U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–800 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

MARK-UP ON H. RES. 169, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO DEMOCRACY, FREE

ELECTIONS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE LAO PEOPLE’S

DEMOCRACTIC REPUBLIC; H. CON. RES. 200, EXPRESSING THE

STRONG OPPOSITION OF CONGRESS TO THE MILITARY COUP IN

PAKISTAN AND CALLING FOR A CIVILIAN, DEMOCRATICALLYELECTED GOVERNMENT TO BE RETURNED TO POWER IN PAKISTAN; AND H. CON. RES. 211, EXPRESSING THE STRONG SUPPORT OF THE CONGRESS FOR THE RECENTLY CONCLUDED

ELECTIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND URGING THE

PRESIDENT TO TRAVEL TO INDIA

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

OCTOBER 27, 1999

Serial No. 106–63

Printed for the use of the Committee on 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 P. 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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

PETER T. KING, New York

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina

JOHN MCHUGH, New York

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL GILLMOR, Ohio

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

MATT SALMON, Arizona

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

MICHAEL P. ENNIS, Subcommittee Staff Director

DR. ROBERT KING, Democratic Professional Staff Member

MATT REYNOLDS, Counsel

ALICIA A. O’DONNELL, Staff Associate
(III)

C O N T E N T S

APPENDIX

Page

Prepared Statement:

Hon. Sherrod Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio ..... 41

Hon. Matthew G. Martinez, A Representative in Congress from the State

of California .......................................................................................................... 42

Bills and Amendments:

H. Res. 169 ............................................................................................................... 18

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Res. 169 offered by Mr.

Bereuter ................................................................................................................ 26

H. Con. Res 211 ....................................................................................................... 29

Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Con.

Res. 200 offered by Mr. Bereuter ........................................................................ 31

H. Con. Res 200 ....................................................................................................... 32

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Con. Res. 200 offered by

Mr. Bereuter ......................................................................................................... 37

Additional materials for the Record

Testimony of Philip Smith, Director of the Lao Veterans of America submitted

by Mr. Rohrabacher ............................................................................................. 21
(1)

MARK-UP ON H. RES. 169, H. CON. RES. 200,

AND H. CON. RES. 211

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Doug Bereuter (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BEREUTER. The Subcommittee will come to order. We meet

in session to consider two, possibly three resolutions today. The

first is H. Res. 169, a resolution regarding democracy, free elections

and human rights in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Then,

the Subcommittee will review the H. Con. Res. 211, a resolution introduced by Mr. Ackerman addressing the recent elections in India.

Possibly, if we get things in order, we will consider H. Con. Res.

200, a resolution related to a military coup in Pakistan. I would point out to my Democratic colleagues that all three resolutions have lead Democratic sponsors.

The first order of business will be H. Res. 169 which the clerk

will report H. Res. 169.

The CLERK. H. Res. 169, Expressing the sense of the House of

Representatives with respect to democracy, free elections, and

human rights in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

[The Resolution H. Res 169 appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection for the reading of the resolution will be dispensed with, printed in the record in full, and open

for amendments. The resolution was introduced on May 13, 1999,

by our colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Vento and was referred to

the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

Before we begin the formal process of considering the resolution,

the Chair has a few comments about the resolution. I would then

recognize the Ranking Member or another Member on the minority

side for any comments that they might like to offer about this legislation.

This resolution simply expresses the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to democracy, free elections and human

rights in Laos. The people of Laos, especially the Lao Hmong, continue to experience gross violations of fundamental human rights

at the hands of the communist Lao regime.

House Resolution 169 calls upon the Laotian Government to respect international norms for the protection of human rights and

democratic freedoms, to issue a public statement reaffirming its
2

commitment to protecting religious freedoms and basic human

rights, to fully institute a process of democracy with open, free and

fair elections, and to allow access for international human rights

monitors, including the International Committee of the Red Cross

and Amnesty International, to visit inside Lao prisons and to all

regions within Laos to investigate allegations of human rights

abuses.

The Chair urges approval of H. Res. 169. I will shortly be offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute that has been

agreed upon by the resolution’s author. However, first I call upon

the Ranking Democrat or anyone on the Democratic side since Mr.

Lantos will be a few minutes late.

Is there anyone who would like to speak on the resolution?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Good job, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. Is there further discussion?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would you like me to get this over with right

now?

Mr. BEREUTER. What is it?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is a statement about this, but it is maybe

not essential that Mr. Lantos hear this, so if we are waiting for Mr.

Lantos, I will just——

Mr. BEREUTER. All right. Proceed.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, today as we consider H. Res. 169, expressing the sense of the House with respect

to democracy and, human rights in the Lao People’s Democratic

Republic—boy, that is a mouthful of words there, is not it?—I believe it is absolutely essential for the Subcommittee to be aware of

a troubling recent development in Laos.

I am referring to specifically the cases of Houa Ly and Michael

Vang, American citizens who have been missing in Laos for over

6 months. These two American men disappeared near the border

between Thailand Laos on April 19th and have not been heard

from since. According to American eyewitnesses, they were last

seen under the control of Lao Government authorities.

The evidence I have seen and heard from, including the American eyewitnesses from congressional research missions undertaken

by Chairman Gilman’s staff, from nongovernmental organizations,

and from the families of the two men all convince me that these

men were abducted by the Lao Government.

Families of these two men were here in Washington just 2 weeks

ago and testified before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus

meeting, and they pleaded, their eyes were filled with tears, for us

to help them to find their husbands and their fathers. A State Department investigation conducted cooperatively with that same Lao

Government that seized the men has surprisingly not turned up

anything.

Unbelievably, these American families were forced to file a formal Freedom of Information Act request in order to get the information from the State Department that it already knew about the

circumstances of this situation.

Even as we speak, they continue to wait for information. This is

an unbelievable and inexcusable situation, Mr. Chairman, and it

cannot go on. We have certainly a duty to try to do something

about it.
3

I happen to believe this goes to the heart of how American citizens can expect to be protected by their government. We cannot set

up a two-tier class of protection for American citizens where an

American citizen of a country that is under a dictatorial rule has

the different type of protections or different level of protection than

an American citizen who was born in the United States. These people are citizens and deserve the utmost protection of their government.

Because of these developments I am urging this Committee to

take up H. Res. 332 which condemns the Laotian regime for this

abduction and let me say that perhaps we can work out a situation

where I might be able to put together an amendment for the bill

we are discussing today that could be submitted in Full Committee

that would take care of the Committee taking the official position

on the abduction of American citizens.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Philip Smith appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I am familiar with

this issue and the circumstances, and I have additional information

on that subject which is not generally available. I will make it

available to the gentleman. I also have visited with Mr. Green from

Wisconsin about it. He, I believe, is the Congressman of one of the

two Americans who was abducted, and I know that the gentleman

from Wisconsin would like to move separate legislation if we can

work out some details.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Whichever is best for the Chairman, that

would be fine with me. Separate legislation or an amendment to

this one——

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Green has his preference, and you and I

might talk about that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. I do have an amendment which as I

mentioned has been agreed to and supported to by the lead sponsor, Mr. Vento. The Clerk will report the amendment in the nature

of a substitute.

[The amendment of Mr. Bereuter appears in the appendix.]

The CLERK. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.

Res. 169 offered by Mr. Bereuter, amend the preamble to read as

follows: Whereas since the 1975 overthrow——

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.

The amendment before the Subcommittee incorporates a number

of minor technical revisions that have been raised by the Department of State and other sources. For example, some of the international conventions which Laos has adopted have been listed in

this substitute. The name of the ruling party in Laos has been corrected, and some language providing more specificity to reports of

human rights abuses has been added. I think it strengthens the

resolution in that respect.

Are there comments or is there debate on the proposed amendment in the nature of substitute? The gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. An improvement on an already recognized good

job, Mr. Chairman.
4

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. The question then is on the adoption

of the amendment. Members who are in favor will say aye. Aye.

Members opposed will say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes

do have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Are there further amendments to the resolution? If there are no

further amendments, the question occurs on agreeing to the bill, as

amended.

Members who are in favor will say aye. Aye. Members who are

opposed will say no.

The ayes have it, and the resolution, as amended, is agreed to.

Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical,

grammatical, and conforming changes to the text just agreed to H.

Con. Res. 211.

Mr. BEREUTER. I would like now, unless the Senior Democratic

Member has a concern about timing, to go first to the India resolution if you have no objections.

I want to then reverse the order of the call, and we will take up

H. Con. Res. 211, a resolution regarding the election in India. This

is House Con. Res. 211. The Clerk will read.

The CLERK. House Con. Res. 211, Expressing the strong support

of the Congress for the recently concluded elections in the Republic

of India and urging the President to travel to India, whereas the

republic of India is a long-standing parliamentary——

[The Resolution H. Con. Res. 211 appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the reading of the bill will be

dispensed with, printed in the record in full, and open for amendment.

H. Con. Res. 211 was just introduced by our Subcommittee colleague, Mr. Ackerman. Over 350 million Indians voted in a lengthy

five-phase election process that lasted from early September until

early October. It resulted in the return of the BJP coalition to

power with 303 of the 543 seats in the Parliament.

Thus, Prime Minister Vajpayee returns at the helm of a large

and more reliable coalition. There are many things one could say

about democracy in India. It is raucous. It is loud. It is sometimes

violent. It is uniquely Indian.

A recent survey in The Economist revealed these interesting and

impressive statistics: 63 percent of Indians believe their vote matters; 22 percent of Indians actually participate in political rallies or

in election meetings before the election; and faith and democracy

seems to be strongest in the lower economic classes which are more

likely to vote than the upper economic class Indians.

Certainly India deserves accommodation for the way it conducted

its elections. It is a major logistical undertaking. We look forward

to working with the new government, and I have personally wished

it well as it tackles the enormous task before it.

I would like now to call upon the author of the resolution for

comments that he would like to make to explain the resolution.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you

and your staff and the Subcommittee for working with me in considering our resolution this afternoon. I want to thank Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Lantos as well, for cosponsoring the resolution.

The resolution, Mr. Chairman, recognizes the Indian peoples

abiding commitment to democracy and salutes them for the passion
5

with which they choose their own destiny. No country reflects our

own values more in that part of the world than does India. It is

high time we seriously begin to recognize this fact and graduate

from the mere platitudes to some tangible policy changes toward

this government.

I believe that it is time to reexamine our basic premise regarding

U.S.-India policy in South Asia. We should abandon the old paradigms and cold war hang-ups and see that India, the democracy,

is our natural ally in the region. The best way to demonstrate our

commitment to the people of India is by insuring that the President

travels to India as soon as possible and I want to thank you very

much, again, for scheduling this in such a prompt fashion, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman, for your initiative.

Are there other members who would like to comment upon the resolution before us?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Just briefly, I want to commend the Committee

for taking this up. All too often we fail to recognize that India, the

most populous democracy in the world, has done such a spectacular

job in maintaining its democratic institutions.

As someone raised in Connecticut, I have great pride that Ambassador Chester Bowles, in two terms in India, really helped develop a solid relationship between India and the United States and

while oftentimes it is the relationship between India and Pakistan

and China that is America’s focus, the relationship directly between India and the United States, both politically and economically, is one of the most important relationships I think we have

and when you take a look at India with almost a quarter of a billion middle class well-educated and very talented people, and large

work force available, it is, I think, both potentially our greatest economic opportunity and our greatest economic competitor. It is important for us to focus on that relationship for all those reasons

and I commend the Committee for taking this up today.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Are there further

comments about the resolution before us? Mr. Rohrabacher?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think it is a good resolution and I would

just say that India is certainly now in a position to become one of

America’s great friends and this was not—however, I would differ

with Mr. Ackerman’s assessment in past history. Our complaints

against India in the past were not cold war hang-ups.

India voted against us consistently in the United Nations and

was everything but an ally of the Soviet Union during the cold war.

However, the cold war is over, and, as far as I can see, the stability

that is reflected in these elections should be commended by this

Congress. The fact is they have had tremendous progress in India,

and India has shed some of its past socialist beliefs, I believe that

hindered India’s economic progress and today. The Indian economy

is doing much better and has much greater potential than it did.

I would think it would be much better for American business interests to look at India, the stability there, the democracy there,

and the fundamental institutions that are at play than to look at
6

Communist China as a place to put their money and put their investment.

All countries will be competitors in a world marketplace. However, India offers a great opportunity for America to become better

involved and if we can get over this darn Kashmir issue, which I

think is the heart of the problem that creates this problem in

South Asia, I think that we would find that India would become

a very great friend of the United States and a true friend of democracy. We could even further our relationship more than what we

have had in the past and more than where we are right now. And

so I think this is a good resolution, and it is a good step. We should

recognize progress they have had there.

Will the Chairman yield? I would like to yield to Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Sure, I would be happy to.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman for his general concurrence with my point of view which proves only that even when we

agree we can quibble. I do not believe that India has ever voted

against us in the United Nations. I do not believe there has ever

been a vote in the United Nations for us or against us for India

to have participated in one way or the other. As a matter of fact,

at least 75 percent of the work that the U.N. does is arrived at by

consensus which means India as well as everybody else agrees.

There are some procedural votes, of course, by which we find India,

as well as others, who do vote differently than we do. That does

not mean that they are against us. And it does not mean that we

are against them. Certainly, democracies have a right to see and

view things in different ways.

As far as holding on to the remnants of some socialist views, that

is the choice of any democracy including some great friends such

as Great Britain and such as Israel as well as others. Being a democracy does not mean that you have to mirror everything we in

the United States do and to exactly parrot the American line. We

have some great democracies in this world which come to their

basic principles and beliefs the same as we do by natural and honest means.

And I do thank the gentlemen for his support and agreement and

look forward to working with the rest of the Committee as we move

forward on this.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Rohrabacher.

Is there anyone who would make further comments? If not, we will

move to the mandatory process.

Are there amendments to the resolution? If there are no further

amendments, the question occurs on agreeing to the resolution, as

amended.

Members in favor will say aye. Aye. Members opposed will say

no.

The ayes have it. Resolution is agreed to. As the resolution is

agreed to, I thank the gentleman for working with us so carefully

on this issue so that we can try to maintain positive and improving

relationships with India and so that we are balanced in our approach.

Without objection, the staff director is authorized to make technical, grammatical, and conforming changes to the text just agreed

to H. Con. Res. 211
7

Mr. BEREUTER. The third and final order of business is H. Con.

Res. 200, a resolution related to the military coup in Pakistan. The

Clerk will read.

The CLERK. H. Con. Res. 200 Expressing strong opposition to the

military coup in Pakistan and calling for a civilian, democratically

elected government to be returned to power in Pakistan.

[The H. Con. Res 200 appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection further reading of the bill will

be dispensed with, printed in the record in full and open for

amendment.

H. Con. Res. 200 was introduced on October 19, 1999, by our colleague, Mr. Gejdenson. Last week, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the military coup in Pakistan, and I think there is no need

to go into great detail in light of that hearing and of all of the attention to this matter and the press. Members, of course, are free

to discuss this in our discussion period.

Certainly, the civilian government of Prime Minister Nawaz

Sharif had great difficulties, but it is entirely appropriate to express at least serious concern about the military intervention. It is

fair to note that military commanders who seized power for the

good of the state are rarely successful in restoring order, and oftentimes they end up, unfortunately, having some of the same problems of corruption as the elected government they replaced. We

hope that is not the case, and I personally hope that the transition

back to elected leadership will be rapid.

The U.S. can and should want to do everything it can to seek a

restoration of civilian rule as soon as possible and urge the military

leaders to set a time table for that civilian restoration. At the appropriate time the Chair will offer an amendment in the nature of

a substitute that has been agreed upon by the resolution’s author,

but first I turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, and as he is

not here, I would turn to the author of the resolution, the Ranking

Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the traps I

think people fall into occasionally is that they simply write-off certain countries as opportunities for democracy. I remember as a student visiting friends in Spain at the University who told me that

Spain was a country where the people just could not really have

a democratic society. They have obviously, and thankfully, been

proven wrong as in many of the other former non-democratic countries throughout Europe and Latin America.

It is with great dismay that I introduce this resolution on Pakistan because I think that while democracy in Pakistan has been in

a state of struggle for some time, having it snuffed out by military

coup is not the way to improve democratic institutions.

Two weeks ago, the cause of democracy in Pakistan did suffer a

mortal blow when the military regime replaced the democraticallyelected government. I think to say the democratic government may

have had problems is an assessment you can make of many governments, but clearly the solution for democratic governments with

problems is more democracy, not the end of democracy. One of the

times we saw a military replace one of the democratic regimes they

ended up staying for 14-years.
8

Democracy is built by a pattern of repetition. It is built by a

process of transparency, the rule of law, respect for human rights,

and the will of the people. And it is a sad irony that the President

just yesterday signed the Defense Appropriation bill which gives

them the authority to waive sanctions against India and Pakistan

and that we are today marking up a resolution asking him not to

waive at least the military aspects of these sanctions against Pakistan.

But that is exactly what we are doing and we are doing it because if we, the strongest democracy in the world, do not speak out

for democratic institutions, other countries will think it appropriate

to remove democratic governments when it becomes inconvenient

or problematic.

History has proven to us that democratic societies are inherently

more stable, ultimately more prosperous, and inevitably respect

both their own citizens and neighboring citizens’ human rights.

Stability and prosperity are two things that Pakistan desperately

needs. I would call on the generals in charge of Pakistan today to

quickly return to democratic institutions, and until then, we should

not have any military assistance or sales to Pakistan.

I want to join with my colleagues, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Ackerman,

Mr. Gillmor, and another distinguished Member, Mr. Pallone from

New Jersey, for co-sponsoring the resolution. I appreciate the time

the Chairman has given me. There are responsibilities that bring

me back to the House at this point, but I want to thank the Chairman for marking this bill up.

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman understands that I will have an

amendment to the substitute.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Well, the gentleman from Connecticut would

prefer his original language. If we had wanted other language, I

guess we would have drafted it that way. I appreciate the Chairman marking up the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. I understand.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And I, at least, will not lead an effort, not being

a member of the Subcommittee, to stop the Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. All right. I did not want to do anything without

the gentleman understanding that I will offer an amendment.

Thank you. The substitutes I am about to offer has a concurrence

of Mr. Gejdenson.

Before we turn to that, however, there are other Members who

may like to make opening comments—Mr. Cooksey and then Mr.

Ackerman.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am concerned

about the loss of democracy in Pakistan. Pakistan had been an ally

of ours for many years during the cold war at a critical time and

at a critical place geographically when the threat was the Soviet

Union.

I could not help but notice that one of the justifications for doing

this deed that they did when they overthrew the government was

that they had some problems in this emerging democracy with corruption and dishonesty among the politicians.

The same thing that is going on in Russia right now, which is

also an emerging democracy, we had some very heated discussions

the last 2 weeks about Russia. And the same thing that goes on
9

in a lot of places where you have a high illiteracy and do not seem

to have people that are really committed to honesty and integrity

in government.

And that occurs in the United States. There was a Governor of

Arkansas who had to resign last year for some problems like this.

We have a Governor in my home state of Louisiana that is under

multiple indictments and is going to trial in January. But the difference is that we have the rule of law in our country, and when

people are guilty of corruption, there is a process to take them

through. Hopefully that gets them out of office and out of government. That process works.

Unfortunately, the military in Pakistan chose to overthrow the

government which I think cannot work and will not work in this

information age, in this period of globalization. I think it is a mistake. That said, though, I was struck by an article that was in the

New York Times yesterday. The brother of the new military leader,

of Pakistan is a physician in Chicago and he was very assuring

that his brother is not an overbearing, mindless, military dictator.

But still, we have got to be committed to the rule of law and to

democracy because in this day and era, those people will not survive.

So I am concerned about Pakistan. I think they should be—the

leaders should be chastised for overthrowing democracy, but I am

not ready to throw them out and throw caution to the wind, but

tell them that they have got to move back to democracy very quickly and they have got to do the things that will make that country

work and then get some people in government and if they do not

perform, go through the processes that we use where they have a

judiciary system to handle crooked politicians that occur in so

many other countries and this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Dr. Cooksey, thank you very much.

Mr. Ackerman?

Mr. ACKERMAN. I chuckle, Mr. Chairman. You will see the General running for election with posters that say, ‘‘Endorsed by my

brother in America.’’ I ask unanimous consent to put the opening

statement of Congressman Brown in the record after the statements by Members who are here personally making their statements.

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend you and the

staff of the Subcommittee for the very cooperative manner in which

you have been conducting the affairs of the panel, and it does not

go unnoticed that the resolutions today are principally sponsored

by Democrats and that all of us on the Committee feel comfortable

enough to commingle on the dias rather than sit on opposite sides.

I think it is a substantive rather than just symbolic.

Let me also commend Mr. Gejdenson for introducing the resolution and my colleague on the Subcommittee, Mr. Lantos, for his

leadership as well on this measure.

Mr. Chairman, the resolution is a manifestation of the deep anguish many of us feel at the most unfortunate turn of events in

Pakistan. As the winds of democracy are sweeping through much
10

of the developing world, the men in uniform have chosen to abort

democracy in that country with the barrel of a gun. This strangling

of democratic principles and values is unacceptable to the international community and this murder of democracy must be reversed.

I strongly believe that the Administration will be making a great

mistake if, in any way, it initiates measures to accommodate the

military rule simply by citing the supercilious argument that there

is no alternative in sight.

The Pakistani people’s wishes, their democratic wishes, are the

real solution. Notwithstanding General Pervez Musharraf’s moderate words, we should not be lulled into thinking that this will be

a moderate government. After all, he has suspended the constitution and the elected national and provincial assemblies. He has dismissed the government, and he has declared a state of emergency.

He is also the author of Pakistan’s ill-fated invasion of India last

summer.

I am concerned, as is the Administration, over what we did not

hear from General Musharraf. We did not hear a clear time table

for new elections and the reestablishment of democratic government. We call upon the Pakistani rulers to immediately announce

a timetable for the restoration of democracy.

I believe that we must remain engaged with Pakistan, but that

we should do so on the side of the Pakistani people. We must identify and support democratic elements within Pakistan so that the

people of Pakistan can enjoy once again their democratic rights.

The people of Pakistan are not celebrating the demise of democracy. They are at best celebrating the demise of an allegedly corrupt government.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, the demise of democracy which I

think all of us hope is only temporary, spells danger to the whole

of South Asia. I am especially concerned that the military rulers

of Pakistan may turn out to be as reckless as they have proved to

be in aborting democracy in their nation, in their dealings with

their neighboring democracy, India.

I strongly support Secretary Albright’s call yesterday that Pakistan should build confidence with India, pull back its forces from

the line of control in Kashmir.

I also urge the Pakistani regime to cutoff its relations with the

Taliban regime in Afghanistan. No regime in Pakistan should have

anything to do with the medieval forces of the Taliban.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you for your leadership in

bringing this resolution up today.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Ackerman. Are there

other Members who wish to be recognized? Gentleman from California.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, as I reminded the Full Committee at a

hearing last week, what is happening in Pakistan has been predicted for a number of years. I personally predicted it time and

again saying that if we did not do something about Afghanistan

that it would bring democracy down in Pakistan. I do not know

how many times I have expressed that, and the chickens are coming home to roost in terms of the policy by the U.S. Government

that led to this very situation.
11

I support the resolution. I support the underlying resolution. I

support the changes the Chairman will propose.

We need to express our strong support of democratic government,

especially in situations like this in South Asia where there is such

great instability. Unfortunately, this Administration has back policies that have led to greater instability and now led to this destruction of democracy.

The drug money alone in Afghanistan is enough to destabilize

the whole region, and that is what is happening. Last year, the

opium production in Afghanistan doubled, according to the United

Nations. That places billions of dollars in the hands of evil people

in this very poor part of the world. Is there any doubt why democracy was then corrupted in Pakistan? Yet, for years, we have had

a policy by the U.S. Government, at the very least it was acquiescing to this Taliban dictatorship, and this is not even bringing

up, of course, the atrocities they commit on women and their own

people.

Yes, we need to call for democracy in Pakistan, but we also need

to be courageous enough—and moral enough—to back positive

forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere and to support policies that

will strengthen democracy’s chances in countries like Pakistan.

And let me just say this in terms about the resolution itself. By

the way, let me put on the record we are looking forward, and yet

to be contacted by the State Department about the next batch of

documents that will underscore or disprove the charges of America’s policy toward the Taliban. We are foot-dragging.

But in terms of the underlying legislation we are talking about

today, we need to come out forthright for democracy. I was already

contacted, of course, by the representatives of the current regime

in Pakistan. They have all these great things that they want to do

and perhaps they are well motivated. Perhaps the general’s brother

really does feel that he is doing good things for his country, and

I think that he may well be highly motivated.

As the Chairman noted, rarely do we see the elimination of

democratic institutions and then find a positive result at the end.

So it is imperative if this General in charge of the government in

Pakistan now wants reform, it is imperative that he gets the support of the people in doing that reform.

If he does not go to the people directly with a referendum and

ask the people to have a thumb’s up or a thumb’s down vote on

whether or not he can conduct those reforms, he should be treated

no differently than any other gangster who has taken over a country with guns. If he has some kind of a referendum that indicates

the people of Pakistan wanted this type of intervention or to clean

up a very desperate situation of corruption and chaos in their society, well then, we should take a second look.

But until that referendum, this general is nothing more than a

clique of people with guns who have assumed power over a democratically elected government and deserve this type of criticism and

this condemnation. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Are there further comments?

The gentleman from California, Mr. Martinez.
12

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, I do not know that I entirely agree with my

colleague or not, but I do not entirely disagree with him, as far as

policies, but I would not blame it all on the present Administration.

The fact is that for years and years we have been dancing with dictators and supporting governments that were corrupt and governments that were not really democracies. Some that claimed they

were democracies, but were not really democracies.

If you think Mexico, where one party has ruled for all the years

and named every President years before he becomes President, has

the answer to democracy, then I will eat your hat. But the fact is

that even in Central and South America that have been so close

to us, when we ruled so Central American countries and we had

people occupying them from our military here, we did not leave democracies when we left. We handpicked strong men that were

going to protect our interests there. We did not leave democracies.

We left dictatorships. I do not know how we can reconcile that.

But in this particular situation here, the general might be wanting to do some good here and is talking about coming to a democratic election eventually, but he took over a government that we

were supporting that was absolutely corrupt and we have done that

in the past. You know, Batista’s government was an absolute, corrupt government.

In Nicaragua, it was actually a corrupt government and we supported him. Why do you think they were overthrown? Because the

people finally got fed up of being oppressed and denied human

rights and everything else and being political prisoners, so they

rose up. And when they rose up, do you think they were friend

with us? No, because we supported the governments that were in

power at the time they were abusing them and the same thing goes

here.

There is a lot of corruption in this past government and now

somebody has stepped up in a copy. I do not abide by a coup and

I do not think that people should live under a military dictatorship,

but the fact is that in this instance it may turn out to do some

good, if it cleans up the corruption.

I say there are other governments that we ought to be more interested in whether we support them or not and what kind of a

way they are running their government, not just because they call

themselves a democracy, but whatever they calls themselves, because it is not always true. A lot of times they are calling themselves a democracy, and it is a misnomer. But regardless, I think

if this resolution is decrying a military takeover, I think we ought

to do that.

I remember before in that little country of Grenada where Bishop

came up here trying to meet with the Administration or anybody

that would listen to him because he wanted to develop some relationships and try to help his country develop their economy and

they refused to meet with him because why? He leaned left. That

was the explanation. He leaned left.

Well, he went back and because he could not get anywhere here,

there was a military coup that upset him and killed him, in fact,

then that was really a left leaning government, worse than what

we had before. Our students were in danger and everything else.

We have seemed to botch everything up because we do not under-
13

stand other countries, what is really right for them and their country, and what really governments are like in those countries. We

support the wrong government.

But I would hope that in this case all we are doing is decrying

the fact that there was a military coup and that is not the way to

take over a country or run a country, but that we at least give

them a chance in this process to maybe move back toward democracy and sometimes our statements are so strong we paint people

into a corner and just out of self-pride of their country, they are

going to refuse to knuckle under to us. So I hope we are doing this

in a diplomatic way, a more diplomatic way than we have ever

done before.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida, Mr.

Wexler.

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully ask that

I be recorded in the affirmative in the first two votes. Mr Martinez

may want the same.

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, without objection.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I have a written statement I would like submitted

for the record.

Mr. BEREUTER. For this resolution?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, that will be the order.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. We will see if it is possible for us to complete our

work. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute which the

Clerk will read.

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Con.

Res.——

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.

[The amendment of Mr. Bereuter appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. This substitute makes only two changes, with the

concurrence of Mr. Gejdenson. It strikes the prohibition against

IMET. It calls upon the President to withhold consideration of

arms or equipment or provision of military services until the government is reinstated. That remains in the resolution even though

a waiver is in the DOD bill, as pointed out, which the President

has signed in the last several days.

I believe the IMET program gives us good results. It is one of the

few vehicles we have to help influence the next generation of military leaders of, in this case, Pakistan.

Currently, the total number of noncommissioned and commissioned Pakistani officers that are being trained in the United

States or being trained by the U.S. elsewhere is a grand total of

two. They are two mid-level officers. I would hate to see that small

number changed. The gentleman from Connecticut agrees with the

changes and so that is the entire nature of this substitute amendment’s content.

Is there discussion?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I frankly——

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman from California.
14

Mr. ROHRABACHER—[continuing]. I frankly am going to vote

against this. I do not think that we should be giving any leeway

to any regime to any regime that overthrows a democratic government, military regime period. So I will vote against this.

Mr. BEREUTER. Is there further discussion?

All those in favor of the amendment in the nature of a substitute

will say aye. Those who are opposed will say no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The amendment

is agreed to.

I have a further amendment which I would like to have distributed and, while we are doing that, I would say to Mr. Ackerman

in light of what you said a few minutes ago, if all of my colleagues

would turn to page 4.

[The amendment of Mr. Bereuter appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman is talking about the time table.

That strikes me as a good idea, and I just had drafted in handwritten form to apply that to subsection 4 on page 4. We may not

have time to get to that, but it might be something we could consider doing in Full Committee. For example, in line 12 of page 4

after the word ‘‘the’’ insert ‘‘immediate release of a time table for

the’’. It will go under restoration of democracy and the rule of law.

Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the staff be able

to insert this if the amendment successfully passes through the

Committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Is there an objection? Hearing none, that will be

the order.

The amendment I have before you makes a couple of changes.

Very frankly, it is suggested and requested by a Member of the

Full Committee. I happen to agree that it is appropriate. Mr.

Gejdenson would prefer not to change it. You heard him express

that. I think I could very succinctly tell you that basically where

you find the word ‘‘opposition’’ expresses, in fact, the word ‘‘concern’’ is expressed on two different locations, perhaps three. Where

it calls for the immediate restoration of a civilian democratically

led government, the amendment simply says ‘‘rapid’’ since I think

‘‘immediate’’ is really out of the question. That is the nature of the

amendment.

I think it reflects reality, the loss of civilian control in Pakistan

was a complicated matter. Restoration to civilian control is going

to be complicated as well. I think we have every right to call for

a time table which we have just done. That is the purpose of the

amendment that I offer and have before you. Is there a discussion?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote against

this. I understand the practical nature. I do not think we should

give any leeway to a group which staged military overthrow of a

democratically-elected government. If this regime moves forward

and gets some sort of plebiscite or referendum indicating that they

were operating with the will of the people, well, that is something

else again. But until that time we will have to treat this regime

in Pakistan like any other dictatorship that has overthrown a

democratically elected government. So I oppose softening it.

Mr. BEREUTER. I agree with the gentleman’s sentiment, and I do

not believe that the amendment I am offering, in fact, sends any
15

positive messages to the Pakistanis. It is certainly not my intent.

I do not, however, think you can ask for immediate restoration.

Rapid is certainly possible and especially if you combine it with the

time table which we are now doing.

Is there further discussion?

Hearing none, then the vote is on the amendment to the substitute.

All those in favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. The

ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it.

Are there further amendments to the resolution? If there are no

further amendments, the question occurs on agreeing to the resolution, as amended, as the Members in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no.

The ayes appear to have it and the resolution, as amended, is

agreed to without objection. The staff director is authorized to

make technical, grammatical and conforming changes to the text

just agreed to.

I want to thank all of my colleagues in attendance at the markup today, and the staff for their assistance on both sides of the

aisle. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(17)

A P P E N D I X

OCTOBER 27, 1999
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42