[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4899, H.R. 5224, H.R. 5239, H.R. 2166 AND H. CON. RES. 328
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-186
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/
international--relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-717 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DANA ROHRABACHER, California CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California PAT DANNER, Missouri
PETER T. KING, New York EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
MATT SALMON, Arizona JIM DAVIS, Florida
AMO HOUGHTON, New York EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TOM CAMPBELL, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
KEVIN BRADY, Texas BARBARA LEE, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California [VACANCY]
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
Hillel Weinberg, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
Marilyn C. Owen, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
H.R. 4899, the Asian Pacific Charter Commission Act of 2000...... 1
H.R. 5224, The International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000. 4
H.R. 5239, The Export Administration Modification and
Clarification Act of 2000...................................... 6
H.R. 2166, the Bear Protection Act of 1999....................... 7
H. Con. Res. 328, Relating to Free and Fair Elections in Burma... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, Chairman, Committee on International
Relations
H.R. 4899...................................................... 21
H.R. 5224...................................................... 22
H.R. 5239...................................................... 22
H.R. 2166...................................................... 22
H. Con. Res 328................................................ 23
Bills and Amendments:
H.R. 4899........................................................ 24
Amendment to H.R. 4899 offered by Mr. Gilman..................... 31
H.R. 5224........................................................ 40
Amendment to H.R. 5224 offered by Mr. Gilman..................... 44
H.R. 5239........................................................ 45
H.R. 2166........................................................ 50
H. Con. Res. 328................................................. 58
H. Con. Res. 328, as amended by the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific........................................................ 63
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 328 offered by Hon. Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 67
H.R. 4899, H.R. 5224, H.R. 5239, H.R. 2166 AND H. CON. RES. 328
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:46 p.m., in
Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A.
Gilman (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Mr. Gilman. The Committee on International Relations meets
today in open session, pursuant to notice, to consider several
items.
H.R. 4899, THE ASIAN PACIFIC CHARTER COMMISSION
ACT OF 2000
Chairman Gilman. Our first bill we will consider is H.R.
4899, establishing the Pacific Charter Commission. The Chair
lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the
title of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 4899, a bill to establish a commission to
promote a consistent and coordinated foreign policy of the
United States to ensure economic and military security in the
Pacific region of Asia through the promotion of democracy,
human rights, the rule of law, free trade, and open markets,
and for other purposes.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, Section 1. Short Title----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. I have an amendment in the nature of a
substitute at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Gilman. Strike all after the enacting clause
and----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment in the
nature of a substitute is considered as having been read and is
open for amendment at any point.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. I now recognize myself on the bill and the
amendment.
Shortly after World War II, the American soldier and
statesman, George Marshall, said that a safe and free America
depends on a safe and free Europe. General Marshall, of course,
was emphasizing the importance of Europe to the United States
at that time. Permit me to suggest that Marshall's paradigm has
changed. Today, he would have stated that a safe and free
America depends on also a democratic, safe, and free Asia.
Before the summer recess, I introduced H.R. 4899,
legislation establishing a Pacific Charter Commission. The
purpose of the commission would be to create a charter that
would promote a consistent and coordinated foreign policy which
would ensure economic and military security in the Pacific
region of Asia. The charter would attempt to obtain these goals
through the promotion of democracy, human rights, the rule of
law, free trade, and open markets.
As you know, this region is vital to the future of our
Nation. Over the past 50 years, Asia has become a significant
center of international economic and military power. Our Nation
has seen the blood of its sons and daughters shed on Asian soil
in defense of our national interests and in fighting tyranny.
America has fought three wars in Asia since 1941, and our
American military, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines,
have all been engaged in ensuring peace across the Pacific. Our
basic interests in Asia have remained virtually the same for
the past 200 years: fostering democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law.
In 1941, our Nation and Great Britain laid down a set of
principles of foreign policy conduct. It was called the
Atlantic Charter. Similarly, I propose that we establish a
Pacific Charter Commission that would assist our Government in
laying out the principles for our policies in Asia in the 21st
century. Such a Pacific Charter would articulate America's
long-term goals and objectives in the Pacific and link them
with the means for implementation. It would be a comprehensive
model for our involvement in the region, supporting our
national interests and assuring others of our intention to
remain a Pacific power. Further, it would demonstrate that our
Nation is placing its relations with Asia in the 21st century
on a par comparable to that which has informed its relations
with Europe over the latter half of the 20th century.
H.R. 4899 would establish a commission of seven members
from outside the Government, with an interest and expertise
relating to Asia, chosen by the President with the advice and
consent of the senate. Commissioners, who would serve for 6
years, would develop a new U.S. foreign policy for the Pacific
region.
The time has come to lay out the architecture of policy
that will establish our intention to remain engaged in Asia and
the terms of our continued engagement. A commission to
establish a Pacific Charter for the 21st century would provide
the framework for such a policy. It would assure the entire
region--allies and otherwise--of the continuation of our
leadership that is consistent, coherent, and coordinated.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4899.
Is there any member--Mr. Bereuter, the Chairman of our Asia
and the Pacific Subcommittee.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to express my concern, as the Chairman knows, that
the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee was not given a chance to
examine this. I know the gentleman provided me with a copy
several days ago, but I have liked to have had the Asia and
Pacific Subcommittee work its will.
I would note that the Administration expresses their
opposition, believing that a new U.S. Government-funded
commission is not necessary at this point.
I have examined it closely, and I have tried to see the
changes the Chairman has made. Would you tell me the nature of
any specific changes that you have made in your substitute?
Chairman Gilman. Yes. In reply to the gentleman, the only
change made is we changed the title from Asia Pacific to the
Pacific Charter.
Mr. Bereuter. I see. Mr. Chairman, I----
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter, if you will yield?
Mr. Bereuter. Yes, I yield.
Chairman Gilman. We have also, at the request of the
minority, sunsetted this measure to 5 years and reduced the
budget of the commission from $5 million to $2.5 million to
bring it more into line with funding levels associated with
other congressionally mandated commissions.
Mr. Bereuter. I started out in opposition to it, but I
noticed the change in the sunset. I appreciate the Chairman's
and the minority's interest in that.
I wonder if the Chairman would tell me when, if this
becomes public law, it would take effect. Immediately upon
signature of the President?
Chairman Gilman. I believe it would be upon signature by
the President.
Mr. Bereuter. I wonder if the Chairman would consider an
amendment. I hope you would consider it a friendly amendment.
We might just express orally making it effective February 1 of
2001.
Chairman Gilman. I would have no objection to that.
Mr. Bereuter. I would make that amendment to the
gentleman's amendment.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's amendment is agreed upon
unless there is some objection.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. We appreciate
your support for the measure.
Are there any other members seeking recognition? If not,
are there any questions on the amendment? If not, the question
is on the Gilman amendment. All those in favor, signify in the
usual manner. Opposed? The amendment is agreed to.
If there are no further amendments, without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I gather you would like this on
the suspension calendar; therefore, I move the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending measure, as
amended, on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion, signify
in the usual manner. Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without
objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to make the
motions under Rule 22 with respect to a conference on this bill
or a counterpart from the Senate.
I thank the gentleman for his support.
H.R. 5224, THE INTERNATIONAL FOOD RELIEF PARTNERSHIP ACT OF
2000
Chairman Gilman. We now move to consider H.R. 5224 relating
to international food relief partnerships. The Chair lays the
bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of
the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 5224, a bill to amend the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 to authorize
assistance for the stockpiling and rapid transportation,
delivery, and distribution of shelf stable prepackaged foods to
needy individuals in foreign countries.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, Section 1, Short Title, this act may be cited----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Are there any members seeking recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Gilman. I now recognize myself briefly.
I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture, Mr. Combest, the distinguished gentleman from
Texas, and the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture,
the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the
International Relations Committee, Mr. Bereuter, and our
distinguished colleague Mr. Hall, the gentleman from Ohio, in
introducing the International Food Relief Partnership Act of
2000.
The International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000
authorizes the stockpiling and rapid transportation, delivery,
and distribution of shelf stable prepackaged foods to needy
individuals in foreign countries.
The bill creates a public-private partnership to leverage
the donation of nutritious food by volunteers to needy families
around the globe at times of famine, disaster, and other
critical needs.
Nonprofits such as Breedlove, Child Life International, and
Feed the Starving Children provide direct hunger assistance at
times of disaster, famine, or other critical need. Other
nonprofits similar to these fine organizations are located
throughout Nation. These nonprofits accept gleaned crops
donated by regional farmers and help transport and distribute
this food overseas. Once the donated food is processed, it can
be stored for years for use in food emergencies.
We need to encourage more volunteer efforts from nonprofits
of this nature. The International Food Relief Partnership Act
accomplishes this objective by providing a means for nonprofits
to accept donated food and process it into a product for use in
times of disaster, famine, or other critical need.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Gejdenson? Any other members seeking recognition? Mr.
Bereuter?
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
support for H.R. 5224. As the original cosponsor of this
measure, following the Chairman's lead, I would like to thank
you for your initiative in advancing it.
As an advocate of food assistance programs, I welcome this
legislation as a unique initiative to build grass-roots support
for our foreign food assistance program. Currently, large
agribusiness companies serve as the primary supplier for
commodities used in Title II food aid programs completed by
USAID. This bill, of course, amends Title II of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act to create
opportunities for nonprofit organizations and private voluntary
organizations (PVOs) in agricultural areas to also become
directly involved in the production, storage, and distribution
of prepackaged food materials for use in USAID food aid
projects.
In my opinion, it is certainly possible and advantageous
for the private and the nonprofit sector to work together on
food aid programs. Indeed, it is important to keep as many
people as possible engaged in food assistance programs, as
Asians, Africans, and Central Americans face hunger due to
natural disaster and abject poverty, and as American farmers
search for new venues for their surplus commodities.
On a side note, I would like to express my dismay that the
Clinton Administration has drastically cut Title III food for
development grants from $312.1 million to $25 million, a 92-
percent cut in funding. I would say that those and other
similar cuts limit food aid options and, thus, have a very
negative impact on support for food aid programs and on the
agricultural sector. I have complained in the past about this
cut.
But this legislation is another opportunity for us to
deliver food and do good things for the poorest people in the
world, and I thank the Chairman for his initiative.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter, for your
comments.
I have a technical amendment at the desk the clerk will
read.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman, at the end of
line 19 on page 2, add ``requested by.''
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Any comments on the amendment? If not, all
in favor of the amendment, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Are there any other members seeking recognition? If not, if
there are no further amendments, without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending measure as
amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor, signify in the
usual manner. Opposed?
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without
objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to make
motions under Rule 22 with respect to a conference on this bill
or a counterpart from the Senate.
H.R. 5239, THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION MODIFICATION AND
CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2000
Chairman Gilman. We now move to consider H.R. 5239, to
reauthorize certain provisions of the Export Administration
Act. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk
will report the title of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 5239, a bill to provide for increased
penalties for violations of the Export Administration Act of
1979, and for other purposes.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, Section 1, Short Title----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. I now recognize myself briefly.
The Export Administration Modification and Clarification
Act of 2000 will strengthen the enforcement of our export
control system by increasing the penalties against those who
would knowingly violate its regulations and provisions.
This measure would implement one of the key recommendations
of the Cox Commission report on protecting our national
security interests, and is virtually identical to a provision
in H.R. 973, a security assistance bill, which passed the House
in June of last year with strong bipartisan support.
Since the Export Administration Act lapsed in August 1994,
the Administration has used the authorities in the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act to administer our
export control system. But in some key areas, the
Administration has less authority under IEEPA than under the
EAA of 1979.
For example, the penalties for violations of the Export
Administration regulations that occur under IEEPA, both
criminal and civil, are substantially lower than those
available for violations that occur under the EAA. Even these
penalties are too low, having been eroded by inflation over the
past 20 years.
The measure I am introducing today significantly increases
the penalties available to our enforcement authorities at the
Bureau of Export Administration in the Department of Commerce.
It also ensures that the Department can maintain its ability to
protect from public disclosure information concerning export
license applications, the licenses themselves, and related
export enforcement information.
In view of the lapse of the EAA over the past five and a
half years, the Department is coming under mounting legal
challenges and is currently defending against two separate
lawsuits seeking public release of export licensing information
subject to the confidentiality provisions of section 12(c) of
the EAA.
This measure authorizes $72 million for fiscal year 2001
for the operation of the Export Administration Act as continued
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting
this very timely measure that will provide the authorities our
regulators need to deter companies and individuals from
exporting dual-use goods and technologies to countries and
users of concern and to protect the confidentiality of the
export control process.
Are there any members seeking recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Gilman. Are any members seeking to offer
amendments?
[No response.]
Chairman Gilman. If there are no amendments, without
objection, the previous question is ordered. The gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending measure on the
suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from
Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion, signify in the usual
manner. Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without
objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to make the
motions under Rule 22 with respect to a conference on this bill
or a counterpart from the Senate.
H.R. 2166, THE BEAR PROTECTION ACT OF 1999
Chairman Gilman. We will now consider H.R. 2166, the Bear
Protection Act. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 2166, a bill to conserve global bear
populations by prohibiting the importation, exportation, and
interstate trade of bear viscera and items, products, or
substances containing, or labeled, or advertised as containing,
bear viscera, and for other purposes.
Chairman Gilman. This bill was referred by the Speaker to
the Committee on Resources and in addition to our Committee and
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is
dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, Section 1. Short Title, this act may be cited as the
Bear Protection Act----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. I now recognize myself briefly. I want to
commend Representative Porter, the gentleman from Illinois, for
crafting this important bill. And I also want to thank
Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and the ranking minority member of the
International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee for their
quick action on the bill.
Although the demand for bear parts is virtually non-
existent in our Nation, that market is rapidly expanding in
Eastern Asia. Bear viscera are widely used as aphrodisiacs, as
traditional medicines to treat everything from epilepsy to
toothaches, and some parts are considered culinary delicacies.
As East Asia has already forced its bear population to the
brink of extinction, they are turning to the United States as a
new source for bear viscera. In South Korea, North American
bear gall bladders are sold under-the-counter in small
quantities and are worth more, gram for gram, than cocaine.
H.R. 2166 bans the sale, export, import, and possession of
bear viscera and would set civil and criminal penalties for
violations. The Bear Protection Act also directs our U.S. Trade
Representative to make international trafficking in bear
viscera a priority issue in ongoing discussions with our Asian
trading partners.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2166.
Are there any members seeking recognition or seeking to
offer amendments?
[No response.]
Chairman Gilman. If there are no amendments or further
requests, without objection, the previous question is ordered.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending measure on the
suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. Those in favor, signify
in the usual manner. Those opposed, say no?
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without
objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to make
motions under Rule 22 with respect to a conference on this bill
or a counterpart from the Senate.
H. CON. RES. 328, RELATING TO FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN BURMA
Chairman Gilman. We now consider H. Con. Res. 328 relating
to Burma. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. H. Con. Res. 328, a resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress in recognition of the 10th anniversary of
the free and fair elections in Burma and the urgent need to
improve the democratic and human rights of the people of Burma.
[The resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. This resolution was referred to the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights who
reported it on June 28th to the Full Committee with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The resolution was also referred to the Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific and was reported on September 13th to the
Full Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Without objection, the Subcommittee-recommended language
from the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific will be treated
as original text for the purposes of amendment. The clerk will
read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee's
recommendation, in that order, for amendment. The clerk will
read.
Ms. Bloomer. Whereas in 1988 thousands of Burmese citizens
called for a democratic change in Burma and participated in
peaceful demonstrations----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Subcommittee's
recommendation is considered as having been read and is open
for amendment at any point.
[The amended resolution appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. I would now recognize the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, the Chairman of our Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific, to introduce the measure to the
Committee.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H. Con. Res. 328 was introduced on May 16th by the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, and unanimously approved
by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on September 13th.
For over 10 years, the Burmese military regime, now known as
the State Peace and Development Council (the SPDC) has refused
to implement the results of the 1990 elections which were won
overwhelmingly by the National League for Democracy (NLD).
During this period, and indeed since 1962, when General Ne
Win and the military seized control, the military has engaged
in egregious, systematic violence and abuse of the fundamental
human rights of ethnic minorities and other people of the
country. The abuses of the junta in Rangoon most recently have
come under international scrutiny when, on August 24th, Aung
San Suu Kyi was denied the ability to visit NLD party offices
outside the capital. For 9 days, she was detained at a
roadblock and eventually was forcibly returned to her
residence. Since that time, she and other NLD party leaders
have been under virtual house arrest.
Despite the military's denials, no independent observer had
been allowed to visit, and the British Ambassador was roughed
up when he attempted to force his way into her compound.
In addition, party offices have been ransacked and papers
seized. To justify their actions, the junta has issued the
ludicrous charge that the NLD had formed an alliance with the
rebels in the provinces.
It is entirely proper that the House of Representatives go
on record condemning these human rights abuses. Since her
electoral victory in 1990, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has repeatedly
been arrested, threatened, and harassed. The illegal SPDC
military regime has done everything possible to discredit the
NLD and its leader. This is simply wrong, and we, of course,
should say so repeatedly and emphatically and do anything else
we can that is effective.
Mr. Chairman, at the subcommittee markup, an amendment was
approved that had the concurrence of the resolution's author,
Mr. Porter, and which was designed to update the situation in
Burma and address two concerns that were raised regarding the
base text.
First, the amendment updated the current standoff between
Aung San Suu Kyi and the military by including six new whereas
clauses. These clauses detailed the denial of right to movement
and association and the seizure of documents at the NLD party
offices. The new language makes it clear that Aung San Suu Kyi
was clearly within her rights in attempting to visit party
offices and that there was no justification for the roadblock
established by the SPDC.
Secondly, we made technical changes to correct the name of
the Department of State International Narcotics Control
Strategy Report for 2000.
Lastly, the amendment altered Resolved Clause 3. The
resolution as introduced endorses the economic and political
sanctions that are currently in force.
Unfortunately, the sanctions are simply not having the
desired effect. Burma has not been isolated. It has become a
full member of ASEAN. Burma's neighbors--India, China, Japan,
and Southeast Asian nations--are pursuing a policy of
engagement with Burma. Australia prefers a policy of
``constructive engagement'' as they call it.
Even the EU countries, which have joined us in expressing
outrage against the policies of the Burmese junta, have
generally not imposed economic sanctions. While unilateral
economic sanctions may make us feel good, they rarely are
effective in forcing changes on recalcitrant regimes.
Unfortunately, the regime's outrageous behavior and stubborn
refusal to even engage the NLD in a meaningful dialogue leaves
us with few options to our present policy of sanctions and
isolation.
Let me make myself clear. I do not have a more effective
alternative to the current sanctions policy. We have looked for
one, but unless we have multilateral at least within the
region, it is going to be very difficult. So I am as frustrated
at least as all the members are.
However, I think we should not delude ourselves by
believing that the current policy is effective, and that was
original language of the resolution. I, therefore, requested of
Mr. Porter that he agree to modify this language and say that
the U.S. should continue to pursue policies with regard to
Burma designed to, and so on, and those who support the
sanction policy, if they choose, can read this as an
endorsement of sanctions.
However, there is sufficient flexibility in the language to
address the concerns of those who are frustrated with the
ineffectiveness of the sanctions. And I hope, Mr. Smith, from
our discussion a few minutes ago, you understand how we have,
with Mr. Porter, tried to accommodate those people that want to
leave sanctions in place, but also for people like myself that
believe that sanctions frankly are not effective, to read it
that way. I don't, as I mentioned, have a good alternative. We
have sought them in Committee. We have sought them by
individual discussions. We have sought them on an international
basis.
I would once again note that the resolution's author, Mr.
Porter, is comfortable with the proposed change. I discussed
this matter with Chairman Smith earlier, and I just confirmed
with Mr. Porter less than an hour and a half ago that he was
pleased and wanted the resolution in its current amended form
to be moved to the floor expeditiously under suspension
calendar.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to approve H. Con. Res.
328 as amended.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Any other members----
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I strongly
support this House Con. Res. 328 and feel that we really have
to attempt to keep the pressure on. I did have the opportunity
to get to Burma, as I might have mentioned before, about a year
or so ago and did force the authorities to allow us to see Aung
San Suu Kyi at the U.S. embassy. We had a several-hour lunch
and discussion with her, and we also had the opportunity to
meet with SLORC members at another time, those who were elected
at the time she was elected. And they are certainly a
tremendous repressive government. The treatment of the Burmese
in Thailand is also something that we should really have the
Thai Government look into. There are 800,000 refugees or
workers there making about $1 a day. It is really unbelievable.
So I certainly support this. We visited the borders up by
the People's Republic of China where they have also an
enterprise going on in that region. But it is repressive. The
military government is--as a matter of fact, a group of
students were given about 10 years in prison for demonstrating,
and I have written the Government of Burma several times asking
them if they would reconsider. These were just students
demonstrating. I thought that was certainly overly extreme.
So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this strongly and
urge the passage of this bill.
Chairman Gilman. Are any other members seeking recognition?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment that I would like to
offer to H. Con. Res. 328.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith, page 5,
``Strike lines 5 through 7 and insert the following: (3) United
States policy should sustain current economic and political
sanctions against Burma as the appropriate means.''
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Bereuter. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Bereuter. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
consider this move on the gentleman's part a violation of our
agreement that we had when we proceeded with this, and I would
ask the gentleman to reconsider offering this amendment. It is
not what we agreed to earlier. I understand the gentleman's
point about the sanctions. And all I am saying is I don't want
to give any indication--and other members don't--that they are
effective. And we have left it so that all of the policies are
pursued with respect to the two objectives, A and B, are
identified. This gives the Administration, current and future,
maximum flexibility, including continuing with the current
policies, whatever they think is effective to pursue a
restoration of democracy, human rights, and civil liberties
under Part A, and Part B, to support U.S. national security
counter-narcotics interests.
I just think at this late point to violate what I think was
a clear agreement is not good faith.
Mr. Smith. Let me just say, reclaiming my time, that in 20
years I have never violated--and I never will violate--an
agreement. I want that on the record and very clearly stated.
In looking at the gentleman's language, I had no idea that
the intent of the language that he is talking about--and he
just articulated it again here today--was to suggest that both
sides could read into that language, the pro-sanctions group
and the anti-sanctions group can both walk away and say their
cause has been vindicated. That is not my intent. My intent is
to be as clear and as unambiguous as possible. As we all know,
the distinguished Chairman of the Asia and the Pacific
Subcommittee was likely not going to bring this resolution up,
but the clear intent to pursue policies with regard--as stated
on page 5----
Mr. Bereuter. Would the gentleman yield for a
clarification?
Mr. Smith. No, I won't yield this time.
Mr. Bereuter. You misstated my intention.
Mr. Smith. Well, I just heard your intention stated, but
let me----
Mr. Bereuter. I have----
Mr. Smith. You will have to get your own time.
Mr. Bereuter. I had always intended to bring this
resolution up. I had assured Mr. Porter I would.
Mr. Smith. Well, that is good to hear, but let me just say
very clearly, this amendment that I am offering today puts all
the members on the record--vote it up or down. I hope they will
vote it up and approve this. It is a very clear amendment. In
this case, I agree with the Clinton Administration. I was very
happy that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the
Administration took the initiative. Many of us had encouraged
her to do so, but she did so in her own right because of the
outrageous behavior by the Burmese authorities.
Today, as we meet, there is a BBC Wire Service story that
the military authorities in Burma have again prevented the
democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, from leaving the capital in
Rangoon.
The Burmese authorities have gotten worse. Now, is this the
time when you should pull the plug on the sanctions, or give
any kind of suggestion that could be read by the Rangoon
leadership as a sign that we are somehow wavering? I don't
think so. Yes, this is basically sense of the Congress, but
what we say does have meaning. It does, hopefully, indicate
where we are coming from in terms of our policy direction, and
I think we need to reiterate in the strongest terms possible--
and this is clear and, as I said, is nonambiguous language--
that we want the United States policy to maintain current
economic and political sanctions. To say otherwise, to give
some kind of indication that could go either way I think just
emboldens the dictatorship, however unwitting or unintentional
that outcome is.
And let me say, had I known that this language could be
read both ways, I would never, ever, ever have suggested that
we embrace such language. The language that states pursue
policies, the policies that the Administration is pursuing, is
well meaning, well intentioned. But sanctions, as we all know,
never work in a day, maybe not in a year, maybe not in several
years. I supported sanctions against South Africa, and was
frankly the only Republican on this panel 15 years ago or so
who took that position, because I believed it was right even
though it might not succeed overnight. There was a counter
argument that was meaningful, but I felt at the time that that
was the way to proceed. And eventually the sanctions did indeed
work.
Right now there is an outrage going on in Rangoon. Aung San
Suu Kyi, the great Nobel Peace Prize winner, and her
organization and her freely-elected members of her parliament
are persona non grata, and I think we need to say,
notwithstanding anything else that ASEAN does, that we are on
record for these sanctions. And I hope the membership of the
Committee will support this amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. And it is absolutely no breach of any agreement.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher next, then I will come
back to Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Rohrabacher? Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, members. The gentleman perhaps
was wrong when he suggested unknowingly that I had not intended
to bring this resolution up. If he feels that in fact I had not
and had not good intentions to bring it up, it is outrageous. I
had assured Mr. Porter at all times that this resolution would
come to the Committee, I would try to expedite its movement to
the floor. And that continues to be the case. Now, if the
gentleman thinks otherwise, it is outrageous.
Now, I invite members to calmly look at page 5, at lines 5
through 11. As members can see from the resolution before you,
it says, ``United States policy shall continue to pursue
policies with regard to Burma that are designed to'', and then
the two clauses with the objectives. That gives the
Administration wide flexibility on designing what is
appropriate. It does not say, nor does this member suggest that
they have to relieve any kind of sanctions that are opposed,
but I do not want to give any impression whatsoever that we
think they are effective. Unfortunately, they are not as long
as we do not have multilateral support at least within the
region and among major countries like Japan and Australia, for
example, and certainly the European Union.
Now, we know that occasionally sanctions do work, but it is
almost always when they are multilateral sanctions, as was the
case with South Africa. What the gentleman wants to do is
change it to say ``its current policies.'' By saying
``current'' it suggests that there can be no change, that we
don't necessarily support anything that isn't a current policy.
And I think if you look at it that way, you will understand
that I am not attempting to give any message that we need to
lift the sanctions. It just says ``to continue to pursue
policies with regard to Burma.'' If the Administration wants to
continue policies or a future Administration, good, that is up
to them. They have that option. Maybe at some time they will be
effective. They certainly might if a few more countries joined
us, but at the moment, we are alone. I hope in what I believe
was an agreement to move it forward, that the gentleman's
amendment will, since he is pursuing it, not be accepted. In
any case, the resolution is important. It will move forward.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I rise in strong support of the amendment.
Let me just say that I have watched policy concerning Burma and
I have watched what is going on in Burma since before I was
elected to Congress. I have met with young students who were in
Rangoon, who saw their fellow students shot down and young
female students who were brutally raped by soldiers from the
regime, and students who were chased through the jungles. I met
these students in jungle camps in Burma. In fact, one of the
first things that happened to me was that I was condemned for
meeting these students, for crossing the border illegally into
the jungle to meet these brave freedom fighters. And ever since
then--I have to tell you, these people, who are struggling for
Burma against these tremendous odds especially under the
leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi, are some of the most admirable
people in the world. They are facing a horrendous challenge.
You know, the dictatorship has all the guns. They are as brutal
as any dictatorship could be. They have got drug lords in
cahoots with the leaders of their country.
How would you like to live in a country in which the drug
lords and the government went to the same restaurant every
night and partied together? And all of a sudden all of the
government officials have fancy cars. And where did they get
the money to do that when their people are literally eating
crickets because the food production has gone down so much in
that country that used to be ``the rice bowl'' of Asia.
We currently have a policy of sanctions. The reason Mr.
Smith's amendment must be adopted is because the gangsters in
Rangoon will read this bill without Mr. Smith's amendment, as a
retrogression, as a backing down of American policy of
sanctions.
Now, Mr. Bereuter has argued, articulately, that the
sanctions may or may not be affected, but the very last thing
that we want to do with the most vile, corrupt regime on this
planet and which is being challenged peacefully by such heroic
people as Aung San Suu Kyi, the last thing we want to do is to
send a message that can be read by those people as a backing
down from our confrontation or our adamant opposition to that
regime. And that is the way it will be read and that is what
they will say.
ASEAN has had a policy that is not involved with sanctions.
That policy has failed. They admit it has failed. Our policy
has sanctions. Now we can say we are in search of a policy.
Well, it is pretty easy to determine what the policy should be.
The United States of America should be on the side of people
who believe in democracy, people who believe in honest
government, and we should be opposed to dictators and to
murderers and to thugs who brutalize their people and terrorize
their population. The choice is so clear in Burma, and I don't
think the policy of sanctions, economic sanctions goes far
enough. I think we should be working with Thailand and others,
who would have gone in this direction, to openly support Aung
San Suu Kyi and her elected majority in Burma, and recognize
them as a government in exile because they are the government.
We believe that government are those people who have the
consent of the governed, and in Burma that means Aung San Suu
Kyi and her people. And I say, I couldn't more strongly support
Mr. Smith's amendment that keeps us on the record and cannot be
interpreted as backing down from our opposition to that vile
regime. Thank you very much.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Rohrabacher. Are any other
members seeking recognition? Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Yes. I too rise in support of Mr. Smith's
amendment. As I indicated, I had the opportunity to be there
firsthand and talk to Aung San Suu Kyi and people who were
elected with her. I saw the brutality and the students that
were beaten by the authorities, the lack of any kind of
progress that is being made. And for us to have a sanctions
policy and then to remove it, would certainly give a signal
that the US is sort of looking the other way, or not as serious
about this regime as we were, because we are removing something
that was previously there. And so I support the amendment.
Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Bereuter. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. There
is nothing in the resolution, I just remind the gentleman, that
removes the economic sanctions. I just want to clarify that. It
is pressure. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Thanks for that correction.
I still think though it should be clear then, and for that, I
support the amendment from the gentleman from New Jersey.
Chairman Gilman. Are any other members seeking recognition?
If not, I want to support Congressman Porter, the gentleman
from Illinois for introducing this important piece of
legislation.
Today Aung San Suu Kyi is attempting to travel to northern
Burma in defiance of the dictatorship's ban on her traveling.
She was twice forcefully returned after attempting to travel in
Burma. The last attempt was August 24th. She camped out in her
car for 9 days until the dictatorship forced her back. She was
then held incommunicado. As we speak today, she is surrounded
by heavily-armed soldiers at the train station and is being
prevented from boarding the train.
The UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission
have passed nine consecutive resolutions regarding the
appalling human rights conditions in Burma. This resolution as
amended assures Congress remains on record in support of the
brave woman in Burma.
And with regard to the amendment, I strongly support the
amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey. Congress needs to
remain firmly on record in support of the continuing sanctions
against the repressive illegal government in Burma. Aung San
Suu Kyi and the members of Parliament who were elected in 1990,
have not been able to establish a government inside of Burma.
Many of her supporters have been and still are in prison.
Thousands have been tortured and murdered. The government
relies heavily on slave and forced labor for construction
projects. The ILO has even banned it from participating in any
ILO meetings.
The government is also deeply involved in the illicit drug
trade. It was just reported by Secretary Cohen, who was in
Thailand 2 days ago, that the Thai are asking for 50
helicopters to fight against the drug trafficking. The Thai
military has estimated that 600 million amphetamine pills
flooded Thailand last year from across a 2,000-kilometer border
with Myanmar. Thai community leaders have frequently accused
Myanmar of destroying Thai youth, warning that drug addiction
was reaching crisis proportions in Thailand, with more than
600,000 young people reportedly hooked on amphetamines. In
Bangkok Tuesday, Secretary Cohen said, ``We understand now
there is a serious problem concerning Thailand by virtue of
methamphetamine being produced and distributed from Burma.''
The drug problem will be high on the agenda of the commander of
US forces in the Pacific who is due to visit Thailand next
week. Now is certainly not the time to suggest that Congress is
backing down from its strong support for these sanctions.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support the amendment by
the gentleman from New Jersey.
Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand my
friend from New Jersey's reason for this amendment to sustain
the sanctions and sustain our current policy, or perhaps add
the sanctions. We have tried sanctions in this country for
years, and usually they are ineffective and they do nothing but
hurt the people that are in that country that need the most
help.
Now, I was in the military 30 years ago. I believe that the
military has a place, but the military in Burma is really a
major part of the problem. When I was there last November, I
told some of the military officers that if anything happens to
Aung San Suu Kyi, the wrath of the world will be on them, and
for those of you that think I am a loose cannon, the wrath of
John Cooksey will be on those guys too.
And this bothers me when I read that someone in the
government says that Aung San Suu Kyi would be, quote,
``crushed for trying to draft the constitution'', and just the
general attitude of those people.
But that said, I still do not think we should support this
amendment, and I don't think it is a good amendment, and I
don't think it will help Aung San Suu Kyi. I don't think it
will help the people over there that have the courage to stand
up to the military. I think it is a self-defeating amendment.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey. Are any other
members seeking recognition? If not, the question is now on the
amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. All in
favor, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
The amendment is carried. Is any other member seeking
recognition or desiring to offer any amendments? Mr.
Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is this the time to comment on the bill
itself?
Chairman Gilman. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. I would seek recognition.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I will make this very short. In
talking about how the United States should engage a
dictatorship like we find in Burma--and let me just say that
Mr. Bereuter, who works very diligently at his job and is a
very, very conscientious Chairman of the Subcommittee--we just
have some honest disagreements. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bereuter. I thank you for your kind words, but in this
one we have, I think no disagreement. I respect the gentleman's
particular knowledge of Burma. I think it is an outrageous
regime. I want to bring this woman who was elected in 1990 to
power. There is no disagreement on the objectives or your
analysis of the terrible situation. I want the gentleman to be
assured of that. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. I would
like to bring up two points about the government of Burma, or
should I say the thugs that control Burma, because they are not
the government. Let us be aware. These people hold power, but
they are not the government. The government, again, derives its
just powers from the consent of the governed, and these people
could not muster a majority by any stretch of the imagination.
But this regime that is in power has made deals with the
Chinese. And we talked about Chinese engagement, constructive
engagement with the Burmese dictatorship. I think it is
important for us to put on the record that the Chinese have
provided the weapons that this regime has needed to maintain
control. How this regime is maintaining control, it is now in
an unholy alliance with Beijing. And what does Beijing get for
giving them all of these hundreds of millions of dollars of
weapons? Number one, it is receiving some place for a military
location on the coast of Burma, which is now, we understand,
not necessarily in construction, but clearly there is a Chinese
military presence there. But more importantly, what they are
doing is they are cutting down all of the teak wood. They are
taking what belongs to the people of Burma, their natural
treasures, whether they are minerals or whether they are
timber--and that is the next thing that I am going to mention--
and they are just taking this away, robbing the people of their
legacy, and the money is going, yes, to pay the Chinese for
their guns, and it is going into foreign bank accounts. That is
number one we have to understand about the regime in Burma.
But number two, let us understand that over the last 10
years the Burmese regime has completely obliterated its own
opposition, not only from Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters and the
democratic supporters, but also from various ethnic groups that
maintain certain control of territory around Burma for a number
of years. Now this regime has total control of Burma. And what
is happening to the heroin production in Burma now that this
regime totally controls the country? Opium production in Burma
is dramatically up, even though they have had some kind of a
drought over there, and what we have got is this Administration
does not--excuse me--there are people in this Administration
who do not want to face the fact that the drug lords and the
regime are one and the same. So let us recognize that the
Burmese regime controls that country and that country produces
30 to 40 percent of the world's heroin, and that is what we are
up against here.
There is no more vile regime on this planet than the one in
Burma, and the people in Thailand are looking to us to stand
strong, and I think that this is a very important resolution,
and it is important to have our voices strong and united in
these things. And I appreciate Mr. Bereuter making it very,
very clear that he is morally and all the other ways opposed to
this type of regime. So thank you very much.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are any other
members seeking recognition? If not, the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of pending measure as amended
on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. Any as in favor of the motion, signify
in the usual manner.
Any opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further
proceedings on this measure are postponed.
Mr. Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. Menendez. I do.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Did the
previous legislation of the Committee, I understand, adopted on
the Export Administration Act, get sent to the Subcommittee on
International and Economic Policy and Trade?
Chairman Gilman. Yes. I am informed by staff that we
informed the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and
Trade that we intended to proceed to the Full Committee on this
important measure so that we could get it to the Senate as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Menendez. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that you may
have informed the Chairlady, but you did not inform the whole
Committee, and as the ranking Democrat on the Committee, let me
say that while I support, in essence, what the bill attempts to
do, I would have done it a little differently. I do want to
register my strong opposition to it having been marked up here
in Full Committee--and I would have been here at the original
time at 2:00, the Committee was originally cited for--without
first having gone to our Subcommittee. It is just an issue that
for members of the Committee, who spend a lot of time as I do
in my Subcommittee, showing up, working on issues. The value of
a member on behalf of the constituency they represent is not
for that Subcommittee and the work there to be an intellectual
reservoir or debating society, but it comes on the opportunity
to craft and vote on legislation. So I would hope that for the
future, that we would have the courtesy as knowing as well, and
being able to register our opinions as to whether or not the
Committee should be bypassed, and I would hope it is done in
the most infrequent opportunities as possible.
Chairman Gilman. I thank the gentleman for his comments,
and I regret that he was not informed of this. And I would
think that it be the Subcommittee Chairman's responsibility to
inform the Committee of these kind of events, but we certainly
will take the gentleman's comments in mind for future issues
that come before our Committee.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had thought that
perhaps H. Con. Res. 397 might come up today. It is on Central
Asia. It is authored by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Smith. We are ready to take that up, and if we have another
markup, I am hoping that it could be brought on that agenda. I
think Mr. Smith is ready to move, and I certainly am.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter, staff informs me that we
will be prepared to take that measure up next week in our next
markup.
Thank you very much, and I want to thank all of our members
for standing by. The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statements of Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York, Chairman, Committee on
International Relations
h.r. 4899, the pacific charter commission act of 2000
Shortly after World War II, the great American soldier and
statesman, George C. Marshall, said that a safe and free America
depends on a safe and free Europe. Marshall, of course, was emphasizing
the importance of Europe to the United States at the time. Permit me to
suggest that Marshall's paradigm has changed. Today, he could have
stated that a safe and free America depends on a democratic, safe and
free Asia.
Before the Summer recess, I introduced H.R. 4899, legislation to
establish a Pacific Charter Commission. The purpose of the commission
would be to create a charter that would promote a consistent and
coordinated foreign policy which would ensure economic and military
security in the Pacific region of Asia. The charter would attempt to
obtain these goals through the promotion of democracy, human rights,
the rule of law, free trade, and open markets.
As you know, this region is vital to the future of our nation. Over
the past 50 years, Asia has become a significant center of
international economic and military power. The United States has seen
the blood of its sons and daughters shed on Asian soil in defense of
our national interests and in fighting tyranny. America has fought
three wars in Asia since 1941, and American soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and Marines are engaged in ensuring peace across the Pacific. Our basic
interests in Asia have remained virtually the same for the past 200
years: fostering democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
In 1941, the United States and Great Britain laid down a set of
principles of foreign-policy conduct. It was called the Atlantic
Charter. Similarly, I propose that we establish a Pacific Charter
Commission that would assist our government in laying out the
principles for our policies in Asia in the 21st century. Such a Pacific
Charter would articulate America's long-term goals and objectives in
the Pacific and link them with the means for implementation. It would
be a comprehensive model for our involvement in the region, supporting
our national interests and assuring others of our intention to remain a
Pacific power. Further, it would demonstrate that the United States is
placing its relations with Asia in the 21st century on a par comparable
to that which has informed its relations with Europe over the latter
half of the 20th century.
H.R. 4899 would establish a commission of seven members from
outside the government, with an interest and expertise relating to
Asia, chosen by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate. Commissioners, who would serve for six years, would develop a
new U.S. foreign policy for the Pacific region.
The time has come to lay out an architecture of policy that will
establish our intention to remain engaged in Asia and the terms of our
continued engagement. A Commission to establish a Pacific Charter for
the 21st century would provide the framework for such a U.S. policy. It
would assure the entire region--allies and otherwise--of the
continuation of a leadership that is consistent, coherent, and
coordinated.
Accordingly, I ask for you to vote for H.R. 4899.
h.r. 5224, the international food relief partnership act of 2000
I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture,
Mr. Combest, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, and the Ranking
Member of the Committee on Agriculture, the distinguished gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, and the distinguished Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the International Relations
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, in
introducing the International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000.
The International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000 authorizes
the stockpiling and rapid transportation, delivery and distribution of
shelf stable prepackaged foods to needy individuals in foreign
countries.
This bill creates a public-private partnership to leverage the
donation of nutritious food by volunteers to needy families around the
globe at times of famine, disaster and other critical needs.
Non-profits such as Breedlove, Child Life International, and Feed
the Starving Children provide direct hunger assistance at times of
disaster, famine, or other critical need. Other non-profits similar to
these fine organizations are located throughout the United States.
These non-profits accept gleaned crops donated by regional farmers, and
help transport and distribute this food overseas. Once the donated food
is processed, it can be stored for years for use in food emergencies.
We need to encourage more volunteer efforts from non-profits. The
International Food Relief Partnership Act accomplishes this objective
by providing a means for non-profits to accept donated and food and
process it into a product for use in times of disaster, famine, or
other critical need.
I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.
h.r. 5239, the export administration modification and clarification act
of 2000
The ``Export Administration Modification and Clarification Act of
2000'' will strengthen the enforcement of our export control system by
increasing the penalties against those who would knowingly violate its
regulations and provisions.
This measure would implement one of the key recommendations of the
Cox Commission report on protecting our national security interests,
and is virtually identical to a provision in H.R. 973, a security
assistance bill, which passed the House in June of last year with
strong bipartisan support.
Since the Export Administration Act (EAA) lapsed in August of 1994,
the Administration has used the authorities in the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to administer our export control
system. But in some key areas, the Administration has less authority
under IEEPA than under the EAA of 1979.
For, example, the penalties for violations of the Export
Administration Regulations that occur under IEEPA, both criminal and
civil, are substantially lower than those available for violations that
occur under the EAA. Even these penalties are too low, having been
eroded by inflation over the past 20 years.
The measure I am introducing today significantly increases the
penalties available to our enforcement authorities at the Bureau of
Export Administration (BXA) in the Department of Commerce. It also
ensures that the Department can maintain its ability to protect from
public disclosure information concerning export license applications,
the licenses themselves and related export enforcement information.
In view of the lapse of the EAA over the past five and one-half
years, the Department is coming under mounting legal challenges and is
currently defending against two separate lawsuits seeking public
release of export licensing information subject to the confidentiality
provisions of section 12(c) of the EAA.
The measure also authorizes $72 million for fiscal year 2001 for
the operation of the Export Administration Act as continued under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very
timely measure that will provide the authorities our regulators need to
deter companies and individuals from exporting dual-use goods and
technologies to countries and uses of concern and to protect the
confidentiality of the export control process.
h.r. 2166, the bear protection act of 1999
I want to commend Representative Porter, the gentleman from
Illinois, for crafting this important bill. And I want to thank
Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and the Ranking Minority Member of the
International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee for their quick
action on this bill.
Although the demand for bear parts is virtually non-existent in the
U.S., the market is rapidly expanding in Eastern Asia. Bear viscera are
widely used as aphrodisiacs, as traditional medicines to treat
everything from epilepsy to toothaches, and some parts are considered
culinary delicacies. As East Asia has already forced its bear
population to the brink of extinction, they are turning to the United
States as a new source for bear viscera. In South Korea, North American
bear gall bladders are sold under-the-counter in small quantities and
are worth more, gram for gram, than cocaine.
H.R. 2166 bans the sale, export, import and possession of bear
viscera and would set civil and criminal penalties for violations. The
Bear Protection Act also directs the United States Trade Representative
to make international trafficking in bear viscera a priority issue in
ongoing discussions with our Asian trading partners.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2166.
h. con. res. 328, relating to free and fair elections in burma
I want to commend Congressman Porter, the gentleman from Illinois,
for introducing this important piece of legislation. Today Aung San Suu
Kyi is attempting to travel to northern Burma in defiance of the
dictatorships ban on her traveling. She was twice forcefully returned
after attempting to travel in Burma. The last attempt was August 24th.
She camped out in her car for nine days until the dictatorship forced
her back. She was then held incommunicado.
As we speak, she is surrounded by heavily armed soldiers at the
train station and is being prevented from boarding the train.
The U.N. General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission have
passed nine consecutive resolutions regarding the appalling human
rights conditions in Burma. This resolution as amended ensures that the
Congress remains on record in support of this brave woman in Burma.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
On Burma Amendment
I strongly support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey. The Congress needs to remain firmly on the record in support of
the continuing sanctions against the repressive illegal government in
Burma.
Aung San Suu Kyi and members of Parliament who were elected in 1990
have not been able to establish a government inside of Burma. Many of
her supporters have been and still are imprisoned. Thousands have been
tortured and/or murdered. The government relies heavily on slave and
forced labor for construction projects. The ILO has even banned it from
participating in any ILO meetings.
The government is also deeply involved in the illicit drug trade.
It was just reported that Secretary Cohen was in Thailand two days ago
and the Thai are asking for 50 helicopters to fight against the drug
trafficking.
The Thai military has estimated that 600 million amphetamine pills
flooded Thailand last year from across the 2,000 kilometer (1,240 mile)
border with Myanmar. Thai community leaders have frequently accused
Myanmar of destroying Thai youth, warning that drug addiction was
reaching crisis proportions in Thailand, with more than 600,000 young
people reportedly hooked on amphetamines.
In Bangkok Tuesday, Secretary Cohen said, ``We understand now that
there is a serious problem concerning Thailand by virtue of
methamphetamine being produced and distributed from Burma. The drug
problem will be high on the agenda of the commander of the U.S. forces
in the Pacific, who is due to visit Thailand next week.''
Now is certainly not the time to suggest that the Congress is
backing down from its strong support for the sanctions. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
-