U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

68–024 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

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

(III)

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

Page

IV

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

(1)

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.

2

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

3

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.

4

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

5

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 Councilsponsored 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

6

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

7

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

8

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.

9

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.

10

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

11

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.

12

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, espeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
13

cially, 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.

14

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.

15

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

16

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 reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
17

lated 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. RosLehtinen and Mr. Kolbe.

18

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 introVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
19

duce 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 reeducation. 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

20

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 miVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
21

nority 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.

22

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

23

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?

24

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 amendVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
25

ment 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.]

26

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.]

27

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.

28

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.

29

[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.

30

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 costsaving 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.

31

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.]

32

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?

33

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?

34

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.

35

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 agriculVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
36

tural 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, uniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
37

versity, 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

38

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-yearold 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.

39

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.

40

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.

41

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.

42

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.

43

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 chilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
44

dren 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 longterm 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.

45

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.

46

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

47

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.

48

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.’’

49

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.

50

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.

51

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

52

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 antiSemitic 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 21⁄2 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

53

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 ArVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
54

gentina. 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.

55

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

56

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.

57

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 terVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
58

rorism. 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 declaraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:21 Jan 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68024.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
59

tions 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

60

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

61

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

62

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.

63

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.]

(65)

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 29, 2000

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224