U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64–098 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

MARKUP OF H.R. 1152, SILK ROAD STRATEGY

ACT

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, July 22, 1999

Serial No. 106–95

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 RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel

MARILYN C. OWEN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES

Page

Markup of H.R. 1152, The Silk Road Strategy Act, to amend the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961 to target assistance to support the economic and

political independence of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central

Asia ........................................................................................................................ 1

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman a Representative in Congress from New

York and Chairman, Committee on International Relations ........................... 18

The Honorable Doug Bereuter, a Representative in Congress from Nebraska .. 19

Bills and Amendments:

H.R. 1152 .................................................................................................................. 22

1. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Bereuter ........................................... 39

2. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Berman ............................................ 40

3. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Bereuter (on behalf of Mr. Burr) ... 41

4a. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher .................................. 42

4b. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher .................................. 42

5. Amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment (4b), offered by Mr. Bereuter .. 43

(1)

MARKUP OF H.R. 1152, SILK ROAD STRATEGY

ACT

Thursday, July 22, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m. in Room

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

(Chairman of the Committee) Presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee on International Relations

meets today in open session pursuant to notice to consider H.R.

1152. Let me give notice that we will also, by arrangement with

the Minority, be taking up a unanimous consent request relative to

the bill we handled yesterday, and I do want to express once again

my thanks to all of our Members for their extreme cooperation in

the effort that led us to the passage of H.R. 2415 yesterday. We

really appreciate that.

We will now consider the Silk Road Strategy Act. The Chair lays

the bill before the Committee. Clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘H.R. 1152, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance

Act of 1961 to target assistance to support the economic and political independence of the South Caucasus and Central Asia.’’

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

will be dispensed with.

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——’’

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

is dispensed with.

Chairman GILMAN. This bill was considered by the Subcommittee

on Asia and the Pacific and ordered favorably reported without

amendment on June 23rd. Without objection, the bill will be considered as having been read for amendment. It is open to amendment at any point.

I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, the Vice Chairman of our

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the distinguished gentleman

from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter for five minutes to introduce the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent that I may be able to yield the first part of my time

to Mr. Radanovich, who has an appointment he needs to get to

promptly, and so without objection I would ask that he be able to

proceed.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

2

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr. Bereuter my thanks as well not only for being able to speak, but also for

your leadership in crafting this legislation and bringing it before

the Committee for our consideration. I share your understanding of

the importance of promoting greater regional cooperation, supporting increased economic integration and facilitating the free flow

of transportation and communication among the states of the

Caucasus in Central Asia. I very much appreciate your efforts to

advance U.S. National interests, particularly in helping to create

opportunities for U.S. businesses, while also making sure that we

promote American values in the region. Among these values, of

course, are supporting the independence of these newly independent states such as Armenia, encouraging durable political reforms and assisting in the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

I would like to stress how important it is for this legislation and

more broadly for all of our diplomatic efforts in the region to encourage progress where we see it, but also to ensure that we do not

reward governments that create obstacles to regional cooperation,

reject negotiated settlements in favor of border closures and aggression, and stand in the way of genuine political and economic

reform. Those who create barriers to progress, who block communications and reject peace should not be rewarded by U.S. tax dollars.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. I appreciate

it very much.

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for

his statement and his support, and would continue by saying that

this legislation was introduced on March 17th of this year by this

Member along with the distinguished Ranking Member Democrat

of the Subcommittee, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Berman and Mr. Pitts.

It is cosponsored now by Subcommittee Members Ackerman, King

and Faleomavaega. It was approved by voice vote on the Subcommittee level, which has policy jurisdiction over only the Central

Asia Republics area of the bill, and that was done on June 23rd.

When the breakup of the former Soviet Union occurred in 1991,

Russia became the overwhelming focus of U.S. attention. Of course,

Russia is the heir of the vast Soviet nuclear arsenal, its military

might. Russia also retains the Soviet permanent seat on the U.N.

Security Council and membership in a secondary way on the G–8.

If the post-Soviet era was to be peaceful, we had to get along with

Moscow. Thus it is perhaps not surprising that U.S. attention, including the Freedom Support Act, was overwhelmingly directed at

Russia.

However, the breakup of the former Soviet Union resulted, as we

know, in the creation of 15 countries. A few countries, the Baltic

nations and Ukraine, receive special attention either in the Freedom Support Act or the Seed Act, which addressed Eastern Europe.

However, the Caucasus and the Central Asia Republics received

scant attention. This area includes Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan,

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and

Tajikistan. These eight countries have a total population of some

75 million and are strategically located at the geographic nexus of

Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Turkey. At least six of these

countries are secular Islamic states which have in the main reVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:33 May 09, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64098.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
3

jected efforts to foster expanded Islamic fundamentalism. They

seek closer relations with the West, and they look to the United

States for leadership and guidance on a host of international

issues. Importantly, these Islamic states also seek close relations

with long-standing U.S.-friendly countries in the region like Israel

and Turkey.

I believe Mr. Berman will have an amendment at the proper

time recognizing the relationship with Israel.

It is important to note that there is much at stake for our national security. These are frontline states in the effort to combat

anti-Western extremism. The nations of the region are cooperating

on important issues such as counterterrorism, counternarcotics and

combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In addition

to vast oil and natural gas wealth, the region offers the West a

supplementary source of oil to avoid a predominant reliance on

Persian Gulf oil. In short, this is a region that is rich with potential

resource opportunities and also potential instability.

H.R. 1152 seeks to provide policy direction to U.S. policy in the

Central Asian Republics and the Caucasus region. It outlines what

our foreign policy and foreign aid priorities should be and what

might be the reward for continued cooperation with the United

States, and it also stipulates what actions would result in a termination of assistance.

I will tell my colleagues that H.R. 1152 does not authorize new

money, but merely directs funding already provided to these eight

countries emerging from the former Soviet Union.

I would also tell my colleagues that this legislation very intentionally does not address the difficult question of Section 907 of the

Foreign Assistance Act, the prohibition of assistance in Azerbaijan.

That is a conscious decision by this Member with the support of

Chairman Gilman. Frankly, this is too divisive an issue, so it is to

be avoided to make way for the progress which can spring from

this legislation. The elements of the legislation are simply too important to allow it to be sidetracked because of a Section 907 controversy.

I want to express my appreciation for the interest and support

of the Subcommittee’s Ranking Democrat, the distinguished gentleman from California, and to the other Members on both sides of

the aisle for cosponsoring this legislation. Finally, I also want to

thank the Chairman for scheduling the markup of this legislation

today. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. I would like to commend Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Berman, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Lantos, and others who are

involved in this effort. It is clear that as Prime Minister Barak referenced his own area of the world, this is also a dangerous part of

the world. It is an area where a number of the countries in the region are involved in destabilizing activities, and so it is particularly

important that we put our focus on this area. So much of our focus

has been on the former Soviet bloc countries and parts of the Soviet Union that were closer to central Europe where actually there

is much more of a force for progress, democracy, human rights and

economic development. So it is very appropriate that we focus on

4

this region, especially when we look at the difficult neighbors in

the region, Iran, Afghanistan, and China. There are some very

tough issues that need to be addressed, and I would again commend Mr. Bereuter for his efforts on this legislation. It is a very

appropriate thing to do.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. We are just on general discussion on the

measure.

I support the intent of the measure before us today, the Silk

Road Strategy Act of 1999, sponsored by our colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. The Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,

which he chairs, has jurisdiction over the countries of Central Asia.

The countries of the Caucasus region also covered by the bill deserve to be a specific focus of our policy and our assistance in the

region in the former Soviet Union. This bill relating to all eight

countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus attempts to ensure the

implementation of that specific focus. While it creates a new chapter 12 of the Foreign Assistance Act to provide that focus, however,

it cites the ongoing authority of chapter 11 of the Freedom Support

Act of 1992.

With regard to those countries, and I think that this is important, given the key work done by the Office of the State Department Coordinator of Assistance that was created by the 1992 act,

this act will ensure that coordinating function continues through

all of the new independent states of the former Soviet Union. It

should ensure an added specific focus on the states of Central Asia

and the Caucasus. Accordingly, I support the measure, and Mr. Bereuter is recognized for his amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I was going to

offer is also offered by Mr. Burton, and I would let him offer it for

several of us.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I offer

this amendment with Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Lantos, you, Mr. Gilman,

and Mr. Gejdenson. I feel that this amendment is extremely important, this legislation which is authored by my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton, if you will yield a moment, the

clerk will report.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘The amendment offered by Mr. Burton, page 13,

line 16, strike ‘or’; page 13, line 21, strike the last period and insert

‘or’; page 13, after line 21, add the following: ‘(5) has not made significant progress toward resolving trade disputes.’.’’

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read and is open for discussion.

Chairman GILMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burton for five

minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. As I said, this legislation offered by my good friend from Nebraska seeks to promote

free market policies in the new republics of Central Asia and the

Caucasus, and it will encourage foreign investment, increase trade

and other forms of commercial ties between the countries of these

5

regions and the rest of the world. These are very praiseworthy objectives, and legislation expressing U.S. support for the fledgling

democracies of the Silk Road region deserves priority attention.

Consequently, I support the goals of H.R. 1152, the Silk Road

Strategy Act of 1999.

At the same time, and Mr. Bereuter and the others agree, however, many companies from OECD countries including the U.S.,

with substantial direct investments in several of the Silk Road

countries, are not being accorded fair treatment. Investment contracts are not being honored. Export permits are not being issued,

and de facto nationalizations of foreign investment have occurred.

In several instances, formal complaints have been lodged by investors through U.S. and other embassies in the region. Yet H.R. 1152

is, but won’t be in the future, silent on the need to protect U.S. and

other foreign investment.

I am concerned or was concerned that without specific language

conditioning U.S. assistance on the fair treatment of foreign investors, adoption of the Silk Road Bill could cause the beneficiary governments to conclude that they have a green light to renege on

commitments to foreign investors, thus jeopardizing hundreds of

millions of dollars of investments.

Legislation in support of the Silk Road countries should not be

passed at any cost, and care should be taken to ensure that the legislation does not do more harm than good. Accordingly, I believe

that the various types of U.S. assistance that would be authorized

in the Silk Road bill should be conditioned on the progress that a

recipient country is making in resolving existing investment and

other trade disputes. This amendment does this, and this amendment would make a Silk Road country ineligible for assistance if

the President determines such country has not made significant

progress toward resolving trade disputes registered with and raised

by the U.S. embassy in such countries.

This language is very similar to the provision authored by Congressman Ron Packard in the fiscal year 1998 Foreign Operations

Appropriations bill regarding the Ukraine, and it got results.

I am sure that my colleagues would agree that investments in

the Silk Road region should be protected, and the commitments

made by companies, by Silk Road governments must be honored.

I therefore I appreciate the Committee supporting this amendment,

and this amendment in no way undercuts the thrust of the underlying bill. In fact, I believe that this amendment adds to the value

of this very important statement of policy toward the important

countries of the Silk Road region, and I congratulate Mr. Bereuter

for this bill.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement with some examples of problems in the past, and I would ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the record at this point.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just extend

by saying I appreciate Mr. Burton’s interest and his effort on this,

along with the leadership of the Subcommittee and the Committee

6

on both sides of the aisle. The only consideration I had about language on this was whether or not it should be ‘‘significant progress’’

or ‘‘substantial effort,’’ and the gentleman correctly points out that

this is exactly the language used by Mr. Packard in a previous appropriation bill. Since there is a Presidential waiver here on this

legislation where there was not in that one, I think this is entirely

appropriate. I commend my colleagues and many people who have

helped us on this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support the

Burton, et al., amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

On the amendment, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I would like to congratulate Mr. Burton

on his amendment. I have two amendments, and one touches on

this area, although it is still necessary, but I would be very supportive of Mr. Burton’s amendment.

There are American businessmen who have invested in this part

of the world, and frankly a lot of the leaders in this part of the

world do not understand how to deal with business. They have

been under the Communist system so long, and they feel they can

get away with the same type of heavy-handed approach they have

gotten away with with their own people. Mr. Burton’s amendment

will give them a message, especially concerning American businessmen.

For example, I have heard of a deal in Kazakhstan where millions of dollars were invested by an American company into a uranium project. The Government of Kazakhstan just arrogantly

pushed them aside and put them in a situation to lose their investment, and this can’t be tolerated. We have to let people know that

if they expect to have good relations with the United States, they

can’t just treat American businessmen as if their investments in

that country can be basically stolen. We are talking about when

you renege on an agreement, you are stealing from somebody because somebody has invested money with an understanding.

So I would hope that Mr. Burton’s amendment passes, and I

hope we are sending a message to Kazakhstan and others that they

can’t treat people this way.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Anyone else

want to be heard on the amendment?

I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana

which addresses an important issue, as I understand, as a result

of consultation by its sponsor and Mr. Bereuter, who also has an

interest in the issue of business disputes in Central Asia involving

American businesses.

Any other Members seeking recognition on the amendment?

The question then is on the Burton amendment. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.

Opposed.

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Clerk will read the amendment.

Which amendment, Mr. Berman?

Mr. BERMAN. Do I have more than one?

7

Chairman GILMAN. Apparently you do.

Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Berman. Page 17, insert the following new section after line 5, section, U.S.-Israel Economic Development Cooperation in the South Caucasus and Central Asia.’’

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the

amendment be considered as read.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as read.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, is recognized for five minutes in support of his

amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply expresses the sense of Congress that we should continue our partnership with Israel on valuable economic development programs in Central Asia and the Caucasus. At the present

time a modest amount of assistance is being provided to the Israeli

MASHAV, a part of their Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the Cooperative Development Program, (CDP). This program has allowed

the Israelis to share their expertise in agriculture, rural development, health and other areas with developing countries around the

world.

There is a particular program called the Central Asian Republics

Program that has been supported dealing with Central Asia, the

Caucasus. It is really quite an excellent program. The Israelis have

a great deal to offer in this area. They have developed unique expertise in horticulture, water-saving technologies, rural health care

programs, and I think this program is worthy of continuation. It

would simply express the sense of Congress that these programs in

the south Caucasus and Central Asia continue.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman.

Any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the Berman

amendment, and I want to say a few things about the importance

of it. Among the Central Asian Republics in the Caucasus region,

there are six Islamic states. They are secular, pro-Western States.

They have demonstrated a willingness to work with Israel. The history of tolerance for religious minority runs deep here. During

World War II, tens of thousands of Jews fled the advancing German armies into this region. By and large they found sympathetic

hosts who refused to turn them over to the Nazis. This tolerance

has resulted in an important, positive legacy of respect and potential friendship between Israel and these states.

Good relations between Israel and the secular Islamic states of

Central Asia represents an important counterbalance to the extremism of Iran, Iraq and others. It increases the prospect for peace

in the Middle East. As such, this process is decidedly in the U.S.

national interest.

The gentleman from California’s amendment is fully in keeping

with the spirit of the legislation. Programs as the one he describes

are important tools to foster better relationships not just between

the U.S. and Central Asia, but also between Israel and the region.

8

I fully support the amendment. It gives me an opportunity to

make an important observation as well. My colleagues should know

that a broad coalition of American Jewish organizations support

the passage of the Silk Road Strategy Act: The B’nai B’rith, the

American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the

Anti-Defamation League, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry,

the President’s Conference, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, AIPAC, and the Orthodox Union. These groups have

issued a statement that says, ‘‘We are confident that genuine independence, peace and prosperity for all of these countries of the

Southern Caucasus and Central Asia will benefit the national interest of the West, Israel, Turkey and other regional allies. The

Silk Road strategy will promote these goals as well as helping to

pave the way for the support of democratic values in the region

that has been subjected to foreign domination for hundreds of

years. We are also confident, they go on to say, that the legislation’s implementation will improve the lives of tens of thousands of

Jews who live in these former Soviet republics.’’

I urge support for the Berman amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Any other Member seeking recognition? If not, I would just like

to note that I am pleased to support the Berman amendment. I believe programs sponsored by the Government of Israel in Central

Asia deserve our support and continue to produce good results in

that region.

If there is no other Member seeking recognition, all in favor of

the amendment signify in the usual manner.

Opposed.

The amendment is agreed to.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would advance the amendment

offered by Mr. Burr in his behalf.

Chairman GILMAN. Amendment by Mr. Burr. The clerk will read.

Clerk will distribute the Burr amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment offered by Mr. Burr. Page 12, line

24, insert after ‘transferred to’ the following: Comma, ‘or knowingly

allowed to be transferred through the territory of such country to,’.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter is recognized on the Burr

amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burr had another

markup at Commerce Committee at this point, and I would ask

that his full statement in support of the amendment be made a

part of the record at this point. I would ask unanimous consent for

that.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about the

gentleman’s amendment. The gentleman offered this amendment in

Subcommittee, where it surely would have been approved except

for the fact that the Subcommittee did not receive jurisdiction over

that section of the bill that he was attempting to amend.

Needless to say, I support the gentleman’s amendment. A major

focus of the legislation, perhaps the most major focus, is working

with the countries of the region to prevent a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Much of our assistance is directed at that

9

effort through training of customs officials, law enforcement, education, finding work for former nuclear lab scientists and the like.

This is an important component of the legislation because the arsenal of the former Soviet Union has become a prized target. The prohibitions on assistance are largely designed to alert the Central

Asian Republics in the Caucasus region countries that participation

in the deadly game of selling these deadly items to rogue regimes

will result in repercussions, severe ones.

The gentleman’s amendment makes it clear that countries transshipping such items should also expect to be subject to sanctions.

This is a helpful amendment and delivers a clear message regarding U.S. intent. I would urge adoption of the Burr amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Any other Member seeking recognition on the Burr amendment

as proposed by Mr. Bereuter?

If not, I would like to note my support for the gentleman from

North Carolina’s proposal as offered in his absence by Mr. Bereuter. Nuclear proliferation in the region of the former Soviet Union

is a potentially serious problem, and we appreciate the gentleman’s

effort to strengthen language in the bill and to address this problem.

If there is no other Member seeking recognition, the amendment

is now before us. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

The ayes appear to it have. The amendment is agreed to.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that

I believe will strengthen the act.

Chairman GILMAN. Clerk will read the Rohrabacher amendment.

Are they offered en bloc?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would ask the Chairman’s advice.

Chairman GILMAN. We would welcome them being offered en

bloc.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will be happy to offer them en bloc.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Clerk will read the amendments offered by Mr. Rohrabacher.

Clerk will distribute the amendments.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendments offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. Page

6, line 25, add the following after the period: ‘Any role by the

United States in such’——.’’

Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading

of the amendments be dispensed with without objection.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for five minutes on his amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Mr. BERMAN. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Are

we on two amendments en bloc?

Chairman GILMAN. En bloc.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have two amendments that I believe, as I

say, will strengthen the act in the areas of promoting democracy

and clarifying the role of Congress in any decision to deploy American military personnel to this volatile region.

The countries of Central Asia which spent nearly a century

under the iron grip of the Soviet Union are currently struggling to

10

achieve some type of stability and prosperity in this century and

in the next century. We should have no illusions about the pressure

that these resource-rich nations continue to bear from Russia, Iran,

China, Pakistan and terrorist organizations operating out of Afghanistan, such as the fanatical Taliban and their partner in

crime, Mr. Bin Laden.

The United States should do everything possible to assist these

emerging nations. However, the culture of repression is still prevalent in governments that stretch from the Caucasus across the

great Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan to the borders of China.

My first amendment would enhance the progress in democracy

by requiring, to be eligible for the provision of this act, that elections must be held in these countries which are certified as free

and fair and must be free of criticism by international organizations such as the OSCE. In addition, in order to protect American

businessmen and investors who currently face serious problems in

transactions in these countries, the amendment requires that the

President must certify that such countries’ judicial systems provide

appropriate recourse for judicial complaints lodged by citizens and

investors, both foreign and domestic, to certify that such a judicial

system and those systems are now undergoing the appropriate reforms to ensure a respect for human rights and a recourse of law,

which, of course, is consistent with what Mr. Burton was just suggesting. Mr. Burton’s amendment addresses this, but my amendment would actually insist on some institutional reform that would

help protect American investors.

As I say, we have heard many stories about investors being brutalized and being robbed by the governments in these areas.

My second amendment, which is en bloc, requires any United

States role in a peacekeeping operation in that region should be

limited to logistics, observers and financial support through international organizations. The second part of my amendment requires

that the U.S. role in any multilateral military cooperation agreement should not include the deployment of American forces unless

approved by a vote of the U.S. Congress. So we are not outlawing

any U.S. military involvement there, but at least there has to be

a vote of the U.S. Congress before we start shipping our troops off

to Central Asia.

I strongly disagree with any language that would potentially

commit American peacekeeping forces in Central Asia for three

reasons. First, U.S. forces are already overextended on peacekeeping missions with our open-ended commitments in Bosnia and

Kosovo. We also have a tinderbox situation in the Pacific with Taiwan and the Spratley Islands. In the Middle East we have Saddam

Hussein, who is still lurking around the corner.

Second, we are in an historic junction in our relationship with

Russia. During these past few months, due to the expansion of

NATO and the Kosovo intervention, the attitude among Russian

military leaders, politicians and the public in general has grown resentful and even hostile toward the United States. Now is not the

time to codify legislation that furthers the potential of incursions

along Russia’s border areas. It is preferable to send training missions, such as the recent training mission to Uzbekistan, to accomVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:33 May 09, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64098.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
11

plish our missions and not to set forth a strategy that sends alarm

signals to Russia.

So I would ask support. I would yield to the Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Please continue.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Third, the line of communications that we

would have in that area would really strain our ability to protect

any forces that were there.

So I would ask support for my en bloc amendments. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. I recognize Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am compelled to rise

in objection and opposition to the gentleman’s amendments en bloc.

One of them I will attempt to amend and ask for a division so that

it could be considered separately. I would say to my colleagues that

I had received earlier three amendments from Mr. Rohrabacher,

and I had examined those closely. These are new to me now, but

it is clear that there are problems with both.

Let me address the more lengthy amendment which is now being

considered en bloc, which is the one which starts, ‘‘Page 12.’’ If you

take a look at subparagraph 2(b), the judicial system of such country that provides appropriate recourse for judicial complaints and

so on, lodged by both domestic and foreign nationals, is undergoing

appropriate reforms to ensure such appropriate recourse.

That is certainly a desirable objective, but really, this comes

down to a ‘‘chicken and egg’’ situation. If these countries had already established political and legal structures, including appropriate judicial systems compatible for democracy and free market

economy, this legislation would not be as urgent and essential as

it is. What we are trying to do is effect the creation and further

refinement of democratic institutions in the legal structure, including the judicial system. That is the purpose of the legislation. This

is perhaps a sharp philosophical, difference, so it is a matter of timing that I would have with the gentleman from California.

Remember, these countries have never had these kinds of democratic institutions. They were loose-knit tribal societies that were

absorbed into the Russian/Soviet empire. Their first experiment

with nation state status was the 1990 era. Almost without exception there were no preexisting democratic institutions from which

they could draw. Despite this, many of them have made a substantial change. In Georgia, there has been a near 180-degree turnaround. President Shevardnadze has embraced USAID’s five-point

plan for democratization—made it a national policy. In Kyrgyzstan,

elections have been free and fair. It is also true that a number of

these countries have not allowed democratic institutions to flourish. That is why we are trying to have an impact there. In most

of the countries the U.S. can contribute to this democratization effort by assisting the NGO’s to emerge for the first time in those

countries and, of course, by our own NGO’s and other international

NGO’s. They are important building blocks that have never existed

in those countries, and they are a prerequisite for a modern democracy.

So I would say that is the reason why we are involved here. We

don’t have a judicial system that would be able to meet this certifiVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:33 May 09, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64098.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
12

cation, and therefore we cutoff eligibility. So it is really a vital kind

of a change.

Now, in the second amendment, the deployment of U.S. armed

forces, unless approved by vote of the U.S. Congress—ladies and

gentlemen of the Committee—this is going to draw a Presidential

veto. This is Bosnia, this is Kosovo, this is peacekeeping deployment. That is what Mr. Campbell’s involvement attempting to

bring it before the Supreme Court was all about.

I think it is highly desirable for the President to get our approval

before moving peacekeeping activities, but he regards it as a constitutional responsibility and power that he has. So Mr.

Rohrabacher’s amendment, the shorter of the two, will clearly

cause this legislation to be unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues

not to approve it.

At this point, in order to move along the debate, I know others

want to speak, I would offer an amendment at the desk which does

strike 2(b).

Chairman GILMAN. Clerk will report the Bereuter amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Mr. Bereuter moves that subparagraph 2(b) of

the Rohrabacher amendment be stricken, and that is line 15

through 19.’’

Chairman GILMAN. Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. We don’t have copies. It is handwritten.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, on your amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. I have explained the purpose of striking 2(b) because these judicial systems do not exist clearly in all these countries and cannot. That is why we are involved in aiding, so that in

the future, at some time, an amendment such as the gentleman offers, after they have had an opportunity to work with us and establish a judicial system worthy of meeting these requirements, will

be in place. At this time we are trying to help them. I will later

ask for division so that the rest of Mr. Rohrabacher’s lengthy

amendment could survive, and I urge support of my amendment

which simply strikes section 2(b).

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman

from California, the sponsor of the base amendment, under subsection B, am I correct in thinking that if, say, the Government of

Kazakhstan asked that an AID-funded program involving representatives of the judicial conference come to Kazakhstan to create a program to provide a judicial process which would allow recourse for complaints lodged by both domestic and foreign nationals, that your amendment if it passed would prohibit that program

because Kazakhstan did not have a judicial process which allowed

recourse for both domestic and foreign nationals?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me see if I have your question correctly.

You are asking me whether the chicken or the egg is coming first

here? The answer to your question is no. The answer is the very

fact they are trying to organize a judicial reform process suggests

they are going through judicial reform. This is not a fait accompli.

If you will read the legislation, it is talking about a process. We

expect people to be moving toward democracy, toward judicial reform rather than away from it in order to have the benefits of dealing with the United States.

13

Mr. BERMAN. If the mere application by a country for a program

to achieve these results thereby renders the limitations of your

amendment meaningless, then the amendment goes from dangerous to meaningless.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would note, I did not use

the term ‘‘meaningless,’’ and I disagree with that interpretation.

Mr. BERMAN. That is my conclusion. I just don’t read it like that.

I read the language as prohibiting programs to remedy the very

problems the gentleman is seeking to achieve, and I urge support

for Mr. Bereuter’s amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I join in supporting Mr. Bereuter’s amendment.

I think we have Iran and Afghanistan playing all too dominant a

role in this region, and I think we all would like to see the countries in the region develop democratic institutions and full-fledged

judicial systems. Sometimes we don’t get our nose under the tent

in these countries when they have accepted all our values; and I

think that if there were activities in these countries that you object

to, I would like know what they are and what our government is

now doing. It seems to me that the lesson of history is every time

there is contact with the West, we undermine the totalitarian

forces in a country, and what I would like to see is actually more

focus on these countries.

I know the gentleman’s intent is a noble one and that he would

like us to have these governments become democratic, but again,

if the choice is noncontact and leaving them to deal with Iran and

Afghanistan or finding ways to create contact that will nudge them,

push them, get them to peaceful relations and more democratic institutions, then I think that is what we are doing, and for that reason I support the Bereuter amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. Bereuter, did you want to make a motion? First, we will take

up the Bereuter amendment. All in favor of the Bereuter amendment signify in the usual manner.

Those in opposition signify by saying no.

The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division under the

rules, the division between the two amendments that were offered

and combined in en bloc.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter has requested division of the en

bloc amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.

Opposed.

The en bloc now divided and back to the original form, but before

we move on it, I would like to note my support to the amendment

offered by the gentleman from California.

Mr. Bereuter, with regard to democratization, we met just last

week with the former Prime Minister of Kazakhstan whose efforts

to run in a free and fair election for the Presidency have been stymied. His efforts to mount a slate of candidates in a parliamentary

election have encountered similar obstructions. This amendment by

Mr. Rohrabacher makes it clear that we expect truly democratic

government in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The United States

has provided and is providing assistance for democratization in

14

countries such as Kazakhstan, but our efforts will be meaningless

if they are met with oppression and corruption. Accordingly, I support the Rohrabacher amendment.

We are now going to consider the peacekeeping amendment by

Mr. Rohrabacher. All those in favor of the Rohrabacher amendment

signify in the usual manner.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Parliamentary inquiry.

Chairman GILMAN. Please state your inquiry.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Where we are right now is we have separated

Mr. Rohrabacher, as amended by Mr. Bereuter, having again separated the section that deals with peacekeeping from that dealing

with elections, is that correct?

Chairman GILMAN. That is correct. We will first vote on the language relating to peacekeeping.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This basically is a vote on my first amendment which says that in order to deploy troops, you have to have

a vote of Congress in that region; is that correct?

Chairman GILMAN. That is correct.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK.

Chairman GILMAN. The vote is now on the Rohrabacher peacekeeping amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.

Opposed.

The noes appear to have it. The amendment is defeated.

We now go to the second amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher with

regard to certification prior to eligibility. Anyone seeking recognition? If not, we will now consider it.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think to just be reminded, we are talking

about democratic progress in order to be eligible for the benefits of

this bill.

Chairman GILMAN. All in favor of the Rohrabacher amendment

as amended signify in the usual manner by saying aye.

Those opposed.

The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Are there any further amendments? If there are no further

amendments, the previous question is ordered on the bill. The gentleman from Nebraska Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the

Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending bill on

the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion by Mr. Bereuter. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed, say no.

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

Without objection the chief of staff may make technical conforming and grammatical amendments to the bill just ordered reported. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions under Rule 22 in respect of this bill, counterpart in the Senate. Further proceedings on this measure are now postponed.

I ask unanimous consent that the Chairman be authorized on

H.R. 2415 to make motions under Rule 22 in connection with H.R.

2415, S. 886 or counterpart from the Senate. Without objection, so

ordered.

15

The Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(17)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 22, 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

43