[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.RES. 292, H. RES. 181, H.R. 2608, H. CON. RES. 187, H.J.
RES. 65, AND H. RES. 297
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international
relations
______
U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-967CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
Hillel Weinberg, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
Jill N. Quinn, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Markup of H. Res. 292, a resolution expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives regarding the referendum in East
Timor, calling on the Government of Indonesia to assist in the
termination of the current civil unrest and violence in East
Timor, and supporting a United Nations Security Council-
endorsed multinational force for East Timor.................... 1
Markup of H. Res. 181, a resolution condemning the kidnapping and
murder by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) of
3 United States citizens, Ingrid Washinawatok, Terence Freitas,
and Lahe'ena'e Gay............................................. 14
Markup of H.R. 2608, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 to clarify the definition of ``major drug-transit
country'' under the international narcotics control program.... 17
Markup of H. Con. Res. 187, a concurrent resolution expressing
the sense of the Congress regarding the European Council noise
rule affecting hushkitted and reengined aircraft............... 28
Markup of H.J. Res. 65, a joint resolution commending the World
War II veterans who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and for
other purposes................................................. 31
Markup of H.J. Res. 297, a resolution expressing sympathy for the
victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on
September 21, 1999............................................. 34
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Hon. Cynthia McKinney, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
concerning H. Res. 292......................................... 51
Bills and amendments:
H. Res. 292...................................................... 38
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 292, offered
by Rep. Bereuter............................................... 44
Amendment to the Bereuter amendment in the nature of a substitute
to H. Res. 292, offered by Rep. Brady.......................... 54
H. Res. 181...................................................... 55
H.R. 2608........................................................ 60
H. Con. Res. 187................................................. 62
H.J. Res. 65..................................................... 65
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.J. Res. 65, offered
by Rep. Smith.................................................. 69
H. Res. 297...................................................... 72
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 297, offered
by Mr. Bereuter................................................ 74
Additional material submitted for the record:
Letter written by Julie Freitas, mother of Terence Freitas, which
appeared in the Washington Post on May 22, 1999, submitted by
Rep. Lee....................................................... 58
MARKUP OF H.RES. 292
----------
Thursday, September 23, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A.
Gilman (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee on International Relations
meets today in open session, pursuant to notice, to mark up
several items of legislation.
We will now consider H. Res. 292, relating to East Timor.
The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Rush. House Resolution 292, a resolution expressing the
sense of the House of Representatives regarding the referendum
in East Timor, calling on the Government of Indonesia to assist
in the termination of the current civil unrest and violence in
East Timor, and supporting a United Nations Security Council-
endorsed multinational force for East Timor.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. This resolution was referred to the
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and reported without
amendment.
Without objection the clerk will read the preamble and
operative language of the resolution, in that order, for
amendment. The clerk will read.
Ms. Rush. Whereas on May 5th, 1999, the governments of
Portugal and Indonesia and the United Nations----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read. It is open to amendment at any
point.
I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter,
the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific, for 5 minutes to introduce the resolution. I
understand he has an amendment in the nature of a substitute
which he may offer now or at the end of his remarks.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment in the
nature of a substitute at the desk. I would offer it at this
point. It is on the Members' desks.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Rush. Amendment by Mr. Bereuter. Amend the preamble to
read as follows: Whereas on May 5th, 1999, the Governments of--
--
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
The gentleman is recognized on his amendment.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues, as an
author of H. Res. 292, I am offering this amendment in the
nature of a substitute in order to update certain parts of the
original resolution, and to better reflect recent developments
on East Timor and Indonesia.
This legislation was marked up by the Asia and the Pacific
Subcommittee last week, and was expected to be taken up by the
Full Committee on Wednesday, September 15th, but as you know, a
hurricane changed our schedule here. A number of things have
happened in the meantime, and we have prepared this amendment
in the nature of a substitute to reflect that fact.
The most notable of those happenings has been Indonesia's
reluctant acceptance of a multinational force for East Timor.
On September 20th the initial deployment of this multinational
force began, led by a very large contingent of Australians.
The Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, jointly with our
Senate Foreign Relations counterpart, held a detailed hearing
on East Timor, and subsequently has held update briefings on
the situation; therefore, I believe I do not need to provide a
lengthy background comment regarding the tragedy in East Timor
and our serious concerns about Indonesia's failure to fulfill
its international obligation.
The amended resolution does the following: It supports the
referendum that occurred in East Timor and our acceptance of
the results. It expresses concern about Indonesia's failure to
fulfill its international obligations to provide safety and
security to the people of East Timor; and it condemns the
militias and the elements of the Indonesian military that have
engaged in violence.
It also urges the international community to investigate
the human rights abuses that have occurred, and calls on
Indonesia to hold accountable those responsible for such acts.
It urges the unrestricted access to, and safe return of
refugees and displaced persons in West Timor and elsewhere. It
supports a consideration of additional economic and other
sanctions against Indonesia, should Indonesia not cooperate
with or hinder the multinational force, UNAMET, in its efforts
to ensure the safe return of refugees or the transition to
independence for East Timor. It supports U.S. logistical and
other technical support for the multinational force for East
Timor, and it strongly commends Australia for its willingness
to lead this force, and for rapidly deploying its initial
contingent forces.
This is the largest and most important deployment of
Australian forces abroad since World War II, and the
Australians deserve our praise and support for taking on this
responsibility.
The resolution also recognizes that an effective U.S.
foreign policy for the region requires an effective near-term
response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in, and progress
toward independence for East Timor. It also requires a long-
term strategy for supporting stability, security, and democracy
in Indonesia.
I think this provision is very important because when CNN
and many of us focus on the crisis affecting the 700,000 people
on East Timor, we must not lose sight of the important
relationship we need to maintain with 209 million remaining
Indonesians. It is in our own short-term and long-term national
interest to help Indonesia make the democratic and economic
reforms it so desperately needs.
I want to thank Chairman Gilman for moving this
legislation, for his cosponsorship, for the help and the
assistance in cosponsorship of the distinguished Ranking
Democrat of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Lantos,
the Ranking Democrat of the Full Committee, Mr. Gejdenson, and
other Members of the Committee who are cosponsors, including
Messrs. Hastings, Smith, Faleomavaega, Gillmor, Ackerman,
Berman, Rohrabacher, Crowley, Radanovich, and Delahunt.
I urge the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Asia and
the Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, for bringing this very
timely measure before us today. It has broad bipartisan
support. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I am still troubled by
the situation in East Timor, as many of our colleagues are.
Although the first elements of the multinational force, led by
our friends the Australians and supported by American troops,
have landed on the island, there are still many important
challenges ahead. The extent of these challenges is only now
becoming known. First, the Government of Indonesia must abide
by its commitment to respect the results of the August 30th
referendum and the rights of East Timorese to raise a peaceful
transition to independence.
President Habibie comments, though tragically late, that
Indonesia must honor and accept that choice, an important step.
I hope his words will be fulfilled by his deeds. Accordingly,
the Indonesian parliament must ratify the popular decision of
the people of East Timor at an early date. Second, the
Indonesian military, which participated in the violence against
innocent civilians, aided and abetted by the militia, should
fully withdraw from East Timor. That will allow refugees and
displaced persons to return home from West Timor and elsewhere
confident of their safety. It will also reduce the likelihood
of a clash with a multinational force.
Third, I urge the international community to investigate
the human rights abuses and atrocities which occurred in the
aftermath of the elections, and call upon the Government of
Indonesia to hold fully accountable those responsible for such
reprehensible acts.
Finally, in light of these devastating events, the
Administration is going to have to reevaluate its military
relationship with the Indonesian arm forces. The Pentagon
should conduct a full scale review of its military-to-military
relationship with Djakarta, including the effectiveness of the
IMET Program, joint training exercises, and armed sales. The
Pentagon should not reinstitute any aspect of the military
relationship without full consultation with the Congress.
Once again, I thank Mr. Bereuter, and I look forward to
bringing this resolution to the Floor next week for early
consideration by the entire House.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you
and the International Relations Committee Ranking Member, Mr.
Gejdenson, for bringing this measure regarding the recent
developments in East Timor for the markup of the Committee. I
would further like to deeply commend the Chairman and the
Ranking Member of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, a good
friend from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, and Mr. Lantos, for
cosponsoring this resolution and their consideration at this
time.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am honored to be
an original cosponsor of the resolution. Mr. Chairman, with
respect to the events in the past weeks, the Indonesian
Government should be condemned in the strongest terms for
allowing untold atrocities to be committed against the
innocent, the unarmed civilians of East Timor.
I commend President Clinton for terminating all assistance
to, and ties with the Indonesian military. The United Nations
estimates that up to 300,000 East Timorese, over one-third of
the population of East Timor, have been displaced, and it
remains to be seen how many hundreds if not thousands have been
killed in the mass blood pillage and carnage. A call for an
international war crimes tribunal to punish those responsible
for the atrocities should be heeded.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the intervention of the
United Nations-endorsed multinational force in East Timor. I am
heartened that with their arrival in Dili early this week, a
little less than half of the 7,500 troops' peacekeeping force
is on the ground. They have already had a significant effect of
stabilizing the situation.
I trust the isolated outbreaks and gunfire and recent
killings, such as that yesterday of the Dutch journalist, will
be stopped by the Australian-led multinational force. While I
believe America's role in the peacekeeping mission should have
been greater, certainly the contribution of the United States
airlift and logistical support has been invaluable.
Mr. Chairman, with Indonesia being the fourth largest
nation, and the largest Muslim country in the world, which
should strike major ceilings of communications in trade,
certainly we have a substantial national interest in preserving
stability, not only in Indonesia but in Southeast Asia as well,
and to prevent a U.N. initiative from turning into a
catastrophic humanitarian disaster.
Mr. Chairman, the resolution has a great meaning to the
people of East Timor. Especially at the outset, some 25 years
ago, the Indonesian military, under the leadership of Dictator
Suharto, unilaterally sent forces and massacred, tortured,
killed, whatever you call it. As a result, over 200,000 East
Timorese were dead by that illegal and unlawful takeover, if I
might add.
Mr. Chairman, this resolution is especially meaningful to
the people of East Timor because finally, after 25 years of
pleading with the international community, to this country as
well as to members of the United Nations-I call it neglect, Mr.
Chairman, on our part, on the part of the international
community not giving heed to the pleadings of the East Timorese
people. God knows how many more thousands of East Timorese have
been killed by the hands of the Indonesian military.
Mr. Chairman, I support the resolution, the substance, and
I personally feel that it falls far short of what we should
have been doing in the past 25 years. I might add, Mr.
Chairman, let us wait for the next chapter to unfold--and I am
not going to get into it, I just want to mention one word, West
Papua New Guinea should be next in line.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend my
friend and colleague from Nebraska for taking the initiative on
this. Of course, I strongly support the resolution.
There are two observations I would like to make, Mr.
Chairman. First, I want to commend Australia for taking the
lead, and this obviously ought to be a pattern to be followed
in other parts of the globe where crises of this kind are
likely to erupt. The United States needs to play a role
wherever appropriate, but we certainly do not need to play the
lead role everywhere. I think the Australians have given a
superb example to many other countries in accepting their
regional responsibility.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I want to express profound
disappointment in the continuing failure of Japan to play any
role in any such activities. Now, I am no longer impressed by
the fact that the Japanese constitution of half a century ago
places some obstacles in the way of Japan's participation. But
if we can see German troops in the former Yugoslavia--and I am
very pleased to see German troops in the former Yugoslavia,
because Germany is a democratic nation that has fully accepted
its international responsibilities--the time is long overdue
for Japan to accept its international responsibilities. To see
a crisis in Asia where troops from a dozen countries
participate, ranging from the United Kingdom to the
Philippines, with Japan studiously avoiding the slightest
degree of participation, I think it is irresponsible,
appalling, and needs to be called to the attention of our
colleagues in the Japanese Diet, and of the Japanese
Government. I intend to do so, and I hope some of my colleagues
will do so, in a letter to the Prime Minister of Japan on this
issue.
The final observation I would like to make, Mr. Chairman,
is an alert to my colleagues that I am working on legislation
that will make Indonesia fully financially responsible for all
of the reconstruction in East Timor. I think this vandalism
which has unfolded, partly perpetrated by the militia and
partly perpetrated by the Indonesian military, and certainly
condoned and acquiesced in by the Indonesian military, will
have to be rectified by Indonesia.
It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayer to
pay for the arson perpetrated by Indonesian militia and
military troops. The legislation I am working on makes any
future World Bank assistance and IMF assistance contingent upon
Indonesia paying directly the full expense of the outrages that
have been perpetrated beyond the killing of individuals.
We cannot undo the killing of individuals, but we certainly
can make the Indonesian Government pay for all of the
horrendous damage that, in a reckless and irresponsible
fashion, they perpetrated on this tiny little half-island of
East Timor. To allow this to go unpunished in a financial
sense, I think, would be stupid and irresponsible.
I call on all of my colleagues to join me in this
legislation, which I understand already has some interest
expressed in the other body.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos made several important points, especially Australia
taking the lead, how the United States should be playing a role
in different parts of the world, but not necessarily the lead
role everywhere in the world. I think that we have a measured
response to that situation now in East Timor, as we are playing
a supportive role to the Australians. We need to allow the
Australians, as Mr. Lantos suggested.
Also, I associate myself with the understanding that Mr.
Lantos says, who should pay for these horrible atrocities that
have been committed against the East Timorese people; I agree
with that as well.
I would also like to associate myself with the remarks of
my good friend Mr. Faleomavaega, who suggests that we should do
more than just note these crimes, but there should be a human
rights tribunal for those people who committed these crimes
against humanity.
Finally, for myself, and not just associating myself with
the remarks of my friends, but let me just say I was horrified
and dismayed by what were clearly human rights abuses that were
sanctioned by the Indonesian military.
The Indonesian military bought a great deal of good will
from people around the world when they played a positive role
in the transition out of the Suharto regime into more
democratic elections. It was a very volatile moment in
Indonesian history, and the military there played a very
positive role. Unfortunately, they squandered much of the good
will that they achieved throughout the world by permitting this
mayhem and wanton bloodshed that took place in East Timor, and
I would hope that they get the message that any repeat of that
is going to basically--they will be labeling themselves as
human rights pariahs if this ever happens again--and we are
watching very closely, and that is what this amendment is all
about, and I gladly support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, firstly, let me commend you for
expediting this matter, and certainly the Chairman of the Asia
and the Pacific Subcommittee is deserving of our commendations.
I would like to utilize my time to ask my friend and colleague
Mr. Bereuter just one set of questions regarding language in
the amendment to the--or at least an amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Hastings. At page 6, line 17, while I am pleased and
happy to be an original cosponsor of the base bill, seeing the
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the first time
causes me to at least raise a question regarding that
particular area.
I agree that we should strongly commend Australia for what
they are doing in leading the multinational force, but is it
unwarranted for us to identify the 12 nations presently in the
second portion of the paragraph that I am referring to? The
language is that we welcome the participation of other nations.
I agree with that, but could it not be that we could say that
we commend the participation of other nations, and I refer
specifically to other people, New Zealand and the Philippines,
for example, who came immediately to involve themselves in a
similar manner, as well as the United States?
Would it be unwarranted for us to consider an amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute that would say that
we commend the participation rather than just welcome the
participation? And I invite your advice in that regard, Mr.
Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Hastings. I would yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Bereuter. I thank the gentleman for his excellent
suggestion. We are at that point where we are completing our
markup. We know what the list is at this moment, and I would
welcome this friendly amendment to actually welcome and to
commend, and then we will list the countries that are currently
providing personnel. I would suggest that we would say at the
conclusion of that phrase, ``and others that will
participate.'' And if the gentleman would make that----
Mr. Hastings. I so offer that amendment to the motion
allowing an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to bear the language that Mr. Bereuter just
suggested.
Mr. Bereuter. The Members understand then that the current
list as of this moment of countries will just be added here in
alphabetical order. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. If there is no objection to the proposed
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to thank
you for holding this important markup on the resolution
regarding the situation in East Timor, and supporting the
United Nations Security Council multinational force in East
Timor. I would also like to commend Congressman Bereuter and
Congressman Lantos for crafting this bipartisan resolution,
which I am proud to be a cosponsor of, and I would like to
associate myself with the remarks of Congressman Lantos.
The situation in East Timor has deteriorated so rapidly
that the international community was caught off guard, despite
previous warnings of possible violence by pro-Indonesia
militias. I am pleased and encouraged that the U.N. Security
Council approved the resolution to deploy multinational forces
in East Timor, and that troops are currently on the ground
restoring a semblance of order.
This sorely needed action by the U.N. will provide the
security and hope that East Timor needs to build itself into an
independent nation. However, food and medical care remains
scarce. Hundreds of thousands of East Timorese are in hiding or
refugees, many of whom are detained in West Timor.
Put simply, the situation in East Timor is volatile and it
will remain so for some time, and that is why I believe it to
be of critical importance, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you
agree, that the Full House International Relations Committee
ought to hold hearings as soon as possible regarding East
Timor.
This Committee needs to address this issue and plan for the
future of U.S. policy toward East Timor and Indonesia. Mr.
Chairman, I hope that you will see fit to call a hearing as
soon as possible to address this critical foreign policy issue.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. We certainly will
take your suggestion under advisement.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I will be very brief. I want to thank Mr.
Bereuter and yourself and my friends on the Democratic side of
the aisle for this bipartisan resolution. I think Mr. Crowley
made a good point when he said we were caught off guard, but we
were warned, as he knows, and as he said and noted, many were
warning that there was a very real possibility that the militia
would move, they would move quickly, they would also get very
substantial support from the Indonesian military--and just in
terms of the Indonesian military, I hope there will be no
effort made by the Administration to rejoin the cooperation
with that military until there is a real and genuine and
authentic vetting of that military's ranks from the very top
down to the bottom.
We had hearings in my Subcommittee last year, and we
pointed out that the JACIPS Program was actually training
people from COPASIS, and there were no records kept, Mr.
Chairman, none whatsoever, as to where those people took those
skills and employed those skills.
We heard from people who had been tortured by COPASIS, the
so-called Red Berets. I think it behooves us to be very slow
before there is any kind of cooperation with that military
except to say get your act together, we will work with you on
that, but we will not be training you in sniper training and
urban guerrilla warfare and other kinds of actions that make
them more efficient, increasing their efficacies in hurting
innocent civilians, as they have done in East Timor, as they
did previously in Djakarta.
I do hope the Administration will not move--I know they cut
off the cooperation, but that cooperation should have been cut
off months ago as these allegations substantiated by the human
rights community became known. We should not have been caught
off guard, but the response, thankfully, led by the
Australians, was a good one. It was slow in happening, but,
thank God, it is happening, and hopefully it will have a
relatively positive end.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Ms. McKinney.
Ms. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had wanted to lend
my voice of support for the Bereuter resolution. Of course,
right now it is a little bit difficult, but I do want to
associate myself with the very strong remarks of my colleague
from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
I have a statement that I would like to submit for the
record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McKinney appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, your full statement
will be made part of the record.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us
share some responsibility here, having watched the situation in
East Timor for decades from the days of the Portuguese leaving.
The Indonesians came in and took over East Timor. The struggle
there for freedom has been a long one, and the tragedy that has
now left somewhere between 3- and 600,000 people having fled
their homes, as many as several hundred thousand over in West
Timor, is a warning to all of us. In areas of the world where
we see crises coming, we need to act in a much faster manner.
It also restates the importance of the United Nations. It
would have been difficult, if not impossible, to get
international agreement in placing the troops in East Timor
without the United Nations as the vehicle, and it behooves us
as Members of Congress to expedite full funding for the United
Nations, including the paying of our debts. The United Nations
has been a vehicle that has fostered American foreign policy
interests and world peace, and this is just one more instance
where the United Nations hopefully has shortened the moments of
terror for the people of East Timor.
I commend Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Lantos, Mr. Faleomavaega,
and others who have been involved in this effort, and commend
the Chairman for moving it so rapidly.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
I also would like to associate myself with the comments of the
gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, as did Mr. Rohrabacher.
I think he made several excellent points. I agree with all of
them. I would like to be involved in the letter that was
referred to with relation to Japan. I think it is time that
Japan, and it is understandable why early on after World War II
they were not involved around the world, but at this point that
is a long, long time, and I think it is time that they bear
their share of responsibilities. So I would very much be
interested in involving myself with respect to that letter.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition? If not,
and if there are no further amendments, the question is on the
Bereuter amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.
All those in favor of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute as amended say aye.
All those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues
for their support and their comments. I move that the Chairman
be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution,
as amended, on the suspension calendar.
Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I was seeking recognition because
I have an amendment at the desk. I think it will only take
about 2 or 3 minutes, if I may.
Chairman Gilman. By unanimous consent we will vitiate what
has occurred. Please distribute the Brady amendment.
Mr. Brady is recognized. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Rush. Amendment by Mr. Brady, in paragraph 13 A.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as having been
read. Mr. Brady is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on his
amendment.
Mr. Brady. Thank you. I first want to commend Mr. Bereuter,
as he should be, for his leadership in his role, and to you,
Chairman Gilman, for your time and action on this important
resolution. The resolution expresses the view of the House of
Representatives on East Timor, an important area for us.
This amendment simply ensures that this resolution reflects
an informed view of America's role in this region. The
amendment requests the President, in effect, to estimate the
additional costs of this new deployment and identify how it
will be paid for. It is an important amendment long term for
us, because as you know, we have stretched our troops and our
military resources so thinly around the world today we need to
know how much this new deployment will further stretch our
precious security resources.
The amendment is common sense, because one by one over the
years these deployments have added up to more than $17 billion.
These new costs have diverted billions of unbudgeted dollars
from our existing commitments and have reached a level where we
are squeezing other of America's important priorities. This
amendment should be bipartisan, because the President and
Congress, we are all on the same team here on world peace, on
America's team.
As we work hard together to set our financial priorities
this year and in the future, we need to know, ought to know,
what is of less priority. In the past, these deployments have
come either directly out of the Social Security Trust Fund or
have diverted dollars from national security. It is important,
I think, in our planning purposes that we know, if they are not
to come from Social Security or from national security, how
many veterans will be affected because of less dollars; how
many seniors will get less health care; how little education
will we have; what aid to other countries might be reduced or
limited because of these actions.
I think it is important--as Mr. Faleomavaega pointed out,
he has a strong opinion of who should be next in line for our
assistance--it is important for us to plan for that help and
also to set our priorities as a Congress, as partners, the
White House, whoever may be there, and Congress, whoever may be
here. I believe this is a very responsible common sense
amendment that takes nothing away from the substance and, if
anything, sets a precedent that, little by little, will be
important for future planning.
I would respectfully urge support.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in the strongest
possible terms against the adoption of this amendment, which
far from it being bipartisan or nonpartisan, it is an appalling
piece of policy, particularly in view of the fact that we have
designated easily foreseeable items such as the Census as
emergency items, not requiring any offsetting provisions. To
take this item, which is so clearly an emergency, as is the
earthquake in Taiwan or Turkey, and make it one that requires
offsetting items would be both hypocritical, nonsensical and
awfully bad public policy.
I don't want to take more time on this, despite the fact
that my views are expressed in very mild tones, but I think it
is extremely important that we overwhelmingly and on a
bipartisan reject this. This is a military emergency where the
United States is playing a relevantly minor supporting role,
and to call for offsetting cuts in other budgetary categories,
I think, is absurd.
I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I oppose the
amendment as written. I am reluctant only because Mr. Brady is
such a valuable Member of the Committee and I am sure has good
intentions in offering it. Indeed, I share some of the concerns
of Mr. Brady about the number of the open-ended, unfunded
commitments this Administration seems to have been making
around the world. Actually, I have been vocal on this issue.
We were bypassed in some ways in the involvement on Kosovo
and Bosnia, and I think it is incumbent upon the Administration
to consult closely with Congress before it considers further
assistance in East Timor. However, this is not Bosnia or
Kosovo. We have already deployed, or are in the progress of
deploying, 200 personnel, most of whom are going to Darwin. The
operation is underway. For us to suggest now that this should
be contingent is inappropriate.
I remind my colleagues that Australia is a key strategic
non-NATO treaty ally of the United States. Australia is
certainly in a different status. I cannot think of a more loyal
ally that we have had over the last 80 years. Every time we
have been involved in a conflict, the first people to show up
with us have been the Australians. I urge you sometime to visit
the war memorial in Canberra. It does anything but glorify war.
It shows an incredible number of times that the Australians
have come in to help on the right side of a conflict. They have
erected an extraordinary memorial to America's involvement with
them and saving, as they put it, Australia during World War II.
For these and other reasons, I am opposed to making our
support for these limited operations contingent upon the
President providing offsets. We are already helping the
Australians and others in that multinational force. Now, if Mr.
Brady wants to change ``contingent upon'' to ``call upon the
President to provide spending offsets,'' I can support that. I
think we all know, want to know, where the resources are going
to come from for this operation.
Finally, I remind my colleagues not to read more into the
resolution than it actually says. Support the base resolution
that provides for emergency deployment of this very limited
U.S. logistical and other technical assistance. Our treaty ally
has asked us for this limited support. They are leading a
multinational effort. It is the kind of support a fire company
provides to a neighboring fire department to help it extinguish
an immediate blaze. It pledges nothing else.
Clearly the Committees on Oversight Appropriations, Armed
Services, and International Relations will demand cost
information from the Administration, and will subsequently act
upon it. Given the emergency nature of the situations, the fact
that we are already properly assisting the Australians and the
other countries in what is really only a limited supporting
role, I cannot support making current ongoing operations
contingent on the President providing offsets, especially when
the amendment provides no time line for such actions.
So, although I appreciate the gentleman's intent and his
track record, I think it is very important that we reject the
gentleman's amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. I would also oppose the amendment. I would
point out that Congress has not been excessively strict in
defining what is an emergency. But this, by any definition, let
alone the more liberal definitions we seem to have adopted, is
an emergency. Certainly at the beginning of this fiscal year,
the one that we are in now, we could not have fathomed what has
happened in East Timor.
Second, this is a period when we do have a Federal budget
surplus. Finally, this is an international conflict where we
are doing far less than the American people would expect that
we would have to do, because the Australians are doing far more
than other allies of ours have done in other parts of the
world. So here is a case where we are bearing our proportionate
share, or even less than a proportionate share of dealing with
this crisis, and we ought to strongly support that effort.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I rise in strong support of what Mr. Brady
is trying to accomplish, and support his amendment. We can sit
here all day long and posture about what--how we believe in
human rights and we believe in this and we believe in that. But
the American people have every right to ask us, in relationship
to what do we believe in, these things.
We aren't willing to prioritize, we don't believe in any of
this stuff. The fact is that we believe, and those of us who
believe in human rights and are advocates of human rights
believe that at a certain price tag that we want to make sure
that Americans will go out and do this. But I for one, for
example, am not willing to support this operation down in East
Timor if it would cost the same as what we are spending in
Kosovo, or in Bosnia. The American people have every right to
know what the price tag is, and to find out where it is coming
from. Then they will find out what we really believe in.
The fact is that I think that this is going to be a cost
effective operation. I support this operation, mainly because
it is limited in the amount of money that we are going to drain
away from other priorities. But there are other things we can
take this money from. How about--if Mr. Brady is willing to put
himself out and get beat up for it--how about we take it out of
the aid to Egypt and Israel. There is a big billion dollar
package for you. No, but everybody wants to have it all--
everything for everybody.
No, Mr. Brady is being very courageous today by trying to
make sure that we are being responsible, making sure when we
tell people that we believe in something, we really believe in
it and we are willing to prioritize to prove that.
Mr. Bereuter. Would the gentleman yield.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
Mr. Bereuter. I thank my colleague from California for
yielding. As I said to the gentleman from Texas and would just
reiterate it here for emphasis, if the gentleman would call
upon the President to provide spending offsets, it would seem
to me to be an entirely appropriate request from the Congress
and a bipartisan one. However, when you say that our support
must be only contingent upon offsets received from the
President, that is a different matter.
I would just like to make that distinction for the
gentleman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am happy to let you have that time. But
I, of course, disagree with that point. There again, you are
either making it real or you are not. Mr. Brady's approach is
making it real. We really do believe in human rights enough to
insist that, contingent upon other things being cut, that we
are not going to get involved in this. Otherwise we don't
believe in it. Otherwise, we are just saying the American
people can absorb any amount of cost that we decide, and we are
not going to reduce spending elsewhere in order to come up with
this money.
So, Mr. Brady, thank you very much for this amendment.
Thanks for putting us on the spot. I guess many of us would
prefer not to be put on the spot. I would have preferred not to
be put on the spot. But I think it is important for us to keep
these types of things in mind. Every time we do call for
spending somewhere, it is coming out of somewhere else.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Certainly I will to my good friend from
California, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Putting someone on
the spot, that would be an amendment that said we are going to
take it from here, and we are going to take it from here, and
we are going to take it from here, in order to put it here.
That is an amendment that puts people on the spot. This is not
an amendment that puts people on the spot; calling on the
President to come up with offsets is not an amendment that puts
people on the spot.
The President sent, at the beginning of the budget year, a
series of offsets to justify the levels of the spending that he
was proposing in his budget, and the Republican majority has
rejected each and almost every single one of those offsets, and
rather than substitute their own offsets, they have declared
the Census an emergency. They have proposed forward funding.
They have pushed things to supplementals that will come, but
come a little bit later.
When we talk about putting people on the spot, let us
remember what people putting people on the spot really is.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman
has made some very good points. Listen, I am not here defending
everything that the Republicans do. I think what you just said
makes very good points. Perhaps this is the first step toward
going in the right direction. But I agree with the points you
made.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired. Is
anyone else seeking recognition?
If not, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Brady. Many of us agree with the objectives of his amendment. I
believe that the gentleman from Texas thinks that the
Administration should have to identify how it expects to pay
for deployment; however, I believe that our Nation's
participation in a multinational force should not be contingent
upon the identification of such offsets.
Our forces are already participating in a logistical and
supportive role, so the amendment is overtaken by events. While
I commend the gentleman for his amendment, I cannot support his
proposal. Is anyone else seeking recognition?
If not, the question is now on the Brady amendment. All in
favor signify in the normal manner.
Those opposed.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Mr. Brady. I know when I am not on a roll.
Chairman Gilman. Are there any other Members seeking
recognition for any other amendments?
If not, the question is on the Bereuter amendment in the
nature of a substitute as amended.
All those in favor of the Bereuter amendment in the nature
of a substitute as amended say aye.
All those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized
now to offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate, I move that the
Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending
resolution, as amended, on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska.
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to.
Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We will now move to H. Res. 181, condemning the murder of
Americans by the FARC, or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia.
The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Rush. House Resolution 181, a resolution condemning the
kidnapping and murder by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, FARC, of 3 United States citizens, Ingrid
Washinawatok, Terence Freitas, Lahe'ena'e Gay.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. The resolution was referred to the
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and reported without
amendment.
Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and
operative language of the resolution, in that order, for
amendment.
The clerk will read.
Ms. Rush. Whereas Ingrid Washinawatok, a member of the
Menominee Indian Nation of Wisconsin, Terence Freitas----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read and open to amendment at any
point.
Does any Member seek recognition?
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge support for
House Resolution 181. The Colombian rebel group FARC's murder
of three innocent American citizens earlier this year can only
be described as senseless and horrific. These individuals,
including Terence Freitas, whose mother lives in my
congressional district, were in Colombia only to provide
humanitarian assistance to indigenous people in the northeast
part of the country.
Regrettably, although FARC has admitted that their
guerrillas are responsible for the killings, they have refused
to cooperate with Colombian or U.S. authorities to resolve the
case. This important resolution condemns that heinous crime,
and demands that those responsible are swiftly brought to
justice.
I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say that Terry Freitas, who was kidnapped and
murdered by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, was a
constituent. He and his companions were traveling and were
brutally murdered, and they were there trying toprotect the
land, the land sustained from U.S. and Colombian petroleum
developers. Now in our meeting yesterday--and thank you very
much for the invitation to that meeting--with the President of
Colombia, we learned a great deal about the Colombian
Government's new plan for peace and their economic development
and counter drug efforts.
But I would like to indicate that there has been a letter
written by Mr. Berman's constituent, Julie Freitas, the mother
of Terry Freitas, who wanted to make sure that we understand
that she does not want to see these tragic murders utilized in
a way to try to fund additional military aid to the Colombian
armed forces.
I would like to insert the letter for the record. It was
published in the Washington Post on May 22nd, 1999.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. I urge all of the Committee
Members to support this resolution, because I do believe that
those responsible for the murders of Terry and his colleagues
should be arrested and brought to trial.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Mr. Chairman, on February 25th, 1999, three
U.S. citizens were kidnapped and later murdered in Colombia by
the terrorist organization, the FARC. These Americans were not
in Colombia to hurt anyone, to spy for anyone, or to cause
trouble. They were there to help the U'wa people by providing
educational assistance. Yet they were brutally executed because
of a continuing reign of terror which makes no distinction
between combatants and innocent civilians.
Atrocities are being committed every day in Colombia, and
not just by the FARC. Right wing paramilitary groups supported
by the Colombian military, and even elements of the Colombian
military itself, have been linked to numerous human rights
violations, and many critics believe that U.S. policy--blame
U.S. policy for helping to bring about the state of affairs in
Colombia today.
Mr. Chairman, I was in Colombia on February 25th, the day
the Americans were kidnapped. Like my colleagues, I mourn this
senseless act and want to see the perpetrators brought to
justice.
I support this resolution. I look forward to the
opportunity to debate the larger problems of Colombia and U.S.
policy in the region at a later time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Crowley.
Any other Members seeking recognition.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, and a bipartisan
group of cosponsors brought this important resolution before
our Committee. In early March, these three Americans were in
Colombia trying to help an indigenous group when they were
brutally murdered by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia.
The FARC, designated by the State Department as a foreign
based terrorist group, killed these people in cold blood. These
senseless deaths have brought the toll of innocent American
lives taken in Colombia to date by the FARC and the National
Liberation Army to 15. As of today, 7 Americans are still being
held hostage by these terrorist groups. In addition, we still
do not know the fate of the longest held captives, Mark Rich,
David Bankins, and Rich Tennenhof, kidnapped by the FARC in
1993.
This morning I wrote to Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright to ask that the perpetrators of the murders of these
three innocent Americans who are the subject of this resolution
be forced and they be included under the Department of State's
counterterrorism reward program.
I recently sponsored legislation for an increase of reward
under that program to $5 million. I hope that widely
publicizing this reward in Colombia will help to speed the
arrest and conviction of those responsible for this
reprehensible crime.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution.
If there are no other Members seeking recognition or
offering amendments, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter,
is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on
the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska.
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Further proceedings on this measure are now postponed.
We will now move to consider H.R. 2608, to amend the
definition of major drug transit countries.
The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. Rush. H.R. 2608, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 to clarify the definition of ``major drug transit
country'' under the international narcotics control program.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
amendment.
Ms. Rush. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America and Congress
assembled, Section 1. Amendment to----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read. It is open to amendment at any point. This
bill is within the jurisdiction of the Full Committee, and I
will recognize myself briefly to introduce the bill.
A recent front page story in the Miami Herald indicated
that the Administration has launched a full scale review of the
role of Cuba in the international drug trade. It is a review
that, along with many others here in the Congress, I fully
welcome. We especially look forward to learning of the
Administration's conclusions on Cuba's links to drug
trafficking targeting our own Nation.
The Miami Herald also points out that as part of the State
Department's review its lawyers are having a hard time sorting
out what a major drug transiting nation may be under current
Federal law. It is struggling with whether the designation of a
major transit nation should take into account drugs that may
just pass over Cuban skies or through its territorial waters on
the way to our own Nation. Today, in fact, the waters and air
space over Cuba play an important role in drug trafficking into
southern Florida.
Loads of drugs are moved through Cuban air space and
dropped into the waters near Cuba for fast boat transport to
our Nation. A common sense interpretation of the law should
consider whether the mere transport of these illicit drugs over
the skies of Cuba, or through its territorial waters, has a
significant effect on our Nation, therefore qualifying Cuba as
a major transiting country.
If that interpretation of drug trafficking impacts us
significantly, then these types of drug shipments should be
considered a factor in determining whether a nation like Cuba
is a major drug transiting country. While debate over this
interpretation has caused some confusion in the State
Department, we can rectify that today by passing this measure,
H.R. 2608.
The bill before us, which I introduced along with Chairman
Burton, is very simple. It addresses the issue of what a major
transiting nation list determination is under the Foreign
Assistance Act, section 481(e), as it relates to drugs headed
for our own Nation. Each year that list is provided to the
Congress on November 1st.
This bill merely classifies that the term ``through which
is transported'' expressly includes drugs passing through the
territorial air space and/or waters of a country on the way to
our Nation, and that in doing so, the level of drugs entering
our Nation is significantly affected. There should be no need
for any more legal resource time on this issue with our State
Department if we enact this simple bill.
The State Department must get on with the compilation of
this year's majors list due here in November and do it in a
straightforward and honest manner based on the facts.
Accordingly, Committee staff, after extensive discussions with
the International Narcotics Bureau at the State Department,
concluded that this bill would not create any new criteria that
the INL isn't already using when they make the majors
determination.
The bill before us helps make this majors list
determination a clear, honest, and open one. So I say let the
chips fall where they may, on Cuba or whatever other transit
nation meets the statutory and common sense criteria for a
major drug transiting nation.
Is there any other Member seeking recognition?
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to hear
you say let the chips fall where they may. If the chips only
seem to be aimed at Cuba, I don't have a problem with that
myself.
But my question is, Mr. Chairman, what you are saying is if
the plane or the boat goes in a country's territorial water or
air space, that country then gets described as a bad guy
country, is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. That is correct. The State Department INL
Bureau has told us, our Committee staff, that this bill doesn't
create any new criteria that would innocently add places like
Nicaragua and Costa Rica----
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I only have a little bit of
time. I am just trying to get a sense of what is happening
here. So if a plane leaving with drugs from Colombia were to
fly to Miami International Airport, of course every American
state that is a border state is exempt because they are not
foreign nations, but if we use that standard on every one of
our states, every one of our states would be listed as a bad
guy state, because for drugs to get into the country, they have
to go through the state's waters or air space.
So for instance, every one of the American Airlines flights
that brought drugs from Colombia to the United States, even if
those planes flew over Cuba, they also flew over American air
space, but we are not dealing with America here today.
So I guess what I am saying is, how do you decide if the
American Airlines planes taking drugs, leaving Colombia, if
they had gone over French and English possessions in the
Caribbean, which still exist much to my dismay, are the French
and English governments to be listed as drug facilitating
states, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. If the gentleman would yield----
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
Chairman Gilman [continuing]. Allow me to respond.
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes, please don't read that paragraph again,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. I will read you another paragraph.
Mr. Gejdenson. Excellent. I am happy to get a new
paragraph.
Chairman Gilman. The Foreign Assistance Act, section
4815(a) and (b), defining a major drug producer or major
transit nation refers to drugs that, and I quote,
``significantly affect the United States or are a direct
source.'' It is clear what the target is, it is not every
nation, only those whose territory significantly impacts our
nation on the use of illicit drugs.
Allow me to complete my explanation----
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes, please, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. What is going on in the skies over Cuba,
as well as its territorial waters, is affecting our Nation, let
there be no mistake about that. The only issue is whether or
not it is significantly impacting our Nation.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, as my crack staff here reads
the section, it basically says traveling through the country's
territorial air space or water.
Now, again, if I am leaving from Colombia on an American
Airlines plane filled with drugs, if it flies over Cuba, which
seems to be the country you are after, even though you said you
wanted the chips to fall where they may, but aside from Cuba,
if that plane were to travel over British and French
possessions, are we then to place Britain and France on the
drug bad guy country list?
The French are making an effort to stop drugs, I assume.
The English are making an effort to stop drugs, I assume. But
if they are making an effort but we know that from the evening
news that dozens of flights carrying drugs from Colombia went
over their possessions' air space, is the State Department now
to designate England and France in the same category as other
countries that we think are bad guy countries?
Chairman Gilman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. This bill merely changes section 5(b)and
makes it clear that through which are transported such drugs or
substances, including the territorial air space, land and water
of a country. Now, let me note that the President, on December
4th of 1998, in accordance with the provisions of section
490(h)(8)of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, determined that
the following countries are major illicit drug producing or
drug transit countries, and he noted Afghanistan, Aruba, the
Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, China,
Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Hong
Kong, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand, Venezuela and Vietnam.
The President made that determination.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, excuse me for not
understanding, but the President is not offering this
amendment. The State Department is not offering this amendment.
You and Mr. Burton apparently are offering this amendment. I
have nothing against this amendment. I just want to understand
what you want to occur as a result of its passage. This is not
a trick question.
Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gejdenson. Let me reclaim my time for a moment because
your answers have taken up most of my time. If a plane leaving
Afghanistan has drugs on it and it flies across Eastern Europe
covering every one of our European allies' skies, and we then
catch them at JFK, are we to place--under your definition, not
the President's, not anybody else's, whatever your staff is
telling you now or whatever you are determining--are we to
place all of those countries on the drug bad guy list of
countries?
Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. The intent of this legislation is to try
to stop nations from allowing transiting through their waters
or air space----
Mr. Gejdenson. I understand that.
Chairman Gilman [continuing]. That will substantially
affect our own Nation. That is what we are trying to do. I am
asking the gentleman now will he respond; is the gentleman
objecting to our trying to----
Mr. Gejdenson. I will answer that question without a
written statement, the answer is no, I want to stop drugs from
coming into this country. What I do not understand, and
frankly, I don't know what this amendment is going to do, and
that is what I am trying to determine, I understand if a plane
leaves Colombia and flies over Cuba you want the government to
put Cuba on the bad guy states that helped transit drugs?
Chairman Gilman. If Cuba--would the gentleman yield.
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. If Cuba is allowing their air space to be
continually utilized for transiting of drugs or allowing their
territorial waters to be utilized----
Mr. Gejdenson. Cuba goes on the list.
Chairman Gilman. Cuba would go on the list.
Mr. Gejdenson. If we know now, as you and I both know from
watching the evening news, that American Airlines planes have
been flying drugs across British and French possessions, should
we put Britain and France on the drug bad country list?
Chairman Gilman. Will you yield?
Mr. Gejdenson. You said you weren't talking about any
countries from the beginning?
Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. We are talking about any transport which
substantially affects or significantly affects our own Nation.
Mr. Gejdenson. My understanding is that the FBI said that
what American Airlines employees were doing was significant,
there were lots of drugs. It came in the food carts, it came in
large quantities. If the same plane, if somebody went down and
bought a 727 and filled it full of cocaine and flew through
Cuban waters, or flew through Cuban air space, or took a boat
that went through Cuban waters, you would then determine, it is
my understanding, that Cuba was facilitating drug transit.
I am asking you if we then find out that that same plane
flew over French and British possessions, do we put France and
the U.K. on the same list?
Chairman Gilman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. We are talking about multi-kilo loads.
Mr. Gejdenson. Multi-kilo loads, the same----
Chairman Gilman. As it has been occurring in Cuban waters
where they allow flights to drop off drugs into its territorial
waters for transit to our own Nation.
Mr. Gejdenson. Let me just say----
Chairman Gilman. You asked what our objective is.
Mr. Gejdenson. The objective is to get Cuba.
Chairman Gilman. No, the objective is to try to reduce
transiting of narcotics through nations that surround our
Nation.
Mr. Gejdenson. I am going to quit, Mr. Chairman, because I
am not getting anywhere. We have other things to do. Again, if
the same plane that is carrying a ton of cocaine flies over
Cuban waters and the Cubans don't catch it, and that same plane
had flown over Jamaica, French possessions, English
possessions, are we going to put all of these other countries
on the list?
Chairman Gilman. The flights that go over Cuba, they drop
their substance into the waters, territorial waters in Cuba,
and are allowed to be picked up by other fast-moving boats to
be transited to our Nation, and that is what we are concerned
with. We are trying to reduce the amount of shipment of drugs
into our Nation country.
Mr. Gejdenson. That helps me.
Chairman Gilman. We are trying to provide----
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman [continuing]. A clear definition for the
State Department that has been wrestling with this problem.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you. Let me try to get to it. Now what
you are saying, the plane flies over a country's waters and it
drops the drugs in the water and high speed boats take those
drugs away.
Chairman Gilman. That is what has been happening.
Mr. Gejdenson. What happens if the country is making an
effort to catch those people, and just a poor country, they
don't have a lot of money, I am not talking about Cuba now, I
am talking about Haiti, I am talking about one of these French
possessions, they don't have a large navy. The plane flies
over, it drops the drugs in the water, the high speed boat
comes, and do we still put the country on the bad guy list even
if it is trying to catch them?
Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes.
Chairman Gilman. The answer is yes. The President has put
people--put nations on the major illicit drug-producing or
drug-transiting countries list that have been friendly and
trying to cooperate, but they are on the list because they have
not completed their efforts to prevent transiting.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very
generous with time. It seems to me that we ought to put Florida
and all our border states on the same list, because clearly
those drugs are dropped in waters off of Florida and brought
into Florida by boats. It is happening in Texas. I am sure it
happens in every state along the coast.
If that is your standard, then you ought to include, I
guess, every state in the Nation on your list of bad guy
states. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. We are talking about foreign nations right
now and not our own Nation states. We have enough problem with
our own Nation states.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to commend the Chairman for
his efforts to get at a very real problem. I don't know how
effective interdiction is going to be as long as there is a
market in the United States where people use drugs. But I know
that this Chairman is making a serious effort at trying to stop
this problem, and the Ranking Member is making frivolous
comments about this.
Let me finish, Mr. Ranking Member, the fact is the Chairman
is here in all seriousness, and the points that you were making
were obviously not helping the situation, but belittling the
Chairman's efforts. The fact is that we know that there is a
problem in which Cuba is being used, their air space and their
water space is being used, and you yourself acknowledged this,
to transship drugs into the United States of America.
The Chairman is very serious in his efforts to try to stop
this.
Mr. Gejdenson. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Not until I finish, then I will be very
happy to yield to my good friend Mr. Gejdenson.
Now, we have a dictatorship in Cuba that hates the United
States of America. Fidel Castro for the last 30 years since he
came to power has had a visceral hatred for the United States.
This has been his primary motive for the policies of his
country, and this is one of the primary reasons we don't have a
good relationship with the people of Cuba.
Robert Vesco, it is no accident that Robert Vesco finds a
safe haven in Cuba today. Robert Vesco is down there. Now we
can't prove it. But there is every reason to believe that
Robert Vesco has helped the drug cartel in Latin America
organize a distribution system taking full use of Cuban air
space and water space to distribute, to supply drugs to the
United States of America.
Castro managed to shoot down planes that were dropping
pamphlets asking the people of Cuba to consider other opinions
rather than Fidel Castro's. Now he can shoot down those
airplanes, he has got that capability. Haiti perhaps doesn't
have that capability of shooting down planes.
Castro doesn't shoot down drug carrying planes. He doesn't
interdict drug carrying ships, what he does is shoot down
airplanes that drop pamphlets and ships that are carrying
refugees. He is sick.
This is a terrible regime, and his hatred of the United
States is leading him to try to destroy us, destroy people in
our inner city by smuggling, by helping in the drug smuggling.
The Chairman is trying to be serious about this. By saying, oh,
well, in order to do this we have to make sure every state in
the Union that the plane crosses over is put on that list, that
is a frivolous point, Mr. Ranking Member, a frivolous point.
I would say this is a serious problem. We should thank the
Chairman for trying to come to grips with it, trying--rather
than trying to find little ways to try to undermine the effort.
I applaud the Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gejdenson. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I would.
Mr. Gejdenson. I am not going to judge if the Chairman's
efforts or results will be frivolous. I don't think that my
questions have been frivolous. You can make your own
determination obviously. We have been trying to get answers to
this question for some time. It seems very clear that the
Chairman and lots of Members of this Committee are out to get
Cuba.
I am not a friend of any dictator. I am not a friend of
Fidel Castro. But when you write legislation that, I think, is
as badly written as this is, that the net result is you ought
to just write an instruction to the State Department, put Cuba
on the bad guy list, irrespective of what is going on, because
the language in the legislation could lead one to the
conclusion that any country that has an air transit route over
it or any country that boats happen to go through that they
can't stop are bad guy countries.
As far as the examples that you gave, we shot down the
entire Iraqi and the Bosnian air force, and we can't stop drugs
coming into this country. Now, there is some discussion going
on with the Castro government. Some people are optimistic about
that. There are some people that are pessimistic about it. But
I frankly think that a real effort, we ought to have a real
standard by which we are going to place countries on a bad guy
drug list and not try to create something to target Cuba. If
you want to put Cuba on a bad guy list, put it on a bad guy
list.
But this language would lead you to believe that every
country where drug transit occurs is a bad guy country. I don't
think you can make that case.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time for one second, because
we are running out of time here, the Chairman fully recognizes,
and the rest of us should recognize, what intent means. In
fact, the fact is Fidel Castro has over and over again
expressed his intent toward the United States. That is to do us
harm, and the fact that he is able to shoot down airplanes that
drop leaflets and sink boats with poor refugees on those boats,
that indicates that he has some capabilities, but he never
seems to be able to initiate those same kinds of actions
against the drug runners.
Plus there is an intent on his part, and yes, he should be
put on the list, and I applaud the Chairman's attempt to see
Cuba put on that list. I would yield to the Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, we appreciate
your supportive remarks.
Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. Hilliard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, I am not going to question the intent of the
amendment, but let me discuss with you the effectiveness of
that amendment. What it actually means is that all of the
nations in the southern hemisphere below the states of Alabama,
Georgia, and Florida will be designated as a nation--that may
be designated rather as a nation that is involved with drug
transiting.
Now, the effect of that--and, of course, you stated you
didn't add anything, but the effect of that would make it
applicable--would make all the other provisions of that act
applicable to all of those countries. We have countries that
our are our friends, countries like Aruba, countries like
Haiti, other countries that do not have the type of coast
guard, do not have the type of army and air forces that we
have, that would be subjugated to this act, and the effect of
it would be that we have perhaps had a relationship with
countries that have aided and assisted us as much as they
possibly could in fighting the war on drugs.
We are turning around and punishing them, because of their
geographical location. This amendment is bad. The definition is
overly broad and has unfairly targeted those countries that are
geographically located in the southern hemisphere.
So I hope that each Member of this Committee would take
that into consideration and vote against it.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Hilliard.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I think
it has been documented time and time again by our own Nations
officials that Cuba is, and has become, a transit point for
drug trafficking and for money laundering. Our south Florida
television stations have actually filmed drug running boats
going from South America, coming from the Caribbean straight
into the shores of Cuba. Our customs officials, our Coast Guard
officials say they can't keep up with those boats and they have
seen those going into the shores of Cuba.
I think it is disingenuous at best to think that anything
can happen in a totalitarian police state, which is the reality
of Castro's Cuba, without the direct participation of Fidel
Castro.
The FBI, as Congressman Rohrabacher has pointed out, has a
long list of fugitives from U.S. law who have sought refuge and
have gotten refuge in Cuba, and that again is part and parcel
of the Castro dictatorship to help those individuals who are
breaking the law, escaping from U.S. justice, and he is giving
them a safe refuge. Many of those have convictions for serious
drug trafficking.
To think that Cuba is a partner in our efforts to eliminate
drugs is absolutely ridiculous. I think that we should come to
grips with the reality that Cuba is a totalitarian police
state, which not only condones drug trafficking, but allows
those drug traffickers to seek refuge, and allows their shores
to be used as transit points for illegal drug shipments, and
allows money launderers. That is an important part of the drug
trafficking trade, to seek refuge in Cuba.
I congratulate the Chairman for dealing with this reality
that is Castro's Cuba.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
introducing this legislation. I certainly want to commend you
for this program--or the issue of drug trafficking or just the
issue of drugs, period. You have certainly been one of the most
outstanding leaders on this Committee in pursuing this issue.
I just want to ask if there is a representative of the
State Department here with us, if it is all right, Mr.
Chairman, if the person from the State Department could
comment. I think there is no question about the intent, it may
be the wording or for better clarification that we can work on
this. I certainly would be open to any suggestions.
I think it takes into consideration what Mr. Gejdenson
expressed earlier, that it does not affect those countries that
do not have histories, but just the fact of air flight over
these countries I think raises the question.
So I would like to ask the representative of the State
Department.
Chairman Gilman. Would you please identify yourself?
Ms. Jacobs. I am Susan Jacobs, Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Legislative Affairs at the Department of State. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Ms. Jacobs, I might note before you start
that on July 28th, I sent this letter to the Secretary,
Secretary Albright, ``the Committee would appreciate receiving
comments from the Department of State on the following measure,
H.R. 2608, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to
clarify the definition of `major drug transit country' under
the International Narcotics Control Program. It would be
appreciated if we could receive your written views as soon as
possible, since the Committee intends to consider this
legislation next week and a copy of the measure is enclosed.
Please direct the Department's response to us,'' et cetera.
September 9th, we sent a similar letter, and we have been
calling weekly to try to get a response but have not received
any response.
You may please proceed.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to thank you for taking the
initiative and letting the Administration know, perhaps they
have been a little slow in responding to the legislation. But I
would appreciate, ma'am, if you could comment on that.
Ms. Jacobs. OK. We don't believe that this legislation is
necessary. We believe that the legislation we already have that
identifies countries that allow the transit through their air
space, through sea or over land--and it has a significant
impact on the drug traffic in the United States--we already
have the ability to label those countries.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, still reserving my time.
Chairman Gilman. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think there seems to be a suggestion
here about a country that does a dominant amount, a majority
amount of transiting seems to have a difference. Does that
differentiate from the current provision of the law----
Ms. Jacobs. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. As the State Department----
Ms. Jacobs. The way the law is now written, in order for a
country to be placed on a major drug trafficking----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Major.
Ms. Jacobs. Major drug trafficking list, the traffic
through that country has to have a significant impact on the
drugs entering the United States.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So if this American Airlines flight comes
from Colombia and goes through Dominican Republic or Haiti or a
French or British territory, that does not qualify under that
interpretation, does it?
Ms. Jacobs. No, sir, it wouldn't, not if they had no
control over it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Does the State Department already have
the authority to designate a country as a major trafficking
transit country?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, we do, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Does the Administration consider this
language to reinforce that?
Ms. Jacobs. We don't believe that this language is
necessary.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I can't for the life of me figure
out why we are arguing this so extensively. Just recently, the
Colombian National Police told the world there was seven and a
half tons of cocaine that was going to Cuba and Castro tried to
palm it off as being controlled, when it got to Cuba, by a
Spanish company that Cuba owned the controlling interest in.
I can tell you from the research we have done over the past
many years, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and myself, Lincoln Diaz-Balart
and others, Bob Menendez, that nothing goes on in Cuba that
Castro doesn't know about. For 7\1/2\ tons of cocaine to go
through a front company in Cuba that was destined for the
United States, and the Administration tried to say that that
cocaine was not destined for the United States, it was going to
Europe, to Spain and elsewhere.
The fact is when we talked to the Drug Enforcement Agency,
the DEA people, they said they never said that, and that there
was a misunderstanding, and that they didn't have any
indication that it was going to Europe. Those drugs were going
to go through Cuba, probably to a pop company into Mexico and
into the United States.
Now they are a major drug trafficking country. Raul Castro,
Fidel Castro's brother, is still under indictment in Miami,
Florida for drug trafficking, as well as other Cuban officials.
Now, they have been involved in drugs for a long, long time,
and I think this legislation is timely. I think the Chairman is
to be commended for sponsoring it.
If we are concerned about drugs on our streets that are
killing our kids, if we are concerned about the horrible crime
problem in this country--over 70 percent of all crime is drug-
related--then we certainly ought to hold Fidel Castro's feet to
the fire for being a major transit point of drugs. There is no
question he is doing it. We all know it, and I think we ought
to pass this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me, hearing
from the Administration, that there is a process that is in
place that will put someone on the drug majors list, and that
process has due process and there are other things that are
going into it. What this bill does it not add anything to it,
in fact, what it is, and what I hear from my colleagues from
the other side of the aisle, is they just want to go
specifically after one country; that is like trying to
establish a law because you are trying--you see someone you
don't like and so, therefore, you create a law just for them,
irrespective of what happens to everyone else.
That is not the way of business, that is not the way things
are done. If you want to have a legitimatized process, you
cannot say I don't like this particular person in this process,
so, therefore, I am going to change something else so that--and
not effect other individuals in other countries. That is what
this legislation does.
Clearly we understand that--and I just don't understand,
either, some of the statements, that as if Cuba is the one that
is bringing all of the drugs into this country and killing all
of our kids and all of that. Cuba is not the one--I don't know
of any drugs actually being produced in Cuba. If we want to go
over the drugs, let us go after where they are being produced,
let us go there. Let us do what we have to do to stop it there
so it can't fly over Cuba or anyplace else for that matter. If
we stop it there, we don't have to worry about it coming into
this country.
That is where our fight should be, not just all over this,
trying to change this piece of legislation when there are
policies in place currently to put someone, a country, on a
drug majors list if, in fact, they deserve to be there.
We must make sure that we don't--I mean there is--I know of
a number of instances where drugs have come in from Canada, and
we can do the same thing there. But if we are going to try to
target one country, don't try to make legislation that is going
to do it in this sense that really demeans what is currently in
existence.
I yield back.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. I will be very brief. I would like to address
this to the State Department official again. In the existing
legislation, the term ``through which are transported,'' is it
your testimony that that would--under existing law--could
include land or water or air space over the land?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chabot. OK. So to clarify it in this manner doesn't
harm anything?
Ms. Jacobs. But the way this could be interpreted is any
air space, any territorial water or any land, not necessarily
having the significant impact that is now written into the
current legislation.
Mr. Chabot. It doesn't say any territory. It says includes
a territorial air space. I think what the Chairman is doing is
clarifying that these areas are to be included, including air
space, which could be included right now, or water or land.
I think it is very helpful legislation. If Cuba would be
affected by this, so be it. I think it is appropriate for the
Chairman to offer this legislation. I would commend him for
doing so.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
Ms. Lee.
To our Members, we will vote on this, we will reconvene
right after the votes on the Floor and come back and finish two
quick measures.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. Let me just
say that it is no secret where any of us stand in terms of U.S.
policy toward Cuba in terms of what the issues are, in terms of
Fidel Castro. Let me say, however, that I believe in this
instance all of us are, or at least both sides, those who
support normalizing relations in Cuba and in the embargo and
those who don't, see this as a broader effort to deal with Cuba
in the strictest sense, not an effort really to deal with the
whole anti-drug effort.
I believe our government has been engaged in--General
McCaffrey, all of our officials have really been engaging in
counternarcotics efforts, and I believe they are working. I
think we should allow the process to move forward. I don't
think we need to muddle it up with any issues with regard to
our views, our political views, with regard to Fidel Castro,
and for those reasons I oppose this.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. If not, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Burton, is recognized.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending bill on the
suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Indiana.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The motion is agreed to.
Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We will reconvene following the conclusion of the measures
before the Congress right now.
Thank you. The Committee is recessed.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
We will now consider H. Con. Res. 187, relating to the
airplane engine regulations of the European Union.
The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Rush. House Concurrent Resolution 187, a concurrent
resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the
European Council noise rule affecting hushkitted and reengined
aircraft.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection the preamble and
operative language of the resolution will be read in that order
for amendment.
The clerk will read.
Ms. Rush. Whereas for more than 50 years the International
Civil Aviation Organization in this resolution refers----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read, and it is now open for
amendment at any point.
This resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the full
Committee. We are an additional Committee on this resolution,
and it is primarily in the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. But both Mr. Gejdenson and I
have cosponsored it.
I recognize myself briefly on the resolution. Then I
believe Mr. Gejdenson, who has been very active and
constructive on this very important issue, will have something
to say.
The European Union has passed very regrettable legislation
that is supposed to help control noise around their airports,
but the European legislation will, in fact, let noisy European
airplanes fly, and will ban quieter American airplanes.
It imposes a design standard rather than a performance
standard that, oddly enough, favors European interests.
Europeans often accuse our Nation of unilateralism, but this
regulation strikes at the heart of an international agreement
on whether aircraft can fly internationally or not. European
legislation will come into full effect this spring if nothing
is done.
There are negotiations now under way to achieve a
settlement acceptable to both sides. But while the European
legislation will come into effect automatically, we have no
ready response. One response that has passed the House is a
bill which would result in a ban on a Concorde landing in the
United States if this law takes effect. Banning the Concorde
would result in a lowering by about 20 percent of the airport
noise in New York, by the way.
This legislation asks the Administration to bring a case
under the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, and
determine what our rights are. I think that this procedure,
which will take some time, is a good counterweight to the
impending European legislation.
In closing, I say that we hope that a solution that permits
an improvement in noise control standards over time by
international consensus can be reached, and it may be that
bringing this ICAO case will help put some pressure on the
Europeans to come to a reasonable solution. Therefore, we hope
that Members will support this resolution.
I recognize Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for your fine work on
this issue, and your leadership on it; also thank Mr. Shuster
and Mr. Oberstar for the work they have done. We have what is
clearly an outrageous attempt by the Europeans not to use
decibel levels to deal with the noise issue, but really to show
their hand by looking at the design of engines and trying to
use the design not to deal with noise, but to deal a
disadvantage to American jet engine manufacturers.
If the United States gives in to the Europeans in this
instance we will see, sector by sector, American products
blocked under the ruse of either safety or noise regulations.
What is clear, these regulations have nothing to do with noise
and everything to do with giving European jet engine
manufacturers a competitive advantage.
This resolution is a very measured response. It simply
suggests the EU and the United States deal with this at the
appropriate international agency. But I can tell you that if we
fail to resolve this fairly, the Europeans will see from this
Congress, and this Member of Congress in particular, a response
that will be equal to theirs. This is an outrageous act. For
whatever reason, by whatever course it has occurred, it clearly
has nothing to do with noise, it has everything to do with
trying to disadvantage Americans in international competition.
It will not serve the Europeans to take this course.
Mr. Chairman, again I want to commend you for your work on
this and hope you would go to your leadership and ask to have
this put on the Monday suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition? Ms.
Danner.
Ms. Danner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to associate myself with the remarks that
have been made. As a Member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I
have sat in on hearings with regard to this issue, and several
things that I might bring to the body's attention they may not
be aware of. It was only when we got into this hushkit issue
that I learned that we had been very generous with the
Europeans, and that we allowed the Concorde to come to this
country for many, many years when they exceeded the noise
levels.
So we have been very understanding of them. The loss to our
aviation industry is enormous, as has been cited, and it isn't
just a question of landing rights at this time, but the
question of the eventual sale of these aircraft to perhaps
smaller countries, and the countries that are smaller than ours
that might be tempted to buy our aircraft are not going to do
so, because they know they wouldn't be able to land them. So we
preclude the landing of these planes.
It has an effect that is ongoing. So I very much agree with
this resolution and would also agree that I hope we can bring
it up in a very timely fashion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Danner.
Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, would commend the Chairman for this resolution, and
would like to point out that this EU regulation basically is
targeted at American aircraft, and it is very obvious and it is
very blatant. This is surprising that the EU or the EC would do
this at a time when we are supposed to--that we are in a period
of globalization, that we are in the Information Age, and they
would use this parochial tactic to basically preclude our
aircraft, and our aircraft engines, from being in the skies
over Europe.
So I think it is indeed an outrage, as my friend Mr.
Gejdenson says. I feel that it not only necessitates, it
demands strong action on the part of this country to stand up
and take a strong position and make it clear to the people in
Europe that they cannot do this at this time, at this point in
history, if they really want to be part of the global markets.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition? If not--
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Yes. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
this bill. Coming from the 6th Congressional District in
Queens, where JFK is and we have tolerated for years the
Concorde--that is where it lands--and its excessive noise, for
the European Union to now try to discriminate against American
companies, I think we need to come down hard and not allow
this.
I agree with the comments of my colleague earlier that we
should not tolerate this discriminatory practice on behalf of
the European Union, and I just want to thank the Chair for
bringing this forward.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.
If there are no other Members seeking recognition, I now
recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on
the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from
Nebraska.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The motion is agreed to.
Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We now have before us H.J. Res. 65, relating to the Battle
of the Bulge.
The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the joint resolution.
Ms. Rush. H.J. Res. 65, a joint resolution commending the
World War II veterans who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and
for other purposes.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the preamble and
operative language will be read in that order for amendment.
The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
Chairman Gilman. First allow us to submit the measure, then
we will take up the amendment.
Mr. Smith. I am sorry.
Ms. Rush. Whereas the Battle of the Bulge was a major
German offensive in the----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read. It is open to amendment at any
point.
I will recognize Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Rush. Amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mr.
Smith. Amend the preamble to read as follows----
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
I recognize Mr. Smith on his amendment.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It will only take a few moments of my colleagues' time.
This amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.J. Res 65,
which I introduced in August along with a number of cosponsors,
including yourself, Mr. Bereuter, Lane Evans, Bob Stump, and
many others, commends the World War II veterans who bravely
fought in the Battle of the Bulge in both Belgium and
Luxembourg.
This resolution reaffirms our Nation's deep gratitude to
the veterans of this crucial military engagement on its 55th
anniversary, and commemorates the sacrifices and services of
our World War II vets, those slain, those who survived, and all
of their families.
I would just point out, parenthetically, this would be the
first time that Congress has gone on the record in recognizing
those particular survivors and those who died at that
particular battle.
Mr. Chairman, from mid-December 1944 through January 25th
of 1945, in an engagement that was three times as large as the
battle of Gettysburg, 600,000 American troops fought to repel a
massive Nazi offensive, which included on the Nazis' part the
element of surprise; they almost succeeded.
Our troops, assisted by about 55,000 British soldiers,
resisted 1,000 Panzer guns and artillery fire, and even
frostbite from the bitter cold conditions.
The ordeal, or the campaign, was often called the great
gamble by Hitler. He thought a massive offensive might split
the American, the Allied lines, and might actually change the
fortunes of the war, but the price of victory for the Allies
was incredible.
There were 81,000 American casualties, including 19,000
KIA, killed in action. Mr. Chairman, without their sacrifice
and bravery, stopping Hitler's war machine would have been much
more of a difficult task and perhaps would have resulted in
even more lives lost on both sides.
I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, that one American
hero--and there were a number of men who got the Congressional
Medal of Honor, 17 in all--but one, Bud Thorn, was awarded that
great medal posthumously for his bravery at the Battle of the
Bulge. His sister came to me recently and asked if I would do
this resolution to remember her brother, but also the many
others who died, and also to commemorate and remember those who
have lived.
So, I just want to say to my colleagues, I hope we will all
support this. They are meeting in convention, those survivors
of the Battle of the Bulge, this weekend, and hopefully we can
be on the Floor very shortly with this. There are a number of
remembrances planned in the coming weeks and months in Belgium,
in Luxembourg, and in the United States. So I think it is very
fitting that we go on record applauding their heroism and the
great feat that they accomplished many years ago.
I yield back the balance.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and thank you for
sponsoring this resolution.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just commend Mr.
Smith and others who sponsored this legislation. In the Ambrose
book, I think he points out how the individual American
soldier, in small groups and by themselves, pulled themselves
together in small groups and individuals to really hold the
line. I think without any question, in the final analysis, we
would have triumphed, but it could have taken much, much
longer, at the cost of many more lives.
I commend the gentleman for his action.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
This joint resolution commends our American servicemen who
fought in one of the most decisive battles of World War II, the
Battle of the Bulge. In December 1944, just prior to the
holidays, Hitler's generals, in a desperate gambit, launched an
offensive in the Ardennes Forest intended to split the lines of
U.S. forces.
The Germans sought to break out of their containment and
regain the offensive. Aided by a combination of the element of
surprise and bad weather, which prevented our forces receiving
air support, the Germans were nearly successful. The German
commanders, however, made a crucial mistake in underestimating
the resolve of our American forces whom they faced in this
monumental battle.
From the dog-faced privates to our top generals, our troops
were undaunted by the savageness of the German assault or by
the forces of nature, which seemed to be arrayed against them.
The spirit of our troops was best encapsulated in a famous
incident when the German general demanded the surrender of U.S.
troops. Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe, of the 101st
Airborne Division, replied with the epithet ``nuts.''
I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman of our
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, for
bringing this measure before our Committee as we near the 50th
anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, and ask our Members to
unanimously report it to the House.
Is there any other Member seeking recognition? If there is
no other Member----
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. I would yield such time to the gentleman from
New Jersey as he might seek.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
Chairman Gilman. The gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Congresswoman Danner just made a very good point
in the resolution where we say ``American forces overcame great
odds.'' Whereas the success of American forces, while the
American forces were the overwhelming bulk of the fighting
force in that campaign, the British forces were also very
important.
I would ask unanimous consent that wherever we have
American troops, where appropriate, we also put ``and British
forces'' as well.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is agreed
to.
Mr. Smith. I want to thank the gentlelady from Missouri for
pointing that out.
Mr. Bereuter. I yield back.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
If not, the question is now on the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by Mr. Smith.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed to the amendment say no.
The amendment is agreed to.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
offer a motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as
amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. As many as in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye.
As many as are opposed say no.
The ayes have it, the motion is agreed to.
Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We will now consider H. Res 297, expressing sympathy for
the victims of the devastation that struck Taiwan on September
21st, 1999.
The Chair lays a resolution before the Committee.
The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. Rush. H. Res 297, a resolution expressing sympathy for
the victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on
September 21st, 1999.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. This resolution has not been referred to
the Subcommittee as of yet.
Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and
operative language of the resolution in that order for
amendment.
The clerk will read.
Ms. Rush. Whereas on the morning of September 21st, 1999, a
devastating and deadly earthquake shook the country.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
considered as having been read, and it is open to amendment at
any point.
I now recognize the sponsor of the resolution, the
distinguished Chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, to
introduce the resolution.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Chairman Gilman. I thank you for
agreeing to place H.R. Res 297 on the markup today, and thanks
to Ranking Democrat Gejdenson and the Asia and the Pacific
Subcommittee Ranking Democrat Lantos, all three of you who have
cosponsored the bill. The earthquake that occurred this week in
Taiwan has literally decimated major parts of that island. It
has become an all too familiar site, and the casualties are
thousands.
There are hundreds of thousands homeless, buildings
collapsed, roads destroyed, village destroying mud slides, dams
cracked and in danger of failing. Taiwan will no doubt
persevere. The Taiwanese are strong, and they are courageous.
They have faced adversity before, but it is only appropriate
that we comment on this tragic natural catastrophe and indicate
our assistance, sympathy, and concern.
H. Res. 297 extends our deepest sympathy to the people of
Taiwan. It notes with approval the assistance being offered
under the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International
Development. It also notes with approval the willingness of
other nations to come to the assistance of Taiwan in their time
of need. Among those offering assistance include Japan,
Singapore, the People's Republic of China, and Turkey, which
recently suffered its own similar catastrophe.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I would
like to offer at this point.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will distribute the Bereuter
amendment.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Rush. Amendment by Mr. Bereuter, on page 1----
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read.
Mr. Bereuter is recognized on his amendment.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment simply
updates events in Taiwan. Regrettably it increases the casualty
list--now more than 2,000 dead and more than 7,800 injured.
Regrettably, we have to leave it sort of open ended language
until the rescue activities are completed.
I also thank Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen for alerting us to the fact
that elements of the Miami Dade County Fire and Rescue Team
have been dispatched in Taiwan, and we include the language
``and others,'' since units other than those from Fairfax
County and Miami Dade County are undoubtedly going to be
involved.
I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Is there any objection to the adoption of
the amendment?
If no objection, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed.
The amendment is carried.
I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Asia and
the Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, for responding so
quickly to the tragic earthquake in Taiwan by drafting this
resolution, which I am pleased to cosponsor, and I encourage my
colleagues to join with us in expressing our sympathies to the
people of Taiwan in their time of need.
I personally want to express my deepest sadness about the
devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on the morning of
September 21st, 1999. I want to convey to the citizens of
Taiwan, who recently warmly hosted our congressional delegation
during a visit to Taipei in August, our profoundest sympathies
about the tragic loss of life and property.
I am calling upon the Administration and other nations to
do everything possible to assist Taiwan in its recovery from
this unfortunate act of nature.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
If there are no other Members seeking recognition, I
recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, in addition to yourself, Mr.
Gejdenson, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Royce, Mr. Hastings, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Smith, Mr. Berman, Mr. Burton,
Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Payne, Mr. Hilliard,
Mr. Wexler, Mr. Wynn and Mr. Gillmor are cosponsors and we
welcome others who wish to bring their name to the attention of
the staff.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek
consideration of the pending resolution, as amended, on the
suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
All those opposed say no.
The ayes have it.
The motion is agreed to.
Further proceedings on this measure are postponed, and this
concludes our business for today.
The Committee stands adjourned. I thank our Members for
coming back.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 23, 1999
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3967.037