Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) as well for his leadership on the U.S.- Morocco Free Trade Agreement. I am a free trader and believe that free trade helps our Nation and the nations of the world. However, I am deeply concerned about the issue of Western Sahara, and I have had concerns that the U.S. needed to make clear that this free trade agreement covers only the internationally- and the U.S.-recognized borders of Morocco and does not include the disputed territory of Western Sahara. It is my understanding that the language in the conference report makes clear that the free trade agreement does not cover resources, goods, services, or any other entity related to trade that originates in Western Sahara.

I would ask the gentleman, does the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement cover trade with the disputed territory of Western Sahara?

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I thank the chairman for that clarification.

The following is a letter from USTR making clear that we do not support Morocco's claim over the Western Sahara and the FTA does not recognize or include the Western Sahara.

Executive Office of the President, the United States

Trade Representative,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2004.

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Pitts: Thank you for your letter of July

19, 2004, concerning our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with

Morocco and the status of Western Sahara.

The Administration's position on Western Sahara is clear:

sovereignty of Western Sahara is in dispute, and the United

States fully supports the United Nations' effort to resolve

this issue. The United States and many other countries do not

recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and have

consistently urged the parties to work with the United

Nations to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.

The FTA will cover trade and investment in the territory of

Morocco as recognized internationally, and will not include

Western Sahara. As our Harmonized Tariff Schedule makes

clear, for U.S. Customs purposes, the United States treats

imports from Western Sahara and Morocco differently. Nothing

in the FTA will require us to change this practice. The

Administration will draft the proclamation authorized in the

legislation implementing the FTA (H.R. 4842) to provide

preferential tariff treatment for goods from the territory of

Morocco. Preferential tariff treatment will not be provided

to goods from Western Sahara.

I hope this letter addresses your question regarding the

FTA and the status of Western Sahara. I encourage you to

support the FTA. It will create economic opportunities for

U.S. manufacturing and service firms, workers, and farmers,

and will support economic reforms and foreign investment in

Morocco.

Thank you again for your letter. Please feel free to

contact me should you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Zoellick.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your leadership.

While trade is a vital component to strengthening with the greater Middle East, promoting the spread of democracy is even more so. The Sahrawi are a peaceful pro-Western, pro-democracy people. They want the international community, including the U.N. Security Council and the United States, to uphold its commitment to a free and transparent referendum for self-determination, and it is unacceptable that Morocco has been allowed to prevent that vote from taking place.

During his tenure the former Secretary of State Baker proposed a plan that both parties accepted at first, and the Moroccans accepted the plan, but as soon as the people of Western Sahara accepted they withdrew their support, and I am deeply concerned that the Moroccan government, as patterned, will use this agreement with help from friends in France and others to attempt to increase its exploitation of the resources.

I just want to clarify the statement about the people of Western Sahara. Earlier today someone said that the Sahrawis are terrorists. I take exception to this remark, as the people of Western Sahara, and like many others in North Africa and the Middle East, have actually tried to peacefully solve the conflict. The State Department does not consider the people of Western Sahara to be terrorists. It is a misstatement. It is wrong. It is unproductive in our fight against terrorism to suggest that they are, and our own State Department does not believe the people of Western Sahara are terrorists.

Secondly, I visited there. I visited the refugee camps. I know the people. They are not terrorists. Members of this House should go to the refugee camps. They should see the terrible malnutrition of the people, the lack of health care, the refugee camps. If they would visit the refugee camps they would know that the information fed to them by supporters is inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, I am voting for the FTA because there is protection for the people and resources of Western Sahara and because I believe the free trade will help the people of Morocco and those of surrounding countries.

The following is a series of items that would make clear that this agreement should not be abused by Morocco to profit off of land that it has no legitimate claim to.

Western Sahara--Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975

International Court of Justice

In its Advisory Opinion which the General Assembly of the

United Nations had requested on two questions concerning

Western Sahara, the Court,

With regard to Question I, ``Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro

and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a

territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?'',

--decided by 13 votes to 3 to comply with the request for

an advisory opinion;

--was unanimously of opinion that Western Sahara (Rio de

Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain

was not a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius).

With regard to Question II, ``What were the legal ties

between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the

Mauritanian entity?'', the Court

--decided by 14 votes to 2 to comply with the request for

an advisory opinion;

--was of opinion, by 14 votes to 2, that there were legal

ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco of the

kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory

Opinion;

--was of opinion, by 15 votes to 1, that there were legal

ties between this territory

and the Mauritanian entity of the kinds indicated in the

penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion.

The penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion was to

the effect that:

The materials and information presented to the Court show

the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal

ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of

the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They

equally show the existence of rights, including some rights

relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between

the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the

territory of Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's

conclusion is that the materials and information presented to

it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty

between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of

Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not

found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the

application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the

decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the

principle of self-determination through the free and genuine

expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.

For these proceedings the Court was composed as follows:

President Lachs; Vice-President Ammoun; Judges Forster, Gros,

Bengzon, Petren, Onyeama, Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, de Castro,

Morozov, Jimenez de Arechaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock, Nagendra

Singh and Ruda; Judge ad hoc Boni.

Judges Gros, Ignacio-Pinto and Nagendra Singh appended

declarations to the Advisory Opinion; Vice-President Ammoun

and Judges Forster, Petren, Dillard, de Castro and Boni

appended separate opinions, and Judge Ruda a dissenting

opinion.

In these declarations and opinions the judges concerned

make clear and explain their positions.

Course of the Proceedings

(paras. 1-13 of Advisory Opinion)

The Court first recalls that the General Assembly of the

United Nations decided to submit two questions for the

Court's advisory opinion by resolution 3292 (XXIX) adopted on

13 December 1974 and received in the Registry on 21 December.

It retraces the subsequent steps in the proceedings,

including the transmission of a dossier of documents by the

Secretary-General of the United Nations (Statute, Art. 65,

para. 2) and the presentation of written statements or

letters and/or oral statements by 14 States, including

Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Spain and Zaire (Statute, Art.

66).

Mauritania and Morocco each asked to be authorized to

choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the proceedings. By an Order

of 22 May 1975 (1.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 6), the Court found

that Morocco was entitled under Articles 31 and 68 of the

Statute and Article 89 of the Rules of Court to choose a

person to sit as judge ad hoc, but that, in the case of

Mauritania, the conditions for the application of those

Articles had not been satisfied. At the same time the Court

stated that those conclusions in no way prejudged its views

with regard to the questions referred to it or any other

question which might fall to be decided, including those of

its competence to give an advisory opinion and the propriety

of exercising that competence.

Competence of the Court

(paras. 14-22 of Advisory Opinion)

Under Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court

may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the

request of any duly authorized body. The Court notes that the

General Assembly of the United Nations is suitably authorized

by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter and that the two

questions submitted are framed in terms of law and raise

problems of international law. They are in principle

questions of a legal character, even if they also embody

questions of fact, and even if they do not call upon the

Court to pronounce on existing rights and obligations. The

Court is accordingly competent to entertain the request.

Propriety of Giving an Advisory Opinion

(paras. 23-74 of Advisory Opinion)

Spain put forward objections which in its view would render

the giving of an opinion incompatible with the Court's

judicial character. It referred in the first place to the

fact that it had not given its consent to the Court's

adjudicating upon the questions submitted. It maintained (a)

that the subject of the questions was substantially identical

to that of a dispute concerning Western Sahara which Morocco,

in September 1974, had invited it to submit jointly to the

Court, a proposal which it had refused: the advisory

jurisdiction was therefore being used to circumvent the

principle that the Court has no jurisdiction to settle a

dispute without the consent of the parties; (b) that the case

involved a dispute concerning the attribution of territorial

sovereignty over Western Sahara and that the consent of

States was always necessary for the adjudication of such

disputes; (c) that in the circumstances of the case the Court

could not fulfill the requirements of good administration of

justice with regard to the determination of the facts. The

Court considers (a) that the General Assembly, while noting

that a legal controversy over the status of Western Sahara

had arisen during its discussions, did not have the object of

bringing before the Court a dispute or legal controversy with

a view to its subsequent peaceful settlement, but sought an

advisory opinion which would be of assistance in the exercise

of its functions concerning the decolonization of the

territory, hence the legal position of Spain could not be

compromised by the Court's answers to the questions

submitted; (b) that those questions do not call upon the

Court to adjudicate on existing territorial rights; (c) that

it has been placed in possession of sufficient information

and evidence.

Spain suggested in the second place that the questions

submitted to the Court were academic and devoid of purpose or

practical effect, in that the United Nations had already

settled the method to be followed for the decolonization of

Western Sahara, namely a consultation of the indigenous

population by means of a referendum to be conducted by Spain

under United Nations auspices. The Court examines the

resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on the subject,

from resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, the

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial

Countries and Peoples, to resolution 3292 (XXIX) on Western

Sahara, embodying the request for advisory opinion. It

concludes that the decolonization process envisaged by the

General Assembly is one which will respect the right of the

population of Western Sahara to determine their future

political status by their own freely expressed will. This

right to self-determination, which is not affected by the

request for advisory opinion and constitutes a basic

assumption of the questions put to the Court, leaves the

General Assembly a measure of discretion with respect to the

forms and procedures by which it is to be realized. The

Advisory Opinion will thus furnish the Assembly with elements

of a legal character relevant to that further discussion of

the problem to which resolution 3292 (XXIX) alludes.

Consequently the Court finds no compelling reason for

refusing to give a reply to the two questions submitted to it

in the request for advisory opinion.

Question I: ``Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El

Hamra) at the Time of Colonization by Spain a Territory

Belonging to No One (terra nullius)?''

(paras. 75-83 of Advisory Opinion)

For the purposes of the Advisory Opinion, the ``time of

colonization by Spain'' may be considered as the period

beginning in 1884, when Spain proclaimed its protectorate

over the Rio de Oro. It is therefore by reference to the law

in force at that period that the legal concept of terra

nullius must be interpreted. In law, ``occupation'' was a

means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory

otherwise than by cession or succession; it was a cardinal

condition of a valid ``occupation'' that the territory should

be terra nullius. According to the State practice of that

period, territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a

social and political organization were not regarded as terrae

nullius: in their case sovereignty was not generally

considered as effected through occupation, but through

agreements concluded with local rulers. The information

furnished to the Court shows (a) that at the time of

colonization Western Sahara was inhabited by peoples which,

if nomadic, were socially and politically organized in tribes

and under chiefs competent to represent them; (b) that Spain

did not proceed upon the basis that it was establishing its

sovereignty over terrae nullius: thus in his Order of 26

December 1884 the King of Spain proclaimed that he was

taking the Rio de Oro under his protection on the basis of

agreements entered into with the chiefs of local tribes.

The Court therefore gives a negative answer to Question I.

In accordance with the terms of the request for advisory

opinion, ``if the answer to the first question is in the

negative'', the Court is to reply to Question II.

Question II: ``What Were the Legal Ties of This Territory

with the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian Entity?''

(paras. 84-161 of Advisory Opinion)

The meaning of the words ``legal ties'' has to be sought in

the object and purpose of resolution 3292 (XXIX) of the

United Nations General Assembly. It appears to the Court that

they must be understood as referring to such legal ties as

may affect the policy to be followed in the decolonization of

Western Sahara. The Court cannot accept the view that the

ties in question could be limited to ties established

directly with the territory and without reference to the

people who may be found in it. At the time of its

colonization the territory had a sparse population that for

the most part consisted of nomadic tribes the members of

which traversed the desert on more or less regular routes,

sometimes reaching as far as southern Morocco or regions of

present-day Mauritania Algeria or other States. These tribes

were of the Islamic faith.

Morocco (paragraphs 90-129 of the Advisory Opinion)

presented its claim to legal ties with Western Sahara as a

claim to ties of sovereignty on the ground of an alleged

immemorial possession of the territory and an uninterrupted

exercise of authority. In the view of the Court, however,

what must be of decisive importance in determining its answer

to Question II must be evidence directly relating to

effective display of authority in Western Sahara at the time

of its colonization by Spain and in the period immediately

preceding. Morocco requests that the Court should take

account of the special structure of the Moroccan State. That

State was founded on the common religious bond of Islam and

on the allegiance of various tribes to the Sultan, through

their caids or sheiks, rather than on the notion of

territory. It consisted partly of what was called the Bled

Makhzen, areas actually subject to the Sultan, and partly of

what was called the Bled

Siba, areas in which the tribes were not submissive to him;

at the relevant period, the areas immediately to the north of

Western Sahara lay within the Bled Siba.

As evidence of its display of sovereignty in Western

Sahara, Morocco invoked alleged acts of internal display of

Moroccan authority, consisting principally of evidence said

to show the allegiance of Saharan caids to the Sultan,

including dahirs and other documents concerning the

appointment of caids, the alleged imposition of Koranic and

other taxes, and acts of military resistance to foreign

penetration of the territory. Morocco also relied on certain

international acts said to constitute recognition by other

States of its sovereignty over the whole or part of Western

Sahara, including (a) certain treaties concluded with Spain,

the United States and Great Britain and Spain between 1767

and 1861, provisions of which dealt inter alia with the

safety of persons shipwrecked on the coast of Wad Noun or its

vicinity, (b) certain bilateral treaties of the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries whereby Great

Britain, Spain, France and Germany were said to have

recognized that Moroccan sovereignty extended as far south as

Cape Bojador or the boundary of the Rio de Oro.

Having considered this evidence and the observations of the

other States which took part in the proceedings, the Court

finds that neither the internal nor the international acts

relied upon by Morocco indicate the existence at the relevant

period of either the existence or the international

recognition of legal ties of territorial sovereignty between

Western Sahara and the Moroccan State. Even taking account of

the specific structure of that State, they do not show that

Morocco displayed any effective and exclusive State activity

in Western Sahara. They do, however, provide indications that

a legal tie of allegiance existed at the relevant period

between the Sultan and some, but only some, of the nomadic

peoples of the territory, through Tekna caids of the Noun

region, and they show that the Sultan displayed, and was

recognized by other States to possess, some authority or

influence with respect to those tribes.

The term ``Mauritanian entity'' (paragraphs 139-152 of the

Advisory Opinion) was first employed during the session of

the General Assembly in 1974 at which resolution 3292 (XXIX),

requesting an advisory opinion of the Court, was adopted. It

denotes the cultural, geographical and social entity within

which the Islamic Republic of Mauritania was to be created.

According to Mauritania, that entity, at the relevant period,

was the Bilad Shinguitti or Shinguitti country, a distinct

human unit, characterized by a common language, way of life,

religion and system of laws, featuring two types of political

authority: emirates and tribal groups.

Expressly recognizing that these emirates and tribes did

not constitute a State, Mauritania suggested that the

concepts of ``nation'' and of ``people'' would be the most

appropriate to explain the position of the Shinguitti people

at the time of colonization. At that period, according to

Mauritania, the Mauritanian entity extended from the Senegal

river to the Wad Sakiet El Hamra. The territory at present

under Spanish administration and the present territory of the

Islamic Republic of Mauritania thus together constituted

indissociable parts of a single entity and had legal ties

with one another.

The information before the Court discloses that, while

there existed among them many ties of a racial, linguistic,

religious, cultural and economic nature, the emirates and

many of the tribes in the entity were independent in relation

to one another; they had no common institutions or organs.

The Mauritanian entity therefore did not have the character

of a personality or corporate entity distinct from the

several emirates or tribes which comprised it. The Court

concludes that at the time of colonization by Spain there did

not exist between the territory of Western Sahara and the

Mauritanian entity any tie of sovereignty, or of allegiance

of tribes, or of simple inclusion in the same legal entity.

Nevertheless, the General Assembly does not appear to have so

framed Question II as to confine the question exclusively to

those legal ties which imply territorial sovereignty, which

would be to disregard the possible relevance of other legal

ties to the decolonization process. The Court considers that,

in the relevant period, the nomadic peoples of the Shinguitti

country possessed rights, including some rights relating to

the lands through which they migrated. These rights

constituted legal ties between Western Sahara and the

Mauritanian entity. They were ties which knew no frontier

between the territories and were vital to the very

maintenance of life in the region.

Morocco and Mauritania both laid stress on the overlapping

character of the respective legal ties which they claimed

Western Sahara to have had with them at the time of

colonization (paragraphs 153-160 of the Advisory Opinion).

Although their views appeared to have evolved considerably in

that respect, the two States both stated at the end of the

proceedings that there was a north appertaining to Morocco

and a south appertaining to Mauritania without any

geographical void in between, but with some overlapping as a

result of the intersection of nomadic routes. The Court

confines itself to noting that this geographical overlapping

indicates the difficulty of disentangling the various

relationships existing in the Western Sahara region at the

time of colonization.

For these reasons, the Court (paragraphs 162 and 163 of the

Advisory Opinion) gives the replies indicated on pages 1 and

2 above.

[From Reuters News Service, Jan. 13, 2004]

Sardines and Sovereignty in Western Sahara

(By Eileen Byrne)

Laayoune, Western Sahara.--On trawlers at the quayside near

Laayoune, the main city in Moroccan-controlled Western

Sahara, the crew unload sardines in wicker baskets thrown

from hand to hand.

The traditional baskets are misleading, because the yield

of sardines, octopus and squid from the Western Saharan ports

of Laayoune, Boujdour and Dakhla has come to represent more

than 60 percent of Morocco's total annual fisheries yield of

almost one million tons. With sovereignty over the Western

Sahara still in dispute, this is a politically significant

catch.

The uncertainty about the future of this vast, mainly

desert territory in the northwest corner of Africa puts a

dampener, for now, on investment in tourism for winter sun-

seekers, officials in Laayoune admit.

But against the backdrop of diplomatic stalemate, as the

United Nations strives for a solution to the dispute between

Morocco and the Polisario separatist movement, Morocco is

keen to show that the regional economy is developing apace.

The fishing sector is one area where the authorities can

point to significant growth, always under the firm guiding

hand of the central government.

southern-most subjects

Claiming Western Sahara as its historic ``southern

provinces,'' Morocco controls most of the territory.

The Polisario movement, based across the border in Algeria,

sees the future of the area as an independent state, governed

by its Saharan Arab inhabitants, known as Sahrawis.

Since a 1991 cease-fire, successive U.N. initiatives aimed

at ending a dispute which dates from 1975, and asserting the

Sahrawis' right to ``self-determination,'' have failed.

Advocates of independence for Western Sahara stress the

territory's mineral wealth, with the phosphate mine at Boukra

near Laayoune, and possible offshore oil reserves.

But the Boukra mine is loss-making and subsidized by the

Office Cherifien des Phosphates' more important phosphate

production near Khouribga, according to officials. It is

fishing that generates new jobs and export earnings. Western

Sahara fish products now account for up to seven percent of

Morocco's total export earnings of 85.6 billion dirhams

($9.80 billion).

Morocco declined to renew a fishing accord with the

European Union which until the late 1990s had allowed foreign

boats into Moroccan waters. It has instead spent heavily

since then on port infrastructure in Western Sahara, as

though consolidating its hold on the territory.

Like all other businesses in Western Sahara, the sardine

canning businesses, and plants processing octopus for

Japanese dinner tables, pay no taxes except for payroll

contributions.

They also benefit from the subsidies in the prices of fuel,

power and water with which Morocco woos its southern-most

subjects, who account for less than two percent of the

kingdom's 29.6 million population.

Local investors are often Sahrawi notables who see the

territory's future with Rabat rather than the Polisario and

who play a prominent role in the local economy. A little over

a generation ago, the Sahrawis' lifestyle revolved around

camel and goat rearing. Fish did not figure at all in the

Sahrawi diet and even today few Sahrawis work directly with

fish.

But among new investors, the favorable conditions for

businesses can sometimes encourage over-hasty decisions.

octopus for the japanese

Lining the walls of the conference room in the Laayoune

governor's headquarters, photos showed a visit to Western

Sahara by Morocco's King Mohammed.

Some 40 men, and one woman wrapped in the colored veil worn

in Western Sahara, listened to Morocco's Fisheries Minister

Taieb Rhafes. He had flown down from Rabat to explain why he

was extending a ban on octopus fishing.

With him were representatives of Moroccan banks whose loans

to local investors had encouraged a proliferation of octopus-

freezing plants around Dakhla, from a handful in 1997 to 90

in 2003. The octopuses have been almost wiped out by over-

fishing, the minister explained. It takes only three months

to have an octopus-freezing plant up and running, said an

official.

At Laayoune port, the fishermen are not Sahrawis, but come

from Moroccan ports further north--Agadir, Essaouira and

Safi. A spontaneous movement of sardines southwards, traced

by Morocco's fisheries research institute, the INRH,

coincided with the development of infrastructure in the

Western Sahara. The fishermen followed the fish southwards,

bringing their expertise with them.

Moroccan officials have no separate figures for employment

among Sahrawis and non-Sahrawis. ``There are no two

communities here,'' only Moroccan citizens, Laayoune Governor

Mohamed Rharrabi told Reuters.

With the sea-faring culture far-removed from the

traditional Sahrawi lifestyle, it seems fishing will provide

only some of the jobs needed in the Laayoune region, where

unemployment at the last census was 40 percent among 20 to 24

year-olds.

Denmark Does Not Recognise Moroccan Sovereignty on Western Sahara

[From Sahara Press Service (SPS), June 22, 2004]

COPENHAGEN--Danish Government, does not ``recognise

Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara'', declared Danish

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Per Stig Mfller, in

response to a question he answered before of his Parliament,

according to close sources to the Saharawi representation to

Denmark.

Answering a question asked by Danish Member of the

Parliamentary group Enhedslisten (Union list, in English),

Mr. Soern Soendergaard, the Minister for Foreign Affairs

asserted that his Government ``does not recognise Moroccan

sovereignty on Western Sahara'', considering Moroccan

presence on the territory as illegal and unacceptable.

Regarding the peace plan, elaborated by UN Secretary

General's former Personal Envoy, James Baker, Mr. Mfller

affirmed that this plan remains applicable, recalling that it

``is accepted by Polisario Front and the neighbouring

countries and is unanimously adopted by Security Council in

its resolution 1495''.

Finally, the Head of Danish diplomacy reiterated ``the

support of Denmark of the efforts paid by UN's Secretary

General and his former Personal Envoy aimed at reaching a

just and lasting solution to the conflict'', in Western

Sahara conforming to international legality and by

implementing UN's resolutions.

[From Sahara Press Service (SPS), June 24, 2004]

German PDC/CSU Calls to Immediate Settlement of Western Sahara Conflict

Berlin.--The parliamentary group of German Christian

Democrat Party (PDC/CSU) in Bundestag (Parliament), called on

Thursday to an immediate settlement of Western Sahara's

conflict, exhorting international community to pay more

efforts in defending Saharawi people's ``right to self-

determination''.

In a communique publicised on Thursday, of which SPS

received a copy, PDC/CSU parliamentary Group's spokesperson,

Dr. Christian Ruck, asserted that ``Western Sahara conflict's

settlement tolerates no more delays'', calling international

community to pay more efforts in defending Saharawi people's

``right to self-determination''.

UN Secretary General's former Personal Envoy, James Baker's

resignation ``may push to failure'' the peace plan for self-

determination of Saharawi people, though this plan

constitutes ``a reasonable compromise to realise peace in

this region'', deplored the spokesperson.

Thus, the international community is called to ``prove to

the people of this region, who is still suffering this old

aging conflict, that its right to self-determination remains

a priority for the international community'', which should

also defend UN's principles and international law, so as to

reach a peaceful settlement to this problem, concluded the

communique.

[From Upstream Online & Hardcopy, July 2, 2004]

Svitzer Feels Heat in Western Sahara

(By Barry Morgan)

Fugro affiliate Svitzer has just completed a marine survey

on Kerr-McGee's Boujdour acreage off the disputed territory

of Western Sahara.

Based in Norfolk in the UK, Svitzer is the latest company

to attract brickbats from activists determined to persuade

industry players not to sign deals with Morocco, which

occupies the territory and claims its resources.

Following a one-year extension, KMG's reconnaissance permit

will expire on 29 October. However, its tenure is contested

by the Sahrawi independence militia, which has long fought

for sovereign control, stirring international controversy

over the licencing regime imposed by Rabat.

Fellow UK consultancy Robertson Research International

(RRI) is also poised to complete survey work in Western

Sahara, despite question marks over the legitimacy of UK

corporate involvement in what the UK government calls a

``non-self governing territory'' where it says sovereignty

remains to be determined under UN auspices. For its part, RRI

said it is not directly contracted to Rabat.

Confirmation of RRI's involvement comes hard on the heels

of a campaign launched by Western Sahara support groups

across Europe against exploration and production companies

doing business at the behest of Rabat.

Kerr-McGee, Total and TGS-Nopec were blasted for jumping

the gun on a fragile peace process in which the UN has sought

diplomatic consensus ahead of a referendum on self-

determination for the Sahrawi people.

Activists' primary target of late has been UK-registered

Wessex Exploration, which was recently invited to Rabat to

finalise a preliminary but open-ended deal to analyse onshore

data ahead of an exploration push outlined by Moroccan state

oil company managing director Amina Benkhadra.

Wessex has been warned that ``its reputation would suffer''

if it did not back off or negotiate with the Sahrawi

authorities.

In the meantime, several UK parliamentarians have moved to

seek clarification of the UK government's position on British

companies doing business in Western Sahara. Concerned MPs led

by the Labour Party's David Drew, want to pin down Whitehall

on its attitude.

Drew will shortly table a parliamentary question seeking

greater clarity. Drew now speaks for the Western Sahara

Support Group and two Conservative MPs are expected to join

existing members before they resurface as a parliamentary

force.

The UK Foreign Office insists sovereignty in Western Sahara

remains undetermined as long as UN calls to resolve the

crisis via the so-called Baker Peace Plan remain unheeded.

``We want to push the UK to promote the Plan so that Morocco

withdraws. It should also tell British companies that they

should not get involved in Western Sahara at this time while

the UN mandate remains unimplemented,'' said Drew.

The Foreign Office currently has no problem with companies

winning reconnaissance or E&P licences from Rabat, so long as

the practical effect complies with constraints laid down by

the UN Legal Office on ``disregarding the rights'' of the

Sahrawi people.

This means Kerr-McGee and Total can use TGS-Nopec and Fugro

to shoot seismic as long as rigs are not deployed to confirm

or produce oil finds.

Meanwhile, the acquisition of strategically important

seismic data for Rabat as the licensor remains legal under

the ``look but don't touch'' interpretation of both UK and US

governments. However, a UK official said that ``we'd have to

revisit this opinion if activity got this far. There is no

official endorsement''.

``Right now, our view is that UK companies going into

Western Sahara are on their own and we cannot link them to

the Department of Trade & Industry or offer the support of

any other government mechanisms,'' the source added.

Two UK-registered companies presently stand on both sides

of the fence. Sterling Resources has inherited an exclusive

offshore PSC from AIM-listed Fusion Oil & Gas following a

recent take-over, while Wessex is under increasing pressure

after retaining its exclusive study licence from Rabat.

After expending $600 million on peace-keeping efforts, the

UN system is tiring of the Western Sahara crisis, with UN

Special Envoy James Baker resigning in frustration last

month.

The UN's new representative, Alvaro de Soto, said this week

that he would pursue the same policy as Baker, suggesting no

new ideas to break the deadlock were on the table.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing The Controlled Substances Export Reform Act, legislation to create and maintain U.S. jobs by reforming our Nation's outdated pharmaceutical export control laws.

Current law allows U.S. companies to export most controlled substances only to the immediate country where the products will be consumed. Shipment to central sites for further distribution across national boundaries is prohibited.

Mr. Speaker, foreign competitors labor under no such restrictions and can readily move approved medical products between international drug control treaty countries without limit or restriction. The exclusive prohibitions imposed by U.S. law on American manufacturers place them at significant disadvantage in international markets, creating powerful incentives for domestic companies to move production overseas, damaging local economies and costing U.S. jobs.

The legislation I have introduced today, along with a bipartisan group of my colleagues, authorizes the Attorney General to permit carefully regulated pharmaceutical exports to our international drug convention partner countries.

The bill retains full Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) authority over all shipments of controlled substances and establishes strict procedures to ensure these products are used solely for legitimate medical purposes. While the DEA's authority over exports is undiminished, by creating new parity for U.S. companies with their international competitors, the legislation encourages domestic production and job growth.

The Controlled Substances Export Reform Act supports American jobs and protects U.S. interests. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when our national security is of paramount importance, President Clinton laughed when asked what he thought about his former National Security Adviser stealing and losing highly classified national terrorism documents. But this is no trifling matter.

The documents were codeword secret, the most highly guarded secrets we have. One or more copies of a memo, an analysis of the Clinton administration's antiterror efforts around the millennium, are still missing.

In the highest levels of the Clinton administration, terrorism may have been a laughing matter. We know now it is not. This is a serious breach of security. This is the guy who served as a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign and wants a top spot in the Kerry administration.

We should question Senator Kerry's judgment for placing him in a key position in his campaign.

Fox News reported that he hid the documents in his socks ``inadvertently.''

Whether or not that is true, this whole thing stinks.

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the Medicare bill is the market-based provisions contained in the discount drug card program. These cards provide immediate help to seniors who need prescription drugs.

By bringing transparency and accountability to Medicare, the cards will help 7.3 million people with Medicare save between $1.4 billion and $1.8 billion altogether in discounts on their prescription. An additional feature is the $600 credit that helps low-income cardholders buy medicine.

Individuals who make less than $12,569 per year and couples who make less than $16,862 are eligible for the credit. That means the first $600 in drug costs incurred by the recipients will be covered by the Federal credits.

More than 83,000 Pennsylvania low-income seniors will benefit from the plan. There are some 40-plus cards available. Seniors can call 1- 800-MEDICARE to figure out which card is best for them.

Mr. Speaker, over a century ago, on a hot summer day, an event occurred of national significance that by some eyewitness accounts, altered history, as we know it today. This act of war produced an obligation on the part of the Federal Government that to this day remains unpaid and largely forgotten.

The event I am referring to is known as the ``Burning of the Columbia Wrightsville Bridge.'' Occurring on June 28, 1863, just 72 hours before the Battle of Gettysburg, this catastrophic event did not just destroy an ordinary bridge--it destroyed an extraordinary bridge. Completed in 1834 at a cost of $128,726.50, it was the longest covered wooden bridge in the world, 40 feet wide with 27 piers, it spanned 5,620 feet across the Susquehanna River.

Ironically, this event and its impact on the region have lived in the shadow of the Battle of Gettysburg. Historians may debate whether or not this event had any impact on the Battle of Gettysburg. There is however, no denying the significant impact it had on preserving the loss of personal property throughout the region as evidenced by the following statement made by Colonel Jacob G. Frick, the man who gave the order to destroy the bridge. ``The object to be kept in view, and which was paramount, was the prevention of the enemy from capturing the bridge, and thus frustrate them in their evident purpose to cross the Susquehanna at that point, get in the rear of Harrisburg, and between that place and Philadelphia destroy railroads and ravage the rich counties of Dauphin and Lancaster.''

In order to fully understand the importance of this bridge and the town of Columbia, one must first examine conditions as they were in 1863 not as they may be today. First, how many of you are aware that the first place to be considered as the nation's capital was Columbia, Pennsylvania? It was an important travel artery for westward expansion, at times Conestoga Wagons would have to wait several days for their turn to cross the bridge. Railroads including the Philadelphia and Columbia, the Pennsylvania, and the Reading and Columbia all converged along the banks of the Susquehanna at Columbia.

These trains would either cross over the bridge to connect with the Susquehanna & Baltimore Railroad or transfer their cargo to packet boats that then traveled Westward via the Union Canal through the interior of Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh or where pulled by mules across the river via a towpath constructed on the side of the bridge to the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal that connected Columbia with the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. Columbia being at the epicenter of this vital transportation network made it a logical destination for industries consisting of iron furnaces, rolling mills, saw mills, flour mills, and railroad machine shops that were supplying goods to a growing nation. Columbia's strategic position would have made it a fine prize indeed for any invading Southern army bent on disrupting vital communications and supply lines in the North.

Colonel Frick made this statement in a letter from 1892: ``I was fully impressed with the belief at the time that this bridge was General Lee's objective point, and that it was to become the highway of the Confederate army to reach the centers which enabled the Northern army to maintain its position in the field by cutting off the supplies by capturing the eastern ports and plant the seat of war in Pennsylvania instead of Virginia.''

In a letter received by Colonel Frick from Major Granville O. Haller, dated Seattle, April 28, 1892, says that he and Col. Thomas M. Anderson, commanding Fourteenth United States Infantry, had been discussing the burning of the bridge, Colonel Anderson wrote to Major Haller March 30, 1892, as follows:

All theories apart, I should say that it would have been

better to have burned twenty bridges than to have taken any

chances. If the burning of the bridge stopped Gordon, it was

as important as a battle.

On the 10th of April Major Haller sent a letter that was submitted to Colonel Frick in February 1892 from General John B. Gordon, admitting to Colonel Frick that without question his order to destroy the bridge stopped him and his troops from crossing, to Colonel Anderson. Colonel Anderson accepted it as conclusive evidence of Lee's intention, and thus confirmed in his opinion as to the importance of burning the bridge.

Who other than God of battles would know until the

afternoon of July 3, whether Meade or Lee would be victor?

If Meade, then the enemy would be driven from our border.

If Lee then the seat of war would have located itself between

the Susquehanna and the Delaware and the Hudson. The Columbia

Bridge would have become the Confederate highway to

Lancaster, Philadelphia, and New York. In their onward march

an army of veterans would have met with no fortified towns or

cities; a practically unarmed and undisciplined militia, and

a panic-stricken community in its front and a broken army

sullenly following far in its rear; who can tell what awful

results would have been had Lee been victorious at

Gettysburg, yet who knew that he would not be until July 3,

1863?

Now for some particulars on the chain of events that led up to the burning and what transpired after that event.

On June 10, 1863 the Department of the Susquehanna was created under the control of General Coach to protect the area. Notices were put out for volunteers to serve. By June 24, 1863 it became apparent to General Coach a unit of approximately 2,500 veteran soldiers continued Eastbound to gain control of a bridge across the Susquehanna River between the towns of Columbia and Wrightsville.

On June 24, 1863, General Couch under special order #14, ordered Colonel Frick to proceed to Columbia and take charge of all bridges and fords on the line of the Susquehanna River in Lancaster County, and will make such dispositions as will effectively secure these crossings.

Colonel Frick: ``My duty in the premises was plain. Gen. Couch plainly indicated my duty in his orders, wherein he said: `` When you find it necessary to withdraw your command from Wrightsville leave a proper number on the other side to destroy the bridge; keep it open as long as possible with prudence and exercise your own discretion in doing so.''

It must be remembered as we look at this dramatic and critical event in retrospect, that as a result of this most necessary and important cutting of the available crossing of the river at the time of the invasion, a private corporation suffered a loss of property of the first magnitude. So evident was the effect of its destruction in the public mind, that we find the following statement in the Lancaster Examiner and Herald of July 8, 1863, but ten days following the event:

The burning of the bridge which spanned the Susquehanna

River at Columbia, has given rise to a rumor that its loss

would have the effect of impairing the credit of the Columbia

Bank. This now seems will not be the case, as the structure

was destroyed by order of the military authorities, thus

making the Government responsible for all loss. The following

note from the Cashier of the Columbia Bank fully explains the

circumstances.

June 29, 1863. Dear Sir, The bridge at this place, owned by

the Columbia Bank, was burned by the United States Military

authorities to prevent the Rebels from crossing the

Susquehanna River.--Signed Samuel Schock, Cashier.

It was not until 1868 that construction of a new bridge was started.

Today the only remnants of this piece of history are the stone piers still standing in the River and the story of the bridge and its destruction being told by Michael and Nora Stark, owners of the little known, but highly significant First National Bank Museum. If it were not for this museum, this important piece of American history would certainly be lost forever.

Mr. Speaker, we have made great progress in the war on terror. Three years ago, in Afghanistan, al Qaeda was training and sending out thousands of terrorists. Pakistan had a significant al Qaeda presence. Saudi Arabia was a major area of support for al Qaeda. In Iraq, a sworn enemy of America was in power. Nuclear weapons technology was being sold to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Libya. For years, terrorists attacked the U.S. with relative impunity.

Three years later, because of the leadership of George Bush, in Afghanistan the terror camps are closed, Osama bin Laden is hiding in caves. Pakistani forces are rounding up terrorists on their border. Saudi Arabia is working closely with the U.S. to root out al Qaeda. In Iraq, our coalition removed a declared enemy of the United States. And we have ended one of the most dangerous sources of nuclear proliferation.

Today, because America has acted and we have led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr amendment.

I am concerned about the use of U.S. funds in Colombia.

In particular, I am deeply concerned about four public statements by the President of Colombia in which he accused domestic and international human rights organizations of supporting armed groups and of being allied with terrorists.

These statements are not only unhelpful but are also deeply disturbing. Human rights organizations are working to assist with humanitarian aid and building civil society in local communities in Colombia that have been torn apart by the terrible violence.

The President's verbal assaults on human rights organizations do absolutely nothing to help the Colombian people or to help bring an end to the violence--instead his comments may cause a reverse in a recent trend of a decrease in politically motivated violence.

Despite the fact that the above violence has decreased, there are some areas of Colombia in which local communities continue to be victims of terrible violence and suffering.

For example, security in the special security areas, such as Arauca, has deteriorated under the current President.

According to Evangelical and Catholic church leaders, there have been dozens of cases in which pastors, priests, and lay leaders have been targeted by armed actors of the left and the right for refusing to take up arms. According to these reports, 37 Protestant pastors were killed in the first 6 weeks of 2003 and four Catholic clerics were assassinated in 2003. Most of these cases were in the State of Arauca.

The numbers of politically motivated murders have not changed for the better--in 2003, over 3,000 civilians were killed for political motives and at least 600 ``disappeared.''

Around 2,200 people were kidnapped, more than half by armed opposition groups and army-backed paramilitaries. Armed opposition groups such as the FARC and ELN were responsible for repeated and serious breaches of international humanitarian law, including hostage taking and the abduction and massacres. They carried out attacks using disproportionate and indiscriminate weapons that resulted in the death of numerous civilians.

The government and security forces increased their attempts to undermine the legitimacy of human rights defenders, peace activists and trade unionists. This coincided with paramilitary threats and attacks against human rights organizations. The attacks on these groups made it nearly impossible for many to continue documenting and reporting on human rights abuses by all armed actors--if the human rights organizations cannot do their work, the violations are largely under- reported.

Despite the declared cease-fire, paramilitaries were still responsible for massacres, targeted killings, ``disappearances'' torture, kidnappings and threats. They were allegedly responsible for the killing or ``disappearance'' of at least 1,300 people in 2003, over 70 of all attributable, non-combat, politically related killings and ``disappearances.''

Even the United Nations has noted an increase in complaints of serious human rights violations which directly involve the security forces themselves.

I would urge President Uribe to cease his senseless attacks on human rights organizations that simply hurt those who are helping the people of Colombia--instead he should vigorously pursue those who commit horrifying atrocities and terrorize communities across the country.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today the Senate will vote on an issue of critical national importance: marriage. The issue is whether we will stand idly by as a few unelected judges redefine the family for us or if we will take a stand and say ``enough is enough.''

The best home for kids is when their biological parents, mom and dad, live at home, are married, and are engaged in the lives of their children. Unfortunately, many claim this is an issue for the States. Indeed, it is, if that is what were happening, but it is not. Courts are circumventing the States in order to make this happen so that we will never debate it, so that States will never debate it, and the American people will never debate it. That is just how activists want it.

There is no way around it. We need to amend the Constitution. The Federal marriage amendment is supported by a very diverse coalition. Voting on it is hardly politics as usual. It is the least we can do to protect the stability of our communities and the best future for our children. The United States Congress should vote for the marriage protection amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, UPN is making a new reality TV show about the Amish. The very act of making this show violates a fundamental Amish religious tenet, and paying a few Amish teams to participate requires them to break it.

See, the Amish believe that television or photographs themselves violate the Ten Commandments' ban on graven images. If one is selling a show based on its participants' religious identity, should they not at least respect the religious tenets of those participants and their families?

One affiliate in Pennsylvania, UPNTV15 in Harrisburg, has decided not to air the program until it previews its content. UPN15 has taken a principled and courageous stand. Its request to prescreen the show will help them ensure that the show's content does not offend its viewers. Other affiliates should follow suit, and advertisers should think twice before attaching their names to a show that potentially degrades a minority religious community.

This series would be offensive, exploitative, and inaccurately portray a minority group. It should be cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Payne and I welcome King Mohammed VI of Morocco to the United States and wish him well during his visit. We strongly urge His Majesty to uphold and implement his nation's agreements regarding the conflict over the Western Sahara. In addition, we urge His Majesty to uphold UN Security Council Resolution 1541 as a tribute to former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who promoted international legality and justice while responding to the true long- term interests of both parties concerned in this conflict. His Majesty's support for the former U.N. Special Envoy Baker's Peace Plan would be the best contribution to peace and stability in the region. In addition, upholding the Peace Plan would demonstrate the effectiveness of the pursuit of national aspirations through non-violence in the greater Middle East, a region that has been the target of much violence.

Mr. Speaker, last week, a number of Members sent a letter to President Bush requesting that during his meeting with the King, he strongly encourage His Majesty to implement the United Nations Settlement Plan in order to achieve a just, peaceful, and lasting resolution to the conflict over Western Sahara. The letter welcomed United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1541 adopted April 29, 2004, which reaffirmed support for the Peace Plan for Self- Determination of the People of Western Sahara devised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's Special Envoy, James Baker, and shared deep regret over the departure of Mr. Baker and the circumstances that led to his resignation.

In addition, the letter welcomed the confidence-building measures taken by the Polisario Front which released a further 643 Moroccan POWs since July 2003; the number of POWs the Polisario has liberated since 1991 now totals 1,760. However, the Members of Congress expressed their regret that the Government of King Mohammed VI has not reciprocated in a commensurate way. The fact that the Sahrawis have opted for non- violence in the affirmation of their identity and have respected the terms of the cease-fire signed in 1991 between their representative and Morocco, is telling in terms of who is committed to settlement of the conflict.

Further, the letter expressed great concern that if the conflict between these two parties is left unresolved, it has the potential to disrupt peace and stability in the Maghreb region, thus threatening the interests of the United States. The Members expressed that the United States should use its unique influence in that region to press the Moroccan Government and the Polisario Front to agree to the Peace Plan and to implement it under the supervision of the United Nations. Although U.S. attention is primarily focused, as it should be, on Iraq and on the war against terrorism, the letter underscores the concern of the Members that the Western Sahara conflict needs to be addressed urgently and fairly to the benefit of the peoples of the region and in the interest of the United States. A peaceful, successful resolution of the conflict over Western Sahara will provide a signal to the Broader Middle East and North African region that in the 21st century there are successful alternatives to violence in the pursuit of national aspirations.

Mr. Speaker, we again extend our welcome to His Majesty and strongly urge him not to stand in the way of progress towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict over Western Sahara.

Mr. Speaker, the King of Morocco is in Washington to tout the newly signed U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. I am a free trader, but I have serious reservations about this plan.

Morocco today illegally occupies a country in West Africa known as Western Sahara. The King's government has promised people of Western Sahara, the Sahrawi, a vote to determine their own future. It has not happened, and it keeps delaying.

A decade after that promise, powerful friends help the Moroccan Government postpone this vote and consolidate control over the occupied territory. The Sahrawis are a peaceful, pro-Western and prodemocracy people. Despite living under an illegitimate colonial power, they have established a deep-rooted culture of democracy capable of supporting a viable state. They elect their own leaders, many of them women, provide education and equal rights to all of their citizens, men and women.

The only stability a sovereign democratic Western Sahara disrupts is a status quo defined by tyranny. We should keep that in mind when we vote on the trade agreement on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, Pennsylvania State University is among the most recognizable institutions of our state.

The school is home to one of the country's most storied and successful college football programs.

Today, we celebrate its 150th anniversary, not for its football program, but for its service to our state and its world class academic traditions.

For even the football program, led ably by Joe Paterno, sets the academic standard for programs across the nation. It is part of an athletic department defined by excellence on and off the field.

Penn State graduated 80 percent of student-athletes from the entering class of 1996-

97 within 6 years, compared to a national average of 62 percent for student-athletes at all Division I NCAA institutions.

The football team produced an especially noteworthy academic performance, with 86 percent of the freshmen entering in 1996-97 earning their degrees--significantly above the national rate of 54 percent.

Since 1854, when the school was founded as Farmers' High School, Penn State has revolutionized the way our state approaches farming and continues to be among the world's leaders in agricultural research and innovation.

Over the years, Penn State has expanded its offerings to include every serious academic discipline.

U.S. News & World Report's ``America's Best Graduate Schools 2004'' places a number of Penn State programs among the nation's top ten, including supply chain/logistics, industrial/manufacturing engineering, materials engineering, nuclear engineering, agricultural engineering, higher education administration, administration/supervision, vocational/technical education, counseling services, ceramics, and rehabilitation counseling.

Penn State's Smeal College of Business has been ranked among the nation's top ``Best Undergraduate Business Programs'' at public universities.

The honors extend to undergraduate disciplines across the academic spectrum. In 2003, 15 Penn State faculty or staff members received regular grants to lecture or conduct research abroad as Fulbright Scholars, more outgoing Fulbright grants than any other institution in the United States.

But the measure of a university extends beyond commencement day and even beyond the classroom or research lab.

A university's reputation in businesses and communities across the nation is carried and enhanced by that university's alumni.

Penn State has 466,000 living alumni worldwide, 240,000 of them in Pennsylvania.

The Penn State Alumni Association, formed in 1870, has more than 146,000 members, making it the largest dues-paying alumni association in the nation.

These men and women carry the standard for their alma mater and are proof of the world-class education Penn State students receive during the time on campus.

I am honored to join my colleagues in both House and Senate from the Keystone State in honoring Penn State and thanking its administrators, professors, students, and support personnel for offering a terrific education at a reasonable price to so many for so long.

It is an honor well-deserved.

Mr. Speaker, at a recent fundraiser, a group of well heeled Democratic contributors were told: ``Many of you are well enough off that . . . the tax cuts may have helped you. We are saying that for America to get back on track, we are probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.''

If these campaign contributors believe the tax relief affected only a few rich people, they are wrong. If none of this tax relief had become law in 2004, 111 million Americans would pay on an average of over $1,500 more in taxes, 49 million married couples would pay over $2,600 more in taxes, 11 million single women with children would pay over $900 more in taxes, 14 million elderly individuals would pay over $1,800 more in taxes, nearly 5 million individuals and families who currently have no income tax liability would have to pay the income tax.

The fact is middle-class families, small business owners, who have created most of our 1\1/2\ million new jobs this year, are not rich as some of our friends would have us believe.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on his leadership in the human rights issues around the world. It is because of his leadership on these issues that I offer my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the human rights organizations that have produced myriad accounts of torture in detention facilities and prisons around the globe, our own State Department in the annual Country Reports, the Human Rights sections, reports on the use of torture in each nation covered by the report, and our Congress has passed the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to fund recovery programs for victims of torture, both in the United States and abroad.

Men, women, even children have endured torture at the hands of government officials around the world. Although it is difficult to find exact figures, Amnesty International estimates that 117 countries worldwide still practice torture.

My amendment provides $25,000 for the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to compile and publish a list of foreign government officials who order the use of, are involved in, or engage in torture as defined by the United Nations

against torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment.

I have had the privilege but heart-wrenching experience of hearing about torture from firsthand accounts of the victims, from a woman in North Korea to firsthand reports in Egypt. We remember one case in Al Qush where a government official, in order to find a criminal, arrested and tortured many of the 1,100 Coptics in order to find someone to confess committing the crime.

In China, there are numerous reports of Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong members, house church pastors and congregants, democracy activists who spent time in prison reform camps where they endured torture by communist officials. A recent account, Pastor Gong Shengliang, who may die in prison because of the effects of torture, is ongoing.

In May of last year, the Washington Post detailed a story of Concei da Silva who was brutally tortured in Angola. While in prison, officials hung him upside down, his veins were slashed, chunks of flesh were carved out of his chest with a machete, electricity applied to parts of his body, teeth removed. Awful things have happened.

In Latin America, terrible stories of torture. Sister Dianna Ortiz has spoken out strongly regarding her horrible kidnapping torture at the hands of the Guatemalan security forces.

The torture is horrifying, deeply affecting victims' lives. And those responsible for these crimes should be brought to justice. Unfortunately, in many countries the perpetrators will not be punished for their crimes as torture is systemic.

I and many of my colleagues strongly believe that publicizing the names of those involved in torture, government officials, can help in the campaign to end the use of torture by government officials; and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that provides $25,000 to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to compile and maintain a public list of individuals involved in torture.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman knows that our policy is not to torture. Our system is progressing in the light of day with the investigations and the prosecution of torture, but this would apply to any government officials who use torture.

We do not specify, we do not say ``foreign.'' We specify that the State Department compile a list of any government officials who use torture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Vietnamese Government has weighed in on the Iraqi prison scandal, but the official Communist Vietnamese news agency is not citing the Geneva Conventions or the U.N.; it is citing

testimony given by John Kerry in 1971 in condemning our troops.

Mr. Kerry testified that American soldiers from top to bottom committed human rights violations, ``cutting off ears, murder, rape, destruction,'' et cetera. The problem is, he relied on reports by a group of supposed Vietnam veterans who were not what they seemed. They claimed to be former Vietnam veterans. They were not. They were frauds. They were out only to discredit the military and our country.

But John Kerry never repudiated or apologized for his statements. Instead, he has excused his behavior to youth. Now his misleading, inaccurate, hateful words are being used by a government with an atrocious human rights record against the United States.

That was a difficult time in our history. Passion and tensions were high. Whatever one's opinion of Vietnam, our troops suffered because of this kind of false witness to their efforts in Vietnam; and as a Vietnam veteran, I think Mr. Kerry should apologize once and for all and disavow those statements as false before other nations decide to use them.