[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 48 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2333, STATE DEPARTMENT, USIA, AND RELATED 
         AGENCIES AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1994 AND 1995

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the 
House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2333), to 
authorize appropriations for the Department of State, the United States 
Information Agency, and related agencies, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, April 25, 1994, the conference report is considered as read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, April 26, 1994, at page H2761.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] will be recognized for 30 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the gentleman 
from New York is opposed to the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
opposed to the conference report?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] 
opposed to the conference report?
  Ms. SNOWE. I am opposed, and I would like to be allocated the 
customary one-third of the time for debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time will be divided three ways.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be recognized 
for 20 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2333. 
The bill before you today provides basic authorization for fiscal years 
1994 and 1995 for the operating expenses of the Department of State, 
the U.S. Information Agency, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 
and the Peace Corps. The bill provides no authorization for foreign 
assistance programs. These will be the subject of the Foreign 
Assistance Authorization Act. The bill before us is, as we sometimes 
call it, the bureaucracy bill.
  The conference agreement has, in budget terms, adheres in its 
authorization levels to the limitations and assumptions of the fiscal 
year 1995 House-passed congressional budget resolution. This means that 
the bill before us authorizes, in the aggregate, less than the 
administration has requested in terms of new appropriations. For fiscal 
year 1995, the conference agreement authorizes over $400 million less 
than the bill passed by the House last year, and some $150 million less 
than 1993 appropriated levels. This is simply a reflection of the 
reality that the days are long gone when we could add things to 
authorization bills without showing the appropriations committee how we 
intend to pay for them.
  The funding provisions of the bill itself are austere, to say the 
least. The administration's budget request constitutes a hard freeze to 
many accounts, made reductions to some others, and zeroed out still 
others entirely. The conference agreement accepts most of these cuts, 
and preserves provisions which will constrain the Foreign Service 
bureaucracy in the one area in which abuses have become egregious: 
personnel. The bill includes statutory personnel ceilings similar to 
those enacted in annual Defense Authorization Acts, which will reduce 
the size of the Senior Foreign Service by 10 percent over 2 years.
  One centerpiece of the draft bill, in my opinion, is its provision 
for organizational flexibility. For the State Department, the bill as 
drafted provides a degree of much-needed organizational and managerial 
flexibility. It authorizes all subcabinet appointments the Department 
has formally requested, and allows the Secretary to shuffle and 
reshuffle positions, bureaus, and offices in any way he sees fit. With 
a few exceptions, the bill would repeal all statutory micromanagerial 
provisions which preserve existing positions and organizations at 
State. It evidences our willingness, in a time of extreme fiscal 
constraint, to allow the executive branch to organize itself in the 
most efficient way possible, subject to notification.
  In title II of H.R. 2333, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995, we are providing the resources required by 
the U.S. Information Agency to carry out its broad range of public 
diplomacy programs. For purposes of clarification, I want to note that 
for the fiscal year 1994, we are specifically authorizing the 
appropriations enacted earlier in Public Law 103-121.
  For that year, under the heading of Salaries and Expenses, section 
201(a)(1), we have provided $487,988,000, which includes $14,500,000 
allowed by the Appropriations Committee under the Educational and 
Cultural Exchange Programs account to meet some of the administrative 
and other support costs for those exchange programs.
  Inasmuch as some of the fiscal year 1994 support costs were already 
under Salaries and Expenses and all such costs are in the Salaries and 
Expenses request for fiscal year 1995, we have placed all such costs in 
the Salaries and Expenses heading for both years to provide overall 
comparability. Thus, we have authorized the $14,500,000 for fiscal year 
1994 to be used for exchange program support although we have included 
it in a different category from the appropriations legislation.
  Among major policy issues, title VII of the conference agreement 
contains the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Act of 1994, a close 
cousin of H.R. 2155, a bill originally introduced by Congressman Lantos 
and myself. This important policy initiative, long overdue, permits the 
revitalization of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, ACDA. ACDA 
has played a vital role in pursuit of important national objectives in 
arms control and disarmament. With the end of the cold war, ACDA's 
mission is no less important.
  Indeed, halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction has moved 
to the top of our national security objectives. The revitalization of 
ACDA will place that Agency in a leadership position in our 
international nonproliferation activities. The act recognizes the 
Director of ACDA as the principal advisor in the executive branch on 
matters relating to arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament. 
ACDA has the lead in the U.S. effort to extend the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty when it comes up for renewal next year; ACDA has 
the lead in the negotiations currently underway in Geneva to achieve a 
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. ACDA led the successful 
negotiations on the Chemical Weapons Convention, a global treaty 
outlawing chemical weapons, and now is in charge of leading the U.S. 
Government's implementation of the accord. I look forward to ACDA's 
continuing revitalization so that once again that proud Agency will 
assume the role envisioned for it when it was created by Congress more 
than 30 years ago.

  Title III of this bill--The United States International Broadcasting 
Act--constitutes a consolidation of our nonmilitary international 
broadcasting activities. Under a new Broadcasting Board of Governors 
our broadcast services will reorganize and reorient their activities to 
meet the challenges of the post-cold-war world, utilize new 
technologies, and save millions of taxpayer dollars over the next few 
years.
  This title also authorizes Radio Free Asia which will significantly 
enhance and improve our ability to deliver accurate news and 
information to the people of China and others living under oppressive 
Asian regimes.
  This bill also reauthorizes the Lautenberg-Berman amendment. This 
provision facilitates the granting of refugee status for certain 
historically persecuted groups such as Jews and Evangelical Christians 
from the former Soviet Union. The potential for political extremism and 
the growth in antiminority sentiment in the former Soviet Union are 
vivid illustrations of why this legislation remains as vital and 
necessary as ever.
  I want to mention briefly two other provisions of this bill. The 
first is the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. This legislation, 
first passed last year after the September handshake on the White House 
lawn which many of us were privileged to witness, allowed the President 
to waive certain provisions of law restricting United States contacts 
with the Palestine Liberation Organization for a limited period of 
time. We now extend the President's authority to continue to waive 
those provisions for 6-month increments until July 1, 1995, so long as 
he can certify that it is in the U.S. national interest to do so and 
that the PLO continues to abide by all its commitments made in 
September 1993.
  Mindful of Yassir Arafat's reticence to condemn the recent acts of 
Palestinian terror and violence in Israel and the territories--a 
reticence which stands in stark contrast to the heartfelt and anguished 
response of Yitzhak Rabin after the Hebron massacre--we have toughened 
the standard required for Presidential certification. We express our 
expectation that future waivers will be conditioned on the PLO's 
renunciation of the Arab economic boycott of Israel and its efforts to 
dismantle the boycott, and on its renunciation of individual acts of 
terrorism and violence. We also require that the President's written 
policy justification in exercising his waiver authority include a 
report on the PLO's response to such acts, what it has done regarding 
the Arab boycott, and on the status of the PLO office in the United 
States.
  I also want to mention other provisions of the bill dealing with the 
Arab boycott and diplomatic relations with Israel. The bill expresses 
the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State make the issue of 
Israel's diplomatic status a priority and urge countries which receive 
United States assistance to establish immediately full diplomatic 
relations with Israel. Currently, some 30 countries receiving United 
States aid do not have diplomatic ties with Israel. It also prohibits 
the sale or lease of any defense articles or services by the United 
States to any country or international organization that is known to 
have sent letters to United States firms requesting compliance with the 
secondary or tertiary Arab boycott of Israel. The President may waive 
this provision for 1 year only if he certifies to Congress that such a 
waiver is in our national security interest or that it will promote the 
objective of ending the boycott. This important provision will provide 
teeth to our common goal of finally putting a stop to this 
reprehensible discrimination.
  A word now on the motion to recommit soon to be offered by the 
gentlelady from Maine. I strongly oppose this motion, and urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise.
  The gentlelady from Maine has represented the issue at hand in terms 
of the status of the United States embargo against Vietnam. With all 
due respect, neither the gentlelady's motion, nor the provision it 
addresses, will affect United States trade with Vietnam in any way. The 
President has already lifted the embargo on Vietnam. The provision to 
which the gentlelady objects is no more than sense-of-the-Senate--not 
the Congress and not the House--language which at this point amounts 
only to an endorsement of the President's action.
  What the gentlelady's motion will do, however, is to produce an 
intolerable procedural situation: Either the House will have to stay in 
session--and the Senate recalled--to redo what we're doing now, or the 
State Department and the other agencies with expenditures authorized by 
this bill will have to shut down, worldwide, until we do our business, 
at a cost to the taxpayers of at least $2 million a day. Regardless of 
where Members stand on the issue of the Vietnam embargo, either of 
these outcomes should be unacceptable.
  This motion is unusual. We are not talking here about a provision 
voted down by the House and picked up later in conference from the 
Senate. In fact the House has not voted on this issue. Nor is it being 
asked to do so now. Once again, this is sense-of-the-Senate language. 
In practical terms, the gentlelady's motion will not accomplish her 
objective. In conference last week, the Senate insisted on its position 
and the House conferees voted to accept it. Recommitting the report to 
conference is unlikely to change that equation.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 2333, the State Department, USIA, and Related Agencies 
Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. This conference 
report authorizes the basic operations of the State Department, the 
U.S. Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. I 
am pleased to report that the measure before us, returns to the House 
floor with an authorization level that is $436 million below the House-
passed bill for fiscal year 1995. We also provide a key authority for 
the State Department to collect and retain fees for issuing machine 
readable nonimmigrant visas and to use such fees to cover the costs of 
providing consular services and upgrading visa processing systems. I 
strongly support the modernization of the visa processing systems and 
the implementation of an upgrade of all overseas visa lookout 
operations. These systems are vital to establishing a more secure 
system of entry into this country.
  We also authorize the administration's request for flexibility to 
reorganize the State Department. However, the reorganization plan 
submitted for approval by Congress eliminated the Office of the 
Coordinator for Counterterrorism. I strongly objected to this proposal, 
and sought to restore the primacy of this issue within the Department 
by retaining the office. I was supported in this effort by a 357 to 2 
vote by the House on a motion to instruct the conferees to retain my 
amendment contained in the House bill which maintained the independent 
and high-level Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism reporting 
directly to the Secretary of State. The will of the House prevailed and 
a favorable resolution was reached by the conferees. The Office of the 
Coordinator for Counterterrorism will be retained for an additional 12 
months.

  I reluctantly agreed to a compromise on this issue, even after a very 
strong House recorded vote, which was necessary because of very strong, 
and in my opinion misguided, State Department opposition to my 
amendment.
  I especially want to thank our distinguished chairman Mr. Hamilton,  
and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Berman, for working to help 
accommodate my serious concerns about doing away at this time, with 
this vital office, particularly after the terrorist bombing of the 
Trade Center in New York. This attack made it clear that the threat of 
international terrorism, especially to Americans has not diminished. 
Rather than lowering our guard, we must strengthen our defenses against 
this evil.
  Under the compromise proposal we will retain the Counterterrorism 
Office with the same responsibilities, functions and status that it 
held on January 20, 1993, when President Clinton took office. I am 
urging the State Department to give that office the strong, tough and 
hardline antiterrorism leadership it needs as well as to provide the 
necessary resources to do the job. I also ask that the Department 
clearly live up to the letter and intent of my amendment not to merge 
the narcotics and counterterrorism functions during this critical 
period.
  Chairman Hamilton has also agreed in the interim to have hearings 
along with Mr. Berman in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We need to take 
testimony from the counterterrorism experts early next year. We should 
for example, explore the links between drugs and terrorism if any, that 
could justify a merger of the counterterrorism functions into the 
antinarcotics account as the State Department desired.
  I am including, at the end of my remarks and as part of this 
statement an OpEd piece from the Washington Times from April 20, 1994, 
captioned ``Keeping Counter-terrorism a Serious Priority'' by Peter 
Flory. Mr. Flory, along with other experts he cites in this piece, 
makes a persuasive and compelling case that the House position was, and 
is, correct. But more importantly, he concludes that this debate about 
State Department organization, truly involves much more than boxes on 
an organizational chart; it involves American security and American 
lives in the years to come. I commend it to my colleagues and all those 
concerned about the international terrorism threat which America faces 
today.
  The scope of the bill was broadened in the Senate to include several 
foreign policy provisions. Many of these policy provisions were 
retained by the conference committee and will strengthen our foreign 
policy objectives.
  This is true for the Hyde provision expressing the sense of the 
Congress that the President should terminate the arms embargo for 
Bosnia. In addition, inclusion of Senator Glenn's Nuclear Proliferation 
Prevention Act, will strengthen nonproliferation sanctions on companies 
and Governments that knowingly promote the spread of nuclear weapons 
through sales, transfers or financing.
  On a bipartisan basis, the conferees designed stringent new U.N. 
management and peacekeeping reforms. In response to overwhelming 
concern about the weak U.N. management practices, the proliferation of 
U.N. peacekeeping missions, and the rapid increase in U.S. financial 
obligations for peacekeeping this year, the legislation sets up a 
carrot and stick approach to force discipline on the United Nations. We 
require a withholding of assessments to the regular U.N. budget and of 
the fiscal year 1994 supplemental authorization until an independent 
office of inspector general is established and an IG is appointed. We 
have also included a cap of 30.4 percent on current U.S. payments for 
U.N. peacekeeping which is below the increased assessment imposed by 
the United Nations last year. Beginning in fiscal year 1996 the bill 
prohibits the United States from paying more than 25 percent for any 
U.N. peacekeeping operation.

  Furthermore, we require monthly consultations with Congress on 
participation of U.S. armed forces in peacekeeping operations and other 
important changes in ongoing operations. There is a requirement for 
written prior notification on votes in the Security Council to 
establish new peacekeeping operations. And, we will be able to reduce 
U.S. peacekeeping costs by allowing U.S. excess defense articles to be 
provided to the United Nations and credited against the U.S. 
peacekeeping assessment.
  Another key initiative in this bill is the consolidation of our 
international broadcasting activities. This reorganization of 
broadcasting is projected to save in the future approximately $100 
million a year, and increases flexibility to determine broadcasting 
priorities. The bill also preserves the independent status of Radio 
Free Europe and Radio Liberty and creates a new independent Radio Free 
Asia [RFA]. The objective of RFA is to increase broadcasting into the 
closed Asian societies where independent news and information is not 
available to the people. I support the effort to increase our access to 
these countries through our international broadcasting system. I also 
support the continuation of broadcasting to Cuba under this 
reorganization.
  Another special concern to me is our policy toward Tibet. I am 
pleased that this conference report contains three provisions 
specifically directed toward improving and increased exchanges with, 
access to, and information about Tibet.
  Mr. Chairman, also contained in this conference report are two 
important provisions pertaining to American involvement with the 
Palestine Liberation Organization as the Middle East peace negotiations 
continue. Section 728 of the Senate bill amends the PLO Commitments 
Compliance Act to strengthen the reporting requirement by adding the 
PLO commitment letters to Israel and Norway, and the September 13, 
1993, Declaration of Principles Agreements as elements to be included 
in the State Department's reports to Congress.
  Because presidential certification of the PLO, as required by the 
Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, occurs every 6 months, the 
reporting requirements in the PLO Commitments Compliance Act is 
extended from every 120 days to every 6 months. This permits Congress 
to conduct the necessary oversight prior to presidential certification. 
Most of the changes to the PLO Commitments Compliance Act proposed by 
the State were welcome and will strengthen congressional oversight of 
the act.
  In conference, the Senate agreed to maintain an original reporting 
requirement of a statement of whether the PLO has repealed provisions 
in its covenant which call for Israel's destruction, as well as a 
statement which specifically discusses the PLO's position on the unrest 
in the territories. I support the conference agreement as pertains to 
the PLO Commitments Compliance Act, and urge my colleagues to accept 
it.
  The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, [MEPFA], which the Senate 
considered in the title X, contained a number of provisions that were 
removed from the conference agreement. Through the MEPFA, Congress 
grants the President a waiver authority for a period of time, during 
which the President can waive four laws banning or severely restricting 
PLO involvement with the United States. Most prominent among the laws 
is the prohibition against the PLO having an office in the United 
States. The current waiver, which spans 6 months, expires on July 1, 
1994.

  In title X, the Senate proposed to permanently transfer the waiver 
authority from Congress to the President. The President would have 
eternal authority to waive the laws pertaining to the PLO as long as he 
certified that the PLO was in compliance and made his certification 
known to Congress every 6 months. As adopted by the Senate, the 
proposal would have only permitted Congress to disagree with the 
President through a joint resolution of disapproval, leaving Congress 
with no oversight of the four laws covered by the MEPFA.
  Congress remains deeply concerned about the PLO for many reasons. 
Accordingly, it is the intent of Congress that further extensions of 
the waiver authority be considered only on a periodic basis. Congress 
does not intend to shirk its constitutional responsibility by relieving 
itself of this crucial oversight function. The conference agreement 
removed the joint resolution proposal from the bill, and returned to 
the existing structure of the act. The conference agreement extends the 
President's waiver authority for 1 year only, until July 1, 1995, 
primarily because consideration of an extension during an election year 
made an additional 6 month waiver impractical.
  As adopted by the conferees, the act includes two congressional 
expectations. One currently exists in law but was not included in the 
Senate version. The second expectation is new. Conditional for 
extending the waiver authority, the President must take into account 
whether the PLO renounces the Arab League boycott of Israel, urges the 
nations of the Arab League to end the boycott, and cooperates with 
United States efforts to do so. The second congressional expectation 
notes that any extension exercised by the President be contingent upon 
the PLO, through Chairman Arafat, condemning individual acts of 
terrorism and violence against Israelis and Jews committed by 
Palestinians in furtherance of Palestinian political aims.
  Also new to the act is a reporting requirement, stipulated prior to 
Presidential certification, which details the PLO's reaction and 
response to individual acts of terrorism and violence, its actions 
concerning the Arab League boycott of Israel, and the status of any PLO 
office in the United States.
  As ranking republican member of the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, I find that the State Department's reporting about the PLO 
office will be of great assistance in determining whether future 
Presidential waivers should be adopted. It is therefore anticipated 
that the report discuss--but not be limited solely to--whether a PLO 
office is being established and when it will begin functioning, its 
location, staffing levels, administrative and nonadministrative 
structure, funding, diplomatic status, as well as an outline of the 
issues that those affiliated with the office will be working on. It 
would be even more helpful if, in advance of preparing the reports, the 
State Department met with interested Members of Congress, including 
myself, to discuss those items that should be included in the report.
  Overall, I would have preferred to adjust the MEPA waiver date to 
April 1, 1995. Yet July 1, 1995, is the alternative the conference 
committee agreed upon. In addition, the committee of conference agreed 
to the inclusion of the phase ``in good faith'' regarding PLO 
compliance with the implementation of the Declaration of Principles. 
This was at the request of the Department of State. While not a perfect 
measure, it is adequate for the current task, and I support its 
inclusion in the conference agreement.
  Lastly, the conference report includes a Sense of Senate provision 
that the President should lift the trade embargo against Vietnam and 
that the two countries should move toward normalization of relations. 
This provision will be the subject of a motion to recommit by the 
gentlelady from Maine.

  I recognize the active role the gentlelady from Maine has taken in 
steering this bill through subcommittee and enabling the measure to 
make it through conference. I also understand the strong views she 
holds on opposing this Senate provision. The resolution of the POW/MIA 
issue is of great importance to me, and has been for many years. I 
intend to support the gentlelady's motion to recommit with instructions 
to delete this provision. But, I also want to emphasize that I intend 
to support the conference report on final passage and urge my fellow 
Republicans to also vote favorably on final passage. The measure before 
us has an overwhelming number of important reforms--both in the 
management and the foreign policy sectors--and there are new 
authorities necessary for these agencies to improve their efficiency 
and effectiveness.
  With respect to lifting of sanctions, I commend the gentlelady from 
Maine for offering the motion to recommit and I rise in strong support 
of it. The Vietnam provision in this conference report commends Vietnam 
for its supposed cooperation with the United States on resolving the 
fate of American POW/MIA's and recommends to the President that he lift 
the embargo. Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that the Vietnamese 
Government continues to stonewall on providing us information on our 
missing servicemen.
  Earlier this year, a letter was sent to the President signed by 70 
former American POW's from the Vietnam war, including our colleague, 
Sam Johnson, urging him not to lift the embargo. The reason these 
distinguished 70 veterans gave was lack of cooperation from the 
Vietnamese and our loss of leverage.
  Our ex-POW's said to the President that cooperation from the 
Vietnamese is not at all about access to crash or burial sites. It is 
about getting answers from the Vietnamese about those hundreds of men 
they held behind at the end of the war.
  Mr. Speaker, a copy of their February 3, 1994, open letter to the 
President from 70 former POW's opposing the lifting of the embargo 
against Vietnam will be included at the end of my remarks.
  The Vietnam provision in this conference report ignores this critical 
matter entirely. Let me repeat, the provision ignores United States 
Intelligence assessments accepted and reinforced by more recently-
acquired information that officials of Communist Vietnam and Laos have 
not provided any information about hundreds of men we know they still 
held after the war. Accordingly, the provision is grossly inaccurate 
and rubs salt in the wounds of those who served in Vietnam and were 
held in the camps.
  For this reason, not on single major veteran or POW/MIA family group 
supports the provision.
  Mr. Speaker, on February 23, I wrote to the Secretary of State 
concerning a February 18 New York Times article reporting that the 
State Department had urged Russian officials not to release anymore 
information about Vietnam's holding our men after the war. I requested 
from the Secretary copies of all cables referenced in the New York 
Times article and an explanation of the events surrounding the story. 
On March 24, a month later, I received a reply from Assistant Secretary 
Wendy Sherman stating that the cables are classified and that my 
request for them is being taken into consideration. I wrote again on 
March 30. It has been another month and I still have not seen copies of 
those cables. What is there to hide?
  Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress have the necessary security 
clearances to read classified material. What sort of an answer is that 
to a request initiated in response to an article in a daily newspaper? 
Until we get to the bottom of these unanswered questions and those I 
raised earlier in my statement I'm afraid our veteran and POW/MIA 
family organizations are not going to have much faith in their 
government when it comes to the issue of our missing men.
  Accordingly, I support the Snowe motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

               [From the Washington Times, Apr. 20, 1994]

              Keeping Counter-Terrorism a Serious Priority

                            (By Peter Flory)

       Six Americans are killed and more than 1,000 injured in the 
     World Trade Center bombing. The bombers are found guilty, 
     while others await trial for plotting to destroy New York 
     City landmarks and murder American officials. Saddam Hussein 
     tries to assassinate former President Bush--compelling 
     President Clinton to fire his first Tomahawks in anger. 
     Meanwhile, the bombings in Israel underscore the 
     vulnerability of the Middle East peace process, a critical 
     U.S. interest; the unpredictable and murderous North Korean 
     government is under pressure; and Salman Rushdie and Iranian 
     dissidents are hunted down around the world. Finally, in our 
     most important piece of unfinished business, the Libyan 
     bombers of Pan Am 103 have yet to be brought to justice.
       In a nutshell, this seems like an odd time to put the 
     ``Terrorism'' file in the ``Solved'' folder, or assume that 
     terrorism is no longer a threat to American lives and 
     interests. But that is what the State Department has been 
     trying to do, by proposing to downgrade and marginalize its 
     senior counter-terrorism official, the coordinator for 
     counter-terrorism. This may sound like bureaucratic line-
     drawing of interest only to Beltway insiders, but it could 
     have tragic consequences in the real world. This unwise 
     policy could weaken American security and endanger American 
     lives.
       House-Senate conferees are now completing action on the 
     State Department authorization bill, H.R. 2333. The House 
     version of the bill contained an amendment by Rep. Benjamin 
     Gilman of New York which would have retained the independent 
     counter-terrorism office (known in bureaucratese as S/CT) 
     with the focus and clout to do its job. The Senate bill 
     contained the State Department proposal, cynically modified 
     to preserve some of the trappings, though not the substance, 
     of bureaucratic effectiveness. On Monday, the House voted by 
     an overwhelming 357-2 to instruct its conferees to insist on 
     the Gilman amendment. Conferees reportedly agreed yesterday 
     to a compromise formula that retains the counter-terrorism 
     office in its present form for one year, allowing Congress to 
     hold thorough hearings on the issue.
       The State Department plan to eliminate the counter-
     terrorism office is flawed for several reasons.
       First, it seems to assume that terrorism is no longer a 
     serious threat. As recounted above, it is. While the number 
     of terrorist attacks is generally declining, the audacity of 
     terrorists and their choice of targets--a former U.S. 
     president and the World Trade Center--are in some ways more 
     alarming than ever. As long as the United States remains 
     actively engaged in the world--as it clearly must--there will 
     be governments and groups committed to the use of violence to 
     attack U.S. interests and further their own political goals. 
     And they will note that while Iraq challenged the United 
     States by conventional military means and was devastated, 
     Iran, Libya and Syria have never adequately paid for their 
     roles in terrorist attacks that killed many more Americans 
     than died in Desert Storm.
       Second, there is no efficiency or symbiosis gained by 
     lumping the narcotics, crime and terrorism functions 
     together, as the State Department would like. In particular, 
     linking counter-terrorism to counter-narcotics is a 
     superficial and flawed approach. True, some Latin American 
     narcotics traffickers have used terrorism and some 
     terrorists, like Peru's Shining Path, have sold drugs. But 
     the over-whelming majority of terrorist attacks against 
     American interests is political in nature. Lumping these 
     related functions together will eviscerate our counter-
     terrorism policy. It will also needlessly undermine our 
     counter-narcotics efforts, say the former deputy director of 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy, John P. Walters, 
     and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 
     International Narcotics Matters William J. Olson.
       Third, the proposed multi-function office is a blueprint 
     for bureaucratic impotence. The measures required to fight 
     terrorism are never popular with vested interests, whether in 
     our own or other countries' bureaucracies. So first, a strong 
     U.S. policy requires leadership at home. Since 1986, the 
     State Department has served as the lead counter-terrorism 
     agency. This requires that the department's Office of 
     Counter-Terrorism have sufficient clout with the regional and 
     economic bureaus within State, and with other agencies in 
     Washington, many of which may have their own priorities.
       Then the policy has to be implemented abroad, with 
     terrorist states themselves, and with other governments who 
     sometimes let their own commercial and regional interests in 
     countries like Iran and Iraq undermine a united diplomatic 
     front against terrorist states.
       A successful example was the critical role of the counter-
     terrorism coordinator in spearheading the Pan Am 103 policy. 
     The conventional wisdom at the State Department was that the 
     United States, Britain and France would never persuade the 
     U.N. Security Council to condemn Libya's role in the bombing. 
     But we did--in a unanimous vote. Then they said we'd never 
     get sanctions against Libya. Wrong again, but only because S/
     CT energized the State Department to make it happen.
       Today, as the Wall Street Journal has reported, an oil 
     embargo against Libya would be the perfect occasion for 
     another such effort. With Libyan-grade oil from other sources 
     abundant and cheap, now is the time to push the Europeans to 
     cut their dependence on Libyan oil and impose the only kind 
     of sanctions left that might force Col. Moammar Gadhafi to 
     hand over the murderers of 270 innocent people, including 189 
     Americans. But even if the administration follows up on its 
     campaign rhetoric in this regard, neither the European 
     foreign ministries nor the Libyans will be impressed by the 
     proposed new bureaucratic lineup.
       Here is what the State Department proposal would do. Until 
     now, the head of the counter-terrorism office, the 
     government's senior full-time counter-terrorism official, 
     reported directly to the secretary of state, and with 
     assistant secretary rank, could demand respect in Washington 
     and foreign capitals. State wants to lower the job to deputy 
     assistant secretary rank and put it at the bottom of a long 
     and cumbersome reporting chain.
       First, the incumbent would report to a new assistant 
     secretary who is also responsible for narcotics and 
     international crime, and who in practice would be largely 
     consumed by the day-to-day budgetary, administrative, 
     interagency, diplomatic and congressional demands of the 
     counter-narcotics portfolio. This official will report, in 
     turn, to an undersecretary--whose other global 
     responsibilities include international population control, 
     environmental matters, refugees, human rights, 
     democratization, labor, oceans policy and crime--who will 
     report to the secretary.
       This long, cumbersome chain would fool no one, least of all 
     terrorists and foreign governments. It could only undermine 
     our ability to pursue an effective counter-terrorism policy, 
     especially in crisis situations, and send a signal that the 
     United States had decided terrorism is no longer a priority 
     issue.
       This kind of mistake has been made before, for it was into 
     a similar bureaucratic morass that America's counter-
     terrorism policy had fallen in the early 1980s. Recognizing 
     the need for better high-level coordination, President Reagan 
     in 1985 directed the State Department to upgrade the 
     terrorism position to ambassador-at-large, with direct access 
     to the secretary of state. It worked. The policy was taken 
     seriously, by other agencies and governments.
       Terrorism is not a partisan issue. In fact, this proposed 
     reorganization plan was drafted in the Bush administration. 
     Then, as now, it was a bad idea, one that could be costly to 
     American security and American lives in the years to come.
                                  ____



                                   American Defense Institute,

                                 Alexandria, VA, February 3, 1994.

         An Open Letter to President Clinton From Former POW's

     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are deeply troubled by news reports 
     that you may have an announcement to make on the trade 
     embargo against Hanoi in a matter of days. You have also been 
     quoted as saying that there are many distinguished veterans 
     who think the embargo should be lifted. As former American 
     POWs of the Vietnam War, we urge you, in the strongest 
     possible terms, not to take further steps to restore economic 
     or diplomatic relations with Hanoi until you can certify that 
     the Communist government there is being fully forthcoming in 
     telling us what they know about our fellow POWs and MIAs who 
     did not make it home with us in 1973.
       Mr. President, all of us who were held as POWs in North 
     Vietnam know first-hand that there are no limits to what the 
     Vietnamese will do to show they are ``cooperating'' with the 
     United States to account for our missing comrades. We 
     consider ourselves experts at distinguishing between 
     propaganda and results. As Dr. Kissinger once stated, Hanoi's 
     leaders are duplicitous and they will stop at nothing to 
     achieve their goals.
       Some of our fellow POWs died in captivity in Vietnamese 
     prisons. Yet they have not been accounted for. Some of our 
     crewmates became missing during the same incidents which we 
     survived. They too have not been accounted for. Some were 
     captured and never heard from again. They have not been 
     accounted for. Finally, a great many of our comrades never 
     returned from Laos, even though we know they survived their 
     incidents. North Vietnam controlled Laos during the war, and 
     yet they still have not accounted for a single POW captured 
     and held in Laos during the war.
       There are those in Congress who are urging you to lift the 
     embargo as a means to get more information. Mr. President, 
     such a recommendation is nothing but a submission to 
     blackmail by Hanoi. Do not let yourself be manipulated on 
     this issue. The only way to get Hanoi to unilaterally provide 
     what they are withholding is to be firm. Do you really think 
     that those of us who made it home would have been released if 
     the U.S. hadn't flexed its muscle during the December, 1972 
     bombing campaign? Of course not. And while we certainly do 
     not recommend military action, we do recommend that the 
     sanctions continue until the Communists in Hanoi decide to be 
     fully forthcoming in accounting for our fellow POWs and MIAs.
       Mr. President, we sacrificed precious years of our lives 
     while in captivity. We survived because we believed our 
     country would hold true to principle despite the disruptions 
     at home. Please do not let us down by abandoning any hope we 
     have of firmly convincing Hanoi to account for the remaining 
     POWs and MIAs who came into their possession or control 
     during the war. And please do not tell us that crash site 
     excavations and fragmentary archival documents should be the 
     measure of success in judging Vietnam's cooperation to date. 
     We know better.
           Sincerely,
       U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson, USAF, POW 16 April 66-73; 
     Adm. James B. Stockdale, POW 9 Sept. 65-73; Col. Orson 
     Swindle, USMC, (Ret.), POW 11 Nov. 66-73; Bg. Robinson 
     Risner, USAF (Ret.), POW 16 Sept. 65-73; Capt. Eugene ``Red'' 
     McDaniel, USN (Ret.), POW 19 May 67-73; Col. Larry Barbay, 
     USAF (Ret.), POW 20 July 66-73; Col. Jerry Marvel, USMC 
     (Ret.), POW 24 Feb. 68-73; LCol. Myron Young, USAF (Ret.), 
     POW 6 July 66-73; Cdr. Dale Osborne, USAF (Ret.), POW 23 
     Sept. 68-73; Col. Rudolf Zuberbuhler, USAF (Ret.), POW 12 
     Sept. 72-73; LCol. Keith Lewis, USAF (Ret.), POW 5 Oct. 72-
     73; LCol. James Padgett, USAF (Ret.), POW 11 May 72-73; Col. 
     Bob White, USAF (Ret.), POW 24 Nov. 69-73; LCol. John Alpers, 
     USAF (Ret.), POW 5 Oct. 72-73; Capt. Cole Black, USN (Ret.), 
     POW 21 June 66-73; Capt. Moon Mullen, USN (Ret.), POW 6 Jan. 
     67-73; Capt. James L. Hutton, USN (Ret.), POW 16 Oct. 65-73; 
     Capt. Bill Stark, USN (Ret.), POW 19 May 67-73; Capt. Harry 
     Jenkins, USN (Ret.), POW 13 Nov. 65-73; Col. James Young, 
     USAF (Ret.), POW 6 July 66-73; LCol. Konard Trautman, USAF 
     (Ret.), POW 5 Oct. 67-73; Col. Laird Gutterson, USAF (Ret.), 
     POW 23 Feb. 68-73.
       Col. Ted Guy, USAF (Ret.), POW 22 MAR 68-73; Mr. Mike 
     Bongs, Civ, POW 28 Jan 68-73; Col. Lee Ellis, USAF (Ret.), 
     POW 7 Nov 67-73; Col. Jay Jensen, USAF (Ret.), POW 18 Feb 67-
     73; Maj. Jose Anzaldua, USMC, (Ret.), POW 23 Jan 70-73; Mr. 
     Larry Stark, Civ, POW 1 Feb 68-73; Col. Bert Campbell, USAF 
     (Ret.), POW 1 July 66-73; Capt. Irv Williams, USN, (Ret.), 
     POW 24 Apr 67-73; Maj. John Parsels, USA (Ret.), POW 5 Feb 
     70-73; Col. A.J. Myers, USAF (Ret.), POW 1 Jun 66-73; Col. 
     Steve Long, USAF (Ret.), POW 28 Feb 69-73; Col. Jack Van 
     Loan, USAF (Ret.), POW 20 May 67-73; Col. Bill Baugh, USAF 
     (Ret.), POW 21 Jan 67-73; Col. Don Burns, USAF (Ret.), POW 2 
     Dec 66-73; Col. Art Burer, USAF (Ret.), POW 21 Mar 66-73; 
     Col. Thomas Klomann, USAF (Ret.), POW 20 Dec 72-73; Col. Ken 
     Cordier, USAF (Ret.), POW 2 Dec 66-73; Capt. Jim Bell, USN, 
     (Ret.), POW 16 Oct 65-73; Maj. Mark Smith, USA (Ret.), POW 7 
     Apr 72-73; Maj. Dennis L. Thompson, USA (Ret.), POW 7 Feb 68-
     73; Col. Bob Jeffrey, USAF (Ret.), POW 20 Dec 65-73; Col. 
     Julian Jayroe, USA (Ret.), POW 19 Jan 67-73; Capt. Ross 
     Terry, USN, (Ret.), POW 9 Oct 66-73; and LCol. Hank Barrows, 
     USAF (Ret.), POW 19 Dec 72-73.
       Col. Wes Schiernan, USAF (Ret.), POW 28 Aug 65-73; Col. 
     Fred Flom, USAF (Ret.), POW 8 Aug 66-73; Capt. Gordon 
     Nagagawa, USN, (Ret.), POW 21 Dec 72-73; Col. Terry Uyeyama, 
     USAF (Ret.), POW 18 May 69-73; Col. Frank D. Lewis, USAF 
     (Ret.), POW 28 Dec 72-73; Col. Gobel James, USAF (Ret.), POW 
     15 July 68-73; Lt. Bill Robinson, USAF (Ret.), POW 20 Dec 65-
     73; Col. Ralph W. Galati, USAF (Ret.), POW 16 Feb 72-73; 
     Capt. Ev Sothwick, USN, (Ret.), POW 14 May 67-73; Col. Ken 
     Wallingford, USA (Ret.), POW 7 Apr 72-73; Mr. Harry 
     Ettmueller, USA, POW 3 Feb 68-73; Mr. John A. Dearing, USMC, 
     POW 3 Feb 68-73; MSG. Donat J. Gouin, USA (Ret.), POW 3 Feb 
     68-73; Col. James O. Hivner, USAF (Ret.), POW 5 Oct 65-73; 
     Col. James L. Lamar, USAF (Ret.), POW 6 May 66-73; Col. 
     Thomas M. Madison, USAF (Ret.), POW 15 May 66-73; Capt. 
     Render Crayton, USN, (Ret.), POW 7 Feb 66-73; Capt. Brian 
     Woods, USN, (Ret.), POW 18 Sept 68-73; Col. Jim Bedinger, 
     USAF (Ret.), POW 22 Nov 69-73; Capt. Jim Hickerson, USN, 
     (Ret.), POW 22 Dec 67-73; Capt. Dave Carey, USN, (Ret.), POW 
     31 Aug 67-73; Capt. Rob Doremus, USN, (Ret.), POW 24 Aug 65-
     73; Capt. Reid McCleary, USN, (Ret.), POW May 67-73; and S/
     SGT. John Sexton, USA, POW 12 Aug 69-73.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). The Chair recognizes the 
gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, I will concentrate my remarks on a motion I will offer to 
recommit the conference report for the purpose of removing section 521. 
Following general debate, my motion will call for the removal of a 
Senate provision which praises the Communist Government of Vietnam for 
cooperation in accounting for American POW's and MIA's, despite 
continued stonewalling on this issue that goes back years.
  Obviously, I am deeply disappointed by this conference report. For 9 
years I have been proud to serve as the ranking Republican on the 
Subcommittee on International Operations, which drafts the State 
Department Authorization Act. Until now, this bill has always been a 
genuine bipartisan product that I have never been unable to support. 
Today, that is no longer true.
  Section 512 is a Senate provision that praises the Government of 
Vietnam for its supposed cooperation in accounting for American POW's 
and MIA's. It calls for an immediate lifting of the economic embargo 
and normalization of relations. It even goes so far as to claim human 
rights progress is underway in Vietnam. This is in a country where the 
people are routinely persecuted and incarcerated by the Government for 
all forms of unsanctioned religious and political expression.
  Mr. Speaker, to adopt the conference report without first removing 
this Senate provision would break our faith with America's veterans and 
with the POW/MIA families. But most important, it would break faith 
with all those who gave their lives or never returned from Vietnam. 
These noble Americans gave everything they had to prevent the genocide 
and oppression that swept through Indochina after the fall of Saigon.
  President Clinton has repeatedly stated that the United States 
economic embargo against Vietnam would remain in effect until Hanoi 
significantly increased its cooperation in the fullest possible 
accounting of American POW's and MIA's. But that has not occurred. And 
now we are being asked to lend our own support to a misguided decision 
by accepting this Senate provision that reaffirms the administration's 
policy of lifting the trade embargo. I don't believe that is a correct 
policy and I won't support it.
  Maintaining the trade embargo was the only real ``stick'' the United 
States Government had to compel Hanoi to cooperate on the POW/MIA 
issue. In reality, Vietnam's level of cooperation has not fulfilled 
even the most modest expectations. Lifting the trade embargo was 
supposed to increase Vietnamese cooperation--it has not.
  In 1993, only three American remains were positively identified as a 
result of joint United States-Vietnamese efforts. This was the worst 
year ever for the identification of remains. Moreover, American search 
teams had no freedom of action to investigate either: Unearthed wartime 
remains; United States aircraft wreckage; live sighting reports; or 
interviews of witnesses without being accompanied by Vietnamese 
officials.
  In fact, earlier this month an American search team headed by a 
former Member of Congress along with the daughter of an MIA and a 
representative of a Vietnam veteran's organization were denied access 
to Vietnamese prisons where hundreds of Americans may have been held. 
One of those prison sites has been identified in declassified U.S. 
intelligence documents as a prison camp where 200 Americans were held 
captive in 1972, but none of those American POW's were repatriated in 
1973.
  Additionally, the executive director of the National League of 
Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia, Ann 
Griffiths, recently returned from another of her many trips to Vietnam. 
In her trip report, she described the new, postembargo attitude of the 
Vietnamese Government. Ms. Griffiths described a Vietnam Government 
attitude of complacency--they proudly paraded this Senate provision as 
proof of their past cooperation, without acknowledging their on-going 
responsibilities to continue to help resolve our MIA cases.

  The Vietnamese Government has apparently decided that unilateral 
actions on its part are no longer necessary. They now feel that 
continued bilateral cooperation is the key to resolving the MIA issue. 
The Vietnamese Government is content to wait for us to tell them what 
to do next, instead of moving forward on their own.
  In its trip report, the National League of Families note that the 
most senior personnel on the U.S. full accounting joint task force 
``appear to have an assigned role to create perceptions, despite 
evidence to the contrary, that Vietnam is fully forthcoming.'' If this 
is true, then it means that the joint task force is more concerned with 
making it look like lifting the embargo was not a mistake than trying 
to get Vietnam to be more forthcoming.
  Mr. Speaker, if today we declare this kind of behavior to be 
Vietnamese cooperation, then I fear that we will never achieve a full 
accounting of our POW's and MIA's. By removing this Senate provision we 
will put both the administration and the Vietnamese Government on 
notice that until full and complete cooperation is achieved, no steps 
should be taken toward establishing diplomatic relations.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for the motion to 
recommit. We must not go on record praising Vietnam for its years of 
stonewalling on American POW's and MIA's. The Vietnamese Government 
hasn't lived up to its part of the bargain since the embargo has been 
lifted. We must show that the House of Representatives stands with the 
families of the POW's and MIA's, as well as with all major human rights 
groups who have uniformly denounced the human rights situation in 
Vietnam. And finally, we must signal to the administration that we 
expect genuine and substantial progress in both these areas before any 
consideration is given to establishing formal diplomatic ties.
  Vote to keep faith with our veterans and the POW/MIA families. Vote 
for human rights in Vietnam. Vote for the motion to recommit.


                                          The American Legion,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 1994.
       Dear Representative: During the week of April 25 the house 
     will consider the approval of H.R. 2333, the State Department 
     Authorization Act for FY 1995. That bill has been passed by 
     both Houses of Congress, has been referred to joint 
     conference committee and the report has now been returned to 
     the House and Senate for final passage.
       While the intent of the Act is necessary, language has been 
     included that alludes to significant cooperation by the 
     government of Vietnam for its accounting of American POWs and 
     MIAs, and endorses the end of the economic blockade on 
     Vietnam. The American Legion finds this language 
     disingenuous, inappropriate and has no legitimacy in fact.
       In reality, Vietnam's cooperation on the resolution of the 
     POW/MIA issue has not fulfilled reasonable expectations. In 
     1993 only two American remains were positively identified as 
     a result of joint U.S.-Vietnamese efforts. Moreover, American 
     search teams have had no freedom to investigate either 
     unearthed wartime remains, U.S. aircraft wreckage, live 
     sighting reports, or interviews of witnesses without being 
     accompanied by Vietnamese officials. Furthermore, 
     investigations by U.S. teams have not been pursued with full 
     vigor, e.g., live sighting report investigations are nearly 
     nonexistent and valid research suggestions from veterans' 
     groups have been ignored.
       The Legion understands that the language represents the 
     sense of the Senate and is non-binding. However, adoption of 
     the provisions that address a significant increase in 
     cooperation and ``substantial and tangible progress'' are a 
     distortion of reality and a revision of the history of this 
     painful issue. To include this language in any bill approved 
     by the Congress of the United States could forestall any 
     future action to seek a full and complete accounting of 
     American POWs and MIAs and would be an obstacle to any action 
     to reimpose sanctions against Vietnam should events warrant.
       I urge you to keep faith with the POWs and MIAs, their 
     families and members of the military services and recommit 
     this bill back to conference committee to eliminate those 
     provisions that Americans will find objectionable and 
     erroneous.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Thiesen,
                                               National Commander.
                                  ____

         National League of Families of American Prisoners and 
           Missing in Southeast Asia,
                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 1994.
       Dear Representative: I understand that tomorrow, the House 
     will consider final approval of H.R. 2333, the State 
     Department Authorization Bill for 1995. Now is not the time 
     to signal the Vietnamese leadership that the Congress of the 
     United States is satisfied with the results thus far 
     obtained. To the contrary, a helpful signal would be for H.R. 
     2333 to contain language which calls on Vietnam to move now, 
     unilaterally, to repatriate remains and provide relevant 
     documents which would account for hundreds of missing 
     Americans.
       Included in the text, as amended, is inaccurate language 
     praising Vietnam's POW/MIA cooperation. A National League of 
     Families delegation just returned from Vietnam. When 
     confronted with U.S. documentation, supplied by the League, 
     Vietnamese officials acknowledged that they could do more, 
     unilaterally, to cooperate.
       Please stand with the POW/MIA families and our nation's 
     veterans by supporting Representative Olympia Snowe's efforts 
     to remove this misleading language. You can signal Vietnam 
     that the House of Representatives wants the fullest possible 
     accounting without further delay. You can urge Vietnam to 
     honor its commitments to the families and the President to 
     follow through on the League delegation's findings.
       Unwarranted praise at this crucial point could impede all 
     we have worked to achieve in terms of accountability.
           Sincerely,
                                              Ann Mills Griffiths,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

         National League of Families of American Prisoners and 
           Missing in Southeast Asia
                                                   Washington, DC.


    report on national league of families trip to vietnam, laos and 
                  cambodia--vietnam: March 22-24, 1994

       The U.S. Government's current approach of commending 
     Vietnam for full POW/MIA cooperation despite evidence to the 
     contrary has signaled Vietnam that unilateral actions on 
     their part are not expected nor required to achieve their 
     political and economic objectives. After a series of meetings 
     with very senior Vietnamese officials, the League 
     delegation's consensus is that the leadership of the 
     Socialist Republic of Vietnam is quite confident of its 
     position. The ``new environment'' post-embargo-lift, though 
     cited by SRV officials as a basis for renewed energy to 
     continue and increase both unilateral and joint efforts, has 
     not yet brought increased results in terms of accountability.
       While pledging that their long-standing humanitarian policy 
     of full cooperation would continue regardless of what the 
     U.S. may decide regarding further steps forward, recent U.S. 
     moves were cited as having improved the climate throughout 
     Vietnam which would help ensure continued bilateral 
     cooperation. The underlined rhetoric says it all. Vietnam 
     asserts full cooperation in the past, which is provably 
     untrue, while also asserting that the embargo lift will 
     ensure continued bilateral cooperation which is as yet 
     achieving little accountability. Again, since the embargo was 
     lifted on February 3, 1994, results do not demonstrate any 
     shift in Vietnam's behavior, rather more of the same. Unless 
     U.S. policy is changed to focus on pursuing unilateral SRV 
     actions, the League delegation does not foresee any real 
     basis for optimism that results, in terms of accountability, 
     will increase significantly.
       Quoting recent U.S. Government accolades as evidence that 
     satisfactory progress is being made, Vietnam's rhetoric 
     paralleled that heard in the early to mid-80's. SRV officials 
     initially asserted that they are cooperating fully, providing 
     all relevant archival documents as they are located, 
     withholding no remains or live POWs, and are deeply concerned 
     about their own 300,000 ``MIAs,'' a subject they dropped in 
     the mid-1980's and refurbished in the early 1990's. The 
     League provided SRV officials a book containing U.S. data on 
     why more documents and remains are expected from unilateral 
     SRV actions. The Vietnamese admitted that more can be done 
     and committed to increase unilateral and bilateral efforts; 
     however, the delegation is not optimistic in view of the 
     SRV's longstanding record of breaking agreements and failing 
     to honor pledges.
       Confronted with League-provided U.S. Government facts on 
     last known alive and remains discrepancy cases, SRV officials 
     claimed that the ``easy cases'' had already been solved, a 
     statement not supported by the evidence. Nevertheless, they 
     pledged to continue efforts to resolve the discrepancy cases, 
     noting that many of the cases have been repeatedly 
     investigated by the JTF-FA. We noted that many of these 
     investigations point to Vietnam's unilateral ability to solve 
     the cases.
       In response to League requests for specific documents 
     believed available by the U.S. Government, SRV officials 
     pledged to initiate rapid steps to locate and provide the 
     requested documents. Senior Vietnamese officials were 
     generally receptive to considering a simultaneous two-track 
     approach, to include unilateral efforts on Vietnam's part 
     while continuing the process underway with JTF-FA, i.e. field 
     activities and joint research.
       JTF-FA's efforts in Vietnam are positive in some areas, 
     i.e. the Priority Case Investigation Team (PCIT), but the 
     League delegation has serious concerns in others. We found 
     dedicated, talented individuals in, or on loan to, Detachment 
     2 who are pursuing the current policy-approved JTF-FA 
     operational approach, while searching for alternatives to 
     obtain greater results. We maintain that the team would be 
     better served without the removal of experienced personnel. 
     The JTF process in Vietnam appears geared toward initial 
     surveys and investigations of all cases, with little focus on 
     achieving real accountability and no focus on pursuing 
     unilateral SRV efforts. This focus signals Vietnamese 
     officials that there is no need or desire on the U.S. part 
     for unilateral SRV efforts. Smooth logistics execution of 
     field activities and public relations appear to be of 
     paramount importance. These problems beg correction by 
     policy-level U.S. Government officials.
       The highly publicized Joint Document Center appears 
     constructed more for propaganda value than substance; 
     however, there are some talented personnel intent on greater 
     access and results. Here again, publicly expressed opinions 
     by U.S. officials are reflected in statements by Vietnamese 
     counterparts. This is a serious problem; it alleviates the 
     burden on Vietnam for unilateral provision of archival 
     documents and further research efforts.
       The most senior personnel at JTF-FA Detachment 2 appear to 
     have an assigned role to create perceptions, despite evidence 
     to the contrary, that Vietnam is fully forthcoming. This 
     approach is not only unwarranted, but detracts from objective 
     evaluation of Vietnamese knowledgeability. A consistent theme 
     from some in JTF is that long-held U.S. Government 
     expectations concerning Vietnam's knowledge and ability to 
     unilaterally provide accountability were likely based on 
     invalid assumptions. This leads to their faulty conclusion 
     that accountability must be a lengthy process from which 
     little can reasonably be expected of the SRV in terms of 
     unilateral actions.
       In view of evidence available to the U.S. Government, the 
     approach on archival documents/research should be based on 
     the assumption that more are available and can be provided 
     with political will on the part of the SRV leadership. If the 
     Vietnamese do not provide expected documents, credible 
     explanations should be provided as to why. Such an approach 
     would be consistent with U.S. policy on the live prisoner 
     issue.
       As a result of our trip, we are working on specific 
     recommendations for the U.S. Government, based on a two-track 
     approach, which we believe will motivate Vietnam to provide 
     more unilaterally and give greater credibility to the 
     President's public statements of commitment and expectations, 
     post-embargo.


                        laos: march 25-28, 1994

       Bilateral POW/MIA efforts in Laos are encouraging, despite 
     greater obstacles, i.e. nearly 85% of all of the 504 U.S. 
     losses occurred in areas then under Vietnamese control, and 
     remoteness of areas of loss, as well as displacement of 
     potential witnesses along the border with Vietnam.
       The basis for the League delegation's positive assessment 
     included the Lao Government's history of seriousness in 
     implementing POW/MIA commitments made to the United States. 
     It was evident from discussions that during the ``run-up'' to 
     U.S. lifting of the embargo with Vietnam, Lao cooperation on 
     the POW/MIA issue was downplayed and characterized 
     inaccurately, likely to generate a perception of greater 
     Vietnamese cooperation. In the context of POW/MIA 
     accountability, any comparison between Laos and Vietnam is 
     irrelevant and misplaced.
       With high level guidance, the Foreign Ministry is clearly 
     the ``designated hitter,'' assisted actively by the Ministry 
     of National Defense, with the Interior Ministry in a 
     supportive role, but excluded from joint field activities.
       The Lao Government's commitment to continue and increase 
     their POW/MIA efforts was made clear, as was willingness to 
     consider suggestions provided by the League in advance of the 
     trip. The Foreign Ministry spelled out the Lao Government's 
     approved method for handling aspects of the POW/MIA process, 
     such as ``trilateral'' cooperation between Laos, Vietnam and 
     the U.S. It was made clear that permitting Vietnamese 
     witnesses to participate in field operations in Laos was a 
     second step, to follow initial receipt of information from 
     Vietnamese witnesses for use by the U.S. and Laos in the 
     bilateral effort. The lack of SRV responses to Lao and U.S. 
     requests for documents helpful to the POW/MIA accounting 
     effort in Laos is a source of frustration which continues to 
     impede results.
       On joint field activities, the Lao defined the need to 
     pursue the effort province by province, expanding excavation 
     teams as necessary to ensure remains recovery is achieved as 
     rapidly as possible. The Lao priority is to exhaust all 
     possibility of results in each area before extending field 
     operations beyond their government's relatively limited 
     resources. Overall JTF-FA strategy is clearly not in 
     consonance with Lao desires on how to proceed; however, 
     Vientiane-based JTF-FA personnel appear to recognize the need 
     to tailor an approach necessary to facilitate field 
     operations in Laos.
       Despite the greater problems faced by Laos and the U.S. in 
     terms of accounting for Americans missing in Laos, including 
     lack of information and records from Vietnam, there is an 
     apparent dedication to achieving valid answers on individual 
     cases. This is aided by the Lao policy that actions (though 
     sometimes slow) speak louder than words.
       Another positive, but until now unpublicized, development 
     in Laos is the ongoing archival film project. Lao and 
     American personnel are working together to review film 
     footage, albeit thus far without significant results in terms 
     of accountability. Whether governmental or private, a small 
     amount of assistance to the Lao Government for preservation 
     and location of additional film is crucial to expanding this 
     aspect of the bilateral effort. The practical definitions 
     provided by the Lao regarding the approved manner in which 
     the POW/MIA accounting process could proceed were understood 
     and accepted by the U.S. Ambassador to Laos and the 
     Detachment 3 Commander. Policy level endorsement and 
     direction to JTF-FA headquarters on implementation are 
     needed.
       Accountability is anticipated more reliably in Laos on 
     those cases under Lao control; but, clearly without full 
     provision of war time data and records by Vietnam, the 
     majority may not be resolved except by serendipity.
       U.S. Ambassador to Laos Victor Tomseth was extremely 
     helpful during the League visit. His policy-level interface 
     with Lao officials has been and is extremely important, and 
     it is clear that he is well liked and respected by the Lao 
     leadership which is gratified by his ability to speak their 
     language. The delegation found the Vientiane-based JTF-FA 
     Commander sensitive to the Lao environment and the 
     differences between Vietnam and Laos in the context of POW/
     MIA. Unfortunately, as in most JTF assignments, LTC Mike 
     Kendall, USA, an active duty military officer, will depart 
     soon. Bill Gadoury, one of the few ``old hands'' still in 
     JTF-FA, will remain; his knowledge of the issue and Lao 
     culture, as well as language capability, are vital to the 
     effort.


                      cambodia: march 28-29, 1994

       The accounting effort in Cambodia is proceeding with the 
     full support of the newly established Royal Cambodian 
     Government, but without necessary provision of records and 
     data from Vietnam. Cambodian officials were extremely 
     supportive and made commitments to pursue every suggestion 
     and take any action deemed potentially helpful to account for 
     missing Americans.
       Of particular interest was the commitment of the Defense 
     Ministry to raise with their Vietnamese counterparts the need 
     for SRV provision of records to help account for the 78 
     Americans still unaccounted for in Cambodia. This step was 
     implemented immediately based on suggestions provided by the 
     League.
       Second Prime Minister Hun Sen, with a history of 
     helpfulness since 1986, also offered full support and pledged 
     to raise the need for SRV archives directly to his Vietnamese 
     counterpart, Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet, during the latter's 
     official visit immediately following the League delegations' 
     departure. During the war, both Prime Minister Kiet and SRV 
     President Le Duc Anh were senior commanders in the areas of 
     Cambodia where most Americans were lost. (Reportedly, Prime 
     Minister Hun Sen made the request of SRV Prime Minister Kiet 
     who agreed to respond.)
       JTF-FA Detachment 4 has an excellent working relationship 
     with Cambodian officials. There is a discernable 
     understanding between officials of both governments which 
     enhances bilateral ability to pursue accounting efforts under 
     difficult circumstances. Suggestions made by the League, many 
     of which were made earlier by the Defense POW/MIA Office, 
     were well received by all involved, including the need for an 
     oral history program and unilateral Cambodian efforts to 
     locate potential witnesses who served in the border areas or 
     Vietnam and Cambodia during the war. Implementation by both 
     countries will demonstrate seriousness.
       Noting that even documents such as birth certificates were 
     destroyed during the Khmer Rouge regime, Cambodian officials 
     agreed to the League delegation's request to permit 
     investigation of a military archive in Phnom Penh in an 
     effort to locate possible POW/MIA related material.
       Ambassador-designate Charles Twining is obviously held in 
     high esteem by all Cambodian officials with whom the League 
     delegation met. The U.S. role in achieving a political 
     settlement was noted repeatedly, as was continuing U.S. 
     assistance in overcoming current problems.


                    Thailand: March 20-21, 29, 1994

       The League delegation's focus during stop-overs in Thailand 
     was to meet with U.S. officials directly related to POW/MIA, 
     particularly those in the Defense Intelligence Agency's Stony 
     Beach team, headquartered in Bangkok. With his many years of 
     background and direct involvement in POW/MIA matters, U.S. 
     Ambassador to Thailand David Lambertson provided not only 
     valuable insights, but tremendous support for the League 
     delegation. The discussion with State Department officer Scot 
     Marciel, assigned in Hanoi and temporarily in Bangkok, 
     regarding the current situation in Vietnam was also 
     enlightening, and his assistance in facilitating meetings in 
     Vietnam was most helpful.
       The Stony Beach briefing was informative and professional; 
     however, their debriefing operations continue to be 
     circumscribed by direction of Commander, JTF-FA. The League 
     delegation continues to hold the view that greater in-country 
     participation by the Stony Beach linguists and investigation 
     specialists would enhance valid results from field 
     operations.
       NOTE OF APPRECIATION: Although the League has differences 
     on approach and policy, principally with regard to Vietnam, 
     the League delegation received tremendous logistics support 
     from the JTF-FA Detachments and personnel in Vietnam, Laos 
     and Cambodia. Stony Beach (DIA) was extremely supportive and 
     helpful in Bangkok. The courtesy and assistance were most 
     helpful and deeply appreciated.
       Participants in the League delegation were Chairman of the 
     Board Sue Scott, Executive Director Ann Mills Griffiths and 
     Board Member Colleen Shine. All are family members of 
     Americans still missing from the Vietnam War.
       During the League delegation's trip to Thailand, Vietnam, 
     Laos and Cambodia, meetings were held with the following 
     individuals.
       Vietnam: Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet; Deputy Minister of 
     Defense Nguyen Thoi Bung; Deputy Minister of Interior Le Minh 
     Huong; Deputy Chief of the National Assembly Foreign 
     Relations Committee Van Phac; Deputy Foreign Minister Le Mai; 
     Director of the Vietnam office for Seeking Missing Persons 
     (VNOSMP) Vu Chi Cong; Members of the VNOSMP from Defense, 
     Interior and Foreign Ministries; Commander, U.S. Joint Task 
     Force Full Accounting (JTF-FA) MG Thomas Needham, USA; LTC 
     John Cray, USA, JTF-FA Detachment 2 Commander; U.S. Archival 
     Research Chief Robert Destatte; Other Members of the JTF-FA 
     MIA Office in Hanoi.
       Laos: Deputy Prime Minister Khamphoui Keoboualapha; Foreign 
     Minister Somsavat Lensavad; Vice Foreign Minister Soubanh 
     Srithirath; Former Lao Ambassador to the U.N. Saly Khamsy; 
     Assistant to the Foreign Minister Linthong Phetsavanh; 
     Director of Foreign Relations Department, Ministry of 
     National Defense, COL Sy Inthavong; Deputy Director 
     Department of Europe/Americas, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 
     Mr. Ouan Phommachack; U.S. Ambassador to Laos Victor Tomseth; 
     Deputy Chief of Mission Allen Barr; LTC Mike Kendall, USA, 
     Commander of Detachment 3, JTF-FA; Other Members of the JTF-
     FA and Embassy staff.
       Cambodia: His Excellency Hun Sen, Second Prime Minister; 
     Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior Sar Kheng; 
     Generals Tea Chamrath and Tea Banh, Ministers of National 
     Defense; Special Representative of First Prime Minister 
     Prince Ranariddh Mr. Nady Tan; Mr. Uch Kiman, Acting Foreign 
     Minister; Dr. Chem Widhya, Secretary General, Ministry of 
     Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation; MG Men Than 
     Ly, Director of Interpol, Ministry of Interior; MG Ou Kim 
     Nouen, External Relations, Ministry of Defense; COL Chandy 
     Mucharang, Ministry of National Defense; Mr. Theam Chuny, 
     Director of Americas Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
     and International Cooperation; COL Chum Soyath, Ministry of 
     Interior; U.S. Ambassador-Designate to Cambodia Charles 
     Twining; Deputy Chief of Mission Mr. James Bruno; JTF-FA 
     Detachment 4 Commander Major Tony Lowe; Other JTF-FA members.
       Thailand: Lao Ambassador to Thailand Bounkeut Sangsomsak; 
     U.S. Ambassador to Thailand David Lambertson; Deputy Chief of 
     Mission Matt Dailey; Chief, Stony Beach POW/MIA Office, 
     George Scearce; Defense Attache COL Ed Corcoran, USA; Mr. Ken 
     Urquhart, Stony Beach; LTC Dave Geraldson, USAF, Chief, JTF-
     FA Detachment 1.

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2333, particularly the provisions 
of section 515(6), urging the President of the United States to 
pressure the Government of Thailand to prosecute those responsible for 
the trafficking, forced labor, and physical and sexual abuse of Thai 
and Burmese women and children in Thailand. I commend my colleagues on 
the Foreign Affairs Committee for recognizing the significance of human 
rights violations against women.
  I was appalled and disgusted to discover that the Government of 
Thailand has permitted the trafficking of women, who are then used as 
sex slaves. Recent credible reports have indicated that thousands of 
Burmese women and girls are being led into Thailand with false promises 
of employment, only to be forced to work in brothels under conditions 
which include sexual and physical violence, debt bondage, exposure to 
HIV, passport deprivation, and illegal confinement. In addition, 
members of the Thai police are often actively involved in this 
barbarism. This is a practice the U.S. Government must not support or 
fund and we must work to stop it.
  In too many places around the world, gross human rights violations 
against women occur and the world community has for too long ignored 
them. I am pleased that with this bill, the first steps in recognizing 
this particular horror have been made. Now we must do whatever we can 
to make sure it doesn't continue. This is an issue of fundamental human 
rights.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the conference report contains 
authorizations for both the United Nations' general budget, the United 
Nation's peacekeeping for fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. It 
also contains an authorization for a fiscal 1994 peacekeeping 
supplemental totalling $670 million to pay averages.
  I want to continue to make the Members aware of the impact the United 
Nations' ever-growing budget is having on the taxpayers of this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last 2 years, the number of peacekeeping 
operations has exploded to a record high--16 on-going operations. U.N. 
peacekeeping has evolved beyond the traditional role of ensuring the 
implementation of a truce, to imposing that truce with an international 
militia of which we are assessed 32 percent of this total cost. U.S. 
dollars and U.S. manpower are being put on the line in great numbers, 
in settings that are remote, at best, to this Nation's security 
interests.
  Aside from the critical policy issues that this poses for us, I want 
to turn your attention to the fiscal crisis this is creating. Last 
year, the Congress provided almost half a billion to the United Nations 
for peacekeeping for 1994. Yet, because the United Nations, with the 
agreement of the United States' Mission, continued to vote for new 
missions, and expanded missions, the United Nations is now sending the 
American taxpayer a bill for over $1 billion for shortfalls for 1994 
alone--a bill we may not be able to pay. This conference report 
authorizes these shortfalls to be paid, but let me say to my 
colleagues, this may be a bill we may not be able to pay.
  Further, at a time when we are facing a hard freeze on discretionary 
spending--meaning real cuts in important domestic programs--it is 
difficult to justify how we can send another $1 billion to the United 
Nations. Moreover, it is impossible for me to ask my constituents to 
foot this bill when the United Nations continues to refuse to lower our 
share now almost 32 percent. It is impossible for me to support paying 
our peacekeeping arrears until the United Nations creates a strong 
inspector general to end the waste, fraud, and abuse plaguing the 
United Nations.
  I am glad to see provisions to continue withholding of funds until an 
inspector general is created. Further, I am glad to see that the 
authorization places a cap of 25 percent on U.S. peacekeeping 
assessments beginning in fiscal 1996. However, I believe we should 
begin capping U.S. assessments at 25 percent immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last 20 years this Congress has cried for United 
Nations' reform--cries which continue to fall on deaf ears. It's time 
we rein in the United Nations' purse strings. I am convinced it is the 
only action the United Nations understands. It is time we let them know 
Uncle Sam will not continue to foot the bill for U.N. peacekeeping 
until we see real reform.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, we, along with the President, have the right 
to take young men and women from their families and put them in the 
uniformed services to fight the Nation's conflicts. Along with that 
right, we have certain obligations.
  Our first obligation is to train and equip those young people well. 
It is to provide them with good leadership. When we take them into 
battle, we must do everything we can do politically to see to it that 
they are successful.
  We have another obligation, and that obligation runs to them and to 
their families, and that is to account for those that fall in battle, 
[KIA], killed in action, [WIA], wounded in action, and those who are 
missing in action and who become prisoners of war.
  Now, I think the services carry out that obligation fairly 
effectively when they have the power to do it. When young men and women 
are killed in action, the services act with compassion with the 
families, with the communication, trying to work with the friends and 
the family members to see to it that they adjust to death in combat, to 
see to it that they adjust to the missing, the absence of their member 
of the service who is in their family.

                              {time}  1550

  But in the case of Vietnam, that obligation shifted. Because of the 
closed society that North Vietnam holds, only the Government of North 
Vietnam really knows what happened to the thousands of Americans who to 
date are unaccounted for. I would suggest that there may be a 
difference of opinion as to how many Americans were left behind, if 
any. Members do not have to necessarily believe the memorandum from 
General Cam, the member of the North Vietnamese politburo reporting to 
the Soviet Union, when he said, we are keeping half of these members. 
My colleagues do not have to believe that. They do not have to believe 
that any of the 800 reported sightings are accurate.
  There is, I admit, room for difference of opinion on that issue. 
There is no difference of opinion on the fact that the Vietnamese 
dragged their feet on counting. There is no difference of opinion that 
they at times were extremely deceitful to Americans, to the family 
members and to the Government members who wanted to know what had 
happened to Americans who were missing in action. And we are rewarding 
those people by lifting this embargo.
  There is no doubt that this is a very important economic benefit. We 
are proving to our adversaries and our future adversaries that if one 
just waits long enough, one can count on our capitalistic tendencies to 
override this solemn obligation that we have to the families of the 
people who serve us in combat in Vietnam and in wars to come.
  I think that is a dreadful mistake. The President of the United 
States has capitulated, and this House should not join him.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I would like to engage the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] in 
a colloquy to clarify some language in the conference report and joint 
explanatory statement relating to subsection (a) of section 525.
  The conference report expresses the sense of the Congress regarding 
travel or exchanges for informational, educational, religious, 
cultural, or humanitarian purposes, or for public performances or 
exhibitions. I would like to ask Mr. Berman whether he understands this 
language to allow tourist travel.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, As the gentleman knows, I personally believe 
that the right to travel is a constitutional right, and that Americans 
should be free to travel wherever they wish except in cases recognized 
in the Passport Act, where there lives or health might be in danger. It 
was for that reason that I offered the amendment to the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] which appears as the latter part 
of subsection (c). We did not apply those protections either to 
embargoes against Cuba or North Korea under the Trading With the Enemy 
Act, or to the existing embargoes against Iraq and Libya under IEEPA.
  However, notwithstanding my personal conviction, I think it clear 
that the sense-of-the-Congress language in subsection (a), which 
originated in the Senate, and which covers activities other than those 
covered by subsections (b) and (c), only covers the specific purposes 
mentioned, namely informational, educational, religious, cultural, 
humanitarian, public performances, and exhibitions. It does not 
authorize travel for purely recreational purposes, and it would not be 
wise for persons to justify such travel on the basis of this provision. 
I do not read this language as encouraging the administration to permit 
such recreational travel. It would also be appropriate for the 
executive branch to permit travel for the purposes in subsection A 
either by means of well-defined general licenses or by means of 
specific licenses, as long as the licensing procedures were applied in 
a non-discriminatory manner, and to permit rather than restrain travel 
for these specific purposes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, finally, I would like to seek 
clarification of language in the joint explanatory statement which 
states the committee of conference understands it to be the policy of 
the executive branch to undertake to remove currency restrictions on 
the activities enumerated in the sense of the Congress. Does this 
suggest that the executive branch could in no way place limits on 
currency transactions for travel for such purposes?
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, one 
of the principal ways in which restrictions are maintained on the 
activities enumerated in subsection (a), particularly on travel, are by 
means of currency restrictions. Hence, the language of the joint 
explanatory statement refers to removal of currency restrictions. That 
said, I believe that reasonable per diem limits on expenditures for 
such travel would be in order.
  I should also note that the administration, while it supports the 
principle of free trade in ideas, has made no commitment to removing 
currency restrictions, but still has under review the questions of 
whether current restrictions serve to inhibit the travel described in 
subsection (a), and precisely how it will implement its commitment to 
free trade in ideas.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
explanation.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a member of our committee.
  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I am cognizant of and am going to 
support the motion of the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] to 
recommit. I think it is extremely unfortunate that that Senate Vietnam 
language was included in the conference report. It should not have been 
included in the conference report. It may jeopardize the conference 
report.
  But it is very important that the issue be brought out, and the way 
in which the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] has done so, I think, 
is extremely important. So I hope that we will support her motion to 
recommit.
  There are a number of items within the conference report that are 
very important and that I think are very positive. It was a painstaking 
negotiation that took place and, I think, a very serious one during the 
conference committee meetings.
  One of the items that I would like to bring out to the attention of 
my colleagues, which I think is very appropriate and very timely, is a 
sense of the Congress resolution, a statement that it is the sense of 
the Congress that the President should advocate and speak a mandatory 
international U.N. Security Council embargo against the dictatorship of 
Cuba. We are in the midst this week of seeking to tighten the embargo 
against the 2-year old Haitian dictatorship. Just a few miles from that 
dictatorship is a 35-year old, ruthless totalitarian dictatorship.
  Some of us here believe, and I am confident that it is the majority 
sentiment of Congress and we can so state today, as we did during the 
foreign aid authorization bill where this language was already included 
last year, that the time for double standards has ended and that it is 
time that we seek and advocate formally in the international community 
the application of international sanctions against not only the most 
brutal dictatorship in this hemisphere but one of the most brutal 
dictatorships in the entire world.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Members, I strongly support the motion of the gentlewoman from Maine 
[Ms. Snowe] to be offered at the end of this debate. I congratulate her 
for offering it. Her motion will give Members of this House the 
opportunity of being heard on the question of lifting the United States 
trade embargo with Vietnam and pursuing normal diplomatic relations 
with that country.
  It is regrettable, indeed, that we did not have this debate prior to 
the President's decision to lift that embargo. We should have had it, 
Mr. Speaker. Suffice it to say, I am opposed to that action and I would 
simply ask, how has the Communist regime in Vietnam changed? What is 
different now?
  I will tell my colleagues what has changed. With the collapse of the 
Soviet bloc and other changes in the Communist world, the Vietnam 
Communists are shopping around for trading partners and anybody else 
who can bail them out of the mess that they created over there.
  Make no mistake about it, United States trade with Vietnam is only 
the prelude to Vietnamese demands for United States aid, demands for 
United States aid like they have been making right along. That will be 
the next bill out here at this rate.
  The sudden and supposed willingness of the Vietnamese regime finally 
to come clean on the POW-MIA issue is about 15 years too late. Speaking 
as a former chairman of that POW-MIA task force, who went to Vietnam 
and begged those communists on hands and knees practically, with many 
of my colleagues sitting here in this room, to give us back just the 
remains of our soldiers, I can tell you that they refused to do it. 
They arrogantly turned their noses up to us.
  Now some colleagues contemplate giving diplomatic relations to them 
when the League of Families still says the Vietnamese are not 
cooperating. What is the matter with this body?
  Members had better recognize the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] 
and they had better take her motion to recommit and adopt it. The new 
policy toward Vietnam is a disgrace to the families and to the American 
soldiers who have fought this battle over and over again.
  Please support the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] when the time 
comes for her motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit, when it will be offered. I regret that my rapprochement with 
my dear friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who feels 
passionately about this, has ended on this today, since we agreed on 
three other issues, which is unusual for us.
  However, I feel strongly about this, as well, Mr. Speaker. This 
Saturday it will have been 19 years since the last helicopter left the 
United States Embassy in Vietnam. We owe it to our children and 
grandchildren to find out the truth about our POW's and MIA's. It is 
the highest honor we can pay.
  In an effort to obtain the truth we imposed, as Members know, the 
trade embargo on Vietnam. The President has lifted that embargo. While 
we may have disagreed at that point if that was the correct step at the 
time, it is done. Many of the families, however, who have the most to 
gain, who have loved ones at stake here, support this decision. NATO 
supports it. The Pentagon supports it. In a bipartisan effort, many of 
our most distinguished veterans who serve in this institution, people 
like Senators John Kerry and John McCain and Bob Kerrey and the 
gentleman from Florida, Pete Peterson, believe it is time to take this 
step.
  In just one exercise since the lifting of the embargo, nine sets of 
remains have been returned. We were given access to do investigations 
in militarily sensitive areas. We were given access to 10 prison sites. 
Just last week another exercise began. Some of our questions are 
beginning to be answered. These are important steps, but we know we 
have much to do in the tasks that lie ahead for this country with 
regard to the rest of our POW's and MIA's, and we have to pursue that. 
We have started a new chapter. Let us not turn our clock back.
  I know there are many of my fellow veterans, many in the chapter that 
I belong to, the Vietnam Veterans Chapter 154 in Mount Clemens, who 
have a different view on this, but we are making progress. We are 
moving ahead, and I ask that we stay with the policy. I oppose the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], a member of our committee.
  (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the motion of the 
gentlewoman from Maine [Mrs. Snowe], but I am here to speak about a 
part of the bill that is being sponsored by the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  This past weekend a conference took place in Havana, called by 
Castro, between the Cuban exile community and the Cuban regime, but 
only those who opposed the United States embargo on Castro were 
invited. As expected, no major accomplishments took place, but many 
embarrassing moments were there for all of us to see as these so-called 
political exiles waited in line to grovel at Fidel's feet. Kisses and 
hugs were exchanged, and then Castro stabbed his political friends in 
the back by actually selling the videotape to the media.
  This is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, given the history of lies and 
deceit which Castro has us accustomed to. If we look at the past 35 
years of Castro's regime it is increasingly clear that democratic 
change is not part of Castro's vocabulary here. Instead of a dialog, we 
should increase political and economic pressure against Castro by 
further isolating him. That is why I support the part of the bill 
offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of a dialog, we should be increasing political 
and economic pressure against Castro by further isolating him. The 
United States should be lobbying for an international embargo against 
Castro similar to the one implemented against other undemocratic 
regimes.
  Let us not kid ourselves into believing that any democratic change in 
Cuba is possible, as long as Castro and his thugs hold power.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], a member of our committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Maine [Ms. Snowe] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody will pay attention to what I am about 
to read, because I think it is very, very important. We should support 
the recommittal motion of the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  First, while it is true the Government of Vietnam has returned about 
120 remains, those remains have not been proven to be any of the names 
on the United States Government's roster, the so-called discrepancy 
list of American soldiers which the United States Government believed 
to have been captured during the war. Of the 120 that have been 
returned, it does not include the names of any of the 2,300 POW-MIA's 
that are unaccounted for.
  Second, many POW-MIA activists believe the paramount issue at stake 
in Vietnam is whether the Hanoi regime continues to keep in detention 
living American soldiers. Former U.S. Congressman Billy Hendon was over 
there recently, and he wanted to go to a prison to investigate, and the 
Hanoi regime would not let him go into Vinh Phu Province prison, 
because he believes there may be some alive U.S. POW's still there.
  Third, an article in the February 17 Baltimore Sun, ``You'll Wish 
You'd Never Been Born,'' by Peter Jay, argues that Vietnam will have to 
be pried open if the United States is ever to learn the fate of the 
2,300 POW-MIA's.
  Former New York Times reporter John Corry, who tracked the MIA issue 
for the Senate Select Committee on POW-MIA Affairs, concluded, 
``American prisoners of war have been held continuously after Operation 
Homecoming and remain(ed) in captivity in Vietnam and Laos as late as 
1989.'' that language was not included in the select committee's final 
report on the matter.
  Corry later said that Senator Kerry, who chaired the select 
committee, told a POW-MIA investigator that if the above quotation was 
leaked, ``You'll wish you had never been born.''
  Finally, a February 18 New York Times article, ``New Doubts Cast on 
POW Effort,'' is cause for more heartburn for POW-MIA families. 
According to this press report, ``Russian officials complained last 
November that State Department officials were discouraging them from 
releasing documents about prisoners of war in Vietnam.'' Our State 
Department was discouraging Russian officials from giving out 
information on POW-MIA's left behind in Vietnam. The New York Times 
piece also said that,

       Several Americans who used to work on Task Force Russia 
     (established to seek information from Russia about POWs from 
     Vietnam) said that the cable showed that some State 
     Department officials were so eager to have that embargo 
     lifted that they would even urge Moscow not to release 
     documents that put Vietnam in a bad light.

  We had the Ron Brown affair, and we believe that was whitewashed. We 
have 2,300 POW-MIA's still unaccounted for. Their families still go to 
bed at night not knowing what happened to their loved ones, not knowing 
whether they are dead, alive, in some God-forsaken prison over there, 
and we are normalizing relations with those cutthroats, and they will 
not even cooperate with people going over there. It is a whitewash, and 
I wish people across this country would rise up and complain to the 
Congressmen and Senators about what is going on.
  There needs to be a complete accounting, which every single President 
has asked for since the Vietnam war, on our POW-MIA's, before we 
normalize relations with those cutthroats.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and oppose 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I think I probably know about as much about Vietnam as 
anybody in this body, with one exception, and I feel very strongly 
about this motion to recommit. We are doing the right thing by lifting 
this embargo. Twenty years is long enough. Twenty years is long enough. 
We have extracted maximum effort from this embargo.
  Regardless of all the comments Members have heard today, and some 
more we are going to hear, we have made progress. We have made 
movement. Things have happened that we never dreamed of happening. In 
fact, the Russians are helping, too, as opposed to what some of our 
speakers have said.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do. We must move forward. 
None of us can keep this Nation from marching into the future, any more 
than we can change the history of this Nation. We have to do the right 
thing. The President has shown the courage to do the right thing.
  It is no longer acceptable to just do retribution.
  It is time for resolution. It is time to find solutions, and the 
Vietnamese have agreed to do that. Contrary, again, to what people have 
said, since the embargo has been lifted we have had additional 
cooperation.
  Are we going to find every American that was lost in Vietnam? 
Absolutely not. Have we found all of those that were lost in the past 
wars? Absolutely not. Let us not ask for the impossible, let us ask for 
what is real. Let us do the fullest possible accounting. That is what 
we have promised the families. We are working toward that.
  Lifting the embargo will enhance our search. The potential for 
discovery, with all of the American feet that will be in that country 
now, is so far greater than the 30 individuals that are in the country. 
I ask the Members, do not let us move backward. Take this Nation 
forward. Move toward resolution of this very painful issue. It is the 
right thing to do. Support the resolution to confirm this conference. 
Reject the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to also support the motion to 
recommit based on the embargo to Vietnam and the situation just 
described.
  Mr. Speaker, with due respect, and I mean that sincerely, to the 
prior speaker as someone who barely remembers the implications of the 
Vietnam war, I know quite clearly that there is a generation of Vietnam 
veterans that subsist and exist in my district who say that they cannot 
rest until they know where all the remains are, not ending an embargo 
toward compromise but toward resolution, and then it is time to deal 
with the Vietnamese.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak, however, for ending the arms 
embargo against Bosnia. Had such action been taken 2 years ago--when 
many in this body had originally called for--perhaps the nearly 200,000 
perished Bosnians might have been able to simply defend themselves and 
their loved ones.
  Bosnia is not just a victim of Serbia's bloody aggression against an 
innocent, democracy seeking, ethnic population. It is also a victim of 
international delaying tactics and cowardly foreign policy that ties 
the hands of the Bosnians by refusing to allow them to protect 
themselves. The empty gestures and idle threats from the West have only 
worsened the situation and signaled to the Bosnian Serbs that they have 
nothing to fear in response to their bloody aggression.
  If the last 2 years are any indication, it is likely that in the wake 
of the bloody siege on the safe area of Gorazde, Bosnian Serbs will 
only transfer their terror to other unprotected Moslem enclaves. 
Meanwhile, the United Nations and NATO cavalry will arrive much too 
late, in time only to help mopup the spilled blood and transfer the 
displaced refugees out of their home surroundings.
  Let us pray that today's vote to lift the arms embargo may prod our 
administration and the United Nations to aggressively pursue the same 
course of justice. For those who are still alive, it is not too late.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan]
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, with all the respect that I have for my 
colleagues on the majority side who believe that this conference report 
should go forward, it is not perfect. We hear speaker after speaker 
getting up to support the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman 
from Maine [Ms. Snowe], and most of it is based on human rights 
violations.
  Mr. Speaker, as much as I respect the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Peterson], when the 24 POW's came home and ran for office in 1974 and 
1976, every one of them lost because people stupidly said, ``They've 
been locked up for years. What do they know about what is happening in 
the world?'' They are experts on the mind of their Communist captors, 
but very few had ever been to Laos, Cambodia, traveled outside of their 
own core area where they had been assigned to an Air Force base, or if 
they flew off Yankee or Dixie station, most of them had ever set foot 
on Vietnam soil until they bailed out of the airplane.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a complex issue. Although many of the former 
POW's are now going back to Vietnam, good men and women of conscience 
come back with totally different stories. The Vietnamese are 
professional liars, they are master human rights violators, and the POW 
question remains agonizingly unresolved.
  Please vote to recommit. This is not perfect.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report to H.R. 2333. I want to thank Chairman Hamilton and Subcommittee 
Chairman Berman for their outstanding leadership on this bipartisan 
bill.
  This bill contains a very important measure that I sponsored to 
provide for the recruitment by the State Department of Americans of 
Hispanic descent with funds already available. I hope that the State 
Department and the other foreign affairs agencies will begin earnestly 
to rectify the problem of underrepresentation of Hispanics in their 
organizations.
  Many talented young Hispanic-Americans are ready to serve their 
country. They and the country will benefit from this program. An 
appallingly low number of Hispanic-Americans now serve in America's 
Senior Foreign Service--only 10 out of more than 860, not one of which 
is a woman. And sadly, only 2 Ambassadors out of more than 160 
worldwide are Americans of Hispanic descent. This inequity must change.
  Next we are committed in this bill to maintaining intact the valuable 
services of both Radio and TV Marti. These services broadcast the truth 
to the freedom-loving people of Cuba in the best tradition of Radio 
Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
  As the clock ticks on the Cuban dictatorship, Radio and TV Marti are 
more important than ever. America will have to communicate to the Cuban 
people her peaceful intentions during a transition to a free and 
independent Cuba. When the nightmare of the 35-year-old Castro 
dictatorship finally ends, broadcasting to Cuba will be even more 
important. Hopefully, the initiative of my colleague, Lincoln Diaz-
Balart to seek an international embargo on the Cuban dictatorship will 
help bring us closer to that day.
  Finally, this bill includes two major accomplishments on 
peacekeeping. First, the bill requires that by 1996, the United States 
share of U.N. peacekeeping funds be cut by more than 6 percent. That 
will save America millions of dollars. Next, the bill incorporates the 
suggestion that the United Nations appoint an independent inspector 
general. And the bill goes even farther: it withholds much of the U.S. 
peacekeeping contribution until the United Nations appoints an 
inspector general.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], a member of our committee.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I also yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Durbin). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, title XII of this bill would have 
rewarded those coming to the United States illegally by allowing them 
to apply for permanent visas, then to remain in the United States for 
years as they endlessly adjudicated and appealed their cases. Access to 
this preferential process would have cost them, had title XII not been 
dropped, a mere $600.
  What this section would also have done is to undermine both the quota 
system that has been in place for decades and the process in which the 
State Department screens visa applicants. That responsibility, for all 
practical purposes would have been shifted to the INS. The INS simply 
doesn't have the ability to determine if the person already in the 
United States is a terrorist, a felon, or otherwise excludable, and the 
$600 fee would not allow a proper investigation of these illegal 
immigrants.
  I am convinced that these provisions would have seriously undermined 
our efforts to control illegal immigration, and would have been 
completely unfair to those seeking to immigrate to the United States 
who have patiently waited their turn. It would have precipitated a 
massive flow into our country of people who planned to overstay their 
tourist visa, or come illegally and get a visa for $600.
  I remind my colleagues that we have overwhelming problems with the 
costs of millions of new illegal aliens annually. U.S. Embassies now 
receive between 7 and 8 million visa applications each year. Most of 
these are tourist visas that are routinely investigated and approved. 
Inclusion in this bill of title XII amendments would have doubled or 
tripled the number of illegal aliens coming each year.
  These provisions that I am talking about have been deleted in the 
conference report. We dodged this bullet. This is a victory for keeping 
some sanity in our immigration process.
  That said, due to provisions of this bill concerning Vietnam I am 
supporting Congresswoman Snowe's motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the language contained in the report concerning Vietnam 
should not be a part of this bill, and that is why I am talking today.
  Mr. Speaker, the House receded to language proposed by the Senate 
which commends Vietnam for its cooperation with American POW-MIA 
efforts. It also supports the President's decision to lift the embargo.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue should not be tucked away in a conference 
report. We have not debated this issue on the floor of the House. An 
issue of this magnitude should not be handled in such a below-the-board 
fashion. The process is wrong, and I say also the substance is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, how can we say that the Vietnamese are cooperating with 
us about POW-MIA efforts when they have not released the records of the 
prisons in which our returned POW's were held? Let me make this clear.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson] 
who was held in Vietnam in prison for 7 long years just spoke, the 
records for the prison in which he was held have not been made 
available to us by the Vietnamese Government. They are not cooperating 
as long as they do not release those records. As far as we know, those 
records will tell us what we need to know about our MIA's and POW's 
that may have been left behind. How can we condone lifting the embargo 
when they do not give us those kind of records and that kind of 
cooperation and they do not even permit us to go where we need to go in 
Vietnam to investigate?
  Mr. Speaker, a few month ago we heard testimony from General Needham, 
the Pentagon's point man on this issue, and he confirmed that there are 
a number of areas his investigators cannot go in Vietnam. That is after 
the embargo has been lifted.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the conditions of lifting the embargo was 
cooperation with the Vietnamese in our search for POW-MIA's. The 
embargo is reversible, and if anything right now because they have not 
permitted us to go into areas and have not released these documents, we 
should be talking about reimposing the embargo rather than commending 
Hanoi for its cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I met with Americans who were thrown out of 
Vietnam because they wanted to visit a prison just north of Hanoi. Let 
us get that. Yesterday I met with Americans who wanted to go someplace 
in Vietnam to investigate POW-MIA's, and they were not permitted to go 
to those areas. Would that be called cooperation? The attitude in 
Vietnam is not of cooperation but it is one of doing as little as 
possible without making it obvious that they are not cooperating.
  Mr. Speaker, last December I visited Cambodia to watch our joint task 
force at work in the field. Our troops were doing a wonderful job and 
they were searching for a POW camp along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in thick 
jungle. That whole effort would have been unnecessary had we had 
cooperation from the Vietnamese. They knew exactly where that camp was, 
yet our guys were sloshing away in the jungles, beating themselves up 
to find a camp. That is not cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, on another side issue, I asked the President personally 
to make Hanoi's abuse of human rights a factor in deciding the lifting 
of the embargo. He did not do that. Now we are asked to congratulate 
Hanoi for their POW-MIA cooperation as several American citizens at 
this moment sit in prison in Vietnam for trying to organize a democracy 
conference.
  I ask for my fellow colleagues to support the motion to recommit 
offered by the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe]. They are not 
cooperating with us. it is still a dictatorship. They are laughing at 
us in Hanoi.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement,and wish to discuss one important aspect of it.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report includes an amendment that tracks 
legislation that I introduced early in this session.
  My bill, the Arab Boycott Arms Sales Prohibition Act, would bar 
United States weapons sales to countries that participate in the Arab 
boycott of Israel.
  I am pleased Congressman Tom Lantos offered a version of my bill as a 
successful amendment to the foreign aid bill which passed the House, 
and that this language is included in the bill that we are considering 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, the economic boycott has always been one of the most 
pernicious weapons in the Arab arsenal against Israel.
  And since this discriminatory policy also targets firms that do 
business with Israel, United States companies have lost countless jobs 
and untold dollars.
  It is particularly noteworthy that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia--two 
countries for whom American soldiers lost their lives only 3 years 
ago--still participate in the boycott.
  The well-publicized account of Kuwait's ban of the film ``Schlinder's 
List''--because Stephen Spielberg is Jewish--is but one illustration of 
the backwardness of this policy.
  Arab countries which still backlist American firms cannot be 
rewarded.
  The provision in the conference agreement represents a solid step 
forward in our efforts to end the boycott.
  I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Combest].
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in somewhat of an unusual 
position in differing with people I have tremendous respect for and 
that I rarely differ with. I do however, have grave reservations about 
the issue of the call for lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnian 
Moslems.
  It might appear this is an easy vote, give the Bosnian Moslems the 
right to arm themselves and fight. If it were that easy, I would be 
supporting it. I predict that while it may not seem to be difficult 
today, in the future many may find this vote haunting them. There are 
too many uncertainties. And from past experience, I do not believe the 
administration has the answers.
  This resolution does not make it clear what we are to do if there is 
no support from our allies in the United Nations. Are we to ``go it 
alone''? Do we unilaterally provide arms? Even if the United Nations 
agrees, where are the weapons to come from? How long will it take to 
supply them and train them to fight? And, who trains them? I would 
predict it will take a minimum of 60 to 90 days to deliver the arms and 
train for their use. The more independent the role the United States 
takes in this arming, the more American sons and daughters are placed 
in Bosnia and in harm's way.
  What happens if--in recognizing the potential problems of the Moslems 
being armed--the Serbs launch an all out preemptive strike in an 
attempt to end the conflict prior to the Moslems' ability to strike 
back? What happens to the Americans who we have stationed there in 
their new role? What do we do then?
  Some military leaders on the scene have observed that an end to the 
arms embargo months ago would have been a different story. But ending 
that embargo now would create havoc.

       The Easier Ways Fallacy: Lift the arms embargo on the 
     Muslims and/or turn the whole problem back to the Europeans. 
     To a growing number in Congress, it may seem easier for us to 
     lift the arms embargo than to involve ourselves in the 
     fighting. This may, indeed, prove desirable if the current 
     efforts fail. But it isn't easy; it offers no quick fix. We 
     would have a moral obligation to ensure that the Bosnian side 
     actually receives the heavy weapons it needs, whether across 
     Serbian-controlled terrain from Croatia or airlifted above 
     Serbian surface-to-air missiles. We would also have to ensure 
     the Bosnians the time needed to train on the new weaponry. 
     Since the Serbs would have every incentive to pre-empt, we 
     might have to use air power to prevent larger-scale attacks. 
     In short, lifting the arms embargo, if we're not cynical 
     about it, could involve us even more deeply than air strikes 
     alone.

  Mr. Speaker, the American people have never lost their resolve for 
peace and freedom. But they do expect that before our soldiers are 
placed in danger, every possibility has been predetermined and plans 
have been made. I do not see that in this case.
  Several years ago when the House considered the authority to go to 
war in the gulf. I did not cast my vote blindly as a noninterested 
bystander. At that time, my son went to work every day in a Marine 
uniform and it was almost certain he would go to the gulf. I supported 
that effort then and today I am totally convinced that was the right 
decision.
  I do not share the same conviction regarding American involvement in 
Bosnia today. Until we know the specific result of our actions and 
until we have planned for the potential reactions to our actions I 
would not vote to send my son to Bosnia, and my friends and I will not 
vote to send yours.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Levy].
  (Mr. LEVY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVY. Mr. Speaker, Duncan Hunter was right when he spoke here a 
couple of minutes ago. By agreeing to the conference report in its 
present form, we send a signal that we are prepared to sell out, that 
we are ready to abandon our principles when there is a business reason 
for doing so.
  We are also demonstrating how far removed so many of us in Congress 
are from the people that we represent. You know, when President Clinton 
lifted the Vietnam embargo several weeks ago, there was a hue and cry 
within my district and many other districts that were exceeded only by 
the hue and cry that followed passage of the Clinton tax package a 
couple of months ago.
  If it is the sense of Congress that lifting the Vietnam embargo is 
correct, then Congress is out of touch. The embargo has been lifted.
  By including embargo language in the conference report, some in 
Washington are attempting to give the President the political cover 
that he needs to cover the fact that he made the wrong decision. The 
conference report should not be used for that purpose.
  Support the motion to recommit. Let us not abandon those who are 
missing in Vietnam.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  (Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the 
Department of State, U.S. Information Agency and other foreign affairs 
agencies authorization bill for fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. 
The authorization levels contained in the bill for fiscal year 1994 
will cover the amounts appropriated for the State Department, USIA, the 
Board for International Broadcasting, and the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency in the fiscal year 1994 Appropriations Act. In 
addition, the authorization amounts contained in the conference report 
for fiscal year 1995 for the State Department and the other foreign 
affairs agencies, generally conform with the appropriations requests 
for the Department and these agencies in the President's 1995 budget.
  There is one provision of the conference report, however, that is of 
concern to our Appropriations Subcommittee. Section 101(b)(2)(B) of the 
conference report states that of the amounts authorized to be 
appropriated for the State Department's diplomatic and consular 
programs, $11.5 million is authorized to be available for fiscal year 
1994 and $11.9 million is authorized to be available for fiscal year 
1995 only for administrative expenses to carry out the purposes of the 
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act.
  This provision has a significant and serious impact on the State 
Department. For fiscal year 1994, the provision will require that $11.5 
million already provided for State Department operations in the fiscal 
year 1994 Appropriations Act be transferred to the Migration and 
Refugee Assistance Program for administrative expenses of the program. 
Expenses of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Program normally are 
funded in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. The State 
Department has already had to absorb $60 million worth of unanticipated 
costs and this transfer of $11.5 million will just add to the burden. 
With respect to the fiscal year 1995 provision, no matter how much 
funding our Committee includes for State Department operations in the 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, the first $11.9 million will be 
available only for transfer to the Migration and Refugee Assistance 
Program for its administrative expenses.
  I have talked with the gentleman from California about this 
provision, and he has assured me he does not plan to include this or 
any similar provision in any future State Department authorization 
bill. I appreciate the gentleman's consulting with me on this matter 
and his assurance that this provision will not be repeated in any 
future State Department authorization bills. I also want to assure the 
gentleman that we will work with him and his committee to try to secure 
an adequate level of funding for the State Department for fiscal year 
1995.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill's manager, Mr. Hamilton, 
and rise today in support of the provision of the pending conference 
committee report which urges the lifting of the arms embargo against 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, in keeping with that country's right to self-
defense. In the absence of adequate measures to maintain international 
peace and security, continued application of the embargo, imposed by 
the United Nations Security Council prior to the armed attack on Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, undermines that Government's right of self-defense 
and, therefore, contravenes article 51 of the United Nations Charter. 
The continued imposition of an arms embargo against Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, which faces a well-armed aggressor, is reprehensible and 
should be ended without further delay.
  The Helsinki Commission has followed developments in the former 
Yugoslavia closely and both Senator DeConcini and I have advocated 
resolute action, under United States leadership, to stop the genocide 
in Bosnia. Through its inaction and half-hearted measures, the 
international community has allowed the situation in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina to deteriorate to the point it has reached today. Hundreds 
of thousands of civilians have perished over the past 2 years. Over 2 
million have been driven from their homes through a policy of ethnic 
cleansing, resulting in the worse humanitarian crisis in Europe since 
World War II. Despite a flurry of diplomatic initiatives and countless 
cease-fire agreements, aggression, and genocide continue.

  While I applaud President Clinton's initiative to secure NATO cover 
for the so-called safe havens in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is broad 
recognition that air strikes alone may not succeed in stopping the 
conflict completely. For over a year now I have advocated a strike and 
lift approach in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Clearly, this two-staged 
approach is preferable to trying anyone of them alone.
  The Bosnians have demonstrated their determination and courage to 
fight, against all odds, to defend their country and all that it stands 
for--which--Mr. Speaker, is a Government that respects the principle of 
equal rights for all peoples regardless of ethnicity, religion, or 
race. The current embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina has seriously 
impeded their ability to secure the necessary means to defend 
themselves against force that seeks to build a new nation upon the 
principle of ethnic exclusivity. It is apartheid European style.
  And let's be clear that this is not a classic war in which opposing 
military forces directly engage each other.
  This is the massacre, daily, of innocent civilians huddled in 
overcrowded and undersupplied enclaves by some brazen thugs lobbing 
shells from the mountains above.
  Two years into the conflict, they continue to do this because no one 
on the ground has the means, thanks to this embargo, to stop them and 
the international community has lacked the will. This must change.
  As a matter of principle, Bosnia has the right to its own self-
defense. It is time that the United States uphold that right by 
unilaterally lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina, a 
sovereign and independent State.
  If it means going alone--lifting it unilaterally, then we must or we 
shall simply share in the collective guilt of watching as a Nation 
dies.
  It is time for us to act. It is time for us to say if we will not 
take action at least we will allow an independently recognized Nation 
of the international community to defend itself.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and friend, 
the gentleman from Maryland, for his eloquent statement.
  I cannot think of anything we could do to correct this horrendous 
situation that has gone on in Europe and in Bosnia than to let the 
people defend themselves, the right to determine their own destiny, and 
I thank the gentleman for his forceful statement on this issue.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the majority whip.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman from New York, for whom I have 
great respect, for yielding this time to me.
  There are two points I would like to make. No. 1, the very many 
strong reasons to support this bill, you just heard one discussion, the 
question of getting Congress on record in support of lifting the arms 
embargo on Bosnia. We have heard some talk about human rights in 
Vietnam. Let me tell you about human rights in Vietnam.
  This bill creates Radio Free Asia, a surrogate radio that would be 
broadcasting into authoritarian and totalitarian, government-controlled 
states in Southeast Asia, providing an independent basis for 
information. That is going to do more to promote the notion of 
pluralism, of democracy, of free markets, than any other thing we could 
possibly do. That is in this bill, language toughening up the test for 
the PLO's commitment to the peace process. You have heard about the 
Arab boycott.
  In one other area I want to make specific reference: In reorganizing 
international broadcasting, we take the Voice of America charter and we 
include those standards in a broader charter for all our broadcasting, 
including the requirement for a balanced and comprehensive projection 
of U.S. thought and institutions reflecting the diversity of U.S. 
culture and society.
  I suggest this bill has so many good reasons to vote for it, and I 
urge the body to do so.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit H.R. 
2333, the State Department Authorization Act. My distinguished 
colleagues, Olympia Snowe and Ben Gilman, have clearly exposed the 
Senate language that wrongly claims the Government of Vietnam has 
increased its cooperation over the last 3 years on POW/MIA issues. I 
commend them for challenging this pernicious fiction. It does not 
belong in our Nation's laws.
  We must continue to insist on the full accounting of all POW/MIA's 
and on the highest priority efforts to resolve all cases. The Clinton 
administration has made a serious mistake in relying on the good faith 
of the Communist dictators of Vietnam. Such reliance is grossly 
misplaced, given their long history of human rights abuses, broken 
commitments, and cynical dealings with these very issues.
  I urge my colleagues not to provide the Government of Vietnam the 
political cover it seeks so that economic and diplomatic relations with 
our country can be normalized. It would be an enormous disservice to 
the families who only want to know the fates of their loved ones. 
Support the motion to recommit H.R. 2333.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that materials from 
the National League of Families and the American Legion be inserted 
into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Durbin). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Johnson].
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the gentlewoman from Maine's [Ms. Snowe] motion to recommit. This is 
the first opportunity this body has had to vote on this issue, and I 
commend my colleague from Maine for challenging the other body.
  You know, to commend Vietnam for being an enemy, for being a 
Communist nation, is plain wrong. The decision of President Clinton to 
lift the trade embargo on Vietnam was ill-timed and, I think, 
deceptive. United States policy clearly stated at that time that 
certain actions were to have been taken by the Vietnamese in order for 
the embargo to be lifted. Servicemen still missing in action were not 
accounted for. We had guaranteed that to our servicemen, to our Nation, 
and to their families.
  While the President might claim that the Vietnamese provided more 
than 21,000 documents, photos, and artifacts since 1992, only 1 percent 
pertained to missing Americans. Think about that. One percent. The 
bottom line is the Vietnamese did not hold up their end of the bargain, 
and we allowed them to get away with it. Just like most U.S. foreign 
policy decisions as of late, and it made us look weak and sent that 
message to the world.
  More importantly, the President betrayed the trust of the American 
people. He promised during the campaign that there would be ``no 
normalizing of relations with any nation that is at all suspected of 
withholding any information on the POW-MIA issue. POW-MIA families 
relied upon the President and now have nothing left to hold onto. 
Ironically, those in the administration who pushed for lifting the 
embargo were never personally involved either through direct captivity 
or through family members, and that includes those members of both the 
Defense and State Departments.
  I was moved by the words of CBS anchorman Dan Rather, who said:

       Politicians break campaign promises all the time. But this 
     time the President's hand wasn't forced. He did this on his 
     own initiative.

  Dan Rather goes on to say:

       This reporter wonders: Did it occur to President Clinton 
     that night, February 3, to go to the Wall?

  That is the POW Wall.

       It's only a short walk from the White House to the Wall, 
     the Vietnam Memorial, where 58,000 Americans' names are 
     carved in the Garden of Stone. Those Americans may have gone 
     to the wrong war, but they went for the right reason.

  Out of respect for those who served and a lack of that respect from 
the executive branch, we here in this body must do what we can to 
insure a full accounting of those who fought to protect this country 
and our rich freedoms which we so often take for granted.
  Vote ``yes'' to recommit.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Texas 
yield?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Would the gentleman state, though, the fact that we lifted the 
embargo, and we did not normalize relations with Vietnam? That is a 
major difference in this context in which we are presenting this. We 
lifted the embargo, we are not normalizing relations with Vietnam. If, 
in fact, the Vietnamese go back on their cooperative efforts, we will 
reimpose the embargo. The President has stated that. It is the policy 
of this Nation.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I concur with what the gentleman from 
Florida says, but he also said he would not lift the embargo until we 
had the full accounting.
  So how can we believe what we hear?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has 
expired.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I will confine my remarks to the issue of the 
motion to recommit. I do oppose the motion to recommit. I have the 
greatest respect for the gentlewoman from Maine, and I think we have 
listened to the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas, 
both of them POW's, both of them veterans who have a different point of 
view. A few years ago I had an opportunity to go with five of my 
colleagues, all of us Vietnam war veterans, to Vietnam, and I think all 
of us came back, some with different opinions, but most of us committed 
to the idea that we need to move toward lifting the embargo as we have 
now done at this point.
  I will yield to no one in my concern about a full accounting for our 
MIA's, our missing-in-action, and that was the point that we all made 
when we were in Vietnam meeting with officials in Danang, Hanoi, in 
Saigon, and in other parts of Southeast Asia. But the point is that we 
will have the best opportunity to have progress on this issue if we 
continue to work with the Vietnamese, if we continue to make progress 
in other areas, including trade. Just since lifting the embargo, we 
have had substantial improvement, and I believe those improvements can 
be best continued by doing this. This is not an issue of closing doors, 
of healing; this is simply an issue of continuing progress on a full 
accounting for our MIA's. And that is why I would vote against the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to know exactly what to do on the issue. 
Many of us go with gut feelings. A lot of us have spent time in 
Vietnam, some have been on the ground, like my colleague on the other 
side, and Mr. Johnson as well. But I support the motion to recommit, 
and I will tell you why.
  I have a lot of Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian-Americans in my 
district, and to a man, and to a family, they have asked me, please, do 
not support MFN and do not lift the embargo.
  Many of them have issues of human rights just like the same rights we 
had in China. They have asked us to not do it. I think when you take a 
look at what the Vietnamese are doing today, waving the Senate 
resolution, saying, ``Look, we are, we are adhering to the MIA issue 
and trying to solve it,'' I do not think if we brought three or four 
people back alive today that we would resolve that, and I do not think 
we would ever resolve the MIA issue. But I do believe North Vietnam--
Vietnam, there is no such thing as North Vietnam anymore--that Vietnam 
could do a lot better job in the accounting of our missing-in-action.

                              {time}  1640

  The same day I was shot down, Mr. Speaker, Commander Blackburn was 
shot down, and his son used to ask me about once a month; said, ``Duke, 
tell me about my dad,'' and it was the same questions, same answers 
every day. Well, just 2 years ago they brought Commander Blackburn's 
body back, but I know it had been like a 1,000-pound weight had been 
lifted off that boy's back.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe that resolve to those families. Vietnam has not 
been contributing to the issue. I rise in support of the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Durbin). The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] has 3 minutes remaining to close debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say a word of appreciation 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], and the gentlewoman from 
Maine [Ms. Snowe], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for 
their work on the conference report. We have some disagreement, of 
course, on the motion to recommit, but very, very good work has been 
done by them and others on this report.
  The first point I want to make is to oppose the motion to recommit. 
The effect of the motion to recommit would be to require the reopening 
of the conference committee to secure approval of the removal of the 
Kerry provision.
  The Senate is going out of session. The State Department 
authorization runs out on April 30. So, the practical effect, if the 
motion to recommit is adopted, is simply to shut down the State 
Department and embassies all over the world, doing enormous damage to 
the United States international presence, Mr. Speaker.
  Not only would the State Department shut down, but every embassy in 
the world would have to shut down. There would be no communication 
between Washington and our negotiators in the Middle East or our 
negotiators in Bosnia. Officers, like those in the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, the Commerce Department and all others, would have to 
quit. The practical effect of approving the motion to recommit, with 
the Senate out, is to simply shut down the foreign operations of the 
United States.

  That is a very important thing to remember.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, the motion offerd by the gentlemwoman from Maine 
[Ms. Snowe] is unnecessary because the language she objects to is 
nonbinding on Members of the House. It is Senate language.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlemwoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] threatens to 
bring the Government operations around the world to a conclusion on a 
nonbinding recommendation. The conference report does not commit any 
Member of the House of Representatives to any position with respect to 
the Vietnam embargo. The language is not sense-of-the-Congress 
language. It is sense-of-the-Senate language, and that passed the 
Senate by about a 3-to-1 margin in January.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for Members of the House, through 
this motion to recommit, to tell the Senate what position they should 
take. We are simply respecting the right of the Senate to express its 
view on the Vietnam embargo.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the second point I want to make simply is that this 
is a very, very important bill. It has many features to it, and I hope 
Members will vote their approval of the conference report after 
opposing the motion to recommit.
  The most important thing to say with regard to funding is that we are 
$400 million below the amount in the House bill, and we are $150 
million below the 1993 appropriated level. So, it is a tight, fiscally 
responsible bill.
  And the other point I want to make in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is 
that we provide in this bill leverage to get the kind of reforms we 
need in the United Nations. We all recognize the importance in the 
United Nations in peace keeping through withholding the U.S. 
contributions. We are going to force the United Nations to make the 
kinds of changes that we think are necessary to make it more effective.
  I urge opposition to the motion to recommit, and I urge approval of 
the conference report.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, although I voted against the 
House version of the State Department Authorization Act last June, I am 
pleased to say that the conference report is improved from that 
original bill, and I will support it. The conference version is $434.2 
million less than the House version of this bill. It sets the United 
States share of United Nations peacekeeping operations at 25 percent, 
less than the current 31 percent. It keeps funding for the 
counterterrorism office. Especially noteworthy is the provision 
expressing the sense of Congress that the President should lift the 
arms embargo on Bosnia and allow the Bosnian people to defend 
themselves from Serb attack.
  There is one aspect of the bill that I do not support, and that is 
the language stating that the government of Vietnam has cooperated with 
the efforts of the United States to account for missing servicemen. The 
bill also calls for lifting the trade embargo against Vietnam. The 
Senate added this language to the bill last January, and President 
Clinton used their vote on it to justify his order lifting the trade 
embargo against Vietnam.
  The House was never given the opportunity to vote on the wisdom of 
lifting the embargo, so I have not been able to vote on this important 
issue before now. I have always felt that the United States should not 
grant Vietnam the privilege of normalized relations before the fate of 
every single missing American is known. We should not surrender the 
only leverage and incentive we have to encourage the Vietnamese to be 
even more forthcoming. Therefore, I will vote to recommit this bill 
with instructions to remove the language praising and rewarding 
Vietnam.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to 
me and I urge members to support this conference report, which I 
believe moves the United States boldly into the post-cold war period.
  I am particularly supportive of the provision in this conference 
report that create an authorization for Radio Free Asia. Representative 
Bentley and I sponsored a bill in the 103d Congress that would create 
Radio Free Asia. I am very pleased that this conference report 
implements the intent of that bill and creates a separate Radio Free 
Asia which would be a grantee of a newly formed Board for Broadcasting, 
which would make grants to all the independent radios. I believe that 
the independence of Radio Free Asia is essential in its successful 
operation and I support this approach.
  As you know, Asia has half of the world's population and some of the 
fastest growing economies. It also has some of the world's worst 
political situations, like the terribly repressive situation in Burma 
that sees the Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, and 
some of the last holdouts of communism, North Korea and the People's 
Republic of China.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States has a great national interest in 
promoting human rights and democracy in China, North Korea, Burma, 
other Asian nations. Free nations are historically less aggressive and 
more cooperative internationally. Free nations also tend to have 
greater respect for the fundamental freedoms on which our own Nation is 
founded. Human rights are universal. We have a moral responsibility to 
promote human rights in every nation on earth.
  Some Asian nations are closed to information including news of the 
changes in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the 
strengthening of democratic institutions and free markets around the 
globe as well as their own domestic news. Information is tightly 
controlled by dictators and authoritarian governments because they know 
the power of information to liberate people. Radio Free Asia proposes 
sharing information with every man and every woman in these closed 
societies.
  The Washington Post today reports growing unrest among China's 
peasant population. The vast majority of China's people live in the 
interior of the country, away from the reach of Hong Kong's broadcast 
signals or other outside influences. They must rely on news provided 
them by the government in Beijing or Voice of America broadcasts on 
general issues, mostly regarding the United States. Imagine if Shi 
Jingxuan and his wife, Pan Fuying, who were beaten by local authorities 
in their village after criticizing the Communist Party Secretary in 
Yuanzhuang, knew the truth. Imagine if they knew that not only did 400 
villagers on tractors and bicycles ride into the county seat in Anhui 
Province to protest local corruption, but that police had dispersed 
3,000 protesters hundreds of miles away, outside Guangzho, 2 weeks ago, 
who were angry about land confiscation without proper compensation. 
Simply knowing that they are not alone would give a tremendous burst to 
the democracy movement in China.
  The 1992 Commission on Broadcasting to the People's Republic of China 
said broadcasting to communist nations in Asia was ``desirable, 
feasible, and in the national interest'' and I agree.
  With the uncertainty of the China MFN situation, the United States 
needs alternatives to promote human rights and democracy in China. 
Radio Free Asia will be a cost-effective way to promote the democratic 
spirit, much the same as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty helped 
liberate Eastern Europe.
  After intense debate on this issue in the Senate, it was determined 
that an authorization level of $30 million would create the leanest 
Radio Free Asia possible while still meeting the goals set out for it.
  This conference report also requires review of Radio Free Asia's 
effectiveness after 3 years. I believe this is a very sound requirement 
and I am confident that the review will find that funding RFA is a good 
investment for our country.
  I believe that this is a very important issue and I urge all members 
to support the conference report.
  I would particularly like to thank the chairman of the International 
Operations Subcommittee, Mr. Berman, for his efforts regarding Radio 
Free Asia. I have been working closely with him for the past several 
years to make Radio Free Asia a reality and I want to thank him for his 
invaluable advice and assistance.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before 
the House includes a number of provisions which are commendable and 
deserve our support. Many initiatives on which I have been active over 
the years are addressed in this legislation:
  Calling for the termination of the United States arms embargo of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the subsequent provision of military 
assistance to Bosnia;
  Establishing a Radio Free Asia which would broadcast accurate and 
timely information, news, and commentary to the People's Republic of 
China, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, Tibet, and Vietnam;
  Withholding of a percentage of assessed funds from the United Nations 
until the United Nations has established an independent office of 
inspector general to conduct and supervise objective audits, 
inspection, and investigations of U.N. programs;
  Continued funding for broadcasting to Cuba, and promotes the idea 
that the President should seek a mandatory international U.N. Security 
Council embargo against Cuba;
  Insisiting that the Secretary General of the United Nations comply 
with article 100 of the U.N. Charter, restricting the Secretary General 
or any of his staff from seeking or receiving instructions from any 
government or authority external to the United Nations. This provision 
was added in response to the Secretary General's decision last year to 
prohibit Chinese dissident Shen Tong from meeting with the press corps 
at the United Nations;
  Creating a permanent Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism 
within the Department of State; and
  Reiterating the President's Executive order of May 28, 1993, which 
outlined the human rights conditions for granting most-favored-nation 
status for the People's Republic of China in 1994, including compliance 
with bilateral agreement on prison labor, and overall significant 
progress in taking steps to adhere to the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, the release and accounting for those who are imprisoned 
or detained for nonviolent expression of political and religious 
beliefs, ensuring humane treatment of prisoners by allowing human 
rights organization access to the prisons, protecting Tibet's 
distinctive religious and cultural heritage and permitting radio and TV 
broadcasts to China. The Executive order also calls on the 
administration to abide by commitment to fair, nondiscriminatory trade 
practices and adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the 
Missile Technology Control Regime.
  Having outlined each of these positive provisions I must, for the 
record, state my profound disappointment that the conference committee 
dropped one of the key humanitarian provisions which had been added by 
the Senate. I was supportive of the Senate amendment which prohibits 
the Attorney General from deporting nationals of the People's Republic 
of China who demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that upon their return 
to the PRC they will be forced to abort their baby or will be subjected 
to forced sterilization. In addition, the amendment would have required 
the Attorney General to grant asylum to those Chinese nationals who 
demonstrate that they have experienced severe harm because of their 
refusal to comply with China Government coercive population control 
directives.
  It is my understanding that conferees agreed to drop most of the 
language which came under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. 
For this reason, the Senate amendment was dropped.
  Mr. Chairman, President Clinton and others in his administration have 
repeatedly expressed concern that the coercive tactics of the Chinese 
regime are ``really very abhorrent'' in the words of Secretary of State 
Warren Christopher. But, when the time comes to protect those 
individuals who face the long and cruel arm of China's policies, Mr. 
Clinton and his appointees administer an unsympathetic asylum policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want the record to indicate clearly my disappointment 
that the Congress is unable to reiterate its support for granting 
asylum and protecting those who are the victims of China's coercive 
policy.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support H.R. 2333, the State 
Department Authorization Act, which contains landmark legislation to 
help stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  Today, the United States and the international community face a 
frightening array of emerging nuclear threats, including North Korea, 
the breakup of the former Soviet Union, the India-Pakistan rivalry on 
the subcontinent, and Iran and Iraq. The Nuclear Proliferation 
Prevention Act of 1994, introduced by Senator Glenn, will help the 
United States combat these proliferation threats in several important 
ways.
  First, it imposes sanctions on individuals, companies, banks, and 
countries that contribute to the global spread of nuclear weapons. 
India, Pakistan, and Israel all developed nuclear weapons with 
substantial foreign assistance. The United Nations inspections of Iraq 
showed that Saddam Hussein relied heavily on help from foreign 
companies for his secret bomb program. China has provided Pakistan with 
a nuclear weapons design, and other important assistance, and has 
questionable nuclear contacts with Iran.
  The sanctions in H.R. 2333 will stop these illicit nuclear transfers. 
Foreign companies promoting proliferation will face a ban on 
procurement contracts with the U.S. Government. Banks will face a ban 
on doing business in the United States. Countries that substantially 
contribute to proliferation face a wide array of sanctions, including a 
cutoff in foreign aid, loss of arms sales, and a ban on loans and 
exports to the country.
  Under current law, there are sanctions for companies and countries 
that contribute to the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons 
or ballistic missiles. H.R. 2333 fills an important gap by imposing 
tough sanctions for nuclear proliferation as well.
  The next step is to expand these sanctions to include an import ban 
on the products of companies and countries that promote proliferation. 
In 1992, the House passed my amendment to impose such an import ban. 
Hopefully there will be an opportunity to enact import sanctions later 
in this Congress.

  Second, the bill sets forth 24 measures to strengthen International 
Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] safeguards. These proposals were drawn from 
legislation originally introduced by myself and Senator Glenn in the 
102d Congress. As the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA is 
responsible for ensuring that countries are complying with the Non-
Proliferation Treaty. Historically, the international community has not 
given the IAEA the support it needs to function completely effectively. 
As a result, the Agency failed to detect Saddam Hussein's elaborate 
clandestine program, despite its regular safeguard and inspection 
activities. But lessons were learned from the Iraq experience, and the 
IAEA has developed a more activist approach to its safeguards 
responsibilities. It was the IAEA that uncovered evidence that North 
Korea had produced more plutonium than it had officially declared, 
giving it a potential nuclear weapons capability. The Agency deserves a 
great deal of credit for doggedly pursuing full access to all of North 
Korea's nuclear facilities, as the NPT requires. The Nuclear 
Proliferation Prevention Act establishes a broad agenda for 
strengthening the IAEA further. The Clinton administration should 
aggressively pursue these proposals.
  Finally, the bill requires the administration to submit an annual 
report summarizing nuclear dual-use exports that have been approved. 
This will help improve oversight of U.S. nuclear export controls and 
will give an early warning if large numbers of nuclear exports are 
going to countries that are suspected of building nuclear weapons.
  This legislation is an important milestone in U.S. efforts to prevent 
nuclear proliferation, strengthening policy in three key areas: 
Sanctions, export controls, and IAEA safeguards. As a next step, 
Congress and the President should build on each of these policy areas. 
We should expand the sanctions to include import sanctions. We should 
strengthen the nuclear export control licensing process to give the 
Department of Defense and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency a 
larger role in approving licenses. Finally, the IAEA should receive 
enough funding so that it can undertake the reforms H.R. 2333 
recommends.
  The Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 will help stop the 
global spread of nuclear weapons. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] who is the distinguished chairman of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, and the gentlemen from California, Mr. Berman and 
Mr. Lantos, who are both distinguished chairmen of Foreign Affairs 
Subcommittees, deserve great credit for their support and leadership on 
this important legislation, as do the gentleman from the other body, 
Senators Glenn, Pell, and Helms. When President Clinton signs H.R. 
2333, he will have further fulfilled his campaign promise to strengthen 
and improve U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Snowe

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Snowe moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 2333 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     disagree to section 521 (relating to relations with Vietnam) 
     in the conference substitute recommended by the committee of 
     conference.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of the adoption of the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 209, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 147]

                               YEAS--195

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Barlow
     Bryant
     Calvert
     Clay
     Condit
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     English
     Frost
     Goodlatte
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Huffington
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lloyd
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Pickett
     Quinn
     Rush
     Slattery
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Wheat

                              {time}  1707

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. DeFazio against.

  Mr. HUTTO, and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. POSHARD, EMERSON, and LANCASTER changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________