U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69–717 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

H.R. 4899, H.R. 5224, H.R. 5239, H.R. 2166

AND H. CON. RES. 328

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

Serial No. 106–186

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

(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

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

[VACANCY]

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

H.R. 4899, the Asian Pacific Charter Commission Act of 2000 ........................... 1

H.R. 5224, The International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000 .................... 4

H.R. 5239, The Export Administration Modification and Clarification Act

of 2000 ................................................................................................................... 6

H.R. 2166, the Bear Protection Act of 1999 ........................................................... 7

H. Con. Res. 328, Relating to Free and Fair Elections in Burma ....................... 8

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, Chairman, Committee on International Relations

H.R. 4899 .............................................................................................................. 21

H.R. 5224 .............................................................................................................. 22

H.R. 5239 .............................................................................................................. 22

H.R. 2166 .............................................................................................................. 22

H. Con. Res 328 .................................................................................................... 23

Bills and Amendments:

H.R. 4899 .................................................................................................................. 24

Amendment to H.R. 4899 offered by Mr. Gilman ................................................. 31

H.R. 5224 .................................................................................................................. 40

Amendment to H.R. 5224 offered by Mr. Gilman ................................................. 44

H.R. 5239 .................................................................................................................. 45

H.R. 2166 .................................................................................................................. 50

H. Con. Res. 328 ...................................................................................................... 58

H. Con. Res. 328, as amended by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific ... 63

Amendment to H. Con. Res. 328 offered by Hon. Christopher H. Smith,

a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ........................... 67

(1)

H.R. 4899, H.R. 5224, H.R. 5239, H.R. 2166 AND

H. CON. RES. 328

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:46 p.m., in Room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Mr. GILMAN. The Committee on International Relations meets

today in open session, pursuant to notice, to consider several items.

H.R. 4899, THE ASIAN PACIFIC CHARTER COMMISSION

ACT OF 2000

Chairman GILMAN. Our first bill we will consider is H.R. 4899,

establishing the Pacific Charter Commission. The Chair lays the

bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 4899, a bill to establish a commission to promote a consistent and coordinated foreign policy of the United

States to ensure economic and military security in the Pacific region of Asia through the promotion of democracy, human rights,

the rule of law, free trade, and open markets, and for other purposes.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short Title——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered

by Mr. Gilman. Strike all after the enacting clause and—— Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as having been read and is open

for amendment at any point.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize myself on the bill and the

amendment.

Shortly after World War II, the American soldier and statesman,

George Marshall, said that a safe and free America depends on a

safe and free Europe. General Marshall, of course, was emphaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:57 Feb 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\M092100\69717.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
2

sizing the importance of Europe to the United States at that time.

Permit me to suggest that Marshall’s paradigm has changed.

Today, he would have stated that a safe and free America depends

on also a democratic, safe, and free Asia.

Before the summer recess, I introduced H.R. 4899, legislation establishing a Pacific Charter Commission. The purpose of the commission would be to create a charter that would promote a consistent and coordinated foreign policy which would ensure economic

and military security in the Pacific region of Asia. The charter

would attempt to obtain these goals through the promotion of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, free trade, and open markets.

As you know, this region is vital to the future of our Nation.

Over the past 50 years, Asia has become a significant center of

international economic and military power. Our Nation has seen

the blood of its sons and daughters shed on Asian soil in defense

of our national interests and in fighting tyranny. America has

fought three wars in Asia since 1941, and our American military,

our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, have all been engaged

in ensuring peace across the Pacific. Our basic interests in Asia

have remained virtually the same for the past 200 years: fostering

democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

In 1941, our Nation and Great Britain laid down a set of principles of foreign policy conduct. It was called the Atlantic Charter.

Similarly, I propose that we establish a Pacific Charter Commission that would assist our Government in laying out the principles

for our policies in Asia in the 21st century. Such a Pacific Charter

would articulate America’s long-term goals and objectives in the

Pacific and link them with the means for implementation. It would

be a comprehensive model for our involvement in the region, supporting our national interests and assuring others of our intention

to remain a Pacific power. Further, it would demonstrate that our

Nation is placing its relations with Asia in the 21st century on a

par comparable to that which has informed its relations with Europe over the latter half of the 20th century.

H.R. 4899 would establish a commission of seven members from

outside the Government, with an interest and expertise relating to

Asia, chosen by the President with the advice and consent of the

senate. Commissioners, who would serve for 6 years, would develop

a new U.S. foreign policy for the Pacific region.

The time has come to lay out the architecture of policy that will

establish our intention to remain engaged in Asia and the terms

of our continued engagement. A commission to establish a Pacific

Charter for the 21st century would provide the framework for such

a policy. It would assure the entire region—allies and otherwise—

of the continuation of our leadership that is consistent, coherent,

and coordinated.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4899.

Is there any member—Mr. Bereuter, the Chairman of our Asia

and the Pacific Subcommittee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to express my concern, as the Chairman knows, that the

Asia and Pacific Subcommittee was not given a chance to examine

this. I know the gentleman provided me with a copy several days

3

ago, but I have liked to have had the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee work its will.

I would note that the Administration expresses their opposition,

believing that a new U.S. Government-funded commission is not

necessary at this point.

I have examined it closely, and I have tried to see the changes

the Chairman has made. Would you tell me the nature of any specific changes that you have made in your substitute?

Chairman GILMAN. Yes. In reply to the gentleman, the only

change made is we changed the title from Asia Pacific to the Pacific

Charter.

Mr. BEREUTER. I see. Mr. Chairman, I—— Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, if you will yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, I yield.

Chairman GILMAN. We have also, at the request of the minority,

sunsetted this measure to 5 years and reduced the budget of the

commission from $5 million to $2.5 million to bring it more into

line with funding levels associated with other congressionally mandated commissions.

Mr. BEREUTER. I started out in opposition to it, but I noticed the

change in the sunset. I appreciate the Chairman’s and the minority’s interest in that.

I wonder if the Chairman would tell me when, if this becomes

public law, it would take effect. Immediately upon signature of the

President?

Chairman GILMAN. I believe it would be upon signature by the

President.

Mr. BEREUTER. I wonder if the Chairman would consider an

amendment. I hope you would consider it a friendly amendment.

We might just express orally making it effective February 1 of

2001.

Chairman GILMAN. I would have no objection to that.

Mr. BEREUTER. I would make that amendment to the gentleman’s amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s amendment is agreed upon

unless there is some objection.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. We appreciate your

support for the measure.

Are there any other members seeking recognition? If not, are

there any questions on the amendment? If not, the question is on

the Gilman amendment. All those in favor, signify in the usual

manner. Opposed? The amendment is agreed to.

If there are no further amendments, without objection, the previous question is ordered.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I gather you would like this on

the suspension calendar; therefore, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending measure, as amended,

on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion, signify in the

usual manner. Those opposed, say no.

4

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the

Chair or his designee is authorized to make the motions under

Rule 22 with respect to a conference on this bill or a counterpart

from the Senate.

I thank the gentleman for his support.

H.R. 5224, THE INTERNATIONAL FOOD RELIEF PARTNERSHIP

ACT OF 2000

Chairman GILMAN. We now move to consider H.R. 5224 relating

to international food relief partnerships. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 5224, a bill to amend the Agricultural Trade

Development and Assistance Act of 1954 to authorize assistance for

the stockpiling and rapid transportation, delivery, and distribution

of shelf stable prepackaged foods to needy individuals in foreign

countries.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1, Short Title, this act may be cited—— Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any members seeking recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize myself briefly.

I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Combest, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, and

the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, and the Chairman

of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the International

Relations Committee, Mr. Bereuter, and our distinguished colleague Mr. Hall, the gentleman from Ohio, in introducing the International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000.

The International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000 authorizes

the stockpiling and rapid transportation, delivery, and distribution

of shelf stable prepackaged foods to needy individuals in foreign

countries.

The bill creates a public-private partnership to leverage the donation of nutritious food by volunteers to needy families around the

globe at times of famine, disaster, and other critical needs.

Nonprofits such as Breedlove, Child Life International, and Feed

the Starving Children provide direct hunger assistance at times of

disaster, famine, or other critical need. Other nonprofits similar to

these fine organizations are located throughout Nation. These nonprofits accept gleaned crops donated by regional farmers and help

transport and distribute this food overseas. Once the donated food

is processed, it can be stored for years for use in food emergencies.

We need to encourage more volunteer efforts from nonprofits of

this nature. The International Food Relief Partnership Act accomplishes this objective by providing a means for nonprofits to accept

donated food and process it into a product for use in times of disaster, famine, or other critical need.

5

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Gejdenson? Any other members seeking recognition? Mr. Bereuter?

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my

support for H.R. 5224. As the original cosponsor of this measure,

following the Chairman’s lead, I would like to thank you for your

initiative in advancing it.

As an advocate of food assistance programs, I welcome this legislation as a unique initiative to build grass-roots support for our foreign food assistance program. Currently, large agribusiness companies serve as the primary supplier for commodities used in Title II

food aid programs completed by USAID. This bill, of course,

amends Title II of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act to create opportunities for nonprofit organizations and private voluntary organizations (PVOs) in agricultural areas to also

become directly involved in the production, storage, and distribution of prepackaged food materials for use in USAID food aid

projects.

In my opinion, it is certainly possible and advantageous for the

private and the nonprofit sector to work together on food aid programs. Indeed, it is important to keep as many people as possible

engaged in food assistance programs, as Asians, Africans, and Central Americans face hunger due to natural disaster and abject poverty, and as American farmers search for new venues for their surplus commodities.

On a side note, I would like to express my dismay that the Clinton Administration has drastically cut Title III food for development grants from $312.1 million to $25 million, a 92-percent cut

in funding. I would say that those and other similar cuts limit food

aid options and, thus, have a very negative impact on support for

food aid programs and on the agricultural sector. I have complained in the past about this cut.

But this legislation is another opportunity for us to deliver food

and do good things for the poorest people in the world, and I thank

the Chairman for his initiative.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter, for your comments.

I have a technical amendment at the desk the clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman, at the end of

line 19 on page 2, add ‘‘requested by.’’ [The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Any comments on the amendment? If not, all

in favor of the amendment, signify in the usual manner. Opposed?

The amendment is carried.

Are there any other members seeking recognition? If not, if there

are no further amendments, without objection, the previous question is ordered.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending measure as amended

on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor, signify in the usual manner. Opposed?

6

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the

Chair or his designee is authorized to make motions under Rule 22

with respect to a conference on this bill or a counterpart from the

Senate.

H.R. 5239, THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION MODIFICATION AND

CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2000

Chairman GILMAN. We now move to consider H.R. 5239, to reauthorize certain provisions of the Export Administration Act. The

Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the

title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 5239, a bill to provide for increased penalties

for violations of the Export Administration Act of 1979, and for

other purposes.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1, Short Title—— Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize myself briefly.

The Export Administration Modification and Clarification Act of

2000 will strengthen the enforcement of our export control system

by increasing the penalties against those who would knowingly violate its regulations and provisions.

This measure would implement one of the key recommendations

of the Cox Commission report on protecting our national security

interests, and is virtually identical to a provision in H.R. 973, a security assistance bill, which passed the House in June of last year

with strong bipartisan support.

Since the Export Administration Act lapsed in August 1994, the

Administration has used the authorities in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to administer our export control system. But in some key areas, the Administration has less authority

under IEEPA than under the EAA of 1979.

For example, the penalties for violations of the Export Administration regulations that occur under IEEPA, both criminal and

civil, are substantially lower than those available for violations

that occur under the EAA. Even these penalties are too low, having

been eroded by inflation over the past 20 years.

The measure I am introducing today significantly increases the

penalties available to our enforcement authorities at the Bureau of

Export Administration in the Department of Commerce. It also ensures that the Department can maintain its ability to protect from

public disclosure information concerning export license applications, the licenses themselves, and related export enforcement information.

In view of the lapse of the EAA over the past five and a half

years, the Department is coming under mounting legal challenges

and is currently defending against two separate lawsuits seeking

public release of export licensing information subject to the confidentiality provisions of section 12(c) of the EAA.

7

This measure authorizes $72 million for fiscal year 2001 for the

operation of the Export Administration Act as continued under the

International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this very

timely measure that will provide the authorities our regulators

need to deter companies and individuals from exporting dual-use

goods and technologies to countries and users of concern and to

protect the confidentiality of the export control process.

Are there any members seeking recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. Are any members seeking to offer amendments?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If there are no amendments, without objection, the previous question is ordered. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending measure on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska.

Those in favor of the motion, signify in the usual manner. Those

opposed, say no.

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the

Chair or his designee is authorized to make the motions under

Rule 22 with respect to a conference on this bill or a counterpart

from the Senate.

H.R. 2166, THE BEAR PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

Chairman GILMAN. We will now consider H.R. 2166, the Bear

Protection Act. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The

clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 2166, a bill to conserve global bear populations by prohibiting the importation, exportation, and interstate

trade of bear viscera and items, products, or substances containing,

or labeled, or advertised as containing, bear viscera, and for other

purposes.

Chairman GILMAN. This bill was referred by the Speaker to the

Committee on Resources and in addition to our Committee and to

the Committee on Ways and Means.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with.

The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short Title, this act may be cited as the Bear Protection Act——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize myself briefly. I want to commend Representative Porter, the gentleman from Illinois, for

crafting this important bill. And I also want to thank Chairwoman

Ros-Lehtinen and the ranking minority member of the InterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:57 Feb 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\M092100\69717.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
8

national Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee for their quick

action on the bill.

Although the demand for bear parts is virtually non-existent in

our Nation, that market is rapidly expanding in Eastern Asia. Bear

viscera are widely used as aphrodisiacs, as traditional medicines to

treat everything from epilepsy to toothaches, and some parts are

considered culinary delicacies. As East Asia has already forced its

bear population to the brink of extinction, they are turning to the

United States as a new source for bear viscera. In South Korea,

North American bear gall bladders are sold under-the-counter in

small quantities and are worth more, gram for gram, than cocaine.

H.R. 2166 bans the sale, export, import, and possession of bear

viscera and would set civil and criminal penalties for violations.

The Bear Protection Act also directs our U.S. Trade Representative

to make international trafficking in bear viscera a priority issue in

ongoing discussions with our Asian trading partners.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2166.

Are there any members seeking recognition or seeking to offer

amendments?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If there are no amendments or further requests, without objection, the previous question is ordered.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending measure on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. Those in favor, signify in the

usual manner. Those opposed, say no?

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the

Chair or his designee is authorized to make motions under Rule 22

with respect to a conference on this bill or a counterpart from the

Senate.

H. CON. RES. 328, RELATING TO FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN

BURMA

Chairman GILMAN. We now consider H. Con. Res. 328 relating to

Burma. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The

clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. H. Con. Res. 328, a resolution expressing the

sense of the Congress in recognition of the 10th anniversary of the

free and fair elections in Burma and the urgent need to improve

the democratic and human rights of the people of Burma.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights who reported it on June 28th to the Full Committee with an amendment

in the nature of a substitute.

The resolution was also referred to the Subcommittee on Asia

and the Pacific and was reported on September 13th to the Full

Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Without objection, the Subcommittee-recommended language

from the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific will be treated as

9

original text for the purposes of amendment. The clerk will read

the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee’s recommendation, in that order, for amendment. The clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas in 1988 thousands of Burmese citizens

called for a democratic change in Burma and participated in peaceful demonstrations—— Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Subcommittee’s recommendation is considered as having been read and is open for

amendment at any point.

[The amended resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I would now recognize the gentleman from

Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, the Chairman of our Subcommittee on

Asia and the Pacific, to introduce the measure to the Committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

H. Con. Res. 328 was introduced on May 16th by the gentleman

from Illinois, Mr. Porter, and unanimously approved by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on September 13th. For over 10

years, the Burmese military regime, now known as the State Peace

and Development Council (the SPDC) has refused to implement the

results of the 1990 elections which were won overwhelmingly by

the National League for Democracy (NLD).

During this period, and indeed since 1962, when General Ne Win

and the military seized control, the military has engaged in egregious, systematic violence and abuse of the fundamental human

rights of ethnic minorities and other people of the country. The

abuses of the junta in Rangoon most recently have come under

international scrutiny when, on August 24th, Aung San Suu Kyi

was denied the ability to visit NLD party offices outside the capital. For 9 days, she was detained at a roadblock and eventually

was forcibly returned to her residence. Since that time, she and

other NLD party leaders have been under virtual house arrest.

Despite the military’s denials, no independent observer had been

allowed to visit, and the British Ambassador was roughed up when

he attempted to force his way into her compound.

In addition, party offices have been ransacked and papers seized.

To justify their actions, the junta has issued the ludicrous charge

that the NLD had formed an alliance with the rebels in the provinces.

It is entirely proper that the House of Representatives go on

record condemning these human rights abuses. Since her electoral

victory in 1990, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has repeatedly been arrested, threatened, and harassed. The illegal SPDC military regime

has done everything possible to discredit the NLD and its leader.

This is simply wrong, and we, of course, should say so repeatedly

and emphatically and do anything else we can that is effective.

Mr. Chairman, at the subcommittee markup, an amendment was

approved that had the concurrence of the resolution’s author, Mr.

Porter, and which was designed to update the situation in Burma

and address two concerns that were raised regarding the base text.

First, the amendment updated the current standoff between

Aung San Suu Kyi and the military by including six new whereas

clauses. These clauses detailed the denial of right to movement and

association and the seizure of documents at the NLD party offices.

The new language makes it clear that Aung San Suu Kyi was

10

clearly within her rights in attempting to visit party offices and

that there was no justification for the roadblock established by the

SPDC.

Secondly, we made technical changes to correct the name of the

Department of State International Narcotics Control Strategy Report for 2000.

Lastly, the amendment altered Resolved Clause 3. The resolution

as introduced endorses the economic and political sanctions that

are currently in force.

Unfortunately, the sanctions are simply not having the desired

effect. Burma has not been isolated. It has become a full member

of ASEAN. Burma’s neighbors—India, China, Japan, and Southeast Asian nations—are pursuing a policy of engagement with

Burma. Australia prefers a policy of ‘‘constructive engagement’’ as

they call it.

Even the EU countries, which have joined us in expressing outrage against the policies of the Burmese junta, have generally not

imposed economic sanctions. While unilateral economic sanctions

may make us feel good, they rarely are effective in forcing changes

on recalcitrant regimes. Unfortunately, the regime’s outrageous behavior and stubborn refusal to even engage the NLD in a meaningful dialogue leaves us with few options to our present policy of

sanctions and isolation.

Let me make myself clear. I do not have a more effective alternative to the current sanctions policy. We have looked for one, but

unless we have multilateral at least within the region, it is going

to be very difficult. So I am as frustrated at least as all the members are.

However, I think we should not delude ourselves by believing

that the current policy is effective, and that was original language

of the resolution. I, therefore, requested of Mr. Porter that he agree

to modify this language and say that the U.S. should continue to

pursue policies with regard to Burma designed to, and so on, and

those who support the sanction policy, if they choose, can read this

as an endorsement of sanctions.

However, there is sufficient flexibility in the language to address

the concerns of those who are frustrated with the ineffectiveness of

the sanctions. And I hope, Mr. Smith, from our discussion a few

minutes ago, you understand how we have, with Mr. Porter, tried

to accommodate those people that want to leave sanctions in place,

but also for people like myself that believe that sanctions frankly

are not effective, to read it that way. I don’t, as I mentioned, have

a good alternative. We have sought them in Committee. We have

sought them by individual discussions. We have sought them on an

international basis.

I would once again note that the resolution’s author, Mr. Porter,

is comfortable with the proposed change. I discussed this matter

with Chairman Smith earlier, and I just confirmed with Mr. Porter

less than an hour and a half ago that he was pleased and wanted

the resolution in its current amended form to be moved to the floor

expeditiously under suspension calendar.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to approve H. Con. Res. 328

as amended.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

11

Any other members—— Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne?

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support this House Con. Res. 328 and feel that we really have to attempt to keep the pressure on. I did have the opportunity to get

to Burma, as I might have mentioned before, about a year or so ago

and did force the authorities to allow us to see Aung San Suu Kyi

at the U.S. embassy. We had a several-hour lunch and discussion

with her, and we also had the opportunity to meet with SLORC

members at another time, those who were elected at the time she

was elected. And they are certainly a tremendous repressive government. The treatment of the Burmese in Thailand is also something that we should really have the Thai Government look into.

There are 800,000 refugees or workers there making about $1 a

day. It is really unbelievable.

So I certainly support this. We visited the borders up by the People’s Republic of China where they have also an enterprise going

on in that region. But it is repressive. The military government

is—as a matter of fact, a group of students were given about 10

years in prison for demonstrating, and I have written the Government of Burma several times asking them if they would reconsider.

These were just students demonstrating. I thought that was certainly overly extreme.

So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this strongly and urge the

passage of this bill.

Chairman GILMAN. Are any other members seeking recognition?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher? Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment that I would like to

offer to H. Con. Res. 328.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith, page 5, ‘‘Strike

lines 5 through 7 and insert the following: (3) United States policy

should sustain current economic and political sanctions against

Burma as the appropriate means.’’

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I consider

this move on the gentleman’s part a violation of our agreement

that we had when we proceeded with this, and I would ask the

gentleman to reconsider offering this amendment. It is not what we

agreed to earlier. I understand the gentleman’s point about the

sanctions. And all I am saying is I don’t want to give any indication—and other members don’t—that they are effective. And we

have left it so that all of the policies are pursued with respect to

the two objectives, A and B, are identified. This gives the Administration, current and future, maximum flexibility, including continuing with the current policies, whatever they think is effective

to pursue a restoration of democracy, human rights, and civil liberties under Part A, and Part B, to support U.S. national security

counter-narcotics interests.

12

I just think at this late point to violate what I think was a clear

agreement is not good faith.

Mr. SMITH. Let me just say, reclaiming my time, that in 20 years

I have never violated—and I never will violate—an agreement. I

want that on the record and very clearly stated.

In looking at the gentleman’s language, I had no idea that the

intent of the language that he is talking about—and he just articulated it again here today—was to suggest that both sides could

read into that language, the pro-sanctions group and the anti-sanctions group can both walk away and say their cause has been vindicated. That is not my intent. My intent is to be as clear and as

unambiguous as possible. As we all know, the distinguished Chairman of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee was likely not going

to bring this resolution up, but the clear intent to pursue policies

with regard—as stated on page 5—— Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield for a clarification?

Mr. SMITH. No, I won’t yield this time.

Mr. BEREUTER. You misstated my intention.

Mr. SMITH. Well, I just heard your intention stated, but let

me——

Mr. BEREUTER. I have—— Mr. SMITH. You will have to get your own time.

Mr. BEREUTER. I had always intended to bring this resolution up.

I had assured Mr. Porter I would.

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is good to hear, but let me just say very

clearly, this amendment that I am offering today puts all the members on the record—vote it up or down. I hope they will vote it up

and approve this. It is a very clear amendment. In this case, I

agree with the Clinton Administration. I was very happy that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the Administration took the

initiative. Many of us had encouraged her to do so, but she did so

in her own right because of the outrageous behavior by the Burmese authorities.

Today, as we meet, there is a BBC Wire Service story that the

military authorities in Burma have again prevented the democracy

leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, from leaving the capital in Rangoon.

The Burmese authorities have gotten worse. Now, is this the

time when you should pull the plug on the sanctions, or give any

kind of suggestion that could be read by the Rangoon leadership as

a sign that we are somehow wavering? I don’t think so. Yes, this

is basically sense of the Congress, but what we say does have

meaning. It does, hopefully, indicate where we are coming from in

terms of our policy direction, and I think we need to reiterate in

the strongest terms possible—and this is clear and, as I said, is

nonambiguous language—that we want the United States policy to

maintain current economic and political sanctions. To say otherwise, to give some kind of indication that could go either way I

think just emboldens the dictatorship, however unwitting or unintentional that outcome is.

And let me say, had I known that this language could be read

both ways, I would never, ever, ever have suggested that we embrace such language. The language that states pursue policies, the

policies that the Administration is pursuing, is well meaning, well

intentioned. But sanctions, as we all know, never work in a day,

13

maybe not in a year, maybe not in several years. I supported sanctions against South Africa, and was frankly the only Republican on

this panel 15 years ago or so who took that position, because I believed it was right even though it might not succeed overnight.

There was a counter argument that was meaningful, but I felt at

the time that that was the way to proceed. And eventually the

sanctions did indeed work.

Right now there is an outrage going on in Rangoon. Aung San

Suu Kyi, the great Nobel Peace Prize winner, and her organization

and her freely-elected members of her parliament are persona non

grata, and I think we need to say, notwithstanding anything else

that ASEAN does, that we are on record for these sanctions. And

I hope the membership of the Committee will support this amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. And it is absolutely no breach of any agreement.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher next, then I will come back

to Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Rohrabacher? Mr. Bereuter?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, members. The gentleman perhaps

was wrong when he suggested unknowingly that I had not intended to bring this resolution up. If he feels that in fact I had not

and had not good intentions to bring it up, it is outrageous. I had

assured Mr. Porter at all times that this resolution would come to

the Committee, I would try to expedite its movement to the floor.

And that continues to be the case. Now, if the gentleman thinks

otherwise, it is outrageous.

Now, I invite members to calmly look at page 5, at lines 5

through 11. As members can see from the resolution before you, it

says, ‘‘United States policy shall continue to pursue policies with

regard to Burma that are designed to’’, and then the two clauses

with the objectives. That gives the Administration wide flexibility

on designing what is appropriate. It does not say, nor does this

member suggest that they have to relieve any kind of sanctions

that are opposed, but I do not want to give any impression whatsoever that we think they are effective. Unfortunately, they are not

as long as we do not have multilateral support at least within the

region and among major countries like Japan and Australia, for example, and certainly the European Union.

Now, we know that occasionally sanctions do work, but it is almost always when they are multilateral sanctions, as was the case

with South Africa. What the gentleman wants to do is change it

to say ‘‘its current policies.’’ By saying ‘‘current’’ it suggests that

there can be no change, that we don’t necessarily support anything

that isn’t a current policy. And I think if you look at it that way,

you will understand that I am not attempting to give any message

that we need to lift the sanctions. It just says ‘‘to continue to pursue policies with regard to Burma.’’ If the Administration wants to

continue policies or a future Administration, good, that is up to

them. They have that option. Maybe at some time they will be effective. They certainly might if a few more countries joined us, but

at the moment, we are alone. I hope in what I believe was an

agreement to move it forward, that the gentleman’s amendment

will, since he is pursuing it, not be accepted. In any case, the resolution is important. It will move forward.

14

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in strong support of the amendment.

Let me just say that I have watched policy concerning Burma and

I have watched what is going on in Burma since before I was elected to Congress. I have met with young students who were in Rangoon, who saw their fellow students shot down and young female

students who were brutally raped by soldiers from the regime, and

students who were chased through the jungles. I met these students in jungle camps in Burma. In fact, one of the first things that

happened to me was that I was condemned for meeting these students, for crossing the border illegally into the jungle to meet these

brave freedom fighters. And ever since then—I have to tell you,

these people, who are struggling for Burma against these tremendous odds especially under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi,

are some of the most admirable people in the world. They are facing a horrendous challenge. You know, the dictatorship has all the

guns. They are as brutal as any dictatorship could be. They have

got drug lords in cahoots with the leaders of their country.

How would you like to live in a country in which the drug lords

and the government went to the same restaurant every night and

partied together? And all of a sudden all of the government officials

have fancy cars. And where did they get the money to do that when

their people are literally eating crickets because the food production has gone down so much in that country that used to be ‘‘the

rice bowl’’ of Asia.

We currently have a policy of sanctions. The reason Mr. Smith’s

amendment must be adopted is because the gangsters in Rangoon

will read this bill without Mr. Smith’s amendment, as a retrogression, as a backing down of American policy of sanctions.

Now, Mr. Bereuter has argued, articulately, that the sanctions

may or may not be affected, but the very last thing that we want

to do with the most vile, corrupt regime on this planet and which

is being challenged peacefully by such heroic people as Aung San

Suu Kyi, the last thing we want to do is to send a message that

can be read by those people as a backing down from our confrontation or our adamant opposition to that regime. And that is the way

it will be read and that is what they will say.

ASEAN has had a policy that is not involved with sanctions.

That policy has failed. They admit it has failed. Our policy has

sanctions. Now we can say we are in search of a policy. Well, it is

pretty easy to determine what the policy should be. The United

States of America should be on the side of people who believe in

democracy, people who believe in honest government, and we

should be opposed to dictators and to murderers and to thugs who

brutalize their people and terrorize their population. The choice is

so clear in Burma, and I don’t think the policy of sanctions, economic sanctions goes far enough. I think we should be working

with Thailand and others, who would have gone in this direction,

to openly support Aung San Suu Kyi and her elected majority in

Burma, and recognize them as a government in exile because they

are the government. We believe that government are those people

who have the consent of the governed, and in Burma that means

Aung San Suu Kyi and her people. And I say, I couldn’t more

strongly support Mr. Smith’s amendment that keeps us on the

15

record and cannot be interpreted as backing down from our opposition to that vile regime. Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Rohrabacher. Are any other

members seeking recognition? Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. I too rise in support of Mr. Smith’s amendment.

As I indicated, I had the opportunity to be there firsthand and talk

to Aung San Suu Kyi and people who were elected with her. I saw

the brutality and the students that were beaten by the authorities,

the lack of any kind of progress that is being made. And for us to

have a sanctions policy and then to remove it, would certainly give

a signal that the US is sort of looking the other way, or not as serious about this regime as we were, because we are removing something that was previously there. And so I support the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. There

is nothing in the resolution, I just remind the gentleman, that removes the economic sanctions. I just want to clarify that. It is pressure. Thank you for yielding.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Thanks for that correction. I

still think though it should be clear then, and for that, I support

the amendment from the gentleman from New Jersey.

Chairman GILMAN. Are any other members seeking recognition?

If not, I want to support Congressman Porter, the gentleman from

Illinois for introducing this important piece of legislation.

Today Aung San Suu Kyi is attempting to travel to northern

Burma in defiance of the dictatorship’s ban on her traveling. She

was twice forcefully returned after attempting to travel in Burma.

The last attempt was August 24th. She camped out in her car for

9 days until the dictatorship forced her back. She was then held

incommunicado. As we speak today, she is surrounded by heavilyarmed soldiers at the train station and is being prevented from

boarding the train.

The UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission

have passed nine consecutive resolutions regarding the appalling

human rights conditions in Burma. This resolution as amended

assures Congress remains on record in support of the brave woman

in Burma.

And with regard to the amendment, I strongly support the

amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey. Congress needs to

remain firmly on record in support of the continuing sanctions

against the repressive illegal government in Burma. Aung San Suu

Kyi and the members of Parliament who were elected in 1990, have

not been able to establish a government inside of Burma. Many of

her supporters have been and still are in prison. Thousands have

been tortured and murdered. The government relies heavily on

slave and forced labor for construction projects. The ILO has even

banned it from participating in any ILO meetings.

The government is also deeply involved in the illicit drug trade.

It was just reported by Secretary Cohen, who was in Thailand 2

days ago, that the Thai are asking for 50 helicopters to fight

against the drug trafficking. The Thai military has estimated that

600 million amphetamine pills flooded Thailand last year from

across a 2,000-kilometer border with Myanmar. Thai community

16

leaders have frequently accused Myanmar of destroying Thai

youth, warning that drug addiction was reaching crisis proportions

in Thailand, with more than 600,000 young people reportedly

hooked on amphetamines. In Bangkok Tuesday, Secretary Cohen

said, ‘‘We understand now there is a serious problem concerning

Thailand by virtue of methamphetamine being produced and distributed from Burma.’’ The drug problem will be high on the agenda of the commander of US forces in the Pacific who is due to visit

Thailand next week. Now is certainly not the time to suggest that

Congress is backing down from its strong support for these sanctions. Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support the amendment

by the gentleman from New Jersey.

Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand my friend

from New Jersey’s reason for this amendment to sustain the sanctions and sustain our current policy, or perhaps add the sanctions.

We have tried sanctions in this country for years, and usually they

are ineffective and they do nothing but hurt the people that are in

that country that need the most help.

Now, I was in the military 30 years ago. I believe that the military has a place, but the military in Burma is really a major part

of the problem. When I was there last November, I told some of the

military officers that if anything happens to Aung San Suu Kyi, the

wrath of the world will be on them, and for those of you that think

I am a loose cannon, the wrath of John Cooksey will be on those

guys too.

And this bothers me when I read that someone in the government says that Aung San Suu Kyi would be, quote, ‘‘crushed for

trying to draft the constitution’’, and just the general attitude of

those people.

But that said, I still do not think we should support this amendment, and I don’t think it is a good amendment, and I don’t think

it will help Aung San Suu Kyi. I don’t think it will help the people

over there that have the courage to stand up to the military. I

think it is a self-defeating amendment. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey. Are any other members seeking recognition? If not, the question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. All in favor,

signify in the usual manner.

Opposed?

The amendment is carried. Is any other member seeking recognition or desiring to offer any amendments? Mr. Rohrabacher?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is this the time to comment on the bill itself?

Chairman GILMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. I would seek recognition.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I will make this very short. In talking

about how the United States should engage a dictatorship like we

find in Burma—and let me just say that Mr. Bereuter, who works

very diligently at his job and is a very, very conscientious Chairman of the Subcommittee—we just have some honest disagreements. It is as simple as that.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?

17

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank you for your kind words, but in this one

we have, I think no disagreement. I respect the gentleman’s particular knowledge of Burma. I think it is an outrageous regime. I

want to bring this woman who was elected in 1990 to power. There

is no disagreement on the objectives or your analysis of the terrible

situation. I want the gentleman to be assured of that. Thank you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. I would

like to bring up two points about the government of Burma, or

should I say the thugs that control Burma, because they are not

the government. Let us be aware. These people hold power, but

they are not the government. The government, again, derives its

just powers from the consent of the governed, and these people

could not muster a majority by any stretch of the imagination.

But this regime that is in power has made deals with the Chinese. And we talked about Chinese engagement, constructive engagement with the Burmese dictatorship. I think it is important for

us to put on the record that the Chinese have provided the weapons that this regime has needed to maintain control. How this regime is maintaining control, it is now in an unholy alliance with

Beijing. And what does Beijing get for giving them all of these hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons? Number one, it is receiving

some place for a military location on the coast of Burma, which is

now, we understand, not necessarily in construction, but clearly

there is a Chinese military presence there. But more importantly,

what they are doing is they are cutting down all of the teak wood.

They are taking what belongs to the people of Burma, their natural

treasures, whether they are minerals or whether they are timber—

and that is the next thing that I am going to mention—and they

are just taking this away, robbing the people of their legacy, and

the money is going, yes, to pay the Chinese for their guns, and it

is going into foreign bank accounts. That is number one we have

to understand about the regime in Burma.

But number two, let us understand that over the last 10 years

the Burmese regime has completely obliterated its own opposition,

not only from Aung San Suu Kyi’s supporters and the democratic

supporters, but also from various ethnic groups that maintain certain control of territory around Burma for a number of years. Now

this regime has total control of Burma. And what is happening to

the heroin production in Burma now that this regime totally controls the country? Opium production in Burma is dramatically up,

even though they have had some kind of a drought over there, and

what we have got is this Administration does not—excuse me—

there are people in this Administration who do not want to face the

fact that the drug lords and the regime are one and the same. So

let us recognize that the Burmese regime controls that country and

that country produces 30 to 40 percent of the world’s heroin, and

that is what we are up against here.

There is no more vile regime on this planet than the one in

Burma, and the people in Thailand are looking to us to stand

strong, and I think that this is a very important resolution, and it

is important to have our voices strong and united in these things.

And I appreciate Mr. Bereuter making it very, very clear that he

18

is morally and all the other ways opposed to this type of regime.

So thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are any other

members seeking recognition? If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of pending measure as amended on

the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. Any as in favor of the motion, signify in the

usual manner.

Any opposed, say no.

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings

on this measure are postponed.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I do.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Did the

previous legislation of the Committee, I understand, adopted on the

Export Administration Act, get sent to the Subcommittee on International and Economic Policy and Trade?

Chairman GILMAN. Yes. I am informed by staff that we informed

the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade that

we intended to proceed to the Full Committee on this important

measure so that we could get it to the Senate as quickly as possible.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that you may

have informed the Chairlady, but you did not inform the whole

Committee, and as the ranking Democrat on the Committee, let me

say that while I support, in essence, what the bill attempts to do,

I would have done it a little differently. I do want to register my

strong opposition to it having been marked up here in Full Committee—and I would have been here at the original time at 2:00,

the Committee was originally cited for—without first having gone

to our Subcommittee. It is just an issue that for members of the

Committee, who spend a lot of time as I do in my Subcommittee,

showing up, working on issues. The value of a member on behalf

of the constituency they represent is not for that Subcommittee and

the work there to be an intellectual reservoir or debating society,

but it comes on the opportunity to craft and vote on legislation. So

I would hope that for the future, that we would have the courtesy

as knowing as well, and being able to register our opinions as to

whether or not the Committee should be bypassed, and I would

hope it is done in the most infrequent opportunities as possible.

Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and

I regret that he was not informed of this. And I would think that

it be the Subcommittee Chairman’s responsibility to inform the

Committee of these kind of events, but we certainly will take the

gentleman’s comments in mind for future issues that come before

our Committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

19

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had thought that

perhaps H. Con. Res. 397 might come up today. It is on Central

Asia. It is authored by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

We are ready to take that up, and if we have another markup, I

am hoping that it could be brought on that agenda. I think Mr.

Smith is ready to move, and I certainly am.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, staff informs me that we will

be prepared to take that measure up next week in our next markup.

Thank you very much, and I want to thank all of our members

for standing by. The Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(21)

A P P E N D I X

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

H.R. 4899, THE PACIFIC CHARTER COMMISSION ACT OF 2000

Shortly after World War II, the great American soldier and statesman, George C.

Marshall, said that a safe and free America depends on a safe and free Europe.

Marshall, of course, was emphasizing the importance of Europe to the United States

at the time. Permit me to suggest that Marshall’s paradigm has changed. Today,

he could have stated that a safe and free America depends on a democratic, safe

and free Asia.

Before the Summer recess, I introduced H.R. 4899, legislation to establish a Pacific Charter Commission. The purpose of the commission would be to create a charter that would promote a consistent and coordinated foreign policy which would ensure economic and military security in the Pacific region of Asia. The charter would

attempt to obtain these goals through the promotion of democracy, human rights,

the rule of law, free trade, and open markets.

As you know, this region is vital to the future of our nation. Over the past 50

years, Asia has become a significant center of international economic and military

power. The United States has seen the blood of its sons and daughters shed on

Asian soil in defense of our national interests and in fighting tyranny. America has

fought three wars in Asia since 1941, and American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and

Marines are engaged in ensuring peace across the Pacific. Our basic interests in

Asia have remained virtually the same for the past 200 years: fostering democracy,

human rights and the rule of law.

In 1941, the United States and Great Britain laid down a set of principles of foreign-policy conduct. It was called the Atlantic Charter. Similarly, I propose that we

establish a Pacific Charter Commission that would assist our government in laying

out the principles for our policies in Asia in the 21st century. Such a Pacific Charter

would articulate America’s long-term goals and objectives in the Pacific and link

them with the means for implementation. It would be a comprehensive model for

our involvement in the region, supporting our national interests and assuring others

of our intention to remain a Pacific power. Further, it would demonstrate that the

United States is placing its relations with Asia in the 21st century on a par comparable to that which has informed its relations with Europe over the latter half

of the 20th century.

H.R. 4899 would establish a commission of seven members from outside the government, with an interest and expertise relating to Asia, chosen by the President

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Commissioners, who would serve for six

years, would develop a new U.S. foreign policy for the Pacific region.

The time has come to lay out an architecture of policy that will establish our intention to remain engaged in Asia and the terms of our continued engagement. A

Commission to establish a Pacific Charter for the 21st century would provide the

framework for such a U.S. policy. It would assure the entire region—allies and otherwise—of the continuation of a leadership that is consistent, coherent, and coordinated.

Accordingly, I ask for you to vote for H.R. 4899.

22

H.R. 5224, THE INTERNATIONAL FOOD RELIEF PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2000

I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Combest,

the distinguished gentleman from Texas, and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Agriculture, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, and

the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the

International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska,

Mr. Bereuter, in introducing the International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000.

The International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000 authorizes the stockpiling

and rapid transportation, delivery and distribution of shelf stable prepackaged foods

to needy individuals in foreign countries.

This bill creates a public-private partnership to leverage the donation of nutritious food by volunteers to needy families around the globe at times of famine, disaster and other critical needs.

Non-profits such as Breedlove, Child Life International, and Feed the Starving

Children provide direct hunger assistance at times of disaster, famine, or other critical need. Other non-profits similar to these fine organizations are located throughout the United States. These non-profits accept gleaned crops donated by regional

farmers, and help transport and distribute this food overseas. Once the donated food

is processed, it can be stored for years for use in food emergencies.

We need to encourage more volunteer efforts from non-profits. The International

Food Relief Partnership Act accomplishes this objective by providing a means for

non-profits to accept donated and food and process it into a product for use in times

of disaster, famine, or other critical need.

I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.

H.R. 5239, THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION MODIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2000

The ‘‘Export Administration Modification and Clarification Act of 2000’’ will

strengthen the enforcement of our export control system by increasing the penalties

against those who would knowingly violate its regulations and provisions.

This measure would implement one of the key recommendations of the Cox Commission report on protecting our national security interests, and is virtually identical to a provision in H.R. 973, a security assistance bill, which passed the House

in June of last year with strong bipartisan support.

Since the Export Administration Act (EAA) lapsed in August of 1994, the Administration has used the authorities in the International Emergency Economic Powers

Act (IEEPA) to administer our export control system. But in some key areas, the

Administration has less authority under IEEPA than under the EAA of 1979.

For, example, the penalties for violations of the Export Administration Regulations that occur under IEEPA, both criminal and civil, are substantially lower than

those available for violations that occur under the EAA. Even these penalties are

too low, having been eroded by inflation over the past 20 years.

The measure I am introducing today significantly increases the penalties available to our enforcement authorities at the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA)

in the Department of Commerce. It also ensures that the Department can maintain

its ability to protect from public disclosure information concerning export license applications, the licenses themselves and related export enforcement information.

In view of the lapse of the EAA over the past five and one-half years, the Department is coming under mounting legal challenges and is currently defending against

two separate lawsuits seeking public release of export licensing information subject

to the confidentiality provisions of section 12(c) of the EAA.

The measure also authorizes $72 million for fiscal year 2001 for the operation of

the Export Administration Act as continued under the International Emergency

Economic Powers Act.

I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very timely measure that

will provide the authorities our regulators need to deter companies and individuals

from exporting dual-use goods and technologies to countries and uses of concern and

to protect the confidentiality of the export control process.

H.R. 2166, THE BEAR PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

I want to commend Representative Porter, the gentleman from Illinois, for

crafting this important bill. And I want to thank Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and the

Ranking Minority Member of the International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee for their quick action on this bill.

Although the demand for bear parts is virtually non-existent in the U.S., the market is rapidly expanding in Eastern Asia. Bear viscera are widely used as

aphrodisiacs, as traditional medicines to treat everything from epilepsy to toothVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:57 Feb 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\M092100\69717.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
23

aches, and some parts are considered culinary delicacies. As East Asia has already

forced its bear population to the brink of extinction, they are turning to the United

States as a new source for bear viscera. In South Korea, North American bear gall

bladders are sold under-the-counter in small quantities and are worth more, gram

for gram, than cocaine.

H.R. 2166 bans the sale, export, import and possession of bear viscera and would

set civil and criminal penalties for violations. The Bear Protection Act also directs

the United States Trade Representative to make international trafficking in bear

viscera a priority issue in ongoing discussions with our Asian trading partners.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2166.

H. CON. RES. 328, RELATING TO FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN BURMA

I want to commend Congressman Porter, the gentleman from Illinois, for introducing this important piece of legislation. Today Aung San Suu Kyi is attempting

to travel to northern Burma in defiance of the dictatorships ban on her traveling.

She was twice forcefully returned after attempting to travel in Burma. The last attempt was August 24th. She camped out in her car for nine days until the dictatorship forced her back. She was then held incommunicado.

As we speak, she is surrounded by heavily armed soldiers at the train station and

is being prevented from boarding the train.

The U.N. General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission have passed nine

consecutive resolutions regarding the appalling human rights conditions in Burma.

This resolution as amended ensures that the Congress remains on record in support

of this brave woman in Burma.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

On Burma Amendment

I strongly support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. The

Congress needs to remain firmly on the record in support of the continuing sanctions against the repressive illegal government in Burma.

Aung San Suu Kyi and members of Parliament who were elected in 1990 have

not been able to establish a government inside of Burma. Many of her supporters

have been and still are imprisoned. Thousands have been tortured and/or murdered.

The government relies heavily on slave and forced labor for construction projects.

The ILO has even banned it from participating in any ILO meetings.

The government is also deeply involved in the illicit drug trade. It was just reported that Secretary Cohen was in Thailand two days ago and the Thai are asking

for 50 helicopters to fight against the drug trafficking.

The Thai military has estimated that 600 million amphetamine pills flooded Thailand last year from across the 2,000 kilometer (1,240 mile) border with Myanmar.

Thai community leaders have frequently accused Myanmar of destroying Thai

youth, warning that drug addiction was reaching crisis proportions in Thailand,

with more than 600,000 young people reportedly hooked on amphetamines.

In Bangkok Tuesday, Secretary Cohen said, ‘‘We understand now that there is a

serious problem concerning Thailand by virtue of methamphetamine being produced

and distributed from Burma. The drug problem will be high on the agenda of the

commander of the U.S. forces in the Pacific, who is due to visit Thailand next week.’’

Now is certainly not the time to suggest that the Congress is backing down from

its strong support for the sanctions. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

Æ