[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