U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–967CC WASHINGTON : 2000

MARKUP OF H.RES. 292, H. RES. 181, H.R.

2608, H. CON. RES. 187, H.J. RES. 65, AND

H. RES. 297

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1999

Serial No. 106–93

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel

JILL N. QUINN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Markup of H. Res. 292, a resolution expressing the sense of the House

of Representatives regarding the referendum in East Timor, calling on

the Government of Indonesia to assist in the termination of the current

civil unrest and violence in East Timor, and supporting a United Nations

Security Council-endorsed multinational force for East Timor ........................ 1

Markup of H. Res. 181, a resolution condemning the kidnapping and murder

by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) of 3 United States

citizens, Ingrid Washinawatok, Terence Freitas, and Lahe’ena’e Gay ............ 14

Markup of H.R. 2608, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

to clarify the definition of ‘‘major drug-transit country’’ under the international narcotics control program ..................................................................... 17

Markup of H. Con. Res. 187, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense

of the Congress regarding the European Council noise rule affecting

hushkitted and reengined aircraft ...................................................................... 28

Markup of H.J. Res. 65, a joint resolution commending the World War II

veterans who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and for other purposes ........ 31

Markup of H.J. Res. 297, a resolution expressing sympathy for the victims

of the devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on September 21, 1999 ... 34

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Hon. Cynthia McKinney, a Representative in Congress from Georgia, concerning H. Res. 292 .............................................................................................. 51

Bills and amendments:

H. Res. 292 ............................................................................................................... 38

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 292, offered by Rep.

Bereuter ................................................................................................................ 44

Amendment to the Bereuter amendment in the nature of a substitute to

H. Res. 292, offered by Rep. Brady ..................................................................... 54

H. Res. 181 ............................................................................................................... 55

H.R. 2608 .................................................................................................................. 60

H. Con. Res. 187 ...................................................................................................... 62

H.J. Res. 65 .............................................................................................................. 65

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.J. Res. 65, offered by Rep.

Smith ..................................................................................................................... 69

H. Res. 297 ............................................................................................................... 72

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 297, offered by Mr.

Bereuter ................................................................................................................ 74

Additional material submitted for the record:

Letter written by Julie Freitas, mother of Terence Freitas, which appeared

in the Washington Post on May 22, 1999, submitted by Rep. Lee .................. 58

(1)

MARKUP OF H.RES. 292

Thursday, September 23, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in room

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

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee on International Relations

meets today in open session, pursuant to notice, to mark up several

items of legislation.

We will now consider H. Res. 292, relating to East Timor. The

Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. RUSH. House Resolution 292, a resolution expressing the

sense of the House of Representatives regarding the referendum in

East Timor, calling on the Government of Indonesia to assist in the

termination of the current civil unrest and violence in East Timor,

and supporting a United Nations Security Council-endorsed multinational force for East Timor.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and reported without amendment.

Without objection the clerk will read the preamble and operative

language of the resolution, in that order, for amendment. The clerk

will read.

Ms. RUSH. Whereas on May 5th, 1999, the governments of Portugal and Indonesia and the United Nations——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read. It is open to amendment at any point.

I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, the

distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for 5 minutes to introduce the resolution. I understand he has

an amendment in the nature of a substitute which he may offer

now or at the end of his remarks.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment in the

nature of a substitute at the desk. I would offer it at this point.

It is on the Members’ desks.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Amendment by Mr. Bereuter. Amend the preamble to

read as follows: Whereas on May 5th, 1999, the Governments

of——

2

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

The gentleman is recognized on his amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues, as an

author of H. Res. 292, I am offering this amendment in the nature

of a substitute in order to update certain parts of the original resolution, and to better reflect recent developments on East Timor and

Indonesia.

This legislation was marked up by the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee last week, and was expected to be taken up by the Full

Committee on Wednesday, September 15th, but as you know, a

hurricane changed our schedule here. A number of things have

happened in the meantime, and we have prepared this amendment

in the nature of a substitute to reflect that fact.

The most notable of those happenings has been Indonesia’s reluctant acceptance of a multinational force for East Timor. On September 20th the initial deployment of this multinational force

began, led by a very large contingent of Australians.

The Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, jointly with our Senate Foreign Relations counterpart, held a detailed hearing on East

Timor, and subsequently has held update briefings on the situation; therefore, I believe I do not need to provide a lengthy background comment regarding the tragedy in East Timor and our serious concerns about Indonesia’s failure to fulfill its international obligation.

The amended resolution does the following: It supports the referendum that occurred in East Timor and our acceptance of the results. It expresses concern about Indonesia’s failure to fulfill its

international obligations to provide safety and security to the people of East Timor; and it condemns the militias and the elements

of the Indonesian military that have engaged in violence.

It also urges the international community to investigate the

human rights abuses that have occurred, and calls on Indonesia to

hold accountable those responsible for such acts. It urges the unrestricted access to, and safe return of refugees and displaced persons

in West Timor and elsewhere. It supports a consideration of additional economic and other sanctions against Indonesia, should Indonesia not cooperate with or hinder the multinational force,

UNAMET, in its efforts to ensure the safe return of refugees or the

transition to independence for East Timor. It supports U.S.

logistical and other technical support for the multinational force for

East Timor, and it strongly commends Australia for its willingness

to lead this force, and for rapidly deploying its initial contingent

forces.

This is the largest and most important deployment of Australian

forces abroad since World War II, and the Australians deserve our

praise and support for taking on this responsibility.

The resolution also recognizes that an effective U.S. foreign policy for the region requires an effective near-term response to the

ongoing humanitarian crisis in, and progress toward independence

for East Timor. It also requires a long-term strategy for supporting

stability, security, and democracy in Indonesia.

3

I think this provision is very important because when CNN and

many of us focus on the crisis affecting the 700,000 people on East

Timor, we must not lose sight of the important relationship we

need to maintain with 209 million remaining Indonesians. It is in

our own short-term and long-term national interest to help Indonesia make the democratic and economic reforms it so desperately

needs.

I want to thank Chairman Gilman for moving this legislation, for

his cosponsorship, for the help and the assistance in cosponsorship

of the distinguished Ranking Democrat of the Asia and the Pacific

Subcommittee, Mr. Lantos, the Ranking Democrat of the Full Committee, Mr. Gejdenson, and other Members of the Committee who

are cosponsors, including Messrs. Hastings, Smith, Faleomavaega,

Gillmor, Ackerman, Berman, Rohrabacher, Crowley, Radanovich,

and Delahunt.

I urge the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Asia and the

Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, for bringing this very timely

measure before us today. It has broad bipartisan support. I am

proud to be a cosponsor. I am still troubled by the situation in East

Timor, as many of our colleagues are. Although the first elements

of the multinational force, led by our friends the Australians and

supported by American troops, have landed on the island, there are

still many important challenges ahead. The extent of these challenges is only now becoming known. First, the Government of Indonesia must abide by its commitment to respect the results of the

August 30th referendum and the rights of East Timorese to raise

a peaceful transition to independence.

President Habibie comments, though tragically late, that Indonesia must honor and accept that choice, an important step. I hope

his words will be fulfilled by his deeds. Accordingly, the Indonesian

parliament must ratify the popular decision of the people of East

Timor at an early date. Second, the Indonesian military, which participated in the violence against innocent civilians, aided and abetted by the militia, should fully withdraw from East Timor. That

will allow refugees and displaced persons to return home from

West Timor and elsewhere confident of their safety. It will also reduce the likelihood of a clash with a multinational force.

Third, I urge the international community to investigate the

human rights abuses and atrocities which occurred in the aftermath of the elections, and call upon the Government of Indonesia

to hold fully accountable those responsible for such reprehensible

acts.

Finally, in light of these devastating events, the Administration

is going to have to reevaluate its military relationship with the Indonesian arm forces. The Pentagon should conduct a full scale review of its military-to-military relationship with Djakarta, including the effectiveness of the IMET Program, joint training exercises,

and armed sales. The Pentagon should not reinstitute any aspect

of the military relationship without full consultation with the Congress.

4

Once again, I thank Mr. Bereuter, and I look forward to bringing

this resolution to the Floor next week for early consideration by the

entire House.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you

and the International Relations Committee Ranking Member, Mr.

Gejdenson, for bringing this measure regarding the recent developments in East Timor for the markup of the Committee. I would further like to deeply commend the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, a good friend from

Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, and Mr. Lantos, for cosponsoring this resolution and their consideration at this time.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am honored to be an

original cosponsor of the resolution. Mr. Chairman, with respect to

the events in the past weeks, the Indonesian Government should

be condemned in the strongest terms for allowing untold atrocities

to be committed against the innocent, the unarmed civilians of

East Timor.

I commend President Clinton for terminating all assistance to,

and ties with the Indonesian military. The United Nations estimates that up to 300,000 East Timorese, over one-third of the population of East Timor, have been displaced, and it remains to be

seen how many hundreds if not thousands have been killed in the

mass blood pillage and carnage. A call for an international war

crimes tribunal to punish those responsible for the atrocities should

be heeded.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the intervention of the United

Nations-endorsed multinational force in East Timor. I am heartened that with their arrival in Dili early this week, a little less

than half of the 7,500 troops’ peacekeeping force is on the ground.

They have already had a significant effect of stabilizing the situation.

I trust the isolated outbreaks and gunfire and recent killings,

such as that yesterday of the Dutch journalist, will be stopped by

the Australian-led multinational force. While I believe America’s

role in the peacekeeping mission should have been greater, certainly the contribution of the United States airlift and logistical

support has been invaluable.

Mr. Chairman, with Indonesia being the fourth largest nation,

and the largest Muslim country in the world, which should strike

major ceilings of communications in trade, certainly we have a substantial national interest in preserving stability, not only in Indonesia but in Southeast Asia as well, and to prevent a U.N. initiative from turning into a catastrophic humanitarian disaster.

Mr. Chairman, the resolution has a great meaning to the people

of East Timor. Especially at the outset, some 25 years ago, the Indonesian military, under the leadership of Dictator Suharto, unilaterally sent forces and massacred, tortured, killed, whatever you call

it. As a result, over 200,000 East Timorese were dead by that illegal and unlawful takeover, if I might add.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution is especially meaningful to the

people of East Timor because finally, after 25 years of pleading

with the international community, to this country as well as to

members of the United Nations-I call it neglect, Mr. Chairman, on

5

our part, on the part of the international community not giving

heed to the pleadings of the East Timorese people. God knows how

many more thousands of East Timorese have been killed by the

hands of the Indonesian military.

Mr. Chairman, I support the resolution, the substance, and I personally feel that it falls far short of what we should have been

doing in the past 25 years. I might add, Mr. Chairman, let us wait

for the next chapter to unfold—and I am not going to get into it,

I just want to mention one word, West Papua New Guinea should

be next in line.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend my

friend and colleague from Nebraska for taking the initiative on

this. Of course, I strongly support the resolution.

There are two observations I would like to make, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to commend Australia for taking the lead, and this

obviously ought to be a pattern to be followed in other parts of the

globe where crises of this kind are likely to erupt. The United

States needs to play a role wherever appropriate, but we certainly

do not need to play the lead role everywhere. I think the Australians have given a superb example to many other countries in

accepting their regional responsibility.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I want to express profound disappointment in the continuing failure of Japan to play any role in

any such activities. Now, I am no longer impressed by the fact that

the Japanese constitution of half a century ago places some obstacles in the way of Japan’s participation. But if we can see German

troops in the former Yugoslavia—and I am very pleased to see German troops in the former Yugoslavia, because Germany is a democratic nation that has fully accepted its international responsibilities—the time is long overdue for Japan to accept its international

responsibilities. To see a crisis in Asia where troops from a dozen

countries participate, ranging from the United Kingdom to the

Philippines, with Japan studiously avoiding the slightest degree of

participation, I think it is irresponsible, appalling, and needs to be

called to the attention of our colleagues in the Japanese Diet, and

of the Japanese Government. I intend to do so, and I hope some

of my colleagues will do so, in a letter to the Prime Minister of

Japan on this issue.

The final observation I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is an

alert to my colleagues that I am working on legislation that will

make Indonesia fully financially responsible for all of the reconstruction in East Timor. I think this vandalism which has unfolded, partly perpetrated by the militia and partly perpetrated by

the Indonesian military, and certainly condoned and acquiesced in

by the Indonesian military, will have to be rectified by Indonesia.

It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayer to pay for

the arson perpetrated by Indonesian militia and military troops.

The legislation I am working on makes any future World Bank assistance and IMF assistance contingent upon Indonesia paying directly the full expense of the outrages that have been perpetrated

beyond the killing of individuals.

6

We cannot undo the killing of individuals, but we certainly can

make the Indonesian Government pay for all of the horrendous

damage that, in a reckless and irresponsible fashion, they perpetrated on this tiny little half-island of East Timor. To allow this

to go unpunished in a financial sense, I think, would be stupid and

irresponsible.

I call on all of my colleagues to join me in this legislation, which

I understand already has some interest expressed in the other

body.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Lantos. Mr.

Lantos made several important points, especially Australia taking

the lead, how the United States should be playing a role in different parts of the world, but not necessarily the lead role everywhere in the world. I think that we have a measured response to

that situation now in East Timor, as we are playing a supportive

role to the Australians. We need to allow the Australians, as Mr.

Lantos suggested.

Also, I associate myself with the understanding that Mr. Lantos

says, who should pay for these horrible atrocities that have been

committed against the East Timorese people; I agree with that as

well.

I would also like to associate myself with the remarks of my good

friend Mr. Faleomavaega, who suggests that we should do more

than just note these crimes, but there should be a human rights

tribunal for those people who committed these crimes against humanity.

Finally, for myself, and not just associating myself with the remarks of my friends, but let me just say I was horrified and dismayed by what were clearly human rights abuses that were sanctioned by the Indonesian military.

The Indonesian military bought a great deal of good will from

people around the world when they played a positive role in the

transition out of the Suharto regime into more democratic elections. It was a very volatile moment in Indonesian history, and the

military there played a very positive role. Unfortunately, they

squandered much of the good will that they achieved throughout

the world by permitting this mayhem and wanton bloodshed that

took place in East Timor, and I would hope that they get the message that any repeat of that is going to basically—they will be labeling themselves as human rights pariahs if this ever happens

again—and we are watching very closely, and that is what this

amendment is all about, and I gladly support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, firstly, let me commend you for

expediting this matter, and certainly the Chairman of the Asia and

the Pacific Subcommittee is deserving of our commendations. I

would like to utilize my time to ask my friend and colleague Mr.

Bereuter just one set of questions regarding language in the

7

amendment to the—or at least an amendment in the nature of a

substitute.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, go ahead.

Mr. HASTINGS. At page 6, line 17, while I am pleased and happy

to be an original cosponsor of the base bill, seeing the amendment

in the nature of a substitute for the first time causes me to at least

raise a question regarding that particular area.

I agree that we should strongly commend Australia for what they

are doing in leading the multinational force, but is it unwarranted

for us to identify the 12 nations presently in the second portion of

the paragraph that I am referring to? The language is that we welcome the participation of other nations. I agree with that, but could

it not be that we could say that we commend the participation of

other nations, and I refer specifically to other people, New Zealand

and the Philippines, for example, who came immediately to involve

themselves in a similar manner, as well as the United States?

Would it be unwarranted for us to consider an amendment to the

amendment in the nature of a substitute that would say that we

commend the participation rather than just welcome the participation? And I invite your advice in that regard, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. HASTINGS. I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for his excellent suggestion. We are at that point where we are completing our markup.

We know what the list is at this moment, and I would welcome this

friendly amendment to actually welcome and to commend, and

then we will list the countries that are currently providing personnel. I would suggest that we would say at the conclusion of that

phrase, ‘‘and others that will participate.’’ And if the gentleman

would make that——

Mr. HASTINGS. I so offer that amendment to the motion allowing

an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to

bear the language that Mr. Bereuter just suggested.

Mr. BEREUTER. The Members understand then that the current

list as of this moment of countries will just be added here in alphabetical order. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. If there is no objection to the proposed

amendment, the amendment is agreed to.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to thank

you for holding this important markup on the resolution regarding

the situation in East Timor, and supporting the United Nations Security Council multinational force in East Timor. I would also like

to commend Congressman Bereuter and Congressman Lantos for

crafting this bipartisan resolution, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks

of Congressman Lantos.

The situation in East Timor has deteriorated so rapidly that the

international community was caught off guard, despite previous

warnings of possible violence by pro-Indonesia militias. I am

pleased and encouraged that the U.N. Security Council approved

the resolution to deploy multinational forces in East Timor, and

8

that troops are currently on the ground restoring a semblance of

order.

This sorely needed action by the U.N. will provide the security

and hope that East Timor needs to build itself into an independent

nation. However, food and medical care remains scarce. Hundreds

of thousands of East Timorese are in hiding or refugees, many of

whom are detained in West Timor.

Put simply, the situation in East Timor is volatile and it will remain so for some time, and that is why I believe it to be of critical

importance, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you agree, that the

Full House International Relations Committee ought to hold hearings as soon as possible regarding East Timor.

This Committee needs to address this issue and plan for the future of U.S. policy toward East Timor and Indonesia. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will see fit to call a hearing as soon as possible to address this critical foreign policy issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. We certainly will

take your suggestion under advisement.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I will be very brief. I want to thank Mr. Bereuter and

yourself and my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle for this

bipartisan resolution. I think Mr. Crowley made a good point when

he said we were caught off guard, but we were warned, as he

knows, and as he said and noted, many were warning that there

was a very real possibility that the militia would move, they would

move quickly, they would also get very substantial support from

the Indonesian military—and just in terms of the Indonesian military, I hope there will be no effort made by the Administration to

rejoin the cooperation with that military until there is a real and

genuine and authentic vetting of that military’s ranks from the

very top down to the bottom.

We had hearings in my Subcommittee last year, and we pointed

out that the JACIPS Program was actually training people from

COPASIS, and there were no records kept, Mr. Chairman, none

whatsoever, as to where those people took those skills and employed those skills.

We heard from people who had been tortured by COPASIS, the

so-called Red Berets. I think it behooves us to be very slow before

there is any kind of cooperation with that military except to say

get your act together, we will work with you on that, but we will

not be training you in sniper training and urban guerrilla warfare

and other kinds of actions that make them more efficient, increasing their efficacies in hurting innocent civilians, as they have done

in East Timor, as they did previously in Djakarta.

I do hope the Administration will not move—I know they cut off

the cooperation, but that cooperation should have been cut off

months ago as these allegations substantiated by the human rights

community became known. We should not have been caught off

guard, but the response, thankfully, led by the Australians, was a

good one. It was slow in happening, but, thank God, it is happening, and hopefully it will have a relatively positive end.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

9

Ms. McKinney.

Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had wanted to lend

my voice of support for the Bereuter resolution. Of course, right

now it is a little bit difficult, but I do want to associate myself with

the very strong remarks of my colleague from New Jersey, Mr.

Smith.

I have a statement that I would like to submit for the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McKinney appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, your full statement will be

made part of the record.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us

share some responsibility here, having watched the situation in

East Timor for decades from the days of the Portuguese leaving.

The Indonesians came in and took over East Timor. The struggle

there for freedom has been a long one, and the tragedy that has

now left somewhere between 3- and 600,000 people having fled

their homes, as many as several hundred thousand over in West

Timor, is a warning to all of us. In areas of the world where we

see crises coming, we need to act in a much faster manner.

It also restates the importance of the United Nations. It would

have been difficult, if not impossible, to get international agreement in placing the troops in East Timor without the United Nations as the vehicle, and it behooves us as Members of Congress

to expedite full funding for the United Nations, including the paying of our debts. The United Nations has been a vehicle that has

fostered American foreign policy interests and world peace, and

this is just one more instance where the United Nations hopefully

has shortened the moments of terror for the people of East Timor.

I commend Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Lantos, Mr. Faleomavaega, and

others who have been involved in this effort, and commend the

Chairman for moving it so rapidly.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I

also would like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, as did Mr. Rohrabacher. I

think he made several excellent points. I agree with all of them.

I would like to be involved in the letter that was referred to with

relation to Japan. I think it is time that Japan, and it is understandable why early on after World War II they were not involved

around the world, but at this point that is a long, long time, and

I think it is time that they bear their share of responsibilities. So

I would very much be interested in involving myself with respect

to that letter.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition? If not, and if

there are no further amendments, the question is on the Bereuter

amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. All those in

favor of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended

say aye.

All those opposed say no.

The ayes have it.

10

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

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for

their support and their comments. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution, as amended, on the suspension calendar.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I was seeking recognition because I

have an amendment at the desk. I think it will only take about 2

or 3 minutes, if I may.

Chairman GILMAN. By unanimous consent we will vitiate what

has occurred. Please distribute the Brady amendment.

Mr. Brady is recognized. The clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Amendment by Mr. Brady, in paragraph 13 A.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read. Mr. Brady is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his amendment.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. I first want to commend Mr. Bereuter,

as he should be, for his leadership in his role, and to you, Chairman Gilman, for your time and action on this important resolution.

The resolution expresses the view of the House of Representatives

on East Timor, an important area for us.

This amendment simply ensures that this resolution reflects an

informed view of America’s role in this region. The amendment requests the President, in effect, to estimate the additional costs of

this new deployment and identify how it will be paid for. It is an

important amendment long term for us, because as you know, we

have stretched our troops and our military resources so thinly

around the world today we need to know how much this new deployment will further stretch our precious security resources.

The amendment is common sense, because one by one over the

years these deployments have added up to more than $17 billion.

These new costs have diverted billions of unbudgeted dollars from

our existing commitments and have reached a level where we are

squeezing other of America’s important priorities. This amendment

should be bipartisan, because the President and Congress, we are

all on the same team here on world peace, on America’s team.

As we work hard together to set our financial priorities this year

and in the future, we need to know, ought to know, what is of less

priority. In the past, these deployments have come either directly

out of the Social Security Trust Fund or have diverted dollars from

national security. It is important, I think, in our planning purposes

that we know, if they are not to come from Social Security or from

national security, how many veterans will be affected because of

less dollars; how many seniors will get less health care; how little

education will we have; what aid to other countries might be reduced or limited because of these actions.

I think it is important—as Mr. Faleomavaega pointed out, he has

a strong opinion of who should be next in line for our assistance—

it is important for us to plan for that help and also to set our priorities as a Congress, as partners, the White House, whoever may be

there, and Congress, whoever may be here. I believe this is a very

responsible common sense amendment that takes nothing away

11

from the substance and, if anything, sets a precedent that, little by

little, will be important for future planning.

I would respectfully urge support.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in the strongest possible terms against the adoption of this amendment, which far from

it being bipartisan or nonpartisan, it is an appalling piece of policy,

particularly in view of the fact that we have designated easily foreseeable items such as the Census as emergency items, not requiring any offsetting provisions. To take this item, which is so clearly

an emergency, as is the earthquake in Taiwan or Turkey, and

make it one that requires offsetting items would be both hypocritical, nonsensical and awfully bad public policy.

I don’t want to take more time on this, despite the fact that my

views are expressed in very mild tones, but I think it is extremely

important that we overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan reject this.

This is a military emergency where the United States is playing a

relevantly minor supporting role, and to call for offsetting cuts in

other budgetary categories, I think, is absurd.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I oppose the amendment as written. I am reluctant only because Mr. Brady is such a

valuable Member of the Committee and I am sure has good intentions in offering it. Indeed, I share some of the concerns of Mr.

Brady about the number of the open-ended, unfunded commitments

this Administration seems to have been making around the world.

Actually, I have been vocal on this issue.

We were bypassed in some ways in the involvement on Kosovo

and Bosnia, and I think it is incumbent upon the Administration

to consult closely with Congress before it considers further assistance in East Timor. However, this is not Bosnia or Kosovo. We

have already deployed, or are in the progress of deploying, 200 personnel, most of whom are going to Darwin. The operation is underway. For us to suggest now that this should be contingent is inappropriate.

I remind my colleagues that Australia is a key strategic nonNATO treaty ally of the United States. Australia is certainly in a

different status. I cannot think of a more loyal ally that we have

had over the last 80 years. Every time we have been involved in

a conflict, the first people to show up with us have been the Australians. I urge you sometime to visit the war memorial in Canberra. It does anything but glorify war. It shows an incredible number of times that the Australians have come in to help on the right

side of a conflict. They have erected an extraordinary memorial to

America’s involvement with them and saving, as they put it, Australia during World War II.

For these and other reasons, I am opposed to making our support

for these limited operations contingent upon the President providing offsets. We are already helping the Australians and others

in that multinational force. Now, if Mr. Brady wants to change

‘‘contingent upon’’ to ‘‘call upon the President to provide spending

12

offsets,’’ I can support that. I think we all know, want to know,

where the resources are going to come from for this operation.

Finally, I remind my colleagues not to read more into the resolution than it actually says. Support the base resolution that provides

for emergency deployment of this very limited U.S. logistical and

other technical assistance. Our treaty ally has asked us for this

limited support. They are leading a multinational effort. It is the

kind of support a fire company provides to a neighboring fire department to help it extinguish an immediate blaze. It pledges nothing else.

Clearly the Committees on Oversight Appropriations, Armed

Services, and International Relations will demand cost information

from the Administration, and will subsequently act upon it. Given

the emergency nature of the situations, the fact that we are already properly assisting the Australians and the other countries in

what is really only a limited supporting role, I cannot support making current ongoing operations contingent on the President providing offsets, especially when the amendment provides no time

line for such actions.

So, although I appreciate the gentleman’s intent and his track

record, I think it is very important that we reject the gentleman’s

amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. I would also oppose the amendment. I would point

out that Congress has not been excessively strict in defining what

is an emergency. But this, by any definition, let alone the more liberal definitions we seem to have adopted, is an emergency. Certainly at the beginning of this fiscal year, the one that we are in

now, we could not have fathomed what has happened in East

Timor.

Second, this is a period when we do have a Federal budget surplus. Finally, this is an international conflict where we are doing

far less than the American people would expect that we would have

to do, because the Australians are doing far more than other allies

of ours have done in other parts of the world. So here is a case

where we are bearing our proportionate share, or even less than a

proportionate share of dealing with this crisis, and we ought to

strongly support that effort.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in strong support of what Mr. Brady

is trying to accomplish, and support his amendment. We can sit

here all day long and posture about what—how we believe in

human rights and we believe in this and we believe in that. But

the American people have every right to ask us, in relationship to

what do we believe in, these things.

We aren’t willing to prioritize, we don’t believe in any of this

stuff. The fact is that we believe, and those of us who believe in

human rights and are advocates of human rights believe that at a

certain price tag that we want to make sure that Americans will

go out and do this. But I for one, for example, am not willing to

support this operation down in East Timor if it would cost the

same as what we are spending in Kosovo, or in Bosnia. The AmerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63967.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
13

ican people have every right to know what the price tag is, and to

find out where it is coming from. Then they will find out what we

really believe in.

The fact is that I think that this is going to be a cost effective

operation. I support this operation, mainly because it is limited in

the amount of money that we are going to drain away from other

priorities. But there are other things we can take this money from.

How about—if Mr. Brady is willing to put himself out and get beat

up for it—how about we take it out of the aid to Egypt and Israel.

There is a big billion dollar package for you. No, but everybody

wants to have it all—everything for everybody.

No, Mr. Brady is being very courageous today by trying to make

sure that we are being responsible, making sure when we tell people that we believe in something, we really believe in it and we are

willing to prioritize to prove that.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank my colleague from California for yielding.

As I said to the gentleman from Texas and would just reiterate it

here for emphasis, if the gentleman would call upon the President

to provide spending offsets, it would seem to me to be an entirely

appropriate request from the Congress and a bipartisan one. However, when you say that our support must be only contingent upon

offsets received from the President, that is a different matter.

I would just like to make that distinction for the gentleman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am happy to let you have that time. But I,

of course, disagree with that point. There again, you are either

making it real or you are not. Mr. Brady’s approach is making it

real. We really do believe in human rights enough to insist that,

contingent upon other things being cut, that we are not going to

get involved in this. Otherwise we don’t believe in it. Otherwise, we

are just saying the American people can absorb any amount of cost

that we decide, and we are not going to reduce spending elsewhere

in order to come up with this money.

So, Mr. Brady, thank you very much for this amendment.

Thanks for putting us on the spot. I guess many of us would prefer

not to be put on the spot. I would have preferred not to be put on

the spot. But I think it is important for us to keep these types of

things in mind. Every time we do call for spending somewhere, it

is coming out of somewhere else.

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly I will to my good friend from California, Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Putting someone on

the spot, that would be an amendment that said we are going to

take it from here, and we are going to take it from here, and we

are going to take it from here, in order to put it here. That is an

amendment that puts people on the spot. This is not an amendment that puts people on the spot; calling on the President to come

up with offsets is not an amendment that puts people on the spot.

The President sent, at the beginning of the budget year, a series

of offsets to justify the levels of the spending that he was proposing

in his budget, and the Republican majority has rejected each and

almost every single one of those offsets, and rather than substitute

14

their own offsets, they have declared the Census an emergency.

They have proposed forward funding. They have pushed things to

supplementals that will come, but come a little bit later.

When we talk about putting people on the spot, let us remember

what people putting people on the spot really is.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman

has made some very good points. Listen, I am not here defending

everything that the Republicans do. I think what you just said

makes very good points. Perhaps this is the first step toward going

in the right direction. But I agree with the points you made.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Is anyone

else seeking recognition?

If not, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady.

Many of us agree with the objectives of his amendment. I believe

that the gentleman from Texas thinks that the Administration

should have to identify how it expects to pay for deployment; however, I believe that our Nation’s participation in a multinational

force should not be contingent upon the identification of such offsets.

Our forces are already participating in a logistical and supportive

role, so the amendment is overtaken by events. While I commend

the gentleman for his amendment, I cannot support his proposal.

Is anyone else seeking recognition?

If not, the question is now on the Brady amendment. All in favor

signify in the normal manner.

Those opposed.

The amendment is not agreed to.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. BRADY. I know when I am not on a roll.

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition for any other amendments?

If not, the question is on the Bereuter amendment in the nature

of a substitute as amended.

All those in favor of the Bereuter amendment in the nature of

a substitute as amended say aye.

All those opposed say no.

The ayes have it.

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

to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution,

as amended, on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Those opposed say no.

The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

We will now move to H. Res. 181, condemning the murder of

Americans by the FARC, or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

15

Ms. RUSH. House Resolution 181, a resolution condemning the

kidnapping and murder by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC, of 3 United States citizens, Ingrid Washinawatok,

Terence Freitas, Lahe’ena’e Gay.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and reported without

amendment.

Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative

language of the resolution, in that order, for amendment.

The clerk will read.

Ms. RUSH. Whereas Ingrid Washinawatok, a member of the Menominee Indian Nation of Wisconsin, Terence Freitas——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point.

Does any Member seek recognition?

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge support for

House Resolution 181. The Colombian rebel group FARC’s murder

of three innocent American citizens earlier this year can only be

described as senseless and horrific. These individuals, including

Terence Freitas, whose mother lives in my congressional district,

were in Colombia only to provide humanitarian assistance to indigenous people in the northeast part of the country.

Regrettably, although FARC has admitted that their guerrillas

are responsible for the killings, they have refused to cooperate with

Colombian or U.S. authorities to resolve the case. This important

resolution condemns that heinous crime, and demands that those

responsible are swiftly brought to justice.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman.

Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just say that Terry Freitas, who was kidnapped and murdered by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, was a constituent. He and his companions were traveling and were brutally

murdered, and they were there trying toprotect the land, the land

sustained from U.S. and Colombian petroleum developers. Now in

our meeting yesterday—and thank you very much for the invitation

to that meeting—with the President of Colombia, we learned a

great deal about the Colombian Government’s new plan for peace

and their economic development and counter drug efforts.

But I would like to indicate that there has been a letter written

by Mr. Berman’s constituent, Julie Freitas, the mother of Terry

Freitas, who wanted to make sure that we understand that she

does not want to see these tragic murders utilized in a way to try

to fund additional military aid to the Colombian armed forces.

I would like to insert the letter for the record. It was published

in the Washington Post on May 22nd, 1999.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. I urge all of the Committee

Members to support this resolution, because I do believe that those

16

responsible for the murders of Terry and his colleagues should be

arrested and brought to trial.

Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, on February 25th, 1999, three U.S.

citizens were kidnapped and later murdered in Colombia by the

terrorist organization, the FARC. These Americans were not in Colombia to hurt anyone, to spy for anyone, or to cause trouble. They

were there to help the U’wa people by providing educational assistance. Yet they were brutally executed because of a continuing reign

of terror which makes no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians.

Atrocities are being committed every day in Colombia, and not

just by the FARC. Right wing paramilitary groups supported by

the Colombian military, and even elements of the Colombian military itself, have been linked to numerous human rights violations,

and many critics believe that U.S. policy—blame U.S. policy for

helping to bring about the state of affairs in Colombia today.

Mr. Chairman, I was in Colombia on February 25th, the day the

Americans were kidnapped. Like my colleagues, I mourn this

senseless act and want to see the perpetrators brought to justice.

I support this resolution. I look forward to the opportunity to debate the larger problems of Colombia and U.S. policy in the region

at a later time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Crowley.

Any other Members seeking recognition.

The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, and a bipartisan

group of cosponsors brought this important resolution before our

Committee. In early March, these three Americans were in Colombia trying to help an indigenous group when they were brutally

murdered by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

The FARC, designated by the State Department as a foreign

based terrorist group, killed these people in cold blood. These

senseless deaths have brought the toll of innocent American lives

taken in Colombia to date by the FARC and the National Liberation Army to 15. As of today, 7 Americans are still being held hostage by these terrorist groups. In addition, we still do not know the

fate of the longest held captives, Mark Rich, David Bankins, and

Rich Tennenhof, kidnapped by the FARC in 1993.

This morning I wrote to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to

ask that the perpetrators of the murders of these three innocent

Americans who are the subject of this resolution be forced and they

be included under the Department of State’s counterterrorism reward program.

I recently sponsored legislation for an increase of reward under

that program to $5 million. I hope that widely publicizing this reward in Colombia will help to speed the arrest and conviction of

those responsible for this reprehensible crime.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

If there are no other Members seeking recognition or offering

amendments, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.

17

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

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Those opposed say no.

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are now postponed.

We will now move to consider H.R. 2608, to amend the definition

of major drug transit countries.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. RUSH. H.R. 2608, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act

of 1961 to clarify the definition of ‘‘major drug transit country’’

under the international narcotics control program.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

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

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

Ms. RUSH. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled, Section 1. Amendment to——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read. It is open to amendment at any point. This bill

is within the jurisdiction of the Full Committee, and I will recognize myself briefly to introduce the bill.

A recent front page story in the Miami Herald indicated that the

Administration has launched a full scale review of the role of Cuba

in the international drug trade. It is a review that, along with

many others here in the Congress, I fully welcome. We especially

look forward to learning of the Administration’s conclusions on

Cuba’s links to drug trafficking targeting our own Nation.

The Miami Herald also points out that as part of the State Department’s review its lawyers are having a hard time sorting out

what a major drug transiting nation may be under current Federal

law. It is struggling with whether the designation of a major transit nation should take into account drugs that may just pass over

Cuban skies or through its territorial waters on the way to our own

Nation. Today, in fact, the waters and air space over Cuba play an

important role in drug trafficking into southern Florida.

Loads of drugs are moved through Cuban air space and dropped

into the waters near Cuba for fast boat transport to our Nation. A

common sense interpretation of the law should consider whether

the mere transport of these illicit drugs over the skies of Cuba, or

through its territorial waters, has a significant effect on our Nation, therefore qualifying Cuba as a major transiting country.

If that interpretation of drug trafficking impacts us significantly,

then these types of drug shipments should be considered a factor

in determining whether a nation like Cuba is a major drug

transiting country. While debate over this interpretation has

caused some confusion in the State Department, we can rectify that

today by passing this measure, H.R. 2608.

The bill before us, which I introduced along with Chairman Burton, is very simple. It addresses the issue of what a major

18

transiting nation list determination is under the Foreign Assistance Act, section 481(e), as it relates to drugs headed for our own

Nation. Each year that list is provided to the Congress on November 1st.

This bill merely classifies that the term ‘‘through which is transported’’ expressly includes drugs passing through the territorial air

space and/or waters of a country on the way to our Nation, and

that in doing so, the level of drugs entering our Nation is significantly affected. There should be no need for any more legal resource time on this issue with our State Department if we enact

this simple bill.

The State Department must get on with the compilation of this

year’s majors list due here in November and do it in a straightforward and honest manner based on the facts. Accordingly, Committee staff, after extensive discussions with the International Narcotics Bureau at the State Department, concluded that this bill

would not create any new criteria that the INL isn’t already using

when they make the majors determination.

The bill before us helps make this majors list determination a

clear, honest, and open one. So I say let the chips fall where they

may, on Cuba or whatever other transit nation meets the statutory

and common sense criteria for a major drug transiting nation.

Is there any other Member seeking recognition?

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to hear

you say let the chips fall where they may. If the chips only seem

to be aimed at Cuba, I don’t have a problem with that myself.

But my question is, Mr. Chairman, what you are saying is if the

plane or the boat goes in a country’s territorial water or air space,

that country then gets described as a bad guy country, is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILMAN. That is correct. The State Department INL

Bureau has told us, our Committee staff, that this bill doesn’t create any new criteria that would innocently add places like Nicaragua and Costa Rica——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I only have a little bit of time.

I am just trying to get a sense of what is happening here. So if a

plane leaving with drugs from Colombia were to fly to Miami International Airport, of course every American state that is a border

state is exempt because they are not foreign nations, but if we use

that standard on every one of our states, every one of our states

would be listed as a bad guy state, because for drugs to get into

the country, they have to go through the state’s waters or air

space.

So for instance, every one of the American Airlines flights that

brought drugs from Colombia to the United States, even if those

planes flew over Cuba, they also flew over American air space, but

we are not dealing with America here today.

So I guess what I am saying is, how do you decide if the American Airlines planes taking drugs, leaving Colombia, if they had

gone over French and English possessions in the Caribbean, which

still exist much to my dismay, are the French and English governments to be listed as drug facilitating states, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman would yield——

19

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, I would be happy to yield.

Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. Allow me to respond.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, please don’t read that paragraph again,

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. I will read you another paragraph.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Excellent. I am happy to get a new paragraph.

Chairman GILMAN. The Foreign Assistance Act, section 4815(a)

and (b), defining a major drug producer or major transit nation refers to drugs that, and I quote, ‘‘significantly affect the United

States or are a direct source.’’ It is clear what the target is, it is

not every nation, only those whose territory significantly impacts

our nation on the use of illicit drugs.

Allow me to complete my explanation——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, please, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. What is going on in the skies over Cuba, as

well as its territorial waters, is affecting our Nation, let there be

no mistake about that. The only issue is whether or not it is significantly impacting our Nation.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, as my crack staff here reads the

section, it basically says traveling through the country’s territorial

air space or water.

Now, again, if I am leaving from Colombia on an American Airlines plane filled with drugs, if it flies over Cuba, which seems to

be the country you are after, even though you said you wanted the

chips to fall where they may, but aside from Cuba, if that plane

were to travel over British and French possessions, are we then to

place Britain and France on the drug bad guy country list?

The French are making an effort to stop drugs, I assume. The

English are making an effort to stop drugs, I assume. But if they

are making an effort but we know that from the evening news that

dozens of flights carrying drugs from Colombia went over their possessions’ air space, is the State Department now to designate England and France in the same category as other countries that we

think are bad guy countries?

Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. This bill merely changes section 5(b)and

makes it clear that through which are transported such drugs or

substances, including the territorial air space, land and water of a

country. Now, let me note that the President, on December 4th of

1998, in accordance with the provisions of section 490(h)(8)of the

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, determined that the following countries are major illicit drug producing or drug transit countries, and

he noted Afghanistan, Aruba, the Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil,

Burma, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,

Guatemala, Haiti, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria,

Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand, Venezuela

and Vietnam.

The President made that determination.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, excuse me for not understanding, but the President is not offering this amendment. The

State Department is not offering this amendment. You and Mr.

Burton apparently are offering this amendment. I have nothing

20

against this amendment. I just want to understand what you want

to occur as a result of its passage. This is not a trick question.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me reclaim my time for a moment because

your answers have taken up most of my time. If a plane leaving

Afghanistan has drugs on it and it flies across Eastern Europe covering every one of our European allies’ skies, and we then catch

them at JFK, are we to place—under your definition, not the President’s, not anybody else’s, whatever your staff is telling you now

or whatever you are determining—are we to place all of those countries on the drug bad guy list of countries?

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The intent of this legislation is to try to stop

nations from allowing transiting through their waters or air

space——

Mr. GEJDENSON. I understand that.

Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. That will substantially affect our

own Nation. That is what we are trying to do. I am asking the gentleman now will he respond; is the gentleman objecting to our trying to——

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will answer that question without a written

statement, the answer is no, I want to stop drugs from coming into

this country. What I do not understand, and frankly, I don’t know

what this amendment is going to do, and that is what I am trying

to determine, I understand if a plane leaves Colombia and flies

over Cuba you want the government to put Cuba on the bad guy

states that helped transit drugs?

Chairman GILMAN. If Cuba—would the gentleman yield.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. If Cuba is allowing their air space to be continually utilized for transiting of drugs or allowing their territorial

waters to be utilized——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Cuba goes on the list.

Chairman GILMAN. Cuba would go on the list.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If we know now, as you and I both know from

watching the evening news, that American Airlines planes have

been flying drugs across British and French possessions, should we

put Britain and France on the drug bad country list?

Chairman GILMAN. Will you yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. You said you weren’t talking about any countries from the beginning?

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. We are talking about any transport which

substantially affects or significantly affects our own Nation.

Mr. GEJDENSON. My understanding is that the FBI said that

what American Airlines employees were doing was significant,

there were lots of drugs. It came in the food carts, it came in large

quantities. If the same plane, if somebody went down and bought

a 727 and filled it full of cocaine and flew through Cuban waters,

or flew through Cuban air space, or took a boat that went through

Cuban waters, you would then determine, it is my understanding,

that Cuba was facilitating drug transit.

21

I am asking you if we then find out that that same plane flew

over French and British possessions, do we put France and the

U.K. on the same list?

Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. We are talking about multi-kilo loads.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Multi-kilo loads, the same——

Chairman GILMAN. As it has been occurring in Cuban waters

where they allow flights to drop off drugs into its territorial waters

for transit to our own Nation.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me just say——

Chairman GILMAN. You asked what our objective is.

Mr. GEJDENSON. The objective is to get Cuba.

Chairman GILMAN. No, the objective is to try to reduce transiting

of narcotics through nations that surround our Nation.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I am going to quit, Mr. Chairman, because I am

not getting anywhere. We have other things to do. Again, if the

same plane that is carrying a ton of cocaine flies over Cuban waters and the Cubans don’t catch it, and that same plane had flown

over Jamaica, French possessions, English possessions, are we

going to put all of these other countries on the list?

Chairman GILMAN. The flights that go over Cuba, they drop their

substance into the waters, territorial waters in Cuba, and are allowed to be picked up by other fast-moving boats to be transited

to our Nation, and that is what we are concerned with. We are trying to reduce the amount of shipment of drugs into our Nation

country.

Mr. GEJDENSON. That helps me.

Chairman GILMAN. We are trying to provide——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. A clear definition for the State

Department that has been wrestling with this problem.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. Let me try to get to it. Now what

you are saying, the plane flies over a country’s waters and it drops

the drugs in the water and high speed boats take those drugs

away.

Chairman GILMAN. That is what has been happening.

Mr. GEJDENSON. What happens if the country is making an effort

to catch those people, and just a poor country, they don’t have a

lot of money, I am not talking about Cuba now, I am talking about

Haiti, I am talking about one of these French possessions, they

don’t have a large navy. The plane flies over, it drops the drugs in

the water, the high speed boat comes, and do we still put the country on the bad guy list even if it is trying to catch them?

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The answer is yes. The President has put

people—put nations on the major illicit drug-producing or drugtransiting countries list that have been friendly and trying to cooperate, but they are on the list because they have not completed

their efforts to prevent transiting.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very

generous with time. It seems to me that we ought to put Florida

and all our border states on the same list, because clearly those

22

drugs are dropped in waters off of Florida and brought into Florida

by boats. It is happening in Texas. I am sure it happens in every

state along the coast.

If that is your standard, then you ought to include, I guess, every

state in the Nation on your list of bad guy states. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. We are talking about foreign nations right

now and not our own Nation states. We have enough problem with

our own Nation states.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would like to commend the Chairman for

his efforts to get at a very real problem. I don’t know how effective

interdiction is going to be as long as there is a market in the

United States where people use drugs. But I know that this Chairman is making a serious effort at trying to stop this problem, and

the Ranking Member is making frivolous comments about this.

Let me finish, Mr. Ranking Member, the fact is the Chairman is

here in all seriousness, and the points that you were making were

obviously not helping the situation, but belittling the Chairman’s

efforts. The fact is that we know that there is a problem in which

Cuba is being used, their air space and their water space is being

used, and you yourself acknowledged this, to transship drugs into

the United States of America.

The Chairman is very serious in his efforts to try to stop this.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not until I finish, then I will be very happy

to yield to my good friend Mr. Gejdenson.

Now, we have a dictatorship in Cuba that hates the United

States of America. Fidel Castro for the last 30 years since he came

to power has had a visceral hatred for the United States. This has

been his primary motive for the policies of his country, and this is

one of the primary reasons we don’t have a good relationship with

the people of Cuba.

Robert Vesco, it is no accident that Robert Vesco finds a safe

haven in Cuba today. Robert Vesco is down there. Now we can’t

prove it. But there is every reason to believe that Robert Vesco has

helped the drug cartel in Latin America organize a distribution system taking full use of Cuban air space and water space to distribute, to supply drugs to the United States of America.

Castro managed to shoot down planes that were dropping pamphlets asking the people of Cuba to consider other opinions rather

than Fidel Castro’s. Now he can shoot down those airplanes, he has

got that capability. Haiti perhaps doesn’t have that capability of

shooting down planes.

Castro doesn’t shoot down drug carrying planes. He doesn’t interdict drug carrying ships, what he does is shoot down airplanes that

drop pamphlets and ships that are carrying refugees. He is sick.

This is a terrible regime, and his hatred of the United States is

leading him to try to destroy us, destroy people in our inner city

by smuggling, by helping in the drug smuggling. The Chairman is

trying to be serious about this. By saying, oh, well, in order to do

this we have to make sure every state in the Union that the plane

crosses over is put on that list, that is a frivolous point, Mr. Ranking Member, a frivolous point.

23

I would say this is a serious problem. We should thank the

Chairman for trying to come to grips with it, trying—rather than

trying to find little ways to try to undermine the effort. I applaud

the Chairman. Thank you very much.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I would.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I am not going to judge if the Chairman’s efforts

or results will be frivolous. I don’t think that my questions have

been frivolous. You can make your own determination obviously.

We have been trying to get answers to this question for some time.

It seems very clear that the Chairman and lots of Members of this

Committee are out to get Cuba.

I am not a friend of any dictator. I am not a friend of Fidel Castro. But when you write legislation that, I think, is as badly written as this is, that the net result is you ought to just write an instruction to the State Department, put Cuba on the bad guy list,

irrespective of what is going on, because the language in the legislation could lead one to the conclusion that any country that has

an air transit route over it or any country that boats happen to go

through that they can’t stop are bad guy countries.

As far as the examples that you gave, we shot down the entire

Iraqi and the Bosnian air force, and we can’t stop drugs coming

into this country. Now, there is some discussion going on with the

Castro government. Some people are optimistic about that. There

are some people that are pessimistic about it. But I frankly think

that a real effort, we ought to have a real standard by which we

are going to place countries on a bad guy drug list and not try to

create something to target Cuba. If you want to put Cuba on a bad

guy list, put it on a bad guy list.

But this language would lead you to believe that every country

where drug transit occurs is a bad guy country. I don’t think you

can make that case.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time for one second, because

we are running out of time here, the Chairman fully recognizes,

and the rest of us should recognize, what intent means. In fact, the

fact is Fidel Castro has over and over again expressed his intent

toward the United States. That is to do us harm, and the fact that

he is able to shoot down airplanes that drop leaflets and sink boats

with poor refugees on those boats, that indicates that he has some

capabilities, but he never seems to be able to initiate those same

kinds of actions against the drug runners.

Plus there is an intent on his part, and yes, he should be put on

the list, and I applaud the Chairman’s attempt to see Cuba put on

that list. I would yield to the Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, we appreciate

your supportive remarks.

Mr. Hilliard.

Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to question the intent of the amendment, but

let me discuss with you the effectiveness of that amendment. What

it actually means is that all of the nations in the southern hemisphere below the states of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida will be

designated as a nation—that may be designated rather as a nation

that is involved with drug transiting.

24

Now, the effect of that—and, of course, you stated you didn’t add

anything, but the effect of that would make it applicable—would

make all the other provisions of that act applicable to all of those

countries. We have countries that our are our friends, countries

like Aruba, countries like Haiti, other countries that do not have

the type of coast guard, do not have the type of army and air forces

that we have, that would be subjugated to this act, and the effect

of it would be that we have perhaps had a relationship with countries that have aided and assisted us as much as they possibly

could in fighting the war on drugs.

We are turning around and punishing them, because of their geographical location. This amendment is bad. The definition is overly

broad and has unfairly targeted those countries that are geographically located in the southern hemisphere.

So I hope that each Member of this Committee would take that

into consideration and vote against it.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hilliard.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I think

it has been documented time and time again by our own Nations

officials that Cuba is, and has become, a transit point for drug trafficking and for money laundering. Our south Florida television stations have actually filmed drug running boats going from South

America, coming from the Caribbean straight into the shores of

Cuba. Our customs officials, our Coast Guard officials say they

can’t keep up with those boats and they have seen those going into

the shores of Cuba.

I think it is disingenuous at best to think that anything can happen in a totalitarian police state, which is the reality of Castro’s

Cuba, without the direct participation of Fidel Castro.

The FBI, as Congressman Rohrabacher has pointed out, has a

long list of fugitives from U.S. law who have sought refuge and

have gotten refuge in Cuba, and that again is part and parcel of

the Castro dictatorship to help those individuals who are breaking

the law, escaping from U.S. justice, and he is giving them a safe

refuge. Many of those have convictions for serious drug trafficking.

To think that Cuba is a partner in our efforts to eliminate drugs

is absolutely ridiculous. I think that we should come to grips with

the reality that Cuba is a totalitarian police state, which not only

condones drug trafficking, but allows those drug traffickers to seek

refuge, and allows their shores to be used as transit points for illegal drug shipments, and allows money launderers. That is an important part of the drug trafficking trade, to seek refuge in Cuba.

I congratulate the Chairman for dealing with this reality that is

Castro’s Cuba.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for introducing this legislation. I certainly want to commend you for this

program—or the issue of drug trafficking or just the issue of drugs,

period. You have certainly been one of the most outstanding leaders on this Committee in pursuing this issue.

I just want to ask if there is a representative of the State Department here with us, if it is all right, Mr. Chairman, if the perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63967.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
25

son from the State Department could comment. I think there is no

question about the intent, it may be the wording or for better clarification that we can work on this. I certainly would be open to any

suggestions.

I think it takes into consideration what Mr. Gejdenson expressed

earlier, that it does not affect those countries that do not have histories, but just the fact of air flight over these countries I think

raises the question.

So I would like to ask the representative of the State Department.

Chairman GILMAN. Would you please identify yourself?

Ms. JACOBS. I am Susan Jacobs, Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Legislative Affairs at the Department of State. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Jacobs, I might note before you start that

on July 28th, I sent this letter to the Secretary, Secretary Albright,

‘‘the Committee would appreciate receiving comments from the Department of State on the following measure, H.R. 2608, to amend

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to clarify the definition of ‘major

drug transit country’ under the International Narcotics Control

Program. It would be appreciated if we could receive your written

views as soon as possible, since the Committee intends to consider

this legislation next week and a copy of the measure is enclosed.

Please direct the Department’s response to us,’’ et cetera.

September 9th, we sent a similar letter, and we have been calling weekly to try to get a response but have not received any response.

You may please proceed.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to thank you for taking the initiative and letting the Administration know, perhaps they have

been a little slow in responding to the legislation. But I would appreciate, ma’am, if you could comment on that.

Ms. JACOBS. OK. We don’t believe that this legislation is necessary. We believe that the legislation we already have that identifies countries that allow the transit through their air space,

through sea or over land—and it has a significant impact on the

drug traffic in the United States—we already have the ability to

label those countries.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, still reserving my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think there seems to be a suggestion here

about a country that does a dominant amount, a majority amount

of transiting seems to have a difference. Does that differentiate

from the current provision of the law——

Ms. JACOBS. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [continuing]. As the State Department——

Ms. JACOBS. The way the law is now written, in order for a country to be placed on a major drug trafficking——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Major.

Ms. JACOBS. Major drug trafficking list, the traffic through that

country has to have a significant impact on the drugs entering the

United States.

26

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So if this American Airlines flight comes

from Colombia and goes through Dominican Republic or Haiti or a

French or British territory, that does not qualify under that interpretation, does it?

Ms. JACOBS. No, sir, it wouldn’t, not if they had no control over

it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Does the State Department already have

the authority to designate a country as a major trafficking transit

country?

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, we do, sir.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Does the Administration consider this language to reinforce that?

Ms. JACOBS. We don’t believe that this language is necessary.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I can’t for the life of me figure out

why we are arguing this so extensively. Just recently, the Colombian National Police told the world there was seven and a half tons

of cocaine that was going to Cuba and Castro tried to palm it off

as being controlled, when it got to Cuba, by a Spanish company

that Cuba owned the controlling interest in.

I can tell you from the research we have done over the past

many years, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and myself, Lincoln Diaz-Balart

and others, Bob Menendez, that nothing goes on in Cuba that Castro doesn’t know about. For 71⁄2 tons of cocaine to go through a

front company in Cuba that was destined for the United States,

and the Administration tried to say that that cocaine was not destined for the United States, it was going to Europe, to Spain and

elsewhere.

The fact is when we talked to the Drug Enforcement Agency, the

DEA people, they said they never said that, and that there was a

misunderstanding, and that they didn’t have any indication that it

was going to Europe. Those drugs were going to go through Cuba,

probably to a pop company into Mexico and into the United States.

Now they are a major drug trafficking country. Raul Castro,

Fidel Castro’s brother, is still under indictment in Miami, Florida

for drug trafficking, as well as other Cuban officials. Now, they

have been involved in drugs for a long, long time, and I think this

legislation is timely. I think the Chairman is to be commended for

sponsoring it.

If we are concerned about drugs on our streets that are killing

our kids, if we are concerned about the horrible crime problem in

this country—over 70 percent of all crime is drug-related—then we

certainly ought to hold Fidel Castro’s feet to the fire for being a

major transit point of drugs. There is no question he is doing it.

We all know it, and I think we ought to pass this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me, hearing

from the Administration, that there is a process that is in place

that will put someone on the drug majors list, and that process has

due process and there are other things that are going into it. What

this bill does it not add anything to it, in fact, what it is, and what

27

I hear from my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, is they

just want to go specifically after one country; that is like trying to

establish a law because you are trying—you see someone you don’t

like and so, therefore, you create a law just for them, irrespective

of what happens to everyone else.

That is not the way of business, that is not the way things are

done. If you want to have a legitimatized process, you cannot say

I don’t like this particular person in this process, so, therefore, I

am going to change something else so that—and not effect other individuals in other countries. That is what this legislation does.

Clearly we understand that—and I just don’t understand, either,

some of the statements, that as if Cuba is the one that is bringing

all of the drugs into this country and killing all of our kids and all

of that. Cuba is not the one—I don’t know of any drugs actually

being produced in Cuba. If we want to go over the drugs, let us go

after where they are being produced, let us go there. Let us do

what we have to do to stop it there so it can’t fly over Cuba or anyplace else for that matter. If we stop it there, we don’t have to

worry about it coming into this country.

That is where our fight should be, not just all over this, trying

to change this piece of legislation when there are policies in place

currently to put someone, a country, on a drug majors list if, in

fact, they deserve to be there.

We must make sure that we don’t—I mean there is—I know of

a number of instances where drugs have come in from Canada, and

we can do the same thing there. But if we are going to try to target

one country, don’t try to make legislation that is going to do it in

this sense that really demeans what is currently in existence.

I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.

Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. I will be very brief. I would like to address this to

the State Department official again. In the existing legislation, the

term ‘‘through which are transported,’’ is it your testimony that

that would—under existing law—could include land or water or air

space over the land?

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHABOT. OK. So to clarify it in this manner doesn’t harm

anything?

Ms. JACOBS. But the way this could be interpreted is any air

space, any territorial water or any land, not necessarily having the

significant impact that is now written into the current legislation.

Mr. CHABOT. It doesn’t say any territory. It says includes a territorial air space. I think what the Chairman is doing is clarifying

that these areas are to be included, including air space, which

could be included right now, or water or land.

I think it is very helpful legislation. If Cuba would be affected

by this, so be it. I think it is appropriate for the Chairman to offer

this legislation. I would commend him for doing so.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.

Ms. Lee.

To our Members, we will vote on this, we will reconvene right

after the votes on the Floor and come back and finish two quick

measures.

28

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. Let me just say that

it is no secret where any of us stand in terms of U.S. policy toward

Cuba in terms of what the issues are, in terms of Fidel Castro. Let

me say, however, that I believe in this instance all of us are, or at

least both sides, those who support normalizing relations in Cuba

and in the embargo and those who don’t, see this as a broader effort to deal with Cuba in the strictest sense, not an effort really

to deal with the whole anti-drug effort.

I believe our government has been engaged in—General McCaffrey, all of our officials have really been engaging in counternarcotics efforts, and I believe they are working. I think we should

allow the process to move forward. I don’t think we need to muddle

it up with any issues with regard to our views, our political views,

with regard to Fidel Castro, and for those reasons I oppose this.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. If not, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, is recognized.

Mr. BURTON. 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 on the motion of the gentleman from Indiana.

All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Those opposed say no.

The ayes have it.

The motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

We will reconvene following the conclusion of the measures before the Congress right now.

Thank you. The Committee is recessed.

[Recess.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

We will now consider H. Con. Res. 187, relating to the airplane

engine regulations of the European Union.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. RUSH. House Concurrent Resolution 187, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the European

Council noise rule affecting hushkitted and reengined aircraft.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection the preamble and operative

language of the resolution will be read in that order for amendment.

The clerk will read.

Ms. RUSH. Whereas for more than 50 years the International

Civil Aviation Organization in this resolution refers——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read, and it is now open for amendment at any

point.

This resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the full Committee. We are an additional Committee on this resolution, and it

is primarily in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation

29

and Infrastructure. But both Mr. Gejdenson and I have cosponsored it.

I recognize myself briefly on the resolution. Then I believe Mr.

Gejdenson, who has been very active and constructive on this very

important issue, will have something to say.

The European Union has passed very regrettable legislation that

is supposed to help control noise around their airports, but the European legislation will, in fact, let noisy European airplanes fly,

and will ban quieter American airplanes.

It imposes a design standard rather than a performance standard that, oddly enough, favors European interests. Europeans often

accuse our Nation of unilateralism, but this regulation strikes at

the heart of an international agreement on whether aircraft can fly

internationally or not. European legislation will come into full effect this spring if nothing is done.

There are negotiations now under way to achieve a settlement

acceptable to both sides. But while the European legislation will

come into effect automatically, we have no ready response. One response that has passed the House is a bill which would result in

a ban on a Concorde landing in the United States if this law takes

effect. Banning the Concorde would result in a lowering by about

20 percent of the airport noise in New York, by the way.

This legislation asks the Administration to bring a case under

the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, and determine what our rights are. I think that this procedure, which will

take some time, is a good counterweight to the impending European legislation.

In closing, I say that we hope that a solution that permits an improvement in noise control standards over time by international

consensus can be reached, and it may be that bringing this ICAO

case will help put some pressure on the Europeans to come to a

reasonable solution. Therefore, we hope that Members will support

this resolution.

I recognize Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for your fine work on this

issue, and your leadership on it; also thank Mr. Shuster and Mr.

Oberstar for the work they have done. We have what is clearly an

outrageous attempt by the Europeans not to use decibel levels to

deal with the noise issue, but really to show their hand by looking

at the design of engines and trying to use the design not to deal

with noise, but to deal a disadvantage to American jet engine manufacturers.

If the United States gives in to the Europeans in this instance

we will see, sector by sector, American products blocked under the

ruse of either safety or noise regulations. What is clear, these regulations have nothing to do with noise and everything to do with

giving European jet engine manufacturers a competitive advantage.

This resolution is a very measured response. It simply suggests

the EU and the United States deal with this at the appropriate

international agency. But I can tell you that if we fail to resolve

this fairly, the Europeans will see from this Congress, and this

Member of Congress in particular, a response that will be equal to

theirs. This is an outrageous act. For whatever reason, by whatever

30

course it has occurred, it clearly has nothing to do with noise, it

has everything to do with trying to disadvantage Americans in

international competition. It will not serve the Europeans to take

this course.

Mr. Chairman, again I want to commend you for your work on

this and hope you would go to your leadership and ask to have this

put on the Monday suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition? Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to associate myself with the remarks that have

been made. As a Member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I have sat

in on hearings with regard to this issue, and several things that

I might bring to the body’s attention they may not be aware of. It

was only when we got into this hushkit issue that I learned that

we had been very generous with the Europeans, and that we allowed the Concorde to come to this country for many, many years

when they exceeded the noise levels.

So we have been very understanding of them. The loss to our

aviation industry is enormous, as has been cited, and it isn’t just

a question of landing rights at this time, but the question of the

eventual sale of these aircraft to perhaps smaller countries, and

the countries that are smaller than ours that might be tempted to

buy our aircraft are not going to do so, because they know they

wouldn’t be able to land them. So we preclude the landing of these

planes.

It has an effect that is ongoing. So I very much agree with this

resolution and would also agree that I hope we can bring it up in

a very timely fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Danner.

Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, would commend the Chairman for this resolution, and

would like to point out that this EU regulation basically is targeted

at American aircraft, and it is very obvious and it is very blatant.

This is surprising that the EU or the EC would do this at a time

when we are supposed to—that we are in a period of globalization,

that we are in the Information Age, and they would use this parochial tactic to basically preclude our aircraft, and our aircraft engines, from being in the skies over Europe.

So I think it is indeed an outrage, as my friend Mr. Gejdenson

says. I feel that it not only necessitates, it demands strong action

on the part of this country to stand up and take a strong position

and make it clear to the people in Europe that they cannot do this

at this time, at this point in history, if they really want to be part

of the global markets.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition? If not—Mr.

Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Yes. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

this bill. Coming from the 6th Congressional District in Queens,

where JFK is and we have tolerated for years the Concorde—that

31

is where it lands—and its excessive noise, for the European Union

to now try to discriminate against American companies, I think we

need to come down hard and not allow this.

I agree with the comments of my colleague earlier that we should

not tolerate this discriminatory practice on behalf of the European

Union, and I just want to thank the Chair for bringing this forward.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.

If there are no other Members seeking recognition, I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.

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

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

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

All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Those opposed say no.

The ayes have it.

The motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

We now have before us H.J. Res. 65, relating to the Battle of the

Bulge.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the joint resolution.

Ms. RUSH. H.J. Res. 65, a joint resolution commending the World

War II veterans who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and for other

purposes.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative language will be read in that order for amendment. The clerk

will read the bill for amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature

of a substitute.

Chairman GILMAN. First allow us to submit the measure, then

we will take up the amendment.

Mr. SMITH. I am sorry.

Ms. RUSH. Whereas the Battle of the Bulge was a major German

offensive in the——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read. It is open to amendment at any point.

I will recognize Mr. Smith.

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

I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment.

The clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mr.

Smith. Amend the preamble to read as follows——

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

I recognize Mr. Smith on his amendment.

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

32

It will only take a few moments of my colleagues’ time. This

amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.J. Res 65, which I

introduced in August along with a number of cosponsors, including

yourself, Mr. Bereuter, Lane Evans, Bob Stump, and many others,

commends the World War II veterans who bravely fought in the

Battle of the Bulge in both Belgium and Luxembourg.

This resolution reaffirms our Nation’s deep gratitude to the veterans of this crucial military engagement on its 55th anniversary,

and commemorates the sacrifices and services of our World War II

vets, those slain, those who survived, and all of their families.

I would just point out, parenthetically, this would be the first

time that Congress has gone on the record in recognizing those particular survivors and those who died at that particular battle.

Mr. Chairman, from mid-December 1944 through January 25th

of 1945, in an engagement that was three times as large as the

battle of Gettysburg, 600,000 American troops fought to repel a

massive Nazi offensive, which included on the Nazis’ part the element of surprise; they almost succeeded.

Our troops, assisted by about 55,000 British soldiers, resisted

1,000 Panzer guns and artillery fire, and even frostbite from the

bitter cold conditions.

The ordeal, or the campaign, was often called the great gamble

by Hitler. He thought a massive offensive might split the American, the Allied lines, and might actually change the fortunes of the

war, but the price of victory for the Allies was incredible.

There were 81,000 American casualties, including 19,000 KIA,

killed in action. Mr. Chairman, without their sacrifice and bravery,

stopping Hitler’s war machine would have been much more of a difficult task and perhaps would have resulted in even more lives lost

on both sides.

I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, that one American hero—

and there were a number of men who got the Congressional Medal

of Honor, 17 in all—but one, Bud Thorn, was awarded that great

medal posthumously for his bravery at the Battle of the Bulge. His

sister came to me recently and asked if I would do this resolution

to remember her brother, but also the many others who died, and

also to commemorate and remember those who have lived.

So, I just want to say to my colleagues, I hope we will all support

this. They are meeting in convention, those survivors of the Battle

of the Bulge, this weekend, and hopefully we can be on the Floor

very shortly with this. There are a number of remembrances

planned in the coming weeks and months in Belgium, in Luxembourg, and in the United States. So I think it is very fitting that

we go on record applauding their heroism and the great feat that

they accomplished many years ago.

I yield back the balance.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and thank you for

sponsoring this resolution.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just commend Mr.

Smith and others who sponsored this legislation. In the Ambrose

book, I think he points out how the individual American soldier, in

small groups and by themselves, pulled themselves together in

small groups and individuals to really hold the line. I think withVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63967.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
33

out any question, in the final analysis, we would have triumphed,

but it could have taken much, much longer, at the cost of many

more lives.

I commend the gentleman for his action.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

This joint resolution commends our American servicemen who

fought in one of the most decisive battles of World War II, the Battle of the Bulge. In December 1944, just prior to the holidays, Hitler’s generals, in a desperate gambit, launched an offensive in the

Ardennes Forest intended to split the lines of U.S. forces.

The Germans sought to break out of their containment and regain the offensive. Aided by a combination of the element of surprise and bad weather, which prevented our forces receiving air

support, the Germans were nearly successful. The German commanders, however, made a crucial mistake in underestimating the

resolve of our American forces whom they faced in this monumental battle.

From the dog-faced privates to our top generals, our troops were

undaunted by the savageness of the German assault or by the

forces of nature, which seemed to be arrayed against them. The

spirit of our troops was best encapsulated in a famous incident

when the German general demanded the surrender of U.S. troops.

Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe, of the 101st Airborne Division, replied with the epithet ‘‘nuts.’’

I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman of our

Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, for

bringing this measure before our Committee as we near the 50th

anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, and ask our Members to

unanimously report it to the House.

Is there any other Member seeking recognition? If there is no

other Member——

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. I would yield such time to the gentleman from

New Jersey as he might seek.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH. Congresswoman Danner just made a very good point

in the resolution where we say ‘‘American forces overcame great

odds.’’ Whereas the success of American forces, while the American

forces were the overwhelming bulk of the fighting force in that

campaign, the British forces were also very important.

I would ask unanimous consent that wherever we have American

troops, where appropriate, we also put ‘‘and British forces’’ as well.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is agreed

to.

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank the gentlelady from Missouri for

pointing that out.

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

If not, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of

a substitute offered by Mr. Smith.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

34

All those opposed to the amendment say no.

The amendment is agreed to.

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

offer a motion.

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

on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as in favor of the motion signify

by saying aye.

As many as are opposed say no.

The ayes have it, the motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

We will now consider H. Res 297, expressing sympathy for the

victims of the devastation that struck Taiwan on September 21st,

1999.

The Chair lays a resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. RUSH. H. Res 297, a resolution expressing sympathy for the

victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on September 21st, 1999.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution has not been referred to the

Subcommittee as of yet.

Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative

language of the resolution in that order for amendment.

The clerk will read.

Ms. RUSH. Whereas on the morning of September 21st, 1999, a

devastating and deadly earthquake shook the country.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read, and it is open to amendment at any

point.

I now recognize the sponsor of the resolution, the distinguished

Chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, to introduce the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Chairman Gilman. I thank you for

agreeing to place H.R. Res 297 on the markup today, and thanks

to Ranking Democrat Gejdenson and the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee Ranking Democrat Lantos, all three of you who have cosponsored the bill. The earthquake that occurred this week in Taiwan has literally decimated major parts of that island. It has become an all too familiar site, and the casualties are thousands.

There are hundreds of thousands homeless, buildings collapsed,

roads destroyed, village destroying mud slides, dams cracked and

in danger of failing. Taiwan will no doubt persevere. The Taiwanese are strong, and they are courageous. They have faced adversity before, but it is only appropriate that we comment on this

tragic natural catastrophe and indicate our assistance, sympathy,

and concern.

H. Res. 297 extends our deepest sympathy to the people of Taiwan. It notes with approval the assistance being offered under the

auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development. It also

notes with approval the willingness of other nations to come to the

assistance of Taiwan in their time of need. Among those offering

35

assistance include Japan, Singapore, the People’s Republic of

China, and Turkey, which recently suffered its own similar catastrophe.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I would

like to offer at this point.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the Bereuter amendment.

The clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Amendment by Mr. Bereuter, on page 1——

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

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

amendment be considered as read.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

Mr. Bereuter is recognized on his amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment simply updates events in Taiwan. Regrettably it increases the casualty

list—now more than 2,000 dead and more than 7,800 injured. Regrettably, we have to leave it sort of open ended language until the

rescue activities are completed.

I also thank Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen for alerting us to the fact that

elements of the Miami Dade County Fire and Rescue Team have

been dispatched in Taiwan, and we include the language ‘‘and others,’’ since units other than those from Fairfax County and Miami

Dade County are undoubtedly going to be involved.

I ask for the adoption of the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Is there any objection to the adoption of the

amendment?

If no objection, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

The amendment is carried.

I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Asia and the

Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, for responding so quickly to

the tragic earthquake in Taiwan by drafting this resolution, which

I am pleased to cosponsor, and I encourage my colleagues to join

with us in expressing our sympathies to the people of Taiwan in

their time of need.

I personally want to express my deepest sadness about the devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on the morning of September 21st, 1999. I want to convey to the citizens of Taiwan, who

recently warmly hosted our congressional delegation during a visit

to Taipei in August, our profoundest sympathies about the tragic

loss of life and property.

I am calling upon the Administration and other nations to do everything possible to assist Taiwan in its recovery from this unfortunate act of nature.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

If there are no other Members seeking recognition, I recognize

the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in addition to yourself, Mr.

Gejdenson, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Royce, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Rohrabacher,

Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Smith, Mr. Berman, Mr. Burton, Mr. Brown of

Ohio, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Payne, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Wexler, Mr.

36

Wynn and Mr. Gillmor are cosponsors and we welcome others who

wish to bring their name to the attention of the staff.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek

consideration of the pending resolution, as amended, on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska.

All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say no.

The ayes have it.

The motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed, and this

concludes our business for today.

The Committee stands adjourned. I thank our Members for coming back.

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(37)

A P P E N D I X

SEPTEMBER 23, 1999

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74