INTERVIEWER: February 10, 1999, interview with Representative Quinn. What was it that drove you to become interested in the landmines issue that really got, piqued your interest?

QUINN: Well, to be honest with you, I had heard a little bit about it. I met Bobby Muller, who has been active from the Vietnam Veterans Foundation in this for a long time, and then got to talking to Senator Pat Lahey, who, of course, is the world leader on this whole issue. And for passage of the bill, the group that had been working felt they needed a strong Republican in the House to move the bill along so we had something going in the Senate as well as the House. And, the more I learned about the issue, the more I talked to people about it, I just couldn't help myself, I guess. It was something that had to be done. I still can't see why anybody would have a problem with that. I understand where the Administration's reluctance is coming from, but, on a common sense, humanitarian basis, we've just got to stop the use of these landmines, and I have pledged to work with Pat Lahey and anybody else in this Congress who's willing to do that.

INTERVIEWER: What do you think the biggest accomplishments have been in the House on the landmines issue?

QUINN: Well, unfortunately, we haven't reached the greatest accomplishment, and that would be to get us to pass a bill and get the administration to sign it. But, I think more than anything, this last year, that we've been hard at work with a lot of high profile issues, with the treaty signing in Ottawa and the trip to Oslo, Norway, last year. I think that we've raised awareness of the issue. As we get members to sign on to our bill, and we will as we file a new one in this session, more people are talking about it on the Hill. They know what's going on. Of course, Diana raised the awareness of it last year as well, but others have picked it up. We had a Nobel Prize given to the cause here, to some people. So, I think, more than anything on the Hill, we've raised the awareness of it. I think people are expecting us to come back with another bill in this session, which we will. And, we go from there. I don't think we lose anybody on the bill. We can only improve our stake in it and send a message to the White House.

INTERVIEWER: What has been the biggest disappointment or the hardest thing working on the landmines issue in Congress?

QUINN: Well, I think, again, we get back to the humanitarian side of this. If people knew what many of us know who support the issue, if they knew that people in foreign countries, in the morning, for example, a mother has to come out, drive a stake in the ground, tie a rope on one end, and tie the other end to her child so that that child doesn't go more than twenty feet away for fear that they might wander into a landmine, if people knew about that more, I think they'd be with us. I also know that, if this ever happened, and I said this at a news conference in Ottawa last year, if this situation ever existed in the United States, if a single landmine exploded in some Congressional district over the weekend, in the United States, the politicians couldn't run back to Washington quick enough to file a law and to pass a bill, because it affected them directly. I don't think, just because this situation exists outside our country, we can turn our back on it. The United States is a world leader when it comes to defense. The United States is a world leader with humanitarian efforts. And, we cannot turn our back on this issue.

So, the difficulty is, long answer to your question, but the difficulty is trying to translate this situation that really doesn't exist here in the United States to a humanitarian level where we can't not do something about it.

INTERVIEWER: What, what kind of legislation, I mean, I know the answer to this, but what kind of legislation have you introduced in the past, and what are your plans to introduce new legislation in this session of Congress?

QUINN: Well, our legislation in the past has been geared to give a sense to the administration. I mean, the president of the United States is the person who can sign these on behalf of our government. Jack Quinn or Pat Leahy can't go out and sign. Probably we're lucky we can't go around signing things nowadays, but, nonetheless, our legislation has been geared to sort of force the administration. Now, there are defense types who have the president's ear, as they should, who wouldn't, in my opinion, give up use of a rubber band if they thought it was helpful to defend the country and our allies all around the world.

So, that's one extreme. Our legislation has been designed, in the past, to show the White House, the administration, and those people in defense situations that there is a real growing understanding in the House that elected people want this to happen. I think then we do a favor to the President. That's our role, I think. We need to show the President just how strong this force is, in the House and Senate. Therefore, it becomes the will of the people, in a sense. We expect to file some legislation in the coming year. We have not done it yet. We're still working through some of the specifics of that. I think we'll basically be trying to go along the same lines, but I also think we'll be trying to set a date, certain, for the US to sign. In the past, we've not said by 2001, or 2002, or 2003 we will sign. We've not done that, and that's some of the discussion that's going on right now, that we sort of firm that date up a little bit.

INTERVIEWER: And, your main partner in the House --

QUINN: Well, Wayne Evans, of course, from Illinois, served on the veteran's committee with me has been our stalwart. He on the Democrat side, me on the Republican side. And, then, in the Senate, of course, Pat Lahey and Chuck Hagel. I suspect that that's where we start from again and all of us are back again, so we'll be back at it.

INTERVIEWER: How do you plan on working with the administration on this issue? What would you like to see them accomplish and how are you working with them to achieve those goals?

QUINN: Well, I think there's ongoing discussion, and that's a key. The day we stop talking to each other about this, everybody loses. So, while the positions be pretty firm. I mean, clearly, the administration and Secretary Cohen and others know how I feel about it. They know how Pat Leahy feels about it, we know how they feel about it. But, I don't think that we should stop our discussion. I think that, you know, they have a situation that they're concerned about in Korea, and we understand that. And, we need to continue our discussions.

I've talked to Secretary Cohen about it. I have suggested that, sometime this coming year, I, and maybe Lane Evans, arrange for an informal get together with the Secretary with some members here in the House who haven't signed yet but have some questions, that want to hear the other side of the story. So, I don't think that we're ever in a position to give up on it. I think it's too important for that. And, I think as long as we're talking to each other, and to the administration's credit, they've treated us the same way. They've not just closed the door and said, go away, we can't do it. They've been interested in answering questions and giving us their side of the story. So, that's a real positive, and I think all of us, the senators as well as myself and Lane, are approaching it that way. That there's no deadline here, there's no drop-dead date that we won't continue to work with each other. But, it is one of those issues, again, because it's not happening here. I mean, recently,

I've been involved in a cause to get the administration to move, for example, on steel dumping here in the US and what it's doing to the steel industry and hurting jobs and all those things. That's something tangible people in the US can understand, and our members can go home every weekend and we've had rallies and we've had letter writing campaigns. You must know that no one's knocking down my door to tell me to ban landmines is the right thing to do. So, there's not that constant pressure. Therefore, those of us who believe in it have to provide the pressure.

INTERVIEWER: Do you think that grassroots pressure, having people in Congressional districts writing, pounding down the doors, you say, would that help move Congress to such a position that they could have more of a definitive position on it?

QUINN: Sure, there's no question that any grassroots effort on any issue, whether it's taxes or jobs or trade or, in this case, landmines, the grassroots effort is key because that keeps the pressure on. That makes sure that, when a member returns home and in his district office he receives the mail and the phone calls and meetings back in the district. So, while that may not be happening right now everyday back in our districts, we know there are supporters out there. And, some of us are criticized for that. I mean, I have voted with the military and the defense budget every single time I've been here. I believe we have to be strong and we can defend ourselves from the rest of world. And, when the President makes a decision to send troops across the world, I've supported him every single time. So, I don't think you need to be viewed as soft on defense in order to support the landmine issue. It's just, there's no need for that weapon today. And, you already know, and we've talked about this before last year a little bit, that the purpose of the mines were never necessarily to wipe out or to kill anybody. It's more to maim people and to slow down troops as they move and then people have to take are of the ones who are injured. So, it does deadly damage to people, losing limbs and __ and those kinds of things. So, it's pretty dreadful and we've got our work cut out for us, but, I tell you, it's become a labor of love for a lot of us in the House and the Senate to try to get it done.

INTERVIEWER: You've mentioned the administration and you've mentioned grassroots. What about the role of the NGO's? How do you see Congress working with non-governmental organizations on this issue in the future?

QUINN: Well, I also believe that they're important because we can't afford to leave anybody out of the equation, anybody out of the formula. And, the non-government groups who I, frankly, met for some of the first time for me through the visit to Oslo and then again at Ottawa, really become important, I think, because they take the place, in a sense, of some of that grassroots we just talked about. That they can take that place, maybe not an exact substitute or someone who lives back in the District, but certainly a role to play and, there again, probably don't have an axe to grind when you think about it. They're not elected, they don't have to worry about elections. They also are not someone in the position where the administration is, where they have to defend every move they make. I mean, we know this is not without risks here for everybody involved. But, they really do play a role, there's no question.

INTERVIEWER: Have you ever had a constituent upset that you've worked tirelessly on the landmines issue?

QUINN: My constituents are thrilled that I'm working tirelessly on anything. You know, they want to make sure I'm going to work everyday. So, I suppose not. Seriously, though, we've talked about it at some length back home and, of course, some press stories cover it, and I really can say that we've received nothing but support. And, that brings me probably to a last observation in terms of what's going on on the Hill, that the stereotypes of Republicans being really tough on defense and that Democrats maybe aren't so, that they would tend to go with the issue more really need to be struck down. I mean, I happen to be a Republican who believes in the issue, and it's not a partisan thing. That's why I've said to Chuck Hagel, and I've said to others, that, maybe with all of this talk in the US Congress about bipartisanship now, that some of our other problems may be coming to a close. Maybe this a great issue to start it off. There's very little to lose on either side and we're ready to step in if we have to.

INTERVIEWER: That was great. Is there anything else that you had that I didn't touch on?

Interviewer 2: I just had one brief one. You said, you mentioned that the landmines issue is, by and large, off the radar screen for most Americans. If you were to talk to some of your constituents back in Buffalo and you wanted to say why this issue matters to them, what would you say?

QUINN: I'd say a lot of what we just said here.

Interviewer 2:If you could just --

QUINN: Oh, if I was talking to residents back in Buffalo about this, and I have at town meetings and at other events, certainly, there haven't been any landmine explosions in Buffalo, New York, in my district, but I always try to emphasis the fact that that's not the reason for us to turn our back on anybody. We are a world leader. We have responsibilities. Not only at home but abroad, and the national conscience. And, it's a patriotic duty and all the rest of those things. But, I find that, when you do get a chance to talk to people about that, they're interested in talking about those things. It is easy to understand.

I can tell you I've talked to school children about it, because I've drawn some comparisons to young people who have been injured, their age, in other countries, and we have some pictures, some of them pretty gruesome, but we've shared a few of those. And, it's an easy issue to understand, with young people, young students as well. So, we try to do a little bit of the same as what we're doing here dealing with members of Congress, that this is an issue that can be talked about back home with almost any group, universally. Even seniors, and even veterans.

I'm on the veteran's committee here in Washington. It's one of my two assignments, and I love it. I'm on the benefits subcommittee. We oversee twenty billion dollars of benefits to veterans in this country. I'm the chairman of that subcommittee. So, I'm in contact with a lot of veterans who have fought the battles. Who have been in the fox hole. Who have had the enemy track the down and injure them and all of those things. And, yet, it's interesting. The positive reaction we get with some veterans and their families who've served the country in wars, who also understand, maybe better than us, what that whole thing is about, and we've been pretty fortunate to have their support as well, so, I don't think we leave anybody out. I think we talk to everybody and try to create that grassroots if we're able to.

Interviewer 2: Thank you, great.