Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of H. Con. Res. 27, which condemns the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

The international community has long known that Libya has a deplorable record on human rights and is a sponsor of terrorism. For that reason, it is shocking that Libya is now the chair of a body charged with the responsibility of promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for the world's citizens.

The United Nations' decision to elect Libya as the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is alarming for several reasons. First, it is remarkable that United Nations would even consider Libya's candidacy for the position, given the fact that Libya has not accepted responsibility for its role in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed hundreds of innocent people over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Until Libya takes responsibility for its actions and complies with particular Security Council mandates, Libya cannot have any credibility in being the chair of a United Nations commission that promotes human rights. In today's world, where we seek to defeat the threat posed by international terrorism, it is irresponsible for a state like Libya to be elected to such a leadership position.

Second, Libya's selection to be chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights reflects a disturbing trend in international institutions. It has become highly prevalent that states which violate human rights laws seek to secure positions in global bodies that espouse such laws so they can protect their reputations and those of similar regimes. Members of the international community must speak out against such practices lest these institutions become a mockery of international law and human rights.

I urge the House to pass this resolution, which states in the strongest possible terms the outrage of Congress at the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Resolution clearly states that: (1) Libya is a gross violator of

human rights; (2) it is a state sponsor of terrorism; (3) several countries as well as international organizations have condemned Libya's selection as chair of the Commission; (4) the United States is appalled by the European Union's common position of abstention on the critical vote over Libya's selection as chair of the commission; (5) the Secretary of State should engage member countries to support the United States efforts to ensure that states that are gross violators of human rights or sponsors of terrorism not ascend to leadership positions in the United Nations.

Libya has a horrific human rights record. Citizens do not choose their leaders in free and fair elections, nor are they able to petition their government for redress of grievances. It uses summary judicial proceedings to suppress domestic opposition. Security forces torture prisoners during interrogations and as punishment. Security forces arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, and many prisoners are held incommunicado. Many political detainees are held for years without charge. There is not an independent judiciary that enforces legal rights of citizens, and citizens do not have the right to a fair public trial or to be represented by legal counsel. The government infringes on citizens' privacy rights, and citizens do not have the right to be secure in their homes or persons, or to own private property. Libya restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion. Is this the type of country that should be charged with being the chair of a commission that promotes human rights? I think not.

Libya is one of seven countries on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror. As I have said in the past, Libya has continued to acquire weapons of mass destruction and promote state- sponsored terrorism. Last year, our Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security said that there was no doubt that Libya seeks nuclear weapons. Furthermore, he said that Libya has produced at least 100 tons of different kinds of chemical weapons. It is antithetical to the United Nations' mission for peace that a state engaged in creating global havoc be in charge of one of its most important committees.

It is imperative that members of the international community do not retreat from their responsibility to ensure that those charged with monitoring human rights are not, in fact, grave violators themselves. We must not give credibility to countries which violate human rights and support terrorism. To do otherwise is to legitimize their practices.

Congress has recently made its policy clear with respect to Libya's alarming behavior. In 2001, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 2001, which President Bush signed into law in August 2001. I was an original co-sponsor of the bill, and in the Ways and Means Committee I argued in favor of extending the current sanctions in place against Iran and Libya for an additional five years. ILSA threatens the imposition of economic sanctions against foreign entities investing in Iran and Libya's energy sectors. ILSA combines deterrence (the possibility of sanctions) with presidential discretion (through broad waiver authority). ILSA has been very effective so far, the Congress overwhelmingly approved the reauthorization of legislation to keep the pressure on Libya and Iran to stop their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistics missile technology. Libya also remains hostile to the State of Israel and may support terrorist activities against Israel.

Mr. Speaker, it is this great nation's hope that it can one day live in a world where it is not threatened by international terrorism and that human rights for all will be respected. The selection of Libya as chair to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights undermines these goals. I, therefore, urge the House to pass this resolution by a strong bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this resolution, each of us expresses our deepest condolences to the families of our seven explorers, our seven astronauts, who lost their life this past Saturday. Each of us feels a connection to this tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing Annapolis, where the Naval Academy is located. Commander McCool graduated from the Naval Academy. The Naval Academy family misses their comrade. This morning I was with a health care group talking about health care issues. The Columbia mission was life sciences trying to find the answers to dread diseases here in the United States. Each of us was affected by this tragedy.

Six Americans, one Israeli lost their lives. America and Israel share in the loss of our heroes. In their honor, in their memory, we will continue our commitment to space and our commitment to understand what went wrong with the Columbia so that we can continue space travel for the benefit of future generations.

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if I understand the objection, it is based upon the fact that, as I understand it, the bill before us has a waiver on the Budget Act from the Committee on Rules, but that because there is no waiver of the Budget Act provided in the rules, the minority will not have a chance to offer a similar type of a motion to recommit.

I would ask the chairman, is that the basis that we were not protected in the rule, whereas the underlying bill did not get a waiver in the rule?

Mr. Speaker, may I yield on my reservation or argument?

Let me just complete my argument, and then I would welcome the chairman's response.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there needs to be some discretion here as far as fairness in the rules. I know that yesterday we adopted the rules of the House. It seems to me that the minority needs to be protected to be able to offer a motion to recommit.

I understand the chairman's point, but it would seem to me that the rules should permit the minority to offer a motion to recommit if we are going to have an open and full debate in the House.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to pass legislation today, so I support legislation. I think it is important that we deal with the people who lost their benefits in December because we failed to extend the law. I think it is important that we pass legislation that will provide the additional weeks of benefits for those who exhaust their regular unemployment insurance, and the underlying legislation does that and it is worthy of support.

The problem is, as we have heard during the course of this debate, that the legislation does not go far enough. There will be a million people during the next several months who will exhaust their extended benefits, and the gentleman's motion to commit urges us to deal with that group of unemployed who have lost their unemployment insurance benefits through no fault of their own; and if we do not take action immediately, these individuals will not have any unemployment insurance benefits.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the motion before us will not delay the issue. I know I will hear that from my friends. The conference could be appointed today. It could act today. This is not a controversial issue. This is unfinished business from the last Congress. The funds are there. The funds are in the Federal unemployment trust account to pay for these benefits.

In 1990, the last recession we had, we extended benefits for 26 additional weeks. This tells us to do at least as well for the unemployed today as we did in the 1990s so we can get this done. We can get it done quickly, and we can get it done before we adjourn this week, and that is the essence of the gentleman's motion. So I support the underlying bill, but we need to do better now on the unfinished business of the last Congress.

Then, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my chairman who is on the floor that we look at reforming the unemployment insurance and we do it quickly, that we deal with the part-time employees who pay into the unemployment insurance funds and do not get unemployment benefits. And we deal with the people, many of whom left the welfare system for work only to find that their jobs have been lost and we deal with the most recent quarter of their earnings so they can qualify for unemployment insurance. As we look at a stimulus package, let us also look at increasing the benefits for those people who are unemployed. That would certainly stimulate our economy and is far less costly than the tax legislation that the President brought forward yesterday.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Washington's motion to commit. It urges us to do more. It allows us to move forward with the underlying bill but to do more; and we can get it done today, make no mistake about it. The conference report could be back to us before we leave this evening. There is no question about that in anyone's mind. We know exactly what needs to be done, and I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to commit.