On October 8, the resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

On October 9, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, again chaired by Smith, conducted a further hearing on the human rights conditions in Northern Ireland. The list of invited speakers included representatives from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and British Irish Rights Watch. The topics covered some of the same issues addressed at the previous hearing, as well as the need for a bill of rights in Northern Ireland and the need for the British government to assume central responsibility for protecting rights and maintaining the rule of law. Once again, despite prior invitation, the State Department was absent from the hearing. Additionally, the State Department never formally responded to the House's request for its position on the resolution.

On October 31, a House International Relations Committee consideration and mark-up session was held, after which the Committee agreed to seek consideration under suspension of the rules. The resolution was amended and passed that day. By this time, the resolution was confined to 31 paragraphs, and a few key phrases and contents had been deleted, including:

1. references to the responsibility of the "British government" for repealing emergency legislation and establishing an independent complaints mechanism for those alleging abuses by the security forces;
2. references to the importance of a new investigation into the deaths on Bloody Sunday;
3. reference to the 40 million Americans who claim Irish heritage and are concerned about civil rights in Northern Ireland;
4. accusations that the security forces have harassed citizens and leaked names of solicitors and others to paramilitary groups;
5. calls by the United Nations and others bodies for the closure of Castlereagh Interrogation Center;
6. mention that hundreds of people, many unarmed, have been killed in disputed and controversial circumstances by the security forces.

Overall, however, Smith's resolution was still a cogent, critical appraisal of Northern Ireland's human rights conditions, and certainly a document that any human rights organization would be proud to claim as its own.

On November 13, Smith officially submitted his resolution, as amended, on the House floor.

During this process of amendment, stretching from September through November, Smith's office was engaged in a series of behind-the-scenes dilemmas and decisions. Based on Smith's personal involvement in chairing the hearings and visiting Northern Ireland, there was no doubt that he understood the current human rights situation in Northern Ireland as espoused in his September version of the resolution. Then the Washington political world intruded. Smith tested the Congressional and diplomatic waters both prior to and during the mark-up session to see if he could get his original version passed by unanimous consent; he found that was not possible. After consulting with ranking House members, the State Department, and the British government via their Washington embassy, Smith encountered concern over two key areas:

• the phrasing of "the British government" as being responsible for the human rights abuses as delineated in the first version of the resolution;
• the frequent use of the term "human rights", which some feel is a subjective term favored and used by Northern Ireland Catholics and their supporters to address only their grievances.

For a complete listing of the Northern Ireland Alert's Congressional Ratings, go HERE.

As of early November, Smith's resolution still had considerable teeth. Over the next few months, though, it lost its bite. As additional Congresspersons began to sponsor the resolution and it moved up the Congressional ladder, opposition to its contents became more vociferous from the aforementioned sources. Smith was then reduced to two stark options: refuse to modify the resolution and thereby guarantee its legislative death, or extremely modify the resolution and work for its passage, which would at least assure some extensive House debate and media attention about Northern Ireland's human rights conditions. Smith chose the later course.

As a result, after lengthy deliberations, the substitute version of the resolution that was introduced and discussed in the House floor on March 17, 1998, and voted on on the following day was a shell of its former self. Gutted to a mere ten paragraphs, the resolution was bereft of critical commentary concerning three decades' worth of human rights abuses, and key passages were stricken. Among the stricken passages were all references to:

• the excesses of the Diplock court system, including the problems attendant to the elimination of jury trials and the right to silence;
• the emergency legislation providing the security forces with sweeping powers to arrest and detain suspects without charge, to deny them access to counsel, and to search their premises without a warrant;
• the mistreatment of detainees in prisons and special interrogation centers, including Castlereagh;
• the intimidation of defense attorneys by the security forces;
• the need for an independent inquiry or Truth Commission to investigate the death of attorney Patrick Finucane, along with other deaths suggesting collusion between outlawed paramilitary groups and the governing security forces;
• the establishment of a Northern Ireland bill of rights;
• the creation of an independent complaints mechanism to review citizen inquiries regarding alleged abuses by the security forces;
• the cessation of the use of plastic bullets.

In essence, the resolution was stripped to its barest components: condemnation of the violence committed by all sides in the conflict, commendation for the leadership involved in facilitating the peace talks, and mention of the need for the state's obligation to protect human rights in all circumstances and the need to act on (unspecified) recommendations put forth by assorted human rights organizations. If there is such a thing as "politically correct" language regarding Northern Ireland, it was featured in the final version of the resolution.

All of this brought Smith's resolution to the "is the shot glass half-full or half-empty?" scenario. On the plus side, the resolution's earlier, acute analysis of the human rights conditions in Northern Ireland and their remedies had been eliminated, rendered supine to the interests of the State Department, the British government, and leading Congressional members on Capitol Hill. On the minus side, however, Smith was able to stick with a tenable form of the resolution and push it to a floor vote on March 18.

After introducing the resolution, and having it supported by speeches from Reps. Davis, Engel, Gilman, Kennelly, Lazio, Manton, McCarthy, Menendez, and Payne (many of whom criticized the conditions mentioned in the resolution's stricken passages), Smith gained successful passage by a vote of 407-2. The lone nay votes belonged to Reps. Houghton (R-NY) and Paul (R-TX). The resolution's passage garnered media attention on both sides of the Atlantic and put Congress on record regarding the importance of adequate human rights protection to the overall prospects for peace in Northern Ireland.

For more indepth coverage of this story, please go to to the G21 IRISH COFFEE page, and check the publications listed in our RESOURCES section.

Efforts to introduce a Senate version of Smith's resolution are currently in progress. Once adopted by the Senate, the resolution will be sent to the President for his signature.