U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–103PDF 2011

TO APPLY COUNTERINSURGENCY TACTICS UNDER A COORDINATED AND TARGETED STRATEGY TO COMBAT THE TERRORIST INSURGENCY IN MEXICO WAGED BY TRANSNATIONAL

CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND

TO WITHHOLD TWENTY PERCENT OF UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES (OAS) FOR EVERY PERMANENT

COUNCIL MEETING THAT TAKES PLACE WHERE ARTICLE

20 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CHARTER IS NOT INVOKED

WITH REGARD TO VENEZUELA’S RECENT CONSTITUTIONAL

REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 3401 and H.R. 2542

DECEMBER 15, 2011

Serial No. 112–115

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CONNIE MACK, Florida, Chairman 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP OF 

H.R. 3401, To apply counterinsurgency tactics under a coordinated and targeted strategy to combat the terrorist insurgency in Mexico waged by 

transnational criminal organizations, and for other purposes ......................... 2

H.R. 2542, To withhold twenty percent of United States assessed and voluntary contributions to the Organization of American States (OAS) for 

every permanent council meeting that takes place where Article 20 of 

the Inter-American Charter is not invoked with regard to Venezuela’s recent constitutional reforms, and for other purposes. ........................................ 22

Amendment to H.R. 2542 offered by the Honorable David Rivera, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ......................................... 33

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 40

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 41

The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3401 ...................................................................... 43

Prepared statement on H.R. 2542 ...................................................................... 45

(1)

TO APPLY COUNTERINSURGENCY TACTICS UNDER A COORDINATED AND TARGETED STRATEGY TO COMBAT THE 

TERRORIST INSURGENCY IN MEXICO WAGED BY 

TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES; AND TO WITHHOLD TWENTY PERCENT 

OF UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN 

STATES (OAS) FOR EVERY PERMANENT COUNCIL MEETING 

THAT TAKES PLACE WHERE ARTICLE 20 OF THE INTERAMERICAN CHARTER IS NOT INVOKED WITH REGARD TO 

VENEZUELA’S RECENT CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Connie Mack 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. MACK. The subcommittee will come to order. We meet today 

to mark up two bills. Without objection, all members are able to 

insert remarks on today’s measures into the record, should they 

choose to do so. 

Pursuant to notice, for purposes of a markup, I call up H.R. 

3401, the Enhanced Border Security Act. 

Mr. GATELY. H.R. 3401, to apply counterinsurgency tactics under 

a coordinated and targeted strategy to combat the terrorist insurgency in Mexico——

[H.R. 3401 follows:]

2


72103a-1.eps
3


72103a-2.eps
4


72103a-3.eps
5


72103a-4.eps
6


72103a-5.eps
7


72103a-6.eps
8


72103a-7.eps
9


72103a-8.eps
10


72103a-9.eps
11


72103a-10.eps
12


72103a-11.eps
13


72103a-12.eps
14


72103a-13.eps
15


72103a-14.eps
16

Mr. MACK. Without objection, the bill is considered as read and 

is open for amendment at any point. Before turning to the ranking 

member, I recognize myself briefly for opening remarks. 

The Enhanced Border Security Act draws our attention to a serious problem that requires immediate action. I have held two hearings in this subcommittee on the topic of Mexico and have yet to 

see an increase in U.S. agency coordination or a substantial shift 

in approach. I drafted this legislation to ensure that action is taken 

to secure our border, stop transnational criminal activity in the 

United States, and secure the role of the state in Mexico. 

A terrorist insurgency is being waged along our southern border—the operations across Mexico and Central America—as well as 

in over 1,000 U.S. cities. Many of the 40,000 people killed since 

2006 have died brutal, public deaths. The term ‘‘terrorist insurgency’’ may be strong, but it is based upon unchallenged facts. 

President Calderon identified recent activities perpetrated by 

drug traffickers—the Zetas—as ‘‘an act of terrorism.’’ Last week he 

outlined insurgent tactics taking place in Mexico stating, ‘‘Crime 

now also constitutes an open threat to democracy. The glaring interference of criminals in the electoral process is a new and worrying development.’’

The U.S. State Department has also publicly verified that terrorists and insurgent tactics are being employed in Mexico. Drug traffickers and criminal organizations have combined efforts to work 

across borders, unravel government structures, and make large 

profits from diverse, illegal activity. The near-term result: Schools, 

media, and candidates all controlled by criminal organizations. In 

other words: Total anarchy. 

Let me reiterate. These transnational criminal organizations are 

engaged in a protracted use of irregular warfare and extreme violence to influence public opinion and to undermine government control in order to increase their own control. This is a terrorist insurgency. 

Meanwhile, the State Department is leading the charge of U.S.-

Mexico security policy through the Merida Initiative, and they are 

failing. Merida has not and will not be able to address the pending 

terror we face. Mexican transnational criminal organizations have 

evolved to reflect traditional insurgence in the way that they, one, 

rely on external support and cross-border sanctuaries; two, require 

access to money to feed their ability to operate; and, three, control 

the hearts and minds in their territory. 

Therefore, we need a strategy that uses appropriate 

counterinsurgency tactics. First, secure the border through personnel, technology, and infrastructure. Second, stop criminal access 

to U.S. financial institutions. And, third, work with Mexico through 

integrated, counterinsurgency tactics to undermine the control of 

these criminal organizations. 

This is exactly what H.R. 3401 is calling for. Recent reports show 

success in integrating military counterinsurgency tactics with limited resources to bolster local law enforcement and curb drug-related criminal activities within a dangerous U.S. city. 

H.R. 3401, the Enhanced Border Security Act, is forcing the 

State Department to incorporate lessons learned and the expertise 

of all appropriate U.S. agencies to construct a strategy based on 

17

relevant counterinsurgency tactics to counter these illegal groups 

in Mexico, at the U.S. border, and within the United States. 

I urge all of my colleagues to work with me in taking the first 

steps toward developing a strategy that can succeed through the 

passage of the Enhanced Border Security Act. 

I am now pleased to recognize the ranking member to speak on 

the measure. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say 

that I agree with you that Mexicans are terrorized. If I were living 

in a place where gun battles were leaving scores of people dead, 

and previously safe streets were now hideouts for thugs and criminals, I would feel a sense of terror, too. 

I know you honestly care about the people in Mexico and are 

frustrated by how long it takes to stop the violence. So am I. But 

I must respectfully disagree, because there is a difference between 

acts which can cause terror and terrorist acts. And I think this is 

not simply a semantic distinction, and let me tell you why: Because 

if we get the cause of a disease wrong, our treatment will be wrong 

as well. 

Terrorism, by definition, occurs when someone uses violence to 

achieve a political goal. The narco criminals in Mexico have no political names. They are brutal outlaws who want money, but they 

don’t want to throw out the government and take over. Nor do they 

hate the United States. Like many other terrorists, in a twisted 

sort of way, they probably like us. We buy their drugs and supply 

their weapons. 

So when the bill say there is a terrorist insurgency in Mexico, 

I have to respectfully disagree. Even though the bill redefines these 

terms to fit its counterinsurgency strategy, the plain meaning of 

the words can’t be changed. We can say an apple is an orange, but 

it is still an apple. And we can say what is happening in Mexico 

is terrorism, but it is still narco crime—brutal, horrible, and murderous, I agree, but still cartel-driven narco crime. 

Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that the sad situation in Mexico 

has gone on too long and that the Mexican people, not to mention 

U.S. citizens in the border states, deserve to live their lives in 

peace. Plan Colombia was in place for a decade until its success 

started taking hold, and we have only started winding it down now. 

But we on this subcommittee—and you know this—in a bipartisan fashion have worked hard to promote the Merida Initiative. 

We have completed the period where the program delivered big dollar hardware, and we are now moving to what is called Merida 2.0, 

where we will focus more on training support for the judiciary and 

accountability. 

While the violence is still abundant in Mexico, the program is 

moving forward. It is not that we can’t learn lessons from Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, or elsewhere, especially how to better integrate intelligence to speed up response times and how to improve 

accountability for human rights abuses. 

But I fear that this bill does something even more unfortunate. 

The Merida Initiative was built on a foundation of cooperation. It 

came from a bilateral process where the strategy and tactics were 

jointly created by Mexico and the United States. And something 

18

more important, even more important, came from the Merida Initiative. 

The distrust and prickliness which once pervaded the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico has been replaced by trust and 

cooperation. Obviously, it is a very good thing, and we have even 

seen this cooperation flow into other areas, including at the United 

Nations where Mexico and the United States have been working together more closely than ever before. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I feel this bill returns to the era where Congress dictates policy and expects Mexico to tow the line. I don’t 

think it will be successful with that kind of attitude. I don’t think 

it works that way. If we think that we need to switch to a 

counterinsurgency strategy, I think what we should do instead is 

roll up our sleeves, because it is going to take a lot of work to convince our partners in Mexico and at the State Department. 

Now, I have consulted with the Mexicans about this, and they 

feel as I do. Now, obviously, we can do what we want. We don’t 

have to consult. But I think it is important to consult with a country like Mexico, because obviously what we are doing, what you 

want to see, what I want to see, what we all want to see on this 

committee is we want to see an end to the narco violence. 

We want to see more cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico, 

and we are not going to get if we try to ram it down their throats. 

We are only going to get it if we sit down together and figure out 

what the best strategy is. 

So I just don’t think that this is the right direction. I think we 

need to work with our friends and allies, not force them. Let us 

convince our partners, not dictate. It is a worthy debate. And I 

know, Mr. Chairman, because you and I have discussed many, 

many things, your heart is certainly in the right place. But I respectfully disagree with the direction. 

So I thank you, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. MACK. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Engel, who 

we have got a great working relationship, and I appreciate your 

comments. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

introducing this legislation. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor, because it really tells the situation like it is. This bill is not 

designed to hurt Mexico, but rather help Mexico. I believe that the 

drug cartels are acting within the Federal definition of ‘‘terrorism,’’ 

which basically says ‘‘to intimidate a civilian population or government by extortion, kidnapping, or assassination.’’

That is precisely—precisely what the drug cartels do. They extort. They extorted teachers, a school, for money just last month. 

They decapitate people on a daily basis. They burn people alive. 

They throw people in acid baths. If that is not intimidation, if that 

is not terrorizing a civilian population, I don’t know what is. 

And just recently we had Mexico’s President Calderon saying in 

the headlines that the drug gangs threaten democracy. And in his 

words, not mine, he says that crime this—‘‘These drug cartels represent a threat to the viability of the Mexican state and national 

democracy.’’ That is a threat to the state. That is coercion and intimidation of a government, against a government. 

19

And in Mr. Calderon’s words he says, ‘‘The glaring interference 

of criminals in the electoral process is a new and worrying development. No political party should remain silent about it. It is a threat 

that affects everyone, and we must all, without hesitation, move to 

stop it.’’ A threat to the electoral process. No political party should 

remain silent. 

This is a threat to the state. It is a threat to the Mexican state. 

It is a threat to the civilian population in Mexico. And this bill, Mr. 

Chairman, which you have introduced and I strongly support, I 

think goes right to the heart of the problem. 

And since 2005, we know that 50,000 people—50,000 Mexican 

people—have been killed brutally at the hands of these drug cartels. More than the American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. And yet we are going to sit back and say that this is—these 

are just businessmen operating with mergers and acquisitions. 

They are just driven by profit. 

They are driven by profit, but they are also driven by evil and 

they terrorize the Mexican people, and they terrorize the state of 

Mexico. They are a direct threat, as Mr. Calderon said, to the democracy and the electoral process in Mexico. I don’t think we can 

stand back blindly and not call it what it is. 

So, again, thank you for this bill—calling, defining the acts of the 

drug cartels precisely what they are, acts of terrorism. And with 

that, I yield back. 

Mr. MACK. I thank the gentleman, and I would now like to recognize the gentlelady Ms. Schmidt for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Ranking Member, for this attention to this very important 

issue. And it is an issue of national security. 

As has been stated, the drug trafficking organization is out of 

control. Savage assaults, robberies, kidnappings, in addition to brutal and sadistic murders are occurring almost on a daily basis. According to the Mexican Government’s own statistics, more than 

34,500 murders have occurred in Mexico in the 4-year span between 2007 and 2010. 

Grupo Reforma, a Mexican media outlet, reported that 6,500 

killings took place in Mexico in 2009 as a direct result of criminal 

drug activity. In 2010, they did a whole lot better with 11,500 

killings occurring in Mexico as a direct result of drug trafficking activity. 

According to Grupo Reforma, the number of drug trafficking 

murders that has occurred in Mexico between January 11 of this 

year and August 11 is over 8,600. As we can see, the trend continues to go up. Why has this occurred? I think it is because the 

question lies not in just the proliferation of the DTOs, but also in 

the TCOs or transnational criminal organizations. 

Our effort so far to combat this has been through the Merida Initiative. Over $1.5 billion in equipment and training for Mexico and 

Central America has gone to date, and yet I don’t think it is working. 

The problem with the administration’s new proposal, the Beyond 

Merida, is that it fails to recognize that today’s drug cartels, being 

transnational criminal organizations, whose crimes now not only 

include robbery and kidnapping but human trafficking, money 

20

laundering, and murder. And as a result, the administration’s new 

proposal, while containing some laudable objections, is incomplete 

and missing the important component of counterinsurgency strategy. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts to address this missing 

component. H.R. 3401, the Enhanced Border Security Act, if 

passed, would strengthen our border with Mexico and target Mexican TCOs doing business and committing crime within the United 

States. It would provide the counterinsurgency strategy currently 

missing in our efforts to combat these Mexico TCOs, and I am very 

proud to support this legislation. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MACK. I thank the gentlelady. And hearing no amendments, 

the question now occurs on adoption of the bill. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. MACK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ENGEL. I am wondering if I could just make another brief 

statement about this bill. Let me move to strike the last word. 

Mr. MACK. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to quote 

from Bill Brownfield, whom we all have tremendous respect for, because what I see this bill doing, it essentially tears up the Merida 

Initiative and kind of moves in a different direction. And I am still 

of the belief that the Merida Initiative is the best way to continue 

to move forward. 

So I just want to just very briefly quote Secretary Brownfield, 

who is the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of National Narcotics and 

Law Enforcement Affairs. And he said, very briefly, ‘‘There is no 

doubt in my mind, ladies and gentlemen, that the United States is 

better and safer today thanks to our support for the Merida Initiative.’’

And then he went on to say at our hearing, ‘‘Mr. Chairman, the 

Merida Initiative was not engraved in stone. It is a living strategy 

that is modified, adjusted, and corrected, as circumstances change 

on the ground and we learn lessons.’’ Some of those lessons came 

from the United States Congress and came from some members in 

this chamber. 

And then he went on to say, ‘‘Mr. Chairman, there were two lessons we did not have to learn, because we already knew them. The 

first is that Merida is a cooperative agreement between the U.S. 

and Mexico, with the Government of Mexico in charge of all activities within their territory. If we do not work together with the 

Mexican Government, then we accomplish little for either the 

American or the Mexican people.’’

I just wanted to mention it, because I really do believe that we 

can achieve what you want to achieve and what I want to achieve 

and what we all here want to achieve, all of us, working within the 

Merida Initiative. And I don’t believe that this bill is necessary. 

And then, finally, I want to just say, in terms of procedure, we 

don’t have a quorum here. But I won’t——

Mr. MACK. We do have a quorum. 

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. But I was going to say, but I won’t object. But 

I don’t have to object, because members are here. Okay. 

21

Mr. MACK. I thank the gentleman. And let me just also note that 

Mexico also says that Merida is not enough, that it is too slow and 

not effective. 

Hearing no amendments, the question now occurs on the adoption of the bill. All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed say no. 

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill is agreed 

to. And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 

table. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the 

full committee, and the staff is directed to make any technical and 

conforming changes. 

I now call up H.R. 2542, to hold the Organization of American 

States, the OAS, accountable. 

[H.R. 2542 follows:]

22


72103b-1.eps
23


72103b-2.eps
24


72103b-3.eps
25


72103b-4.eps
26


72103b-5.eps
27


72103b-6.eps
28

Mr. MACK. I recognize myself for opening remarks. I want to first 

make this clear from the start: H.R. 2542 does not defund the OAS. 

H.R. 2542 requires only that the OAS uphold its international commitments in order to receive U.S. taxpayer dollars. Under this legislation, every time the OAS has an opportunity to uphold freedom 

and democracy by enforcing its democratic charter, and decides not 

to, the U.S. will save approximately $11 million. If no action is 

taken to address individual member states’ gross noncompliance 

with the OAS democratic charter, the United States will have 

saved $57 million by the end of 2012. 

Like many of my colleagues, I prefer to have a functional and effective organization that upholds its commitments to democracy 

throughout our important region. However, the OAS has proven 

unable or unwilling to do so. The OAS should not continue to receive increased funding each year when it continuously fails to do 

its job. 

A meeting was held yesterday at the OAS to discuss this specific 

issue—the fact that there is a clause in the democratic charter, Article 20, designated to hold nations accountable for their anti-democratic actions. The consensus within the OAS is that Article 20 is 

not functioning. Prior to yesterday’s meeting, the consensus was 

also that there was no need to amend the democratic charter. 

This is why H.R. 2542 is necessary. The OAS is unable to take 

concrete actions to fix its flaws without outside pressure. Within 

the past year, the OAS has failed to stand with the people of Venezuela and Nicaragua, while 2 years ago it was hypocritically punishing Honduras, within days of that country’s decision to stand on 

the side of freedom. 

Yesterday in Venezuela, Chavez again displayed his control of 

the judiciary system, forcing a judge to remain under arrest for another 2 years just because the judge dared defy him in a routine 

ruing. And there is absolutely no excuse for a statement by Secretary General Insulza supporting the Nicaraguan dictator Daniel 

Ortega’s shame election as a ‘‘step forward—step toward—step forward for democracy.’’

While the OAS later withdrew the statement, the harm was already done. I shudder to think how much harm the OAS can cause 

during the Venezuela elections next year. The American taxpayer 

should not be expected to contribute almost 60 percent of the budget for an organization that works against the interests and fundamental principles of freedom and democracy. 

This legislation is necessary to force needed changes within the 

Organization of American States. If the OAS finds that it is unable 

to make itself effective, there remains no reason for its continued 

existence. 


72103b-7.eps
29

I am now pleased to recognize the ranking member for him to 

speak on this measure. Mr. Engel is recognized. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me first state the 

obvious, that you and I both know we agree on so many things. We 

both want to see more pressure brought on Hugo Chavez’s authoritarian government. We both want to expand freedom in the hemisphere. We both want to expand prosperity in the Americas. And 

we both want to fight the narco criminals’ brutality. It is bringing 

devastation from the southern U.S. and Mexico all the way down 

through Central America and the Caribbean and into the Andean 

region. 

But we both know that there will come a day when another tragedy will strike somewhere in the Americas. There will be another 

hurricane like the ones which have periodically devastated Central 

America or another earthquake like the one which struck Haiti. 

When that happens, I think we would both expect the OAS’s Permanent Council to meet. Under this bill, if the Permanent Council 

meets to discuss how to deal with the tragedy in Haiti, but does 

not take up how Venezuela is violating the Inter-American Democratic Charter, we will withhold 20 percent of our contributions to 

the OAS. 

And if we take this a step further, after 9/11 the OAS Permanent 

Council met to condemn the terrorist attacks on the United States 

after 9/11 and passed a resolution to call upon governments to ‘‘use 

all necessary and available means to pursue, capture, and punish 

those responsible for these attacks.’’

Mr. Chairman, I know you don’t possibly mean this, but if the 

bill became law and the OAS Permanent Council condemned the 

attacks of 9/11 without calling for democracy in Venezuela, we 

would have to withhold 20 percent of their funding. So if we were 

ever attacked again, as we were on 9/11, and the OAS Permanent 

Council met to show that the hemisphere stands with the United 

States, but they didn’t condemn Venezuela, we would have to withhold their funds. And that certainly doesn’t make any sense to me. 

I continue to believe that the OAS, with all its problems, with 

all its flaws, is the best thing we have going, best thing we have 

to ensure democracy in the western hemisphere, best thing we 

have to ensure that the United States has a voice in the western 

hemisphere within an international organization. 

If we don’t have the OAS, if the OAS were to go away tomorrow, 

what would we replace it with? Unisur, where the United States 

is really not a participant? Or this new group which excludes both 

the United States and Canada? I just think that punishing the 

OAS, hurting the OAS, is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. 

I don’t think that it makes any sense whatsoever. 

The things that we think need to be strengthened at the OAS we 

should work with other countries to strengthen it. And I am the 

last one to make excuses for some of the things that have happened 

in the OAS. I think that there has been a coddling for too long of 

Chavez and some of the other governments that you know and I 

know, and we agree, are not the wave of the future but quite the 

opposite for the hemisphere. 

But I think, you know, the State Department Authorization Act, 

which the full committee took up 5 months ago, cut funding for 

30

OAS, cut it out. And I think that that was a very foolish thing to 

do. I think it is a counterproductive thing to do, and I think it is 

a thing that hurts U.S. interests. I think it hurts the interests, 

frankly, of the entire hemisphere. 

But I think especially it hurts U.S. interests, because we have influence at the OAS, and we have the ability to try to get other governments to see it our way or to agree with us. I think if you 

defund it, if you blow it up—and I understand that this language 

doesn’t specifically do that, but it is in line with what we did as 

a full committee 5 months ago during the State Department authorization. It is hostile to the OAS. 

I don’t have the hostility to the OAS. I think the OAS has been 

a very useful body, has been a positive body. They have made mistakes, and I disagree with it, and we should call them out when 

we disagree. But I think it serves the best interests of the entire 

western hemisphere and the best interests of the United States. 

And so I just don’t think doing something like this is productive. 

I think it is counterproductive, and I think the examples I gave in 

terms of if they have a resolution that has nothing to do with Venezuela, and they don’t take up how Venezuela is violating the 

Inter-American Democratic Charter, we would have to withhold 20 

percent of our contributions to the OAS. 

I think that is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer, and I respectfully have to oppose this bill. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MACK. Again, I thank the gentleman, and now would like to 

recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I support this bill, because it stands up to the dictatorship of Hugo Chavez and stands with freedom and democracy in Venezuela. This bill 

would withhold 20 percent of the United States’ contributions to 

the OAS if they don’t start implementing Article 20 of the InterAmerican Charter to encourage democracy in Venezuela. 

Article 20 states that when an OAS member is acting in an antidemocratic way, the Secretary General may request the immediate 

assembly of the Permanent Council to enact diplomatic measures. 

That is what must be done, at the very least, in the case of Venezuela. 

Hugo Chavez has nationalized private industry, restricted freedoms of the press, neutralized the independence of the judicial 

branch. He has blocked political opponents by accusing them of 

crimes or putting them in jail. His government aids and abets the 

terrorist organization FARC, and in yesterday’s Washington Times 

it reported that Venezuelan diplomats in Mexico have been working with Iranian officials to launch a cyber attack against the 

United States. 

If this isn’t the definition of an anti-democratic regime, I don’t 

know what is. And if this isn’t the time for the OAS to act, I don’t 

know when that time would be. We are on the side of right here, 

and we must act now to ensure that democracy isn’t further stifled 

here in our hemisphere. 

So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send a 

message to these anti-democratic regimes that they will not be coddled by the OAS. 

31

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. MACK. And I thank the gentleman, and now I would like to 

recognize the gentlelady Ms. Schmidt for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing 

up this very important issue. You know, Article 3 of the OAS democratic charter outlines respect for fundamental freedoms, including 

independent branches of government, and Chavez has violated this. 

Chavez’s laws last year to restrict the legislature and efforts to control the judicial system are clear violations of the charter. 

Former Assistant Secretary of State Venezuela and Secretary 

General Miguel Insulza has recognized Venezuela’s violation of the 

OAS democratic charter. Even President Obama said that Chavez 

‘‘is subverting the will of the Venezuelan people.’’ The State Department has requested almost $60 million for OAS 

for Fiscal Year ’12—an organization that will not even discuss its 

own members’ violations of the charter. Sometimes you have to 

speak with a loud voice and say, ‘‘Enough is enough.’’

Sixty million dollars for a broken, ineffective organization I believe is wasting our precious taxpayer dollars, and it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to vote yes on this very important initiative. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak on 

this? 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Mr. MACK. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to make a 

point that I made before. I think all members would agree that the 

OAS is not a perfect institution. Neither are we. But, frankly, the 

OAS is much better than the alternatives. 

I find it very hard to understand that precisely when Hugo Chavez—and you know and I know I am no fan of Hugo Chavez, and 

you and I feel the same way about him. But I find it hard to understand that precisely when Chavez is setting up an alternative organization in the Americas called the CELAC, which excludes the 

United States but includes Cuba, we are considering a bill to undercut the OAS, where the U.S. is a member and has influence and 

where Cuba is excluded. 

Even more, this bill would withhold funding for all parts of the 

OAS, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which 

recently ruled against Chavez that opposition leader Leopoldo 

Lopez must be permitted to run for President, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which has criticized Chavez almost as much as we have. 

As I said, the OAS is not perfect, but I agree with former Ambassador Jaime Daremblum, a recent Republican witness at a full 

committee hearing, that we need a strengthen, reformed OAS, not 

an undermined, weakened one. 

In fact, contrary to what we see today, opposition to gutting the 

OAS is by bipartisan, and other leading Republicans have spoken 

out against destroying the OAS, too. 

Ambassador Bill Middendorf, a member of the Board of Trustees 

of the Heritage Foundation and the International Republican Institute said, and I am quoting him, ‘‘I think it would be a tragedy if 

we just announced that we are getting rid of the OAS. I think there 

32

would be a lot of room for mischief from foreign countries, particularly China, which has already bought up everything down there 

anyway.’’

It is funny that he mentions China, because President Hu Jintao 

just sent a message to Chavez congratulating him on the founding 

of the CELAC. And we are further reminded by Ray Walser, a Heritage Foundation expert, who has testified in this committee many 

times that ‘‘putting a dagger through the heart of the OAS’’ is exactly what Hugo Chavez wants. According to Walser, that is why 

Chavez is pushing the CELAC as an alternative to the OAS, because it will be ‘‘a permanent platform for anti-Americanism.’’

So if you are following this, I believe we are actually doing 

Chavez’s bidding today. Chavez wants the OAS killed, and we are 

here to do it for him. So let me just say you know who else says 

no, that we shouldn’t be doing this? The Venezuelan opposition to 

Chavez. 

In a recent letter to this committee, Venezuela’s United Democratic Opposition wrote, ‘‘Venezuela’s democracy is in peril. In such 

a difficult context, the OAS is a key international organization. The 

cause of freedom and hemispheric security requires, more than 

ever, appropriate funding and support to the OAS from the United 

States and all its member states.’’

So the Venezuelan opposition, which wants to topple Chavez, 

says that we are doing the wrong thing here. So, Mr. Chairman, 

I agree that the OAS should speak out more when democracy is imperiled, especially in Venezuela. I agree with you. But let us not 

throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us not hand Chavez 

a victory by undercutting the OAS. 

Rather, let us work to improve the OAS by coordinating more 

closely with countries in the region and improving our diplomacy, 

but not by destroying the OAS simply because it is imperfect; not 

trying to starve it of funds because we don’t like some of the things 

that are happening. 

So again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for letting me speak again, 

but I am going to vote no on this bill. And I yield back. 

Mr. MACK. I thank the gentleman. Are there any amendments to 

this measure? The gentleman from Miami, Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Mr. MACK. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Mr. GATELY. Amendment to H.R. 2542 offered by Mr. Rivera of 

Florida. In Section 1——

[The amendment offered by Mr. Rivera follows:]

33


72103c-1.eps
34


72103c-2.eps
35

Mr. MACK. Without objection, the amendment is considered as 

read. I am pleased to recognize Mr. Rivera to explain his amendment. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And first of 

all, I wanted to say I very strongly support your efforts with this 

bill. And I actually believe the bill will strengthen the OAS and it 

will send the right message that the OAS member states and the 

OAS in general needs to adhere to its charter, or otherwise face 

consequences, and that U.S. funds are not unlimited. 

And they should know that we believe money needs to be spent 

wisely. Our duty is to the American taxpayer, first and foremost, 

not necessarily to any other country that may not like our discipline or our attempts to find fiscal discipline. So this should be 

a wakeup call to the OAS, and particularly those countries that are 

part of the issue of not adhering to the charter, such as Venezuela. 

This amendment will add Nicaragua to that list of countries, because Nicaragua recently has taken some very undemocratic actions. Its recent elections are a pure example of taking undemocratic actions. They have been violating their own constitution. 

Even in the implementation of those elections, there were many 

election violations and irregularities found in Nicaragua. 

So this amendment will add Nicaragua to the bill, with Venezuela, and make sure that the OAS charter is adhered to. And, 

if not, with the case of Nicaragua, along with Venezuela, OAS 

would lose the funding. So that is the amendment, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MACK. And I thank the gentleman from Miami. 

Unless there are other members who wish to strike the last word 

and speak briefly——

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MACK. Yes, the gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I move to strike the last word. Thank 

you. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida is correct. The 

elections in Nicaragua were severely flawed. There was fraud in 

the balloting, and election observers were not permitted to do their 

job. However, here is where I disagree with the gentleman. I believe that the OAS did do its job as observers in Nicaragua and did 

it reasonably well. 

Prior to our recent hearing on Nicaragua, the head of the OAS 

election observer mission, Dante Caputo, briefed members about its 

observer mission in Nicaragua. He reported that there was substantial interference in the work of the OAS observers on the part 

of local voting board officials. In the OAS case, such interference 

even hindered a plan to conduct a quick count and perform other 

statistical analysis of the voting data. 

Mr. Caputo was clear about these violations by the Nicaraguan 

Government. He pulled no punches in describing how his observers 

were blocked from carrying out their roles. Because they were unable to carry and fulfill their duties and observe the election, the 

OAS told the world they would not certify the election in Nicaragua, essentially confirming the fraud which took place. 

As the gentleman from Florida may know, the Government of 

Nicaragua then attacked the OAS for holding that their election 

was poorly run and marked by election law violations. 

36

So, Mr. Chairman, I understand, and frankly agree with the gentleman from Florida—by the way, from Florida by way of New 

York, he used to be my constituent—that it might be good for the 

OAS Permanent Council to meet on this matter. I agree with the 

gentleman from Florida it would be good for the OAS Permanent 

Council to meet on this matter. 

But I think the world was informed by the OAS of the problems 

in this election, of the troubles in this election. The OAS was unwilling to certify the election, and that sent a clear signal about the 

fraud in the Nicaraguan election. But yet if we pass this bill, as 

amended by Mr. Rivera’s amendment, we would withhold funding 

from the OAS election observer teams, the very ones which were 

critical of the Nicaraguan elections. 

So it really doesn’t make much sense to me. I don’t understand 

why we are doing this. I think that it was very clear, by what the 

OAS people said, that the elections in Nicaragua were fraudulent 

and flawed, and they said it. So I don’t know why we are trying 

to hurt them. I don’t understand it. 

So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MACK. And I thank the gentleman. Does anyone else wish—

seek time? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. MACK. Yes, sir. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank the chair. Let me just say briefly that I will 

be voting for the chairman’s bill and for the amendment offered by 

my good friend Mr. Rivera. It is a conditional yes. I mean, the hope 

is that the OAS will finally, at long last, step up to its responsibilities to ensure democracy. 

You know, the Chavez dictatorship is enabled, perhaps unwittingly, because there are people within the OAS who care deeply 

about democracy and freedom and human rights But when there 

is no strong statement, when there is no invocation, as there ought 

to be, as Condoleezza Rice tried to do just a few years ago when 

she was Secretary of State, that kind of passivity, that kind of indifference enables dictatorship. 

And for the people of Venezuela who suffer under the cruelty of 

Chavez, when his money is used to purchase votes throughout all 

of the Americas, especially as elections come around, and his 

money is dropped in one place after another to enable other dictatorships to move forward, we have a very serious problem here. 

So I think the chairman—you know, we all know it is not likely 

that this legislation, at least right now, will become law, given the 

White House’s view and given the difficulty of mustering 60 votes 

in the U.S. Senate for anything. I think this is a very important 

message center, and I applaud the chairman for being so tenacious 

in combating the dictatorship of Hugo Chavez and the other members of this committee. I know Eliot Engel cares deeply about it, 

but has a difference as to the modality that ought to be followed. 

And I think including Nicaragua—I will never forget back in the 

early 1980s visiting with Commandante Daniel Ortega, who was 

violating human rights with such impunity. Four of us went down 

and met with him. Three of us who drank the water he gave us 

got sick, parenthetically. Who knows if it was because of that. The 

37

one who didn’t drink it did not get sick. But what he has done, his 

legacy of human rights violations, and then, you know, his most recent—which the Rivera amendment speaks to as to why he wants 

that included. 

So it is a conditional yes. You know, I think the OAS can serve 

a very valuable purpose, but it has to step up to the plate. It can’t 

sit idly by. It can’t be indifferent to what Chavez is doing. 

And, again, I think the chairman Connie Mack has said in this 

legislation, very clearly, it is a conditional—you know, we want 

them to be functional. We don’t want them to go the way of the 

United Nations, where dictatorships routinely flaunt the process 

and enable the worst violators of human rights. 

And in this case, after Fidel Castro, it has to be Hugo Chavez 

who does terrible things to his own people. He is a cancer. He is 

a cancer on the people of Venezuela. He hurts people. He destroys 

people, he destroys institutions, and then he spreads, you know, 

that cancer throughout all of the Americas. 

The OAS can be a bulwark against that cancer. It has failed to 

do so. Hopefully, your message that you send with this legislation 

will enable them to find a stronger voice against this dictatorship. 

I yield to Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you so much. Just a quick comment, and I 

very much appreciate the comments by my friend Mr. Engel. My 

amendment tries not so much to speak to the OAS’s observer missions to Nicaragua, which I am sure they did a very good job, but 

my amendment speaks to the content and the substance of the bill, 

which is the lack of adherence to Article 3 of the OAS and with 

respect to the organization’s actions or lack of action vis-a`-vis Nicaragua and the recent elections as it pertains to Article 3, not so 

much the observer mission during the election. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. MACK. Anyone else seek time? 

[No response.] 

The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Rivera. All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed say no. 

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment 

is agreed to. 

Hearing no other amendments, the question now occurs on 

adopting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed say no. 

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill, as amended, is agreed to. And without objection, the motion to reconsider is 

laid on the table. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, can we have a rollcall vote on 

that, please? 

Mr. MACK. A rollcall vote having been requested, the clerk will 

call the roll. 

Mr. GATELY. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. Yes. 

Mr. GATELY. Mr. Mack votes aye. 

Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

Mr. GATELY. Mr. McCaul votes aye. 

38

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Aye. 

Mr. GATELY. Ms. Schmidt votes aye. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. Aye. 

Mr. GATELY. Mr. Rivera votes aye. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. GATELY. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

Mr. GATELY. Mr. Gallegly votes aye. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. No. 

Mr. GATELY. Mr. Engel votes no. 

Mr. Sires. 

[No response.] 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Mr. Payne. 

[No response.] 

Mr. MACK. Have all members been recorded? 

Mr. GATELY. Yes. 

Mr. MACK. The clerk will report the vote. 

Mr. GATELY. We have six ayes and one no. 

Mr. MACK. The ayes have it, and the question is agreed to. 

Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the full 

committee in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a 

substitute, incorporating the amendment adopted here today. And 

the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. 

That concludes our business. And without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 o’clock p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

40

f


72103n.eps
41


72103m-1.eps
42

f


72103m-2.eps
43


72103d-1.eps
44

f


72103d-2.eps
45


72103e-1.eps
46

Æ


72103e-2.eps