[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. ____, H.R. 3673, H.R. 4697, H.R. 4002, H.R.
4528, H. CON. RES. 348, H. CON. RES. 232, H. CON. RES. 297, H. CON.
RES. 319, H. RES. 531, H. CON. RES. 322, AND S. CON. RES. 81
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 29, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-168
__________
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
68-024 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
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 MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
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
Markup of H.R._____, The Defense and Security Assistance Act of
2000........................................................... 1, 22
Markup of H.R. 3673, to provide certain benefits to Panama if
Panama agrees to permit the United States to maintain a
presence there sufficient to carry out counter narcotics and
related missions............................................... 3
Markup of H.R. 4697, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
to ensure that United States assistance programs promote good
governance by assisting other countries to combat corruption
throughout society and to promote transparency and increased
accountability for all levels of government and throughout the
private sector................................................. 15
Markup of H. Con. Res. 322, expressing the sense of the Congress
regarding Vietnamese Americans and others who seek to improve
social and political conditions in Vietnam..................... 18
Markup of H.R. 4002, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
to revise and improve provisions relating to famine prevention
and freedom from hunger........................................ 35
Markup of H. Con. Res. 297, congratulating the Republic of
Hungary on the millennium of its foundation as a state......... 37
Markup of S. Con. Res. 81, expressing the sense of the Congress
that the Government of the People's Republic of China should
immediately release Rabiya Kadeer, her secretary, and her son,
and permit them to move to the United States, if they so desire 39
Markup of H. Con. Res. 348, expressing the condemnation of the
use of children as soldiers and expressing the belief that the
United States should support and, where possible, lead efforts
to end this abuse of human rights.............................. 43
Markup of H. Con. Res. 319, congratulating the Republic of Latvia
on the Tenth Anniversary of the reestablishment of its
independence from Soviet rule.................................. 45
Markup of H. Con. Res. 232, expressing the sense of Congress
concerning the safety and well-being of United States citizens
injured while traveling in Mexico.............................. 46
Markup of H. Res. 531, concerning the 1994 attack on the AMIA
Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, urging the
Argentine Government to punish those responsible, and for other
purposes....................................................... 48
Markup of H.R. 4528, to establish an undergraduate grant program
of the Department of State to assist students of limited
financial means from the United States to pursue studies at
foreign institutions of higher education....................... 60
WITNESSES
Shirley Cooks, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative
Affairs, U.S. Department of State, introducing witnesses from
the State Department........................................... 5
James Benson, Desk Officer for Panama, U.S. Department of State,
to speak on H.R. 3673.......................................... 5
Robert Manogue, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S.
Department of State, to speak on H.R. 3673..................... 5
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman concerning:
H.R. 3673.................................................... 66
H.R. 4697.................................................... 68
H. Con. Res. 322............................................. 69
H.R. 4002.................................................... 70
Representative Kevin Brady concerning H.R. 4002.................. 71
Representative Doug Bereuter concerning H.R. 4002................ 73
Representative Christopher H. Smith concerning H. Con. Res. 297.. 74
Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman concerning H. Con. Res. 297.......... 76
Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman concerning S. Con. Res. 81........... 77
Representative Doug Bereuter concerning S. Con. Res. 81.......... 78
Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman concerning:
H. Con. Res. 348............................................. 79
H. Con. Res. 319............................................. 80
H. Con. Res. 232............................................. 81
H. Res. 531.................................................. 82
H.R. 4528.................................................... 83
Bills and amendments:
H.R._____, The Defense and Security
Assistance Act of 2000......................................... 84
Amendment to H.R.---- offered by Mr.
Rohrabacher................................................ 100
Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson to the amendment offered
by Mr. Rohrabacher......................................... 101
Bereuter amendment to H.R.----, the
Defense and Security Assistance Act of 2000................ 102
H.R. 3673........................................................ 103
H.R. 4697........................................................ 125
Amendment to H.R. 4697 offered by Mr. Gejdenson.............. 137
H. Con. Res. 322................................................. 138
Committee Print of H. Con. Res. 322 adopted by the
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific....................... 140
H.R. 4002........................................................ 143
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4002 offered
by Mr. Gilman.............................................. 163
H. Con. Res. 297................................................. 181
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Con. Res. 297
offered by Mr. Lantos...................................... 184
S. Con. Res. 81.................................................. 187
H. Con. Res. 348................................................. 191
Committee Print of H. Con. Res. 348, as reported by the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.. 196
H. Con. Res. 319................................................. 202
H. Con. Res. 232................................................. 204
Committee Print of H. Con. Res. 232, as reported by the
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere..................... 206
H. Res. 531...................................................... 208
Amendment to H. Res. 531 offered by Mr. Gejdenson............ 212
Amendment to H. Res. 531 offered by Mr. Gillmor.............. 213
Amendment to H. Res. 531 offered by Mr. Gillmor.............. 214
H.R. 4528........................................................ 215
Committee Print of H.R. 4528, as reported by the Subcommittee
on International Operations and Human Rights............... 219
Additional material submitted for the record:
Letter to the Honorable Porter Goss, Chairman, and the Honorable
Julian Dixon, Ranking Democratic Member, of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, dated June 29, 2000, from
Chairman Gilman and Ranking Democratic Member Gejdenson........ 223
H.R.______, H.R. 3673, H.R. 4697, H.R. 4002, H.R.
4528, H. CON. RES. 348, H. CON. RES. 232, H. CON. RES. 297, H. CON.
RES. 319, H. RES. 531, H. CON. RES. 322, AND S. CON. RES. 81
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. In Room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee on International Relations
meets pursuant to notice to mark up several items of
legislation.
H.R._____--THE DEFENSE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000
We will now consider a committee print relating to certain
security programs. The Chair lays the committee print before
the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the print.
Ms. Bloomer. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 and the Arms Export Control Act to make improvements to
certain defense and security assistance provisions under those
Acts, to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain
foreign countries, and for other purposes.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the committee print is
considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any
point.
I now recognize myself briefly on the measure.
This bill modifies authorities with respect to provision of
security assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
and the Arms Export Control Act. Most of the provisions have
been requested by the Administration. Specifically these
provisions address the transfer of certain obsolete or surplus
defense articles, notification requirements for arms sales and
authorities, to provide for stockpiling of defense articles in
foreign countries.
The bill also includes important bipartisan provision to
address the Administration's initiative regarding exemptions
for defense export licensing to foreign countries.
I want to thank the Ranking Democratic Member, Mr.
Gejdenson, for his cooperation on this provision as well as the
NGO community for their hard work.
In addition, this bill----
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is correct. The Committee
will come to order. Members will take their seats. We have a
number of bills that are awaiting consideration; and, with
cooperation, we will get through them in a hurry.
In addition, the bill authorizes the transfer of two naval
vessels to Chile and provides authority to the President to
convert existing leases for 10 ships which have already been
transferred to Brazil, to Greece and to Turkey. I am pleased to
note that we have successfully enacted into law over the past 4
years each of our bills addressing security assistance matters.
I hope we are able to continue our record with this measure.
I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, our Ranking
Minority Member, Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the Chairman's cooperation on agreeing to some
adjustments to the original language which will facilitate our
national interest and our interest in cooperating with some of
our most important allies like the United Kingdom and
Australia. The improvements in the legislation make this a good
bill. I support the Chairman's efforts.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I thank the Chairman for his leadership in
crafting the Defense and Security Assistance Act of 2000, which
authorizes the transfer of excessive military equipment and
naval vessels to allied nations. I am grateful that my proposed
amendment on providing assistance to our democratic ally in the
Pacific, the Republic of the Philippines, has been incorporated
into the bill as section 105.
The Philippines, which lacks a credible air force or a navy
and where 60 percent of its soldiers and their families live
under the poverty line, has been handicapped by inadequate
funds to modernize its armed forces. In recent months, a
guerrilla war and terrorist campaign backed by international
terrorists, for instance, Mr. bin Laden, has been a tremendous
strain on Philippine security forces.
At the same time as counterinsurgency casualties are
mounting in the southern part of the Philippines, Communist
China has continued building its forces in Philippine
territorial waters in the South China Sea, the Spratly Islands
and in other places and also in, specifically, Mischief Reef.
Section 105 authorizes the U.S. Government to work with the
government of the Philippines to procure military equipment
that can upgrade the capabilities and improve the quality of
life of the armed forces of the Philippines. The equipment
includes naval vessels; amphibious landing craft; F-5 aircraft
and aircraft that can be used for reconnaissance, search and
air rescue and supply; helicopters; vehicles and other
personnel equipment.
This bill is essential to transfer defensive equipment no
longer used by our forces to assist America's allies around the
world to have the means to defend themselves from terrorism and
aggression. I am suggesting that what we are doing here for the
Philippines fits right into that. The Philippines is struggling
to have a democracy. They are committed to free press and to
the other values of our society. We should try to help them
out.
Lord only knows that we are offering loans to people who
are investing in dictatorships like Vietnam or Communist China.
The least we can do is try to help the Philippines with surplus
military equipment so they can defend themselves against
subversion and aggression.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Is any other Member seeking recognition on this measure?
If there is no other Member seeking recognition, the
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a
motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that after the
introduction of the pending bill the Chairman be requested to
seek consideration of the bill on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion signify
by saying ``aye.'' Those opposed, say ``no.''
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further
proceedings on this measure are postponed.
H.R. 3673--UNITED STATES-PANAMA PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2000
We will now consider H.R. 3673, relating to benefits for
the Panama Canal. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 3673, a bill to provide certain benefits
to Panama if Panama agrees to permit the United States to
maintain a presence there sufficient to carry out
counternarcotics and related missions.
Chairman Gilman. This bill was introduced on February 16,
2000, referred by the Speaker to this Committee, in addition to
the Committee on Ways and Means, and in each case for the
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.
I recognize myself briefly in support of the bill.
I first introduced the United States-Panama Partnership Act
in October 1998 with a bipartisan list of distinguished
sponsors, including not only many of our Republican colleagues
but also the distinguished Ranking Member of our Subcommittee
on International Economic Policy and Trade, Mr. Menendez, and
the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, Mr. Rangel.
We introduced this legislation because Panama and the
United States stand at a crossroads in the special relationship
between our two peoples that dates back nearly 100 years. At
the dawn of the new century, our two nations must decide
whether to permit this special relationship to die or to renew
and reinvigorate it for the next century.
This legislation offers Panama the benefits of closer
relations with the United States. In exchange for such
benefits, it asks Panama to remain our partner in the war on
drugs by agreeing to a U.S. presence, alone or in conjunction
with other nations, sufficient to carry out vital
counternarcotics and related missions. Our nation has a
critical need for access to some of the facilities that we had
in Panama up until the end of last year.
General Wilhelm, the Commander of the U.S. Southern
Command, recently admitted to Congress that today our nation
has only one-third of the capability to interdict narcotics
smuggled into the United States that we had before we lost
access to our facilities in Panama.
I am only aware of two potential objections to this
legislation. The first is that Panama may not be interested in
the kind of relationship that we are offering. None of us know
for sure whether or not Panama would be interested because our
nation has never before seriously offered such a relationship
to Panama.
Public opinion surveys in Panama have consistently shown
that 70 percent of the Panamanian people would like there to be
a continued U.S. presence in Panama. But, more importantly,
this legislation does not seek to force Panama to enter into
any such relationship. It does not even force the President to
offer such a relationship. It merely authorizes the President
to make such an offer. If the President decides to make such an
offer, Panama will be free to accept or reject it.
I believe that, if we pass this legislation, we can
significantly reduce the flow of drugs into our own nation. If
I am wrong about that, then the worst that can be said about
passing this bill is that we may have wasted our Committee's
time. That is a risk I am prepared to run, given the
significant possible rewards our nation would reap if we are
right and the skeptics are wrong.
The second potential objection to this bill is that it is
another trade giveaway. I am very sensitive to that concern.
That is why I vote against most free trade measures such as
NAFTA and fast track authority.
But this bill is not a trade giveaway. For the first time
ever, this bill asks for something in return for enhanced
access to our U.S. market. What we will get in return is that
the facilities we need to interdict the flow of drugs into the
United States will be adopted. This bill can save and will save
American lives if adopted.
In addition, I would remind our Members that the trade-
related portions of the bill, sections 4(e), 5 and 6, are not
technically before our Committee. Those parts of the bill are
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and we do not have
jurisdiction to report or amend it. The Ways and Means
Committee will consider those portions of the bill later on,
and when we vote today we will be voting only on whether to
report the other nontrade-related portions of the bill. I
invite our colleagues to support H.R. 3673.
I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from
Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I might start by asking the
Administration what concerns they have about this legislation.
My understanding is that there are some discussions going on.
To enter into the negotiations with an offer that this
Committee doesn't have the jurisdiction to provide, and that
Members may not understand the magnitude of, is questionable.
When you do free trade agreements, what happens if the Chinese,
for instance, decide to use Panama as a transshipment zone. The
fact that clothing is boxed in Panama, does a free trade
agreement mean that anything made in China that gets handled
for a moment in Panama becomes a Panamanian product that can
enter America's market?
So it is not so simple as the Chairman would have us
believe, that by passing this resolution we will end the travel
of drugs to the United States and reengage the Panamanians in a
positive relationship, ignoring some of the recent past. Most
experts tell us, maybe we ought to leave Panama alone for a
little while to get over the previous relationship so that we
can develop a new one.
I would like to hear from the Administration first.
Chairman Gilman. Would you please identify yourself?
Ms. Cooks. I am Shirley Cooks from the Bureau of
Legislative Affairs at the State Department. With your
permission, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Gejdenson, I would like to ask
my colleagues to answer your question.
Chairman Gilman. They should be identified as well.
Ms. Cooks. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. Would you please state your title?
Mr. Benson. I am James Benson, Desk Officer for Panama,
Department of State. I will just address the points on the move
to discuss with the Government of Panama this sort of
arrangement.
I think our view, from our conversations with senior
Panamanian officials, is that there is no interest on the part
of the Government of Panama in discussing anything that even
approaches a reopening of former U.S. facilities there. In
fact, Ambassador Ford, the Panamanian Ambassador to the United
States, speaking in the Chambers of this Committee 2 weeks ago
at an Atlantic Council-sponsored event, was emphatic in saying
that the Government of Panama will not discuss the stationing
of any U.S. forces in Panama in the future.
Therefore, sir, in response to your question on what we
think about the possibility of such discussions with the
Panamanians, our view is that they really stand no chance.
I would pass to my colleague on the economic side.
Chairman Gilman. Please identify yourself.
Mr. Manogue. Yes, sir. I am Bob Manogue. I am in the
Economic Section of the State Department. I work on trade
matters.
Inasmuch as this section of the bill would be taken up on
the House Ways and Means Committee, that would probably be the
appropriate place to discuss the technical aspects of the trade
portion. But many of these provisions have been already
provided in the CBI enhancement bill which was signed into law
on May 17.
The major concern which the House Ways and Means and the
Administration would have would be the transshipment of Chinese
goods through Panama. There is a history of transshipment
through Panama of Chinese goods. This bill in certain sections
would give the Customs and Commerce Department pause on the
viability of those shipments moving through Panama.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that possibly the
Chairman might consider holding this bill up and, maybe, we
would have a discussion with the folks in Ways and Means
whether there is any realistic option of developing a free
trade agreement with the Panamanians that would protect
American workers, protect Americans' interest in having fair
trade with Panamanians, and also to understand whether or not
we are being helpful in dealing with the Panamanians.
If the Panamanians are sitting there expressing their
noninterest and the U.S. Congress keeps kind of upping the ante
of what we will give them to please let us back in, they think
that their assets are more valuable than they are, and the only
thing this Committee's actions may actually do is make it more
difficult to come to an agreement with the Panamanians.
I hope the Chairman maybe holds this bill over. We can have
some discussions. Maybe there is some way we can come to
something productive. But I just think sending a bill that is
going to languish in Ways and Means to create free trade may
make us feel good but doesn't really accomplish that.
We don't really end up fighting drugs. We may make it more
difficult to get the Panamanians to actually be supportive of
an American presence, thereby creating the misimpression that
we are willing to give them just about everything or anything
in order to have the possibility of an American presence there.
Mr. Chairman, I hope maybe you would consider we could put this
off. Maybe we could find a way to do something. My sense is we
can pass this out of Committee. We are not going to accomplish
anything. I don't think that is the Chairman's desire. Maybe we
would be better off waiting a bit.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I think that some of these
arguments that are being presented against your bill are
nonsense--just total nonsense. Just as the testimony from our
State Department was nonsense. We have a State Department that
has been undermining America's real position, that we would
like to have some troops down there because there is a real
security threat in Panama, and this Administration has sent
signals under the table and behind the curtain and at social
events to the new Panamanian Government that this government
really doesn't want troops down there. That may not be what the
official position is of our government, but that is the message
that the Panamanian Government has received from the Clinton-
Gore Administration.
This Administration was negotiating for some type of
American presence for months, and they got nowhere, even though
polls indicate that 80 percent of the Panamanian people want
some type of American military presence in Panama. This
Administration is practicing wink diplomacy. That is, they
state a position for the American people because they know how
untenable their real positions are, and then they go to these
other governments and they wink as they are saying that
position and behind the scenes tell them what their real
position is. Nowhere is that more clear than Panama.
While I was in Panama and talked to the people down there,
it was evident how much the Panamanian people depend on the
United States, appreciate the United States and want the United
States to be in their country as a stabilizing force against
corruption and against the terrorist gangs. In the south, we
have a Gallup poll on the screen right now indicating that 80
percent of the Panamanian people want to have some kind of
presence, American military presence, in Panama.
Take a look at it. That is not Dana Rohrabacher's poll.
That is a poll of the Panamanian people. Even with 80 percent
of the Panamanian people on their side, our government couldn't
negotiate an agreement with the Panamanian Government to
fulfill the desire of the Panamanian people and to fulfill the
security needs of both of our countries. That is why I am
calling into question the actual integrity of that process and
the validity of the statements being made by our own State
Department.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think your amendment goes far enough.
I have accepted postponement of marking up my own resolution
which deals with the long-term threat to American security
interests in Panama related to the Chinese control of both
ports on the end of the Canal and the corrupt process that took
place that resulted in a Communist Chinese warlord, a
billionaire who is very close, a part and parcel of the Chinese
leadership in Beijing, now having control of both ends of the
Panama Canal. I postponed my resolution.
Your resolution is far less aggressive than my own, and
yours is focused on the threat that the drug lords in Colombia
are----
Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Gejdenson. I want to say, I know the gentleman is
earnest in his beliefs, but I am not sure he is the ultimate
judge of sense and nonsense. But my question would be, if the
elected Government of Panama doesn't wish to agree with the
Administration on a lease, the lease you are talking about--I
think the American companies want a couple and the Chinese
company wants one--but if the elected government doesn't want
to lease us space and 80 percent of the people of Panama do
want to lease us space, how do we resolve that? Do we negotiate
directly with the people?
Mr. Rohrabacher. This is not about that. Eighty percent of
the Panamanian people aren't talking about the lease
arrangement for those port facilities. They are talking about
an American military presence in their country that enforces
stability. Because they understand the Communist Chinese are
down there in force, they understand that drug lords and the
gangsters are down there in force and that they have been
through this drill before and we had to send American troops
down there at a great cost of their lives and our lives.
Mr. Gejdenson. I agree with you that the Panamanians would
be better off with an American presence there, but their
elected leadership has to make that decision.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time, that is exactly why I
am suggesting to you that this Administration is practicing
wink diplomacy in establishing a public position that we can
talk about here when, behind the scenes, they are telling the
Panamanians exactly the opposite.
This type of thing has happened before. It is easy to
recognize. It happens when you have polls like this that are
right in front of us that show that there is some kind of an
incomprehensible dichotomy between what an overwhelming number
of the people want and when their government is doing something
against their own interests. What usually happens is that there
are some people in our State Department or other branches of
our government giving them behind-the-curtain messages and
whispers that are different than the public stances we have
taken.
I am sorry for doubting the integrity of the way our State
Department and this Administration is acting on this issue, but
when I went down there it became clear that there are forces at
work that are not going to be to the benefit of the United
States and certainly not to the security interests of what the
Panamanian people have for their own country.
I strongly support the Chairman's motion. I postponed
consideration of my own motion, although it is parallel in many
areas to what the Chairman is trying to accomplish here. This
is now something that I think will lack support on the floor. I
think the Chairman's motion will receive widespread support
once it gets to the floor of the House.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have to oppose this legislation
both on substantive and procedural grounds. I was intrigued by
the statements from our colleague from California that, based
on a poll taken in some other country, that it warrants the
presence of U.S. troops. I wondered if he would join me and
others who would want to take a Gallup poll of the whole world,
which would automatically trigger us sending a U.S. presence,
as he put it, to any country that had 80 percent of the people
or more that wanted us. Because I assure you there are a lot of
places that would feel more secure with a U.S. presence.
Mr. Chairman, this is a giveaway for which we get
absolutely nothing. On the substance, the bill is supposed to
induce Panama to agree to a future U.S. presence on our former
military bases there. I have seen no indication from the
Government of Panama and neither has anybody that I know of,
including the Administration, that the Panamanians are at all
interested in negotiating with us for a further U.S. presence
there.
Almost 3 years ago, we had a tentative deal for a
multilateral counternarcotics center in Panama, but the
Panamanians broke the deal because they believed the political
climate was not conducive. To my knowledge, nothing has changed
in the political climate in Panama; and I don't think this bill
will induce them to come back to the table.
If you are concerned about our ability to maintain
surveillance of the region for purposes of drug interdiction,
this bill really doesn't help you. To replace our presence in
Panama from which we used to do this surveillance, the
Administration has negotiated agreements with Ecuador, Curacao,
Aruba, and El Salvador to establish forward, operating
locations in each country. If you recall, Mr. Chairman, we,
together, visited with a CODEL that you led to the region and
were briefed extensively on how much more effective that was
going to be.
With the approval of the President's supplemental request,
we can get each of these locations up and running at their full
capacity, which I am told by U.S. Southern Command will be
greater than the surveillance coverage that we had previously
from Panama. In any event, completion of the necessary work on
the FOLS will occur much more quickly than any agreement we
might be able to reach with Panama if this bill were to become
law, which is a problem in and of itself.
Last, Mr. Chairman, I also find the procedure worthy to
object to. The Western Hemisphere Subcommittee hasn't held any
hearings on this bill and has not marked up this bill; and, in
fact, as near as I can tell, and I am the Ranking Member, I
don't think the Subcommittee Chairman has waived jurisdiction.
Beyond this, it doesn't seem to me that the Ways and Means
Committee, which has jurisdiction over the trade provisions in
the bill, has any intention of reporting it.
So I think that considering this bill today is an enormous
waste of the Committee's time. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman,
I would urge the Members to vote no on the legislation.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield for
a moment?
Mr. Bereuter. Yes, I yield.
Chairman Gilman. To respond to Mr. Ackerman's contention
that if we were to take on this new project back in Panama that
we would have a less of our capability than ever before, I
would like to read from Commander in Chief General Wilhelm's
letter to us dated June 8, 2000, reading just a portion of it,
in which he says: Until funds are available and the work on the
airfields is complete--he is talking about the new potential
airfields that the Administration is talking about--we estimate
our capability will continue to be approximately one-third of
what it was in Panama.
We are concerned about the loss of this space. We are
concerned about the opportunity to interdict the drugs that are
coming out of Latin America, coming out of the Caribbean,
coming out of Colombia, and this was a very important base to
us for those operations. That is why we introduced this
measure.
With regard to trade, that we leave entirely up to the Ways
and Means Committee.
Mr. Ackerman. Will the Chairman yield?
Chairman Gilman. It is Mr. Bereuter's time.
Mr. Bereuter. I will yield.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter.
I would just remind the Chairman and the Committee that the
funding for the airfields is already as far as the conference
committee and is much more likely to be approved in a rapid way
and certainly much more quickly than any agreement that can
ever possibly, if at all, be reached with Panama over this.
Mr. Bereuter. Reclaiming my time. I would like to express
my support of the legislation. I don't have the doubts or
concerns or views of Mr. Rohrabacher with respect to the State
Department, but I do believe that Pan-American relations have
suffered some substantial deterioration that are in part caused
by actions in this government a long, long time ago. I believe
that the Chairman's incentives, inducements in this legislation
are worth offering.
Certainly most of the benefits that would be accrued
potentially come from the Ways and Means Committee
jurisdiction. What we would add in the way of inducements are
not substantial, but it seems to me that we have to express our
sense of view. And if it is the will of the Congress that we
proceed in this area, then we are doing what an authorizing
committee should be doing, and we are not simply bowing to the
State Department because they happen to say they don't see any
opportunity for this to succeed.
We need to be more active as an authorizing committee. I
think the Chairman has given us a very interesting and, as far
as I am concerned, a sufficiently positive piece of
legislation, that we ought to approve it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. I thank the Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Gilman. You don't need to strike the last word.
You are recognized.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you, sir.
I would like to inquire of whomever has this information,
have there been hearings on this subject such that a member of
the general committee here might know the nature and extent of
the narcotics or terrorist threats that are the subject of this
bill?
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rothman, we had a hearing last summer
and Ambassador McNamara was before us. We had an extensive
review of the situation at that time.
If the gentleman would yield a moment----
Mr. Rothman. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman [continuing]. I am going to ask that that
chart be run up again on our viewing screen here.
I am reading now. The drug control assets DOD contributes
to reducing the illegal drug supply have declined. It is a GAO
report, dated December 1999. At the bottom of that chart there
is a paragraph that reads, according to the Southern Command
commander, ``significant deficiencies in the availability of
required assets,'' impede the command's ability to react
quickly and effectively to changes in drug traffickers'
patterns throughout the region.
What the chart shows, the black lines--the black graph--are
the number of flights that have been requested by the Southern
Command; and the white bar shows the number of flights that
were actually able to be provided by DOD. You will note that,
in 1999, they had a number of DOD flights that were available
despite the black bar, the number of requests. And that is the
year we left Panama.
I thank you for yielding.
Mr. Rothman. If possible, if I could have my time
extended----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you, as I was delighted to yield to my
friend, the Chairman.
Let me see if I understand this. A year ago, Mr. Chairman,
1 year ago, there were hearings at which I believe the nature
of those hearings was the status of the negotiations about
something other than providing a military presence by the
United States in Panama. In other words, last summer there were
no hearings about having a military presence in Panama. They
were with regards to other things? Is that right, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. At that time, it was a hearing on the
general situation in Panama and the negotiations that were
under way at that time with regard to our bases.
Mr. Rothman. But since last summer, we have had no hearings
about the nature of any increased threats in the region. I, for
one, am for a very active, outreaching military----
Chairman Gilman. If the gentleman would yield, my staff
informs me that the Government Reform Committee had a review
just this last month, Congressman Mica's Subcommittee on Crime
and Narcotics.
Mr. Rothman. Are they a subcommittee of this Committee,
sir?
Chairman Gilman. No, they are a subcommittee of the
Government Reform Committee. He chairs a task force on
narcotics.
Mr. Rothman. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, there would
be no way, unless, of course, the minutes or summaries of those
Government Reform hearings were provided to Members of this
group, which I don't believe they were.
Chairman Gilman. If the gentleman would yield, we can make
those available, if you desire.
Mr. Rothman. If you can do it before we vote, that would
certainly be appropriate. Because I can't imagine us on this
Committee voting to commit U.S. forces in another country,
voting to commit a certain level of trade relations with
another country, among other provisions of this bill, without
knowing the results of the hearings. It is just mind-boggling.
I, for one, am for a very strong outreach of our military.
I don't believe in isolationism. When my colleagues in the
Congress, including my dear colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, a number of them, constantly say we are too far extended
in the world, we are not America's police officers. I always
say, well, we have to stand up for freedom and for ourselves
around the world.
But to me there is no rational basis that has been provided
to this Committee in terms of testimony or evidence upon which
we can make a rational judgment as to whether or not to pass
this bill. And I say that mindful of the notion that usually,
whether it be a Democratic President or a Republican President,
it is not my recollection that the Congress in advance tells
the President what negotiating strategy the President must
employ with such specificity in terms of the quids and the
pros--or pro quos, however it goes, that the President is going
to have to give in exchange for what will be given to us by
another country.
In my 4 years here, I think it is somewhat unprecedented.
Not only that, I think it is a bad deal. If, in fact, 80
percent of the people of that nation want America's troops,
doesn't that mean, then, that we can be less generous in what
we need to offer them to induce them to take our troops? If 80
percent of their people want us there, why are we being so
generous now in advance without any negotiations having taken
effect?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Rothman. Certainly.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You just asked a question. Doesn't that
set off alarm bells in your own mind as to whether or not this
Administration is using the leverage we have for something that
was so important to our own national security?
Mr. Rothman. With due respect, let me reclaim my time and
let me respond to the gentleman's inquiry.
No, it does not. I don't see a logical connection between
the fact that the people of a nation wish America's military
presence and the necessity or worthwhileness of America
committing its troops to that nation.
As my colleague, Congressman Ackerman, indicated, which I
think is pretty obvious to everyone, there are many, many
nations around the world that one can imagine where there are
civil wars or there is strife on virtually every continent
where the people of those nations would want America's military
presence there to protect them. It certainly is understandable.
That doesn't tell us that it is in America's foreign policy
interests or necessity for us to commit those forces there,
especially when my colleagues in the Congress are constantly
crying that we are overextended around the world.
I may very well support the deployment of troops or
military presence in Panama. I am ready to do so. All I need is
some evidence or some documentation or some testimony before
this Committee, not another committee, so that I can make a
judgment. One would have to ask how any Member of this
Committee, other than those with some unknown abilities to gain
this kind of information----
Chairman Gilman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Rothman. If I may have 30 additional seconds.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
Mr. Rothman [continuing]. How any Member of this Committee
could vote to deploy United States military forces without
having heard testimony about the necessity or good sense of it.
Could you imagine if your constituents found out you voted to
deploy U.S. troops in another country and you didn't take any
testimony on it?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Rothman. If I may just finish, Mr. Chairman. I would be
in favor of this once the evidence is before us.
Chairman Gilman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr.
Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Perhaps we should take advantage of the
fact that we are all together here to talk about why Panama is
important. First of all, Panama is where the two continents
come together. It is also where the two oceans come together.
It is one of the most strategic points in the entire world. Let
us start with that.
Mr. Rothman. Will the gentleman yield?
How about Kosovo? Was that important?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, it wasn't important.
Reclaiming my time, I voted against Kosovo. Yes, sending
our troops to the Balkans didn't make any sense to me when,
especially, a large number of people in the Balkans didn't want
us to send our troops there, as compared to the overwhelming
number of people of Panama, a country which is probably of the
most strategic importance of any country in the world to the
security of the United States.
Mr. Delahunt. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me go through a little bit more.
It is a choke point. There are indications that after
American troops left from there protecting--by the way, I
forgot to mention where you have this choke point, there is a
canal across there. And a large amount of trade that comes from
our country and to our country goes through the canal. Also, in
case of a national emergency, we would have to send troops to
the canal that could save American lives.
Mr. Rothman. If the gentleman will yield, does the
gentleman want us to send troops to Mexico and Canada also?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would send troops to Panama before I
would send troops to Mexico. Because the Panamanian people, by
80 percent, feel that we have been a positive force.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be possible
by unanimous consent to postpone the Panama discussion to the
end of our dealing with all the many other bits of legislation
we have to deal with? I have great respect for my good friend
from California and my friend from New Jersey, but I think it
is important we get our job done. If they would allow us to
move on to the other items and put the Panama issue on hold
until we finish all other items. I make such a unanimous
consent request.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Lantos, after the gentleman finishes
his remarks, you can make that formal request.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just say, again, we have gone
through the importance of Panama being there in the middle of
two continents and two oceans and there is a canal there. Also,
since the Americans have left, there has been an infestation of
Panama which was noticeable to all those Panamanian people--it
is why they want us there--of gangsters, criminals, terrorists,
drug dealers; and the fact that the Chinese Communists now have
targeted their country hasn't escaped their attention as well.
It may have escaped the attention of the State Department, it
may well have, but it didn't escape the attention of those
Panamanians. They have already gone through great hardship,
where America has had to fight their way into their country.
The fact is, we have played a very positive role in Panama.
Panama is vitally important to the strategic interests of the
United States. The Chinese Communists, an organization--a
financial organization headed by Li Ka-Shing, who is in the
inner circle of the Communist Chinese leadership, now has
control of both ends of the Panama Canal, received that control
in a corrupt bidding process that our Administration let go
through without any complaints at all.
These things indicate that we have a big problem down
there. We should pay attention to that country. If we don't, we
are doing so at our own peril.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
gentleman from California, if I may, that if the Russians
commissioned a poll in the United States and found that 80
percent of the people were in favor of ratifying the
nonproliferation treaty, how much effect do you think that
would have on the U.S. Senate or the Administration?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would be happy to answer that.
There is no correlation between numerous polls conducted,
not just by Gallup poll but by many organizations,
demonstrating that the people of Panama overwhelmingly would
like to have a U.S. presence in their country. And it is in our
national security----
Mr. Ackerman. That wasn't my question. The question is,
does a government give up its sovereign right to negotiate
because some other sovereign government commissioned a poll in
their country? Would that affect us? I tend to think that we
would not turn on our foreign policy because somebody
commissioned a poll here.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming the time, I will just end, no
one is suggesting, especially this Congressman or Mr. Gilman,
that anything be done that would in any way override or step on
the sovereignty rights of Panama.
With that, I yield back my time.
Chairman Gilman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Lantos has a proposal to put before the Committee. Mr.
Lantos, state your proposal.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous
consent that my colleague Mr. Delahunt be given 1 minute,
because he has been waiting to make a point.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection. One minute will be
granted.
Mr. Delahunt. I will just take a minute.
This new concept of poll diplomacy--I guess, in the poll,
did it indicate how many troops, was it company size,
battalions or divisions that the Panamanian people wanted?
Mr. Rohrabacher. The many polls that have been taken
indicate they want a significant American presence.
Mr. Delahunt. Could you give me some numbers?
Mr. Rohrabacher. It is not poll diplomacy. It is wink
diplomacy.
Mr. Delahunt. It is either wink or poll diplomacy. That
would be an interesting hearing. What are we talking about in
terms of numbers, according to either yourself or according to
this poll?
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is not determined, obviously.
Mr. Delahunt. I see. That is left for more diplomacy.
Chairman Gilman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we
postpone the Panama discussion until after all other items we
have under consideration.
Mr. Burton. Reserving the right to object.
Chairman Gilman. Reservation of objection by Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton will set forth his objection.
Mr. Burton. Let me just say that a number of us--and I have
the highest regard for Mr. Lantos. We have become pretty good
friends over the past 6 months to a year. I have high regard
for him. But a lot of us have other things we need to go to. My
concern is that this is an issue that many of us feel very
strongly about, and if we postpone it until the end of the
hearing we may be detained in another meeting and not able to
vote on this issue. With great reluctance, Mr. Lantos, because
of that, I will object.
Mr. Lantos. I will then call for----
Chairman Gilman. Objection is heard.
Mr. Lantos. I call for a vote on this issue.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman has not made a motion.
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 Committee
report the bill to the House with a recommendation that the
bill be passed.
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. A quorum being present, the motion is
agreed to. Without objection, the Chair or his designee is
authorized to make motions under rule XXII with respect to a
conference on this bill or a counterpart from the Senate.
Without objection, the chief of staff is authorized to make
technical, conforming and grammatical changes to the text of
the bill.
H.R. 4697--INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE ACT OF
2000
We will go on to the next measure, H.R. 4697, the
International Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Act. We will
now consider H.R. 4697, to help promote good governance. The
Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 4697, a bill to amend the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 to ensure that United States assistance
programs promote good governance by assisting other countries
to combat corruption throughout society and to promote
transparency and increased accountability for all levels of
government and throughout the private sector.
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----
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
I now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, to introduce the
bill.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy.
I just want to say that as we look at our very important
aid program, we look at our very important trade relations with
other countries, what is clear is many opportunities for
American industry and opportunities for developing countries
have been thwarted by massive corruption. We now see a
democratic government in Nigeria trying to make up for decades
of plundering of their society.
According to officials at the U.S. Commerce Department, in
the past 5 years, U.S. firms may have lost as much as $25
billion in foreign contracts because of bribes. What is clear
is, as we have led the world in democracy, democratic
institutions and free markets, we can lead the world as well in
developing a transparent and honest system of commerce and
government.
What I can tell you is, for a long time, we didn't have
support from our European allies. But yet alas even they, our
major economic competitors in the G-7, now recognize that
corruption is a problem, that providing bribes in contracts and
allowing companies to deduct those bribes in the normal course
of business is a mistake.
My intent is to help develop a direction for aid and other
programs to deal with these issues. I apologize to those in key
positions that will have to develop the reports, but I think a
comprehensive look to those countries, the 10 or 15 countries
where the problems are most persistent, is important.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. At the
appropriate moment I will have an amendment inspired by Mr.
Kolbe from Arizona and supported by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is recognized.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. The
global trading system is under siege by corruption, bribery,
and fraud. Practices whose corrosive effects undermine the rule
of law and obstruct the full evolution of democracy and free
market principles. They further erode economic development as
foreign investments are squandered or consolidated in the hands
of a few through cronyism. The multiple instruments of
corruption present in many emerging markets cost American
companies millions of dollars each year in lost sales and
impede their ability to compete freely and fairly.
One of the most effective means of preventing the spread of
this disease is to begin to eradicate it, and that is through
the requirements and guidelines provided for in this bill, H.R.
4697. This legislation promotes U.S. foreign policy priorities
of nurturing democracy, fostering economic growth, and
expanding commercial opportunities. It enables the U.S.
Congress to respond to the threats posed by corruption by
linking U.S. development assistance to progress achieved by
recipient countries in promoting good governance, combating
corruption, as well as improving transparency and
accountability in the public and private sector. It authorizes
the President to establish programs focused on these goals,
which include support for an independent media, to promote free
and fair elections, support for establishing audit offices and
inspector generals, as well as promoting judicial reform and a
legal framework to promote ethical business practices and many
others.
This is an important issue; and as the Chair of the
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, I have
been working in a bipartisan manner to bring the issue of
corruption to the forefront and to help move legislation which
addresses this serious problem. I am proud to be a cosponsor of
this measure and of a related bill offered by our colleague,
Mr. Kolbe of Arizona, whose language regarding third-party
procurement monitoring will be offered as an amendment by Mr.
Gejdenson. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and to
render their support for passage of H.R. 4697.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Any other Member seeking recognition? If not, I would like
to just talk on Mr. Gejdenson's measure.
I am pleased to cosponsor your measure, a bill introduced
by the Ranking Member. It amends the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 to authorize the President to establish programs to combat
by promoting principles of good governance designed to enhance
oversight of private and public programs.
I concur with Mr. Gejdenson that it is essential for our
nation to assist emerging democracies by providing governments
in developing nations with the tools necessary to account for
the expenditure of public funds and the proper administration
of government programs. Accountability and transparency in the
administration of public programs is essential and are
essential ingredients to instill confidence in government and
necessary to ensure that democracy flourishes.
All too often, well-meaning programs and initiatives prove
ineffective because the tools needed to guarantee their proper
implementation and administration are lacking. This is an
especially key problem in those societies without a track
record of democratic practices and without the institutions
needed to provide for adequate oversight.
It is also unquestionable that corruption poses a major
impediment to sustainable development and deters foreign
investment in those nations that need it the most. This bill
addresses this growing problem directly and provides the tools
needed to fight the corruption that stifles growth and
democracy in the developing world. Accordingly, this bill
authorizes the President to create in developing societies
those very programs that ensure accountability and oversight of
private and public programs of the United States. I urge its
adoption.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson.
Page 5, line----
Mr. Gejdenson. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be considered as read.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
I recognize Mr. Gejdenson on the amendment.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, the amendment simply adds
third-party monitors of government procurement and supports the
establishment of audit offices, inspectors general and third-
party monitoring of government procurement process in the
anticorruption agency. It is an excellent suggestion from Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Kolbe.
Chairman Gilman. Is there any discussion 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 or seeking
to offer amendments?
If not, so that the Committee may report the bill we have
under consideration with a single amendment, the Chair will
make a unanimous consent request. Without objection, the
Committee is deemed to have before it an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the bill as
amended at this point. Without objection, the amendment in the
nature of a substitute is deemed read, the previous question is
ordered on the amendment, the amendment is adopted. 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 bill as amended
on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye. 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 XXII with respect to a conference on
the bill or a counterpart from the Senate. Further proceedings
on this measure are postponed.
H. CON. RES. 322--REGARDING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN VIETNAM
We will now proceed to H. Con. Res. 322 relating to the
Vietnamese Americans. The Chair lays a resolution before the
Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress regarding Vietnamese Americans and others
who seek to improve social and political conditions in Vietnam.
Chairman Gilman. This resolution was considered by the
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, marked up and reported
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute reflected in a
document labeled committee print now before the Members.
Without objection, the subcommittee recommended amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as original text
for the purposes of amendment.
The clerk will read the preamble and text of the
subcommittee recommendation in that order.
Ms. Bloomer. Whereas the Armed Forces of the United
States----
[The original and amended bills appear in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Subcommittee
recommendation is considered as having been read and is open to
amendment at any point.
I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, the Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Bereuter, to
introduce the resolution in the Committee. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H. Con. Res. 322 was introduced on May 11 by the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Davis, to recognize the Vietnamese who
fought bravely side by side with U.S. forces in Vietnam and to
applaud those whose efforts focused international attention on
human rights violations in Vietnam. The resolution was marked
up by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on June 27.
Each year, on June 19, the Vietnamese American community
traditionally commemorates those who gave their lives in the
struggle to preserve the freedom of the former Republic of
Vietnam. During the war, the armed forces of the Republic of
Vietnam suffered enormous casualties, including over 250,000
killed and more than 750,000 wounded. They continued to suffer
after the fighting ended when many were imprisoned and forced
to undergo so-called re-education. They continue their efforts
even now, playing an important role in raising international
awareness of human rights violations in the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam.
Moreover, the Vietnamese American community in the United
States, many of whom arrived as refugees with little but the
clothes on their back, has made tremendous achievements and has
contributed greatly to this country.
Earlier this year, the Committee passed and the House
approved Mr. Rohrabacher's H. Con. Res. 295 on human rights and
political oppression in Vietnam. There inevitably was some
duplication of the two initiatives. Therefore, this Member,
with the concurrence of the sponsor of the resolution, the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis, offered an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H. Con. Res. 322 which eliminated the
duplication with Mr. Rohrabacher's resolution. This resolution
therefore now focuses on commemorating the service and
sacrifices of the former members of the armed forces of the
Republic of Vietnam. This resolution has many cosponsors on
both sides of the aisle, including this Member. I would hope
that all our colleagues will support this laudable resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I join in commending you for
moving this resolution. It is a good resolution. It recognizes
the great contribution by the Vietnamese American community and
their efforts to promote democracy and human rights in Vietnam.
They are an important part of our society. I hope we move this
resolution quickly.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Gejdenson.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
commend you, and I commend Mr. Bereuter for this.
As an original cosponsor, I strongly support this
resolution by Mr. Davis of Virginia, as amended by Mr.
Bereuter.
This amendment honors Vietnamese Americans, especially our
allies who served in the South Vietnamese military during the
war. For those of us who were in Vietnam--and I spent some time
in a political operation in Vietnam in 1967 when I was 19 and
there I witnessed, along with Al Santoli who served in Vietnam
as a soldier and is on my staff and who won three Purple Hearts
in Vietnam--we witnessed the post-Cold War, post-Vietnam War
refugee camps filled with these people who had been our allies
and had left that country with little more than the clothes on
their back.
We have been watching these refugees now and are inspired
by them. I am very proud that, in my district, I represent
Little Saigon. They are wonderful people. Many of them, as I
say, came here with nothing, have now become one of the most
successful residents of Orange County, and they are very fine
citizens.
I am especially impressed with the younger generation of
Vietnamese Americans, some of whom were born in those refugee
camps right after the war in Vietnam, others who arrived here
in the United States later on. These Vietnamese students, the
younger generation, they excel in their studies, and they have
become great Americans. Yet they have not forgotten the cause
of freedom and the suffering of their homeland.
The abysmal failure of the Communist tyrants who have
suppressed the Vietnamese people for the past 25 years is in
stark contrast to the Vietnamese who found refuge in the United
States and have turned their freedom into prosperity and into
success and into an admirable life.
This is a profound evidence that, although what we were
trying to do in Vietnam was defeat communism and we were not
successful, that it was a noble cause, as Ronald Reagan called
it in Vietnam, and that we were trying to give those people the
opportunity to live in freedom. When they have it, as they have
in the United States, they excel and they enjoy the freedom and
are good citizens and are very responsible.
This resolution calls attention to the hard work and
commitment to education and the hard work of first generation
Vietnamese Americans, offering both a tribute to these new
Americans and encouragement to never give up the struggle for
human dignity.
Again, this does salute the soldiers who fought in Vietnam
at our side. There is a memorial being built in my district to
those proud Vietnamese soldiers who may have lost on the
battlefield but someday will win the war for freedom in their
country by offering a great example for freedom.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend Congressman Davis for this resolution,
which makes clear that the U.S. Congress supports the efforts
of the Vietnamese American community in calling attention to
the need for human rights and democracy.
I know some language has been stripped out of this.
Frankly, I think that is unfortunate. A little redundancy in
calling attention to human rights abuses I think advances the
ball, so I think that is unfortunate it was taken out.
But I do think it is important in this debate and
especially on the floor that we speak about the fact that when
Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment or resolution passed 418-2, our
Ambassador to Vietnam was quoted as saying that it only
reflects the views of a minority of Americans. I hope that he
was misquoted, but I am deeply concerned that the Vietnamese
Government may get the wrong message from those kinds of
reports about our Ambassador's remarks. Hopefully, when we take
this to the floor, it will not again be misconstrued.
If we do not raise in a very tangible way the ongoing human
rights abuses that are occurring there--we can gloss over it,
we have done that before, in country after country--it is
unfortunate for those who suffer in prisons, for those who find
themselves being persecuted because of their religious beliefs,
those who are victimized by the two-child-per-couple policy. In
addition, Vietnam continues to jam Radio Free Asia. If they are
such great friends, why not become more open to other points of
view?
So I do think we need to bring attention to it. Mr.
Rohrabacher did. But, regrettably, our Ambassador, maybe
unwittingly, certainly undermined the clear message that 418
members sent to the Vietnamese Government.
I do thank Mr. Davis again for offering this resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
I want to join in commending the gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. Davis, for introducing this measure expressing the sense of
Congress regarding the sacrifices of those who served in the
armed forces in the former Republic of Vietnam.
I would like to thank the Chairman of the Asia Pacific
Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, for his work in crafting the
current language in the resolution. It is truly regrettable
that, 10 years after the end of the Cold War, the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam is still a one-party state ruled and
controlled by a Communist party which represses political and
religious freedoms and commits numerous human rights abuses. It
is appropriate that we recognize those who fought to oppose
that tyranny which has fallen across Vietnam, and those who
continue the vigil of struggling for freedom and democracy
there.
I urge Hanoi to cease violations of human rights and to
undertake the long-overdue liberalization of its moribund and
stifling political system. The people of Vietnam clearly
deserve better.
Finally, I call upon the Vietnamese Government to do all it
can unilaterally to assist in bringing our POW/MIA's to a full
accounting, to be able to return to American soil with all the
information they have.
I want to praise this resolution for pointing out the
injustice that tragically exists in Vietnam today. I commend
Mr. Davis for introducing this resolution, his commitment to
human rights and democracy in Vietnam. Accordingly, I request
to be added to the list of cosponsors of the resolution.
I look forward to bringing the resolution to the floor at
an early date.
Is there any further debate or amendment on the
subcommittee recommendation?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the subcommittee
recommendation as amended. As many as are in favor of the
amendment, signify by saying aye. As many as opposed, signify
by saying no.
The amendment is agreed to.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek
consideration of the pending bill as amended on the suspension
calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor, signify in
the usual manner. As many as are 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 XXII with respect to a conference on the
resolution or a counterpart from the Senate.
REOPENING OF H.R._____--THE DEFENSE AND SECURITY
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
we reopen the first bill--the Security Assistance Act--so that
the gentleman from California can offer an amendment to which I
will have an amendment at this time. I think it is only fair to
Members who are here to make sure that we get a full discussion
of this issue. So I ask unanimous consent if we could reopen
that security assistance legislation at this time.
Chairman Gilman. We now have a unanimous consent request by
Mr. Gejdenson before the Committee. Is there an objection? If
there is no objection, we will now reopen the committee print
for further amendment, and initiate its earlier passage.
Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for a motion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk. It is my understanding that we have finished the
consideration. I appreciate Mr. Gejdenson's unanimous consent
permitting me the opportunity to offer my amendment. It should
be there at the desk.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher.
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following,
(c), notification relating to export of commercial
communication satellite. Section 36(c)(1) of the Arms Export
Control Act is amended in the first sentence by inserting at
the end before the period the following: Except that a
certification shall not be required in the case of application
for a license for export of a commercial communications
satellite designated on the United States munitions list for
launch from and by action of the United States or the territory
of another country, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Australia, Japan or New Zealand.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is recognized on his
proposal.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say
that I am a Member of this Committee, yes, but I am also the
Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the
Science Committee, so I deal with the satellite issues and
missile and rocket issues in terms of the technology a great
deal of my time.
As we are all aware, we have had problems with China which
this Congress dealt with in dealing with a leakage of
information to China of technical information about American
rocketry as part of their satellite program and the sale of
satellites to China. Unfortunately, we passed a law that has
been implemented by the Administration in a way that it has
done great damage to people who are trying to deal in these
high technology industries with countries that are friendly and
pose no threat to the United States of America. So, in order
for us to deal with China, which we were trying to do, this
Administration unfortunately has been interpreting that law and
the powers given to it in a way that seriously undermines the
trade of high-tech commerce with friendly countries.
My amendment is designed to facilitate that trade, to make
sure that people and our NATO allies and countries that don't
pose a threat to the United States don't have to jump through
so many hoops so that we don't lose these satellite sales. It
waives notification to the Congress when we are dealing with
NATO countries and friendly countries, and it sets up a
licensing process that actually expedites the export and trade
to our friends and allies.
Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly would.
Mr. Berman. Who administers that licensing process?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Who administers that licensing process?
Mr. Berman. Yes--that which you described as being set up.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is being set up?
Mr. Berman. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The State Department.
Mr. Berman. You are going to entrust to the State
Department the licensing of commercial satellites? Is that the
same State Department that is working against our interests in
Panama and Afghanistan?
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is right. And they are winking all
the way down the road.
Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Gejdenson. I am impressed by the gentleman's
creativity. The gentleman can't condemn the Administration for
doing what Congress forced them to do by moving the licensing
process to State where we have now lost a 36 percent market
share in this area. I want to join with the gentleman.
I am going to have a friendly amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could I finish my opening statement first,
and then I will be very happy to hear about the amendment.
Reclaiming my time, let me just say that I never have been
opposed to high technology satellite sales to countries that
are friendly to the United States. This Congress was
justifiably concerned that there were technology transfers to
countries like Communist China. That is not a strategic
partner, but instead a potential enemy of the United States.
This resolution today--or this amendment will permit this type
of trade and deal with a loss that you will explain when you
are advocating your amendment, a loss of jobs, a loss of deals
that would have been very important to our country's and those
industries' success. That is the purpose of this amendment.
I appreciate Mr. Gejdenson asking for unanimous consent to
permit me to offer this amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Be happy to yield.
Chairman Gilman. I just would like to state that I support
the gentleman's amendment, it follows up on the good work of
the gentleman from California, his efforts to ensure our
satellite companies are not going to be put at a competitive
disadvantage as a result of the munitions licensing process. I
urge our colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the
amendment.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson.
On line 11 after NATO, insert ``Russian Federation,
Ukraine.''
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is recognized on his
amendment.
Mr. Gejdenson. As Mr. Rohrabacher indicated, we have lost a
36 percent share in this area in a year, almost an unheard of
shrinking of America's market share. These two particular
countries, as the gentleman pointed out earlier, are not the
ones that created the great concern. China was the great
concern. What we are doing here is simply providing for the
removal of the 30-day waiting period only if DOD and State have
approved it. I would hope the gentleman could accept my
amendment which further tries to rectify the situation; and,
hopefully, the American companies, frankly, are advantaged more
by this part of the amendment in many ways than even the
gentleman's original amendment.
Chairman Gilman. I would like to note that I oppose the
gentleman's amendment. I don't support waiving congressional
notifications for launches involving Russian entities. These
entities have been and some believe are still involved in
proliferating missile technology to Iran.
So let's be absolutely clear that what the Gejdenson
amendment is all about. It is about whether we should control
commercial communications satellites on the munitions list or
on the commodities control list. Mr. Gejdenson believes they
are dual use and should be controlled by Commerce. I believe,
along with the majority in the Congress, as evidenced by our
vote 2 years ago to move these satellites under the
jurisdiction of the State Department, these satellites should
be controlled as munitions.
This is an amendment which would gut the measure, because
there is no way the majority of Members will agree to waive our
rights to review exports of satellites to be launched by
Russian or Ukrainian nationals. Waiving a congressional
notification for the export of satellites for launching by
nationals of NATO is one thing, but waiving congressional
notification for the export of satellites for launching by
nationals of Russia and Ukraine is entirely another matter.
Accordingly, I will be opposing Mr. Gejdenson's amendment.
Who seeks recognition? Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly have to disagree and would hope
that you would reconsider your opposition. I support the
amendment to the amendment and the amendment itself, the
underlying amendment, because I believe that we have in place
at the present time a mechanism that will fully guarantee the
security issues that you are concerned about and that I
certainly share.
I would never support anything that I believed would
jeopardize those issues in any way, shape or form. But what we
are doing here is simply waiving notification to the Congress.
Quite frankly, we have never exercised this particular power in
a way that would, in fact, be a security-related issue. We have
sometimes stopped it but not because of security issues, for
political issues.
That has been problematic. It continues to be problematic
for our companies in the United States. If we do it just for
the countries in the underlying amendment, then companies in
the United States, certain companies are put at a disadvantage.
So it is to me important to try to level the economic and
competitive playing field here and not at the same time do
anything that would jeopardize the national security interests
of the United States.
When you look at what has to happen with every one of these
applications, what it has to go through before it ever gets to
Congress and what we are not touching--we are not going to deal
with that aspect of it at all. We are just talking about
congressional oversight here, which has, frankly, been
superfluous. I do support the Gejdenson amendment and would
hope that my colleagues would do likewise.
Chairman Gilman. Is there anyone else seeking recognition?
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Chairman, I speak in favor of the
Rohrabacher amendment and the Gejdenson amendment. The transfer
of licensing of these satellites to the State Department has
been nothing less than disastrous. The purpose of the Gejdenson
amendment would really be to put all of our nation's satellite
manufacturers on an equal footing. All it does is simply waive
notice to Congress, which no one reads, anyway.
The reason for both of these amendments is to expedite this
process which this body put into practice over my objection by
transferring licensing of these satellites from the Commerce
Department to the State Department. We have lost a 40 percent
market share. What this amendment will do is still maintain the
security, if you consider the State Department to be an
efficient agency to do that, but simply waive the notice to
Congress. I would encourage the Chairman to allow the Gejdenson
amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Is any other Member seeking recognition?
If not, the question is now on the Gejdenson amendment to
the Rohrabacher amendment. All in favor of the Gejdenson
amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment, signify in the usual
manner. Opposed?
The ayes have it.
We will now have a rollcall vote. The clerk will call the
roll.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Mr. Ballenger.
[No response.]
Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Tancredo. Are we voting on the amendment, the
underlying amendment or the amendment to the amendment?
Chairman Gilman. We are voting on the Gejdenson amendment
to the Rohrabacher amendment.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Manzullo votes yes.
Mr. Royce.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon votes no.
Mr. Houghton.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady votes yes.
Mr. Burr.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor.
Mr. Gillmor. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor votes no.
Mr. Radanovich.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Cooksey.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Martinez.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Mr. Menendez.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brown.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. McKinney.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
Ms. Danner.
Ms. Danner. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner votes yes.
Mr. Hilliard.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.
Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks votes yes.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Mr. Hoeffel.
Mr. Hoeffel. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burton.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Pass.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher passes.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Cooksey votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Martinez.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Ms. McKinney.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. Hilliard. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Wexler.
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. Hyde. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Chairman Gilman. Is there any Member whose name has not
been called? Among the absentees, everyone has voted? If not,
the clerk will report.
Ms. Bloomer. On this vote, 23 ayes, 7 noes, and 1 present.
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gilman. Will you hold just a moment? We first will
have to vote on the Rohrabacher amendment, the amendment as
amended.
All in favor of the Rohrabacher amendment, as amended,
signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
The Rohrabacher amendment is carried.
Mr. Bereuter is recognized for his amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter. Diplomatic
Telecommunications Service. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2001 in the Admiral----
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
The gentleman is recognized on the amendment.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer this
amendment earlier but arrived too late to do it. This amendment
does not relate to the previous one, but it is a matter that I
think should be approved.
The issue being raised by me is because of the
jurisdictional and I think good government concerns related to
sensitive telecommunications capabilities to and from our
diplomatic posts abroad.
In the early 1990's--I think it was fiscal year 1991--as a
cost-saving reduction of duplication effort, the Congress
required that State and the CIA harmonize their classified
communications. We are talking about their capabilities for
classified communications. Since that time, State has spent
more than $300 million to upgrade jointly operated
telecommunications facilities. The CIA has spent considerably
less. The Agency sites intolerable risks associated with this
current arrangement but refuses to explain what those
intolerable conditions might be. They have refused to provide
the congressionally mandated reports on this issue, which is
the source of----
Chairman Gilman. If the gentleman will withhold. The
Committee is not in order. The gentleman should be recognized
to present his argument. The Committee is not in order.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In this year's intelligence authorization, the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence [HPSCI], included in
its code word level classified report but not as a classified
item a requirement that all these assets be turned over to the
operations of the CIA. This language which I offer--language,
pardon me, which is in that legislation I think throws down a
marker that the State Department should not be summarily
stripped of this responsibility, particularly without
compensation. The language that I am offering says that the
responsibility should not be changed and allows the committees
of jurisdiction like this one to consider this matter more
fully when the facts are made available.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you have taken some action by
letter on June 29 addressed to the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. Your staff is hoping that, in fact, we might be
able to work that out. But I think it is important that we
aggressively defend our jurisdiction.
I do not understand nor have we any basis for understanding
why CIA wants to abandon this joint effort which has been
approved by the Congress back in fiscal year 1991 and simply,
very quietly, authorizing abandonment of the program.
The agency under our jurisdiction, the State Department, as
I have mentioned, has spent over $300 million to implement the
program; and now suddenly to have it pulled away I think is
probably just an opportunistic move by the Central Intelligence
Agency, at a time when State is suffering from considerable
criticism of its admittedly very bad security practices, to
take advantage of that situation and in a turf battle pull the
rug out from under this joint effort.
Until we have better information, and until the CIA
provides the mandated reports to justify why that would be done
in the intelligence authorization bill this year, I think we
should assert ourselves. One way to put ourselves back into the
argument is to include this provision that I am suggesting.
Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bereuter. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Gejdenson. The gentleman's amendment is an excellent
amendment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Bereuter. I thank the gentleman.
Unless there are questions, I yield back.
Chairman Gilman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bereuter. I am pleased to yield.
Chairman Gilman. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and
concerns. This is an important issue, one in which we share
jurisdiction with the Intelligence Committee.
I have spoken and written to Chairman Goss about our
concerns, and I feel confident that he will work with us to try
to craft a solution on the telecommunications system that
reflects the interests of the State Department and the
inquiries of the concerned parties. I believe that the
gentleman has a copy of our letter that was jointly signed by
Mr. Gejdenson and myself and sent to Chairman Goss underscoring
our strong commitment to the part of any solution in the
telecommunications----
[A copy of the letter appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I received it a few minutes
ago, yes.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
I also want to state that this really is an interagency
matter that should be handled by OMB. I do believe that they
are now engaging in this matter. I hope that it will prove to
be a meaningful review. Therefore, I respectfully request the
gentleman to consider withdrawing his amendment to give us an
opportunity to further explore this with the Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask a question.
In light of the Gejdenson amendment to the Rohrabacher
amendment, it would appear to me that this bill is
inappropriate to take on the suspension calendar. If, in fact,
it will not be going on the suspension calendar, then I would
have the opportunity to offer this amendment on the House floor
if, in fact, the Intelligence Committee does not cooperate with
us. Therefore, I would be more likely to certainly bow to the
Chairman's wisdom on this.
Can you tell me if, in fact, we now are likely to take this
on the suspension calendar? I know I will not be voting to take
it on the suspension calendar myself.
Chairman Gilman. With regard to the gentleman's request, we
certainly will reserve our decision on that. We will take into
consideration the gentleman's request before we go to the Rules
Committee with that.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a
parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Gilman. Please present your inquiry.
Mr. Bereuter. At the end of this amendment or any other
amendments offered to this bill, what will be the suggested
motion to advance the bill? Will it be the suspension calendar
or just the normal approval or disapproval?
Chairman Gilman. Let me discuss that with our
Parliamentarian here.
[Brief pause.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter, we will try to work out a
procedure for taking it before the Rules Committee. At this
point, we don't have a bill that has been introduced yet, but
we will take it up----
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, may I ask further--I would
like, if I may, to continue.
Chairman Gilman. Please proceed.
Mr. Bereuter. I would like to ask you this question. Would
the Chairman agree that my amendment, if adopted, strengthens
your amendment with respect or vis-a-vis the HPSCI?
Chairman Gilman. If it were adopted on the floor, yes.
Mr. Bereuter. If it was adopted here, wouldn't it improve
your bargaining power?
Chairman Gilman. We have had a lengthy discussion with the
HPSCI Committee. We had agreed that we will try to work out
something together with HPSCI.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I think deference is due a
chairman. I was unaware of that agreement. I will defer to the
Chairman's decision. I hope you will convey to Mr. Goss that I
am doing this----
Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bereuter. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Gejdenson. Maybe what we ought to do here is accept the
gentleman's amendment. And then if we have between now and
Rules to work something out with the Intelligence Committee,
hopefully, or go to suspension. So if we accept the gentleman's
amendment, we can make that decision at a later date.
Mr. Bereuter. Would that be acceptable to the Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. I would have no objection to that.
Mr. Manzullo. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Gilman. State your inquiry.
Mr. Manzullo. My understanding is that, when this bill was
passed, it was adopted upon motion that it go on the suspension
calendar. Is that correct?
Chairman Gilman. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. Then the bill was opened up for the purpose
of amendments only. Therefore, there has already been a vote on
how the bill proceeds to the floor.
Chairman Gilman. The Chair will discuss that with our
Parliamentarian.
I would ask the Parliamentarian to respond.
Mr. Weinberg. Mr. Chairman, if I understood the question
correctly, the import of the unanimous consent request that was
agreed to earlier was to vitiate the action of the Committee,
in the motion that was made by Mr. Bereuter, which was that
when the bill is introduced--and it hasn't been introduced
yet--that the Chairman would move, without further action of
the Committee, to move it on suspension. If I could add, I
think the anticipated point is that we can't actually move the
bill to the floor under a motion to report at this point
because we don't have a bill that has been referred to us at
this point. We only have the committee print.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. We are proceeding on the committee print
here, not a bill?
Chairman Gilman. That is right.
Mr. Manzullo. Is this the difference between up and down or
what? I don't understand. Maybe you could explain that to me.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Weinberg.
Mr. Manzullo. This looks like a bill to me. It says a bill.
Mr. Weinberg. If you notice, it has not been referred to
the Committee. The practice of the Committee--it is not
universal but it is something that has occurred here certainly
in prior years--is that we would operate with a committee
print. Then at the conclusion, at some point, the bill would be
introduced; and we would come back and have a----
Mr. Manzullo. We are going to have a second markup of the
full bill?
Mr. Weinberg. If the rule of the Committee is to order it
reported, that would have to be what we do. That is why, if I
may, Mr. Chairman, at the end of our proceedings on these
motions, when we move to ask the Chairman to suspend the rules,
and we suspend further proceedings. Because we could come back
and make a different disposition of the bill at that point.
Chairman Gilman. I recognize Judge Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, like my colleague from
Nebraska, I would defer to the will of the Chair with reference
to all matters as well as the fact that the Ranking Member has
asserted that it may be in the best interest for us to pursue,
as the gentleman from Nebraska said, this Committee's position
by having appropriate leverage as offered by his amendment. I
would ask the gentleman, however, to revisit that as well as
the Ranking Member.
While I bring no special expertise to the table,
coincidence has it that I am the only Member that serves on the
House Intelligence Committee and the International Relations
Committee; and I do know that a considerable amount of work has
been done by the Chair and the Ranking Member along with the
Chair and the Ranking Member of House Intelligence. I really do
trust that they will cover the jurisdictional concerns that the
gentleman has raised. I think to embed that in legislation is
to repudiate in some respects what the Chair and the Ranking
Member have already accomplished. That would be my position.
Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hastings. Yes.
Mr. Bereuter. That sounds very logical except HPSCI moved
ahead without consultation and put into the authorization bill
something that eliminates something we began as a Congress in
1991. That shows a lack of good faith or a failure to
communicate.
Mr. Hastings. Reclaiming my time, I certainly take the
gentleman's point. However, I think that that is exactly what
the Chair and Ranking Member have been about, and that is what
you suggested we should do, and that is aggressively pursue the
jurisdictional confines of this Committee. I thoroughly agree.
I just think that, as a matter of course, we are going to be
back to the other committee counterparts and now saying
something different than what had been pretty much negotiated
in good faith today.
Mr. Bereuter. Would the gentleman yield one more time?
Mr. Hastings. Yes.
Mr. Bereuter. Just to clarify my position, I have accepted
the assurances of the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is withdrawn. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Manzullo. Is it my understanding that this Committee
draft as amended is going to be considered by the Intelligence
Committee and then come back here in the form of a bill?
Chairman Gilman. No.
Mr. Manzullo. Could you state exactly the procedure that is
going to happen?
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter, you want to state what you
would like to see accomplished now?
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, any involvement of the
Intelligence Committee with this bill has been set aside by my
withdrawal of the amendment. We are simply faced with what
action this Committee should take to advance this legislation.
I think what the Parliamentarian said a minute or two ago
is that, by opening up the bill and taking further action on
it, our previous action to give disposition to the bill has
been set aside because we have now introduced and passed an
amended amendment which, of course, changes the status of the
legislation as far as some Members are concerned. But whether
or not it changes the status by introducing a new amendment
which in fact passed and changed the nature of the bill, that
now it is up to the Committee to decide how it will dispose of
the bill, because the bill is ripe to move or to be defeated.
Mr. Manzullo. So we are at a point now----
Mr. Bereuter. The only further problem is that we have no
bill before us. We have a committee print. Therefore, the
previous motion was simply what the Chairman was authorized to
do, to take the committee print in bill form and move it on
suspension calendar.
Mr. Manzullo. I appreciate the response. However, I still
don't know where we go from here.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I move that after introduction of
the pending bill that the Chairman be requested to seek its
consideration as amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is the motion of the
gentleman from New Jersey. Those in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye. Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Further proceedings on the motion are postponed. In the
interim, we will have further discussions with HPSCI to try to
work out our problems.
H.R. 4002--FAMINE PREVENTION AND FREEDOM FROM HUNGER IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2000
We will now move to H.R. 4002, to improve provisions
relating to famine prevention and freedom from hunger. The
Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report
the title of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 4002, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 to revise and improve provisions relating to famine
prevention and freedom from hunger.
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.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. I have an amendment in the nature of a
substitute at the desk that I am offering on behalf of myself,
Mr. Gejdenson and the bill's sponsors. The clerk will report
the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilman:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill will be deemed
to be original text for the purpose of amendment. The amendment
makes several technical changes that as I mentioned have been
agreed upon. I will withhold my comments and recognize the
sponsor of the bill, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have asked unanimous
consent to present my full statement for the record so I can be
very brief here.
Mr. Chairman, I support your amendment in the nature of a
substitute. It contains mainly technical changes. I introduced
this legislation on behalf of the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Davis, who is the lead Democrat, on behalf of the gentleman
from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, who was the other original
cosponsor. Their staffs as well as the majority and minority
staffs of this Committee deserve our thanks for the hard work
they have done on this.
I also want to thank one of my constituents, Dr. Ed Price
from Texas A&M University, who came in with the framework for
this legislation. He is overseas and could not be with us.
Without his help, we would not be here today.
The Famine Prevention and Freedom From Hunger Act was
enacted in 1975. It had two goals--to increase world food
production and then to deal with nutrition problems for our
developing countries. The good news is that we have reached the
goal on increasing world food production, but we still have a
way to go on making the food healthy and nutritious. We address
this in this bill by updating that title, title XII.
It is a win-win situation. It is a win for developing
countries because we tap the resources of our universities to
address nutrition and food problems in those countries. It is a
win for our agricultural community here in America, because we
are both doing extension and we are learning lessons from
development in those countries of our products. We help create
new markets for U.S. farm products. Finally, it is a win for
our universities because they are able to apply the resources
that they have invested a great deal of time and money in.
I would at this point encourage support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brady appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Davis is recognized on the bill.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the lateness of
the day, I will be brief as well.
As Representative Brady has explained, let me also commend
him for his hard work and leadership on this bill. The bill
updates title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act and provides
more flexibility for universities around the country that are
interested, particularly those who would like to have
partnerships with NGO's, in finding creative and more
successful ways to meet the food and nutrition problems that
still exist in developing countries and plague many of those
countries.
I would like to yield the balance of my time to
Representative Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend Mr.
Davis, Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Brady. As someone who has a land
grant college in Connecticut in his district, this is the kind
of thing that I think will be a great addition to our
authority.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
This bill introduced by Mr. Brady and also Mr. Davis amends
the Foreign Assistance Act to authorize the President to
establish programs in title XII of the Act encouraging the
formation of partnerships between land grant universities and
nongovernmental organizations to promote sustainable
agricultural development projects in the world's poorest and
neediest counties.
My amendment in the nature of a substitute corrects
technical language in the bill. I want to thank our Ranking
Member, Mr. Gejdenson, as well as Mr. Brady and the bill's
other sponsors for their assistance in the formulation of this
amendment.
Although significant strides have been made to increase
world food production in recent years, it is clear that more
needs to be done to modernize agricultural practices in the
developing world and to make certain that sound environmental
and conservation practices are going to be applied in rural
areas of the world's poorest countries. As in the case in other
development fields, it is sounds policy to encourage the
formation of partnerships among the public, private and
academic sectors. In the agricultural arena that makes
particularly good sense as American technology produces the
world's greatest grain yields and can, with the provision of
state-of-the-art technical assistance, be applied in developing
nations. Moreover, as an added bonus, the lessons learned from
these experiences and projects can be brought back home and
applied to strengthen our own country's agricultural
production.
Accordingly, I commend the bill's sponsors for their
efforts to encourage the formation of partnerships between the
land grant, university, community and nongovernmental
organizations engaged in agricultural extension work in
developing nations.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition or seeking
to offer amendments to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute? If not, the question is on adopting the Gilman
amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor of
the amendment, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, say
no.
The amendment is agreed to. The previous question is
ordered, without objection.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending bill, H.R. 4002,
as amended, on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from New Jersey. Those in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye. 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 XXII with respect to a conference on
this bill or a counterpart from the Senate. Further proceedings
on this measure are postponed.
I am asking Mr. Smith to preside for a short few minutes
while I have to attend to a matter in the anteroom.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith [presiding]. Yes.
Mr. Bereuter. I regret that I missed an opportunity to be
here, because I was in markup, on the legislation introduced by
Mr. Brady. If I had been here, I would have voted aye. I ask
unanimous consent that my statement in support of it be made a
part of the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, your statement will be made a
part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bereuter appears in the
appendix.]
H. CON. RES. 297--CONGRATULATING THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY
Mr. Smith. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 297. The clerk
will report the title of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. H. Con. Res. 297, resolution congratulating
the Republic of Hungary on the millennium of its foundation as
a state.
Mr. Smith. This resolution was not referred to the
subcommittee. Without objection, the clerk will read the
preamble and text of the resolution in that order.
Ms. Bloomer. Whereas the ancestors of the Hungarian
nation----
Mr. Smith. Without objection, the text is considered as
read.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, is
recognized to offer an amendment.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When this topic was brought before us by inadvertence or
otherwise, it was a profoundly flawed resolution, leaving out
significant segments of Hungary's population as having
contributed to the economic, cultural, political life of the
country. The Committee saw fit to delay dealing with this issue
until the resolution can be perfected. It is now perfected, and
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for its approval.
Mr. Smith. Would any other Member like to be heard on the
amendment?
The gentleman from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to take this opportunity to
salute Mr. Lantos. Here we have got a resolution about Hungary,
and we have got this freedom fighter Mr. Lantos, this champion
of justice who has emerged from Hungary to come here and be
with us in the United States. That in itself should give us
reason to be grateful to Hungary for giving us such a great
voice and a great colleague to be with.
When I am saying that, I am totally in control of my
faculties. This is not delusional on my part whatsoever.
Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Certainly.
Mr. Gejdenson. The gentleman is clearly making sense this
time, as compared to some people here occasionally.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I totally adopt this and salute Mr.
Lantos. I thank my friend for the great contributions that he
makes.
Mr. Smith. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gillmor.
Mr. Gillmor. I just briefly want to speak in favor of this
resolution.
First, I would probably be in trouble at home if I did not,
because both of my wife's grandparents came over from Hungary
in the first part of the 1900's. They do have a very storied
and glorious history.
I was in Hungary with a few of my colleagues recently. We
had the opportunity to see the crown of St. Stephen, the
thousand-year-old crown which I think personifies a lot of that
history.
Also, I want to point out many, many Hungarians came to
Ohio. In fact, Cleveland, Ohio, with a Hungarian population of
200,000, has more Hungarians than any city in the world except
for Budapest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Is there any further debate on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute?
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. I, too, would like to compliment the gentleman
for the substitute that has really made a complete picture of
the resolution.
I also would like to say that the history of Hungary is a
very interesting and colorful history. The tremendous courage
shown in 1956--I am not sure that this resolution deals with
any current history. I know we were able to get St. Stephen's
in a thousand years ago, but I don't see the tremendous courage
of the 1956 uprising when Cardinal Mindszenty and others spoke
out for independence and freedom. But I would certainly
associate myself with the remarks from Mr. Lantos and others
who have joined in support of this resolution.
Mr. Smith. I would just like to yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I would ask unanimous consent that my
statement and that of Mr. Gilman be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Smith and Mr. Gilman appear
in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. I think Mr. Lantos's text substantially improves
what was a flawed resolution. I just want to make one brief
point, and that is that there are ongoing concerns about the
Roma minority in Hungary as well as in other parts of Europe.
At the OSCE summit in Istanbul last year, Hungary committed
itself to adopting antidiscrimination legislation designed to
prevent and to punish that kind of discrimination.
I have held a number of hearings with the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe on Roma issues, and Hungary
regrettably does rise to the point where there needs to be more
efforts made, and hopefully they will do so.
This is an excellent resolution. I do thank the gentleman
from California for substantially improving the underlying
text.
Are there any other comments by Members of the Committee?
If not, the question is on the adoption of the Lantos amendment
in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor of the
amendment, say aye. All those opposed, say no.
The amendment is agreed to. The previous question is
ordered, without objection.
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 resolution as
amended on the suspension calendar.
Mr. Smith. The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Nebraska. All those in favor of the motion, say aye; those
opposed, no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further
proceedings on this measure are postponed.
S. CON. RES. 81--REGARDING RABIYA KADEER
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, is it possible that we are
going to take up S. Con. Res. 81 now?
Mr. Smith. That is what we would like to do.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. We will now consider S. Con. Res. 81 relative to
Rabiya Kadeer. The Chair lays the resolution before the
Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. S. Con. Res. 81, a resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the Government of the People's
Republic of China should immediately release Rabiya Kadeer, her
secretary, and her son, and permit them to move to the United
States, if they so desire.
Mr. Smith. This resolution was referred to the
Subcommittees on Asia and the Pacific and on International
Operations and Human Rights, and was reported from each of
those two subcommittees without amendment.
Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and
text of the resolution in that order.
Ms. Bloomer. Whereas Rabiya Kadeer, a prominent ethnic----
Mr. Smith. Without objection, the resolution is considered
as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes
in support of the resolution. Then I will yield to my good
friends, Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Gejdenson, and would ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Gilman's comments be made a part of
the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. S. Con. Res. 81, already passed by the Senate
last month, introduced by Senator Roth, expresses the sense of
Congress that the People's Republic of China should immediately
release Rabiya Kadeer, her son and her secretary and should
allow them to move to the United States if they so desire.
I am pleased to note that yesterday the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights reported this
resolution favorably. As I noted a moment ago, so did Mr.
Bereuter's subcommittee.
Rabiya Kadeer, a prominent Muslim businesswoman from
Xinjiang Province, China, was detained by Chinese security
forces along with her son and her secretary in August of last
year. She was on her way to meet with a visiting congressional
staff delegation. She was held incommunicado for months, and in
March of this year was sentenced to 8 years in prison for,
``illegally giving state information across the border.'' Her
crime was sending local newspaper clippings to her husband in
the United States.
Ms. Kadeer's husband, Sidik Haji, a Uighur political
activist, has been granted asylum here in the United States and
has participated in Radio Free Asia broadcasts into the PRC.
Ms. Kadeer's imprisonment is the latest and most serious
attempt by the Beijing regime to silence her husband by
persecuting the family members who still reside in the PRC. The
Chinese Government had prevented Ms. Kadeer from leaving China
by confiscating her passport many months beforehand.
On March 2 of this year, Rabiya Kadeer's daughter appeared
before my subcommittee and provided compelling testimony about
the plight of her mother and about the PRC's brutal repression
of the Uighur Muslim population in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous
Region.
The latest State Department country report on human rights
practices in China also confirms that crackdown and describes
police killing and summary executions of the Uighurs and
tighter restrictions on Muslim religious practice.
S. Con. Res. 81 demands the immediate release of Mrs.
Kadeer, her son and her secretary. I am hopeful it will have
the support of this Committee.
I yield to Mr. Bereuter, the Chairman of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent that my entire statement be made a part of the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bereuter appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just summarize a couple of additional points, since
you have covered it very well.
This resolution was introduced by the senior Senator from
Delaware, Senator William Roth. As mentioned, the Subcommittee
on Asia and the Pacific marked it up on June 27.
Given the history of Rabiya Kadeer, I would just say the
congressional staff that she met with were actually meeting
under the auspices of a mutual education and cultural exchange
program of the U.S. Information Agency. She was sentenced to 8
years in prison for the crime of ``illegally giving state
information across the border.'' Her son was sent to a labor
camp for 2 years last November for supporting Uighur
separatism, and her secretary was recently sentenced to 3 years
in labor camp.
In Rabiya's case, the so-called state information appears
to have consisted essentially and only of a collection of
publicly available Chinese newspaper articles and speeches and
a list of prisoners. As the resolution notes, the case appears
to constitute a very clear violation of the international
covenant on civil and political rights.
The Chinese Government's action in this case has been
reprehensible and must be reversed. This resolution makes clear
the strong sense of Congress that Mrs. Kadeer should be
immediately released and allowed to join her family in the
United States.
I know our colleague, Mr. Lantos, who spoke out forcefully
on this subject in the Subcommittee, points out that this is
one of many cases, but this one is particularly notorious since
it also involved an action against her after she had recently
met with congressional staff. I urge my colleagues to support
the resolution.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I commend you, Mr. Bereuter
and others for supporting this legislation.
The actions by the Chinese Government can only be equal to
those of Joseph Stalin and other tyrants in history. To think
that the Chinese Government is so shaky that it is threatened
by one woman sending newspapers to her husband in the United
States is a pretty frightening commentary on the Chinese; and
as we continue the policy now through several administrations
of engagement, it has to lead one to question whether this
engagement does have any positive indications for the future of
Chinese human rights and democracy.
Mr. Smith. Is there any further debate on the resolution?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this resolution. Let me say that the case itself is important
because every individual on this planet whose rights are being
violated and who is being tortured and lives in these kinds of
conditions of repression is important.
Mrs. Kadeer--hopefully, this resolution will help her
individually, but, more than that, it draws attention to an
area of China that most people forget about, East Turkistan.
East Turkistan has many more people than Tibet. Yet everybody
knows the repression that is going on in Tibet. Yes, there is
genocide going on in Tibet, but people forget that this same
type of malevolence and repression and human rights violation
is going on in East Turkistan.
What is significant about East Turkistan is that the people
of that area are Muslims. In Tibet, of course, they represent a
different type of religion than is experienced and is
representative in the rest of China, but, in East Turkistan,
where we have a large Muslim population, you find this same
type of repression.
There is a message there for us. There are some lessons to
be learned, that the Communist Chinese regime finds that the
way that people worship God is a threat to the regime. People
who ask for freedom, people who ask to be treated decently, and
people who ask that their government be controlled by standards
of a rule of law, all of those, yes, are threats to any
tyrannical regime, but what kind of regime is it?
Again, this goes right back to the Stalinist days, that you
have a government that is fearful of the way that people
worship God. In this case the Muslims of East Turkistan are as
repressed as the people of Tibet. We should put them on our
same list in terms of our thoughts and our prayers and our
concern.
In expressing this resolution, expressing our condemnation
of the way that Mrs. Kadeer has been treated, let us make sure
that the Communists in Beijing understand that they have made a
mistake in the way they are treating Mrs. Kadeer because it
draws attention to their fundamental policies that are
unacceptable.
One last lesson we should draw, and this is a lesson of
history. When you have regimes that just so blatantly and
arrogantly violate such rights as freedom of religion and
freedom of speech and the freedoms that we have here
represented with the arrest of Mrs. Kadeer, those regimes are
threats to the security of the people of the world, not just
threats to the human rights of their own population.
I know that we debate Communist China over and over again,
we debate the issue of human rights over and over again, but I
would hope that people understand that, if we start
compromising on issues of human rights, in the end our own
security, because of that immorality, that amorality on the
part of our decisionmakers, will come back to hurt this
country. Whether it was Japan or Nazi Germany or any of the
other tyrannical forces in the past, Joseph Stalin, etc., it
does great damage to ignore this human rights component and to
pretend that a brutal regime is not as brutal as it is.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. I
certainly support this amendment.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Are there any other Members wishing to be heard?
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. I would just like to also echo what has been
said.
I would certainly strongly support your amendment. I give
you credit for bringing these issues to our attention. I don't
think there is any shyness on this Committee about condemning,
like the gentleman was saying, issues. I think we have a
responsibility to bring the matters forth so that we all are
aware of situations that maybe Mr. Rohrabacher knows more
about, but to bring it to the light of the Committee and then
we would move on it. I certainly support the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
If there is no further debate, 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 resolution on
the suspension calendar.
Mr. Smith. The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion will say
aye. As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further
proceedings on this measure are postponed.
H. CON. RES. 348--CONDEMNING THE USE OF CHILDREN AS SOLDIERS
Mr. Smith. We will now proceed to H. Con. Res. 348,
relating to the use of children in combat. The Chair lays the
resolution before the Committee.
Ms. Bloomer. H. Con. Res. 348, a resolution expressing
condemnation of the use of children as soldiers and expressing
the belief that the United States should support and, where
possible, lead efforts to end this abuse of human rights.
Mr. Smith. This resolution was considered by the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights,
marked up and reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute reflected in the document labeled committee print
which is now before the Members. Without objection, the
subcommittee recommended amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as an original text for the
purpose of amendment, and the clerk will read the preamble and
the text of the subcommittee recommendation in that order.
Ms. Bloomer. Whereas in the year 2000----
Mr. Smith. Without objection, the subcommittee
recommendation is considered as having been read and is now
open for amendment at any point.
[The original and amended bills appear in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. I would like to recognize myself to give some
opening comments, for such time as I may consume.
As one of the sponsors of H. Con. Res. 348, which was
introduced by our friend, John Lewis of Georgia, earlier this
month, this resolution condemns the use of child soldiers and
urges that the United States support and lead the international
effort to abolish this brutal abuse of children.
Yesterday our subcommittee, as I pointed out, marked up
this resolution favorably; and we made some minor changes that
were unanimously accepted.
The use of child soldiers is widespread and heartbreaking.
According to responsible estimates, there are approximately
300,000 minors participating in armed conflicts around the
world this year. Many of these children are kidnapped or
coerced into service and are exposed both to the dangers of
combat and to the hazardous living conditions that permanently
impair their physical health. Their mental health as well is
permanently shattered in many instances.
At a hearing before my subcommittee that we had last
Congress, Sister Mary Rose Atuu described the work she does
among the children of Northern Uganda. In that region, children
are grossly abused by the so-called Lords Resistance Army, a
violent rebel force supported by the Government of Sudan. The
LRA kidnaps young children and transforms them into LRA
fighters through coercion and brainwashing. Little boys are
turned into torturers, rapists, and executioners. Young girls
are forced to become concubines for militia leaders.
In order to break the wills of the children it steals, the
LRA forces them to commit unspeakable atrocities, sometimes
making them kill their own parents and young siblings. If they
escape the clutches of their military captors, these broken
kids require long-term rehabilitation that is frequently not
available to them.
Similar atrocities take place in other parts of the world,
such as in Sierra Leone, as well as in Sri Lanka.
It is on an encouraging note the nations of the world have
begun to address these crimes against children. In January, a
U.N. working group, comprised of representatives from 80
countries, including the United States, reached consensus on an
optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
regarding the use of child soldiers. Most notably, this
protocol will raise the international minimal age for
conscription and direct participation in armed conflict to the
age of 18.
On May 25, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously adopted
the optional protocol.
H. Con. Res. 348 puts the Congress on record as condemning
the use of child soldiers. It also encourages the United States
to support the optional protocol as a welcome first step toward
ending this brutalization of children.
With the consent of my Democratic colleagues and the author
of the resolution, I offered a minor amendment, simply
indicating that I was very supportive of that effort yesterday
when we marked up the bill.
I would at this point ask if any other Members have
comments they would like to say on the resolution.
I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. Gejdenson. I agree with all your statements. There are
about 300,000 children out there fighting, some as young as 5
years old. It is something that we need to address. I commend
your efforts.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, Mr. Gilman's statement will
be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
an amendment.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would certainly like to commend you and Mr. Lewis and
myself as a cosponsor. I think this is an issue that really has
to be more seriously looked at. The question of the numbers--
the Ranking Member just mentioned 300,000 young people being
used as children soldiers--the fact that they are coerced, they
are threatened, they are brutalized, and then psychologically
they are ill-prepared to be returned back into society.
I think that we should certainly urge the President to sign
the optional protocol at his earliest opportunity. Once that is
signed, hopefully, the Senate will ratify the protocol.
The protocol simply says that we should have no youngsters
under 17 in the armed forces and at 18 in combat. I don't
believe that we here in the United States--it has been very
rare instances, probably even nonexistent, in the last 50 years
that the United States has used soldiers under the age of 18 in
actual combat. They have had persons under 18, probably, in the
military, but I would doubt very seriously if we have really
had very many, if any, combatants under the age of 18.
I just support this resolution and urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Is there any further debate or amendment on the
subcommittee recommendation?
If not, the question is on agreeing----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, could I just say one
thing? I would have felt more comfortable about this resolution
if they had put 16 rather than 18. Because there were a lot of
people that served in combat when they were under 18--a lot.
But I am supporting it, anyway.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
If not, the question is on agreeing to the subcommittee
recommendation, as amended. As many as are in favor of the
amendment, say aye. As many as are opposed, say no.
The amendment is agreed to. The previous question is
ordered on the resolution, without objection.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, I move that the Chairman
be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution,
as amended, on the suspension calendar.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from California. As many as are in favor of the
motion, say aye. As many as are 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 XXII with respect to a conference on
this resolution or a counterpart from the Senate. Further
proceedings on this measure are postponed.
H. CON. RES. 319--CONGRATULATING THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA
We will now turn to H. Con. Res. 319. We will be
considering this resolution which congratulates the Republic of
Latvia. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The
clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. H. Con. Res. 319, a resolution congratulating
the Republic of Latvia on the 10th anniversary of the
reestablishment of its independence from the rule of the former
Soviet Union.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The resolution was not referred to
subcommittee. Without objection, the clerk will read the
preamble and the text of the resolution in that order.
Ms. Bloomer. Whereas the United States had never recognized
the forcible----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any
point.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I would like to recognize Mr. Gejdenson
to introduce the resolution to the Committee. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I think there are so many of us who spent years here moving
resolutions on the Baltic States with the hope that someday we
would see freedom for these countries, for one, my own mother's
homeland, Lithuania. We were never sure that it would happen in
our lifetime. That struggle continued here in the Congress, led
by many people on this Committee, people on the Senate side
like Mr. Durbin and others; and the fact that we have this
success I think is something that gives us all hope whenever we
see struggle and oppression around the world. The fact that the
United States never recognized the forcible annexation, the
resistance of the people of the Baltic States, in particular in
this case Latvia, is something to give us all hope and
encouragement.
I urge support for the resolution.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Any others who wish to be recognized on
this resolution?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears in the
appendix.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If there is no further debate, the
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, I move that the Chairman
be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as
amended on the suspension calendar.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from California. As many as are in favor of the
motion, say aye. As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further
proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We will have a brief recess while we consider the next
resolution.
[Recess.]
H. CON. RES. 232--U.S. CITIZENS TRAVELING IN MEXICO
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 232
relating to the safety of Americans traveling in Mexico. The
Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will
report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. H. Con. Res. 232, a resolution expressing the
sense of Congress concerning the safety and well-being of
United States citizens injured while traveling in Mexico.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. This resolution was considered by the
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, marked up and
reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute
reflected in the document labeled Committee Print now before
the Members.
Without objection, the subcommittee recommended amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as original
text for the purpose of amendment. The clerk will read the
preamble and the text of the subcommittee recommendation in
that order. The clerk will read the subcommittee
recommendation.
Ms. Bloomer. Whereas hundreds of United States citizens
travel by automobile to Mexico every day;
Whereas United States automobile insurance----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, the subcommittee
recommendation is considered as having been read and is open to
amendment at any point.
[The original and amended bills appear in the appendix.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I would now recognize the gentleman from
Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, to introduce it to the Committee.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gejdenson. Madam Chairwoman, I support the excellent
work done by the subcommittee and your work in this area. It is
an issue that creates, sometimes, humanitarian crises for
Americans who need medical treatment and may not be able to get
a bond as a result of an automobile accident. I hope we pass
this swiftly.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Gejdenson.
I would like to recognize myself to congratulate
Congressman Hunter for introducing this resolution and bringing
it to our Committee's attention.
I also had a constituent who was severely impacted by the
terrible situation for medical procedures on the return of U.S.
citizens from Mexico. The Andrews family of my congressional
district had a terrible car accident, and he is now in a
horrible medical state. The Mexican Government, the officials
and the ambulance service were not helpful in a dire, life-
threatening situation. The family should not be concerned with
having to gather thousands of dollars which are needed for the
exit bond requirements by these ambulance services and the
government.
We commend Mr. Hunter for bringing this resolution to the
Committee's attention. We hope that the President does act on
it and negotiate a settlement so that similar tragedies can be
prevented in the future.
Is there any further debate or amendment on the
subcommittee recommendation?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears in the
appendix.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If not, the question is on agreeing to
the subcommittee recommendation as amended. As many as are in
favor of the amendment, say aye. As many as are opposed, say
no.
The amendment is agreed to.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to
seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended on the
suspension calendar.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The question is the motion of the
gentleman from California. As many as are in favor of the
motion, say aye. As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized
to makes motions under rule XXII with respect to a conference
on this resolution or a counterpart from the Senate. Further
proceedings on this matter are postponed.
We will have a brief recess while we consider the next
resolution.
[Recess.]
H. RES. 531--THE BOMBING IN BUENOS AIRES
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The Committee will now consider H. Res.
531 relating to the bombing in Buenos Aires. The Chair lays the
resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the
title of the resolution.
Ms. Bloomer. H. Res. 531, a resolution condemning the 1994
attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, urging the Argentine Government to punish those
responsible, and for other purposes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. This resolution was not referred to the
subcommittee. Without objection, the clerk will read the
preamble and the text of the resolution in that order.
Ms. Bloomer. Whereas on July 18, 1994----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any
point.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I would like to recognize me as the
sponsor of the resolution for introduction of the resolution to
the Committee, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for expediting the
consideration of this resolution and commend you for your
ongoing commitment to combating terrorism and specifically for
seeking the truth regarding the heinous terrorist attack
against the Jewish community in Argentina.
On July 18, 1994, a dark cloud of fear and anguish
enveloped the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina, when 86 innocent
human beings were killed and 300 were wounded as a result of
the bombing of the Jewish Community Center. The immediate
reaction from the Argentine Government was firm. The expressed
commitments filled those of Jewish faith with hope and
confidence that justice would be served. The promises made,
however, provided a false sense of security for all of the
people of Argentina and for the community of the democratic
nations of our hemisphere who believed that the culprits would
be found and punished in an expeditious manner.
However, 6 years after the bombing, justice, peace and
security continue to be somewhat illusive concepts. It was
clear that this attack and the earlier one on the Israeli
embassy were part of a campaign of violence targeted at the
Jewish community in Argentina and throughout the world by
radical militant groups in the Middle East.
Circumstantial evidence would later support this
connection, attributing the bombing to the terrorist group
Hezbollah based in Lebanon and sponsored by Iran. Yes, Iran, a
country which is no longer considered to be a ``rogue state''
but merely a ``country of concern.''
Additional evidence indicates that the tri-border area with
Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil was used to channel resources
for the purposes of carrying out this terrorist attack.
While the initial publicity and international focus has
greatly diminished, the scars and wounds have not. These will
not begin to heal until an investigation is pursued with vigor
and determination, and until effective action is taken by all
to ensure that justice is served.
Every citizen of every society has a right to live in peace
and liberty, free from the threat of terrorism. The democratic
countries in our hemisphere have all reiterated their
commitment to ensure and protect this right for all. This means
the United States and all of our regional allies will share in
the responsibility, unite in condemning such terrible acts, and
render their cautious support to the new Argentine
Administration that has expressed the political will to pursue
the investigation into the bombing to its ultimate conclusion.
These goals are found in our resolution today, Mr.
Chairman. H. Res. 531 serves not only as a road map to the case
but details the legal and moral obligations which require us to
act. It reiterates the condemnation of the bombing, but, more
importantly, it serves as a tool to publicly honor and remember
the victims of this terrorist attack. It makes a series of
recommendations and requests which will send an unequivocal
message to all that the United States considers the resolution
of this case a priority. That we are prepared to take the
necessary steps to help make this goal a reality and that we
work with our regional neighbors as well as the Government of
Argentina, and provide them with assistance when requested. It
underscores the U.S. position that terrorism in all of its
manifestations will not be tolerated, that we will not be held
hostage by a band of thugs who use terror and violence to
undermine the peace and stability of free and democratic
nations.
We have 18 cosponsors, and 18 is the corresponding
numerical value afforded to the Hebrew chai, which means life.
This resolution is precisely about life. For the sake of the
victims, for the sake of the hemisphere and global security,
and for the sake of justice, I ask our colleagues to support
this resolution, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Gejdenson, for his remarks.
Mr. Gejdenson. Madam Chairman, I commend you for your
efforts. I am ready to offer an amendment whenever it is
appropriate.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Does the clerk have the amendment? The clerk will
distribute the amendment.
Mr. Gejdenson. If I might explain the amendment.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized to explain
his amendment. The clerk will read the amendment first.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. I move the amendment be considered as read.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Mr. Gejdenson is recognized.
Mr. Gejdenson. The Argentinian Government was successful in
enacting a law to gain cooperation from defendants in order
that they may be able to place pressure on some of those lower
down in the operation to get people higher up. They have passed
that. This would commend them for that. It recognizes the
continued efforts of the Administration. This has been a
bipartisan and legislative area of cooperation in trying to
press for a resolution of this issue. I move the amendment.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. Gilman.
Chairman Gilman. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member
from Connecticut for his amendment to H. Res. 531. I support
this. It is an excellent amendment. It serves to properly
acknowledge positive efforts of both the Argentine Congress and
our President.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The question is on the amendment. All in
favor, say aye. All against, say no.
The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is adopted.
Chairman Gilman. Madam Chairman, I want to commend the
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and the bipartisan
group of cosponsors of this resolution for ensuring that our
Congress properly marks the unhappy occasion of the sixth
anniversary of the 1994 terrorist bombing of the AMIA Jewish
Community Center in Buenos Aires.
I have long been concerned about seeing that this heinous
crime is resolved and that those responsible are brought to
justice. At my suggestion, the Argentine Government created a
$2 million reward program to help obtain information to resolve
this act of terrorism.
Last year, the Argentine Congress passed important
legislation that allows investigating Judge Juan Jose Galeano
to engage in plea bargaining. Nevertheless, a trial of the
Argentinian citizens charged with involvement in this terrorist
bombing has, regrettably, been much delayed. When the local
trial does get under way, I urge the Argentinian authorities to
invite international observers to witness the trial
proceedings.
Six years is much too long to let time pass without
justice. Justice delayed is no justice at all.
During his recent visit to the United States, President
Fernando de la Rua made a point of visiting the Holocaust
museum and issuing a public apology for the role that Argentina
played in harboring Nazis after World War II.
President de la Rua said, ``Today, before you and before
the world, I want to express my most sincere pain and to ask
forgiveness that this happened, that Nazis were hidden among
us.''
I believe in President de la Rua's sincerity. We thank him
for this important statement.
Solving this awful crime and bringing those responsible to
justice is the proper way to bring healing to the still-open
wounds in Argentina. Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to join
in supporting this resolution by the gentlelady from Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Gilman.
Are there further amendments on the resolution?
Mr. Gillmor.
Mr. Gillmor. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Gillmor.
Strike the fourth clause of the preamble.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
I recognize Mr. Gillmor for 5 minutes.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Gillmor. Madam Chairman, first, I want to commend you
for offering this resolution.
This was a heinous crime. I think the United States as well
as the Argentine Government ought to be pursuing every avenue
that we can to bring those culpable to justice, whether in
Argentina or in other places of the world. In fact, I support
the resolved part of this resolution.
This, like all resolutions, has two parts. The meat of it,
the resolved part which condemns the attack, urges the
government to punish those involved and urges our President to
bring this up in bilateral negotiations.
The amendment I have doesn't delete anything in the
resolved clause, but it does delete one of the whereas clauses
which strikes me as possibly not accurate and is simply a
gratuitous slap at a democratic government and a friend of
ours, the Argentinian Government. I think most people would
read it as implying there was some type of government personnel
involvement, for which there is, based on what I have been
informed by the State Department, no evidence.
I did contact the State Department after reading this
resolution, got ahold of them today, as to their view. They
oppose that language.
I would also point out that an identical resolution was
introduced in the U.S. Senate and with good reason the Senate
removed this clause that I am proposing that we remove. I think
what the evidence is, is that there were some former security
personnel, which I guess we would call rogue cops, who were
involved in this attack.
I think about the reaction that most Americans would have
if we had a foreign parliament condemning us if we had some
rogue cops commit a crime against Americans. I think we would
be greatly offended, and rightly so; and I think it is very
reasonable to expect that the Argentinians will have exactly
the same kind of reaction when we do the same thing.
This would eliminate what is potentially offensive language
which both the U.S. State Department and the Argentine Embassy
have reported they feel would be of concern to their
government.
I think we also have to remember that these acts didn't
occur even when this government was in control. You have a
democratic country, you have a new government which has been
very strong in promoting antiterrorism, and I think it is only
reasonable that we delete this, which leaves intact all of the
operative language of the resolution which is all the resolved
clause. I would ask for approval of the amendment.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you Mr. Gillmor.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. Gejdenson is recognized.
Mr. Gejdenson. I would oppose the amendment. I think the
language in no way says anything against the elected government
of Argentina. It references particularly things that have been
reported publicly and indicates that the judge indicted three
high-ranking provincial police officers. It is well known that
there has been this terrible situation in Argentina for years,
during the years of the disappearances where people in official
positions in the military and police were involved in terrible
acts against their own citizens. There are at least those that
are arguing that these policemen who are now on trial have been
one of the reasons that it hasn't moved as rapidly as it might.
If you read the section, it doesn't say we are condemning
the Argentinian Government. As a matter of fact, I added
language that lauds the elected government of the President.
What this says is evidence indicates the bombing couldn't have
been carried out without local assistance from elements of the
Argentinian security forces and some of which are reported to
be sympathetic to anti-Semitic positions.
There is certainly ample evidence of that when you look at
what happened in the act. It wasn't a general attack on the
public. It was an attack on Jewish people. It doesn't attack
the government. I think we ought to keep the language and get
the message across that we want this, after so many years, to
be resolved.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Gejdenson.
Is there further debate?
Mr. Gilman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
With respect to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Ohio, let me note that, back in September 1995, the Committee
conducted an extensive hearing with regard to the AMIA bombing
in Argentina. We took a considerable amount of evidence.
We have also met with the presiding judge who came up to
Washington to meet with our Committee. We also met in Argentina
with the presiding judge and met with a number in the
prosecutorial role in Argentina.
Of the 20 to be tried in the bombing, 15 were policemen. Of
the 20, 5 are considered necessary to the bombing, and I quote
from their charges, and face charges of murder, conspiracy and
corruption. Among those charged with the bombing was the
provincial inspector. Among the charged were three former
policemen and a former detective. It was discovered that the
former head of the provincial police force car-theft unit had
received 2\1/2\ million pesos a week prior to the bombing.
That is just one example of how local corruption and
international terrorism have been intertwined. Large amounts of
contraband, including explosives and detonators, were
discovered in the homes of several of the retired army
officers. Among those being held on charges is a police
sergeant with ties to an extremist party whose leader was once
quoted as saying, and this quote came out of Time Magazine of
December 18, 1995, ``It is easier to find a green dog than an
honest Jew.''
I submit to my colleague from Ohio that the trial, and the
local connection to the bombing including members of the
security forces, is scheduled to begin by early next year. This
trial of the local connection, which includes persons who were
part of Argentina's security forces, is critically important. I
therefore reluctantly cannot support the amendment offered by
our good colleague from Ohio, Mr. Gillmor.
Mr. Gillmor. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Gilman. I will be pleased to yield.
Mr. Gillmor. Has anyone--because I attempted to and did not
have the opportunity because of the short time before this
resolution came up--has anyone asked the Argentine Government
their view of this language? Because I hear this indirectly
from the State Department. It seems to me that, as the
International Relations Committee, if we are going to make a
policy statement on international relations, we ought to be
doing it with all the facts. Has anybody asked what
specifically was the reaction?
Mr. Lantos. Will the gentleman yield?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gilman will yield to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. I want to be sure I understand the question of
my good friend.
I think it is self-evident that when you ask the government
of China whether in fact they are engaged in human rights
violations, they will say no. When you ask the Government of
the Soviet Union whether they were engaged in creating a gulag,
their answer is no. It is self-evident that the government will
not proclaim that its security forces are guilty of
participating in the mass murder of 84 utterly innocent men,
women and children because they happened to be Jews.
So I am puzzled at the gentleman's request as to whether
the government has been asked. The government will clearly
deny.
That is not the issue. The facts are that, over a long
period of time, partly because Argentina has provided safe
haven to a vast number of Nazi war criminals, there has been a
very significant anti-Semitic sector of society which has
deeply penetrated Argentine police and security forces. The
fact that in 6 years they have been unable to get to the bottom
of this outrage, that a community center was blown up with the
largest single loss of Jewish life since the end of the Second
World War ought to be a clear indication that the security
forces are not very anxious to get to the bottom of this
affair.
Argentina will not like this statement, just as other
governments don't like statements which point out the profound
flaws. This is a fairly significant flaw. This was a community
center and a child center where large numbers of civilians were
attending various functions. Children were at a child care
center, and the place was blown up.
The record at the time clearly indicated--as I walked in, I
heard the gentleman from New York quote from the record, that
there was, in fact, evidence of members of the security forces
being participants, facilitators of this activity. I think it
would ill behoove this Committee not to call a spade a spade
and where there are large-scale race crimes perpetrated in a
friendly nation in the hemisphere to shy away from stating
this.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I would like to recognize myself for 5
minutes on this very point.
Data indicates that this bombing could not have been
carried out without local assistance from elements of the
security forces of Argentina. These and all clauses of the
resolution are supported by official statements by legal
documents, and multiple news reports. The President of
Argentina, President de la Rua, acknowledged the internal
connection and other issues in the bombing case in March of
this year during a press conference. We welcome President de la
Rua's political will, as he has demonstrated in his
administration to pursue all leads to their ultimate
conclusion.
Hacoba Timmerman, who is a jurist and an author, said, and
I will quote from this news report, it is apparent why
international terrorists twice would choose Argentina for their
attacks on Jewish interests. He says, our large community of
Jews is the first part, said Timmerman, whose highly publicized
imprisonment and torture during the military regime makes him
Argentina's best known Jew. He says, and we have a large
organization of police eager to accept the job of carrying out
attacks like those.
In the Chicago Tribune of January 26, 1997, it says, in
trying to unravel the bombing that killed 86 people,
investigators discovered last week that a high-ranking former
officer who ran the provincial police forces car-theft unit
received $2.5 million the week before the bombing. In 1996 the
provincial inspector was charged in the bombing. Now however,
said Sergio Reanon, editor of a Buenos Aires daily, the two
issues, local corruption and foreign terrorism, have been
intertwined.
In the Commercial Appeal newspaper in Memphis, raising the
specter of anti-Semitism in Argentina security forces,
authorities Wednesday charged three police officers and a
former detective as accomplices in the terrorist bombing,
charged with providing the van that was used in the bombing.
Legal documents prepared by the attorneys for the victims and
based on case files and evidence state that suspects were
created for the upcoming trial and false leads provided by
certain elements of the security forces of Argentina.
I believe that this whereas clause is very clear, and we
understand that the new Administration has been cooperative,
and we welcome that strong political will. I hope that the
gentleman's amendment will not be agreed to by the Members of
our Committee.
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Gilman.
Chairman Gilman. Madam Chairman, I am going to ask that our
assistant, Mr. Mackey, present a copy of the report of our
hearing on terrorism with regard to the AMIA bombing in
Argentina dated September 28, 1995.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Chairman Gilman. I think my good colleague may find this to
be informative.
Is there further discussion?
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I am really sorry that our colleague actually moved forward
with the amendment, because I think when he finds out what is
really going on down in Argentina and the facts behind this
case that he will regret having to move forward.
There are some things I have done that I have regretted
since I have been in Congress, too, because, with all
indications that we have, is that, first of all, we have to
start with Argentina, the place where the Nazis went after they
left Germany. They ended up--many of them ended up in
Argentina. There is a reason for that, because they felt they
could get safe haven there. They felt that some people would
turn their head and pretend not to notice that somebody with
their hands dripping with blood was walking right next to them
on the street. And when people ignore these butchers and ignore
people who have committed these type of crimes, people who
commit such crimes tend to go to those places.
In this particular situation, we have got a history that
suggests that anti-Semitism has played a role in some of the
events that are happening; and then, by coincidence, we happen
to have the bombing in which, was it 84 or 88--how many people
lost their lives?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Eighty-six.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Eighty-six human beings lost their lives.
And why? Because they were Jewish. Obviously, it was aimed at
killing Jews.
How did that happen? All right, there was a large amount of
explosives transported into Argentina. Somebody managed to
organize this effort so that explosives were not only
transported but were put in place. A plan had to be devised. I
just can't understand anyone who would not just take it for
granted that the authorities must have known about this.
It is to me, Madam Chairman, very similar to Agca, who shot
the Pope. He was in Bulgaria before he shot the Pope, meeting
people, conspiring to shoot the Pope.
Does that mean that we automatically assume that the
Bulgarian Government was involved in it? At the very least, the
Bulgarian Government knew about it and didn't do anything about
it--at the very least. And probably it indicates the Bulgarian
Government was supportive.
Well, I think the evidence that we have dealing with this
horrendous act of terrorism indicates that, yes, the magnitude
of the action itself would indicate that the authorities knew
something was going on. Did they actually light the fuse? Did
they participate in placing the explosives? That is possible.
Actually, that is more possible than it is that they didn't
know anything about it at all.
I think it is a very reasonable assumption, and it is
reasonable for us to move forward with suggesting that the
people of Argentina need to take not only a self-inspection but
to inspect their government as well the motives of the people
in their government. Obviously, this type of terrorism is
officially unacceptable, but it sounds like to me, again, when
we are talking about people that have one policy that is a
stated public policy but other actions that undermine that
stated policy, this may well be one of those examples. I think
that it deserves all of us calling the Argentinians on the
carpet and making them be held accountable.
Mr. Rohrabacher. As I say, the government officials may not
have placed the explosives, they may not have lit the fuse, but
their actions or inactions led to this horrible atrocity.
One other comparison, and people may not like this, but the
fact is that there are horrendous human rights abuses going on
in China. Businessmen who are part of the inner circle of the
Communist leadership may not personally be involved with the
brutalities in Tibet or the type of murders that are going on
with human rights activists, but they know that they are going
on, and they are involved with the leadership of the government
in many ways. And in Argentina, someone in the government
obviously knew that this type of operation was going on and
turned a blind eye, which resulted in this tremendous atrocity.
So I am sorry that I have to oppose this amendment.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Is there further debate?
Mr. Bereuter is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bereuter. My timing has been all wrong today. I walked
in during the middle of the gentleman's comments.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Every time we see you is the right time.
Mr. Bereuter. One thing I did hear from the gentleman from
Ohio is his concern about the fact that we have a different
government there. I notice in clause 2 that we are welcoming
Argentine President Fernando de la Rua's political will, so we
are recognizing that there is the intent to do something
positive. We are hoping that is the case. I am just wondering
if it would make the gentleman any more comfortable with the
fourth clause and be acceptable to the rest of the Members if
after the word ``bombing,'' if you would simply insert the
phrase ``which occurred during the previous government.'' I
wonder if that would make the gentleman happier.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gillmor is recognized, if you would
like to respond to Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Gillmor. I had offered compromise language earlier.
Mr. Bereuter. I apologize.
Mr. Gillmor. I offered it to sponsors and other Members,
and that was rejected. That amendment would have simply
provided that there were former Members, not current Members,
at the time the attack took place, and also deleted the
language ``allegation that they had participated in the
desecration of Jewish cemeteries,'' these individuals, or
elements of the security forces had; and I did that based on
the representations of the State Department that there was no
evidence of that.
But this implies as you read it that current, serving at
that time, members of the security forces were actively
involved in those attacks, and I don't think that there is any
evidence of that, and so I offered the amendment to say former
and delete the last clause, but that was rejected.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Bereuter and then Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Bereuter. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Lantos. I thank my friend for yielding.
I think it is accurate to say that this occurred during the
previous government. I don't think that it is accurate to say
that the security people who could have been involved in this
atrocity are former members. We have no idea whether they are
not serving as of this afternoon, because for 6 years the
Argentinian authorities have failed to close this case.
I, for one, would welcome Mr. Bereuter's suggestion that
the government was a former government, but the individuals may
well be currently serving in the Argentine police and security
forces.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. That would be U.S. evidence indicates
that this bombing which occurred during the previous
administration; is that correct, Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. Bereuter. It would be, but I have not written it out
and sent it to the clerk.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We have Mr. Gillmor's amendment.
Mr. Bereuter. The gentleman strikes the whole clause.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If there is no further debate on Mr.
Gillmor's amendment, we would like to bring it to a vote. The
question is on Mr. Gillmor's amendment. As many in favor, say
aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The noes appear to have it, and the amendment is not agreed
to.
Mr. Bereuter, would you like to offer your amendment at
this time?
Mr. Bereuter. Ma'am, are you encouraging me?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. No, we are not.
Mr. Bereuter. I will abstain.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
If there are no further amendments----
Mr. Gillmor. Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gillmor is recognized.
Mr. Gillmor. I have a further amendment at the desk.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Gillmor. Insert the
following after the third whereas clause: Whereas the current
government has made a commitment to combating international
terrorism as illustrated by----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gillmor is recognized.
Mr. Gillmor. I think, at least in my view, it is the good
guys that are now running the government down there, not the
bad guys. And I think one interpretation, we might say that we
have slapped the good guys on the cheek instead of the bad
guys. Maybe this amendment will give them a kiss on the other
cheek, commending the government.
Before I explain the amendment, I want to say to my good
friend from California who is still here that this bombing----
Mr. Lantos. Which of your two good friends from California?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Gillmor [continuing]. Your indicating that this could
not have happened without the active involvement of the
security forces is like saying that the U.S. Government and its
officials must have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing
which was carried out without any active government
participation, but was just as effective. So terrorists,
wherever they are from, can be terrorists without government
involvement.
The Argentine Government has begun to make a commitment. In
this case they have involved 15 former police officers and
three civilians. That trial is ready to begin this fall. They
have acted as a host and a participant in several regional
conferences on terrorism. They have contributed to the creation
of the new OAS Inter-American Counterterrorism Committee. They
have issued an international arrest warrant against the Islamic
Jihad leader who is believed to be responsible for that act of
terrorism. So I would propose that we add this language in
further recognition of the contribution that they are making
now to the antiterrorism effort.
Mr. Lantos. Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Lantos is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lantos. Madam Chair, as a freestanding issue,
commending the new government in participating in antiterrorism
efforts is certainly not objectionable, but that is not the
topic of this resolution. This resolution condemns the 1994
attack on the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in which
86 innocent people were killed.
I mean, it seems to me that when we deal with Nazi
atrocities, we are not then praising the Schroeder government
for accelerating the European Union. This is a different topic,
and I will oppose this amendment as being totally nongermane to
the topic.
The topic of the resolution that we are dealing with that
you and I and others have cosponsored deals with the
condemnation of the terrorist attack on the Jewish Community
Center 6 years ago, the perpetrators of which still have not
been apprehended and brought to justice. That is the issue.
I am prepared to offer any number of gracious resolutions
about Argentinian actions, public or private, but that is not
the topic of this resolution, and I will be compelled to oppose
the gentleman's amendment.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes also in opposition to the
amendment, not that there is anything in the amendment that is
offensive, but it does not get to the heart of what this
resolution is all about, as Mr. Lantos so eloquently described,
and I will read two other whereas clauses where I believe we
are sufficiently in praise.
It says, ``Whereas the United States welcomes Argentine
President Fernando de la Rua's political will to pursue the
investigation of the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community
Center to its ultimate conclusion,'' and later on, ``Whereas
the Government of Argentina supports the 1996 Declaration of
Lima to Prevent Combat and Eliminate Terrorism, which refers to
terrorism as a serious form of organized and systematic
violence that is intended to generate chaos and fear among the
population, results in death and destruction, and is a
reprehensible criminal activity, as well as the 1998 Commitment
of Mar del Plata which calls terrorist acts serious common
crimes that erode peaceful and civilized coexistence, affect
the rule of law and exercise of democracy, and endanger the
stability of democratically elected constitutional governments
and the socioeconomic development of our countries.'' We say
later in the resolution ``That the House of Representatives
desires a lasting, warm relationship between the United States
and Argentina built on a mutual abhorrence of terrorism and
commitments to peace, stability, and democracy in the Western
Hemisphere.''
Those are three parts of the resolution where we praise the
new administration. We commend them for being signers of two
declarations of international commitment to eliminate terrorist
acts, and we confirm and reaffirm our established bonds of
cooperation.
I think we are going to love this to death by further
commending Argentina. I think three times in a bill is more
than enough, especially because the purpose of the bill is to
draw attention to the fact that over 6 years have gone by, and
we are no closer to the resolution of this crime. And once
again I will say that resulted in the deaths of 86 innocent
human beings and the injury of over 300, and their crime was to
be Jewish.
Is there any further debate on the amendment? If not, the
question is on the amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized to speak on the amendment for
5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I oppose the amendment for the reasons
stated, but I would like to give my colleague Mr. Gillmor a
chance to reply because he had used his 5 minutes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gillmor is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would yield to the gentleman. I believe
my colleague is a very well-intended person, he is a very smart
person. I respect him greatly, and I disagree with him. If he
has anything to say----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher yields to Mr. Gillmor.
Mr. Gillmor. Let me read the language again, and then
people can tell me why they disagree with it.
The current government--we are not talking about the past
government--the current government has made a commitment to
combating international terrorism. Now, there is no question
about that, that is true, and why we find that difficult to say
is beyond me--as illustrated by their contribution to the
creation of the new Organization of American States Inter-
American Counterterrorism Committee.
Now, if our goal is to encourage other countries in this
case, specifically Argentina, to help combat terrorism, I find
it hard to see after reading the language how that is offensive
to anyone. Certainly it is not any more offensive than the
language that we have put in there about desiring a lasting,
warm relationship between the United States and Argentina, and
I would simply submit that maybe this language would help us
achieve that.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Lantos is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have the time, and I would be happy to
yield to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. I thank my good friend from California for
yielding.
As Mr. Gillmor will remember, my opening sentence in
reacting to his amendment was to indicate that I don't find his
statement objectionable at all standing on its own. But there
is a balance in this resolution. The resolution deals with a
heinous crime against the Jewish people perpetrated in
Argentina. That is what we are dealing with. We are not dealing
with a series of accolades given to the Government of
Argentina. The gentlelady who crafted this resolution did a
brilliant job. She has made three highly laudatory statements
concerning the current Government of Argentina. That is enough.
I think it is important to realize what the purpose of this
resolution is. It is not to congratulate Argentina. It is to
call attention to a terrorist attack in which 86 innocent
people were killed, and it is sort of important for all of us
to have some empathy for that tragedy. We have now praised
Argentina enough in three separate paragraphs, and that is why
some of us oppose adding additional accolades to Argentina.
I also tell my good friend while the new government has
indicated its determination to deal with this heinous crime,
nothing has yet unfolded. The perpetrators have not yet been
fully brought to justice. The process has begun 6 years too
late, but that is not the issue.
It would be analogous to dealing with the Holocaust issue
and praising the people who have built the museums in the
places where the people were killed. That is not the
fundamental issue here. The fundamental issue is the terrorism
predicated on a hate crime, and I wish to reiterate I strongly
oppose further accolades given to Argentina.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
The question is on the Gillmor amendment. As many are in
favor, say aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment
is not agreed to.
Is there any further discussion on the bill?
If not, the gentleman from California is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chair, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as
amended on the suspension calendar.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from California. As many as are in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. Further
proceedings on this measure are postponed.
Mr. Smith, if you will take the Chair.
H.R. 4528--INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000
Mr. Smith [presiding]. We will now consider H.R. 4528, to
establish a program to enable American students with a
financial need to study abroad. The Chair lays the bill before
the Committee. The clerk will report the title.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 4528, a bill to establish an
undergraduate grant program at the Department of State to
assist students of limited financial means from the United
States to pursue studies at foreign institutions of higher
education.
Mr. Smith. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Being enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United of America and Congress
assembled. Section 1, short title. This act----
Mr. Smith. Without objection, the bill will be considered
as read.
[The bill appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights, and yesterday was
marked up and forwarded to the full Committee with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute. Without objection, the amendment
in the nature of a substitute that is before the Members is
marked the committee print. It will be treated as the original
text for the purpose of amendment and will be read for
amendment. The clerk will read the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Ms. Bloomer. Section 1, short title, this act----
Mr. Smith. Without objection, the subcommittee amendment is
considered as having been read and is open for amendment.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. I would like to recognize myself to explain the
amendment.
Chairman Gilman, I am proud to note that yesterday the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights
favorably reported your legislation, H.R. 4528, the
International Academic Opportunity Act of 2000, to our full
Committee. The only change we made was to rename the program as
the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarships. This, I
believe, is an honor befitting the author of this legislation
which reflects your commitment to strengthening U.S. public
diplomacy during your distinguished tenure as Chairman of this
Committee.
The International Academic Opportunity Act of 2000 would
establish a grant program to help American undergraduate
students of limited financial means to study abroad. It
authorizes $1.5 million per year for that purpose. It also
requires that Congress be provided an annual report on the
number of participating students and the institutions at which
they study. The intention of the bill is to provide the study
abroad programs that exist at many colleges and universities
with funds that would allow them to reach out to students that
might not otherwise consider such study because of the
additional travel and living expenses it requires.
By providing for a single-year grant of up to $5,000 per
student, the Gilman Scholarships will help students of
demonstrated financial need to avail themselves of this
valuable educational experience. By living and studying in a
new culture, these students will be better equipped to
participate in world affairs and the global economy.
Furthermore, by broadening participation in U.S. diplomacy
efforts, this program will give the communities to which the
students travel a richer, more diverse experience of American
culture.
I would like to recognize to the distinguished gentleman
from New York, Mr. Gilman, for any comments he might have.
Chairman Gilman. I want to thank our distinguished Chairman
of the Subcommittee on International Operations for bringing
this measure to the full Committee. I introduced this measure
along with Mr. Hinchey of New York to encourage our
undergraduate college students to study abroad for at least a
year, and I believe American students need to be prepared to
operate in the international environment and economy. And that
is why we want to assist college-level students to find a way
to study abroad, and one of the best ways to prepare young
people is to allow them to experience life outside of our
nation.
I am pleased that the Committee approved the authorization
of $1.5 million to be made available to the State Department
for individual student grants up to $5,000. The intention is to
work with the existing college campus study programs, and those
grants will allow colleges and universities to reach out to the
low-income students, and it would expand the pool of students
that will benefit personally and later professionally from an
internationally oriented education.
This program was developed with the assistance of college
administrators and the exchange experts, and let's hope a
streamlined program will encourage more students to participate
in overseas educational programs and motivate them to learn and
apply a foreign language. These experiences and skills, I
think, will serve them well as they enter our work force.
I have received letters of support for this legislation
from the Institute of International Education; from the
American Council on Education, which represents 1,800 colleges
and universities; and the President of State University of New
York; and Mr. Paul, who also represents the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities; the Global
Responsibilities Committee, and I thank the gentleman for
bringing this measure up at this time.
Mr. Smith. Let me say that the renaming of this program as
the Gilman Scholarships, was a surprise to the Chairman, and it
is truly a very small but very sincere token of our respect and
admiration for the distinguished gentleman from New York.
I would like to recognize Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you.
I would like to commend Chairman Gilman for his leadership
on this issue. It is particularly, I think, an appropriate
action to be taken by this Committee to make sure that we are
able to give not just one segment of American society an
opportunity to see the rest of the world and get a sense of
international issues that affect us, from trade to human
rights, but to make sure that every American, no matter what
their economic station is, has that opportunity.
So I commend the Chairman. It is an excellent bill, and I
hope that we can pass it expeditiously.
Mr. Smith. I thank my friend.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I rise in support of the amendment, the
resolution, but let me say that I would not be supporting this
if it wasn't named after Chairman Gilman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have always been very proud of my record
of frugality, but I know that Ben's benevolence is something
that he is more proud of than I am of my frugality. Ben has a
good heart and is a man of such honor and integrity and caring
that I believe that I will vote for this just for the
opportunity to make that expression official.
Mr. Smith. I thank my friend from California.
Are there any other Members?
The question is on the adoption of the subcommittee
amendment as amended. All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The amendment as amended is agreed to.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered. The
gentleman from New York is recognized to offer a motion.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to submit for consideration the pending bill as
amended on the suspension calendar.
Mr. Smith. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from New York. Those in favor of the motion, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. The Chair or
his designees is authorized to move under rule 22 with respect
to a conference on this bill or a counterpart in the Senate.
Further proceedings in the measure are postponed.
Without objection, the Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 29, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8024.159