U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64–099 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

MARKUP OF H.R. 3244, H.CON.RES. 165, H.RES.

169, H.CON.RES. 206, H.CON.RES. 222,

H.CON.RES. 211, AND H.CON.RES. 200

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Tuesday, November 9, 1999

Serial No. 106–96

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel

JOAN I. O’DONNELL, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Markup of H.R. 3244, a bill to combat trafficking of persons, especially

into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions in the United States

and countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution

and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and assistance

to victims of trafficking ........................................................................................ 1

Markup of H. Con. Res. 165, a concurrent resolution expressing United States

policy toward the Slovak Republic ...................................................................... 7

Markup of H. Res. 169, a resolution expressing the sense of the House

of Representatives with respect to democracy, free elections, and human

rights in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic ................................................ 33

Markup of H. Con. Res. 206, a concurrent resolution expressing grave concern

regarding armed conflict in the North Caucasus region of the Russian

Federation which has resulted in civilian casualties and internally displaced persons, and urging all sides to pursue dialogue for peaceful resolution of the conflict ................................................................................................ 9

Markup of H. Con. Res. 222, a concurrent resolution condemning the assassination of Armenian Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian and other officials

of the Armenian Government and expressing the sense of the Congress

in morning this tragic loss of the duty elected leadership of Armenia ............ 14

Markup of H. Con. Res. 211, a concurrent resultion expressing the strong

support of the Congress for the recently concluded elections in the Republic

of India and urging the President to travel to India ......................................... 15

Markup of H. Con. Res. 200, a concurrent resolution expressing the strong

opposition of Congress to the military coup in Pakistan and calling for

a civilian, democratically-elected government to be returned to power in

Pakistan ................................................................................................................ 18

APPENDIX

H.R. 3244 .................................................................................................................. 52

Amendment to H.R. 3244, offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey .................. 97

H. Con. Res. 165 ...................................................................................................... 98

H. Con. Res. 206 ...................................................................................................... 103

En Bloc Amendment to H. Con. Res. 206, offered by Mr. Smith of New

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 107

H. Con. Res. 222 ...................................................................................................... 109

H. Con. Res. 211 ...................................................................................................... 112

H. Con. Res. 200 ...................................................................................................... 114

Committee Print (as Reported by the Subcommittee on Asia and the

Pacific) ........................................................................................................... 119

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the Committee Print of

H. Con. Res. 200, offered by Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Brown of Ohio ....... 124

H. Res. 169 ............................................................................................................... 128

Committee Print (as Reported by the Subcommittee on Asia and the

Pacific) ........................................................................................................... 130

Perfecting Amendment to H. Res. 169, offered by Mr. Radanovich ............. 134

Amendment to the Perfecting Amendment, offered by Mr. Bereuter .......... 137

Prepared statements:

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

York and Chairman, Committee on International Relations, statement on

H.R. 3244 .............................................................................................................. 138

The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from

California, statement of H. Con. Res. 222 .......................................................... 139

Page

IV

The Honorable Gary L. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from New

York, statement of H. Con. Res. 200 .................................................................. 140

Additional materials submitted for the record:

Memo to Mr. Gilman from Mr. Bereuter regarding Laos, submitted by Mr.

Bereuter ................................................................................................................ 142

(1)

MARKUP OF H.R. 3244, H.CON.RES. 165, H.RES.

169, H.CON.RES. 206, H.CON.RES. 222,

H.CON.RES. 211, AND H.CON.RES. 200

Tuesday, November 9, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4 p.m., in room 2172

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order—Members

please take their seats—pursuant to notice to mark up several

items of legislative business.

First item is H.R. 3244 relating to trafficking in humans.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the bill.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 3244, a bill to combat trafficking of persons,

especially into the sex trade, slavery and slavery-like conditions in

the United States and countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution and enforcement against traffickers and

through protection and assistance to victims of trafficking.

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

is dispensed with.

The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

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

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

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

I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey,

Mr. Smith to introduce the bill.

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

I am pleased that the Committee is meeting today to markup H.R.

3244, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 1999, which I introduced yesterday along with the Ranking Member, Mr. Gejdenson,

and seven other bipartisan cosponsors. This bill focuses on the

most severe forms of trafficking, on trafficking of children into the

international sex industry, on sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion and on trafficking into slavery and slavery-like practices.

Each year, Mr. Chairman, up to a million innocent victims, of

whom the overwhelming majority are women and children, are

brought by force and/or fraud into the international commercial sex

industry. Efforts by the U.S. Government, international organizaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64099.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
2

tions, and others to stop this brutal practice have thus far proved

unsuccessful.

Indeed, all the evidence suggests that instances of forcible and/

or fraudulent sexual trafficking are far more numerous than just

a few years ago.

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is not abstract. It shatters the lives

of real women and children. In Russia, for example, traffickers prey

on orphanages. In a typical scenario, a trafficker will pay an orphanage director approximately $12,000 to take a group of children

on a field trip to a local McDonalds, for example. Groups of children will then leave the orphanage with the trafficker, never to be

seen or heard from again.

It has been estimated by one leader of an NGO that approxi- mately $24,000—that is the going price, Mr. Chairman, $24,000

per woman, who is trafficked into the United States or some other

country. The problem is not just overseas. According to investigative reports I have received in the tristate area, including my home

State of New Jersey, there are thousands of women involuntarily

working. These are women who came to the United States in response to advertisements for reputable jobs such as waitresses,

housekeepers, nannies and the like. They were provided passports

and visas and transported to the United States.

When they arrived in the U.S., they were told that the jobs had

already been filled, but they were still indebted for the costs of the

trip, anywhere from $15,000- to $40,000. Many of these helpless

women have been forced to work as prostitutes until they pay off

their debts.

Part of the problem is that current laws and law enforcement

strategies in the U.S., as well as in other nations, often punish the

victims more severely than they punish the perpetrators. When a

sex-for-hire establishment is raided, the women, and sometimes

children, in the brothel are typically deported if they are not citizens of the country in which the establishment is located, without

reference to whether their participation was voluntary or involuntary and without reference to whether they will face retribution or

other serious harm upon return.

This not only inflicts further cruelty on the victims, it also robs—

leaves nobody, I should say, to testify against the real criminals

and frightens other victims from coming forward.

My original bill, Mr. Chairman, introduced along with our colleague, Marcy Kaptur, focused only on sex trafficking because we

believe this is the most egregious and the fastest growing form of

trafficking of persons, and because we wanted to include tough

penalties against traffickers and against governments that are part

of the problem rather than part of the solution.

At the strong suggestion of Mr. Gejdenson, the new bill recognizes that there are other forms of trafficking, such as trafficking

into literal slavery or into forms of indentured servitude that

amount to slavery, and in which trafficked women are often subjected to brutal treatment, including rape, that call for the same

tough approach toward traffickers and the same compassion for the

victims.

H.R. 3244 punishes, and I quote, ‘‘severe forms of trafficking in

persons,’’ which are defined as sex trafficking with children, sex

3

trafficking induced by force, fraud, or coercion, and trafficking of

persons into involuntary servitude or slave-like conditions by force,

fraud, or coercion. This legislation seeks the elimination of these

gross human rights violations by a comprehensive, balanced approach of prevention, prosecution and enforcement and victim protection.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act modifies U.S. criminal

law to provide severe punishment for persons convicted of severe

forms of trafficking in persons. This includes those who recruit,

transport, purchase and sell victims, as well as those who manage

or share in the proceeds of the trafficking enterprises. It directs the

State Department to include in its annual country reports on

human rights information regarding countries involved in severe

forms of trafficking and the extent to which their governments are

involved in combating or tolerating such trafficking.

It creates a statutory interagency task force to monitor and combat trafficking, which is similar to the interagency approach the

Administration has already taken. It also authorizes the establishment of a State Department office to monitor and combat trafficking, which will provide assistance to the task force.

It directs the President to establish preventive programs aimed

at deterring trafficking by enhancing economic opportunities for potential trafficking victims and increasing public awareness of the

dangers of trafficking and the protections that are available to victims. It provides increased protection and assistance for victims of

severe forms of trafficking, both in the U.S. and abroad, by funding

assistance initiatives and protecting certain victims from being deported from the U.S. if they are likely to suffer retribution or other

harm.

The bill establishes minimum standards for countries that have

significant trafficking problems. These governments should punish

these egregious forms of trafficking for what they are—kidnapping,

rape, slavery—and they should vigorously prosecute the kidnappers

and rapists and slave traders. The bill then authorizes AID to fund

activities designed to help countries meet those standards, such as

rewriting their laws and training their police and prosecutors. The

bill also requires that the President, beginning in the Year 2002,

either withhold nonhumanitarian foreign assistance to governments that fail to meet the minimal standards, or to waive that

prohibition if he finds that providing such assistance is in the national interests of the United States.

So this is not a carrots-only approach, which is what the Administration seems to favor. We have carefully calibrated this approach

which ultimately leaves it up to the President to decide whether to

withdraw the nonhumanitarian aid, even from governments that

absolutely refuse to do anything about trafficking. But the President would have to at least address the problem once a year.

The government would have to produce a list of governments

that do not meet the minimal standards, and if the President explains why he wanted to keep the funding of these governments,

he would have to say so in black and white. This would have the

effect of putting the fight against the international slave trade at

the top of our foreign policy agenda where it belongs.

4

Finally, the bill authorizes the State Department to publish a list

of foreign persons involved with severe forms of trafficking and allows the President to impose economic sanctions against those persons.

Mr. Chairman, the Administration has been very critical of the

original Smith-Kaptur Bill, and in drafting the new bill, we have

tried to meet as many of their concerns as possible. Despite the

many concessions we have made, I understand that the Administration still opposes the bill based on what they erroneously call

‘‘mandatory sanctions.’’

Let me be clear about what this bill does and what it doesn’t do:

It contains no trade sanctions and no mandatory sanctions at all.

It provides for waiverable conditionality on nonhumanitarian U.S.

foreign assistance for governments that fail to meet minimal standards in fighting organized crime enterprises that subject women

and children to unspeakable horrors.

The State Department has argued that what the problem governments need is advance notice and assistance in order to address

these complex problems, but this bill takes that concern into account as well. It authorizes AID to assist countries in their efforts

to meet minimal standards and delays the conditionality on nonhumanitarian foreign aid for 2 years, until the Year 2000.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. SMITH. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank my

many cosponsors, including again Mr. Gejdenson, Ms. Kaptur, Louise Slaughter, the Ranking Member of our Subcommittee, Cynthia

McKinney, and all the original cosponsors, for their support for this

legislation.

Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman. I want to commend

the gentleman from New Jersey, the distinguished Chairman of our

International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, Mr.

Smith, and the Ranking Minority Member of that Subcommittee,

Congresswoman McKinney, for their excellent work on their Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In addition, I want to thank the

Ranking Minority Member of our Full Committee, Mr. Gejdenson,

for his work on this important measure.

There are few things in this world that are as demoralizing or

degrading to the humor spirit as having to sell one’s body or one’s

child in order to survive. Criminals who initiate or help to facilitate

such transactions are at the lowest end of the human spectrum.

H.R. 3244 will help to end the trafficking of persons into the sex

trade and into the slavery-like conditions by requiring various important governmentwide action, such as requiring our President to

establish an interagency task force to monitor and combat trafficking, chaired by the Secretary of State and requiring the Secretary of State to report to Congress annually on the status of severe forms of trafficking, beginning in Fiscal Year 2002 for each

country that fails to meet the minimal standards.

The President is going to have to notify Congress about the steps

that we are taking to adequately respond. The bill authorizes the

Secretary of State to compile and publish a list of foreign persons

involved with a severe form of trafficking in persons, directly or indirectly, in the United States and to take appropriate action. H.R.

3244 further allows the President to impose international emerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64099.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
5

gency economic powers, IEEPA, sanctions against any foreign person on that list and requires that he report to Congress any such

sanctions.

In closing, I note that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is

an important initiative that will help put an end to the serious

problem and must be boldly addressed with no holds barred. I commend the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human

Rights for their work, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to first

commend both Mr. Smith’s staff and my staff—Joseph Rees on his

staff and Aletea Gordon, David Abramowitz, and Peter Yeo on my

staff—for the great work they have done here, coming up with

what I think is a terrific product. Obviously, at least this Member

of Congress, when I got here, never thought that as we approached

the millennium we would have a situation where even in the

United States tens of thousands of women and children are trafficked regularly. Only occasionally do those stories of MexicanAmericans brutalized, years of selling trinkets on the streets of our

major cities, make the papers. Trafficking of any kind is something

that clearly should have ended long ago.

I really want to commend my colleague, Mr. Smith from New

Jersey, for his cooperation in working out the language on this bill.

There was never a debate on the goals—we all agreed on what we

wanted to do—the questions was on how to best get there, and I

think the staff has done an excellent job providing broad prosecution and enforcement provisions in this bill to make sure that every

kind of trafficking is dealt with.

Obviously we are not done here today; this is going to take some

time with the other countries of the world. But it is clearly something that is very important.

Again, I want to thank all the staff, but particularly Alethea Gordon of my staff for the great work she has done on this. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While I certainly support the worthy cause of this legislation and

do not want to vote against it, and will not—it is important, of

course, to help stop the sex trade trafficking and slavery to prosecute those engaged in such reprehensible actions and assist the

innocent victims of those crimes—I raise concerns about the funding of this new foreign policy priority.

What are we going to cut to fund the extensive aid and administrative provisions in this bill? The bill authorizes $31.5 million in

Fiscal Year 2000, $63 million in Fiscal Year 2001—that is $94.5

million over the next 2 years.

Now, all too often in the past, the financial support for new initiatives of this kind has come from reducing agriculture and food

aid. Since the beginning of the Clinton Administration, Public Law

480 food aid funding has decreased about a half-billion dollars—

this at a time when America’s farms are facing crisis and food

needs around the world continue to be acute. For all of the Administration’s claims to feel the pain of Nebraskans and other AmerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64099.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
6

ican farmers, it has seemingly increased that pain by slashing food

aid by over a half-billion dollars.

Here are the facts. For Fiscal Year 1993 to Fiscal Year 1999,

Title I, Public Law 480, decreased 50 percent; Public Law 480, Title

II, emergency donated food aid, a very major decrease there. It is

constant, but if you take a look at the adjustments for inflation, it

is a real decrease. Public Law 480, Title III, incredibly slashed

from $312 million down to $25 million, a 92 percent cut.

Yet, over the past year, we have increased microenterprise, child

survival and population assistance. While I certainly do not oppose

those programs—in fact, I am an original cosponsor of things like

the child survival ones—I do not support increasing them at the expense of food aid. We simply can no longer go about increasing

these programs by taking away funding from the Public Law 480

program which harms the American farmer and harms hungry people around the world.

Now, the gentleman is not forcing us to do that. But, in fact, when he is proposing additional authorizations, over $90 million in

authorization—$94.5 million exactly—in the next 2 years, it has an

effect upon other Federal accounts. I think that East and West

Coast Members need to remember that it is Members of America’s

heartland agriculture district that provides the needed votes to

pass the foreign assistance legislation, typically. Without our votes,

there would be no child survival funding, no population assistance,

no sex trafficking task force.

Yet, we look at these programs that are a direct benefit not only

to hungry people around the world—they are a direct benefit to our

constituents. We say the cuts continue from the authorization; we

add new authorizations, we don’t add new money.

I want to bring this to my colleagues’ attention, hoping that they

will be more sympathetic to efforts to stop the reduction in Public

Law 480 funding. To the Administration, I ask the question, how

can you justify these huge cuts, the one-half billion dollars in Public Law 480?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Ms. McKinney—who has laryngitis—do you want to submit a

statement for the record?

Ms. MCKINNEY. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The statement will be submitted and made a

part of the record.

[The information referred to was not available at time of print.]

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

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

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith has an amendment at the desk.

The clerk will read the amendment.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith on page 6, line

25, immediately following section——

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.

7

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, this is a——

Chairman GILMAN. I recognize Mr. Smith for 5 minutes on his

amendment.

Mr. SMITH. I entered it with the Minority and I think they were

in full accord. This just adds as one of the original findings that

one of the founding doctrines of the United States, the Declaration

of Independence, recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of all

people and talks about how the United States outlawed slavery and

involuntary servitude in 1865, and recognized them as evil institutions that must be abolished.

Since this is a bill that concerns itself with slavery and those

kinds of abominations, it would be fitting to have this in the findings clauses.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition on

the amendment?

If not, all those in favor of the amendment signify in the usual

manner.

Opposed?

The amendment is agreed to.

Any further amendments on this measure? If no further

amendments——

Mr. SMITH. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Sir, I have been advised that in order to report the

bill, we need a quorum—so we would require a recorded vote on

this. Is that true or untrue?

Chairman GILMAN. That is correct. We will set it aside until such

time as we have a quorum present. We are calling now for a

quorum. We will now proceed to the next measure. Without objection, the bill will be set aside temporarily.

Chairman GILMAN. We will now proceed to H.Con.Res. 165 relating to American policy toward the Slovak Republic.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.Con.Res. 165, a resolution expressing United

States policy toward the Slovak Republic.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative language of the resolution will read in that order for amendment.

The clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. Resolved by the House of Representatives, the

Senate concurring, Section 1. Findings. The Congress finds——

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

The resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full Committee.

I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

I support this resolution. I was pleased to join Congressman

Mica of Florida in introducing it in July of this year. Slovakia is

a very important country in the region of Central and Eastern Europe, and for that reason, our Nation, our allies in the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union have sought to build a strong

relationship with it.

8

The collapse of communism is, however, a mere 10 years behind

us, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Communist

regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 was just the start of a very difficult process for Slovakia and many other countries in that region.

Even the most prosperous of those nations, new democracies like

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, continue to face difficult

issues and challenges to reforms. But Slovakians have an added

challenge; it has not really existed as an independent state for hundreds of years. After becoming independent in 1993, the newly

independent State of Slovakia then experienced a political struggle

that ensued between those who want to integrate Slovakia in the

Pan-American and transatlantic institutions by carrying out real

reforms, and those who are calling for such integration actually

made such reforms difficult to achieve.

The parliamentary elections of September 1998 brought to power

a new coalition government that appears to be working toward implementing genuine reform and ensuring that the rights of all citizens of Slovakia are respected, regardless of ethnic background. I

believe that this resolution is a timely expression of our support for

the new government in Slovakia and for the process of economic

and political reforms in that country.

It also makes it clear that the United States supports Slovakia’s

eventual integration and the ban of European and transatlantic

community of democratic states.

Accordingly, I support the passage of this resolution and I urge

my colleagues to support it.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. We are going to lose all of our Members in a little bit, and we want to vote on the sex trafficking bill. I am just

going to be very brief.

I agree with everything you said. We need to make sure that Slovakia and all the countries of the region get our support. There

have been negative effects as a result of the actions in Kosovo on

their economies.

I hope we limit ourselves to maybe one or two speakers unless

there is controversy on each amendment, or we will lose the sex

trafficking bill because we won’t have the quorum we need to pass

that bill. As I understand it, we will be out of business on the floor

pretty soon.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be brief. I rise in support of the resolution. I think that

when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Warsaw Pact collapsed, we all remember that there was something called the

visigrad Four—the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland.

It was a disappointment to many people to see Slovakia take a

turn away from democracy for some period of time, so that unanimously all 16 countries of NATO felt they were not ready for

NATO membership with the other three.

9

But Slovakia has moved back and taken very positive steps, and

the items in the whereas clauses point out the appropriate kinds

of action, highly commendable actions, that the Slovakian Government has taken. They deserve a pat on the back for their change

in course which will undoubtedly help them be integrated in the

European Union and, eventually, in NATO. I think it is appropriate to pass the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

If there is no other Member seeking recognition, the gentleman

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

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

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

As many as are in favor, signify in the usual manner.

Opposed?

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am waiting for a

handout, a revised handout to be brought. I wondered if we might

skip temporarily over the next measure and go to the fourth, and

then back to the third?

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, we will now move to

H.Con.Res. 206, a concurrent resolution expressing grave concern

regarding armed conflict in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.Con.Res. 206, a resolution expressing grave concern regarding armed conflict in the North Caucasus region of the

Russian Federation, which has resulted in civilian casualties and

internally displaced persons, and urging all sides to pursue dialogue for peaceful resolution of the conflict.

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. BLOOMER. Whereas during the Russo-Chechen War of 1994–

1996, Russian Federation——

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

The resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full Committee.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman withhold?

I support the resolution introduced by our colleague from New

Jersey, Mr. Smith. I believe it makes some important points with

regard to the current warfare in the region of Chechnya and RusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64099.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
10

sia. Most importantly, it points out that tens of thousands of innocent civilians are suffering terribly due to the Russian Government’s indiscriminate use of force and the Russians violation of its

own commitments as a member state in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

This resolution states the obvious, that a peaceful settlement is

required in Chechnya if the suffering of innocent civilians is to end

soon. The resolution also states, and I think quite appropriately,

that there has been a wave of internal lawlessness and

kidnappings within Chechnya in recent years, including an armed

attack on a neighboring region of Russia by extremist forces from

Chechnya.

Although I do not think that excuses the current military actions

by Russia in Chechnya, it perhaps underlies why there is no clear

consensus yet as to what the international community should do

with regard to the latest conflict in that region.

I would like to take this opportunity to state my belief that the

latest Russian military offensive will very likely do little to address

the underlying causes of instability in the North Caucasus region

and indeed throughout Russia. Those underlying problems include

vast corruption at all levels of the Russian Government; and in absence of real economic reforms, allowing the North Caucasus region

to slip into grinding poverty, that is, in turn, breeding yet even

more instability.

This resolution makes several important statements, but I would

specifically point out that the resolution states Russia’s use of indiscriminate force in Chechnya is a direct violation of its commitments as a member state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, just as the previous military operation in

Chechnya was in violation of those OSCE commitments.

I also note that Russia has violated the treaty on conventional

forces in Europe in the course of that operation.

The summit of the OSCE heads of state is to be held in Istanbul

in the next few days, and it is time for our government to call Russia to task for its violation of those OSCE commitments and disregard for the CFE treaty, a treaty that, in fact, has already been

revised to meet earlier Russian demands. The OCSE summit is a

perfect venue in which to do that.

We may not see it on our television screens, but many innocent

people are suffering terribly from the indiscriminate force used by

Russia in Chechnya, as well as for the extremism of some of those

on the Chechnya side. It is time to get the two sides to the table,

and as this resolution points out, the OSCE can help if Russian

lives up to its commitments.

Accordingly, I support the resolution and recognize Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The conflict between

Russians and Chechens is over 100 years old. Under Stalin, they

tried force to resettle the Chechen people. We are still seeing here

today the convulsions of the end of the old Soviet system. It is clear

that this is a very complicated situation. The Russians have failed

to recognize the impact on the civilian populations—over 200,000

people displaced.

11

We would hope that the Russian Government would try much

more sincerely, with much more effort, to make sure they are not

dislodging large numbers of innocent civilians.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

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

I thank you for placing H.Con.Res. 206 on the agenda today. This

resolution addresses an issue of increasing urgency, the war in

Chechnya and the plight of innocent people caught in the conflict.

Mr. Chairman, following two armed incursions into the neighboring Republic of Dagestan by Islamic extremists, based in

Chechnya but independent of the Chechen Government, the Russian Government sent the full weight of its military regime into

Chechnya, a region that gained de facto independence from Russia

as a result of the bloody war from 1994 to 1996.

While Russia, on the one hand, is justified in rebuffing armed aggression against its territorial integrity—in combating terrorism—

one can sympathize with Russia’s frustration over the unsolved

bombings that killed almost 300 persons in Russia around the

same time as the Dagestan incursion.

The government of Chechnya, too, has not been entirely blameless in the situation since achieving de facto independence from

Russia in 1996. Chechnya has degenerated into a morass of lawlessness and violence with a government powerless to establish law

and order. But, Mr. Chairman, these arguments do not justify a

war against innocent civilians.

Noncombatant villages, homes, and farms have been subjected to

artillery shellings and air raids. The death toll now is in the hundreds, and the number of internally displaced persons who have

sought refuge in neighboring regions is around 200,000.

Mr. Chairman, for this reason, I, together with Mr. Wolf and Mr.

Forbes, introduced this resolution; and we have been joined by

Messrs. Hoyer, Cardin, Engel, and Stark as cosponsors. Specifically, the resolution urges the government of the Russian Federation and all parties to cease the indiscriminate use of force against

the civilian population in Chechnya.

It further urges the government of Russia and all parties to enter

into negotiations and to avail itself of the capabilities of the OSCE

which helped broker an end to the 1994–1996 war. Additionally,

the resolution calls upon Chechen authorities to make every effort

to deny basis to radical elements committed to violent actions in

the Northern Caucasus and urges Chechen authorities to create a

rule-of-law environment with legal norms based upon internationally accepted standards.

Finally, the resolution calls upon our own government to express

to all parties the necessity of resolving the conflict peacefully and

to express the willingness of the U.S. to extend appropriate assistance toward such a resolution, including humanitarian assistance

as needed.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution is not anti-Russian, and it is not

pro-Chechen. Many observers who wish to see a prosperous and

democratic Russia have been deeply disturbed by Russia’s actions

in Chechnya.

12

Yesterday, the State Department accused Moscow of failing to

meet human rights standards set out both in the Geneva Conventions and the Codes of Conduct of the OSCE. Unfortunately, when

Attorney General Reno visited Moscow last month, her evasive

comments about the war in Chechnya prompted the October 23rd

edition of the Moscow Times to say, and I quote, ‘‘Reno’s quiet gave

war a green light.’’ Hopefully, the Administration will speak with

one voice in the future, and avoid any mixed messages.

The last thing the Russian military needs now is the slightest

encouragement for its present action. Let me just remind Members

that the last time this war was going on, we had hearing after

hearing, many of them held in this room. We heard from Yulana

Bonner and many others who said we had given the green light,

however unwittingly, to the Russians when they were doing their

‘‘scorched earth’’ policy in Chechnya last time.

Let us not have deja vu again. Let us go on record trying to find

a peaceful outcome to this despicable mess in Cehchnya. The killing is going on, and the internally displaced people and the refugees who have made it across the border are at great risk of dying

or of being very, very severely malnourished as a result of this war.

It has got to come to a halt.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Does any other Member over here seek recognition?

If not, Mr. Rohrabacher.

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

I would be voting in favor of this motion, of course, but I would

like to remind Members of the Committee, while we are here waiting for our quorum, that for about 2 years I have been suggesting,

unless we pay attention to what is going on in Afghanistan, that

it would have severe repercussions in Central Asia.

I believe that at least part of the problem in Chechnya can be

traced back to the massive drug production that is going on in Afghanistan today, and the drug money that is being produced there

is having its impact throughout Central Asia.

Although I do think, of course, we have to be tough on our Russian friends not to have a ‘‘scorched earth’’ policy, we also must understand that the Chechens themselves could well have sources of

money coming from Afghanistan and this drug money.

So we should be a force for peace. We should be a force for stability in the region. I appreciate that is the purpose of this resolution and will support it. But again, I think that this Administration

has got to understand that their current policy in Afghanistan is

having very serious repercussions, and this is one of them.

Let me again state for the record that the response of this Administration for well over a year, for the documents that I requested concerning Afghanistan has not been—they have not been

forthcoming. They have been obstructionist. Even to this date, even

after a very contentious hearing in which this issue was vocalized,

they still have not come forward with the documents that I have

been looking for for well over a year.

So I assume, and I am assuming, that what we are facing here

in Chechnya could well be just another off-shoot of the failed policy

13

in Afghanistan, or should we say, the Administration’s policy of Afghanistan coming to its natural conclusion.

So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith has an amendment at the desk.

The clerk will read the amendment.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. En bloc amendment offered by Mr. Smith, page 2,

in the first——

Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment considered as read.

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

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, these are just perfecting amendments,

some recommendations that have been made by our embassy in

Moscow by Ambassador Collins, and by both majority and minority

staffs. I do think it just tightens and makes what I hope was a

good resolution even better. I urge the adoption.

Mr. GEJDENSON. We have no objection.

Chairman GILMAN. All those in favor of the amendment signify

in the usual manner.

Opposed?

The amendment is carried.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Just if I could announce to the Members that we are

still hoping to have a vote on the Smith-Gejdenson language, the

legislation on sex trafficking. So if Members could stick around, we

do need a quorum to report it out. It is a matter of if and not

when—when and not if. So we hope to get this as soon as possible.

As soon as we have the quorum, the roll call will occur, if that is

OK by you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I am not trying to cutoff anybody’s ability to

speak here, I would suggest if maybe we could limit it to 5 minutes

on each side on each proposition, so if you have an amendment, you

have a point of order, you get 5 minutes on each side, so we can

just get through these. Because what I am afraid of is, we will lose

our time.

So unless there is objection, I ask unanimous consent——

Mr. BEREUTER. I object.

Chairman GILMAN. Objection is heard.

Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.

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

Chairman GILMAN. As amended. The question is on the motion

of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the

motion, say aye.

14

As many as are opposed——

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

Chairman GILMAN. We will now proceed to H.Con.Res. 222, the

concurrent resolution condemning the assassination of the Armenian Prime Minister and other Armenian Government officials.

The Chair lays a resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.Con.Res. 222, a resolution condemning the assassination of Armenia Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian and other

officials of the Armenian Government and expressing the sense of

the Congress in mourning this tragic loss of the duly elected leadership of Armenia.

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. BLOOMER. Whereas on October 27, 1999, several armed individuals broke into Armenia’s Parliament and assassinated the

Prime Minister of Armenia, Vazgen Sargsian, the Chairman of the

Armenian Parliament, Karen Demirchian——

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

The resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full Committee.

I support this resolution introduced by Congressman Rogan of

California, which is identical to the language of the resolution introduced by a bipartisan group of Members of the Senate, which I

hope will have the support of our colleagues on this Committee and

in the House as a whole. The killings that took place in Armenia

on October 27th were deplorable.

While the perpetrators claimed to be acting on October 27th on

behalf of the Armenian people, their means of acting, the murders

of top officials, is not the way to build true democracy in Armenia

or in any other such struggling nation.

This resolution properly calls for the trial of those accused of

those murders. Of course, they should indeed have their day in

court so that all Armenians can better understand their motives.

That should be as much a part of democracy in Armenia as it is

here, but they should, and I am sure will, face a thorough prosecution.

True democracy is not created by such senseless atrocities. Armenia faces serious difficulties, not just the academic and political difficulties that face all the states of the former Soviet Union, but also

the need for peaceful resolution of the conflict with neighboring

Azerbaijan that has been merely suspended by a cease-fire for the

past 5 years.

The murders of top officials in Armenia did not help that small

nation resolve those serious problems, but the adoption of this resolution by the House may be helpful by making it clear to the Armenian people that our Nation continues to support democracy in

their nation and opposes such acts of terrorism. Accordingly, I fully

support the resolution.

15

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I join with you in supporting

this resolution. One of the reasons I wanted a markup in the Committee is to have the Committee clearly on record in support of democracy in Armenia. The Armenian people have suffered so much

since the genocide earlier in the 1900’s, and suffered under Soviet

control. They now have their own democracy, and all of us are saddened to see this brutal and senseless act.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADONOVICH. I do have a statement for the record. For the

sake of time, I would like to submit it into the record.

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

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the statement will be

made a part of the record.

Is any other Member seeking recognition?

If not, I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter,

to offer a motion.

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

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of gentleman

from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion, say aye.

As many as are opposed, say no.

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

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

Chairman GILMAN. We will now proceed to H.Con.Res. 211, a

concurrent resolution expressing the strong support of the Congress

for the recently concluded elections in the Republic of India.

The Chair now lays a resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.Con.Res. 211, a resolution expressing the strong

support of the Congress for the recently concluded elections in the

Republic of India and urging the President to travel to India.

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. BLOOMER. Whereas the Republic of India is a long-standing

parliamentary democracy——

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

This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia and

the Pacific and was reported without amendment.

Who seeks recognition?

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and

be able to yield to the rest of my time to Mr. Ackerman.

The most populous democracy on this planet is an important

friend to the United States. We need to continue to develop this relationship beyond the geopolitical considerations of the region. Both

16

from the institutional point of two great democracies to the economic opportunities for the many Indian citizens who are a strong

part of American society, it is critical for us to recognize and to

build on what is already a very important relationship.

I again, as I have said before, am privileged to hold a seat that

Chester Bowles had, one of our greatest Ambassadors to India,

serving two terms there, in helping establish a very solid foundation under one of our most important relationships.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Asia and Pacific

Subcommittee marked up this legislation October 27th and unanimously approved it.

The resolution rightly congratulates the people of India on a successful election where over 350 million people cast their ballots.

The reelection of Prime Minister Vajpayee reflects a vibrant

multiparty system where parties with strongly differing views can

compete in a way that is uniquely Indian. We certainly wish the

Vajpayee party and its ruling coalition well as it prepares to lead

the country.

The resolution offered by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Ackerman, rightly alludes to this strategic relationship between the U.S.

and India. We certainly have such a strategic relationship today,

just as we have strategic relationships with many other countries,

and we look forward to improved relations.

I urge adoption.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and

your staff on the Committee for agreeing to consider my resolution

this afternoon. I also want to thank Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Lantos

for cosponsoring the resolution.

The contrasting events in India and Pakistan over a single 24-

hour period speak eloquently about the new challenges and opportunities that we face in South Asia. In India, we have seen hundreds of millions of voters enthusiastically exercise their votes in

a free and fair election. In Pakistan, we witnessed a military coup.

This resolution, Mr. Chairman, recognizes that the people of

India have a deep and abiding commitment to democracy, and it

salutes them for the passion with which they choose their own destiny.

No country reflects their own values more in that part of the

world than India. It is high time we seriously begin to recognize

this fact, and graduate from near-platitudes to some tangible policy

changes toward India. I believe it is time to reexamine our basic

premise regarding U.S. policy in South Asia.

We should abandon the old paradigms and Cold War hang-ups

and see that India, a democracy, is our natural ally in the region.

The best way to demonstrate our commitment to the people of

India is by ensuring that the President travels to India as soon as

possible.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

17

I support this resolution and I agree with my good friend Mr.

Ackerman that this is very symbolic in that India had free elections, and within a very short period of time, we see a military regime being imposed on the people of Pakistan. It is incumbent on

the people of the United States and on us to again and again reaffirm to the people of the world that we are in favor of democracy,

we are in favor of the democratic process, and that this resolution

is very timely in that regard.

I do disagree with my good friend Mr. Ackerman that we had

Cold War hang-ups. Let us remember during the Cold War, India

sided with the Soviet Union time and time again, and condemned

the United States time and time again. Now, the Cold War is over,

we should move forward with a better relationship with India, but

let us not just call them Cold War hang-ups.

It is not a Cold War hang-up to be upset with someone who is

refusing to condemn the Russians for all of their vicious, imperialistic and militaristic activities while condemning the United

States for any of its imperfections, which was India’s standard procedure in those days.

Additionally, let me say this: I think India and the United States

can, in this post-Cold War world, reach a new and better relationship because of the threat of China, which threatens the peace for

both of our countries.

Finally, we need to go on record to make sure that India knows

having free elections is good, but they should let free elections determine what the outcome will be in Kashmir. If they would agree

to that, they would agree to allowing the people of Kashmir to have

a free and democratic election, we could have that problem done

with—but they haven’t permitted that for all of these years.

So I support the resolution. I think we have to go after this in

a very thoughtful manner. Thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition? Mr.

Brown.

Mr. BROWN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also rise in strong support of the resolution. I would like, if appropriate, to ask the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, if

I could add my name to the list of cosponsors. I also applaud the

people of India, 350 million strong, for the greatest turnout for any

election in the world—in the history of the world.

I also applaud the government of India and, more importantly,

the people of India for the fact that during their series of elections

in the last 5 or 6 years and their change in governments, that the

government has enjoyed stability, and the country has enjoyed stability through all of that. Even with the immense amount of upheaval there has been in the subcontinent of Sri Lanka and the domestic problems there and the coup in Pakistan, India has continued to move forward.

So I ask my colleagues for support of the resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Any other Members seeking recognition?

I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of

the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee for sending this important

measure to the Full Committee.

18

I commend Mr. Ackerman, who is Co-chairman of the Indian

Caucus, and Mr. Bereuter, the distinguished Chairman of our Subcommittee, for their leadership and expertise in crafting this appropriate measure.

The President recently waived some of the economic sanctions

against India. Last week, Mr. Gejdenson and I sent a letter to the

President urging he waive the last remaining economic sanction

against India. That sanction requires that the U.S. impose international financial institution loans to India. These loans are critically needed for infrastructure projects in the poorest areas of

India. In addition, waiver of these loans will benefit U.S. companies who want to work on those projects.

India recently went through its third general election in 3 years.

That election started September 5th, and it ended October 4th. The

process took about a month, because there were some 600 million

voters and thousands of polling stations spread throughout the

huge nation. But it was an orderly process, even though it was

such a mammoth undertaking.

Our mutual faith in the rule of law, the process of democracy and

a deep respect for the world’s different religious traditions are what

tie our two people so closely together, and it is due to these similar

core values that India and our Nation see eye to eye on so many

regional concerns.

China’s hegemony, the spread of Islamic terrorism, spilling out

of Afghanistan, Pakistan, the DeMarco dictatorship and the occupation of Tibet are all serious matters and will only be resolved by

the team work of leaders of our two nations working closely together. The close relationship with India is long overdue.

Again, I commend both the distinguished Chairman of the Asia

and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, and the distinguished Cochairman of the India Caucus, our leader on India issues, Congressman Ackerman, for crafting this measure. I urge our colleagues to support this measure.

Any other Member seeking recognition?

If there is no other Member seeking recognition, I call on Mr. Bereuter for a motion.

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

Chairman GILMAN. All in favor of the resolution by Mr. Bereuter,

signify in the usual manner.

Opposed.

So be it. The resolution is adopted.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

A brief pause while we count for a quorum.

Chairman GILMAN. We will now go to H.Con.Res. 200, relating

to Pakistan.

The Chair lays a resolution before the Committee.

The clerk will the report the title of the resolution.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.Con.Res. 200, a resolution expressing the strong

opposition of Congress to the military coup in Pakistan and calling

for a civilian democratically elected government to be returned to

power in Pakistan.

19

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and was reported from that Subcommittee.

Without objection, the Subcommittee recommendation shall be

considered as the original text for the purposes of amendment.

Without objection, the preamble and operative language of the

Subcommittee recommendation will be read, in that order, for

amendment.

The clerk will read.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas the United States has a vital interest in

promoting stability in South——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection the Subcommittee’s recommendation is considered as having been read and open for

amendment at any point.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. By unanimous consent, we will now go back

to the sexual trafficking bill, since we have a quorum present.

The measure is now before the Committee.

The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for a motion on the

resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee be

deemed to have adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the bill as amended by the Committee.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report

the bill to the House with the recommendation that the bill do

pass.

Chairman GILMAN. A motion has been made by Mr. Bereuter.

All those in favor, signify in the usual manner.

Opposed.

The bill is passed.

We will now return to the Pakistan measure.

Mr. SMITH. I have an amendment at the desk in the nature of

a substitute.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that the

Chairman of the Subcommittee be heard on the Pakistan legislation.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman withhold?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will be happy to withhold. I would hope we

would return after the vote if we run out of time.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. My comments are quite likely to be quite lengthy,

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Continue until we run out of the time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, H.Con.Res. 200 was marked by the Subcommittee

on Asia and Pacific on October 27——

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman withhold? We have a

very important measure after this, so please return so we can complete our work. We are near the end of our considerations.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. A point of order by Mr. Burton.

20

Mr. BURTON. I would just like to make a point of order that a

lot of the Members are leaving to go vote on the Floor, and I think

what Mr. Bereuter is going to say on this very important resolution

needs to be heard by as many as possible. So I would urge that we

wait until we come back.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, we will put off the discussion on this measure until the vote is over. I urge all Members to

return.

The Committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

The Chair would like to clarify that a quorum was present when

the motion to report the previous bill was disposed of.

Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to

make motions under rule 22 with respect to a conference on or a

counterpart from the Senate relating to H.R. 3244. Without objection, the Chief of Staff is empowered to make technical and grammatical conforming amendments to the text of H.R. 3244.

Mr. Bereuter is recognized.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, are we back on H.Con.Res. 200

then?

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, we are. Please proceed, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this resolution was marked up on

October 27th, passed by voice vote as amended by an amendment

in the nature of a substitute. The resolution expresses a great concern regarding the impact of the coup upon democracy in Pakistan

and upon relations in South Asia, particularly India-Pakistani relations.

The amended H.Con.Res. 200 calls for the President to withhold

consideration of arms sales or equipment or provisions of military

services until civilian government is reinstated. However, it keeps

intact our very limited IMET links with Pakistan.

Currently, only two mid-level Pakistani officers are receiving any

form of U.S. education. There are no Pakistani officers receiving

IMET at the present time.

The amended H.Con.Res. 200 also calls upon General Musharraf

to immediately release a timetable for returning power in Pakistan

to a civilian, democratically elected government. We remain concerned that General Musharraf has not yet presented a timetable

but somewhat encouraged that he has appointed civilians to the

National Security Council and has formed a cabinet dominated by

civilians.

I would urge that the amendment, without further amendments—that the resolution without further amendments be adopted. I yield back.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson has an amendment. The clerk

will read the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. BEREUTER. I am just reserving a point of order at this point,

Mr. Chairman.

21

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s reservation will be heard at

a later date.

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

by Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Brown.

Amend the preamble——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment be considered as read.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman asks unanimous consent the

amendment be considered as having been read without objection.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment.

The clerk will distribute the amendment.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment simply restores the resolution to its original

construct. If there was a debate in the Congress as to whether or

not a watered-down version or the original version ought to pass,

let me read to you from the New York Times of November 4th. This

is General Musharraf and his assessment of his coup. ‘‘I was surprised,’’ the news agency quoted him as saying. ‘‘The reaction was

more mild than I expected.’’

Well, let me tell you something. The last thing we want to do is

tell every fledgling democracy out there that if they have got trouble the solution is to have a military coup. We want to see that

democratic institutions are supported.

If there are problems in government of corruption or other

issues, then there ought to be reform of their judicial system; there

ought to be reform of their legislative system; there ought to be reform of the executive branch of government. But for this Congress,

the greatest democracy in the world, to send any other message but

a clear message that simply states that America’s relationship with

Pakistan hinges on a restoration of democratic institutions, not

promising us they are going to be democratic institutions, not sending a time line for democratic institutions, especially when you look

at the history here, but having democratic institutions.

I thank my colleagues. I don’t want to take up their time. This

is the original resolution which I believe has broad support and

clearly states what the American people believe.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. Do we have the substitute before us? I am looking through my piles of paper, and I can’t find it.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman doesn’t have a copy, somebody

is bringing you another copy.

Mr. BEREUTER. Could you explain to me and other Members exactly what your amendment does, as compared to the amended text

we reported out?

Mr. GEJDENSON. In the amended text, in a number of instances,

in my opinion, and I know the gentleman did this earnestly, it

frankly waters down condemnation of the coup and puts in language that doesn’t clearly state what I think the American people

believe is the right policy for the United States.

22

We ought not simply allow this coup to go by without clearly

stating that we condemn the coup and that we want the sanctions

to be in place until there are democratic institutions back, in fact,

in Pakistan.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Gejdenson, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. I am going to be looking at this as

quickly as possible.

Perhaps some other Members will want to claim time at this

point.

Mr. COOKSEY [presiding]. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I don’t disagree with my colleague from Connecticut

that we want to see democratic institutions reinstalled into Pakistan as quickly as possible, but as a practical matter it can’t be

done tomorrow. It is going to probably take a few months to organize a plebiscite or a referendum, and that is why I think the

Chairman of the Subcommittee and I and others, when we talked

about this, thought 6 months would be a reasonable period of time

within which to demand, if you will, that Pakistan have a plebiscite

or have a referendum on the government that is now in power, the

military government.

Another thing I think we ought to consider is the very touchy situation that exists in that part of the world right now.

Pakistan and India have been at brink of war for a long time,

and the first steps away from the brink of war took place after this

military government took power just recently. This general has

withdrawn the troops from the Kashmiri border up there, and he

has also reached out to the Indian government to try to start a dialogue that will lead to a permanent peace—at least what we hope

to be a permanent peace.

I think right now for us to pass a resolution, being the only superpower in the world, so to speak, it would send a signal maybe

to India and maybe to some of the adversaries of Pakistan, from

inside as well as outside, that we want to see them out or overthrown immediately. That is why I thought a more reasonable resolution should be acceptable at this point. That is saying that we

want them to do something within 6 months to restore a civil government, a democratically elected government, to power.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I will in just 1 second.

I think it would provide a feeling of stability in that region, because of the detente, if you will, between India and Pakistan at the

present time. It would serve to put a little oil on the water while

all of this is taking place.

So I would urge my colleagues to accept the recommendations of

the Chairman of the Subcommittee because I think that language

sends a very strong message, but it is not inflammatory to the degree that it might upset the balance of power over there.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I appreciate the gentleman’s concerns.

I would say two things. One is, to the contrary of the gentleman’s

assessment that this might last 6 months, General Musharraf has

23

said that he is not putting down any kind of time line, so we don’t

know how long the military would maintain control.

I think, again, if we can just take ourselves out of this situation

for one moment and think what message you want to send to all

the countries that were once part of the Soviet Union that are having trouble with corruption—that are having problems in the court

systems, that are having problems in their economy—do we want

to tell them that the Congress of the United States thinks it is appropriate to have a coup to fix the system? I don’t think so.

Mr. BURTON. If I can reclaim my time, let me just say that nothing in the resolution, as amended, by the Chairman of the Subcommittee condones or approves of the military government, that

now exists or the way they took over.

What we tried to do, what the Chairman tried to do, was to make

sure that while we were, in effect, demanding that there be a return to civil government, that it be done in such a way as to ensure

the stability of the region, and I think this does this.

You are not going to be able to change the situation overnight.

While the general over there may say he is not going to accept any

time line, it certainly won’t hurt for us to put one in the resolution.

I think we do that with this resolution. I think it is one that will

send a very strong signal, and it is something that is do-able.

You cannot force them to change that government overnight.

Even if they were going to return to democracy, it is going to take

time to set up the mechanism to do that. So I think 6 months is

a reasonable length of time, and I think the Chairman’s substitute

is the right approach.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COOKSEY. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown, is recognized.

Mr. BROWN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in support of the Gejdenson Amendment, as co-author of

the amendment. I think this Committee needs to, as my colleague

from Connecticut said, send a strong and unequivocal message that

the U.S. is not in the business of supporting military dictatorships.

We don’t do it in Burma. We don’t do it in North Korea. We

shouldn’t do it in Pakistan.

No matter how unpopular he was, Prime Minister Sharif was

elected by the people of Pakistan, and if General Musharraf is unhappy with his prime minister, he should have resigned his military commission and entered the political arena. That is the belief

that people in this institution have. That is why the language in

the Gejdenson Amendment should be adopted, the language restoring the language of the original bill.

I think Mr. Gejdenson’s statement quoting General Musharraf

that reaction was more mild than he expected tells us everything.

If reaction is more mild than he expected and we continue that

mild reaction from this Committee and from this Congress, from

the floor of the House, then we are sending a message to potential

dictators, to people that are thinking of launching coups against

democratically elected governments, we are sending the message to

them that, well, we won’t object too much in this institution—other

world leaders won’t object too much if there is a coup.

24

Now, there is nowhere in the Pakistani constitution that I can

see that says you give them 6 months before they need to restore

democratic rule. If you give them 6 months, it helps them consolidate their military rule. Where are they as a nation? Where are

they as a democracy?

Also, I might add, in the language of the amendment, under no

circumstances should taxpayers in this country be asked to provide

training and assistance to the same Pakistani military that just deposed its civilian-elected government.

I ask my colleagues to support the Gejdenson Amendment because it restores the original language, and it does, in fact, say that

Americans condemn this kind of military action against a democratically elected government.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COOKSEY. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. I would like to be recognized in opposition to the

Gejdenson Amendment, but perhaps we can find some common

ground here.

Mr. COOKSEY. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BEREUTER. I believe there are only four subsections where

there is a difference between the resolution reported from the Subcommittee and the gentleman’s substitute.

The first two, the gentleman restores language, condemns instead of expresses concerns, expresses grave concern. This is a matter of degree, and I can understand the gentleman’s point of view,

and this is not worth arguing over as far as I am concerned. The

gentleman may be right that it is appropriate to condemn.

But when you look at subsection 4, Mr. Gejdenson, your language

calls for the immediate restoration of civilian, democratically elected government. You know that is not going to happen. There is no

possibility for that to happen, even if the general would decide to

walk away from the situation.

So what we did, I thought, was a reasonable kind of suggestion,

where we can give them some room to come back as quickly as possible.

So we have rapid restoration, and I think, accepting a suggestion

from Mr. Ackerman, we said including immediate release of a timetable for restoration of democracy and rule of law.

I think that is a reasonable approach. You know perfectly well

that calling for immediate restoration is only rhetoric. It

cannot——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. I would ask the gentleman to reconsider that,

and I would move to the fourth point, but I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I am not sure it is rhetoric, but I am willing to

try to work with the gentleman. Let’s go to the fourth point and

see what the package looks like.

Mr. BEREUTER. The fourth point the gentleman had already

agreed to, but backing away from it because of perhaps a concern

about the amendments that were made by this Member in Committee, with some suggestions from your side of the aisle. I believe

that any time you cut-off IMET, you are hurting our interests, our

25

national interests. This is a very limited opportunity to try to have

influence on their military. At times when we have made the mistake of cutting off IMET funds for a country, no matter how legitimate our concern was, we lost contact with a whole generation of

military people, and we have oftentimes paid the price for that lack

of contact.

So the gentleman, perhaps reluctantly, before we started the

markup in the Subcommittee, I recall, agreed that he would be

willing to drop the ending of IMET.

So if we could have the timetable, the rapid restoration and a

restoration of IMET, I can understand how the gentleman might

want to say condemn.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Well, the gentleman asks for a little too much.

I mean, I would love to work something out with the gentleman

and not take up everybody’s time, but I think the timetable alone

is not the answer here. I mean, I could put several timetables in

place, and I guess at that point every timetable I put in place

would keep me in the good stead of the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. BEREUTER. I reclaim my time and would just say that the

gentleman’s language does not do anything except make us feel

good and expresses our great concern because he asks for the immediate restoration. You know that is impossible.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would maybe suspend for a

moment——

Mr. BEREUTER. I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. Allow some of the other Members

to express themselves, maybe we can get counsel together and see

if we can come up with some language. Frankly, I have been frustrated by the resistance to this proposal, but I am always trying

to work something out with the Member from Nebraska, whom I

have great respect for. So maybe the gentleman can suspend and

the staffs can see if we can work something out.

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota. Did

you ask me to yield or who was that? I yield to the gentleman from

New Jersey.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentleman.

I am trying to think of the appropriate analogy for the gentleman

from Nebraska with regard to the immediate language versus the

rapid restoration. It is as if somebody broke into your home and

stole something from you and then fenced the goods. The question

is: What do you ask of the person? Do you ask for a rapid return

or the immediate return?

Now, obviously the person who fenced your stolen goods, after he

stole them from your home, will not be able to immediately return

it to you, but there is a certain power in demanding for immediate

restoration of your own rights.

That is No. 1.

No. 2, if we are to be the fosterers, if that is the word, of democracy, the supporters of democracy throughout the world, we have

to let our colleagues know that after 220 years of experience we

have something to teach them. In particular, democracies will go

through tough times, perhaps ruled by tyrants and corrupt Administrations, as has been the case in our beloved history here in

America, but nonetheless, we have never sanctioned or approved

26

the overthrow of our government, other than by the peaceful transfer of power through an election. So I cannot see, while the gentleman makes a good point, that perhaps the immediate restoration

is not possible. I think that it is, in fact, the appropriate language.

The gentleman makes an interesting point with regard to IMET.

Hopefully, you and the gentleman from Connecticut can work that

out, but we need to send a clear message to all the fledgling democracies, and I say all of this with enormous regard and respect for

the gentleman from Nebraska who I generally agree with.

Chairman GILMAN [presiding.] Mr. Bereuter’s time has expired.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Mr. Gejdenson tries to work something out with Mr. Bereuter,

I want to speak up for Mr. Gejdenson’s substitute. The fact of the

matter is that I think we run a great risk of sending a message

throughout the world that it is OK to go ahead and have a military

coup, and that we will sit here idly, as a country to which we have

given so much military assistance and weapons, in essence uses

that assistance to overthrow their own government, as well as to

be potentially antagonistic to their neighbors.

It is impossible to believe that if, God forbid, tomorrow we here

in the Congress are overtaken by a military coup that we would

want the rest of the free world to remain silent while that, was

taking place. It is impossible to believe that the simple condemnation of the overthrow of a democratically elected government, in

violation of its own constitution, and the suspension of that constitution, and the dismissal of its national government is so objectionable, particularly given the grave concerns that we have for security and stability in South Asia. Mr. Chairman, can I have order,

please? I can’t hear myself.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order, please, so

the gentleman can be heard.

Mr. Menendez, have you completed your statement?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me just simply say that it seems to me we

have a double standard being advocated here. We continuously

speak out against military coups in all parts of the world, and we

clearly should be saying that there will be no further military armament sales to a country that has defied all of its own constitutional standards, not to mention our own beliefs and what we promote throughout the world.

We should support Mr. Gejdenson’s substitute, and I yield back

the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I move the question.

Chairman GILMAN. That is out of order at the moment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Then I would just like to speak then, if I could.

Chairman GILMAN. We have two other speakers. Yes, Mr.

Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I just would like to suggest that in terms

of stability in the subcontinent and the relationship between India

and Pakistan, it was the former prime minister who was the target

of the coup who initiated cross-diplomacy, who initiated efforts in

terms of a detente, if you will, a rapprochement between India and

27

Pakistan. It is also my understanding that it was the Pakistani

military that roundly criticized the former Prime Minister Sharif,

and that clearly was a factor in the equation that led to the coup.

So, if we are interested in the relationship between Pakistan and

India, we should condemn Pakistan and this military coup d’etat

in the strongest possible terms, and I support the Gejdenson

Amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the effort in

Committee to water down this resolution in the first place, and I

certainly agree with Mr. Gejdenson that we must use the strongest

possible terms to not only condemn but also to set a course for

American foreign policy, especially when a democratically elected

government is overthrown by a military power.

I will go very quickly, Mr. Gejdenson, because I know you have

reached your compromise and I will be supporting that compromise—no, you haven’t? I am supporting Mr. Gejdenson, even if

he didn’t reach a compromise, but let me be very specific on one

item here.

This military regime has not even gone so far as to announce the

date of a plebiscite. If they believe that they have the will of the

people behind them and that they have this overwhelming corruption that mandated their interference with the democratic process,

at the very least they needed to go to the people and have the people give them some kind of a recognition of that. We believe that

the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and if they do not have that consent of the governed, at

least in the form of a plebiscite, what we face in Pakistan is nothing more than a group of gangsters with guns overthrowing a

democratically elected government.

Now, again, if they announce within the next month that they

are going to have a plebiscite to justify so the public will have an

up-and-down vote on this, then maybe we can come back and look

again at what our policy should be. But until that moment and

until there is a vote, it is incumbent upon us to say stability is not

the factor, but freedom and justice—and the very heart of our value

system in the United States demands that we take another position

rather than stability.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that India, again,

India has not used the ballot box to solve the problem in the Kashmir, and I don’t want people to forget this. I have been a big supporter of Pakistan on that issue, but the fact is today we side with

the people of Pakistan when we side with democracy, and let the

people of Pakistan make their own determination as to who their

government will be.

So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say how much I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman

from California on this issue.

I have a formal statement that I will make in a couple of seconds, but just a couple of points that need clearing up, I believe.

First of all, General Musharraf has already gone on record on

BBC that he is not going to have a plebiscite. So for those people

28

that are hanging their hopes on the notion that he is going to have

a plebiscite any time soon, you should know that by his own statement he is not.

In addition to that, it should be noted, although a technicality,

for the record, that former deposed Prime Minister Sharif had said

that they were going to withdraw the troops from the line of control. General Musharraf, nonetheless, has withdrawn them to the

international border. They are still right up against the line of control.

So that is not accurate, either.

We seem to be wishy-washy here for some reason, and I don’t

know why. You have a military coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, regardless of what one might have

thought of the government, and the generals have taken power.

I am generally in favor of IMET in almost every single circumstance, and that is why military leaders from other countries

come here—so we can teach them how to act democratically. Why

on earth, in this case, would we seek to legitimize the generals on

the other side who overthrew the government, usurped civilian authority and are now the government? Then we are going to say as

a reward for them overthrowing the civilian government we are

going to teach them how to get along with the population? It is an

air of legitimacy that we should not be giving them.

I think this has been a very, very good debate, and I would hope

that our friends on the other side, some of whom have spoken and

some of whom have left, would not be attempting to deny us a

quorum so that we could proceed to this vote at the appropriate

time, Mr. Chairman, because that also would be a thwarting of the

democratic process.

Let us have the vote, whichever way it turns out, and abide by

the process.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would like to ask unanimous consent that my

prepared statement be inserted in the record.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

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

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the Gejdenson

Amendment. All those in favor, signify in the usual manner. Opposed?

The Gejdenson amendment is carried.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I ask for a record vote.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson asks for a record vote.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that a quorum is

not present.

I just want my colleagues to know that I heard what Mr. Ackerman had to say. There are other issues that we need to cooperate

on.

So I withdraw my point of order. I withdraw my reservation.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order

and withdraws his reservation. The question is on the Gejdenson

29

Amendment. Roll call. All in favor of a roll call, signify in the usual

manner, raise their hands.

A sufficient number. The clerk will call the roll on the Gejdenson

Amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

Chairman GILMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.

Mr. Goodling.

[no response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[no response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.

Mr. Smith.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.

Mr. Ballenger.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.

Mr. Manzullo.

[no response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

30

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich votes yes.

Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes yes.

Mr. Tancredo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.

Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.

Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.

Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes.

Mr. Hilliard.

Mr. HILLIARD. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.

Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.

Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Aye.

31

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.

Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.

Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes.

Mr. Hoeffel.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.

Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr.

32

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.

Mr. MARTINEZ. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes no.

Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 21 ayes and 4 noes.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is agreed to.

The question is on the——

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized on the resolution, as amended?

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on

the resolution, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are matters of degree and matters of concern. We have

had a good debate on these issues. I happen to disagree with the

emphasis on the one item in particular, but I always will have to

vote no on stopping IMET.

IMET always has a positive effect, almost always, on all the people that train in this country, and I want it to be known that my

vote against the resolution as now amended will be because of

what you have done to IMET.

I yield back.

Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, I yield. I would yield to the gentleman from

California.

Mr. BERMAN. I have tended to agree with that proposition, but

watching events in Indonesia over the past 4 months—and I understand that IMET was massively restricted, but we still had an

IMET Program—this did not seem like an army that respected civilian rights or even command and control from the top. I say that

sincerely. It seems to me that there were examples of people who

were the beneficiaries of IMET who, in terms of their conduct at

that particular time, will not demonstrate——

33

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Berman, I would just

like to remind the gentleman, I believe I am correct on this, that

IMET Program, which we revised to E-IMET to emphasize more

human rights, had been stopped, and our military was criticized for

therefore instituting something else or a training program without

authorization or without specific notice to the Congress. But I believe that the E-IMET Program and IMET Program had been

stopped some time ago. I yield back.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on agreeing to the Subcommittee recommendations.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I don’t know whether we have a quorum or not, but

I would like to make a point of order that a quorum is not present,

and we can take a count.

Chairman GILMAN. We will suspend, and the clerk——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. What is the gentleman’s point of order?

Mr. ACKERMAN. I believe there is no vote pending, and therefore

a motion that a quorum is not here is, I believe, not in order until

a vote is requested.

The last thing we did about 3 minutes ago was have a vote, and

a quorum was present. Twenty-one and 4 is 25.

Chairman GILMAN. Let me resolve it. A quorum is present at the

present time.

The question is now on agreeing to the Subcommittee’s recommendation in the nature of a substitute as amended. All in

favor, say aye. All opposed, say no.

The ayes have it.

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, is recognized

to offer a motion.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, 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 on the motion of the

gentlelady from Florida. As many as are in favor of the motion, say

aye. As many as are opposed, say no.

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

on this measure are postponed.

A quorum is present.

We now proceed to H.Res. 169, referring to the Lao People’s

Democratic Republic, expressing the sense of the House relative to

the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk

will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.Res. 169, a resolution expressing the sense of

the House of Representatives with respect to democracy, free elections, and human rights in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, reported with an amendment in

the nature of a substitute. Without objection, the Subcommittee

recommendation will be considered as original text for the purposes

of amendment. The preamble and operative language in the SubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64099.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
34

committee resolution will be read in that order for amendment. The

clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas, since the 1975 overthrow of the existing

Royal Lao Government——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Subcommittee recommendation is considered as having been read, and is open to

amendment at any point.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman

from Nebraska, the Chairman of the Subcommittee of Asia and the

Pacific, Mr. Bereuter, to introduce a resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This resolution, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Vento, deserves

support.

It was cosponsored by a number of our colleagues, including our

colleague, Mr. Radanovich, as I recall, and also Mr. Green, who is

in attendance here, and other Members.

The amendments were purely technical, changing the names of

the ruling parties and convention dates and so on. The major concerns I would have relate to the possibility, as I understand it, that

the resolution will be amended to incorporate provisions from

House Resolution 332.

I would like to call my colleagues’ attention to a memo distributed to you earlier this afternoon dated October 28, 1999. It was

addressed to Chairman Gilman, and I think it is important that

you understand the context of the resolution before us by understanding what House Resolution 332 would do.

That one was introduced by Representative Mark Green and cosponsored by the chairman, dealing primarily with the issue of the

disappearance in Laos last April of two Laotian- Americans, Michael Vang and Mr. Ly Houa. I am not sure about the pronunciation of that name.

No trace of these men has yet been found. There have been allegations that these men were apprehended and killed by Lao authorities. If true, this would be a deeply disturbing development.

The men are constituents of Mr. Green and Mr. Radanovich, who

are, rightly, extremely concerned about their welfare.

As a result of our own preliminary investigation, it would seem

that there are a number of unresolved issues surrounding these

men’s disappearance. The incident remains the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation requested by the U.S. Ambassador to Laos at

the time, Ms. Wendy Chamberlain.

While the circumstances of these men’s disappearance remain

murky, there have been a number of unproven and frequently contradictory reports that suggest, alternatively, that these men ran

afoul of drug traffickers that haunt the area of the Golden Triangle

where they disappeared, or that they ran afoul of Lao military authorities while involved in cross-border insurgent activities, or even

that they may have disappeared for their own reasons.

I am told there are also reports that Mr. Vang and Mr. Houa

may have been engaged in illegal activities at the time of their disappearance.

The FBI continues to investigate. I am concerned because of the

unpleasant history that exists between Ambassador Chamberlain

35

and certain elements of the Lao-American community. Her offense,

I am told, is that she reiterated longstanding U.S. policy that the

United States does not support the violent overthrow of any nation

with which it has diplomatic relations.

Other Laotian-Americans seem to be angry at her for successfully expressing fraudulent claims for political asylum. In 1998, she

received death threats prior to a speech to Hmong and Lao-Americans in Minnesota, and an individual was discovered carrying a

hand grenade in the crowd.

In a subsequent meeting with other Laotian-Americans in Denver, where she was ordered to go by her superiors in order to discuss matters with a more conservative group of Hmong and LaoAmericans, additional credible death threats were issued, and the

FBI had to provide her protection.

I have met with our former Ambassador, Ambassador Chamberlain. I think she took the steps necessary to investigate it. She realized it was far more complicated than her capacity, and you will

find attached a chronology of events that took place.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. In short, nothing about the circumstances of this

case appears clear at this time. Many of the details are highly classified, involve sources and methods of intelligence.

On the same day I sent this memo, I asked, by letter, Chairman

Porter Goss of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to

assist us in investigating this matter.

I hope my colleagues will support the Vento Amendment, but be

very careful about how it might be amended. Certainly, I think

that there can be some accommodations made to Members who are

legitimately very concerned about their constituents and their families, especially in the upper Midwest but also in California. But we

have to be careful that we don’t do something quite unprecedented,

condemning a specific member of our Foreign Service where it is

not clear that she deserves that condemnation.

In fact, I suspect she does not. I think she took all of the proper

steps—when she is under death threat in this country. People have

to learn who are refugees or citizens or are applying for citizenship.

We don’t do violence to our Ambassadors when they are asked to

come and speak to us.

So I urge my colleagues to be very careful about this resolution

and stick with the Vento Resolution as presented to you. I thank

my colleagues.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with my

friend from Nebraska, who I think has a well-balanced view on

this, and I would support his approach.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have to understand that the government of Laos is not a government of Laos.

We just talked about what happened in Pakistan. We had all these

voices, Mr. Gejdenson’s voice the strongest of all, talking about the

importance of democracy. Yet in Laos we have a vicious dictatorship that makes the military regime in Pakistan look like a Betty

Crocker cooking class, for Pete’s sake.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman yield for one moment?

36

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will just tell you, I agree with the gentleman’s

assessment that the situation there is terrible. What I am not able

to conclude is how these two individuals disappeared, or what they

were involved in doing.

Now, there are lots of allegations. As a Member of Congress, I

am hesitant to bring out every allegation until there is a lot more

evidence about these two individuals, but I have not seen

evidence——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. That is fair.

Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. That, as bad as this government is,

and I agree with that, that the government has done that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I also am hesitant to just gratuitously attack

American Ambassadors, and so I have those two basic problems

with this bill.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, let me make another

point.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will be happy to do that after I make my

point, Doug.

Let us not give the benefit of doubt to some communist dictatorship in Laos while holding back the benefit of the doubt to two

American citizens. The fact is, two American citizens have disappeared. They are not second-class citizens. They happen to have

been born in another country, but they are not second-class citizens. They deserve every protection and every benefit of the doubt.

Their government should move forward—assuming not that they

are guilty of something, but assuming that they have not done

something. We must not predicate our action on Laotians or other

people who are going back into those areas that they may be doing

something illegal. They have ties to their homeland.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing an amendment that hasn’t even been introduced yet. I would like the privilege of offering it before we discuss it.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman’s point is well taken, but I

would be happy to yield to my good friend, Mr. Bereuter, because

I know he has some points he needs to make.

Mr. BEREUTER. I will avoid discussing the amendment that may

be offered—but hopefully won’t. I would say to the gentleman I

agree with his assessment of the Laotian government, as Mr.

Gejdenson did.

The important point, it seems to me, is that we should not, and

do not, rely on the Laotian government and what they tell us, but

we do, I think, have to give the benefit of the doubt when our own

Foreign Service personnel, intelligence agencies and the FBI give

us tentative reports at this point.

I yield back and thank the gentleman.

37

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just say for the record, I have been

misled, and I have been given information that was not complete

information by people in various embassies throughout the world.

I cannot assume any longer that when I got to the Philippines

they really couldn’t help arrange that trip to the Spratlys, that

their plane really was broken down, and I had to get a flight on

a C–130 from the Philippine Air Force instead. I am sorry. I think

that, frankly, I would rather assume the best about my LaotianAmerican citizens who disappear, rather than just assume that

there is some question, murky question, being risen someplace,

which they don’t want to go into detail, by some embassy personnel

somewhere.

No one is justifying any threat of violence against any person

who works for the U.S. Government, any one of our Ambassadors.

We will condemn that over and over again. Clearly, Mr. Radanovich and everyone else—if anyone, I don’t care if they are LaotianAmericans or whatever, threatens violence against an American

diplomat anywhere, we are going to come down hard on them. But

in this specific case, let’s not assume the worst about two American

citizens until that is absolutely proven.

They disappeared. Their families and their community and their

friends are crying out for help from their government. They are

getting what? They are getting a lot of, well, maybe this and maybe

that.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir, I certainly will.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman.

The point I tried to make is that we don’t know the facts. We

deserve to have the facts before we act. That is the only point.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. With that, listen, let me just say,

Doug Bereuter is a sincere person, and Mr. Gejdenson obviously is

a sincere person, and we are trying to do our best. In this particular case, I think we have got to be strong and forceful, just like

we were when talking about Pakistan a few moments ago. In this

case, it is even worse because the lives of two American citizens are

just being taken for granted.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Does any other Member seek recognition?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer an

amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich has an amendment at the

desk.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. BEREUTER. I am just reserving a point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is entitled to reserve his point

of order.

The clerk will report the amendment and distribute it.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order as well.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.

Ms. BLOOMER. Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Radanovich.

Add the following to the preamble: Whereas two United States citizens, Mr. Houa Ly, a resident of Appleton, Wisconsin, and Mr. Michael Vang, a resident of Fresno, California——

38

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

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on

his amendment.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My perfecting amendment adds important information from a bill

that Mr. Green of Wisconsin and I introduced last month, a bill

that enjoyed ten original cosponsors, including you, Mr. Chairman,

and Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Smith of this Committee. I believe

that my amendment is a fair compromise and retains much of the

original language of H.R. 169, while strengthening it significantly.

I believe it is imperative that this bill address the case of two

American citizens abducted in Laos last spring, a constituent of

mine, Mr. Michel Vang of Fresno, California, and a constituent of

Mr. Green’s, Mr. Houa Ly of Appleton, Wisconsin.

These two Hmong-American citizens were traveling along the

border between Laos and Thailand in April of this year when they

were seized by Lao Government authorities. Mr. Vang and Mr. Ly

have not been heard from since.

Now, normally when American citizens are abducted by another

country, the State Department would condemn the action, warn the

country of possible sanctions or even launch an independent investigation. However, our State Department’s only and best response

has been to coordinate an investigation in cooperation with Lao authorities.

This cooperative approach was not meant to yield real results.

Ironically, our State Department is working hard on Capitol Hill

to garner support for normalized trade relations for Laos.

My amendment to H.R. 169 keeps much needed pressure on both

the Lao Government and the State Department to provide us with

the truth. In my mind, NTR for Lao’s should not be considered

until this case is resolved, although NTR is not a part of this bill

and their human rights record has been seriously addressed.

My amendment to H.R. 169 emphasizes our dissatisfaction with

the State Department’s flawed investigative process. Our resolution

calls on the Lao authorities to release all information about Mr.

Vang and Mr. Ly immediately and discuss the serious consequences of acts of aggressions against American citizens.

I believe that we would be remiss to take up a bill regarding

human rights abuses in Laos and neglect to address the case of two

American citizens abducted by Lao authorities. Again, I am sympathetic to the issue regarding Ambassador Chamberlain, but I would

say that as the investigation is ongoing, the families who are also

American citizens back here have no word at all about the fate of

their husbands, whether they have been killed and, if so, by whom,

which ought to be resolved immediately.

We are talking about American citizens, and the families who are

American citizens in this country have a right to know.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I withdraw my point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman withdraws his point of order.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

39

Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like some

clarification, and I will admit to you I am not wearing my glasses,

but let’s look on what is titled as page 4, you have numeral 2 there,

and then you have one line slashed through it. Then you have 3.

If that is not numeral 2 because of the slash, then the numbers are

misordered.

Then as one goes to the bottom of the handwritten section on

that page, do we skip from the ‘‘and’’ at the bottom of page 4 to

the ‘‘amend’’ on page 5?

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I may, regarding the top of page 4 where it

originally read as section 3 is called section 2.

Ms. DANNER. Yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. That paragraph is intact. I am sorry for the

line crossing it out. It is misleading.

The only part that is not included in that section are the words,

‘‘and the Department of State.’’

Ms. DANNER. OK.

Mr. RADANOVICH. As to the second question, you read it correctly.

Ms. DANNER. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Danner.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the State Department be allowed to address some questions here?

Chairman GILMAN. Is there someone from the State Department

here? Would you please take this chair? Please identify yourself.

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Please identify yourself.

Ms. JACOBS. My name is Susan Jacobs and I am a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in Legislative Affairs at the Department of

State.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

Ms. Jacobs, first of all, the amendment, as you have noted, has

been changed from the original text of H.Res. 332. I don’t know if

you have been able to follow it or if you have it in front of you.

Ms. JACOBS. I have the perfecting amendment in front of me.

Mr. BEREUTER. If I could, I think the gentleman from California’s—I think I have it—but on page 4, for example, the gentleman

in subparagraphs 3 and 4, which would remain in his amendment,

urges the Lao Government to return Messrs. Vang and Ly or their

remains to U.S. authorities and their families in America at once.

That is assuming they would have them, those remains or those

missing persons.

The gentleman also warns, number 4, the Lao Government of the

serious consequences, including sanctions, of any unjustified arrest,

abduction, imprisonment, disappearance or other acts of aggression

against U.S. citizens.

Now, it seems to me that while we do not appropriately jump to

the conclusion that they have been abducted or that they have been

killed, we don’t know, these two paragraphs would not appear to

be damaging to a resolution we might pass.

40

Ms. Jacobs, would you care to comment on those two specific subparagraphs?

Ms. JACOBS. I would agree with your assessment, sir. We feel terrible that we don’t know what has happened to these two men. We

are making every effort that we can. Ambassador Chamberlain,

who left post in—I believe it was the end of May—did call in the

FBI because she didn’t want to rely totally on the Laotian Government.

So I think that to characterize her and to condemn her is incredibly unfair.

Mr. BEREUTER. So, Ms. Jacobs, then on page 3, the two following

whereas clauses that are there, make specific reference to failures

of the U.S. Government and negative assessment about Ambassador Chamberlain, as I would read it. Does the State Department

accept those or reject those?

Ms. JACOBS. I totally reject those. I think that she did exactly

what she could do, and especially by calling in the FBI, she went

beyond what an ambassador would normally do.

Mr. BEREUTER. She indicated to me she thought this was such

a grave matter and so serious that she did not have the capacity

within her embassy or any attached groups to investigate it fully.

So my understanding, from the cable traffic and from the chronology that resulted from it, is she immediately called in for outside assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; perhaps

intelligence agencies as well. Is that your understanding?

Ms. JACOBS. That is absolutely correct, sir. Most embassies do

not have separate investigative abilities, and she did absolutely the

right thing by calling in the FBI and relying on other agencies to

assist in the investigation.

Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. I will be happy to yield, to the Chairman first

and then to Mr. Ackerman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Ms. Jacobs, you say this resolution condemns the Ambassador,

and yet I am reading the paragraph on page 3, ‘‘Whereas the chief

response to this incident by the Department of State and U.S. Ambassador to Laos Wendy Chamberlain has been to undertake an investigation in cooperation with the regime in Laos—a regime involved with the disappearance of Messrs. Ly and Vang.’’ I don’t see

any condemnation of Ambassador Chamberlain.

Ms. JACOBS. I think with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think

it jumps to a conclusion. We don’t know how these men disappeared yet, and it doesn’t go far enough in saying that she did

call in the FBI. She did not rely on the Laotian Government.

Chairman GILMAN. But the paragraph says she did undertake an

investigation in cooperation with the regime. She undertook an investigation; is that a fact?

Ms. JACOBS. But it begins the characterization by saying that

was her chief response.

Her chief response was to call in the FBI and to seek their assistance.

41

Chairman GILMAN. I think we are playing with words. I don’t

think that paragraph is intended to hurt the reputation of the Ambassador. It just recites what the facts were.

Ms. JACOBS. I would suggest, then, that it clarify everything that

she did, and not say that is all that she did, with all due respect.

Chairman GILMAN. I yield back to Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter’s time has expired.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. On my own time then, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, those two paragraphs, taken as a whole, are fairly pejorative and negative toward

both the U.S. Government, particularly the State Department, and

to the Ambassador.

Basically, it reads, and it depends on your emphasis, it is not a

positive statement to say that she engaged in an investigation.

This basically says the only thing she did was to collude with a corrupt, lying son-of-a-gun government.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield? It doesn’t say the

only thing. It says, ‘‘Whereas the chief response. . .’’

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. It says her chief response, which means the

main thing that she did was to be in cahoots with this horrible, corrupt, thieving, conniving government made up of a bunch of

SOB’s—a regime that is involved with the disappearance.

It accuses the regime of being in cahoots with the disappearance,

and of the Ambassador being in collusion because she only is cooperating with the people who it says abducted them.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is a growing consensus that there

are a great number of us on the Committee, on both sides of the

aisle, that would be willing to support the resolution if it could be

accepted by Mr. Bereuter, or whoever, that we just drop those two

paragraphs on page 3.

The rest of it, I think, is acceptable.

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

think they are attempting to work out some of the language that

might satisfy the gentleman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would that be acceptable to Mr. Bereuter and/

or Mr. Radanovich?

Mr. RADANOVICH. What was that? I am sorry. We were talking.

Mr. ACKERMAN. If on page 3, two of those whereas clauses were

just dropped.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. I certainly do.

Mr. BEREUTER. I have been discussing that with Mr. Radanovich.

He can speak for himself but I suggested those two are problematic. I believe our staffs are working also on subparagraph 4, original subparagraph 4, on page 4.

We don’t know that the Lao Government has abducted them; but

you could say if it is determined that they have, then we urge them

to return such and such to the authorities or their families in the

U.S. But I think those things would——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would agree with the gentleman from Nebraska.

42

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our State

Department witnesses just a couple upfront questions. Is it your

testimony that there is no evidence suggesting that the Lao Government had anything to do with the disappearance of these two

American citizens?

Ms. JACOBS. I don’t have the evidence at my disposal. I don’t

know what we know and what we don’t know.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is not the question I asked. Are you testifying that there is no evidence, that—you are not testifying to

that; is that correct?

Ms. JACOBS. Sir, I don’t know what we know.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, OK. So you are testifying that we don’t

know? OK. You are not testifying that there is no evidence? You

are testifying that you don’t know.

What about you? Are you testifying, sir, the gentleman here?

Anybody else from the State Department here?

Ms. JACOBS. Apparently there are contradictory reports but no

evidence.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. Is there anyone else from the State Department here that is testifying on this issue?

Ms. JACOBS. No.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the State Department’s position is what?

Ms. JACOBS. Our position is that there are many contradictory

reports. We don’t know what the truth is.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, so there are some reports that the government had something to do with the disappearance?

Ms. JACOBS. I don’t know the content of the reports.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You just said there were contradictory reports.

Ms. JACOBS. But I didn’t say who they were from.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I didn’t ask you who they were from. I asked

you whether or not there was a report suggesting that the government of Laos was involved in their disappearance. You have just

indicated, yes, there are contradictory reports.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Ms. JACOBS. I do not know what is in the report.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, I will not yield. I think this is important.

We finally got her to a point where she is telling us something,

after we dig it out.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Could I just make one suggestion, and you are

doing a great job here and I think you have gotten them to say

some things they didn’t want to say, but I would suggest that you

get the intel briefing and maybe all the Committee Members ought

to get the intel briefing before we make the assumption of fact.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. I think that is a very good suggestion,

especially after we have testimony from the State Department trying to lead us in exactly one direction, but after three or four questions we hear something taking us back in the other direction. I

want to state for the record, Mr. Chairman, that this is not—some

people wonder why we have some problems when the Ambassador

tells us or someone tells us something.

43

Let me ask you this: Has the Ambassador reported to you that

there is no evidence suggesting that the government was involved

in the disappearance?

Ms. JACOBS. The Ambassador left post in May. I have not talked

to her about this case.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You have not spoken to the Ambassador

about this case?

Ms. JACOBS. No, I have not.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And did you not know that this was going to

be brought up today?

Ms. JACOBS. I was told about it at the last minute.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So someone in your office just neglected to

tell you, and that is why you didn’t call up the Ambassador to talk

to her about it?

Ms. JACOBS. I did not think that I would be up here testifying

about this resolution.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. We didn’t bother to ask about it all

these months, either? You haven’t bothered to ask the Ambassador

all of these months about the disappearance of these two people?

Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would yield, it is not her responsibility. I think part of the confusion here may be that during

all the months, any questions probably didn’t go to her but went

to somebody else.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK, that is fair.

Mr. GEJDENSON. She sent in, when we gave her a list of bills——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If she is here testifying now in order to undermine this effort, that is her job because the State

Department——

Mr. GEJDENSON. That may be an unfair characterization.

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Does not believe in what this

amendment is all about.

I would like to close. My time is coming to an end, and let me

just say that we came here with the State Department saying one

thing. After three or four questions, they were saying something

else totally different. Thank you.

Ms. JACOBS. That is not true.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. I, too, perhaps would support the resolution if those

two whereas clauses were removed.

I haven’t heard anything different from the State Department

that my colleague has heard—allegations of undermining the effort—and I guess you are accusing the State Department of being

confused.

There is some confusion out here. I am not willing to say where

I think it is, but I believe that we ought to take a look at the cables. I think that if these whereases, which extend to—when you

say a chief response, I don’t know what else you can interpret.

‘‘Chief’’ means the most prominent or the main response.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I will agree to take ‘‘chief’’ out, just line ‘‘chief’’

out.

Mr. PAYNE. The gentleman previously suggested if the two

whereases were taken out—I think it doesn’t change what we are

trying to get at, and I would certainly be willing to support your

amendment. I would just like to add that to it and hopefully we

44

can come up with something in a compromising way to achieve the

goal you want to achieve.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would like to ask a question of the State Department official, if I may.

Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Jacobs?

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Ms. Jacobs, I wanted to ask you something, if

you could answer me. When an incident like this occurs, where

American citizens are abducted and not heard from in any country,

and that country’s government is perhaps a suspect in that person’s or people’s disappearance, what is the normal response of the

State Department? Is it to conduct the investigation with that government, trying to determine the whereabouts of those people?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, but I want an answer.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Just a clarification on your question. Is it clear

that they were abducted?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, they disappeared.

Mr. ACKERMAN. So did my cat.

Mr. RADANOVICH. It has been told, in fact—I would say this because it has been also alluded to—that they were drug trafficking

which, to me, is unsubstantiated; and in as far as that has been

said already, it has also been told that Laotian Government officials picked up these people and abducted them.

If that is the case or if it is known, how does the State Department react to something like that? Do they conduct investigations

in cooperation with the government that is suspected of abducting

or complicit in these disappearances?

Ms. JACOBS. I can’t speak to this case because I am not familiar

with all the details, but generally we do have to rely on the host

government. But obviously Ambassador Chamberlain did not trust

them to conduct a fair investigation and that is why she called in

the FBI.

If it were Britain, then we would have undoubtedly cooperated

with the British police and other British authorities. But in this

case, she was fearful that perhaps the Lao Government would not

conduct a fair investigation, and she went beyond them and asked

the FBI to come in and help investigate. That is not a normal

thing.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. Can you tell us, with regard to one of

the whereases in this perfecting amendment, have the Ly family

and the Vang family heard from the U.S. Government regarding

the whereabouts or current circumstances of their loved ones?

Ms. JACOBS. I understand the families are briefed weekly.

Mr. RADANOVICH. They have been told nothing.

Ms. JACOBS. There might not be anything to tell, that is the

problem. We don’t know what happened to them.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am sorry, I wish the family was here, but

that just is not true. They have been told nothing.

Ms. JACOBS. They haven’t talked to representatives of the State

Department?

45

Mr. RADANOVICH. They have not been heard from, from the State

Department. I yield to Mr. Green on that one, but I think there has

been no response on that whatsoever.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, will be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, given the

lateness of the hour and the courtesy you have extended me, I will

keep my remarks brief; but to that most important point, that simply is not true. My constituent, one of the two involved, has not

been—the family has not been briefed.

In fact, they came all the way out to Washington a month ago

because they had not been briefed. They sat in my office with representatives of the FBI and the State Department and both entities

pledged to keep my constituents briefed, and they have not done

so. It has gotten so bad that in September, we had to take the extraordinary step of filing a Freedom of Information Act request. It

was ignored.

Weeks later, we were told that it was being processed. Still 2

months later, we do not have a response. We have not even received, and the family have not even received the declassified information, the declassified—I am not referring to the classified information, but the declassified information. That is true up through

today.

The State Department, from our perspective, and from the perspective of our constituents, has not been cooperating with us at

all. With respect to the arguing over whether or not this was the

chief response for the Ambassador or not, let us understand that

when the FBI was brought in, the FBI conducted their investigation with the government of Laos.

So it is fair to say that the chief response has been a joint investigation with Laos. I have not heard the FBI say that that isn’t

true. The language from which this resolution came is not intended

in any way or form to condemn the Ambassador. There is only one

reference to the Ambassador in the entire resolution, and that is

the chief response language that we are referring to here.

My grave concern from my limited perspective is the fact that my

constituents, American citizens, are getting no help. They are not

being responded to. They have not been given information. They

have been given the runaround. I have not been able to help them.

Even when in my office I have received a pledge of support, face

to face with these people, we are still not getting the information

that we need.

Yes, there is unclear information out there, but I would submit

to you that we aren’t going to clear it up unless that information

is provided to the surviving family members. I hope that the term,

‘‘surviving,’’ is accurate.

But I urge you, please, we are heading toward the holidays, these

family members deserve, they absolutely deserve cooperation and

information from their own State Department. I think the fact that

they aren’t getting it is reprehensible. They are U.S. citizens, and

this is wrong.

That is the impetus behind this resolution and Congressman

Radanovich’s amendment. I am a cosponsor of the original underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:41 Jun 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64099.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
46

lying amendment. Congressman Vento is a cosponsor of our resolution as well from which this amendment comes.

So again this is not an effort—and I do respect the sentiments

of my friend and colleague Congressman Bereuter—this is not an

effort to condemn an Ambassador trying to reform a function. Instead, this is trying to point out the simple reality that the State

Department has not cooperated, not come forward in this, and our

constituents are still hanging out there with very little to show for

all of their efforts.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just suggest

two things, and I think our friend Mr. Radanovich said it when he

was talking about the FBI statement; he said it wasn’t substantiated, the reference to these two individuals from the United

States as being drug dealers. I think that is the issue: What can

we substantiate?

What I would recommend is if we really want to move forward,

and I am happy to play a more active role, frankly, than I have

today, because a lot of things are before us—I would recommend

that we move with Mr. Bereuter’s underlying resolution—I guess

it is Mr. Vento’s resolution to begin with, and move that.

If Mr. Bereuter has some more language that frankly would meet

you some of the way, we ought to take that. Then I will personally

try to get more information to see if there is substantiation of the

charges.

The reason I say that is, in some ways it is very easy for us in

Congress to vote almost anything out, but the information that I

have at this stage doesn’t give me, even for a government that I

think does very terrible things and clearly is not democratic—no

debate on that—clearly I think we all agree on that, but we don’t

want to rush forward with a conclusion that we can’t substantiate.

If we find after a briefing for Committee Members, the kind of

evidence that I think the two of you believe they have, we will

work with you to try to take a step forward. I think you will be

better off in that process. But obviously you have your prerogatives, and I wouldn’t ask you not to do it just on that basis, but

I think we will be more effective if we start with the underlying

Vento Resolution, with Mr. Bereuter’s pushing forward, maybe

adopt some of the language that he has offered, trying to reach as

far as he feels he is comfortable doing today.

Then I will go—and I am sure Mr. Bereuter joins me—will go,

will see—if you can convince us, we will be your strongest advocates here.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to try a

unanimous consent request.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. BEREUTER. I believe these two gentlemen and others who

have offered this resolution, which in part is being offered here as

a substitute, are doing their very best to try to serve their constituents, and appropriately so.

47

I want to suggest the following. It is a little complicated, but I

think if I am careful in giving directions you can understand what

I am going to suggest, that we add as part of unanimous consent

under a separate section within the underlying Vento Bill.

If you turn to page 3, the last whereas clause, I will pick up that

entire clause: ‘‘Whereas the Congress will not tolerate any unjustified arrest, abduction, imprisonment, disappearance, or other act of

aggression against United States citizens by a foreign government:

Now, therefore be it‘‘—and then we would move down to lines 1

through 4 in the first of the clauses, ‘‘That the House of Representatives decries the——’’

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield? What section are

you referring to now, and what page?

Mr. BEREUTER. Page 3, moving down to the first clause found on

lines 1 through 4.

Chairman GILMAN. Are we now referring to the Vento Bill?

Mr. BEREUTER. We are now referring to the amendment which

is under consideration, the substitute offered by Mr. Radanovich.

Chairman GILMAN. The Radanovich Amendment?

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, sir. Instead of ‘‘abduction,’’ it would say ‘‘decries the disappearance of Houa Ly and Michael Vang, recognizing

it as an incident worthy of congressional attention.’’

Move to the next page, page 4 of the Radanovich substitute, pick

up what was number 4 there, now labeled number 3, on lines 6

through 9 saying, ‘‘urges the Lao Government to return Messrs. Ly

and Vang, or their remains, to the United States authorities and

their families in America at once,’’ if it is determined that they

have or are responsible—and pick up then the next subsection,

‘‘warns the Lao Government of the serious consequences, including

sanctions, of any unjustified arrest, abduction, imprisonment, disappearance or other act of aggression against United States citizens.’’

Finally, to have a new subsection which says: ‘‘Urges the State

Department and other U.S. agencies to share the maximum

amount of information with interested parties concerning the disappearance of,’’ and we can name these two gentlemen.

I would ask unanimous consent that we accept that as a separate

new subsection within the Vento Resolution before us.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I have a question.

Chairman GILMAN. Is there objection?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Not an objection—just a question, if I may, to

clarify.

Chairman GILMAN. Are you reserving the right to object?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Mr. Bereuter, going back to page 3 at the

top, there was mention regarding Ambassador Chamberlain’s statement—and the whereas below that, the Ly and Vang families not

being able to learn much in the U.S. Government regarding that.

In your unanimous consent, were those included or not?

Mr. BEREUTER. I didn’t, but I am willing to. That was an oversight on my part. We could accept that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

48

Mr. BEREUTER. You are talking about the ‘‘Whereas the families

of Messrs. Ly and Vang’’?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes.

Mr. BEREUTER. I am certainly willing to add that to the unanimous consent.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And the one above that regarding the Ambassador?

Mr. BEREUTER. I think that is again criticizing our government

inappropriately, and it is not germane.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Being sympathetic to the issues brought about

by the Ambassador, I would be willing to strike that portion, then.

I agree with you.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Reserving the right to object. Is there any of

the page 2 material being included in Mr. Bereuter’s proposal?

Mr. BEREUTER. No.

Chairman GILMAN. There is no reference to these people prior to

your new paragraphs. I suggest you may want to include the provisions on page 2.

Mr. BEREUTER. I take your point. So the fifth whereas clause,

‘‘Whereas two U.S. citizens,’’ then they name them and their location, ‘‘were traveling along the border between Laos and Thailand

on April 19, 1999,’’ and we go, of course, that the families of these

people have learned very little from the U.S. Government concerning the whereabouts and the circumstances of their loved ones,

which is Mr. Radanovich’s proposal.

So I would add, if the Chairman wishes, the fifth whereas clause

on page 2.

Chairman GILMAN. And nothing else on page 2, Mr. Bereuter?

Mr. BEREUTER. I don’t think it is necessary.

Chairman GILMAN. Is there any objection to Mr. Bereuter’s proposal?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Reserving the right to object. May I ask a

question of Mr. Green?

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman reserves the right to object.

The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Green, you were privy to the classified information. This

speaks to the section regarding—it warns that our government, if

they were involved—and, the operative word I think is ‘‘if’’—in the

unanimous consent request—you have been privy, Mr. Green, to all

of the classified information regarding this incident.

What is your opinion of that?

Mr. GREEN. Well, let me just say this. I would remind—a number

of the Committee Members are not aware of the long history involved here regarding the disappearance of these two individuals.

There are actually four individuals that traveled together; two who

disappeared, and their two friends who had, for lots of quirky reasons, gotten off at the time.

The information provided by the two citizens who came back,

which I would consider to be the most reliable information that we

have—I am not privy to all the information—certainly suggested

that there was Laos Government complicity.

49

That is—we didn’t just leap to a wild conclusion. This is what

has been suggested publicly by these individuals, and I am not

aware of it having been refuted. That is where the information

comes from.

If I can just, very quickly, in terms of all the language that Congressman Bereuter has suggested, if I may suggest, to put some

kind of timeframe in here would help, too. I think it is important

that this resolution be aimed at least a little bit at our own government, since the biggest problem that these families seem to be having is that our government isn’t giving them information.

So I think it is appropriate to at least reference the fact that it

is our government which has declassified information which they

are not sharing. Not classified, declassified information, sir. If I can

make that suggestion—I think of urging them to do it as quickly

as practical, or as soon as possible, whatever that may be. I think

that would at least offer a little bit of solace to these people.

Chairman GILMAN. Would you set forth your proposal then, Mr.

Green?

Mr. GREEN. I don’t know if that is appropriate.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. No objection. We will keep the language as is

suggested in the unanimous consent.

Chairman GILMAN. All right. Then Mr. Bereuter’s proposal is

now before the Committee.

Are there any objections to Mr. Bereuter’s proposal? Mr. Radanovich has made a suggestion, and Mr. Bereuter accepts that change;

is that correct, Mr. Bereuter?

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, I did; that one paragraph that the gentleman proposed to add back, I certainly did accept.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is agreed

to. Are there any further amendments?

If there are no further amendments, the question is now on the

Subcommittee recommendation as amended.

As many are in favor, signify by saying aye.

As many are opposed, say no.

The ayes have it, and the Subcommittee recommendation is

agreed to.

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

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank my colleagues. I move that the Chairman

be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the

suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question as amended.

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

As many in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

The Committee is adjourned. Thank you, gentleman.

[Whereupon, at 7 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(51)

A P P E N D I X

NOVEMBER 9, 1999

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152