[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 1152, SILK ROAD STRATEGY ACT
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 22, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-098 CC 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
Marilyn C. Owen, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
WITNESSES
Page
Markup of H.R. 1152, The Silk Road Strategy Act, to amend the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to target assistance to support
the economic and political independence of the countries of the
South Caucasus and Central Asia................................ 1
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman a Representative in Congress
from New York and Chairman, Committee on International
Relations...................................................... 18
The Honorable Doug Bereuter, a Representative in Congress from
Nebraska....................................................... 19
Bills and Amendments:
H.R. 1152........................................................ 22
1. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Bereuter................ 39
2. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Berman.................. 40
3. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Bereuter (on behalf of
Mr. Burr)...................................................... 41
4a. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher............ 42
4b. Amendment to H.R. 1152 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher............ 42
5. Amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment (4b), offered by Mr.
Bereuter....................................................... 43
MARKUP OF H.R. 1152, SILK ROAD STRATEGY ACT
----------
Thursday, July 22, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m. in
Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A.
Gilman (Chairman of the Committee) Presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee on International Relations
meets today in open session pursuant to notice to consider H.R.
1152. Let me give notice that we will also, by arrangement with
the Minority, be taking up a unanimous consent request relative
to the bill we handled yesterday, and I do want to express once
again my thanks to all of our Members for their extreme
cooperation in the effort that led us to the passage of H.R.
2415 yesterday. We really appreciate that.
We will now consider the Silk Road Strategy Act. The Chair
lays the bill before the Committee. Clerk will report the title
of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. ``H.R. 1152, a bill to amend the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 to target assistance to support the
economic and political independence of the South Caucasus and
Central Asia.''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill will be dispensed with.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, section 1, short title, this act may be----''
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the full reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Chairman Gilman. This bill was considered by the
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and ordered favorably
reported without amendment on June 23rd. Without objection, the
bill will be considered as having been read for amendment. It
is open to amendment at any point.
I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, the Vice Chairman
of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter for five minutes to
introduce the bill.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask
unanimous consent that I may be able to yield the first part of
my time to Mr. Radanovich, who has an appointment he needs to
get to promptly, and so without objection I would ask that he
be able to proceed.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr.
Bereuter my thanks as well not only for being able to speak,
but also for your leadership in crafting this legislation and
bringing it before the Committee for our consideration. I share
your understanding of the importance of promoting greater
regional cooperation, supporting increased economic integration
and facilitating the free flow of transportation and
communication among the states of the Caucasus in Central Asia.
I very much appreciate your efforts to advance U.S. National
interests, particularly in helping to create opportunities for
U.S. businesses, while also making sure that we promote
American values in the region. Among these values, of course,
are supporting the independence of these newly independent
states such as Armenia, encouraging durable political reforms
and assisting in the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
I would like to stress how important it is for this
legislation and more broadly for all of our diplomatic efforts
in the region to encourage progress where we see it, but also
to ensure that we do not reward governments that create
obstacles to regional cooperation, reject negotiated
settlements in favor of border closures and aggression, and
stand in the way of genuine political and economic reform.
Those who create barriers to progress, who block communications
and reject peace should not be rewarded by U.S. tax dollars.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. I
appreciate it very much.
Mr. Bereuter. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his statement and his support, and would continue by saying
that this legislation was introduced on March 17th of this year
by this Member along with the distinguished Ranking Member
Democrat of the Subcommittee, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Berman and
Mr. Pitts. It is cosponsored now by Subcommittee Members
Ackerman, King and Faleomavaega. It was approved by voice vote
on the Subcommittee level, which has policy jurisdiction over
only the Central Asia Republics area of the bill, and that was
done on June 23rd.
When the breakup of the former Soviet Union occurred in
1991, Russia became the overwhelming focus of U.S. attention.
Of course, Russia is the heir of the vast Soviet nuclear
arsenal, its military might. Russia also retains the Soviet
permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council and membership in a
secondary way on the G-8. If the post-Soviet era was to be
peaceful, we had to get along with Moscow. Thus it is perhaps
not surprising that U.S. attention, including the Freedom
Support Act, was overwhelmingly directed at Russia.
However, the breakup of the former Soviet Union resulted,
as we know, in the creation of 15 countries. A few countries,
the Baltic nations and Ukraine, receive special attention
either in the Freedom Support Act or the Seed Act, which
addressed Eastern Europe.
However, the Caucasus and the Central Asia Republics
received scant attention. This area includes Georgia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan. These eight countries have a total population
of some 75 million and are strategically located at the
geographic nexus of Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and
Turkey. At least six of these countries are secular Islamic
states which have in the main rejected efforts to foster
expanded Islamic fundamentalism. They seek closer relations
with the West, and they look to the United States for
leadership and guidance on a host of international issues.
Importantly, these Islamic states also seek close relations
with long-standing U.S.-friendly countries in the region like
Israel and Turkey.
I believe Mr. Berman will have an amendment at the proper
time recognizing the relationship with Israel.
It is important to note that there is much at stake for our
national security. These are frontline states in the effort to
combat anti-Western extremism. The nations of the region are
cooperating on important issues such as counterterrorism,
counternarcotics and combating the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. In addition to vast oil and natural gas wealth,
the region offers the West a supplementary source of oil to
avoid a predominant reliance on Persian Gulf oil. In short,
this is a region that is rich with potential resource
opportunities and also potential instability.
H.R. 1152 seeks to provide policy direction to U.S. policy
in the Central Asian Republics and the Caucasus region. It
outlines what our foreign policy and foreign aid priorities
should be and what might be the reward for continued
cooperation with the United States, and it also stipulates what
actions would result in a termination of assistance.
I will tell my colleagues that H.R. 1152 does not authorize
new money, but merely directs funding already provided to these
eight countries emerging from the former Soviet Union.
I would also tell my colleagues that this legislation very
intentionally does not address the difficult question of
Section 907 of the Foreign Assistance Act, the prohibition of
assistance in Azerbaijan. That is a conscious decision by this
Member with the support of Chairman Gilman. Frankly, this is
too divisive an issue, so it is to be avoided to make way for
the progress which can spring from this legislation. The
elements of the legislation are simply too important to allow
it to be sidetracked because of a Section 907 controversy.
I want to express my appreciation for the interest and
support of the Subcommittee's Ranking Democrat, the
distinguished gentleman from California, and to the other
Members on both sides of the aisle for cosponsoring this
legislation. Finally, I also want to thank the Chairman for
scheduling the markup of this legislation today. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you. I would like to commend Mr.
Bereuter, Mr. Berman, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Lantos, and others who
are involved in this effort. It is clear that as Prime Minister
Barak referenced his own area of the world, this is also a
dangerous part of the world. It is an area where a number of
the countries in the region are involved in destabilizing
activities, and so it is particularly important that we put our
focus on this area. So much of our focus has been on the former
Soviet bloc countries and parts of the Soviet Union that were
closer to central Europe where actually there is much more of a
force for progress, democracy, human rights and economic
development. So it is very appropriate that we focus on this
region, especially when we look at the difficult neighbors in
the region, Iran, Afghanistan, and China. There are some very
tough issues that need to be addressed, and I would again
commend Mr. Bereuter for his efforts on this legislation. It is
a very appropriate thing to do.
Chairman Gilman. Any other Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment.
Chairman Gilman. We are just on general discussion on the
measure.
I support the intent of the measure before us today, the
Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999, sponsored by our colleague from
Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. The Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific, which he chairs, has jurisdiction over the countries
of Central Asia. The countries of the Caucasus region also
covered by the bill deserve to be a specific focus of our
policy and our assistance in the region in the former Soviet
Union. This bill relating to all eight countries of Central
Asia and the Caucasus attempts to ensure the implementation of
that specific focus. While it creates a new chapter 12 of the
Foreign Assistance Act to provide that focus, however, it cites
the ongoing authority of chapter 11 of the Freedom Support Act
of 1992.
With regard to those countries, and I think that this is
important, given the key work done by the Office of the State
Department Coordinator of Assistance that was created by the
1992 act, this act will ensure that coordinating function
continues through all of the new independent states of the
former Soviet Union. It should ensure an added specific focus
on the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Accordingly, I
support the measure, and Mr. Bereuter is recognized for his
amendment.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I was going to
offer is also offered by Mr. Burton, and I would let him offer
it for several of us.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I
offer this amendment with Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Lantos, you, Mr.
Gilman, and Mr. Gejdenson. I feel that this amendment is
extremely important, this legislation which is authored by my
good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton, if you will yield a moment,
the clerk will report.
Ms. Bloomer. ``The amendment offered by Mr. Burton, page
13, line 16, strike `or'; page 13, line 21, strike the last
period and insert `or'; page 13, after line 21, add the
following: `(5) has not made significant progress toward
resolving trade disputes.'.''
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as having been
read and is open for discussion.
Chairman Gilman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burton for five
minutes.
Mr. Burton. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. As I said, this
legislation offered by my good friend from Nebraska seeks to
promote free market policies in the new republics of Central
Asia and the Caucasus, and it will encourage foreign
investment, increase trade and other forms of commercial ties
between the countries of these regions and the rest of the
world. These are very praiseworthy objectives, and legislation
expressing U.S. support for the fledgling democracies of the
Silk Road region deserves priority attention. Consequently, I
support the goals of H.R. 1152, the Silk Road Strategy Act of
1999.
At the same time, and Mr. Bereuter and the others agree,
however, many companies from OECD countries including the U.S.,
with substantial direct investments in several of the Silk Road
countries, are not being accorded fair treatment. Investment
contracts are not being honored. Export permits are not being
issued, and de facto nationalizations of foreign investment
have occurred. In several instances, formal complaints have
been lodged by investors through U.S. and other embassies in
the region. Yet H.R. 1152 is, but won't be in the future,
silent on the need to protect U.S. and other foreign
investment.
I am concerned or was concerned that without specific
language conditioning U.S. assistance on the fair treatment of
foreign investors, adoption of the Silk Road Bill could cause
the beneficiary governments to conclude that they have a green
light to renege on commitments to foreign investors, thus
jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars of investments.
Legislation in support of the Silk Road countries should
not be passed at any cost, and care should be taken to ensure
that the legislation does not do more harm than good.
Accordingly, I believe that the various types of U.S.
assistance that would be authorized in the Silk Road bill
should be conditioned on the progress that a recipient country
is making in resolving existing investment and other trade
disputes. This amendment does this, and this amendment would
make a Silk Road country ineligible for assistance if the
President determines such country has not made significant
progress toward resolving trade disputes registered with and
raised by the U.S. embassy in such countries.
This language is very similar to the provision authored by
Congressman Ron Packard in the fiscal year 1998 Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill regarding the Ukraine, and it
got results.
I am sure that my colleagues would agree that investments
in the Silk Road region should be protected, and the
commitments made by companies, by Silk Road governments must be
honored. I therefore I appreciate the Committee supporting this
amendment, and this amendment in no way undercuts the thrust of
the underlying bill. In fact, I believe that this amendment
adds to the value of this very important statement of policy
toward the important countries of the Silk Road region, and I
congratulate Mr. Bereuter for this bill.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
Chairman Gilman. Any other Member seeking recognition?
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement with some
examples of problems in the past, and I would ask unanimous
consent that it be inserted in the record at this point.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just extend
by saying I appreciate Mr. Burton's interest and his effort on
this, along with the leadership of the Subcommittee and the
Committee on both sides of the aisle. The only consideration I
had about language on this was whether or not it should be
``significant progress'' or ``substantial effort,'' and the
gentleman correctly points out that this is exactly the
language used by Mr. Packard in a previous appropriation bill.
Since there is a Presidential waiver here on this legislation
where there was not in that one, I think this is entirely
appropriate. I commend my colleagues and many people who have
helped us on this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support
the Burton, et al., amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
On the amendment, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I would like to congratulate Mr.
Burton on his amendment. I have two amendments, and one touches
on this area, although it is still necessary, but I would be
very supportive of Mr. Burton's amendment.
There are American businessmen who have invested in this
part of the world, and frankly a lot of the leaders in this
part of the world do not understand how to deal with business.
They have been under the Communist system so long, and they
feel they can get away with the same type of heavy-handed
approach they have gotten away with with their own people. Mr.
Burton's amendment will give them a message, especially
concerning American businessmen.
For example, I have heard of a deal in Kazakhstan where
millions of dollars were invested by an American company into a
uranium project. The Government of Kazakhstan just arrogantly
pushed them aside and put them in a situation to lose their
investment, and this can't be tolerated. We have to let people
know that if they expect to have good relations with the United
States, they can't just treat American businessmen as if their
investments in that country can be basically stolen. We are
talking about when you renege on an agreement, you are stealing
from somebody because somebody has invested money with an
understanding.
So I would hope that Mr. Burton's amendment passes, and I
hope we are sending a message to Kazakhstan and others that
they can't treat people this way.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Anyone else
want to be heard on the amendment?
I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana which addresses an important issue, as I understand, as
a result of consultation by its sponsor and Mr. Bereuter, who
also has an interest in the issue of business disputes in
Central Asia involving American businesses.
Any other Members seeking recognition on the amendment?
The question then is on the Burton amendment. All in favor,
signify in the usual manner.
Opposed.
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Clerk will distribute the amendment.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Which amendment, Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Do I have more than one?
Chairman Gilman. Apparently you do.
Clerk will distribute the amendment.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Berman. Page 17,
insert the following new section after line 5, section, U.S.-
Israel Economic Development Cooperation in the South Caucasus
and Central Asia.''
Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as read.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection the gentleman from
California, Mr. Berman, is recognized for five minutes in
support of his amendment.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This
amendment simply expresses the sense of Congress that we should
continue our partnership with Israel on valuable economic
development programs in Central Asia and the Caucasus. At the
present time a modest amount of assistance is being provided to
the Israeli MASHAV, a part of their Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, under the Cooperative Development Program, (CDP). This
program has allowed the Israelis to share their expertise in
agriculture, rural development, health and other areas with
developing countries around the world.
There is a particular program called the Central Asian
Republics Program that has been supported dealing with Central
Asia, the Caucasus. It is really quite an excellent program.
The Israelis have a great deal to offer in this area. They have
developed unique expertise in horticulture, water-saving
technologies, rural health care programs, and I think this
program is worthy of continuation. It would simply express the
sense of Congress that these programs in the south Caucasus and
Central Asia continue.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
Any other Member seeking recognition?
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the Berman
amendment, and I want to say a few things about the importance
of it. Among the Central Asian Republics in the Caucasus
region, there are six Islamic states. They are secular, pro-
Western States. They have demonstrated a willingness to work
with Israel. The history of tolerance for religious minority
runs deep here. During World War II, tens of thousands of Jews
fled the advancing German armies into this region. By and large
they found sympathetic hosts who refused to turn them over to
the Nazis. This tolerance has resulted in an important,
positive legacy of respect and potential friendship between
Israel and these states.
Good relations between Israel and the secular Islamic
states of Central Asia represents an important counterbalance
to the extremism of Iran, Iraq and others. It increases the
prospect for peace in the Middle East. As such, this process is
decidedly in the U.S. national interest.
The gentleman from California's amendment is fully in
keeping with the spirit of the legislation. Programs as the one
he describes are important tools to foster better relationships
not just between the U.S. and Central Asia, but also between
Israel and the region.
I fully support the amendment. It gives me an opportunity
to make an important observation as well. My colleagues should
know that a broad coalition of American Jewish organizations
support the passage of the Silk Road Strategy Act: The B'nai
B'rith, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish
Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Conference
on Soviet Jewry, the President's Conference, the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs, AIPAC, and the
Orthodox Union. These groups have issued a statement that says,
``We are confident that genuine independence, peace and
prosperity for all of these countries of the Southern Caucasus
and Central Asia will benefit the national interest of the
West, Israel, Turkey and other regional allies. The Silk Road
strategy will promote these goals as well as helping to pave
the way for the support of democratic values in the region that
has been subjected to foreign domination for hundreds of years.
We are also confident, they go on to say, that the
legislation's implementation will improve the lives of tens of
thousands of Jews who live in these former Soviet republics.''
I urge support for the Berman amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Any other Member seeking recognition? If not, I would just
like to note that I am pleased to support the Berman amendment.
I believe programs sponsored by the Government of Israel in
Central Asia deserve our support and continue to produce good
results in that region.
If there is no other Member seeking recognition, all in
favor of the amendment signify in the usual manner.
Opposed.
The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I would advance the amendment
offered by Mr. Burr in his behalf.
Chairman Gilman. Amendment by Mr. Burr. The clerk will
read. Clerk will distribute the Burr amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Burr. Page 12, line
24, insert after `transferred to' the following: Comma, `or
knowingly allowed to be transferred through the territory of
such country to,'.''
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter is recognized on the Burr
amendment.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burr had another
markup at Commerce Committee at this point, and I would ask
that his full statement in support of the amendment be made a
part of the record at this point. I would ask unanimous consent
for that.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about the
gentleman's amendment. The gentleman offered this amendment in
Subcommittee, where it surely would have been approved except
for the fact that the Subcommittee did not receive jurisdiction
over that section of the bill that he was attempting to amend.
Needless to say, I support the gentleman's amendment. A
major focus of the legislation, perhaps the most major focus,
is working with the countries of the region to prevent a
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Much of our
assistance is directed at that effort through training of
customs officials, law enforcement, education, finding work for
former nuclear lab scientists and the like. This is an
important component of the legislation because the arsenal of
the former Soviet Union has become a prized target. The
prohibitions on assistance are largely designed to alert the
Central Asian Republics in the Caucasus region countries that
participation in the deadly game of selling these deadly items
to rogue regimes will result in repercussions, severe ones.
The gentleman's amendment makes it clear that countries
transshipping such items should also expect to be subject to
sanctions. This is a helpful amendment and delivers a clear
message regarding U.S. intent. I would urge adoption of the
Burr amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Any other Member seeking recognition on the Burr amendment
as proposed by Mr. Bereuter?
If not, I would like to note my support for the gentleman
from North Carolina's proposal as offered in his absence by Mr.
Bereuter. Nuclear proliferation in the region of the former
Soviet Union is a potentially serious problem, and we
appreciate the gentleman's effort to strengthen language in the
bill and to address this problem.
If there is no other Member seeking recognition, the
amendment is now before us. All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Opposed.
The ayes appear to it have. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that I
believe will strengthen the act.
Chairman Gilman. Clerk will read the Rohrabacher amendment.
Are they offered en bloc?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would ask the Chairman's advice.
Chairman Gilman. We would welcome them being offered en
bloc.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I will be happy to offer them en bloc.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Clerk will read the amendments offered by Mr. Rohrabacher.
Clerk will distribute the amendments.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Amendments offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. Page
6, line 25, add the following after the period: `Any role by
the United States in such'----.''
Chairman Gilman. I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendments be dispensed with without objection.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for five
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Berman. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Are we on two amendments en bloc?
Chairman Gilman. En bloc.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have two amendments that I believe, as I
say, will strengthen the act in the areas of promoting
democracy and clarifying the role of Congress in any decision
to deploy American military personnel to this volatile region.
The countries of Central Asia which spent nearly a century
under the iron grip of the Soviet Union are currently
struggling to achieve some type of stability and prosperity in
this century and in the next century. We should have no
illusions about the pressure that these resource-rich nations
continue to bear from Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan and
terrorist organizations operating out of Afghanistan, such as
the fanatical Taliban and their partner in crime, Mr. Bin
Laden.
The United States should do everything possible to assist
these emerging nations. However, the culture of repression is
still prevalent in governments that stretch from the Caucasus
across the great Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan to the borders of
China.
My first amendment would enhance the progress in democracy
by requiring, to be eligible for the provision of this act,
that elections must be held in these countries which are
certified as free and fair and must be free of criticism by
international organizations such as the OSCE. In addition, in
order to protect American businessmen and investors who
currently face serious problems in transactions in these
countries, the amendment requires that the President must
certify that such countries' judicial systems provide
appropriate recourse for judicial complaints lodged by citizens
and investors, both foreign and domestic, to certify that such
a judicial system and those systems are now undergoing the
appropriate reforms to ensure a respect for human rights and a
recourse of law, which, of course, is consistent with what Mr.
Burton was just suggesting. Mr. Burton's amendment addresses
this, but my amendment would actually insist on some
institutional reform that would help protect American
investors.
As I say, we have heard many stories about investors being
brutalized and being robbed by the governments in these areas.
My second amendment, which is en bloc, requires any United
States role in a peacekeeping operation in that region should
be limited to logistics, observers and financial support
through international organizations. The second part of my
amendment requires that the U.S. role in any multilateral
military cooperation agreement should not include the
deployment of American forces unless approved by a vote of the
U.S. Congress. So we are not outlawing any U.S. military
involvement there, but at least there has to be a vote of the
U.S. Congress before we start shipping our troops off to
Central Asia.
I strongly disagree with any language that would
potentially commit American peacekeeping forces in Central Asia
for three reasons. First, U.S. forces are already overextended
on peacekeeping missions with our open-ended commitments in
Bosnia and Kosovo. We also have a tinderbox situation in the
Pacific with Taiwan and the Spratley Islands. In the Middle
East we have Saddam Hussein, who is still lurking around the
corner.
Second, we are in an historic junction in our relationship
with Russia. During these past few months, due to the expansion
of NATO and the Kosovo intervention, the attitude among Russian
military leaders, politicians and the public in general has
grown resentful and even hostile toward the United States. Now
is not the time to codify legislation that furthers the
potential of incursions along Russia's border areas. It is
preferable to send training missions, such as the recent
training mission to Uzbekistan, to accomplish our missions and
not to set forth a strategy that sends alarm signals to Russia.
So I would ask support. I would yield to the Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Please continue.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Third, the line of communications that we
would have in that area would really strain our ability to
protect any forces that were there.
So I would ask support for my en bloc amendments. Thank
you.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. I recognize Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am compelled to
rise in objection and opposition to the gentleman's amendments
en bloc. One of them I will attempt to amend and ask for a
division so that it could be considered separately. I would say
to my colleagues that I had received earlier three amendments
from Mr. Rohrabacher, and I had examined those closely. These
are new to me now, but it is clear that there are problems with
both.
Let me address the more lengthy amendment which is now
being considered en bloc, which is the one which starts, ``Page
12.'' If you take a look at subparagraph 2(b), the judicial
system of such country that provides appropriate recourse for
judicial complaints and so on, lodged by both domestic and
foreign nationals, is undergoing appropriate reforms to ensure
such appropriate recourse.
That is certainly a desirable objective, but really, this
comes down to a ``chicken and egg'' situation. If these
countries had already established political and legal
structures, including appropriate judicial systems compatible
for democracy and free market economy, this legislation would
not be as urgent and essential as it is. What we are trying to
do is effect the creation and further refinement of democratic
institutions in the legal structure, including the judicial
system. That is the purpose of the legislation. This is perhaps
a sharp philosophical, difference, so it is a matter of timing
that I would have with the gentleman from California.
Remember, these countries have never had these kinds of
democratic institutions. They were loose-knit tribal societies
that were absorbed into the Russian/Soviet empire. Their first
experiment with nation state status was the 1990 era. Almost
without exception there were no preexisting democratic
institutions from which they could draw. Despite this, many of
them have made a substantial change. In Georgia, there has been
a near 180-degree turnaround. President Shevardnadze has
embraced USAID's five-point plan for democratization--made it a
national policy. In Kyrgyzstan, elections have been free and
fair. It is also true that a number of these countries have not
allowed democratic institutions to flourish. That is why we are
trying to have an impact there. In most of the countries the
U.S. can contribute to this democratization effort by assisting
the NGO's to emerge for the first time in those countries and,
of course, by our own NGO's and other international NGO's. They
are important building blocks that have never existed in those
countries, and they are a prerequisite for a modern democracy.
So I would say that is the reason why we are involved here.
We don't have a judicial system that would be able to meet this
certification, and therefore we cutoff eligibility. So it is
really a vital kind of a change.
Now, in the second amendment, the deployment of U.S. armed
forces, unless approved by vote of the U.S. Congress--ladies
and gentlemen of the Committee--this is going to draw a
Presidential veto. This is Bosnia, this is Kosovo, this is
peacekeeping deployment. That is what Mr. Campbell's
involvement attempting to bring it before the Supreme Court was
all about.
I think it is highly desirable for the President to get our
approval before moving peacekeeping activities, but he regards
it as a constitutional responsibility and power that he has. So
Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment, the shorter of the two, will
clearly cause this legislation to be unacceptable, and I urge
my colleagues not to approve it.
At this point, in order to move along the debate, I know
others want to speak, I would offer an amendment at the desk
which does strike 2(b).
Chairman Gilman. Clerk will report the Bereuter amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. ``Mr. Bereuter moves that subparagraph 2(b) of
the Rohrabacher amendment be stricken, and that is line 15
through 19.''
Chairman Gilman. Clerk will distribute the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. We don't have copies. It is handwritten.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter, on your amendment.
Mr. Bereuter. I have explained the purpose of striking 2(b)
because these judicial systems do not exist clearly in all
these countries and cannot. That is why we are involved in
aiding, so that in the future, at some time, an amendment such
as the gentleman offers, after they have had an opportunity to
work with us and establish a judicial system worthy of meeting
these requirements, will be in place. At this time we are
trying to help them. I will later ask for division so that the
rest of Mr. Rohrabacher's lengthy amendment could survive, and
I urge support of my amendment which simply strikes section
2(b).
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman
from California, the sponsor of the base amendment, under
subsection B, am I correct in thinking that if, say, the
Government of Kazakhstan asked that an AID-funded program
involving representatives of the judicial conference come to
Kazakhstan to create a program to provide a judicial process
which would allow recourse for complaints lodged by both
domestic and foreign nationals, that your amendment if it
passed would prohibit that program because Kazakhstan did not
have a judicial process which allowed recourse for both
domestic and foreign nationals?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me see if I have your question
correctly. You are asking me whether the chicken or the egg is
coming first here? The answer to your question is no. The
answer is the very fact they are trying to organize a judicial
reform process suggests they are going through judicial reform.
This is not a fait accompli. If you will read the legislation,
it is talking about a process. We expect people to be moving
toward democracy, toward judicial reform rather than away from
it in order to have the benefits of dealing with the United
States.
Mr. Berman. If the mere application by a country for a
program to achieve these results thereby renders the
limitations of your amendment meaningless, then the amendment
goes from dangerous to meaningless.
Mr. Rohrabacher. If the gentleman would note, I did not use
the term ``meaningless,'' and I disagree with that
interpretation.
Mr. Berman. That is my conclusion. I just don't read it
like that. I read the language as prohibiting programs to
remedy the very problems the gentleman is seeking to achieve,
and I urge support for Mr. Bereuter's amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. I join in supporting Mr. Bereuter's
amendment. I think we have Iran and Afghanistan playing all too
dominant a role in this region, and I think we all would like
to see the countries in the region develop democratic
institutions and full-fledged judicial systems. Sometimes we
don't get our nose under the tent in these countries when they
have accepted all our values; and I think that if there were
activities in these countries that you object to, I would like
know what they are and what our government is now doing. It
seems to me that the lesson of history is every time there is
contact with the West, we undermine the totalitarian forces in
a country, and what I would like to see is actually more focus
on these countries.
I know the gentleman's intent is a noble one and that he
would like us to have these governments become democratic, but
again, if the choice is noncontact and leaving them to deal
with Iran and Afghanistan or finding ways to create contact
that will nudge them, push them, get them to peaceful relations
and more democratic institutions, then I think that is what we
are doing, and for that reason I support the Bereuter
amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Any other Member seeking recognition?
Mr. Bereuter, did you want to make a motion? First, we will
take up the Bereuter amendment. All in favor of the Bereuter
amendment signify in the usual manner.
Those in opposition signify by saying no.
The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division under the
rules, the division between the two amendments that were
offered and combined in en bloc.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter has requested division of the
en bloc amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
Opposed.
The en bloc now divided and back to the original form, but
before we move on it, I would like to note my support to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California.
Mr. Bereuter, with regard to democratization, we met just
last week with the former Prime Minister of Kazakhstan whose
efforts to run in a free and fair election for the Presidency
have been stymied. His efforts to mount a slate of candidates
in a parliamentary election have encountered similar
obstructions. This amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher makes it clear
that we expect truly democratic government in Central Asia and
the Caucasus. The United States has provided and is providing
assistance for democratization in countries such as Kazakhstan,
but our efforts will be meaningless if they are met with
oppression and corruption. Accordingly, I support the
Rohrabacher amendment.
We are now going to consider the peacekeeping amendment by
Mr. Rohrabacher. All those in favor of the Rohrabacher
amendment signify in the usual manner.
Mr. Gejdenson. Parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Gilman. Please state your inquiry.
Mr. Gejdenson. Where we are right now is we have separated
Mr. Rohrabacher, as amended by Mr. Bereuter, having again
separated the section that deals with peacekeeping from that
dealing with elections, is that correct?
Chairman Gilman. That is correct. We will first vote on the
language relating to peacekeeping.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. This basically is a vote on my first
amendment which says that in order to deploy troops, you have
to have a vote of Congress in that region; is that correct?
Chairman Gilman. That is correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher. OK.
Chairman Gilman. The vote is now on the Rohrabacher
peacekeeping amendment. All in favor signify in the usual
manner.
Opposed.
The noes appear to have it. The amendment is defeated.
We now go to the second amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher with
regard to certification prior to eligibility. Anyone seeking
recognition? If not, we will now consider it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think to just be reminded, we are
talking about democratic progress in order to be eligible for
the benefits of this bill.
Chairman Gilman. All in favor of the Rohrabacher amendment
as amended signify in the usual manner by saying aye.
Those opposed.
The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments? If there are no further
amendments, the previous question is ordered on the bill. The
gentleman from Nebraska Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a
motion.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the
Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending bill
on the suspension calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the motion by Mr.
Bereuter. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection the chief of staff may make technical
conforming and grammatical amendments to the bill just ordered
reported. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make
motions under Rule 22 in respect of this bill, counterpart in
the Senate. Further proceedings on this measure are now
postponed.
I ask unanimous consent that the Chairman be authorized on
H.R. 2415 to make motions under Rule 22 in connection with H.R.
2415, S. 886 or counterpart from the Senate. Without objection,
so ordered.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
July 22, 1999
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4098.026