced bill, referred to

the appropriate committees, which obviously would be the Subcommittee on

International Ops and Human Rights, it would be a fine resolution. But I

think we need to realize that this would take the place of the very

substantive language that Mr. Radanovich has offered.

 

And let me just say to my good friend before he had indicated in talking

about Eli Wiesel that is he an expert on the genocide that has gone on -- or

went on, I should say, in Armenia by the Ottoman Empire -- that I happen to

believe that he is an expert with enormous standing when he speaks to

terrible and despicable crimes. When he stood at the Holocaust Museum with

the president of the United States and turned to Mr. Clinton and said, "Do

something, Mr. President," it was the weight of a man who has lived through

atrocity and his words need to be listened to very carefully.

 

When you juxtapose that with the scholars who have come forward, as was

noted earlier in the debate, I mean if we're still talking about findings of

fact, those who have been in denial have won. They have gotten us to delay,

to suggest that there are some holes in the argument. And that's not the

case.

 

And as my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez said earlier, look

at the record. It is replete. It is filled with factual documentation about

this despicable crime.

 

And when it comes to chastising other despicable crimes, I take a second

place to nobody. As a member for the last 20 years, I have spoken out

against crimes against humanity in China, twice got the whole House of

Representatives to go on record decrying forced abortion in China as crimes

against humanity.

 

I have offered resolutions time and again in virtually every part of the

world. When I joined with Mr. Lantos and many others and took the lead on

Romania, we were told by the State Department, "Don't ruffle the feathers,"

and that was a Reagan and Bush State Department.

 

So, and yet we stood up against Nikolae Ceausescu and talked about his

crimes. The point being, we have before us...

 

 

LANTOS:

Will my colleague...

 

 

ROYCE:

In one second -- a very well crafted resolution my Mr. Radanovich, Mr.

Rogan and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bonior, and 100-plus other

co-sponsors. We need to deal with that language and not try to supplant it

with what is otherwise very laudable language.

 

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

 

 

LANTOS:

There just -- as he knows, I have the utmost regard for my good friend.

I stood with him or he stood with me on human rights issues for 20 years.

 

There are profound differences between both the communist regime of

Ceausescu in Romania and the despicable communist dictatorship in Beijing.

 

You and I have stood together denouncing Ceausescu and denouncing the

rulers in Beijing.

 

Turkey happens to be a major NATO ally. China is not a major NATO ally.

Ceausescu's Romania was not a NATO ally. And to draw these analogies, with

all due respect, I believe confuses the issue. The issue is, do we

deliberately wish to insult, to humiliate a major NATO ally in the most

strategic location of the Middle East and the edge of Europe?

 

And my judgment is that, on balance, it is contrary to our national

interests to do so, and that is why I offered my substitute which denounces

all of the actions that the original resolution denounces but does so in a

non-humiliating fashion.

 

 

ROYCE:

Reclaiming my time. Konrad Adenauer and the current as well as the

post-Nazi government in Germany made it very clear that which went on, the

Holocaust and the terrible behavior of the Nazis was something that they

would not countenance and they denounced it.

 

Constaninescu, the president of Romania -- and I met with him at length

in Romania -- he has no problem, as do any of the other current democrats in

Romania, of denouncing the egregious behavior of the Ceausescu regime. The

problem with the government of Turkey is the denial issue.

 

And I believe the beginning of healing, rather than the continuing

festering of the problem, is an honest assessment of what happened; admit it

and move on. And why the denial? It only brings more scrutiny.

 

And again, the pending resolution fine in and of its own right, but when

it's done in lieu of...

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman's time...

 

 

ROYCE:

Mr. Chairman...

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Rohrabacher?

 

 

ROHRABACHER:

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Would you like to give the time to the

other side first?

 

 

GILMAN:

Well, we have no requests on the other side at the moment.

 

 

ROHRABACHER:

All right, let me just say that I would like to ask Mr. Lantos a

question.

 

I don't have the text of your amendment. Does your amendment condemn the

atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people?

 

 

LANTOS:

It does not single out any specific set of atrocities. It deals with

these outrageous human rights violations which resulted in a 175 million

innocent people being killed during the last century.

 

 

ROHRABACHER:

But it does not mention any country in particular?

 

 

LANTOS:

It does not mention any country.

 

 

ROHRABACHER:

If -- let me just suggest if your amendment would be amended to include

a list of countries that included the Ottoman Empire, so that it would be

specifically mentioning the genocide that this whole debate is about, I

would be inclined to support your amendment. If it does not, I think those

of us who are included to support the Radanovich proposal here can't come

over and say that this is an adequate substitute. But if you would include

the names of the Ottoman Empire and several other countries that have

committed atrocities, I think that that would be adequate to accomplish what

this committee is trying to do here today.

 

 

LANTOS:

Will my friend yield?

 

 

ROHRABACHER:

I certainly would.

 

 

LANTOS:

I think his suggestion is a very constructive one. I take it seriously

and if we can defer action on this matter, I will proceed in developing such

a comprehensive list and bring it back at the next meeting of the committee.

I will be most happy to do so.

 

 

ROHRABACHER:

I am afraid that we're probably going to have votes on this issue before

you would have that chance. If your staff could put together or someone

could put together that amendment to your amendment as we speak now, I would

be them inclined to supporting your proposal.

 

Otherwise, I cannot personally do that.

 

 

(UNKNOWN)

Would the gentleman yield...

 

 

ROHRABACHER:

Yes, I would.

 

 

(UNKNOWN)

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

 

I wanted to try to respond to the question that was asked first by our

colleague Chairman Burton and my dear friend Congressman Lantos: Why some

and not others? And I think one distinction that ought to be borne in mind

is, as long as there is a victim who is still alive, you can't bring back

everything, but maybe there's something that a resolution can do. That seems

to me one distinction we haven't spent time with.

 

And I remember voting in favor of the Japanese-American apology when our

good friend Norm Mineta proposed. And that is a distinction between some of

the questions that our good friend Chairman Burton raised about other

atrocities including slavery, and including the Trail of Tears that our

friend Mr. Ballenger raised.

 

It's not a perfect rule, but I think it's one that might give us a

little guidance at present.

 

What we do should be more than a debating society. We all grant that we

are at risk of being characterized as such if all we do is make

pronouncements. But if there is a victim today still alive whose pain can be

somewhat alleviated, even in a minor degree, by a resolution that shows that

some people in the world recognize the validity of their suffering, that it

did happen, well, then I think it's -- it separates it from all of the other

cases.

 

And the only exemption I suppose, the only remaining question, and one

Mr. Meeks raised, is perhaps we ought to be very careful about being

introspective about our own country.

 

I yield back to my friend.

 

 

ROHRBACHER:

Well, reclaiming my time, I just say that we are also here and as Mr.

Lantos and others have reminded us, engaged in making American foreign

policy that will determine the peace of this world as well as the well-being

of our country. And we must, in dealing with a country like Turkey which has

been a friend, and a good friend -- Turkey hasn't just been a friend, Turkey

has been a good friend of the United States. In the Korean War and in

Vietnam, the Turks were there at our side.

 

In the battle against drugs, Turkey was almost overrun with drug dealers

50 years ago and they fought against them and they have succeeded. And now

they're playing a very important positive role in Central Asia.

 

So, if there is a way for us deal with this crime of the Ottoman Empire

and not at the same time hurt Turkey, go out of the way to hurt Turkey,

which is after all not the government and not the same people who committed

this crime, let us do that.

 

But as someone who believes that human rights has to play an important

role, I think, in American policy, I think at least putting it on the record

has be part of any amendment that...

 

 

LANTOS:

Will my friend yield? I prepared his list and if I may read that list I

would appreciate his support.

 

The list I am proposing is China, the Soviet Union, South Africa, the

Ottoman Empire, Iraq, Iran and Sudan, among others.

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman's time has expired.

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman?

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Burton?

 

 

(UNKNOWN)

Parliamentary inquiry Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Yes, you have been recognized...

 

 

(UNKNOWN)

Has the chair -- has the chair ruled on the point of order that was

observed at the beginning of this debate?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise my point of order.

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman?

 

 

GILMAN:

Let me respond to the gentleman. Mr. Radanovich has made a point of

order but we have his point of order.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

I raise that point of order now.

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman, you recognized me, I believe.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman, I would to raise a point of order.

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman, did you recognize me?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

A point or order as to the germaneness of this...

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Burton?

 

 

(UNKNOWN)

Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman will state his inquiry.

 

 

(UNKNOWN)

Normally I know the answer to my questions, but in this case I don't. If

the gentleman is pressing his point of order at this stage, and he is no

longer reserving it, do you have to rule on his point of order before Mr.

Burton?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Yes.

 

 

GILMAN:

In response to the gentleman's inquiry, Mr. Burton has been recognized

and I can't take him off of the sheet, but I will then recognize the point

of order -- the objection that's been raised right after Mr. Burton.

 

 

LANTOS:

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?

 

 

GILMAN:

The gentleman will state his inquiry.

 

 

LANTOS:

I think Mr. Burton's point, and all other points, should be deliberately

listened to by all of us. We have a live vote. I would like to request that

we recess and then we return. Mr. Burton should be given the floor. But I

don't think that we can operate this with the bells ringing. This is an

important issue. It deserves the attention we are all giving to it. I am

asking unanimous consent that we now recess until after the vote.

 

 

GILMAN:

In response to your request, Mr. Lantos, this, I understand, is the last

vote of the day. And I fear we won't have enough members here to continue

our business. And it's our intention -- the intention of the chair to move

on our entire agenda over until next week. But we will try to conclude on

this amendment if we can. If we cannot we will have to put that over as

well.

 

Mr. Burton, are you...

 

 

BURTON:

Yes. Mr. Chairman, I will try to take the full five minutes so we can

reach the floor. I appreciate Mr. Lantos' remarks.

 

First of all, let me say I think Mr. Lantos' suggestion and his

amendment, in the nature of a substitute, is far preferable to what we have

before us.

 

I also think that what he's suggested as a list of nations that have

committed acts of atrocities and other acts of genocide should be

incorporated into that. And I would be happy to support that.

 

But let me just read real briefly to you something that has been

omitted. This is February 23, 1995. And I hope every member will listen to

this, because we're talking about so-called Armenian genocide and there were

atrocities that took place; no question about that.

 

This is in 1995. Armenian forces -- Armenian forces, often with the

direct military support of the Republic of Armenia, were responsible for the

majority of violations of the laws of war in fighting in Nagorno-Artsax --

I have trouble with that every time -- in 1993 and 1994 according to Human

Rights Watch Helsinki. In its 136-page report, "Azerbaijan's Seven Years of

Conflict in Nagorno- Artsax" released today, Human Rights Watch Helsinki

documents hostage-taking and -holding, violent force displacement of

civilians, mistreatment and likely execution of prisoners, indiscriminate

fire and looting and burning of civilian homes in 1993 and '94 by Armenian

forces often supported militarily by the Republic of Armenia.

 

Now, you know, here is another forced replacement by the people that

we're supposed to be recognizing today as the victims of genocide.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Will the gentleman yield?

 

 

BURTON:

If we're going to be talking about...

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Will the gentleman yield?

 

 

BURTON:

In just a moment. If we're going to be talking about this kind of a

resolution, let's don't be selective. Let's make sure that we include as

many as possible of those who perpetrated acts of genocide upon humanity or

upon their own people. And I think that's what Mr. Lantos is trying to say

and trying to do.

 

And we don't always agree on everything, but I'll tell you I think he's

right on the money today. And for us to do less, is to be very selective.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Will the gentleman...

 

 

BURTON:

Why pick out one when there are so many others including...

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Will the gentleman yield?

 

 

BURTON:

I will be happy to yield to my colleague. Who is it?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman?

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Radanovich?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

I raise my point of order as to germaneness.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Radanovich raises his point of order. Yes.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

As to germaneness.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Burton has two more minutes.

 

 

BURTON:

Let me just say that I think we need to get to the floor and vote. And

he's going to raise the point of order anyhow. I've finished, concluded my

remarks. So, I will yield.

 

 

GILMAN:

We will now take up Mr. Radanovich's -- will the gentleman make his

statement on your point of order?

 

 

RADANOVICH:

I might be willing to consider an amendment like this, with due respect

to the author, if there was language in there that struck every reference to

the Jewish Holocaust and replaced it with this watered-down piece of

nothing.

 

I mean I -- this is -- the Congress has historically in the past, and

this committee, dealt with specific genocides, one in Sudan, one in

Yugoslavia, one in Rwanda in just these past few months.

 

This does not deal with the issue of the Armenian genocide, and to my

knowledge the Ottoman Empire is not a member of NATO.

 

So, I would request that this committee reject this. It is not germane

to the bill. The bill is specific to the Armenian genocide and that's why I

raise the issue of germaneness.

 

 

GILMAN:

I thank the gentleman. And the chair is prepared to rule on the

germaneness. The Lantos amendment deals with a matter other than the central

subject of the pending resolution, the Armenian genocide. In fact, it

removes all reference to the Armenian genocide. Accordingly, the point of

order is well taken under Clause VII of Rule XVI and the amendment is ruled

out of order.

 

 

LANTOS:

I challenge the ruling of the chair.

 

 

GILMAN:

The question is on the ruling of the chair. Will the ruling of the chair

stand as the ruling of the committee?

 

Mr. Radanovich is recognized to offer a motion to table.

 

 

RADANOVICH:

Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to lay the appeal on the table.

 

 

GILMAN:

The motion has been -- the question is on tabling the motion to appeal

the chair. All in favor signify in the usual manner.

 

 

MEMBERS:

Aye.

 

 

GILMAN:

Opposed?

 

 

MEMBERS:

No.

 

 

GILMAN:

They ayes have it.

 

 

LANTOS:

I request a roll call, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Is there a sufficient second for the roll call?

 

The chair will count.

 

Insufficient number for the roll call.

 

 

LANTOS:

Could you specify what you mean by an insufficient number for the roll

call?

 

 

GILMAN:

A recorded vote has been demanded. One-fifth of those present if a

quorum is present.

 

Accordingly, there...

 

 

BURTON:

Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Who is asking for recognition?

 

 

BURTON:

It's Congressman Burton, Mr. Chairman.

 

 

GILMAN:

Mr. Burton?

 

 

BURTON:

I make a point of order. A quorum is not present.

 

 

GILMAN:

The chair will count.

 

A quorum is present.

 

Since there is a vote on now, and since the amendment has been declared

non-germane, we will now recess until next week, at which time a proper

notice will be sent to all of the members of the committee, in which we will

conclude with our resolutions.

 

The committee stands adjourned.

 

The FDCH Transcript Service Sept. 28, 2000

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Speakers

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN (R-NY), CHAIRMAN

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM F. GOODLING (R-PA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES A. LEACH (R-IA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY J. HYDE (R-IL)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DOUG BEREUTER (R-NE)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH (R-NJ)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAN BURTON (R-IN)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON GALLEGLY (R-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CASS BALLENGER (R-NC)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DONALD A. MANZULLO (R-IL)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD R. ROYCE (R-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER T. KING (R-NY)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE CHABOT (R-OH)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MARSHALL "MARK" SANFORD (R-SC)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MATT SALMON (R-AZ)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE AMO HOUGHTON (R-NY)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM CAMPBELL (R-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN M. MCHUGH (R-NY)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN BRADY (R-TX)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD M. BURR (R-NC)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL GILLMOR (R-OH)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE P. RADANOVICH (R-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COOKSEY (R-LA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM TANCREDO (R-CO)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SAM GEJDENSON (D-CT), RANKING MEMBER

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM LANTOS (D-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD L. BERMAN (D-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GARY L. ACKERMAN (D-NY)

 

U.S. DELEGATE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA (D-AS)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ (D-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DONALD M. PAYNE (D-NJ)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SHERROD BROWN (D-OH)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY (D-GA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS (D-FL)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PAT DANNER (D-MO)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE EARL F. HILLIARD (D-AL)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT WEXLER (D-FL)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVEN R. ROTHMAN (D-NJ)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM DAVIS (D-FL)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE EARL POMEROY (D-ND)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT (D-MA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GREGORY W. MEEKS (D-NY)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA LEE (D-CA)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH CROWLEY (D-NY)

 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH HOEFFEL (D-PA)

[Guest]

>ROUND 3: HELP PASS THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION - H.RES.596

>

> FAX AND CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE URGING THEM

> TO VOTE FOR THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL

>

> VISIT http://www.anca.org

>TO SEND A FAX TO YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE AND GET IMPORTANT

> CONTACT INFORMATION FOR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

>

>Your faxes and phone calls are critical to the victory of the

>Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.596).

>

>The U.S. House is set to vote on this resolution as early as

>Tuesday, October 10th. Your faxed message and follow-up phone call

>to your U.S. Representative are critical to its final passage.

>

>=================================================================

>Action:

>=================================================================

>

>Send a fax to your Representative today:

>----------------------------------------

>1) Go to http://www.anca.org

>

>2) At the top of the page, click on "Click here to send an ANCA

>Webfax"

>

>3) Enter your Zip Code at the prompt at the top of this page and

>follow the simple instructions.

>

>4) Forward this message to family, friends, and community

>activists you know are interested in this matter.

>

>Call your Representative today:

>-------------------------------

>Increase the impact of your fax by calling your Representative and

>urging their support. Congressional contact information is on the

>ANCA website along with a handy phone script.

>

>=================================================================

>

>For additional information about the Armenian Genocide Resolution

>visit:

>

>http://www.anca.org

>http://aaainc.org

>

>The Armenian Genocide Resolution is actively supported by a

>community-wide coalition of Armenian American organizations,

>including:

>

>Apostolic Exarchate for Armenian Catholics

>Armenian Assembly of America - www.aaainc.org

>Armenian Bar Association

>Armenian Evangelical World Council

>Armenian General Benevolent Union

>Armenian Missionary Association of America

>Armenian National Alliance

>Armenian National Committee of America

>Armenian Relief Society of North America

>Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - East

>Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - West

>Knights of Vartan

>Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - East

>Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - West

>

>**************************************************************

>The following message was distributed to the "ANCA News" list.

>If you received this message in error or would like to be

>removed from the list, send an e-mail with "Please Remove"

>in the subject heading to anca@anca.org. Please accept our

>apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.

>

>Please forward this message only to friends and family,

>who you know would be interested in this issue.

>Please note that sending unsolicited e-mail is considered

>"spam" and is illegal.

>

>If you know of other activists who would be interested in receiving

>press releases and news items on issues of concern to the Armenian

>American community, please e-mail their name, address and

>e-mail to anca@anca.org with the note "Please add" in

>the subject heading. We will be happy to add them to our list.

[Guest]

Guys,

 

I encourage you to contact your congressman/congresswoman. It works! I have done so with my congressman. Where I live, there are no Armenians except me, or at best, there are only handful of them. But, yet, as demonstrated in one of my previous postings, he has responded and has demonstrated openness. I have sent him a new, more detailed email yesterday, to push further, and to offer my help in informing him in the issue. Don't be skeptical. Just try it. It takes 2 minutes to send a standard letter per the previous posting.

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited October 06, 2000).]

[Guest]

I have found that the HR596 has not come to the floor, today. The expectation is that it will come tomorrow.

 

I was surprised to here an estimate of 50-50 chance.

[Guest]

It appears that HR596 has not come to the floor of the House today, either. There is an expectation that it may do so tomorrow, and C-Span will broadcast it.

[Guest]

Great! I'll actually be home (very rare...lol) to watch it! But they better debate it early in the day, or I'll have to leave and will wind up being very upset

 

Gayane

[Guest]

H.Res.596 Committee:

The Coalition for Affirmation of the

U.S. Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

October 12, 2000

 

Contact: hres398@aol.com

(202) 775-1918

(202) 393-3434

 

RULES COMMITTEE APPROVES "CLOSED RULE"

FOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

 

-- Sponsors of Resolution Welcome Committee Decision

 

WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. House Rules Committee, in a meeting

yesterday evening, approved a rule governing debate on the Armenian

Genocide Resolution (now H.Res.596). This rule will allow the

resolution to be considered by the full U.S. House of

Representatives.

 

The resolution could have been considered as early as today, but

the House adjourned before taking any action on the resolution.

The next opportunity for a vote will be when Congress returns to

complete its legislative business on the evening of Tuesday,

October 17th.

 

In a move welcomed by the resolution's sponsors, the Rules

Committee, chaired by Rep. David Dreier, approved a "closed rule"

for the resolution by voice vote. The adoption of this rule

prohibits amendments from the House floor and provides for one hour

of floor debate on the rule and another hour on the resolution

itself, both divided equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Speaking in support of the Armenian Genocide Resolution at the

Rules Committee meeting were co-author George Radanovich (R-CA),

International Operations Subcommittee Chairman Chris Smith (R-NJ),

and Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ). Speaking

against the resolution were Reps. Dan Burton (R-IN), Porter Goss

(R-FL), John Linder (R-GA), Ed Whitfield (R-KY).

 

Prior to yesterday's action by the Rules Committee, the Armenian

Genocide Resolution had been considered and approved by the

Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, and the

full International Relations Committee.

 

The Armenian Genocide Resolution affirms the United States record

on the Armenian Genocide and 1) Calls upon the President to ensure

that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate

understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human

rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United

States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and 2) Urges the

President to properly characterize the Armenian Genocide as

genocide in the President's annual April 24th address.

 

The Armenian Genocide Resolution has been actively supported by a

coalition of Armenian American organizations including the

Apostolic Exarchate for Armenian Catholics; Armenian Assembly of America;

Armenian Bar Association;

Armenian Evangelical World Council;

Armenian General Benevolent Union;

Armenian Missionary Association of America; Armenian National Alliance;

Armenian National Committee of America; Armenian Relief Society of North America; Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - East;

Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - West;

Knights of Vartan;

Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of

America - East;

Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America - West.

[Guest]

CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY

HOUSE ACTION REPORTS

October 19, 2000

 

Thursday's Schedule

 

The House meets at 10 a.m. to consider the following:

House amendments to S 2796, Water Resources Development Act

Conference report on HR 4635, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies/Energy & Water

Appropriations for FY 2001 (H Rept 106-988; see House Action Reports

Conference Summary No. 106-31, Oct. 18)

H J Res 114, Further Continuing Appropriations for FY 2001

Note: The measure extends the current continuing appropriations resolution

through Wednesday, Oct. 25.

 

H Res 640, permitting consideration today of five bills under suspension of

the rules (see below)

HR 4541, Commodity Futures Modernization Act (Suspension; H Rept 106-711,

Parts 1, 2 and 3)

HR 2780, Kristen's Act (Suspension)

H Res 605, Implementing the Amber Plan (Suspension)

H Con Res 271, expressing the support of Congress for activities to increase

public awareness of multiple sclerosis (Suspension)

HR 2592, Regulate Low-speed Electric Bicycles under Consumer Product Safety

Act (Suspension; H Rept 106-946)

H Res 596, Affirmation of U.S Record on the Armenian Genocide (H Rept

106-933)

 

Anticipated Amendments

 

Amendments to S 2796, Water Resources Development Act

None permitted under the recommended rule.

 

Amendments to H J Res 114, Continuing Appropriations

None permitted under the recommended rule.

 

Amendments to H Res 596, Armenian Genocide

None permitted under the recommended rule.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
HR 2592, Regulate Low-speed Electric Bicycles under Consumer Product Safety
Act (Suspension; H Rept 106-946)
H Res 596, Affirmation of U.S Record on the Armenian Genocide (H Rept
106-933)

---

Not to make light of this issue in any way, but...

We come right after discussion on regulating low-speed electric bicycles ???

[Guest]

I have just received information that under the severe pressure of President Clinton the HR596 has been pulled out from the house floor, and will not come back during the 106th Congress. This implies that in the 107th Congress the effort will need to start all over from ground zero.

 

I think that we have gotten one good thing out of this – 11% awareness in Turkey.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
I have just received information that under the severe pressure of President Clinton the HR596 has been pulled out from the house floor

---

That f'ing bastard ! One more reason I should have never voted for him !

I appreciate your optimism, but it pisses me off to have the rug pulled out at the 11th hour

[This message has been edited by Pilafhead (edited October 19, 2000).]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
I think that we have gotten one good thing out of this – 11% awareness in Turkey.

---

We'll never get 100% awareness in turkey, because there are a few million residents missing from eastern turkey.

P.S. EVERY Armenian better vote for Frank Pallone from New Jersey in the future. We owe him for his speech on the House floor.

[Guest]

It was naive to think from the very begining of this "Affair" that americans will side with armenians. Money talks. This is American moral.

[Guest]

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSIONAL ARMENIAN CAUCUS

CHAIRMAN FRANK PALLONE (D-NJ)

 

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my intense disappointment with the decision

by the Republican leadership to pull the Armenian Genocide

Resolution from consideration by the House of Representatives for the

remainder of this Congressional session.

 

The Speaker promised to bring this resolution to the floor. His stated

reason for not doing so is a request by President Clinton that it not be

considered.

 

Mr. Speaker, the State Department and President Clinton have opposed

recognition of the Armenian Genocide from day one. We all know that

the State Department repeatedly uses national security as the reason to

oppose most things Armenian.

 

What's really going on here is that the Speaker and the President, and

therefore the government of these United States both executive and

legislative have succumbed to the threats of the Turkish government, threats

by that government against American soldiers.

 

This is shameful. Turkey is a bully. We have America, the most powerful

country in the world, being told by the Republic of Turkey what we can

talk about and what we can think. Not only with regard to human rights

violations, but with regard to the most heinous crime against humanity -

genocide.

 

I'd like to know what kind of ally threatens American lives if it doesn't

get its way. With friends like that, as the saying goes, who needs enemies.

 

It's not as if Turkey's membership in NATO and assistance as part of the

NATO Alliance only helps the U.S. Turkey allows NATO to use its bases

against Iraq because of Iraq's threat to Turkey, not Iraq's threat to the

United States. Turkey allows NATO to use its bases out of self-interest.

 

Is Turkey going to abrogate all its bilateral and multilateral agreements

over the Armenian Genocide Resolution? I think not! These agreements

exist because they're in Turkey's self interest.

 

What happened today on the House floor sets a terrible precedent. It means

that Turkey can threaten us in other areas. For example, they can

threaten not to negotiate a settlement with Cyprus, and continue to occupy

that nation. They can threaten the European Union if that organization

does not allow them to become a member despite continued human rights

violations against the Kurds and other minorities.

 

We have heard these same threats before. In 1996, for example, this body

voted overwhelmingly, 268 to 153, to adopt an amendment to reduce

U.S. assistance to Turkey until it recognized the Armenian Genocide. The

doomsday scenarios that opponents of the resolution predicted did

not occur in 1996, and I do not believe that they will occur today.

 

The relationship between the United States and Turkey is mutually

beneficial. It is simply not in Turkey's national interest to sever

relations with

the United States over a House resolution. Which brings me back to the

resolution and the importance I believe it plays in our overall foreign

policy. If America is going to live up to the standards we set for

ourselves, and continue to lead the world in affirming human rights

everywhere,

we need to stand up and recognize the Armenian catastrophe for what it was -

the systematic elimination of a people.

 

The fact of the Armenian Genocide is not in dispute. The fact of the

American record on the U.S. response to the Armenian Genocide is not in

dispute and House Resolution 596 affirms these facts. The only step left is

to reject the deniers of the genocide.

 

As members of Congress, we should not ignore our nation's history at the

insistence of an ally, out of geopolitical convenience.Congress should

not be forced by a foreign government to deny or ignore the U.S. record and

response to the events that took place in the Ottoman Empire from

1915 to 1923.

 

If the House of Representatives cannot speak to our historical experience

because of threats from a foreign government, then what message do

we send to our friends and enemies alike?

 

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to reconsider your decision and allow the

resolution to be voted on here on the House floor. I assure you it

would pass overwhelmingly. To do anything else would establish a dangerous

precedent for how history will be recorded with regard to current

and future actions of Congress and the Administration in response to man's

inhumanity to man.

[Guest]

H.Res.596 Committee:

The Coalition for Affirmation of the

U.S. Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

October 19, 2000

 

Contact: hres398@aol.com

(202) 775-1918

(202) 393-3434

 

SPEAKER HASTERT WITHDRAWS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

 

-- Citing Clinton Administration Claims that its Consideration

Would Threaten American Lives, Speaker Withdraws Measure

Only Moments before Adoption by House

 

Washington, DC -- Citing claims by President Clinton that the

consideration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.596) would

endanger American lives, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert today

broke his pledge to bring the measure to the House floor, acceding

to the President's request that he withdraw the resolution. This

action was taken only moments before the resolution was to come to

the House floor for a vote, reported the H.Res.596 Committee.

 

Speaker Hastert, in an announcement explaining his decision, noted

that, based on the concerns raised by the President, he was

removing the resolution from the legislative schedule of the House.

The Speaker said that President Clinton had raised "grave national

security concerns" over the resolution, stressing that even the

measure's consideration would pose a threat to American lives. The

President, in a letter to the Speaker dated today, noted that

bringing the resolution to the House floor "could have far-reaching

negative consequences for the United States." The Speaker

acknowledged in his statement that the resolution "would have

enjoyed support among the majority of the House."

 

In a statement released after the Speaker's decision was announced,

the "596 Committee" said, "Turkish threats are not credible, but

have nevertheless prevailed. Instead of succumbing to threats

against American service personnel stationed in Turkey, the Speaker

should have called upon the President to reject Turkey's threats

and put that nation on notice that it would be held fully

accountable for the safety of Americans there."

 

The Committee also noted that it was "deeply troubled that the

Speaker had allowed Turkish threats, as conveyed by the President,

to prevent the House of Representatives from voting on a measure

which he himself supports, which has progressed through every stage

of the legislative process, and which, by his own admission, enjoys

the support of a majority in the House."

 

The Armenian Genocide Resolution has been cosponsored by over 140

members of Congress and was the subject of more than ten hours of

mark-ups and hearings at the committee level. It was amended

several times to accommodate the concerns of members of Congress,

had been approved by the Rules Committee, and was slated - as late

as 7:00 p.m. this evening - for a final vote on the House floor.

 

In a statement on the House floor following announcement of the

Speaker's decision, Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Frank

Pallone (D-NJ) expressed sharp disappointment with the Speaker's

decision, noting that, "If America is going to live up to the

standards we set for ourselves, and continue to lead the world in

affirming human rights everywhere, we need to stand up and

recognize the Armenian catastrophe for what it was - the systematic

elimination of a people. Commenting on the Speaker's claim that he

was pressured into withdrawing the resolution, Rep. Pallone

stressed that, "if the House of Representatives cannot speak to our

historical experience because of threats from a foreign government,

then what message do we send to our friends and enemies alike?"

 

The full texts of the Speaker's press release, President Clinton's

letter, and Congressman Pallone's remarks are provided below.

 

#####

 

 

====================================================

Press Release from Speaker

of the House Dennis Hastert

====================================================

 

J. Dennis Hastert

Fourteenth District, Illinois

 

Speaker's Press Office

United States House of Representatives

Washington D.C.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: 202-225-2800

October 19, 2000 John Feehery or Pete Jeffries

 

Regarding the Armenian Genocide Resolution

 

(Washington , D.C.) Speaker Denny Hastert released the following

statement today:

 

"Because the President has raised gave national security concerns,

he has requested that the House not consider H.Res.596, Affirmation

of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution. I

have acceded to this request.

 

I support this resolution and I supported bringing it to the floor.

I believe that the Armenian people suffered a historic tragedy and

that this resolution was a fitting condemnation of those events.

But the President of the United States, the Commander and Chief of

our Armed Forces, has asked us not to being this resolution to the

House Floor.

 

The President believes that passage of this resolution may

adversely impact the situation in the Middle East and risk the

lives of Americans. This is not an idle request. We all know that

the situation in the Middle East is unusually tense. The cease-fire

now in place between Israel and the Palestinians is fragile. The

Congress, while it has a right to express its opinions on critical

issues of the day, also must be cognizant of the consequences of

those opinions.

 

The President has made plain his very strong concerns about the

timing of this resolution and its possible impact on our interests

in the Middle East. We must take these concerns into consideration,

especially given the latest developments in the Middle East.

 

This is a bipartisan that I believe would have enjoyed support

among the majority of the House. Every patriotic American should

heed the President's request. Current circumstances dictate that we

proceed with caution, and for that reason, I have asked the

Majority Leader to take H.Res. 596 off the schedule for the

remainder of the 106th Congress. The President's letter is

attached.

 

====================================================

Letter from President Bill Clinton to

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert

====================================================

 

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

 

October 19, 2000

 

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert

Speaker of the

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515-1314

 

Dear Mr. Speaker:

 

I am writing to express my deep concern about H. Res. 596, dealing

with the tragic events in eastern Anatolia under Ottoman rule in

the years 1915-1923.

 

Every year on April 24, I have commemorated Armenian Remembrance

Day, mourning the deportations and massacres of innocent Armenians

during that era. And every year, I have challenged all Americans to

recommit themselves to ensuring that such horrors never occur

again.

 

However, I am deeply concerned that consideration of H. Res. 596 at

this time could have far-reaching negative consequences for the

United States.

 

We have significant interests in this troubled region of the world:

containing the threat posed by East and Central Asia, stabilizing

the Balkans, and developing new sources of energy. Consideration of

the resolution at this sensitive time will negatively affect those

interests and could undermine efforts to encourage improved

relations between Armenia and Turkey -- the very goal the sponsors

of this Resolution seek to advance.

 

I fully understand how strongly both Turkey and Armenia feel about

this issue. Ultimately, this painful matter can only be resolved by

both sides examining the past together.

 

I urge you in the strongest terms not to bring this Resolution to

the floor

at this time.

 

Sincerely,

 

[signed]

Bill Clinton

[Guest]

U.S. House shelves Armenia genocide bill

Legislation sparked protests by Turkish government, citizens

From staff and wire reports

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday canceled a vote on a controversial resolution that would have recognized as genocide the mass killings of Armenians in what is now Turkey approximately 80 years ago.

 

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, said the resolution had been pulled after President Bill Clinton said he was "deeply concerned" about the language in the document. Clinton and Hastert talked by telephone on Wednesday night about the legislation.

Hastert said Clinton had warned of "possible far-reaching negative consequences for the United States" if the House voted on the legislation.

 

Turkey, a key U.S. military ally and a member of NATO, denies the genocide and says that Armenians were killed or displaced as the Ottoman Empire tried to quell civil unrest. Part of the Ottoman Empire became Turkey in 1923.

 

Armenians say 1.5 million of their people were slaughtered between 1915 and 1923 as part of the Ottoman Empire's campaign to force them out of eastern Turkey.

 

"It's outrageous that the Clinton administration has bowed to these threats from Turkey. ... It sets a very dangerous precedent," said Ross Vartian, executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America.

 

Turkey on Friday praised the abandonment of the resolution.

 

Legislator 'saddened'

U.S. Rep. Jim Rogan, R-California, who sponsored the resolution, said he was "personally saddened" the legislation had been pulled. He vowed to reintroduce the resolution after tensions in that region of the world subside.

 

Rogan, locked in a difficult re-election contest, has an estimated 75,000 Americans of Armenian ancestry -- approximately 8 percent of the voters -- living in his district.

 

The resolution was shelved amid heightened tensions in the Middle East over the terrorist bombing in Yemen of the USS Cole, which killed 17 Navy sailors, and weeks of violent clashes recently between Israelis and Palestinians.

 

In a letter to Hastert, Clinton said, "We have significant interests in this troubled region of the world: containing the threat posed by East and Central Asia; stabilizing the Balkans; and developing new sources of energy.

 

"Consideration of the resolution at this sensitive time will negatively affect those interests and could undermine efforts to encourage improved relations between Armenia and Turkey."

 

Turkish reaction swift

There had been some repercussions after the House International Relations Committee approved the resolution earlier this month.

 

Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer had called Clinton to express concern over the resolution, and Turkish legislators threatened not to renew the mandate for U.S. forces using the Incirlik air base in southern Turkey to patrol the no-fly zone in northern Iraq, in an ongoing effort to contain Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

 

Turkey's top general, Huseyin Kivrikoglu, canceled a trip to the United States to meet with U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry Shelton.

 

It also threatened to end negotiations with U.S. firm Bell Textron to buy 145 attack helicopters in a $4.5 billion tender, and hinted at other commercial steps it might take, including fully reopening an oil pipeline from Iraq.

 

'Not an idle request'

The speaker defended the resolution.

 

"I believe the Armenian people suffered a historic tragedy, and that this resolution was a fitting condemnation of those events. But the president of the United States, the commander and chief of our Armed Forces, has asked us not to bring this resolution to the House floor," he said.

 

And in announcing that the vote has been canceled, Hastert said he believed the legislation would have passed, but that circumstances required that U.S. Congress members proceed with caution.

 

"This is not an idle request. We all know that the situation in the Middle East is unusually tense," Hastert said.

[Guest]

CONGRESSMAN JAMES E. ROGAN

Serving California's 27th Congressional District

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 19, 2000

 

Contact: Jeffrey Solsby

202-251-0566

 

STATEMENT FROM CONGRESSMAN JAMES E. ROGAN REGARDING ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORTS

TO BLOCK VOTE ON GENOCIDE BILL

 

WASHINGTON - Congressman James E. Rogan (R-CA) a lead cosponsor of House

Resolution 596 - a bill to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide --

today released the following statement:

 

"This afternoon, a White House courier delivered a letter from President

Clinton to the Speaker of the House. This letter followed many similar

letters sent by the current and former secretaries of defense, by Secretary

of State Madeline Albright, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-ranking

civilian and military officials. Their belief is that pursuing this

resolution may adversely impact the situation in the Middle East and risk

the lives of Americans.

 

"While Speaker Hastert supports this resolution and its intent, today he was

asked by the Commander in Chief to be sensitive to tensions in the Middle

East."

 

"Those fighting this resolution believe that pursuing this action at

this time will put American service men and women at risk. Speaker Hastert

has acted to protect the safety of our armed forces.

 

"While I am personally saddened by this change, I remain pleased with our

historic success to enact this resolution. Never before has this

legislation earned even a hearing. This year, working with my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle, we were able - together - to secure not just one

hearing, but two hearings, a markup and a scheduled floor vote. That is

great progress.

 

"Supporters of this resolution have my assurance, and that of the Speaker,

that as soon as tensions in the Middle East ease, we will resume our fight

to pass this measure."

 

"Those who would seek to make a political statement at this time of foreign

crises must be reminded that those who serve the public are patriots first,

and politicians second. Our men and women abroad deserve our united

support."

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gamavor:
Pouring money into fruitless lobbying campaingns is out-of-date.

---

Logically, pragmatically, rationally, etc. I agree with you, but I just want to see the Genocide recognized in my grandmother's lifetime. It is one of the few areas of my life and thoughts where I react from the heart rather than the brain.

The idea that I might vote for Rogan simply because of his involvement in the House Resolution, makes my head want to divorce itself from the rest of my body ! I can't stand the guy !



[This message has been edited by Pilafhead (edited October 20, 2000).]

[Guest]

No problem, guys. We have an amazing quality of declaring moral victory in every defeat.

 

Get knowing us

 

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited October 20, 2000).]