    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       MARKUP OF H.R. 3244, H.CON.RES. 165, H.RES. 169, H.CON.RES. 206,
               H.CON.RES. 222, H.CON.RES. 211, AND H.CON.RES. 200

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                            INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           Tuesday, November 9, 1999

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-96

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    64-099 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
                       Joan I. O'Donnell, Staff Associate

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Markup of H.R. 3244, a bill to combat trafficking of persons,
      especially into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like
      conditions in the United States and countries around the world
      through prevention, through prosecution and enforcement against
      traffickers, and through protection and assistance to victims
      of trafficking.................................................     1
    Markup of H. Con. Res. 165, a concurrent resolution expressing
      United States policy toward the Slovak Republic................     7
    Markup of H. Res. 169, a resolution expressing the sense of the
      House of Representatives with respect to democracy, free
      elections, and human rights in the Lao People's Democratic
      Republic.......................................................    33
    Markup of H. Con. Res. 206, a concurrent resolution expressing
      grave concern regarding armed conflict in the North Caucasus
      region of the Russian Federation which has resulted in civilian
      casualties and internally displaced persons, and urging all
      sides to pursue dialogue for peaceful resolution of the
      conflict.......................................................     9
    Markup of H. Con. Res. 222, a concurrent resolution condemning
      the assassination of Armenian Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian
      and other officials of the Armenian Government and expressing
      the sense of the Congress in morning this tragic loss of the
      duty elected leadership of Armenia.............................    14
    Markup of H. Con. Res. 211, a concurrent resultion expressing the
      strong support of the Congress for the recently concluded
      elections in the Republic of India and urging the President to
      travel to India................................................    15
    Markup of H. Con. Res. 200, a concurrent resolution expressing
      the strong opposition of Congress to the military coup in
      Pakistan and calling for a civilian, democratically-elected
      government to be returned to power in Pakistan.................    18

                                    APPENDIX

    H.R. 3244........................................................    52
        Amendment to H.R. 3244, offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey...    97
    H. Con. Res. 165.................................................    98
    H. Con. Res. 206.................................................   103
        En Bloc Amendment to H. Con. Res. 206, offered by Mr. Smith
          of New Jersey..............................................   107
    H. Con. Res. 222.................................................   109
    H. Con. Res. 211.................................................   112
    H. Con. Res. 200.................................................   114
        Committee Print (as Reported by the Subcommittee on Asia and
          the Pacific)...............................................   119
        Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the Committee
          Print of H. Con. Res. 200, offered by Mr. Gejdenson and Mr.
          Brown of Ohio..............................................   124
    H. Res. 169......................................................   128
        Committee Print (as Reported by the Subcommittee on Asia and
          the Pacific)...............................................   130
        Perfecting Amendment to H. Res. 169, offered by Mr.
          Radanovich.................................................   134
        Amendment to the Perfecting Amendment, offered by Mr.
          Bereuter...................................................   137
    Prepared statements:
    The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
      from New York and Chairman, Committee on International
      Relations, statement on H.R. 3244..............................   138
    The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in Congress
      from California, statement of H. Con. Res. 222.................   139

    The Honorable Gary L. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from
      New York, statement of H. Con. Res. 200........................   140
    Additional materials submitted for the record:
    Memo to Mr. Gilman from Mr. Bereuter regarding Laos, submitted by
      Mr. Bereuter...................................................   142

       MARKUP OF H.R. 3244, H.CON.RES. 165, H.RES. 169, H.CON.RES. 206,
               H.CON.RES. 222, H.CON.RES. 211, AND H.CON.RES. 200

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, November 9, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
                  Committee on International Relations,
                                               Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4 p.m., in room
    2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order--Members
    please take their seats--pursuant to notice to mark up several
    items of legislative business.
        First item is H.R. 3244 relating to trafficking in humans.
        The Chair lays the bill before the Committee.
        The clerk will report the title of the bill.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 3244, a bill to combat trafficking of
    persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery and slavery-
    like conditions in the United States and countries around the
    world through prevention, through prosecution and enforcement
    against traffickers and through protection and assistance to
    victims of trafficking.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
    the bill is dispensed with.
        The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
    Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
    assembled. Section 1, Short title.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
    as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
        I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from New
    Jersey, Mr. Smith to introduce the bill.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
    I am pleased that the Committee is meeting today to markup H.R.
    3244, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 1999, which I
    introduced yesterday along with the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Gejdenson, and seven other bipartisan cosponsors. This bill
    focuses on the most severe forms of trafficking, on trafficking
    of children into the international sex industry, on sex
    trafficking by force, fraud or coercion and on trafficking into
    slavery and slavery-like practices.
        Each year, Mr. Chairman, up to a million innocent victims,
    of whom the overwhelming majority are women and children, are
    brought by force and/or fraud into the international commercial
    sex industry. Efforts by the U.S. Government, international
    organizations, and others to stop this brutal practice have
    thus far proved unsuccessful.
        Indeed, all the evidence suggests that instances of
    forcible and/or fraudulent sexual trafficking are far more
    numerous than just a few years ago.
        The problem, Mr. Chairman, is not abstract. It shatters the
    lives of real women and children. In Russia, for example,
    traffickers prey on orphanages. In a typical scenario, a
    trafficker will pay an orphanage director approximately $12,000
    to take a group of children on a field trip to a local
    McDonalds, for example. Groups of children will then leave the
    orphanage with the trafficker, never to be seen or heard from
    again.
        It has been estimated by one leader of an NGO that
    approximately $24,000--that is the going price, Mr. Chairman,
    $24,000 per woman, who is trafficked into the United States or
    some other country. The problem is not just overseas. According
    to investigative reports I have received in the tristate area,
    including my home State of New Jersey, there are thousands of
    women involuntarily working. These are women who came to the
    United States in response to advertisements for reputable jobs
    such as waitresses, housekeepers, nannies and the like. They
    were provided passports and visas and transported to the United
    States.
        When they arrived in the U.S., they were told that the jobs
    had already been filled, but they were still indebted for the
    costs of the trip, anywhere from $15,000- to $40,000. Many of
    these helpless women have been forced to work as prostitutes
    until they pay off their debts.
        Part of the problem is that current laws and law
    enforcement strategies in the U.S., as well as in other
    nations, often punish the victims more severely than they
    punish the perpetrators. When a sex-for-hire establishment is
    raided, the women, and sometimes children, in the brothel are
    typically deported if they are not citizens of the country in
    which the establishment is located, without reference to
    whether their participation was voluntary or involuntary and
    without reference to whether they will face retribution or
    other serious harm upon return.
        This not only inflicts further cruelty on the victims, it
    also robs--leaves nobody, I should say, to testify against the
    real criminals and frightens other victims from coming forward.
        My original bill, Mr. Chairman, introduced along with our
    colleague, Marcy Kaptur, focused only on sex trafficking
    because we believe this is the most egregious and the fastest
    growing form of trafficking of persons, and because we wanted
    to include tough penalties against traffickers and against
    governments that are part of the problem rather than part of
    the solution.
        At the strong suggestion of Mr. Gejdenson, the new bill
    recognizes that there are other forms of trafficking, such as
    trafficking into literal slavery or into forms of indentured
    servitude that amount to slavery, and in which trafficked women
    are often subjected to brutal treatment, including rape, that
    call for the same tough approach toward traffickers and the
    same compassion for the victims.
        H.R. 3244 punishes, and I quote, ``severe forms of
    trafficking in persons,'' which are defined as sex trafficking
    with children, sex trafficking induced by force, fraud, or
    coercion, and trafficking of persons into involuntary servitude
    or slave-like conditions by force, fraud, or coercion. This
    legislation seeks the elimination of these gross human rights
    violations by a comprehensive, balanced approach of prevention,
    prosecution and enforcement and victim protection.
        The Trafficking Victims Protection Act modifies U.S.
    criminal law to provide severe punishment for persons convicted
    of severe forms of trafficking in persons. This includes those
    who recruit, transport, purchase and sell victims, as well as
    those who manage or share in the proceeds of the trafficking
    enterprises. It directs the State Department to include in its
    annual country reports on human rights information regarding
    countries involved in severe forms of trafficking and the
    extent to which their governments are involved in combating or
    tolerating such trafficking.
        It creates a statutory interagency task force to monitor
    and combat trafficking, which is similar to the interagency
    approach the Administration has already taken. It also
    authorizes the establishment of a State Department office to
    monitor and combat trafficking, which will provide assistance
    to the task force.
        It directs the President to establish preventive programs
    aimed at deterring trafficking by enhancing economic
    opportunities for potential trafficking victims and increasing
    public awareness of the dangers of trafficking and the
    protections that are available to victims. It provides
    increased protection and assistance for victims of severe forms
    of trafficking, both in the U.S. and abroad, by funding
    assistance initiatives and protecting certain victims from
    being deported from the U.S. if they are likely to suffer
    retribution or other harm.
        The bill establishes minimum standards for countries that
    have significant trafficking problems. These governments should
    punish these egregious forms of trafficking for what they are--
    kidnapping, rape, slavery--and they should vigorously prosecute
    the kidnappers and rapists and slave traders. The bill then
    authorizes AID to fund activities designed to help countries
    meet those standards, such as rewriting their laws and training
    their police and prosecutors. The bill also requires that the
    President, beginning in the Year 2002, either withhold
    nonhumanitarian foreign assistance to governments that fail to
    meet the minimal standards, or to waive that prohibition if he
    finds that providing such assistance is in the national
    interests of the United States.
        So this is not a carrots-only approach, which is what the
    Administration seems to favor. We have carefully calibrated
    this approach which ultimately leaves it up to the President to
    decide whether to withdraw the nonhumanitarian aid, even from
    governments that absolutely refuse to do anything about
    trafficking. But the President would have to at least address
    the problem once a year.
        The government would have to produce a list of governments
    that do not meet the minimal standards, and if the President
    explains why he wanted to keep the funding of these
    governments, he would have to say so in black and white. This
    would have the effect of putting the fight against the
    international slave trade at the top of our foreign policy
    agenda where it belongs.
        Finally, the bill authorizes the State Department to
    publish a list of foreign persons involved with severe forms of
    trafficking and allows the President to impose economic
    sanctions against those persons.
        Mr. Chairman, the Administration has been very critical of
    the original Smith-Kaptur Bill, and in drafting the new bill,
    we have tried to meet as many of their concerns as possible.
    Despite the many concessions we have made, I understand that
    the Administration still opposes the bill based on what they
    erroneously call ``mandatory sanctions.''
        Let me be clear about what this bill does and what it
    doesn't do:
        It contains no trade sanctions and no mandatory sanctions
    at all. It provides for waiverable conditionality on
    nonhumanitarian U.S. foreign assistance for governments that
    fail to meet minimal standards in fighting organized crime
    enterprises that subject women and children to unspeakable
    horrors.
        The State Department has argued that what the problem
    governments need is advance notice and assistance in order to
    address these complex problems, but this bill takes that
    concern into account as well. It authorizes AID to assist
    countries in their efforts to meet minimal standards and delays
    the conditionality on nonhumanitarian foreign aid for 2 years,
    until the Year 2000.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Smith. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank my
    many cosponsors, including again Mr. Gejdenson, Ms. Kaptur,
    Louise Slaughter, the Ranking Member of our Subcommittee,
    Cynthia McKinney, and all the original cosponsors, for their
    support for this legislation.
        Chairman Gilman. I thank the gentleman. I want to commend
    the gentleman from New Jersey, the distinguished Chairman of
    our International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, Mr.
    Smith, and the Ranking Minority Member of that Subcommittee,
    Congresswoman McKinney, for their excellent work on their
    Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In addition, I want to
    thank the Ranking Minority Member of our Full Committee, Mr.
    Gejdenson, for his work on this important measure.
        There are few things in this world that are as demoralizing
    or degrading to the humor spirit as having to sell one's body
    or one's child in order to survive. Criminals who initiate or
    help to facilitate such transactions are at the lowest end of
    the human spectrum. H.R. 3244 will help to end the trafficking
    of persons into the sex trade and into the slavery-like
    conditions by requiring various important governmentwide
    action, such as requiring our President to establish an
    interagency task force to monitor and combat trafficking,
    chaired by the Secretary of State and requiring the Secretary
    of State to report to Congress annually on the status of severe
    forms of trafficking, beginning in Fiscal Year 2002 for each
    country that fails to meet the minimal standards.
        The President is going to have to notify Congress about the
    steps that we are taking to adequately respond. The bill
    authorizes the Secretary of State to compile and publish a list
    of foreign persons involved with a severe form of trafficking
    in persons, directly or indirectly, in the United States and to
    take appropriate action. H.R. 3244 further allows the President
    to impose international emergency economic powers, IEEPA,
    sanctions against any foreign person on that list and requires
    that he report to Congress any such sanctions.
        In closing, I note that the Trafficking Victims Protection
    Act is an important initiative that will help put an end to the
    serious problem and must be boldly addressed with no holds
    barred. I commend the Subcommittee on International Operations
    and Human Rights for their work, and I urge my colleagues to
    support the bill.
        I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, the Ranking
    Minority Member, Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
    first commend both Mr. Smith's staff and my staff--Joseph Rees
    on his staff and Aletea Gordon, David Abramowitz, and Peter Yeo
    on my staff--for the great work they have done here, coming up
    with what I think is a terrific product. Obviously, at least
    this Member of Congress, when I got here, never thought that as
    we approached the millennium we would have a situation where
    even in the United States tens of thousands of women and
    children are trafficked regularly. Only occasionally do those
    stories of Mexican-Americans brutalized, years of selling
    trinkets on the streets of our major cities, make the papers.
    Trafficking of any kind is something that clearly should have
    ended long ago.
        I really want to commend my colleague, Mr. Smith from New
    Jersey, for his cooperation in working out the language on this
    bill. There was never a debate on the goals--we all agreed on
    what we wanted to do--the questions was on how to best get
    there, and I think the staff has done an excellent job
    providing broad prosecution and enforcement provisions in this
    bill to make sure that every kind of trafficking is dealt with.
        Obviously we are not done here today; this is going to take
    some time with the other countries of the world. But it is
    clearly something that is very important.
        Again, I want to thank all the staff, but particularly
    Alethea Gordon of my staff for the great work she has done on
    this. Thank you.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        While I certainly support the worthy cause of this
    legislation and do not want to vote against it, and will not--
    it is important, of course, to help stop the sex trade
    trafficking and slavery to prosecute those engaged in such
    reprehensible actions and assist the innocent victims of those
    crimes--I raise concerns about the funding of this new foreign
    policy priority.
        What are we going to cut to fund the extensive aid and
    administrative provisions in this bill? The bill authorizes
    $31.5 million in Fiscal Year 2000, $63 million in Fiscal Year
    2001--that is $94.5 million over the next 2 years.
        Now, all too often in the past, the financial support for
    new initiatives of this kind has come from reducing agriculture
    and food aid. Since the beginning of the Clinton
    Administration, Public Law 480 food aid funding has decreased
    about a half-billion dollars--this at a time when America's
    farms are facing crisis and food needs around the world
    continue to be acute. For all of the Administration's claims to
    feel the pain of Nebraskans and other American farmers, it has
    seemingly increased that pain by slashing food aid by over a
    half-billion dollars.
        Here are the facts. For Fiscal Year 1993 to Fiscal Year
    1999, Title I, Public Law 480, decreased 50 percent; Public Law
    480, Title II, emergency donated food aid, a very major
    decrease there. It is constant, but if you take a look at the
    adjustments for inflation, it is a real decrease. Public Law
    480, Title III, incredibly slashed from $312 million down to
    $25 million, a 92 percent cut.
        Yet, over the past year, we have increased microenterprise,
    child survival and population assistance. While I certainly do
    not oppose those programs--in fact, I am an original cosponsor
    of things like the child survival ones--I do not support
    increasing them at the expense of food aid. We simply can no
    longer go about increasing these programs by taking away
    funding from the Public Law 480 program which harms the
    American farmer and harms hungry people around the world.
        Now, the gentleman is not forcing us to do that. But, in
    fact, when he is proposing additional authorizations, over $90
    million in authorization--$94.5 million exactly--in the next 2
    years, it has an effect upon other Federal accounts. I think
    that East and West Coast Members need to remember that it is
    Members of America's heartland agriculture district that
    provides the needed votes to pass the foreign assistance
    legislation, typically. Without our votes, there would be no
    child survival funding, no population assistance, no sex
    trafficking task force.
        Yet, we look at these programs that are a direct benefit
    not only to hungry people around the world--they are a direct
    benefit to our constituents. We say the cuts continue from the
    authorization; we add new authorizations, we don't add new
    money.
        I want to bring this to my colleagues' attention, hoping
    that they will be more sympathetic to efforts to stop the
    reduction in Public Law 480 funding. To the Administration, I
    ask the question, how can you justify these huge cuts, the one-
    half billion dollars in Public Law 480?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
        Ms. McKinney--who has laryngitis--do you want to submit a
    statement for the record?
        Ms. McKinney. Yes.
        Chairman Gilman. The statement will be submitted and made a
    part of the record.
        [The information referred to was not available at time of
    print.]
        Chairman Gilman. Are there any other Members seeking
    recognition?
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith has an amendment at the desk.
    The clerk will read the amendment.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith on page 6, line
    25, immediately following section----
        Mr. Smith. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
    considered as read.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as having been read.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, this is a----
        Chairman Gilman. I recognize Mr. Smith for 5 minutes on his
    amendment.
        Mr. Smith. I entered it with the Minority and I think they
    were in full accord. This just adds as one of the original
    findings that one of the founding doctrines of the United
    States, the Declaration of Independence, recognizes the
    inherent dignity and worth of all people and talks about how
    the United States outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude in
    1865, and recognized them as evil institutions that must be
    abolished.
        Since this is a bill that concerns itself with slavery and
    those kinds of abominations, it would be fitting to have this
    in the findings clauses.
        Chairman Gilman. Any other Members seeking recognition on
    the amendment?
        If not, all those in favor of the amendment signify in the
    usual manner.
        Opposed?
        The amendment is agreed to.
        Any further amendments on this measure? If no further
    amendments----
        Mr. Smith. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Sir, I have been advised that in order to report
    the bill, we need a quorum--so we would require a recorded vote
    on this. Is that true or untrue?
        Chairman Gilman. That is correct. We will set it aside
    until such time as we have a quorum present. We are calling now
    for a quorum. We will now proceed to the next measure. Without
    objection, the bill will be set aside temporarily.
        Chairman Gilman. We will now proceed to H.Con.Res. 165
    relating to American policy toward the Slovak Republic.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
        The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. H.Con.Res. 165, a resolution expressing United
    States policy toward the Slovak Republic.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the preamble and
    operative language of the resolution will read in that order
    for amendment.
        The clerk will read.
        Ms. Bloomer. Resolved by the House of Representatives, the
    Senate concurring, Section 1. Findings. The Congress finds----
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
    considered as having been read and it is open to amendment any
    point. The resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the
    Full Committee.
        I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.
        I support this resolution. I was pleased to join
    Congressman Mica of Florida in introducing it in July of this
    year. Slovakia is a very important country in the region of
    Central and Eastern Europe, and for that reason, our Nation,
    our allies in the North Atlantic Alliance and the European
    Union have sought to build a strong relationship with it.
        The collapse of communism is, however, a mere 10 years
    behind us, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the
    Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 was just the start
    of a very difficult process for Slovakia and many other
    countries in that region.
        Even the most prosperous of those nations, new democracies
    like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, continue to face
    difficult issues and challenges to reforms. But Slovakians have
    an added challenge; it has not really existed as an independent
    state for hundreds of years. After becoming independent in
    1993, the newly independent State of Slovakia then experienced
    a political struggle that ensued between those who want to
    integrate Slovakia in the Pan-American and transatlantic
    institutions by carrying out real reforms, and those who are
    calling for such integration actually made such reforms
    difficult to achieve.
        The parliamentary elections of September 1998 brought to
    power a new coalition government that appears to be working
    toward implementing genuine reform and ensuring that the rights
    of all citizens of Slovakia are respected, regardless of ethnic
    background. I believe that this resolution is a timely
    expression of our support for the new government in Slovakia
    and for the process of economic and political reforms in that
    country.
        It also makes it clear that the United States supports
    Slovakia's eventual integration and the ban of European and
    transatlantic community of democratic states.
        Accordingly, I support the passage of this resolution and I
    urge my colleagues to support it.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. We are going to lose all of our Members in a
    little bit, and we want to vote on the sex trafficking bill. I
    am just going to be very brief.
        I agree with everything you said. We need to make sure that
    Slovakia and all the countries of the region get our support.
    There have been negative effects as a result of the actions in
    Kosovo on their economies.
        I hope we limit ourselves to maybe one or two speakers
    unless there is controversy on each amendment, or we will lose
    the sex trafficking bill because we won't have the quorum we
    need to pass that bill. As I understand it, we will be out of
    business on the floor pretty soon.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will be brief. I rise in support of the resolution. I
    think that when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Warsaw
    Pact collapsed, we all remember that there was something called
    the visigrad Four--the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and
    Poland. It was a disappointment to many people to see Slovakia
    take a turn away from democracy for some period of time, so
    that unanimously all 16 countries of NATO felt they were not
    ready for NATO membership with the other three.
        But Slovakia has moved back and taken very positive steps,
    and the items in the whereas clauses point out the appropriate
    kinds of action, highly commendable actions, that the Slovakian
    Government has taken. They deserve a pat on the back for their
    change in course which will undoubtedly help them be integrated
    in the European Union and, eventually, in NATO. I think it is
    appropriate to pass the legislation.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter.
        Are any other Members seeking recognition?
        If there is no other Member seeking recognition, the
    gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a
    motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
    requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on
    the suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
    gentleman from Nebraska.
        As many as are in favor, signify in the usual manner.
        Opposed?
        The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.
        Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am waiting for a
    handout, a revised handout to be brought. I wondered if we
    might skip temporarily over the next measure and go to the
    fourth, and then back to the third?
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, we will now move to
    H.Con.Res. 206, a concurrent resolution expressing grave
    concern regarding armed conflict in the North Caucasus region
    of the Russian Federation.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.
        The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. H.Con.Res. 206, a resolution expressing grave
    concern regarding armed conflict in the North Caucasus region
    of the Russian Federation, which has resulted in civilian
    casualties and internally displaced persons, and urging all
    sides to pursue dialogue for peaceful resolution of the
    conflict.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the preamble and
    operative language of the resolution will be read in that order
    for amendment.
        The clerk will read.
        Ms. Bloomer. Whereas during the Russo-Chechen War of 1994-
    1996, Russian Federation----
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
    considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any
    point.
        The resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full
    Committee.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman withhold?
        I support the resolution introduced by our colleague from
    New Jersey, Mr. Smith. I believe it makes some important points
    with regard to the current warfare in the region of Chechnya
    and Russia. Most importantly, it points out that tens of
    thousands of innocent civilians are suffering terribly due to
    the Russian Government's indiscriminate use of force and the
    Russians violation of its own commitments as a member state in
    the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
        This resolution states the obvious, that a peaceful
    settlement is required in Chechnya if the suffering of innocent
    civilians is to end soon. The resolution also states, and I
    think quite appropriately, that there has been a wave of
    internal lawlessness and kidnappings within Chechnya in recent
    years, including an armed attack on a neighboring region of
    Russia by extremist forces from Chechnya.
        Although I do not think that excuses the current military
    actions by Russia in Chechnya, it perhaps underlies why there
    is no clear consensus yet as to what the international
    community should do with regard to the latest conflict in that
    region.
        I would like to take this opportunity to state my belief
    that the latest Russian military offensive will very likely do
    little to address the underlying causes of instability in the
    North Caucasus region and indeed throughout Russia. Those
    underlying problems include vast corruption at all levels of
    the Russian Government; and in absence of real economic
    reforms, allowing the North Caucasus region to slip into
    grinding poverty, that is, in turn, breeding yet even more
    instability.
        This resolution makes several important statements, but I
    would specifically point out that the resolution states
    Russia's use of indiscriminate force in Chechnya is a direct
    violation of its commitments as a member state of the
    Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, just as
    the previous military operation in Chechnya was in violation of
    those OSCE commitments.
        I also note that Russia has violated the treaty on
    conventional forces in Europe in the course of that operation.
        The summit of the OSCE heads of state is to be held in
    Istanbul in the next few days, and it is time for our
    government to call Russia to task for its violation of those
    OSCE commitments and disregard for the CFE treaty, a treaty
    that, in fact, has already been revised to meet earlier Russian
    demands. The OCSE summit is a perfect venue in which to do
    that.
        We may not see it on our television screens, but many
    innocent people are suffering terribly from the indiscriminate
    force used by Russia in Chechnya, as well as for the extremism
    of some of those on the Chechnya side. It is time to get the
    two sides to the table, and as this resolution points out, the
    OSCE can help if Russian lives up to its commitments.
        Accordingly, I support the resolution and recognize Mr.
    Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The conflict
    between Russians and Chechens is over 100 years old. Under
    Stalin, they tried force to resettle the Chechen people. We are
    still seeing here today the convulsions of the end of the old
    Soviet system. It is clear that this is a very complicated
    situation. The Russians have failed to recognize the impact on
    the civilian populations--over 200,000 people displaced.
        We would hope that the Russian Government would try much
    more sincerely, with much more effort, to make sure they are
    not dislodging large numbers of innocent civilians.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
        The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank you for placing H.Con.Res. 206 on the agenda today.
    This resolution addresses an issue of increasing urgency, the
    war in Chechnya and the plight of innocent people caught in the
    conflict.
        Mr. Chairman, following two armed incursions into the
    neighboring Republic of Dagestan by Islamic extremists, based
    in Chechnya but independent of the Chechen Government, the
    Russian Government sent the full weight of its military regime
    into Chechnya, a region that gained de facto independence from
    Russia as a result of the bloody war from 1994 to 1996.
        While Russia, on the one hand, is justified in rebuffing
    armed aggression against its territorial integrity--in
    combating terrorism--one can sympathize with Russia's
    frustration over the unsolved bombings that killed almost 300
    persons in Russia around the same time as the Dagestan
    incursion.
        The government of Chechnya, too, has not been entirely
    blameless in the situation since achieving de facto
    independence from Russia in 1996. Chechnya has degenerated into
    a morass of lawlessness and violence with a government
    powerless to establish law and order. But, Mr. Chairman, these
    arguments do not justify a war against innocent civilians.
        Noncombatant villages, homes, and farms have been subjected
    to artillery shellings and air raids. The death toll now is in
    the hundreds, and the number of internally displaced persons
    who have sought refuge in neighboring regions is around
    200,000.
        Mr. Chairman, for this reason, I, together with Mr. Wolf
    and Mr. Forbes, introduced this resolution; and we have been
    joined by Messrs. Hoyer, Cardin, Engel, and Stark as
    cosponsors. Specifically, the resolution urges the government
    of the Russian Federation and all parties to cease the
    indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population in
    Chechnya.
        It further urges the government of Russia and all parties
    to enter into negotiations and to avail itself of the
    capabilities of the OSCE which helped broker an end to the
    1994-1996 war. Additionally, the resolution calls upon Chechen
    authorities to make every effort to deny basis to radical
    elements committed to violent actions in the Northern Caucasus
    and urges Chechen authorities to create a rule-of-law
    environment with legal norms based upon internationally
    accepted standards.
        Finally, the resolution calls upon our own government to
    express to all parties the necessity of resolving the conflict
    peacefully and to express the willingness of the U.S. to extend
    appropriate assistance toward such a resolution, including
    humanitarian assistance as needed.
        Mr. Chairman, this resolution is not anti-Russian, and it
    is not pro-Chechen. Many observers who wish to see a prosperous
    and democratic Russia have been deeply disturbed by Russia's
    actions in Chechnya.
        Yesterday, the State Department accused Moscow of failing
    to meet human rights standards set out both in the Geneva
    Conventions and the Codes of Conduct of the OSCE.
    Unfortunately, when Attorney General Reno visited Moscow last
    month, her evasive comments about the war in Chechnya prompted
    the October 23rd edition of the Moscow Times to say, and I
    quote, ``Reno's quiet gave war a green light.'' Hopefully, the
    Administration will speak with one voice in the future, and
    avoid any mixed messages.
        The last thing the Russian military needs now is the
    slightest encouragement for its present action. Let me just
    remind Members that the last time this war was going on, we had
    hearing after hearing, many of them held in this room. We heard
    from Yulana Bonner and many others who said we had given the
    green light, however unwittingly, to the Russians when they
    were doing their ``scorched earth'' policy in Chechnya last
    time.
        Let us not have deja vu again. Let us go on record trying
    to find a peaceful outcome to this despicable mess in Cehchnya.
    The killing is going on, and the internally displaced people
    and the refugees who have made it across the border are at
    great risk of dying or of being very, very severely
    malnourished as a result of this war. It has got to come to a
    halt.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        Does any other Member over here seek recognition?
        If not, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I would be voting in favor of this motion, of course, but I
    would like to remind Members of the Committee, while we are
    here waiting for our quorum, that for about 2 years I have been
    suggesting, unless we pay attention to what is going on in
    Afghanistan, that it would have severe repercussions in Central
    Asia.
        I believe that at least part of the problem in Chechnya can
    be traced back to the massive drug production that is going on
    in Afghanistan today, and the drug money that is being produced
    there is having its impact throughout Central Asia.
        Although I do think, of course, we have to be tough on our
    Russian friends not to have a ``scorched earth'' policy, we
    also must understand that the Chechens themselves could well
    have sources of money coming from Afghanistan and this drug
    money.
        So we should be a force for peace. We should be a force for
    stability in the region. I appreciate that is the purpose of
    this resolution and will support it. But again, I think that
    this Administration has got to understand that their current
    policy in Afghanistan is having very serious repercussions, and
    this is one of them.
        Let me again state for the record that the response of this
    Administration for well over a year, for the documents that I
    requested concerning Afghanistan has not been--they have not
    been forthcoming. They have been obstructionist. Even to this
    date, even after a very contentious hearing in which this issue
    was vocalized, they still have not come forward with the
    documents that I have been looking for for well over a year.
        So I assume, and I am assuming, that what we are facing
    here in Chechnya could well be just another off-shoot of the
    failed policy in Afghanistan, or should we say, the
    Administration's policy of Afghanistan coming to its natural
    conclusion.
        So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith has an amendment at the desk.
        The clerk will read the amendment.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. En bloc amendment offered by Mr. Smith, page
    2, in the first----
        Mr. Smith. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
    considered as read.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, these are just perfecting
    amendments, some recommendations that have been made by our
    embassy in Moscow by Ambassador Collins, and by both majority
    and minority staffs. I do think it just tightens and makes what
    I hope was a good resolution even better. I urge the adoption.
        Mr. Gejdenson. We have no objection.
        Chairman Gilman. All those in favor of the amendment
    signify in the usual manner.
        Opposed?
        The amendment is carried.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Just if I could announce to the Members that we
    are still hoping to have a vote on the Smith-Gejdenson
    language, the legislation on sex trafficking. So if Members
    could stick around, we do need a quorum to report it out. It is
    a matter of if and not when--when and not if. So we hope to get
    this as soon as possible. As soon as we have the quorum, the
    roll call will occur, if that is OK by you.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Yes, Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I am not trying to cutoff anybody's ability
    to speak here, I would suggest if maybe we could limit it to 5
    minutes on each side on each proposition, so if you have an
    amendment, you have a point of order, you get 5 minutes on each
    side, so we can just get through these. Because what I am
    afraid of is, we will lose our time.
        So unless there is objection, I ask unanimous consent----
        Mr. Bereuter. I object.
        Chairman Gilman. Objection is heard.
        Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
    requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on
    the suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. As amended. The question is on the motion
    of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the
    motion, say aye.
        As many as are opposed----
        The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.
        Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
        Chairman Gilman. We will now proceed to H.Con.Res. 222, the
    concurrent resolution condemning the assassination of the
    Armenian Prime Minister and other Armenian Government
    officials.
        The Chair lays a resolution before the Committee.
        The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. H.Con.Res. 222, a resolution condemning the
    assassination of Armenia Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian and
    other officials of the Armenian Government and expressing the
    sense of the Congress in mourning this tragic loss of the duly
    elected leadership of Armenia.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the preamble and
    operative language of the resolution will be read in that order
    for amendment.
        The clerk will read.
        Ms. Bloomer. Whereas on October 27, 1999, several armed
    individuals broke into Armenia's Parliament and assassinated
    the Prime Minister of Armenia, Vazgen Sargsian, the Chairman of
    the Armenian Parliament, Karen Demirchian----
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
    considered as having been read and is open to amendment at this
    point.
        The resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full
    Committee.
        I support this resolution introduced by Congressman Rogan
    of California, which is identical to the language of the
    resolution introduced by a bipartisan group of Members of the
    Senate, which I hope will have the support of our colleagues on
    this Committee and in the House as a whole. The killings that
    took place in Armenia on October 27th were deplorable.
        While the perpetrators claimed to be acting on October 27th
    on behalf of the Armenian people, their means of acting, the
    murders of top officials, is not the way to build true
    democracy in Armenia or in any other such struggling nation.
        This resolution properly calls for the trial of those
    accused of those murders. Of course, they should indeed have
    their day in court so that all Armenians can better understand
    their motives. That should be as much a part of democracy in
    Armenia as it is here, but they should, and I am sure will,
    face a thorough prosecution.
        True democracy is not created by such senseless atrocities.
    Armenia faces serious difficulties, not just the academic and
    political difficulties that face all the states of the former
    Soviet Union, but also the need for peaceful resolution of the
    conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan that has been merely
    suspended by a cease-fire for the past 5 years.
        The murders of top officials in Armenia did not help that
    small nation resolve those serious problems, but the adoption
    of this resolution by the House may be helpful by making it
    clear to the Armenian people that our Nation continues to
    support democracy in their nation and opposes such acts of
    terrorism. Accordingly, I fully support the resolution.
        Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I join with you in supporting
    this resolution. One of the reasons I wanted a markup in the
    Committee is to have the Committee clearly on record in support
    of democracy in Armenia. The Armenian people have suffered so
    much since the genocide earlier in the 1900's, and suffered
    under Soviet control. They now have their own democracy, and
    all of us are saddened to see this brutal and senseless act.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
        Are any other Members seeking recognition?
        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich.
        Mr. Radonovich. I do have a statement for the record. For
    the sake of time, I would like to submit it into the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich appears in the
    appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the statement will be
    made a part of the record.
        Is any other Member seeking recognition?
        If not, I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
    Bereuter, to offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. I move the Chairman be requested to seek
    consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension
    calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of gentleman
    from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion, say aye.
        As many as are opposed, say no.
        The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to.
        Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
        Chairman Gilman. We will now proceed to H.Con.Res. 211, a
    concurrent resolution expressing the strong support of the
    Congress for the recently concluded elections in the Republic
    of India.
        The Chair now lays a resolution before the Committee.
        The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. H.Con.Res. 211, a resolution expressing the
    strong support of the Congress for the recently concluded
    elections in the Republic of India and urging the President to
    travel to India.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the preamble and
    operative language of the resolution will be read, in that
    order, for amendment.
        The clerk will read.
        Ms. Bloomer. Whereas the Republic of India is a long-
    standing parliamentary democracy----
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the resolution is
    considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any
    point.
        This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia
    and the Pacific and was reported without amendment.
        Who seeks recognition?
        Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and
    be able to yield to the rest of my time to Mr. Ackerman.
        The most populous democracy on this planet is an important
    friend to the United States. We need to continue to develop
    this relationship beyond the geopolitical considerations of the
    region. Both from the institutional point of two great
    democracies to the economic opportunities for the many Indian
    citizens who are a strong part of American society, it is
    critical for us to recognize and to build on what is already a
    very important relationship.
        I again, as I have said before, am privileged to hold a
    seat that Chester Bowles had, one of our greatest Ambassadors
    to India, serving two terms there, in helping establish a very
    solid foundation under one of our most important relationships.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Asia and Pacific
    Subcommittee marked up this legislation October 27th and
    unanimously approved it.
        The resolution rightly congratulates the people of India on
    a successful election where over 350 million people cast their
    ballots. The reelection of Prime Minister Vajpayee reflects a
    vibrant multiparty system where parties with strongly differing
    views can compete in a way that is uniquely Indian. We
    certainly wish the Vajpayee party and its ruling coalition well
    as it prepares to lead the country.
        The resolution offered by our distinguished colleague, Mr.
    Ackerman, rightly alludes to this strategic relationship
    between the U.S. and India. We certainly have such a strategic
    relationship today, just as we have strategic relationships
    with many other countries, and we look forward to improved
    relations.
        I urge adoption.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and
    your staff on the Committee for agreeing to consider my
    resolution this afternoon. I also want to thank Mr. Gejdenson
    and Mr. Lantos for cosponsoring the resolution.
        The contrasting events in India and Pakistan over a single
    24-hour period speak eloquently about the new challenges and
    opportunities that we face in South Asia. In India, we have
    seen hundreds of millions of voters enthusiastically exercise
    their votes in a free and fair election. In Pakistan, we
    witnessed a military coup.
        This resolution, Mr. Chairman, recognizes that the people
    of India have a deep and abiding commitment to democracy, and
    it salutes them for the passion with which they choose their
    own destiny.
        No country reflects their own values more in that part of
    the world than India. It is high time we seriously begin to
    recognize this fact, and graduate from near-platitudes to some
    tangible policy changes toward India. I believe it is time to
    reexamine our basic premise regarding U.S. policy in South
    Asia.
        We should abandon the old paradigms and Cold War hang-ups
    and see that India, a democracy, is our natural ally in the
    region. The best way to demonstrate our commitment to the
    people of India is by ensuring that the President travels to
    India as soon as possible.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        I support this resolution and I agree with my good friend
    Mr. Ackerman that this is very symbolic in that India had free
    elections, and within a very short period of time, we see a
    military regime being imposed on the people of Pakistan. It is
    incumbent on the people of the United States and on us to again
    and again reaffirm to the people of the world that we are in
    favor of democracy, we are in favor of the democratic process,
    and that this resolution is very timely in that regard.
        I do disagree with my good friend Mr. Ackerman that we had
    Cold War hang-ups. Let us remember during the Cold War, India
    sided with the Soviet Union time and time again, and condemned
    the United States time and time again. Now, the Cold War is
    over, we should move forward with a better relationship with
    India, but let us not just call them Cold War hang-ups.
        It is not a Cold War hang-up to be upset with someone who
    is refusing to condemn the Russians for all of their vicious,
    imperialistic and militaristic activities while condemning the
    United States for any of its imperfections, which was India's
    standard procedure in those days.
        Additionally, let me say this: I think India and the United
    States can, in this post-Cold War world, reach a new and better
    relationship because of the threat of China, which threatens
    the peace for both of our countries.
        Finally, we need to go on record to make sure that India
    knows having free elections is good, but they should let free
    elections determine what the outcome will be in Kashmir. If
    they would agree to that, they would agree to allowing the
    people of Kashmir to have a free and democratic election, we
    could have that problem done with--but they haven't permitted
    that for all of these years.
        So I support the resolution. I think we have to go after
    this in a very thoughtful manner. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Gilman. Any other Members seeking recognition? Mr.
    Brown.
        Mr. Brown. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I also rise in strong support of the resolution. I would
    like, if appropriate, to ask the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Ackerman, if I could add my name to the list of cosponsors. I
    also applaud the people of India, 350 million strong, for the
    greatest turnout for any election in the world--in the history
    of the world.
        I also applaud the government of India and, more
    importantly, the people of India for the fact that during their
    series of elections in the last 5 or 6 years and their change
    in governments, that the government has enjoyed stability, and
    the country has enjoyed stability through all of that. Even
    with the immense amount of upheaval there has been in the
    subcontinent of Sri Lanka and the domestic problems there and
    the coup in Pakistan, India has continued to move forward.
        So I ask my colleagues for support of the resolution.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
        Any other Members seeking recognition?
        I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
    the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee for sending this important
    measure to the Full Committee.
        I commend Mr. Ackerman, who is Co-chairman of the Indian
    Caucus, and Mr. Bereuter, the distinguished Chairman of our
    Subcommittee, for their leadership and expertise in crafting
    this appropriate measure.
        The President recently waived some of the economic
    sanctions against India. Last week, Mr. Gejdenson and I sent a
    letter to the President urging he waive the last remaining
    economic sanction against India. That sanction requires that
    the U.S. impose international financial institution loans to
    India. These loans are critically needed for infrastructure
    projects in the poorest areas of India. In addition, waiver of
    these loans will benefit U.S. companies who want to work on
    those projects.
        India recently went through its third general election in 3
    years. That election started September 5th, and it ended
    October 4th. The process took about a month, because there were
    some 600 million voters and thousands of polling stations
    spread throughout the huge nation. But it was an orderly
    process, even though it was such a mammoth undertaking.
        Our mutual faith in the rule of law, the process of
    democracy and a deep respect for the world's different
    religious traditions are what tie our two people so closely
    together, and it is due to these similar core values that India
    and our Nation see eye to eye on so many regional concerns.
        China's hegemony, the spread of Islamic terrorism, spilling
    out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, the DeMarco dictatorship and the
    occupation of Tibet are all serious matters and will only be
    resolved by the team work of leaders of our two nations working
    closely together. The close relationship with India is long
    overdue.
        Again, I commend both the distinguished Chairman of the
    Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, and the
    distinguished Co-chairman of the India Caucus, our leader on
    India issues, Congressman Ackerman, for crafting this measure.
    I urge our colleagues to support this measure.
        Any other Member seeking recognition?
        If there is no other Member seeking recognition, I call on
    Mr. Bereuter for a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
    requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on
    the suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. All in favor of the resolution by Mr.
    Bereuter, signify in the usual manner.
        Opposed.
        So be it. The resolution is adopted.
        Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
        A brief pause while we count for a quorum.
        Chairman Gilman. We will now go to H.Con.Res. 200, relating
    to Pakistan.
        The Chair lays a resolution before the Committee.
        The clerk will the report the title of the resolution.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. H.Con.Res. 200, a resolution expressing the
    strong opposition of Congress to the military coup in Pakistan
    and calling for a civilian democratically elected government to
    be returned to power in Pakistan.
        Chairman Gilman. This resolution was considered by the
    Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and was reported from that
    Subcommittee.
        Without objection, the Subcommittee recommendation shall be
    considered as the original text for the purposes of amendment.
        Without objection, the preamble and operative language of
    the Subcommittee recommendation will be read, in that order,
    for amendment.
        The clerk will read.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Whereas the United States has a vital interest
    in promoting stability in South----
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection the Subcommittee's
    recommendation is considered as having been read and open for
    amendment at any point.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. By unanimous consent, we will now go back
    to the sexual trafficking bill, since we have a quorum present.
        The measure is now before the Committee.
        The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for a motion on
    the resolution.
        Mr. Bereuter. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee be
    deemed to have adopted an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute consisting of the text of the bill as amended by the
    Committee.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
    report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the
    bill do pass.
        Chairman Gilman. A motion has been made by Mr. Bereuter.
        All those in favor, signify in the usual manner.
        Opposed.
        The bill is passed.
        We will now return to the Pakistan measure.
        Mr. Smith. I have an amendment at the desk in the nature of
    a substitute.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that
    the Chairman of the Subcommittee be heard on the Pakistan
    legislation.
        Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman withhold?
        Mr. Gejdenson. I will be happy to withhold. I would hope we
    would return after the vote if we run out of time.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. My comments are quite likely to be quite
    lengthy, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Continue until we run out of the time.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, H.Con.Res. 200 was marked by the Subcommittee
    on Asia and Pacific on October 27----
        Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman withhold? We have a
    very important measure after this, so please return so we can
    complete our work. We are near the end of our considerations.
        Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        Chairman Gilman. A point of order by Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Burton. I would just like to make a point of order that
    a lot of the Members are leaving to go vote on the Floor, and I
    think what Mr. Bereuter is going to say on this very important
    resolution needs to be heard by as many as possible. So I would
    urge that we wait until we come back.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, we will put off the
    discussion on this measure until the vote is over. I urge all
    Members to return.
        The Committee stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
        The Chair would like to clarify that a quorum was present
    when the motion to report the previous bill was disposed of.
        Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized
    to make motions under rule 22 with respect to a conference on
    or a counterpart from the Senate relating to H.R. 3244. Without
    objection, the Chief of Staff is empowered to make technical
    and grammatical conforming amendments to the text of H.R. 3244.
        Mr. Bereuter is recognized.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, are we back on H.Con.Res. 200
    then?
        Chairman Gilman. Yes, we are. Please proceed, Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, this resolution was marked up
    on October 27th, passed by voice vote as amended by an
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. The resolution
    expresses a great concern regarding the impact of the coup upon
    democracy in Pakistan and upon relations in South Asia,
    particularly India-Pakistani relations.
        The amended H.Con.Res. 200 calls for the President to
    withhold consideration of arms sales or equipment or provisions
    of military services until civilian government is reinstated.
    However, it keeps intact our very limited IMET links with
    Pakistan.
        Currently, only two mid-level Pakistani officers are
    receiving any form of U.S. education. There are no Pakistani
    officers receiving IMET at the present time.
        The amended H.Con.Res. 200 also calls upon General
    Musharraf to immediately release a timetable for returning
    power in Pakistan to a civilian, democratically elected
    government. We remain concerned that General Musharraf has not
    yet presented a timetable but somewhat encouraged that he has
    appointed civilians to the National Security Council and has
    formed a cabinet dominated by civilians.
        I would urge that the amendment, without further
    amendments--that the resolution without further amendments be
    adopted. I yield back.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson has an amendment. The clerk
    will read the amendment.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state his point of
    order.
        Mr. Bereuter. I am just reserving a point of order at this
    point, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's reservation will be heard
    at a later date.
        Ms. Bloomer. Amendment in the nature of a substitute
    offered by Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Brown.
        Amend the preamble----
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment be
    considered as read.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman asks unanimous consent the
    amendment be considered as having been read without objection.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on the
    amendment.
        The clerk will distribute the amendment.
        Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This amendment simply restores the resolution to its
    original construct. If there was a debate in the Congress as to
    whether or not a watered-down version or the original version
    ought to pass, let me read to you from the New York Times of
    November 4th. This is General Musharraf and his assessment of
    his coup. ``I was surprised,'' the news agency quoted him as
    saying. ``The reaction was more mild than I expected.''
        Well, let me tell you something. The last thing we want to
    do is tell every fledgling democracy out there that if they
    have got trouble the solution is to have a military coup. We
    want to see that democratic institutions are supported.
        If there are problems in government of corruption or other
    issues, then there ought to be reform of their judicial system;
    there ought to be reform of their legislative system; there
    ought to be reform of the executive branch of government. But
    for this Congress, the greatest democracy in the world, to send
    any other message but a clear message that simply states that
    America's relationship with Pakistan hinges on a restoration of
    democratic institutions, not promising us they are going to be
    democratic institutions, not sending a time line for democratic
    institutions, especially when you look at the history here, but
    having democratic institutions.
        I thank my colleagues. I don't want to take up their time.
    This is the original resolution which I believe has broad
    support and clearly states what the American people believe.
        Mr. Bereuter. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gejdenson. I will be happy to yield.
        Mr. Bereuter. Do we have the substitute before us? I am
    looking through my piles of paper, and I can't find it.
        Mr. Gejdenson. If the gentleman doesn't have a copy,
    somebody is bringing you another copy.
        Mr. Bereuter. Could you explain to me and other Members
    exactly what your amendment does, as compared to the amended
    text we reported out?
        Mr. Gejdenson. In the amended text, in a number of
    instances, in my opinion, and I know the gentleman did this
    earnestly, it frankly waters down condemnation of the coup and
    puts in language that doesn't clearly state what I think the
    American people believe is the right policy for the United
    States.
        We ought not simply allow this coup to go by without
    clearly stating that we condemn the coup and that we want the
    sanctions to be in place until there are democratic
    institutions back, in fact, in Pakistan.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Gejdenson, would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gejdenson. I will be happy to yield.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you. I am going to be looking at this
    as quickly as possible.
        Perhaps some other Members will want to claim time at this
    point.
        Mr. Cooksey [presiding]. Who seeks recognition?
        Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Burton. I don't disagree with my colleague from
    Connecticut that we want to see democratic institutions
    reinstalled into Pakistan as quickly as possible, but as a
    practical matter it can't be done tomorrow. It is going to
    probably take a few months to organize a plebiscite or a
    referendum, and that is why I think the Chairman of the
    Subcommittee and I and others, when we talked about this,
    thought 6 months would be a reasonable period of time within
    which to demand, if you will, that Pakistan have a plebiscite
    or have a referendum on the government that is now in power,
    the military government.
        Another thing I think we ought to consider is the very
    touchy situation that exists in that part of the world right
    now.
        Pakistan and India have been at brink of war for a long
    time, and the first steps away from the brink of war took place
    after this military government took power just recently. This
    general has withdrawn the troops from the Kashmiri border up
    there, and he has also reached out to the Indian government to
    try to start a dialogue that will lead to a permanent peace--at
    least what we hope to be a permanent peace.
        I think right now for us to pass a resolution, being the
    only superpower in the world, so to speak, it would send a
    signal maybe to India and maybe to some of the adversaries of
    Pakistan, from inside as well as outside, that we want to see
    them out or overthrown immediately. That is why I thought a
    more reasonable resolution should be acceptable at this point.
    That is saying that we want them to do something within 6
    months to restore a civil government, a democratically elected
    government, to power.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Burton. Yes, I will in just 1 second.
        I think it would provide a feeling of stability in that
    region, because of the detente, if you will, between India and
    Pakistan at the present time. It would serve to put a little
    oil on the water while all of this is taking place.
        So I would urge my colleagues to accept the recommendations
    of the Chairman of the Subcommittee because I think that
    language sends a very strong message, but it is not
    inflammatory to the degree that it might upset the balance of
    power over there.
        I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I appreciate the gentleman's concerns.
        I would say two things. One is, to the contrary of the
    gentleman's assessment that this might last 6 months, General
    Musharraf has said that he is not putting down any kind of time
    line, so we don't know how long the military would maintain
    control.
        I think, again, if we can just take ourselves out of this
    situation for one moment and think what message you want to
    send to all the countries that were once part of the Soviet
    Union that are having trouble with corruption--that are having
    problems in the court systems, that are having problems in
    their economy--do we want to tell them that the Congress of the
    United States thinks it is appropriate to have a coup to fix
    the system? I don't think so.
        Mr. Burton. If I can reclaim my time, let me just say that
    nothing in the resolution, as amended, by the Chairman of the
    Subcommittee condones or approves of the military government,
    that now exists or the way they took over.
        What we tried to do, what the Chairman tried to do, was to
    make sure that while we were, in effect, demanding that there
    be a return to civil government, that it be done in such a way
    as to ensure the stability of the region, and I think this does
    this.
        You are not going to be able to change the situation
    overnight. While the general over there may say he is not going
    to accept any time line, it certainly won't hurt for us to put
    one in the resolution. I think we do that with this resolution.
    I think it is one that will send a very strong signal, and it
    is something that is do-able.
        You cannot force them to change that government overnight.
    Even if they were going to return to democracy, it is going to
    take time to set up the mechanism to do that. So I think 6
    months is a reasonable length of time, and I think the
    Chairman's substitute is the right approach.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Cooksey. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Brown. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I rise in support of the Gejdenson Amendment, as co-author
    of the amendment. I think this Committee needs to, as my
    colleague from Connecticut said, send a strong and unequivocal
    message that the U.S. is not in the business of supporting
    military dictatorships. We don't do it in Burma. We don't do it
    in North Korea. We shouldn't do it in Pakistan.
        No matter how unpopular he was, Prime Minister Sharif was
    elected by the people of Pakistan, and if General Musharraf is
    unhappy with his prime minister, he should have resigned his
    military commission and entered the political arena. That is
    the belief that people in this institution have. That is why
    the language in the Gejdenson Amendment should be adopted, the
    language restoring the language of the original bill.
        I think Mr. Gejdenson's statement quoting General Musharraf
    that reaction was more mild than he expected tells us
    everything. If reaction is more mild than he expected and we
    continue that mild reaction from this Committee and from this
    Congress, from the floor of the House, then we are sending a
    message to potential dictators, to people that are thinking of
    launching coups against democratically elected governments, we
    are sending the message to them that, well, we won't object too
    much in this institution--other world leaders won't object too
    much if there is a coup.
        Now, there is nowhere in the Pakistani constitution that I
    can see that says you give them 6 months before they need to
    restore democratic rule. If you give them 6 months, it helps
    them consolidate their military rule. Where are they as a
    nation? Where are they as a democracy?
        Also, I might add, in the language of the amendment, under
    no circumstances should taxpayers in this country be asked to
    provide training and assistance to the same Pakistani military
    that just deposed its civilian-elected government.
        I ask my colleagues to support the Gejdenson Amendment
    because it restores the original language, and it does, in
    fact, say that Americans condemn this kind of military action
    against a democratically elected government.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Cooksey. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. I would like to be recognized in opposition
    to the Gejdenson Amendment, but perhaps we can find some common
    ground here.
        Mr. Cooksey. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bereuter. I believe there are only four subsections
    where there is a difference between the resolution reported
    from the Subcommittee and the gentleman's substitute.
        The first two, the gentleman restores language, condemns
    instead of expresses concerns, expresses grave concern. This is
    a matter of degree, and I can understand the gentleman's point
    of view, and this is not worth arguing over as far as I am
    concerned. The gentleman may be right that it is appropriate to
    condemn.
        But when you look at subsection 4, Mr. Gejdenson, your
    language calls for the immediate restoration of civilian,
    democratically elected government. You know that is not going
    to happen. There is no possibility for that to happen, even if
    the general would decide to walk away from the situation.
        So what we did, I thought, was a reasonable kind of
    suggestion, where we can give them some room to come back as
    quickly as possible.
        So we have rapid restoration, and I think, accepting a
    suggestion from Mr. Ackerman, we said including immediate
    release of a timetable for restoration of democracy and rule of
    law.
        I think that is a reasonable approach. You know perfectly
    well that calling for immediate restoration is only rhetoric.
    It cannot----
        Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bereuter. I would ask the gentleman to reconsider that,
    and I would move to the fourth point, but I would yield to the
    gentleman.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I am not sure it is rhetoric, but I am
    willing to try to work with the gentleman. Let's go to the
    fourth point and see what the package looks like.
        Mr. Bereuter. The fourth point the gentleman had already
    agreed to, but backing away from it because of perhaps a
    concern about the amendments that were made by this Member in
    Committee, with some suggestions from your side of the aisle. I
    believe that any time you cut-off IMET, you are hurting our
    interests, our national interests. This is a very limited
    opportunity to try to have influence on their military. At
    times when we have made the mistake of cutting off IMET funds
    for a country, no matter how legitimate our concern was, we
    lost contact with a whole generation of military people, and we
    have oftentimes paid the price for that lack of contact.
        So the gentleman, perhaps reluctantly, before we started
    the markup in the Subcommittee, I recall, agreed that he would
    be willing to drop the ending of IMET.
        So if we could have the timetable, the rapid restoration
    and a restoration of IMET, I can understand how the gentleman
    might want to say condemn.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Well, the gentleman asks for a little too
    much. I mean, I would love to work something out with the
    gentleman and not take up everybody's time, but I think the
    timetable alone is not the answer here. I mean, I could put
    several timetables in place, and I guess at that point every
    timetable I put in place would keep me in the good stead of the
    gentleman from Nebraska.
        Mr. Bereuter. I reclaim my time and would just say that the
    gentleman's language does not do anything except make us feel
    good and expresses our great concern because he asks for the
    immediate restoration. You know that is impossible.
        Mr. Gejdenson. If the gentleman would maybe suspend for a
    moment----
        Mr. Bereuter. I would yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Gejdenson [continuing]. Allow some of the other Members
    to express themselves, maybe we can get counsel together and
    see if we can come up with some language. Frankly, I have been
    frustrated by the resistance to this proposal, but I am always
    trying to work something out with the Member from Nebraska,
    whom I have great respect for. So maybe the gentleman can
    suspend and the staffs can see if we can work something out.
        Mr. Bereuter. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
    Did you ask me to yield or who was that? I yield to the
    gentleman from New Jersey.
        Mr. Rothman. I thank the gentleman.
        I am trying to think of the appropriate analogy for the
    gentleman from Nebraska with regard to the immediate language
    versus the rapid restoration. It is as if somebody broke into
    your home and stole something from you and then fenced the
    goods. The question is: What do you ask of the person? Do you
    ask for a rapid return or the immediate return?
        Now, obviously the person who fenced your stolen goods,
    after he stole them from your home, will not be able to
    immediately return it to you, but there is a certain power in
    demanding for immediate restoration of your own rights.
        That is No. 1.
        No. 2, if we are to be the fosterers, if that is the word,
    of democracy, the supporters of democracy throughout the world,
    we have to let our colleagues know that after 220 years of
    experience we have something to teach them. In particular,
    democracies will go through tough times, perhaps ruled by
    tyrants and corrupt Administrations, as has been the case in
    our beloved history here in America, but nonetheless, we have
    never sanctioned or approved the overthrow of our government,
    other than by the peaceful transfer of power through an
    election. So I cannot see, while the gentleman makes a good
    point, that perhaps the immediate restoration is not possible.
    I think that it is, in fact, the appropriate language.
        The gentleman makes an interesting point with regard to
    IMET. Hopefully, you and the gentleman from Connecticut can
    work that out, but we need to send a clear message to all the
    fledgling democracies, and I say all of this with enormous
    regard and respect for the gentleman from Nebraska who I
    generally agree with.
        Chairman Gilman [presiding.] Mr. Bereuter's time has
    expired.
        Mr. Menendez.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As Mr. Gejdenson tries to work something out with Mr.
    Bereuter, I want to speak up for Mr. Gejdenson's substitute.
    The fact of the matter is that I think we run a great risk of
    sending a message throughout the world that it is OK to go
    ahead and have a military coup, and that we will sit here idly,
    as a country to which we have given so much military assistance
    and weapons, in essence uses that assistance to overthrow their
    own government, as well as to be potentially antagonistic to
    their neighbors.
        It is impossible to believe that if, God forbid, tomorrow
    we here in the Congress are overtaken by a military coup that
    we would want the rest of the free world to remain silent while
    that, was taking place. It is impossible to believe that the
    simple condemnation of the overthrow of a democratically
    elected government, in violation of its own constitution, and
    the suspension of that constitution, and the dismissal of its
    national government is so objectionable, particularly given the
    grave concerns that we have for security and stability in South
    Asia. Mr. Chairman, can I have order, please? I can't hear
    myself.
        Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order, please,
    so the gentleman can be heard.
        Mr. Menendez, have you completed your statement?
        Mr. Menendez. Let me just simply say that it seems to me we
    have a double standard being advocated here. We continuously
    speak out against military coups in all parts of the world, and
    we clearly should be saying that there will be no further
    military armament sales to a country that has defied all of its
    own constitutional standards, not to mention our own beliefs
    and what we promote throughout the world.
        We should support Mr. Gejdenson's substitute, and I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
        Mr. Delahunt.
        Mr. Delahunt. I move the question.
        Chairman Gilman. That is out of order at the moment.
        Mr. Delahunt. Then I would just like to speak then, if I
    could.
        Chairman Gilman. We have two other speakers. Yes, Mr.
    Delahunt.
        Mr. Delahunt. Well, I just would like to suggest that in
    terms of stability in the subcontinent and the relationship
    between India and Pakistan, it was the former prime minister
    who was the target of the coup who initiated cross-diplomacy,
    who initiated efforts in terms of a detente, if you will, a
    rapprochement between India and Pakistan. It is also my
    understanding that it was the Pakistani military that roundly
    criticized the former Prime Minister Sharif, and that clearly
    was a factor in the equation that led to the coup. So, if we
    are interested in the relationship between Pakistan and India,
    we should condemn Pakistan and this military coup d'etat in the
    strongest possible terms, and I support the Gejdenson
    Amendment.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the effort
    in Committee to water down this resolution in the first place,
    and I certainly agree with Mr. Gejdenson that we must use the
    strongest possible terms to not only condemn but also to set a
    course for American foreign policy, especially when a
    democratically elected government is overthrown by a military
    power.
        I will go very quickly, Mr. Gejdenson, because I know you
    have reached your compromise and I will be supporting that
    compromise--no, you haven't? I am supporting Mr. Gejdenson,
    even if he didn't reach a compromise, but let me be very
    specific on one item here.
        This military regime has not even gone so far as to
    announce the date of a plebiscite. If they believe that they
    have the will of the people behind them and that they have this
    overwhelming corruption that mandated their interference with
    the democratic process, at the very least they needed to go to
    the people and have the people give them some kind of a
    recognition of that. We believe that the government derives its
    just powers from the consent of the governed, and if they do
    not have that consent of the governed, at least in the form of
    a plebiscite, what we face in Pakistan is nothing more than a
    group of gangsters with guns overthrowing a democratically
    elected government.
        Now, again, if they announce within the next month that
    they are going to have a plebiscite to justify so the public
    will have an up-and-down vote on this, then maybe we can come
    back and look again at what our policy should be. But until
    that moment and until there is a vote, it is incumbent upon us
    to say stability is not the factor, but freedom and justice--
    and the very heart of our value system in the United States
    demands that we take another position rather than stability.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that India,
    again, India has not used the ballot box to solve the problem
    in the Kashmir, and I don't want people to forget this. I have
    been a big supporter of Pakistan on that issue, but the fact is
    today we side with the people of Pakistan when we side with
    democracy, and let the people of Pakistan make their own
    determination as to who their government will be.
        So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me say how much I appreciate the remarks of the
    gentleman from California on this issue.
        I have a formal statement that I will make in a couple of
    seconds, but just a couple of points that need clearing up, I
    believe.
        First of all, General Musharraf has already gone on record
    on BBC that he is not going to have a plebiscite. So for those
    people that are hanging their hopes on the notion that he is
    going to have a plebiscite any time soon, you should know that
    by his own statement he is not.
        In addition to that, it should be noted, although a
    technicality, for the record, that former deposed Prime
    Minister Sharif had said that they were going to withdraw the
    troops from the line of control. General Musharraf,
    nonetheless, has withdrawn them to the international border.
    They are still right up against the line of control.
        So that is not accurate, either.
        We seem to be wishy-washy here for some reason, and I don't
    know why. You have a military coup that overthrew a
    democratically elected government, regardless of what one might
    have thought of the government, and the generals have taken
    power.
        I am generally in favor of IMET in almost every single
    circumstance, and that is why military leaders from other
    countries come here--so we can teach them how to act
    democratically. Why on earth, in this case, would we seek to
    legitimize the generals on the other side who overthrew the
    government, usurped civilian authority and are now the
    government? Then we are going to say as a reward for them
    overthrowing the civilian government we are going to teach them
    how to get along with the population? It is an air of
    legitimacy that we should not be giving them.
        I think this has been a very, very good debate, and I would
    hope that our friends on the other side, some of whom have
    spoken and some of whom have left, would not be attempting to
    deny us a quorum so that we could proceed to this vote at the
    appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, because that also would be a
    thwarting of the democratic process.
        Let us have the vote, whichever way it turns out, and abide
    by the process.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. I would like to ask unanimous consent that my
    prepared statement be inserted in the record.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerman appears in the
    appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. The question is now on the Gejdenson
    Amendment. All those in favor, signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
        The Gejdenson amendment is carried.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I ask for a record vote.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson asks for a record vote.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state his point of
    order.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that a quorum
    is not present.
        I just want my colleagues to know that I heard what Mr.
    Ackerman had to say. There are other issues that we need to
    cooperate on.
        So I withdraw my point of order. I withdraw my reservation.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman withdraws his point of order
    and withdraws his reservation. The question is on the Gejdenson
    Amendment. Roll call. All in favor of a roll call, signify in
    the usual manner, raise their hands.
        A sufficient number. The clerk will call the roll on the
    Gejdenson Amendment.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman.
        Chairman Gilman. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
        Mr. Goodling.
        [no response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
        [no response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. No.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
        Mr. Smith.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burton.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
        Mr. Ballenger.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
        Mr. Manzullo.
        [no response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. King.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich.
        Mr. Radanovich. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich votes yes.
        Mr. Cooksey.
        Mr. Cooksey. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Cooksey votes yes.
        Mr. Tancredo.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
        Mr. Lantos.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Berman votes yes.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Martinez.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
        Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brown votes yes.
        Ms. McKinney.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner.
        Ms. Danner. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner votes yes.
        Mr. Hilliard.
        Mr. Hilliard. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
        Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
        Mr. Wexler.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman.
        Mr. Rothman. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
        Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Davis votes yes.
        Mr. Pomeroy.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.
        Mr. Delahunt.
        Mr. Delahunt. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.
        Mr. Meeks.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee votes yes.
        Mr. Crowley.
        Mr. Crowley. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
        Mr. Hoeffel.
        Mr. Hoeffel. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.
        Chairman Gilman. The clerk will call the absentees.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Goodling.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Aye.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Smith votes yes.
        Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger.
        Mr. Ballenger. No.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. King.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Tancredo.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Lantos.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Faleomavaega.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Martinez.
        Mr. Martinez. No.
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Martinez votes no.
        Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Ms. McKinney.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Wexler.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks.
        [No response.]
        Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report the tally.
        Ms. Bloomer. On this vote, there were 21 ayes and 4 noes.
        Chairman Gilman. The amendment is agreed to.
        The question is on the----
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized on the
    resolution, as amended?
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes
    on the resolution, as amended.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There are matters of degree and matters of concern. We have
    had a good debate on these issues. I happen to disagree with
    the emphasis on the one item in particular, but I always will
    have to vote no on stopping IMET.
        IMET always has a positive effect, almost always, on all
    the people that train in this country, and I want it to be
    known that my vote against the resolution as now amended will
    be because of what you have done to IMET.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bereuter. Yes, I yield. I would yield to the gentleman
    from California.
        Mr. Berman. I have tended to agree with that proposition,
    but watching events in Indonesia over the past 4 months--and I
    understand that IMET was massively restricted, but we still had
    an IMET Program--this did not seem like an army that respected
    civilian rights or even command and control from the top. I say
    that sincerely. It seems to me that there were examples of
    people who were the beneficiaries of IMET who, in terms of
    their conduct at that particular time, will not demonstrate----
        Mr. Bereuter. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Berman, I would just
    like to remind the gentleman, I believe I am correct on this,
    that IMET Program, which we revised to E-IMET to emphasize more
    human rights, had been stopped, and our military was criticized
    for therefore instituting something else or a training program
    without authorization or without specific notice to the
    Congress. But I believe that the E-IMET Program and IMET
    Program had been stopped some time ago. I yield back.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is on agreeing to the
    Subcommittee recommendations.
        Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Burton. I don't know whether we have a quorum or not,
    but I would like to make a point of order that a quorum is not
    present, and we can take a count.
        Chairman Gilman. We will suspend, and the clerk----
        Mr. Ackerman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. What is the gentleman's point of order?
        Mr. Ackerman. I believe there is no vote pending, and
    therefore a motion that a quorum is not here is, I believe, not
    in order until a vote is requested.
        The last thing we did about 3 minutes ago was have a vote,
    and a quorum was present. Twenty-one and 4 is 25.
        Chairman Gilman. Let me resolve it. A quorum is present at
    the present time.
        The question is now on agreeing to the Subcommittee's
    recommendation in the nature of a substitute as amended. All in
    favor, say aye. All opposed, say no.
        The ayes have it.
        The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, is
    recognized to offer a motion.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration
    of the pending resolution, as amended, on the suspension
    calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
    gentlelady from Florida. As many as are in favor of the motion,
    say aye. As many as are opposed, say no.
        The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further
    proceedings on this measure are postponed.
        A quorum is present.
        We now proceed to H.Res. 169, referring to the Lao People's
    Democratic Republic, expressing the sense of the House relative
    to the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
        The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The
    clerk will report the title of the resolution.
        Ms. Bloomer. H.Res. 169, a resolution expressing the sense
    of the House of Representatives with respect to democracy, free
    elections, and human rights in the Lao People's Democratic
    Republic.
        Chairman Gilman. This resolution was considered by the
    Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, reported with an
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without objection, the
    Subcommittee recommendation will be considered as original text
    for the purposes of amendment. The preamble and operative
    language in the Subcommittee resolution will be read in that
    order for amendment. The clerk will read.
        Ms. Bloomer. Whereas, since the 1975 overthrow of the
    existing Royal Lao Government----
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the Subcommittee
    recommendation is considered as having been read, and is open
    to amendment at any point.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. I now recognize the distinguished
    gentleman from Nebraska, the Chairman of the Subcommittee of
    Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Bereuter, to introduce a resolution.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This resolution, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Vento,
    deserves support.
        It was cosponsored by a number of our colleagues, including
    our colleague, Mr. Radanovich, as I recall, and also Mr. Green,
    who is in attendance here, and other Members.
        The amendments were purely technical, changing the names of
    the ruling parties and convention dates and so on. The major
    concerns I would have relate to the possibility, as I
    understand it, that the resolution will be amended to
    incorporate provisions from House Resolution 332.
        I would like to call my colleagues' attention to a memo
    distributed to you earlier this afternoon dated October 28,
    1999. It was addressed to Chairman Gilman, and I think it is
    important that you understand the context of the resolution
    before us by understanding what House Resolution 332 would do.
        That one was introduced by Representative Mark Green and
    cosponsored by the chairman, dealing primarily with the issue
    of the disappearance in Laos last April of two Laotian-
    Americans, Michael Vang and Mr. Ly Houa. I am not sure about
    the pronunciation of that name.
        No trace of these men has yet been found. There have been
    allegations that these men were apprehended and killed by Lao
    authorities. If true, this would be a deeply disturbing
    development. The men are constituents of Mr. Green and Mr.
    Radanovich, who are, rightly, extremely concerned about their
    welfare.
        As a result of our own preliminary investigation, it would
    seem that there are a number of unresolved issues surrounding
    these men's disappearance. The incident remains the subject of
    an ongoing FBI investigation requested by the U.S. Ambassador
    to Laos at the time, Ms. Wendy Chamberlain.
        While the circumstances of these men's disappearance remain
    murky, there have been a number of unproven and frequently
    contradictory reports that suggest, alternatively, that these
    men ran afoul of drug traffickers that haunt the area of the
    Golden Triangle where they disappeared, or that they ran afoul
    of Lao military authorities while involved in cross-border
    insurgent activities, or even that they may have disappeared
    for their own reasons.
        I am told there are also reports that Mr. Vang and Mr. Houa
    may have been engaged in illegal activities at the time of
    their disappearance.
        The FBI continues to investigate. I am concerned because of
    the unpleasant history that exists between Ambassador
    Chamberlain and certain elements of the Lao-American community.
    Her offense, I am told, is that she reiterated longstanding
    U.S. policy that the United States does not support the violent
    overthrow of any nation with which it has diplomatic relations.
        Other Laotian-Americans seem to be angry at her for
    successfully expressing fraudulent claims for political asylum.
    In 1998, she received death threats prior to a speech to Hmong
    and Lao-Americans in Minnesota, and an individual was
    discovered carrying a hand grenade in the crowd.
        In a subsequent meeting with other Laotian-Americans in
    Denver, where she was ordered to go by her superiors in order
    to discuss matters with a more conservative group of Hmong and
    Lao-Americans, additional credible death threats were issued,
    and the FBI had to provide her protection.
        I have met with our former Ambassador, Ambassador
    Chamberlain. I think she took the steps necessary to
    investigate it. She realized it was far more complicated than
    her capacity, and you will find attached a chronology of events
    that took place.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Mr. Bereuter. In short, nothing about the circumstances of
    this case appears clear at this time. Many of the details are
    highly classified, involve sources and methods of intelligence.
        On the same day I sent this memo, I asked, by letter,
    Chairman Porter Goss of the Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence to assist us in investigating this matter.
        I hope my colleagues will support the Vento Amendment, but
    be very careful about how it might be amended. Certainly, I
    think that there can be some accommodations made to Members who
    are legitimately very concerned about their constituents and
    their families, especially in the upper Midwest but also in
    California. But we have to be careful that we don't do
    something quite unprecedented, condemning a specific member of
    our Foreign Service where it is not clear that she deserves
    that condemnation.
        In fact, I suspect she does not. I think she took all of
    the proper steps--when she is under death threat in this
    country. People have to learn who are refugees or citizens or
    are applying for citizenship. We don't do violence to our
    Ambassadors when they are asked to come and speak to us.
        So I urge my colleagues to be very careful about this
    resolution and stick with the Vento Resolution as presented to
    you. I thank my colleagues.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with my
    friend from Nebraska, who I think has a well-balanced view on
    this, and I would support his approach.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have to
    understand that the government of Laos is not a government of
    Laos. We just talked about what happened in Pakistan. We had
    all these voices, Mr. Gejdenson's voice the strongest of all,
    talking about the importance of democracy. Yet in Laos we have
    a vicious dictatorship that makes the military regime in
    Pakistan look like a Betty Crocker cooking class, for Pete's
    sake.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentleman yield for one moment?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I will just tell you, I agree with the
    gentleman's assessment that the situation there is terrible.
    What I am not able to conclude is how these two individuals
    disappeared, or what they were involved in doing.
        Now, there are lots of allegations. As a Member of
    Congress, I am hesitant to bring out every allegation until
    there is a lot more evidence about these two individuals, but I
    have not seen evidence----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. OK. That is fair.
        Mr. Gejdenson [continuing]. That, as bad as this government
    is, and I agree with that, that the government has done that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. OK.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I also am hesitant to just gratuitously
    attack American Ambassadors, and so I have those two basic
    problems with this bill.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time, let me make another
    point.
        Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I will be happy to do that after I make my
    point, Doug.
        Let us not give the benefit of doubt to some communist
    dictatorship in Laos while holding back the benefit of the
    doubt to two American citizens. The fact is, two American
    citizens have disappeared. They are not second-class citizens.
    They happen to have been born in another country, but they are
    not second-class citizens. They deserve every protection and
    every benefit of the doubt. Their government should move
    forward--assuming not that they are guilty of something, but
    assuming that they have not done something. We must not
    predicate our action on Laotians or other people who are going
    back into those areas that they may be doing something illegal.
    They have ties to their homeland.
        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state his point of
    order.
        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing an
    amendment that hasn't even been introduced yet. I would like
    the privilege of offering it before we discuss it.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
        Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. The gentleman's point is well taken, but I
    would be happy to yield to my good friend, Mr. Bereuter,
    because I know he has some points he needs to make.
        Mr. Bereuter. I will avoid discussing the amendment that
    may be offered--but hopefully won't. I would say to the
    gentleman I agree with his assessment of the Laotian
    government, as Mr. Gejdenson did.
        The important point, it seems to me, is that we should not,
    and do not, rely on the Laotian government and what they tell
    us, but we do, I think, have to give the benefit of the doubt
    when our own Foreign Service personnel, intelligence agencies
    and the FBI give us tentative reports at this point.
        I yield back and thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just say for the record, I have
    been misled, and I have been given information that was not
    complete information by people in various embassies throughout
    the world.
        I cannot assume any longer that when I got to the
    Philippines they really couldn't help arrange that trip to the
    Spratlys, that their plane really was broken down, and I had to
    get a flight on a C-130 from the Philippine Air Force instead.
    I am sorry. I think that, frankly, I would rather assume the
    best about my Laotian-American citizens who disappear, rather
    than just assume that there is some question, murky question,
    being risen someplace, which they don't want to go into detail,
    by some embassy personnel somewhere.
        No one is justifying any threat of violence against any
    person who works for the U.S. Government, any one of our
    Ambassadors. We will condemn that over and over again. Clearly,
    Mr. Radanovich and everyone else--if anyone, I don't care if
    they are Laotian-Americans or whatever, threatens violence
    against an American diplomat anywhere, we are going to come
    down hard on them. But in this specific case, let's not assume
    the worst about two American citizens until that is absolutely
    proven.
        They disappeared. Their families and their community and
    their friends are crying out for help from their government.
    They are getting what? They are getting a lot of, well, maybe
    this and maybe that.
        Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield again?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, sir, I certainly will.
        Mr. Bereuter. I thank the gentleman.
        The point I tried to make is that we don't know the facts.
    We deserve to have the facts before we act. That is the only
    point.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. With that, listen, let me just
    say, Doug Bereuter is a sincere person, and Mr. Gejdenson
    obviously is a sincere person, and we are trying to do our
    best. In this particular case, I think we have got to be strong
    and forceful, just like we were when talking about Pakistan a
    few moments ago. In this case, it is even worse because the
    lives of two American citizens are just being taken for
    granted.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Does any other Member seek recognition?
        Mr. Radanovich. I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer
    an amendment.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich has an amendment at the
    desk.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman will state his point of
    order.
        Mr. Bereuter. I am just reserving a point of order.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is entitled to reserve his
    point of order.
        The clerk will report the amendment and distribute it.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order as
    well.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
        Ms. Bloomer. Perfecting amendment offered by Mr.
    Radanovich. Add the following to the preamble: Whereas two
    United States citizens, Mr. Houa Ly, a resident of Appleton,
    Wisconsin, and Mr. Michael Vang, a resident of Fresno,
    California----
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as having been read.
        [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes
    on his amendment.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My perfecting amendment adds important information from a
    bill that Mr. Green of Wisconsin and I introduced last month, a
    bill that enjoyed ten original cosponsors, including you, Mr.
    Chairman, and Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Smith of this Committee.
    I believe that my amendment is a fair compromise and retains
    much of the original language of H.R. 169, while strengthening
    it significantly.
        I believe it is imperative that this bill address the case
    of two American citizens abducted in Laos last spring, a
    constituent of mine, Mr. Michel Vang of Fresno, California, and
    a constituent of Mr. Green's, Mr. Houa Ly of Appleton,
    Wisconsin.
        These two Hmong-American citizens were traveling along the
    border between Laos and Thailand in April of this year when
    they were seized by Lao Government authorities. Mr. Vang and
    Mr. Ly have not been heard from since.
        Now, normally when American citizens are abducted by
    another country, the State Department would condemn the action,
    warn the country of possible sanctions or even launch an
    independent investigation. However, our State Department's only
    and best response has been to coordinate an investigation in
    cooperation with Lao authorities.
        This cooperative approach was not meant to yield real
    results. Ironically, our State Department is working hard on
    Capitol Hill to garner support for normalized trade relations
    for Laos.
        My amendment to H.R. 169 keeps much needed pressure on both
    the Lao Government and the State Department to provide us with
    the truth. In my mind, NTR for Lao's should not be considered
    until this case is resolved, although NTR is not a part of this
    bill and their human rights record has been seriously
    addressed.
        My amendment to H.R. 169 emphasizes our dissatisfaction
    with the State Department's flawed investigative process. Our
    resolution calls on the Lao authorities to release all
    information about Mr. Vang and Mr. Ly immediately and discuss
    the serious consequences of acts of aggressions against
    American citizens.
        I believe that we would be remiss to take up a bill
    regarding human rights abuses in Laos and neglect to address
    the case of two American citizens abducted by Lao authorities.
    Again, I am sympathetic to the issue regarding Ambassador
    Chamberlain, but I would say that as the investigation is
    ongoing, the families who are also American citizens back here
    have no word at all about the fate of their husbands, whether
    they have been killed and, if so, by whom, which ought to be
    resolved immediately.
        We are talking about American citizens, and the families
    who are American citizens in this country have a right to know.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. I withdraw my point of order.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Ackerman withdraws his point of order.
        Are any other Members seeking recognition?
        Ms. Danner.
        Ms. Danner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like some
    clarification, and I will admit to you I am not wearing my
    glasses, but let's look on what is titled as page 4, you have
    numeral 2 there, and then you have one line slashed through it.
    Then you have 3. If that is not numeral 2 because of the slash,
    then the numbers are misordered.
        Then as one goes to the bottom of the handwritten section
    on that page, do we skip from the ``and'' at the bottom of page
    4 to the ``amend'' on page 5?
        Mr. Radanovich. If I may, regarding the top of page 4 where
    it originally read as section 3 is called section 2.
        Ms. Danner. Yes.
        Mr. Radanovich. That paragraph is intact. I am sorry for
    the line crossing it out. It is misleading.
        The only part that is not included in that section are the
    words, ``and the Department of State.''
        Ms. Danner. OK.
        Mr. Radanovich. As to the second question, you read it
    correctly.
        Ms. Danner. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Danner.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the State
    Department be allowed to address some questions here?
        Chairman Gilman. Is there someone from the State Department
    here? Would you please take this chair? Please identify
    yourself.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Please identify yourself.
        Ms. Jacobs. My name is Susan Jacobs and I am a Deputy
    Assistant Secretary of State in Legislative Affairs at the
    Department of State.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.
        Ms. Jacobs, first of all, the amendment, as you have noted,
    has been changed from the original text of H.Res. 332. I don't
    know if you have been able to follow it or if you have it in
    front of you.
        Ms. Jacobs. I have the perfecting amendment in front of me.
        Mr. Bereuter. If I could, I think the gentleman from
    California's--I think I have it--but on page 4, for example,
    the gentleman in subparagraphs 3 and 4, which would remain in
    his amendment, urges the Lao Government to return Messrs. Vang
    and Ly or their remains to U.S. authorities and their families
    in America at once. That is assuming they would have them,
    those remains or those missing persons.
        The gentleman also warns, number 4, the Lao Government of
    the serious consequences, including sanctions, of any
    unjustified arrest, abduction, imprisonment, disappearance or
    other acts of aggression against U.S. citizens.
        Now, it seems to me that while we do not appropriately jump
    to the conclusion that they have been abducted or that they
    have been killed, we don't know, these two paragraphs would not
    appear to be damaging to a resolution we might pass.
        Ms. Jacobs, would you care to comment on those two specific
    subparagraphs?
        Ms. Jacobs. I would agree with your assessment, sir. We
    feel terrible that we don't know what has happened to these two
    men. We are making every effort that we can. Ambassador
    Chamberlain, who left post in--I believe it was the end of
    May--did call in the FBI because she didn't want to rely
    totally on the Laotian Government.
        So I think that to characterize her and to condemn her is
    incredibly unfair.
        Mr. Bereuter. So, Ms. Jacobs, then on page 3, the two
    following whereas clauses that are there, make specific
    reference to failures of the U.S. Government and negative
    assessment about Ambassador Chamberlain, as I would read it.
    Does the State Department accept those or reject those?
        Ms. Jacobs. I totally reject those. I think that she did
    exactly what she could do, and especially by calling in the
    FBI, she went beyond what an ambassador would normally do.
        Mr. Bereuter. She indicated to me she thought this was such
    a grave matter and so serious that she did not have the
    capacity within her embassy or any attached groups to
    investigate it fully. So my understanding, from the cable
    traffic and from the chronology that resulted from it, is she
    immediately called in for outside assistance from the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation; perhaps intelligence agencies as well.
    Is that your understanding?
        Ms. Jacobs. That is absolutely correct, sir. Most embassies
    do not have separate investigative abilities, and she did
    absolutely the right thing by calling in the FBI and relying on
    other agencies to assist in the investigation.
        Chairman Gilman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Ackerman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bereuter. I will be happy to yield, to the Chairman
    first and then to Mr. Ackerman.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Ms. Jacobs, you say this resolution condemns the
    Ambassador, and yet I am reading the paragraph on page 3,
    ``Whereas the chief response to this incident by the Department
    of State and U.S. Ambassador to Laos Wendy Chamberlain has been
    to undertake an investigation in cooperation with the regime in
    Laos--a regime involved with the disappearance of Messrs. Ly
    and Vang.'' I don't see any condemnation of Ambassador
    Chamberlain.
        Ms. Jacobs. I think with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I
    think it jumps to a conclusion. We don't know how these men
    disappeared yet, and it doesn't go far enough in saying that
    she did call in the FBI. She did not rely on the Laotian
    Government.
        Chairman Gilman. But the paragraph says she did undertake
    an investigation in cooperation with the regime. She undertook
    an investigation; is that a fact?
        Ms. Jacobs. But it begins the characterization by saying
    that was her chief response.
        Her chief response was to call in the FBI and to seek their
    assistance.
        Chairman Gilman. I think we are playing with words. I don't
    think that paragraph is intended to hurt the reputation of the
    Ambassador. It just recites what the facts were.
        Ms. Jacobs. I would suggest, then, that it clarify
    everything that she did, and not say that is all that she did,
    with all due respect.
        Chairman Gilman. I yield back to Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter's time has expired.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Yes. On my own time then, Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gilman. Yes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ackerman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, those two
    paragraphs, taken as a whole, are fairly pejorative and
    negative toward both the U.S. Government, particularly the
    State Department, and to the Ambassador.
        Basically, it reads, and it depends on your emphasis, it is
    not a positive statement to say that she engaged in an
    investigation. This basically says the only thing she did was
    to collude with a corrupt, lying son-of-a-gun government.
        Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman yield? It doesn't say
    the only thing. It says, ``Whereas the chief response. . .''
        Mr. Ackerman. Yes. It says her chief response, which means
    the main thing that she did was to be in cahoots with this
    horrible, corrupt, thieving, conniving government made up of a
    bunch of SOB's--a regime that is involved with the
    disappearance.
        It accuses the regime of being in cahoots with the
    disappearance, and of the Ambassador being in collusion because
    she only is cooperating with the people who it says abducted
    them.
        Mr. Chairman, I think there is a growing consensus that
    there are a great number of us on the Committee, on both sides
    of the aisle, that would be willing to support the resolution
    if it could be accepted by Mr. Bereuter, or whoever, that we
    just drop those two paragraphs on page 3.
        The rest of it, I think, is acceptable.
        Chairman Gilman. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
    think they are attempting to work out some of the language that
    might satisfy the gentleman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Would that be acceptable to Mr. Bereuter and/
    or Mr. Radanovich?
        Mr. Radanovich. What was that? I am sorry. We were talking.
        Mr. Ackerman. If on page 3, two of those whereas clauses
    were just dropped.
        Mr. Bereuter. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Ackerman. I certainly do.
        Mr. Bereuter. I have been discussing that with Mr.
    Radanovich. He can speak for himself but I suggested those two
    are problematic. I believe our staffs are working also on
    subparagraph 4, original subparagraph 4, on page 4.
        We don't know that the Lao Government has abducted them;
    but you could say if it is determined that they have, then we
    urge them to return such and such to the authorities or their
    families in the U.S. But I think those things would----
        Mr. Ackerman. I would agree with the gentleman from
    Nebraska.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our
    State Department witnesses just a couple upfront questions. Is
    it your testimony that there is no evidence suggesting that the
    Lao Government had anything to do with the disappearance of
    these two American citizens?
        Ms. Jacobs. I don't have the evidence at my disposal. I
    don't know what we know and what we don't know.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. That is not the question I asked. Are you
    testifying that there is no evidence, that--you are not
    testifying to that; is that correct?
        Ms. Jacobs. Sir, I don't know what we know.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So, OK. So you are testifying that we
    don't know? OK. You are not testifying that there is no
    evidence? You are testifying that you don't know.
        What about you? Are you testifying, sir, the gentleman
    here? Anybody else from the State Department here?
        Ms. Jacobs. Apparently there are contradictory reports but
    no evidence.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. OK. Is there anyone else from the State
    Department here that is testifying on this issue?
        Ms. Jacobs. No.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So the State Department's position is
    what?
        Ms. Jacobs. Our position is that there are many
    contradictory reports. We don't know what the truth is.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, so there are some reports that the
    government had something to do with the disappearance?
        Ms. Jacobs. I don't know the content of the reports.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. You just said there were contradictory
    reports.
        Ms. Jacobs. But I didn't say who they were from.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I didn't ask you who they were from. I
    asked you whether or not there was a report suggesting that the
    government of Laos was involved in their disappearance. You
    have just indicated, yes, there are contradictory reports.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Jacobs. I do not know what is in the report.
        Mr. Ackerman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No, I will not yield. I think this is
    important. We finally got her to a point where she is telling
    us something, after we dig it out.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Could I just make one suggestion, and you
    are doing a great job here and I think you have gotten them to
    say some things they didn't want to say, but I would suggest
    that you get the intel briefing and maybe all the Committee
    Members ought to get the intel briefing before we make the
    assumption of fact.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. OK. I think that is a very good
    suggestion, especially after we have testimony from the State
    Department trying to lead us in exactly one direction, but
    after three or four questions we hear something taking us back
    in the other direction. I want to state for the record, Mr.
    Chairman, that this is not--some people wonder why we have some
    problems when the Ambassador tells us or someone tells us
    something.
        Let me ask you this: Has the Ambassador reported to you
    that there is no evidence suggesting that the government was
    involved in the disappearance?
        Ms. Jacobs. The Ambassador left post in May. I have not
    talked to her about this case.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. You have not spoken to the Ambassador
    about this case?
        Ms. Jacobs. No, I have not.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And did you not know that this was going
    to be brought up today?
        Ms. Jacobs. I was told about it at the last minute.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So someone in your office just neglected
    to tell you, and that is why you didn't call up the Ambassador
    to talk to her about it?
        Ms. Jacobs. I did not think that I would be up here
    testifying about this resolution.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. We didn't bother to ask about
    it all these months, either? You haven't bothered to ask the
    Ambassador all of these months about the disappearance of these
    two people?
        Mr. Gejdenson. If the gentleman would yield, it is not her
    responsibility. I think part of the confusion here may be that
    during all the months, any questions probably didn't go to her
    but went to somebody else.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. OK, that is fair.
        Mr. Gejdenson. She sent in, when we gave her a list of
    bills----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. If she is here testifying now in order to
    undermine this effort, that is her job because the State
    Department----
        Mr. Gejdenson. That may be an unfair characterization.
        Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Does not believe in what this
    amendment is all about.
        I would like to close. My time is coming to an end, and let
    me just say that we came here with the State Department saying
    one thing. After three or four questions, they were saying
    something else totally different. Thank you.
        Ms. Jacobs. That is not true.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. I, too, perhaps would support the resolution if
    those two whereas clauses were removed.
        I haven't heard anything different from the State
    Department that my colleague has heard--allegations of
    undermining the effort--and I guess you are accusing the State
    Department of being confused.
        There is some confusion out here. I am not willing to say
    where I think it is, but I believe that we ought to take a look
    at the cables. I think that if these whereases, which extend
    to--when you say a chief response, I don't know what else you
    can interpret. ``Chief'' means the most prominent or the main
    response.
        Mr. Radanovich. I will agree to take ``chief'' out, just
    line ``chief'' out.
        Mr. Payne. The gentleman previously suggested if the two
    whereases were taken out--I think it doesn't change what we are
    trying to get at, and I would certainly be willing to support
    your amendment. I would just like to add that to it and
    hopefully we can come up with something in a compromising way
    to achieve the goal you want to achieve.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich.
        Mr. Radanovich. I would like to ask a question of the State
    Department official, if I may.
        Chairman Gilman. Ms. Jacobs?
        Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
        Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Jacobs, I wanted to ask you something,
    if you could answer me. When an incident like this occurs,
    where American citizens are abducted and not heard from in any
    country, and that country's government is perhaps a suspect in
    that person's or people's disappearance, what is the normal
    response of the State Department? Is it to conduct the
    investigation with that government, trying to determine the
    whereabouts of those people?
        Mr. Ackerman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Radanovich. Yes, but I want an answer.
        Mr. Ackerman. Just a clarification on your question. Is it
    clear that they were abducted?
        Mr. Radanovich. Well, they disappeared.
        Mr. Ackerman. So did my cat.
        Mr. Radanovich. It has been told, in fact--I would say this
    because it has been also alluded to--that they were drug
    trafficking which, to me, is unsubstantiated; and in as far as
    that has been said already, it has also been told that Laotian
    Government officials picked up these people and abducted them.
        If that is the case or if it is known, how does the State
    Department react to something like that? Do they conduct
    investigations in cooperation with the government that is
    suspected of abducting or complicit in these disappearances?
        Ms. Jacobs. I can't speak to this case because I am not
    familiar with all the details, but generally we do have to rely
    on the host government. But obviously Ambassador Chamberlain
    did not trust them to conduct a fair investigation and that is
    why she called in the FBI.
        If it were Britain, then we would have undoubtedly
    cooperated with the British police and other British
    authorities. But in this case, she was fearful that perhaps the
    Lao Government would not conduct a fair investigation, and she
    went beyond them and asked the FBI to come in and help
    investigate. That is not a normal thing.
        Mr. Radanovich. Right. Can you tell us, with regard to one
    of the whereases in this perfecting amendment, have the Ly
    family and the Vang family heard from the U.S. Government
    regarding the whereabouts or current circumstances of their
    loved ones?
        Ms. Jacobs. I understand the families are briefed weekly.
        Mr. Radanovich. They have been told nothing.
        Ms. Jacobs. There might not be anything to tell, that is
    the problem. We don't know what happened to them.
        Mr. Radanovich. I am sorry, I wish the family was here, but
    that just is not true. They have been told nothing.
        Ms. Jacobs. They haven't talked to representatives of the
    State Department?
        Mr. Radanovich. They have not been heard from, from the
    State Department. I yield to Mr. Green on that one, but I think
    there has been no response on that whatsoever.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the gentleman from
    Wisconsin, Mr. Green, will be recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, given the
    lateness of the hour and the courtesy you have extended me, I
    will keep my remarks brief; but to that most important point,
    that simply is not true. My constituent, one of the two
    involved, has not been--the family has not been briefed.
        In fact, they came all the way out to Washington a month
    ago because they had not been briefed. They sat in my office
    with representatives of the FBI and the State Department and
    both entities pledged to keep my constituents briefed, and they
    have not done so. It has gotten so bad that in September, we
    had to take the extraordinary step of filing a Freedom of
    Information Act request. It was ignored.
        Weeks later, we were told that it was being processed.
    Still 2 months later, we do not have a response. We have not
    even received, and the family have not even received the
    declassified information, the declassified--I am not referring
    to the classified information, but the declassified
    information. That is true up through today.
        The State Department, from our perspective, and from the
    perspective of our constituents, has not been cooperating with
    us at all. With respect to the arguing over whether or not this
    was the chief response for the Ambassador or not, let us
    understand that when the FBI was brought in, the FBI conducted
    their investigation with the government of Laos.
        So it is fair to say that the chief response has been a
    joint investigation with Laos. I have not heard the FBI say
    that that isn't true. The language from which this resolution
    came is not intended in any way or form to condemn the
    Ambassador. There is only one reference to the Ambassador in
    the entire resolution, and that is the chief response language
    that we are referring to here.
        My grave concern from my limited perspective is the fact
    that my constituents, American citizens, are getting no help.
    They are not being responded to. They have not been given
    information. They have been given the runaround. I have not
    been able to help them. Even when in my office I have received
    a pledge of support, face to face with these people, we are
    still not getting the information that we need.
        Yes, there is unclear information out there, but I would
    submit to you that we aren't going to clear it up unless that
    information is provided to the surviving family members. I hope
    that the term, ``surviving,'' is accurate.
        But I urge you, please, we are heading toward the holidays,
    these family members deserve, they absolutely deserve
    cooperation and information from their own State Department. I
    think the fact that they aren't getting it is reprehensible.
    They are U.S. citizens, and this is wrong.
        That is the impetus behind this resolution and Congressman
    Radanovich's amendment. I am a cosponsor of the original
    underlying amendment. Congressman Vento is a cosponsor of our
    resolution as well from which this amendment comes.
        So again this is not an effort--and I do respect the
    sentiments of my friend and colleague Congressman Bereuter--
    this is not an effort to condemn an Ambassador trying to reform
    a function. Instead, this is trying to point out the simple
    reality that the State Department has not cooperated, not come
    forward in this, and our constituents are still hanging out
    there with very little to show for all of their efforts.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just suggest
    two things, and I think our friend Mr. Radanovich said it when
    he was talking about the FBI statement; he said it wasn't
    substantiated, the reference to these two individuals from the
    United States as being drug dealers. I think that is the issue:
    What can we substantiate?
        What I would recommend is if we really want to move
    forward, and I am happy to play a more active role, frankly,
    than I have today, because a lot of things are before us--I
    would recommend that we move with Mr. Bereuter's underlying
    resolution--I guess it is Mr. Vento's resolution to begin with,
    and move that.
        If Mr. Bereuter has some more language that frankly would
    meet you some of the way, we ought to take that. Then I will
    personally try to get more information to see if there is
    substantiation of the charges.
        The reason I say that is, in some ways it is very easy for
    us in Congress to vote almost anything out, but the information
    that I have at this stage doesn't give me, even for a
    government that I think does very terrible things and clearly
    is not democratic--no debate on that--clearly I think we all
    agree on that, but we don't want to rush forward with a
    conclusion that we can't substantiate.
        If we find after a briefing for Committee Members, the kind
    of evidence that I think the two of you believe they have, we
    will work with you to try to take a step forward. I think you
    will be better off in that process. But obviously you have your
    prerogatives, and I wouldn't ask you not to do it just on that
    basis, but I think we will be more effective if we start with
    the underlying Vento Resolution, with Mr. Bereuter's pushing
    forward, maybe adopt some of the language that he has offered,
    trying to reach as far as he feels he is comfortable doing
    today.
        Then I will go--and I am sure Mr. Bereuter joins me--will
    go, will see--if you can convince us, we will be your strongest
    advocates here.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to try
    a unanimous consent request.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
        Mr. Bereuter. I believe these two gentlemen and others who
    have offered this resolution, which in part is being offered
    here as a substitute, are doing their very best to try to serve
    their constituents, and appropriately so.
        I want to suggest the following. It is a little
    complicated, but I think if I am careful in giving directions
    you can understand what I am going to suggest, that we add as
    part of unanimous consent under a separate section within the
    underlying Vento Bill.
        If you turn to page 3, the last whereas clause, I will pick
    up that entire clause: ``Whereas the Congress will not tolerate
    any unjustified arrest, abduction, imprisonment, disappearance,
    or other act of aggression against United States citizens by a
    foreign government: Now, therefore be it``--and then we would
    move down to lines 1 through 4 in the first of the clauses,
    ``That the House of Representatives decries the----''
        Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman yield? What section
    are you referring to now, and what page?
        Mr. Bereuter. Page 3, moving down to the first clause found
    on lines 1 through 4.
        Chairman Gilman. Are we now referring to the Vento Bill?
        Mr. Bereuter. We are now referring to the amendment which
    is under consideration, the substitute offered by Mr.
    Radanovich.
        Chairman Gilman. The Radanovich Amendment?
        Mr. Bereuter. Yes, sir. Instead of ``abduction,'' it would
    say ``decries the disappearance of Houa Ly and Michael Vang,
    recognizing it as an incident worthy of congressional
    attention.''
        Move to the next page, page 4 of the Radanovich substitute,
    pick up what was number 4 there, now labeled number 3, on lines
    6 through 9 saying, ``urges the Lao Government to return
    Messrs. Ly and Vang, or their remains, to the United States
    authorities and their families in America at once,'' if it is
    determined that they have or are responsible--and pick up then
    the next subsection, ``warns the Lao Government of the serious
    consequences, including sanctions, of any unjustified arrest,
    abduction, imprisonment, disappearance or other act of
    aggression against United States citizens.''
        Finally, to have a new subsection which says: ``Urges the
    State Department and other U.S. agencies to share the maximum
    amount of information with interested parties concerning the
    disappearance of,'' and we can name these two gentlemen.
        I would ask unanimous consent that we accept that as a
    separate new subsection within the Vento Resolution before us.
        Mr. Radanovich. I have a question.
        Chairman Gilman. Is there objection?
        Mr. Radanovich. Not an objection--just a question, if I
    may, to clarify.
        Chairman Gilman. Are you reserving the right to object?
        Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Mr. Bereuter, going back to page 3 at
    the top, there was mention regarding Ambassador Chamberlain's
    statement--and the whereas below that, the Ly and Vang families
    not being able to learn much in the U.S. Government regarding
    that. In your unanimous consent, were those included or not?
        Mr. Bereuter. I didn't, but I am willing to. That was an
    oversight on my part. We could accept that.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK.
        Mr. Bereuter. You are talking about the ``Whereas the
    families of Messrs. Ly and Vang''?
        Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
        Mr. Bereuter. I am certainly willing to add that to the
    unanimous consent.
        Mr. Radanovich. And the one above that regarding the
    Ambassador?
        Mr. Bereuter. I think that is again criticizing our
    government inappropriately, and it is not germane.
        Mr. Radanovich. Being sympathetic to the issues brought
    about by the Ambassador, I would be willing to strike that
    portion, then. I agree with you.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.
        Chairman Gilman. Reserving the right to object. Is there
    any of the page 2 material being included in Mr. Bereuter's
    proposal?
        Mr. Bereuter. No.
        Chairman Gilman. There is no reference to these people
    prior to your new paragraphs. I suggest you may want to include
    the provisions on page 2.
        Mr. Bereuter. I take your point. So the fifth whereas
    clause, ``Whereas two U.S. citizens,'' then they name them and
    their location, ``were traveling along the border between Laos
    and Thailand on April 19, 1999,'' and we go, of course, that
    the families of these people have learned very little from the
    U.S. Government concerning the whereabouts and the
    circumstances of their loved ones, which is Mr. Radanovich's
    proposal.
        So I would add, if the Chairman wishes, the fifth whereas
    clause on page 2.
        Chairman Gilman. And nothing else on page 2, Mr. Bereuter?
        Mr. Bereuter. I don't think it is necessary.
        Chairman Gilman. Is there any objection to Mr. Bereuter's
    proposal?
        Mr. Radanovich. Reserving the right to object. May I ask a
    question of Mr. Green?
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman reserves the right to
    object. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Green, you were privy to the classified information.
    This speaks to the section regarding--it warns that our
    government, if they were involved--and, the operative word I
    think is ``if''--in the unanimous consent request--you have
    been privy, Mr. Green, to all of the classified information
    regarding this incident.
        What is your opinion of that?
        Mr. Green. Well, let me just say this. I would remind--a
    number of the Committee Members are not aware of the long
    history involved here regarding the disappearance of these two
    individuals. There are actually four individuals that traveled
    together; two who disappeared, and their two friends who had,
    for lots of quirky reasons, gotten off at the time.
        The information provided by the two citizens who came back,
    which I would consider to be the most reliable information that
    we have--I am not privy to all the information--certainly
    suggested that there was Laos Government complicity.
        That is--we didn't just leap to a wild conclusion. This is
    what has been suggested publicly by these individuals, and I am
    not aware of it having been refuted. That is where the
    information comes from.
        If I can just, very quickly, in terms of all the language
    that Congressman Bereuter has suggested, if I may suggest, to
    put some kind of timeframe in here would help, too. I think it
    is important that this resolution be aimed at least a little
    bit at our own government, since the biggest problem that these
    families seem to be having is that our government isn't giving
    them information.
        So I think it is appropriate to at least reference the fact
    that it is our government which has declassified information
    which they are not sharing. Not classified, declassified
    information, sir. If I can make that suggestion--I think of
    urging them to do it as quickly as practical, or as soon as
    possible, whatever that may be. I think that would at least
    offer a little bit of solace to these people.
        Chairman Gilman. Would you set forth your proposal then,
    Mr. Green?
        Mr. Green. I don't know if that is appropriate.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich.
        Mr. Radanovich. No objection. We will keep the language as
    is suggested in the unanimous consent.
        Chairman Gilman. All right. Then Mr. Bereuter's proposal is
    now before the Committee.
        Are there any objections to Mr. Bereuter's proposal? Mr.
    Radanovich has made a suggestion, and Mr. Bereuter accepts that
    change; is that correct, Mr. Bereuter?
        Mr. Bereuter. Yes, I did; that one paragraph that the
    gentleman proposed to add back, I certainly did accept.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is agreed
    to. Are there any further amendments?
        If there are no further amendments, the question is now on
    the Subcommittee recommendation as amended.
        As many are in favor, signify by saying aye.
        As many are opposed, say no.
        The ayes have it, and the Subcommittee recommendation is
    agreed to.
        The gentlemen from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to
    offer a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. I thank my colleagues. I move that the
    Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending
    resolution on the suspension calendar.
        Chairman Gilman. The question as amended.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from
    Nebraska.
        As many in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
        Opposed.
        The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.
        Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
        The Committee is adjourned. Thank you, gentleman.
        [Whereupon, at 7 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                November 9, 1999

    =======================================================================

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4099.101