Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 85 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6141-H6159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the bill, H.R. 3540, and that I may include tabular and
extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.

[[Page H6142]]

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 445 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3540.

{time} 1316

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3540) making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hansen in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June
5, 1996, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton] had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page
97, line 8.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 6, 1996, no
amendments to the bill are in order except the following amendments, if
offered by the member specified or a designee: amendments Nos. 54, 58,
and 76 by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; amendment No. 10 by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]; amendment No. 69 by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder]; and amendment No. 75 by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
Debate on each amendment and all amendments thereto will be limited
to 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, except that amendments Nos. 54 and 10 shall each be debatable
for 45 minutes.
Consideration of these amendments shall proceed without intervening
motion except one motion to rise if offered by the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Callahan].

amendment no. 58 offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Obey: On page 97, after
line 5, insert:
``Sec. 573. None of the funds made available under the
heading ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' may be made
available for any country when it is made known to the
President that the government of such country has not agreed
to the Department of Defense conducting during the current
fiscal year nonreimbursable audits of private firms whose
contracts are made directly with foreign government and are
financed with funds made available under this heading (as
well as subcontractors thereunder) as requested by the
Defense Security Assistance Agency.''

amendment no. 76 offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 76 offered by Mr. Obey: On page 97, after
line 5, insert:
``Sec. 573. Not more than 100,000,000 of the funds made
available under the heading ``Foreign Military Financing
Program'' may be made available for use in financing the
procurement of defense articles, defense services, or design
and construction services that are not sold by the United
States Government under the Arms Export Control Act to
countries other than Israel and Egypt.''

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
recognized for 10 minutes in support of the amendment, and the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be recognized for 10 minutes
in opposition to the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment restores language, again through
the device of a limitation which has been carried in the foreign
operations bill for several years. It limits to $100 million the amount
that can be spent for direct commercial contracts, except for Egypt and
Israel. Its effect is to limit the extent to which countries can
contract on their own for goods and services and thereby escape the
oversight requirements of the Export Control Act.
Mr. Chairman, it is again an anti-fraud safeguard. I attempted during
debate on the bill last week to restore this language in identical form
in the appropriate place in the bill, but the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Gilman] made a point of order against the amendment because it was
legislative in nature. Because I feel so strongly about the need to
include this provision in the legislation, I am now offering it in the
form of a limitation.
Again, because of the requirement to do so in this form, its effect
is slightly different than the current law, but it is my understanding
that the chairman will accept the amendment. I can assure him I have no
intention of changing current law, and will work with him to bring it
into compliance as we meet in conference.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do intend to accept the amendment, but before the
vote, I had agreed with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]
that we would enter into a colloquy. She has a committee hearing that
she has to attend to, and I agreed to let her come in at this point to
have a colloquy.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield for just a
second before doing that, I also have an agreement to yield to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] on the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to read into the Record a
letter that I received from the Turkish Ambassador early this week:

Dear Mr. Congressman: Yesterday's House action in adopting
two anti-Turkey amendments to the FY 1997 foreign aid bill is
not fitting for U.S.-Turkish relations. I cannot
overemphasize the importance of these issues in Turkey. It
was inevitable that House passage of these amendments would
provoke a strong reaction from the Turkish people, who
question anew the benefits of our five decades of alliance
with the United States and self-sacrificing support for U.S.
policy.
The initial step we have taken in response is to inform the
U.S. Government that Turkey declines U.S. economic
assistance. The basis of our friendship with the United
States has never been foreign aid, even in years past when
the amounts were much greater. Rather, our friendship has
been based on shared interests, interests which are gravely
jeopardized by yesterday's developments.
Nevertheless, I do want to recognize that many Members
stood up for strong U.S.-Turkish friendship. I want to
express my appreciation to you for your leadership against
these pernicious amendments. I hope you will continue to
work to ensure that these provisions are not enacted into
law, and offer you my total cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I read that into the Record just to emphasize one more
time what I consider to be the grave consequences that resulted from
what I considered to be unwise action.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H6143]]

Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes an excellent
point that many times we get wrapped up in debate on the floor of this
House and we do not recognize what an audience worldwide we have. Last
week the House sent a strong message to Turkey about something that
took place decades ago and yet we do not chastise or demand certain
apologies from other countries who have committed atrocities, even in
later years.
I agree with the gentleman from Texas about his concern. I have the
same letter from the ambassador, and I think that the Congress made a
mistake in the language that we inserted in the bill. I hope that it
will not cause any injury to the fact that Turkey is a tremendous ally
of ours in any NATO endeavor, and I hope that this Congress will not
forget that during the Persian Gulf war and during other wars, Turkey
has always been there, and that we have bases that we are utilizing in
Turkey that are strategically important to our national defense and to
the defense of other allies of ours throughout the world.
So I think we made a mistake. But the debate was heard, and it is a
lesson to all of us that what we say here is very important.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, that is right.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, what we say on the floor of this House is
taken very seriously by countries all over the world, and I hope that
some day we will be able to convey our appreciation to the Turks for
the contributions that they have made in the past.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama very
much, and I would simply remind him that if the Turks wanted to today,
they could open the spigot on the Iraqi pipeline and bust the embargo,
just as one example.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to
enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama regarding human
rights in Ethiopia, as the House continues to consider this foreign aid
bill.
Let me thank the chairman, first of all, for the work that he has
done with my office as we have worked on this, even last year, as the
gentleman may recall. I think it is very important that we move forward
on this issue.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to enter into a colloquy with
the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs for
participating, as I said, in this colloquy, especially in light of the
limited time that we have remaining to debate this important
legislation.
There are numerous reports that the Ethiopian Government is harassing
and unfairly detaining journalists, academicians, opposition party
officials and other citizens. These events raise questions about
freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the independence of the
judiciary within Ethiopia.
I know that we have come a long way, Mr. Chairman, but I would ask
the question, does the gentleman think that the United States
Government should do more to support human rights in Ethiopia as we
move this foreign operations bill forward?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, yes. I encourage the State Department, as
a matter of fact, to carefully assess the situation in the country and
use its influence with the Ethiopian Government to encourage them to
improve human rights. I would note that the current government in
Ethiopia is light years ahead of the former regime in terms of human
rights.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman recalls, I
successfully offered an amendment to the 1996 foreign operations
appropriations bill which requires the State Department to closely
monitor human rights progress in Ethiopia as it monitors funds for
Ethiopia. We have been in dialog with the State Department, I have had
a briefing, and that is why I rise again today. We realize that all is
not well, even though possible progress may have been made.
The gentleman supported my amendment. As the State Department
obligates the funds for Ethiopia in fiscal year 1997, I think that it
is still critically important that the department continue to carefully
monitor the country's human rights progress. Some progress has occurred
but much remains to be done.
I strongly believe that Congress should be on record in the debate on
H.R. 3540, the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal year
1997, as encouraging the State Department to continue this monitoring
of Ethiopia. Does the gentleman from Alabama agree?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do agree. I believe that it is our
role as Members of Congress not to dictate foreign policy to the
executive branch but to express strong messages of concern to the State
Department on human rights violations by countries who receive U.S.
foreign assistance.

{time} 1330

I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to discuss this
important issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
kindness in allowing me to again bring this very important issue to the
Congress. I appreciate his interest and concern about this matter. The
numerous citizens in Houston and around the country who trace their
ancestry to Ethiopia and all Americans who believe in democracy and
human rights appreciate as well the opportunity to focus the Nation's
attention on this issue.
I do believe with the ability of the State Department to continue to
monitor these human rights violations that we will find ourselves
better placed to assist the Ethiopian people and those of Ethiopian
ancestry.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the Obey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. zimmer

Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Zimmer: Page 97, after line 5,
insert the following:

prohibition on development of shopping center near the former auschwitz
concentration camp

Sec. 573. It is the sense of the Congress that the
Government of Poland should prohibit development of a
shopping center within the 500-yard protective zone
surrounding the former Auschwitz concentration camp in the
town of Osweicim, Poland.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment I am offering is very straightforward. I would put the
Congress of the United States on record opposing commercial development
within the internationally recognized protective zone surrounding
Auschwitz, the former Nazi death camp in Poland. I know that a point of
order is being reserved because of technical rules rather than
substance by the chairman of the subcommittee, but I strongly believe
that the voice of Congress should be heard on this matter. The foreign
operations appropriations bill before us is an appropriate vehicle
given the nearly $70 million in assistance that we give to Poland.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very timely amendment. Last year, a developer
put into motion plans to construct a shopping mall immediately opposite
the Auschwitz main gate and within a 500-yard protective zone that
surrounds Auschwitz. The proposed mall included

[[Page H6144]]

retail stores, a supermarket, a fast food stand, and a large parking
lot.
In March, the Polish Government officially halted the project after
worldwide criticism denouncing it as desecration of the world's largest
Holocaust site. The Government at the time said its decision was final.
Yet just last week, wire services reported that the project developer
had resumed construction in defiance of the Government's order and
continued work for 2 days before construction was again suspended.
Mr. Chairman, Auschwitz is a place of profound significance. It is a
haunting reminder of the depravity and corruption that humanity at its
worst is capable of. That reminder is the most powerful protection we
have against such horrors occurring again.
Auschwitz is also a precious memorial to the lives of 1\1/2\ million
people, mainly Jews, whose lives were so horribly sacrificed to that
depravity and that corruption.
The idea of stores, a supermarket, and fast food stands being built
within the protective boundaries of Auschwitz assaults both intellect
and sensibility. It is an insult to those who died in the Holocaust. It
is an insult to those who survived the Holocaust, ant it is an insult
to all of us the world over who believe that the significance of
Auschwitz must never be distorted or lost.
The Government of Poland has stated emphatically that it will not
allow such commercial development to go forward. I applaud that promise
and the efforts the Government has made to keep it. I hope the entire
Congress will go on record joining this opposition to what is nothing
less than an act of sacrilege.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the gentleman for
bringing this amendment to the floor today. I think it is of great
importance and my personal thanks to him for doing so.
Mr. Chairman, I have often been amazed during my time in the Congress
by some of the incredible events that occur from time to time that are
brought to our attention. I have seldom been appalled. Today I am
appalled, appalled at the proposal of a developer in Poland to build a
commercial development right next to Auschwitz death camp. Imagine if
you will for just a moment a strip mall built at a place, for example,
inside Arlington Cemetery, just about the same thing. I cannot believe
that you can honor the millions of Catholics and Gypsies and Jews
slaughtered by the Nazis with this kind of development.
This is desecration and, frankly, I think it pretty sick.
I call on the Polish Government to honor its commitment to disallow
this project, and I call on the United States Government to use its
full authority to assist the Polish Government in this endeavor.
Once again, I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Zimmer] for bringing this to the floor today.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my point of order, I
would also like to thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the
attention of this Congress. Many Americans and a lot of Members of this
House share the concerns that the gentleman has expressed. However,
since the amendment is legislative in nature and should be addressed by
the Committee on International Relations, I hope be brings this issue
to the attention of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the
chairman of the authorizing committee.
Since the amendment is legislative, I would hope the gentleman would
withdraw his proposal. If this issue has not been resolved to the
gentleman's satisfaction or at least fully considered by the
appropriate committee of the House by the time of conference with the
Senate, I pledged to the gentleman that I will do my best to include
language in the statement of the managers similar to his amendment. But
once again, I thank him for bringing his amendment to the attention of
the House and his willingness to hopefully withdraw the amendment.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, based on those assurances, I will withdraw
the amendment. Before doing so, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] who has introduced freestanding
legislation on this subject some months ago.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding me the time.
I just wanted to comment on this. I have, as the gentleman says,
submitted a resolution talking about the events outside of the
Auschwitz death camp. I want to make just a couple of very brief
points. That is, I think we all agree that it is totally inappropriate
to think about any kind of mall or commercial development at actually
such a place that should almost be sacred ground with so many people
murdered and martyred there.
I think it is an absolute outrage that this mall would even have been
contemplated being built. It violates agreements that the Polish
Government has made internationally, stating that within a certain
amount of feet or meters from the Auschwitz death camp that nothing
like this could happen. It is absolutely an outrage that one would even
consider. And when you consider that the town is 7 kilometers away, it
is even more insulting to think that a mall could not have been built
in the town or near the town but would be built at the entrance, to the
infamous entrance to the death camp where those horrible words, those
lies, Arbeit Macht Frei, work makes you free, were put by the camp.
So many of us have been trying for many, many months to point out
this outrage and to get the assurance from the Government of Poland
that this would not continue. I must say the Government of Poland, to
its credit, has shown that it does not want the mall to be built, has
attempted to give me assurances that it will not be built. And I would
hold them to their word. I think it is very, very important that a
government that makes these international agreements adheres to them.
I just want to say to my colleague from New Jersey and to others who
have expressed similar concerns and outrage with the thought of this
happening that I intend to pursue my resolution which is cosponsored by
the other gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. We will pursue it in
the Committee on International Relations. We think it is appropriate
that Congress goes on record as opposing it.
I do, again, want to say that I am happy that we have been getting
positive responses from the new leaders of Poland and from the Polish
Government who have told us that this will not be built. With those
assurances and the fact that it is bipartisan and we are going to work
to pass my resolution, I welcome the help and support of the gentleman
from New Jersey.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity to commend
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] for his pending amendment,
which would express the sense of Congress that the Government of Poland
ensure that construction never takes place at the site of the infamous
Auschwitz concentration camp.
Although we have received commitments from the Polish Government that
they will not permit development at Auschwitz, periodically there are
problems with local developers. Accordingly, the Polish authorities are
to be commended for their commitment to the sanctity of Auschwitz and
the memories of the millions of innocent men, women, and children who
crossed its portals.
However, as our concern is still appropriately registered on this
sensitive matter, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with Mr.
Zimmer. Under leave that will be obtained I would request that the
statement issued last week by the Polish Government be made a part of
the Record.

Embassy of the Republic of Poland,

Washington, DC, June 5, 1996.
As regards the latest Reuter release on the alleged
resumption of the construction of a shopping center near the
state Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, please be informed of the
following--as received from official sources in Warsaw:
1. No construction work has been resumed.
2. There is no change in the clear position of the
Government of Poland, as well as of the local authorities
concerning the decision to halt the construction made on
March 22.
3. The press spokesperson of the Government called the
announced intention of the developer to resume the project
``the investor's lawlessness''. Moreover, the Chief of the
Office of the Council of Ministers while confirming the
previously undertaken decision of the Government, emphasized
its firmness to execute the decision by administrative
measures.

Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.

[[Page H6145]]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 97, after line 5,
insert:
``Sec. 573. None of the funds appropriated under the
heading `International Military Education and Training' may
be made available for Cambodia and Thailand.''

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes and a Member in opposition will be
recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] who has some comments he wants to make about an
amendment that was left out of the agreement.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding his time to me.
I will not offer this amendment. I am precluded from offering this
amendment due to the UC that was arrived at last week, but I think that
this was a noncontroversial amendment that both Republicans and
Democrats would have agreed to. We had it in the June 5 Record last
week, amendment number, it was actually H.R. 3540, amendment No. 78,
page 97. This amendment dealt with the ongoing conflict between the
Russians and the Chechens.
Certainly on last year's foreign operations bill, we got up and we
spoke about the need to bring an end to this war that has killed
probably over 30,000 Chechens and maybe close to 5,000 Russians. This
ongoing war threatens not only the human rights situation in Russia. It
threatens their economic stability, when they are transferring so much
money that we are loaning through the IMF, trying to bring their
economy back to stability and back to growth, when they are now taking
this money to fight a war and kill Chechens day after day in a brutal
and inhuman manner.
We attached some successful legislation last year to the foreign
operations bill that cut $5 million out of aid to Russia, saying we
must bring an end to this war. And this is a signal from the American
people and the U.S. Congress that we want to see it end now. No longer
will this war go on. We are not going to subsidize this war.

I think it was successful. Now they have entered into successful
negotiations where they have exchanged protocols over the weekend,
where they have agreed on exchange of prisoners. They have agreed on a
cease-fire. This resolution simply says they have broken half a dozen
cease-fire agreements already, stick to this one.
The Congress applauds you. Republicans and Democrats applaud Mr.
Yandarbiyev and Mr. Yeltsin for this agreement. Stick to it and stick
to it after the June 16 election in Russia. I know the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has been over to Chechnya and seen this conflict
and this tragedy go on and on and on, when the Russians first engaged
the Chechens and thought they could overrun this country in a period of
a couple days.
Well, 18, 19, 20 months later we still see this brutality going on.
So this resolution simply says, keep up the good work on diplomatic
negotiations. Please abide by the two protocol agreements signed over
the weekend. Please try to come to some kind of resolution on the
territorial status of Chechnya and after the elections continue this
good will and this diplomacy.
I would hope that in conference that the distinguished chairman would
continue to bring this kind of issue before the State Department and
make this a priority. I hope that in some way with this dialog and
hopefully with the colloquy and Members with like interests, the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Wolf] and others, that we can keep this issue as a vital part of
foreign policy between the United States and the Russian people.

{time} 1345

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer],
let me say that I am glad that he brought this to the attention of the
House. It is rather amazing to me how we can pick on a little country
like Indonesia and at the same time be sending millions of dollars to
Russia and letting them slaughter 30,000 people in Chechnya and not
even mentioning it in this bill.
So I think that the gentleman is absolutely correct in bringing this
issue to the attention of the Congress, and we will certainly address
this issue at some point in conference.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for a colloquy.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to bring to the attention of
the body there is a man named Robert Hussein who was converted to
Christianity in Kuwait. As a result of his conversion to Christianity
on May 29, a court in Kuwait has found him guilty, and the punishment
is potential death. And the endangered species in this world today that
we talk about so much are Christians. Christians are being persecuted
around the world more today than any other time in this century, and I
just wanted to urge the gentleman from Alabama if he would follow this
because, if he recalls, and I know he does, during the 1980's we in a
bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats, stood firm with those of the
Jewish faith who were persecuted in Russia. In fact, I am concerned
that the persecution will begin again after this election. They are
basically privatizing anti-Semitism in Russia.
So it is important for us to rally to the defense of those who are
being persecuted, and because of so many Christians being persecuted in
the Middle East and other places, and Robert Hussein, who has been
potentially sentenced to death, and the fact that the United States
Government sent hundreds of thousands of troops in defense of Kuwait
and 300 Americans died, if the gentleman from Alabama would be
sympathetic in following this issue, particularly later this year, but
next year if this does not change, or if anything should happen to Mr.
Hussein.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I
just found out about this atrocity that is evidently going to take
place, or possible could take place in Kuwait, and I cannot fathom any
government in any land condoning the execution of an individual for
switching religions, especially to Christianity. And for me to hear
this is most appalling.
I should remind the Kuwait Government, just as we reminded the
Turkish Government, erroneously so I think, about something that took
place. A great majority of the people that came to defend Kuwait, that
granted them the sovereignty over their nation, were Christian people.
It is an insult, in addition to being absolutely morally wrong, it is
an insult to the American people to have that government at this point
begin to condemn to death people who choose a certain religion.
So I appreciate very much the gentleman bringing the mater to the
attention of the floor. I hope that some Kuwaiti representatives are
listening somewhere, and I hope that they hear our message, that this
is not something that we in the United States can or should tolerate.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for that
very strong statement.
Mr. Chairman, on May 29, 1996, a judge in the Kuwaiti family court
declared Robert Hussein to be an apostate. The judge, Amar Al-Sabiti,
also gave a written ruling stating that Mr. Hussein's wife should be
divorced from him and his possessions should be distributed among his
heirs and he could be killed. ``The Imam [ruler] should kill him
without a chance to repent.''
Hussein Qambar Ali, a convert from Islam to Christianity, is in the
midst of a national court case. This decision by the court sets a
precedent as to whether or not the Kuwaiti Constitution will be
interpreted under Islamic Sharia law. This would mean that the
constitutional religious freedom guarantees would be void and a
convert--or apostate--could be killed with impunity.
Hussein has changed his name to Robert Hussein. Robert got into this
situation through a court case over the custody of his children.

[[Page H6146]]

His estranged wife, a Muslim, will not allow him to see his children
despite his winning custody of them in court. Robert returned to court
to have the decision enforced, and everything has been in an uproar as
Hussein publicly confessed his conversion to Christianity.
Several Muslim lawyers have filed cases against Hussein wanting him
to be charged with apostasy. Members of Parliament have called for his
death. Hussein has had to live in hiding, has lost his family business
due to his family not allowing him to be part of it as he is no longer
a Muslim. The Sharia family court is looking at the case to see if it
has jurisdiction or if this is a civil matter because it deals with
Hussein's civil rights: child custody, inheritance, and most
importantly, freedom of religion.
The United States still has troops in Kuwait. American troops died
while fighting to protect Kuwaiti from Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
We should urge the Kuwaiti Government to make a public statement
supporting Hussein's constitutional rights and his freedom of religion
and guaranteeing his protection from death threats from those who want
to kill him. Also, the Kuwaiti Government should ensure that their
judicial process has integrity, both in the legal representation
Hussein should have, which he does not have, and in showing the
legitimacy of Kuwait's Constitution--Will it stand?
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing
to the floor's attention this violation of human rights. Any time we
find intolerance with regard to religion is something the entire
Congress should stand up and fight against, and for that reason I
commend the gentleman for his efforts and want to join with him in
expressing abhorrence of what Kuwait has done with regard to this case.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I once again rise
reluctantly in opposition to the amendment that the gentleman from
Wisconsin would offer, because I deeply respect his vast knowledge of
world affairs.
However, while I hold my friend's foreign policy views in high
regard, I must tell him that I do not think that this amendment will
achieve his objective. It will simply undermine, I think, our
relationship with a key friend in South Asia.
The United States has an extensive security relationship with the
Government of Thailand. Our military conducts numerous joint exercise
programs with the Thai military, including frequent port visits by the
United States Navy. The United States also actively collaborates with
the Thai military.
In addition, the prepositioning of munitions and other military
equipment improves the readiness and logistical reach of United States
forces in this region.
Thailand's cooperation and reconnaissance support for our counterdrug
effort is essential to the United States ability to cut drug
trafficking in Asia.
And finally, Thailand is equally essential to the success of the
Joint Task Force for Full POW-MIA Accounting and its effort to answer
the remaining questions about Americans missing in action.
IMET training itself is invaluable for the Thai military. In my
opinion, it improves professional conduct and capabilities of the Thai
military while training them to improve, at the same time, their human
rights performances.
So I hope that the gentleman will see my view on this. Recognizing
how I respect him, I will also assure the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] that I will work closely with the gentleman to strengthen
language to emphasize the message he is trying to give and that I will
work with him to put strong language in the bill in conference.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me first of all take just a moment to comment on
the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] with respect to
Kuwait. I am certainly not familiar with the incident to which he
referred, but let me say that, as one Member of Congress, I have to say
that I have never in my life found a government or a royal family as
arrogant or as condescending as the Kuwaiti Government and royal
family, and I have never seen a government more quick to pursue its own
personal and political interest above the interests of its own people
more than the Kuwaiti Government.
I will never forget going to Kuwait City after Kuwait had been
liberated by NATO and United States forces, talking to a good many
Wisconsin GI's who were in Kuwait who told me that, when the first
United States aid came into Kuwait City, that we had Kuwaiti officials
saying to them, ``Yes, do send it into this neighborhood; no, don't
send the aid into that neighborhood,'' because the latter neighborhood
had been populated by people who were not political supporters of the
royal family. So they were perfectly willing to see loyal Kuwaiti
citizens denied assistance after that war simply because of their
political beliefs.
So I would certainly join with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan] in expressing the desire to do whatever can be done from the
outside to affect the conduct of that government, which I found to be
incredibly arrogant and insufferable through the years that I have had
any experience dealing with them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Wilson] before I make my statement on the amendment that is before us,
after which I will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a colloquy with the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
Notice has been given of a hearing before our subcommittee chaired by
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] on which we all serve, and
this concerns Kuwaiti business practices, this hearing. I believe it is
in about 2 weeks, and I would be curious to know, and I would
encourage, that perhaps we might expand that hearing on this business
practices to include this matter that the gentleman brought before the
House.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. That would be wonderful because I am very concerned about
the man's life. He has been threatened and sentenced to actually death,
so I think it would be good if the gentleman and Mr. Callahan would do
that.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, it is, of course, up to the gentleman from
Alabama, but the hearing is scheduled for June 19; that is next week.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no reservation whatsoever about
including this subject matter in the hearing that we have scheduled.
The hearing we have scheduled is to discuss some of what I think are
unfair business practices by the Government of Kuwait. But we can
include human rights as well, and certainly this is a gross human
rights violation, and I think that we should, and I will, after
consultation with the gentleman, be happy to include in our hearing or
part of our hearing a discussion of this execution that is pending
there.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
want to thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for doing that,
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], I thank him for bringing
that to our attention.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, having dispensed with all of that, let me new explain
what it is that has motivated me to bring this proposal before the
body.
Mr. Chairman, I will acknowledge that choosing the route of limiting
IMET funds in order to get at this problem is a blunt instrument. The
problem is that there are no other instruments available at this point.
We have a very serious problem in that we are concerned about
continuing timber sales by the Khmer Rouge, sales which are occurring
with the complicity both of the Cambodian Government and the Thai
military.
Last year this committee heard allegations that both the Cambodian
and Thai military were cooperating in facilitating the sale of tropical
timber from areas controlled by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. As a
result, last year's bill contained language which is repeated in this
year's bill which requires the President to terminate assistance to any
country organization that he determines is cooperating tactically or
strategically with the Khmer Rouge and military operations

[[Page H6147]]

or which is not taking steps to prevent a pattern or practice of
commercial relations between its members and the Khmer Rouge.

Now, for those of my colleagues who have forgotten, the Khmer Rouge
are those people who are responsible for the slaughter, the wholesale
slaughter, of millions of innocent people because they were even more
fanatic than the Red Guards under Mao Tse-tung in China, and they just
wiped out millions and millions of people.
Mr. Chairman, the problem with the language that was contained in the
bill last year is that it was worded in a way as to be worthless
because it does not fit the facts of what is going on. In fact, the
Thai military is allowing private Thai companies to develop commercial
relations with the Khmer Rouge to buy their timber and then allow its
transport through their territory. So the pattern of commercial
relations takes place between the companies themselves and the Khmer
Rouge, not the military in the Khmer Rouge; and therefore the language
of the bill last year was circumvented.
I am told that that means that the Khmer Rouge are, through this
device, through this ruse, are obtaining $10 million or $20 million a
month. Now, I do not think Americans want to see the Khmer Rouge get a
dime, and I certainly do not think they want us to have an aid
relationship with a country, with a government, which is facilitating
the delivery of that kind of assistance to some of the most blood
thirsty people in the history of the planet.
And so I offer this language because it was the only way that we
could reach either of the governments in power.
I would say that the Prince of Cambodia himself was recently quoted
in the press as saying, quote, ``Thai traders in the Khmer Rouge would
surely find a way to make a deal to export felled logs from its
controlled area so the legitimate Cambodian Government would lose
income.'' So I guess what he is saying is ``If you can't beat them,
join them.'' It seems to me that we have got to find a way to shut this
down, and that is why I suggested this amendment.
But I know the administration has great concerns about going after
IMET; in this case for other reasons. And so what I would like to do is
to withdraw the amendment, with the understanding that the subcommittee
chairman would help in conference so that we can try to strengthen the
language which is in the existing bill so that we do not, to the
greatest extent possible--we end the fact that government to which we
are providing aid seems to be cooperating in a device by which money is
allowed to flow to the hands of some of the bloodiest fools in the
history of this world.

{time} 1400

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly share the gentleman's concern about the
activity that is going on and the complicity, at least among commercial
interests there, perhaps involving the governments as well. I do
appreciate the gentleman's statement that the IMET tool is a blunt
instrument and probably not the way to proceed. I think we have perhaps
a more effective way to pressure the parties concerned, and that might
be through the international community's massive financial support for
the Government of Cambodia.
There is an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post on this very
subject. In fact, this gentleman brought a resolution to the floor
which was passed last March expressing the concern of what is happening
in Cambodia.
What I think we might focus on is that July 11 and 12 donors meeting,
a donors conference on Cambodia. I think that offers the international
community a golden opportunity.
We could call on the United States to take the lead at this meeting
to impress upon the leaders in Phnom Penh who clearly play a part in
this continuing problem of logging the KR-controlled territory. We
could call on them for the recognition that there is a need for
sustainable logging practices and transparency in government contacting
that I think could help resolve the KR's logging issue, and therefore
avoid problems with Thailand and with the Government of Cambodia.
So I offer that suggestion which I think all of us should pursue, and
advance it here for the administration to consider making it a priority
at that July 11 and 12 meeting.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let
me simply say, I think we need to understand that in addition to
everything else I have said, in the meantime the Khmer Rouge are
continuing to plant new land mines every blessed day they can. That
further displaces innocent Cambodians, and it just seems to me that the
worldwide community has an obligation to respond to this problem.
I would say that, with the concurrence of the subcommittee chairman,
I will withdraw this amendment with the understanding that if we cannot
get some language that really does the trick this year, and if we
cannot get other action coming in other ways as the gentleman from
Nebraska suggested, then blunt instrument or no, it will leave me with
no alternative but to go after IMET next year and I intend to do it
with a vengeance.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield before
withdrawing his amendment, let me just say that I share the goal of the
gentleman from Wisconsin. I think that we cannot tolerate the type of
activity for which he is concerned. However, I do not think that this
is the way to do it.
I appreciate very much the gentleman's position. I do pledge to work
with him to ensure that our amplified message is given to those
governments, that we are not going to tolerate this and that indeed, if
they do not change or unless they show some indication of nonsupport,
that we are very seriously going to consider next year the possibility
of reducing the IMET Program there. But I appreciate very much the
gentleman withdrawing the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman. As I say, I recognize that IMET is a
blunt instrument to use, so it may be the wrong way to proceed. We will
now have a year to find out, and if we do not get some real action that
affects things in real ways on the ground, we will have no choice but
to go back at it next year.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3540 allows continued International
Military and Education Training [IMET] for Thailand and Cambodia. The
Obey amendment would prohibit IMET for these countries. Passage of the
Obey amendment will not save the taxpayers one dime, but would merely
force the administration to move the IMET funds to some other
countries.
This Member considers such a prohibition unwarranted and unwise. Here
is why.
Thailand is a long-time treaty ally with a democratic form of
government, located along key strategic international waterways.
American forces conduct more than 40 joint exercises with Thailand each
year--more than any other country in Asia. These exercises are
important to the readiness and training of American, as well as Thai,
forces in Asia. Moreover, Thailand provides the Seventh Fleet with easy
access to its military facilities when needed, most recently during
Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Particularly in light of the closure of
our basis in the Philippines, use of Thai facilities allows us to
maintain our forward deployed presence in the crucial Southeast Asia/
Indochina region.
The close military-to-military ties we enjoy with Thailand are
fostered by the fact that so many military leaders in Thailand have
been trained in the United States through the IMET program. Not only
does this American training provide us access to key Thai leaders, but
it also engenders a natural preference for U.S. military hardware and
supplies. The sale of defense equipment to Thailand allows important
interoperability with U.S. forces in the region and creates high-paying
American jobs in the important manufacturing sector. Just recently
McDonnel Douglas won a $600 million contract for fighter aircraft to
Thailand.

thai-kr cooperation

THe basis for today's Obey amendment is evidence of continued
commercial cooperation between some Thai companies and the genocidal
Khmer Rouge forces in neighboring Cambodia. This Member's staff has
been fully briefed on this issue, and I know it would be naive to
suggest that no such cooperation exists, particularly in the logging
industry. Despite this commercial cooperation, however, there remains
some question about the extent of Thai Government involvement and
complicity in this trade.
In this Member's view, the use of IMET funding, both for Thailand and
Cambodia, as

[[Page H6148]]

a stick against commercial cooperation with the KR is misguided. A much
more effective way to pressure the parties concerned is through the
international community's massive financial support for the Government
of Cambodia.
The upcoming July 11-12 Donors' Conference on Cambodia offers the
international community a golden opportunity. This Member calls on the
United States to take the lead at this meeting to impress upon the
leaders in Phnom Penh--who clearly play a major part in the continued
problem of logging in KR-controlled territory--of the need for
sustainable logging practices and transparency in government
contracting which would contribute much to resolving the KR logging
issue. The international community still provides 40 percent of the
national budget of Cambodia and should use this leverage to promote
more responsible policies on Cambodia's leaders.

cambodia human rights

This Member also believes we should use the Donors' Conference to
improve human rights and democracy in Cambodia. On March 26, 1996, this
body passed House Resolution 345, which this Member introduced, which
expresses serious concern about deteriorating human rights conditions
in Cambodia. This Member remains concerned about government repression
in Cambodia, particularly in light of the recent murder of an outspoken
Cambodian journalist. We should not, however, use IMET as a club
against Phnom Penh. Instead we should insist that the IMET courses
offered to Cambodia contribute to human rights training for Cambodia's
military and use the July Donor's Conference to pressure the Cambodian
Government for a return to openness and respect for dissent.
This Member urges his colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by Mr. Souder

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 69 offered by Mr. Souder: Page 97, after line
5, insert the following:

limitation on assistance to mexico

Sec. 573. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated or expended for the
Government of Mexico, except if it is made known to the
Federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated
under this Act that--
(1) the Government of Mexico is taking actions to reduce
the amount of illegal drugs entering the United States from
Mexico; and
(2) the Government of Mexico--
(A) is taking effective actions to apply vigorously all law
enforcement resources to investigate, track, capture,
incarcerate, and prosecute individuals controlling,
supervising, or managing international narcotics cartels or
other similar entities and the accomplices of such
individuals, individuals responsible for, or otherwise
involved in, corruption, and individuals involved in money-
laundering;
(B) is pursuing international anti-drug trafficking
initiatives;
(C) is cooperating fully with international efforts at
narcotics interdiction; and
(D) is cooperating fully with requests by the United States
for assistance in investigations of money-laundering
violations and is making progress toward implementation of
effective laws to prohibit money-laundering.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] is recognized
for 10 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prohibit any funds available in
this bill from going to Mexico unless the agency receiving the funds
certifies that Mexico has taken specific antinarcotics actions.
I want to thank the cosponsors of this bill: Chairman Bill Zeliff of
New Hampshire, who has been a leader in our Congress' effort to reduce
drug abuse, cosponsored this last year with me; also International
Relations Committee Chairman Gilman us a cosponsor. Other original
cosponsors include my friend from Florida, Mr. Mica, who has been
active on the subcommittee; the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Blute; the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Metcalf; the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. McIntosh; the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Funderburk; the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg; the gentleman from
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn; and the gentlewoman from California, Mrs.
Seastrand.
The problem is real simple. The State Department's 1996 Narcotics
Control Strategy concluded that no country in the world poses a more
immediate narcotics threat to America than Mexico. Mexican drug lords
now supply more than 70 percent of the cocaine sold and 80 percent of
the marijuana imported into the United States, as well as growing
quantities of heroin and methaphetamines. Drug seizures in Mexico
lagged for most of 1995, and the final seizure total remained flat and
well below the record level. They are making progress but they need to
make more.
At the same time the DEA administrator, Mr. Constantine, and the
State Department have recently expressed serious concern that Mexico
has, ``become the money laundering haven of choice for initial
placement of U.S. drug cash into the world's financial system.'' Drug
dealers are literally packing 18-wheel trucks full of cash and driving
them to Mexico for laundering. Up to 90 percent of drug cartel profits
move through Mexico.
I was very privileged to go with the CODEL from this Congress to
Mexico, as well as Panama, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, and we met with
President Zedillo as well as the foreign minister and members of the
House and Senate of Mexico. I was convinced, as were the others with
us, that President Zedillo and the leadership of Mexico has a strong
commitment to trying to reduce the narcotics flow to America.
I also understand their point that it is our demand that is
propelling much of the growth of coca leaves around the country, the
distribution, and what is coming into our country. We do have to work
on our internal problems but they also must work on the exporting of
drugs into America.
I also understand the difficulty of patroling the long borders we
have with Mexico, particularly as we open trade. That is all true. Few
issues are as explosive as the immigration issue and the NAFTA issue as
well as the drug issue, the support of the peso and the environmental
questions along the borders.
If our two great nations are to work together, we have to have a
strong continued commitment from the Government of Mexico not just to
talk but to crack down on the drug lords.
This particular amendment passed last year 411-0 when we asked for a
rollcall vote. It is the actions that must be changed and stiffened in
the future. I want to continue to point out that I am impressed with
the sincerity of the Government of Mexico and I am particularly
impressed with their commitments, but we need to see additional and
continued progress on this issue.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of
the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Souder amendment and commend
the gentleman from Indiana for this initiative.
Illicit drugs are an international threat to all countries:
corruption, addiction, and lawlessness exact an enormous price. Because
drug cartels have extraordinary resources, no country can fight this
problem alone. Producer countries, transit countries, and consumer
countries all share in the costs of the drug scourge and, therefore,
must all share the responsibility for solving the problem.
One very conservative estimate places the annual cost of drug abuse
to U.S. society at $67 billion--in terms of crime, lost productivity,
and health care. Other estimates run as high as $500 billion. Another
tangible impact is on U.S. youth. Data suggest that if cocaine abuse
were listed on death certificates, it would constitute the leading
cause of death of people 14 to 44 years of age in New York City.
Experience proves that concerted efforts that attack each link in the
drug chain can produce dramatic results. For example, new levels of
cooperation have led to significant strides against the Cali cartel
kingpins. With a vigorous program that addressed each of the pillars--
eradication, interdiction, enforcement, education, and treatment--

[[Page H6149]]

cocaine use in the United States dropped 80 percent in that period,
from 5.8 million users down to 1.3 million.
According to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, drug
trafficking groups in Mexico have become the primary suppliers of drugs
abused in the United States. Up to 70 percent of the cocaine available
in the United States transits Mexico; 50 percent of marijuana is
produced in Mexico; Mexican traffickers are now the largest suppliers
of methamphetamine sold in the United States; and Mexican heroin is the
predominant form of that product found in the Western United States.
Several years ago, Mexican drug organizations partnered with
Colombian producers to smuggle cocaine into the United States. As their
expertise and operational capabilities grew, Mexican cartels began to
demand 50 percent of the shipment as payment for their smuggling
services; as a result, the wealth and reach of these local criminal
bands grew dangerously as they gained an independent foothold in the
lucrative wholesale business in the United States.
In addition to taking control of the methamphetamine trade, drug
organizations in Mexico have also become major figures in the diversion
of precursor chemicals that are used to produce methamphetamine. It is
apparent that these Mexican cartels have used the largesse of the
cocaine trade to develop the capacity to manufacture as well as transit
their own product, methamphetamine, whose use in major cities in the
Western and Southwestern United States is on the rise.

With the fall of the Cali cartel, their Mexican partners may be
uniquely positioned to fill the void, given the proximity to the United
States market, our 2,000-mile common border, and the political and
economic disruptions in Mexico, both countries may suffer dramatically
in the very near term.
In March, President Clinton certified Mexico as fully cooperative
with United States antidrug efforts. The administration asserted that
the Mexican Government had pledged a major offensive against the drug
cartels and drug-related corruption and, in 1995, had intensified
antinarcotics efforts, prosecuted corrupt officials, and sought to
expand cooperation with the United States and other governments.
Some in Congress disagree emphatically with President Clinton's
certification of Mexico's antidrug efforts, in light of infamous, well-
publicized examples of corruption. They note that, although the Mexican
Government may have the political will to fight illicit drugs,
corruption is common enough to undermine good intentions.
All sides can agree that drug cartels have become so wealthy and
powerful that they can undermine the best efforts of any government. In
the United States, we fight internal corruption through strict internal
inspection and integrity controls and generally well-paid, professional
police forces. We also rely on a professional, independent
prosecutorial system that deters and detects corruption in law
enforcement services.
Law enforcement experts note that Mexico's antidrug efforts do not
have these tools at their disposal. They are hampered by weaknesses in
their legal structure: the law does not provide for the use of
wiretaps, confidential informants, or witness protection programs;
prosecutors cannot build cases for conspiracy to break the law; and
money laundering is not a criminal offense.
These experts assert that these tools are indispensable to efforts to
fight organized crime in the United States and they are needed badly by
Mexico's law enforcement agencies. United States cooperation, including
the sharing of vital law enforcement intelligence, can be expanded
further if Mexico strengthens its own antidrug units.
It should be noted that the Mexican Government has moved within the
last few months to adopt some of these legislative measures to
strengthen their capability to pursue and prosecute drug traffickers.
The Souder amendment is simple and straightforward. It conditions
United States aid to Mexico on efforts by the Mexican Government to
reduce the amount of illegal drugs entering the United States. It also
expects that government to apply its own law enforcement resources and
cooperate fully with us to break up the drug cartels operating in
Mexico and to fight money laundering.
By passing this amendment, we do not prejudge Mexico and we do not
excuse our own country from doing all that it can to fight drugs. As a
matter of fact, many of my colleagues and I would like to see greater
funding for antidrug cooperation in this legislation--and we will be
working to achieve that objective.
Mr. Chairman, the drug cartels pose an international threat. We must
work with Mexico and other friends throughout the world to meet this
deadly challenge.
Once again, I commend Mr. Souder for his amendment and urge my
colleagues to fully support his amendment.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana
should be adopted overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives, and I
commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. We serve on the
same investigations and oversight subcommittee of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight. We have looked at the lack of a
national drug policy. We heard the chairman of this committee speak
just a minute ago about 70 percent of the hard drugs coming into this
country, we found in our committee examination, are coming in through
Mexico.
The United States has bent over backward to help Mexico and this
Congress has aided Mexico with a trade agreement. I did not agree with
some of the provisions of that particular trade agreement. This
administration bailed out Mexico. I cannot think of a nation who has
done more to help an ally, to help a partner in the Western Hemisphere
than the United States or this administration or this Congress.
And what do we get in return? Seventy percent of the illegal drugs.
We even went so far as to certify Mexico as compliant and we
decertified Colombia, yet the onslaught of hard drugs coming through
Mexico is absolutely appalling. The results should astound every Member
of Congress and every American.
Look at this chart showing what has happened here since 1992 when
this administration extended this helping hand. Our 12th graders, our
10th graders, our 8th graders are getting slaughtered. Cocaine is
coming in record amounts, heroin is coming in, marijuana is coming in.
This amendment sends a message to Mexico that this Congress, this
administration, these representatives of the people who are seeing
their children slaughtered in the streets, who are seeing juvenile
crime skyrocket through the ceiling are saying, ``Hey, wait a minute,
Mexico, we have taken it all we can and we are going to send you a
message that we want this stopped.''
It is a very clear message. The latest data by DAWN is absolutely
startling. Cocaine-related emergencies increased 12 percent; heroin-
related episodes increased 27 percent. This is for the first half of
1995. Marijuana-related episodes, 32 percent. Methamphetamines, 35
percent. Designer drugs are killing our young people and creating
crime; 70 percent of the crimes in my district are committed by people
who are involved in narcotics and they are coming through Mexico. This
sends a message: Stop. And we mean it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition so that I may
have more time to speak.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is in opposition?
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will not use the entire 10 minutes and I think this
amendment is going to go by voice. But let me say about this amendment
that, while I think that no one disagrees with the intent of this
amendment that we should have cooperation with Mexico, that I do think
that it at least

[[Page H6150]]

bears mentioning here on the floor what is happening, and the, I think,
positive things that have happened with Mexico.
I just listened to my colleague from Florida. I could not agree with
him more that what is happening in this country is terrible and what is
happening with the rise of drug addiction among young people and youth
using drugs, hard drugs, is a very serious problem. There is no
question that we should be very concerned about it, and there is no
question we should be concerned about both the source of these drugs
and how they get to this country.
It is the how they get to this country, the channel, that we are
talking about here today, because for the most part the hard drugs we
are talking about, the cocaine, the heroin, are not produced in Mexico
but they become the transit point, the place from which these are
transported into the United States. As we have been more effective in
south Florida in cutting off the drugs coming in from South America, we
have now found that Mexico and Central America are the key places in
which these drugs come in.

{time} 1415

Let us not in a sense blame the messenger, blame the people who are
simply there geographically at our doorstep, because of our problem we
have. I think clearly Mexico has a responsibility to work with us on
this, and I think they are. That is what I wanted to take this time,
just to mention some of the things that have happened in Mexico under
the Zedillo administration.
Not long ago, just a few months ago, the Mexican Government, at our
request, arrested and expelled very promptly from Mexico to the United
States so we could try the individual, Juan Garcia Abrego, the head of
the Gulf cartel, one of the key people we had been trying to get
apprehended and get into the United States for drug violations. That
was a major step by the Mexican Government to cooperate with us.
I might say as the chairman of the United States-Mexico
Interparliamentary Meeting just a few weeks ago in Mexico, I heard from
Mexican parliamentarians about how they thought this was outrageous
because they had violated their own legal procedures and protections in
extraditing this individual so promptly and quickly to the United
States, and yet it is what we requested. I think we should at least
acknowledge when we are talking about this there have been positive
steps that have taken place.
At the end of May, a couple of weeks ago, the Mexicans arrested and
expelled Jose Luis Pereyra Salas, a major Bolivian drug trafficker. So
they are picking up some of these major drug traffickers, they are
getting at the head of this Hydra of drug cartels that is operating
there in Mexico.
They recently extradited two Mexican nationals, something they were
not able to do before, to the United States, who were wanted for
heinous crimes. That is an important departure from their past
procedures on extraditions. Under the extradition treaty, we have been
able to get American nationals extradited to the United States, but
never Mexican nationals. Now, the two that were extradited, they were
not extradited on drug-related crimes, but they were heinous crimes,
one of which has been talked about in this body on several different
occasions by one of our colleagues. So that was an important step.
But I think the most important thing that I think should be mentioned
today is the passage in Mexico within the last 6 weeks of the most
important, the first and most important, money laundering legislation
to counter money laundering, and the first time that Mexico has taken
up this issue.

There is no question, the Mexican banks, as has happened with banks
all over the world, whether in the Cayman Islands or whether sometimes
in Switzerland or often in the United States, banks inadvertently, or
sometimes through sloppiness or carelessness or sometimes because they
do not care, allow themselves to be used for money laundering. That is
why you need to have tough laws that make it clear to the banks what
their responsibilities are in money laundering.
This legislation was drafted and worked on, they asked us for some
assistance on it, we gave them technical assistance. This is their
legislation. But we think it is a very good piece of legislation. Now
they have to go through the process of making it work, of getting all
the rules to implement it, the specifics to the banks, what they must
do. But it is a very tough piece of legislation. It is what we have
been asking the Mexicans to do for a long period of time.
I rise only to mention this, because I think it is important at the
same time we say, and I think it is appropriate that we say that money
under this law should not go to the Mexican Government, or any
government for that matter, that is not cooperating with us on drug
interdiction and interdicting drug trafficking. We would not be sending
money to those countries. But I think it is important at the same time
that we say that, that we do acknowledge that there have within some
important steps that have been made by Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Callahan].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this deals with another slightly different subject, but
I rise to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Mr. Callahan, in a colloquy.
I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, that earlier I had intended to
offer an amendment to increase funding for the Micro and Small
Enterprise Development Program. Although I did not offer that
amendment, I strongly support this program. This is a highly successful
program that helps people help themselves.
By helping poor people to increase their income and assets, we are
enabling them to improve their own welfare, health, housing and
education, all at a very small cost-effective investment. This is a
program that works, and this is the type of activity that we as a
Congress should be encouraging.
Mr. Chairman, when the opportunity presents itself, as you go into
conference with the other body, it is my understanding you will work
with me to support additional assistance for the Micro and Small
Enterprise Development Program.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Florida for his observations and share his support for the Micro
and Small Enterprise Development Program.
I would be pleased to work with the gentleman, and with others in
this body and the other body to support and possibly even expand this
program.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to accept the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment
pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Page 97,
after line 5, insert the following new section:

prohibition of imet assistance for indonesia

Sec. 573. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``International Military Education and Training''
may be made available to the Government of Indonesia.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WILSON. How much time will there be on this amendment and how
will it be allocated?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank] will be
recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed, the gentleman
from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], will be recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent, because I will
be

[[Page H6151]]

due in a markup, that I be permitted to turn over the management for
our side of the time to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike out the international
military education and training for the country of Indonesia. Indonesia
made an international solemn agreement through the U.N. to take over
the area known as East Timor. Indonesian rule in East Timor has been
one of the most oppressive and brutal we have seen.
East Timor had been controlled by Portugal. This is a case where
colonialism looks pretty good to people in retrospect. Indeed it is to
the credit of the people of Portugal that they have continuously spoken
out against the oppression which the Government of Indonesia has
visited on the people of East Timor.
What the Indonesians have done is simply violate their international
obligations, agreements they had made, to treat the people of East
Timor fairly. There continues to be one of the most oppressive regimes.
The people of East Timor, who have sought to preserve their own
identity, their freedom of religion, freedom of speech, have been
consistently and brutally mistreated.
That is going to be documented in the debate. But I want to deal now
with the arguments we are going to hear that will say, oh, yes, the
Indonesians have not done what they should do, but this is not the way
to do it.
One thing should be very clear. When we are talking to those who
specialize in foreign policy, to them there is never a way to do
anything. Whatever method anyone puts forward for dealing with any
wrong anywhere in the world turns out to be not the right method at a
given time. Any effort to try to vindicate human rights will run up
against a whole variety of arguments. One is that we must rely on
Indonesia, in part for its strategic stability.
One thing that strikes me when we debate foreign policy, we are
constantly being told that America must be careful less we alienate,
unsettle, destabilize, other nations. How come nobody ever has to worry
about what we think?
I do not understand the logic that says because we are quite wealthy
and quite powerful, we therefore must accept the fact that our views
ought to be disregarded and we must worry about offending others? Is
the relationship between the United States and Indonesia useful in
preserving stability? I believe it is. I believe it is so useful, that
the Indonesians will not jeopardize it based on this.

The argument is always given that we should not take this or that
step because we will anger some nation who has been the recipient of
our protection, cooperation and investment. None of these nations that
I am aware of are doing this as a favor to us. They are doing it
because it is even more in their self-interest than ours.
There is a particular reason why I think it is important for us to
begin a policy of refusing American assistance to blatant violators of
human rights is Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia. There is a distressing
pattern in much of South Asia of people, nations, progressing
economically, while showing a fundamental disregard for democracy and
human rights.
One of the things we like to tell ourselves has been there is some
necessary connection between expanding free market economy, between
capitalism at its best, and democracy. I wish I were more confident of
that. But I think the pattern is emerging in much of Asia where nations
are showing a capacity to develop economically while remaining from the
standpoint of human rights quite retarded.
Indonesia is a nation with very little democracy internally, a great
deal of corruption, and with a terribly oppressive record against East
Timor. I believe there are important strategic reasons why they welcome
American cooperation sufficiently so they are not going to repudiate it
altogether. The question is: Do we do anything whatsoever to effectuate
our view that the systematic mistreatment of the people of East Timor
must stop? I know we will be told, at least I have been told this
privately, we have changed the IMET around. It now becomes a force for
good, naked to the eye. I do not understand how that argument can be
made when we see a continuation of the pattern on the part of Indonesia
of a systematic mistreatment of those people.
Therefore, in pursuance of human rights, in pursuance of the
obligation the world has to the people of East Timor who were turned
over to Indonesia through international means, and in defense of the
principle that human rights cannot simply be disregarded, I hope this
amendment is adopted, and that the Indonesian Government will get a
strong message from the United States that this behavior is not
acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, which will
hereafter be managed by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, I hope his amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that I rise to oppose the Frank amendment,
which would prohibit international military, education and training
[IMET] for Indonesia.
The provision contained in the amendment before us would restrict the
IMET program to the more human rights oriented expanded IMET courses.
This provision is identical to existing law in the fiscal year 1996
foreign operations appropriations bill, as well as the authorization
bill that was adopted by both the House and the Senate.
However, while I am opposing this amendment, I want to make it clear
that I continue to have strong reservations about Indonesia's human
rights record. Indonesia's military has an abhorrent human rights
record. There is no debating that fact. The House needs to speak with
one voice in condemning the continuing human rights abuses being
perpetuated by the military.
That said, it is my view that continuing an IMET program in Indonesia
will enhance rather than diminish United States ability to positively
influence Indonesia's human rights policies and behavior. We need to
stay engaged with the Indonesian military. Providing IMET will
contribute to the professionalism and human rights sensitivity of
Indonesia's military.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Frank
amendment.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which is
offered by myself and my colleagues, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. It would
prohibit all military education and training funds for Indonesia, IMET
funds.
Currently, Indonesia receives expended IMET. Unfortunately, the
Indonesian military has not made progress in improving its human rights
record. The record is very clear. Indeed, the Department of State's
``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995'' states that the
Indonesian Government continues to commit serious human rights
violations in East Timor.
The report further states:

The armed forces continued to be responsible for the most
serious human rights abuses.
On East Timor, no progress was made in accounting for
missing persons following the 1991 Dili incident or the 10
other Timorese that disappeared in 1995.

{time} 1430

And finally, ``The armed forces used excessive force in making
arrests following anti-integration rioting in Dili in October.''
Mr. Chairman, our IMET resources are designed to provide training for
other military forces around the world. It is not designed to encourage
or in any way aid or abet in such human rights abuses. And, in fact,
one would hope that these resources and the training that is involved
with them

[[Page H6152]]

would be a strong barrier against such abuses of human rights.
We are not at this juncture criticizing the IMET program. The IMET
program, as it is practiced around the world, is a valuable source of
American foreign policy and military preparedness and national security
strength for our country and our allies. But we cannot, I think, sit
idly by, watching these abuses in East Timor against a people who were
the victims of an invasion 20 years ago and continue to fund this type
of military support for their regime, their military, those people who
have been identified by our State Department as being the perpetrators
of these types of human rights abuses.
In 1992, Congress, in a sense of shock and outrage, cut off IMET
funds to East Timor. In 1991, on film, the British Broadcasting Corp.
filmed the massacre of 250 East Timor residents by the forces of the
Indonesian Armed Forces. That was such a shocking revolting incident
that we acted properly and cut off those funds. We restored those
moneys, but we restored those moneys with the idea that the Indonesian
military had learned their lesson; that they would not continue these
practices of human rights abuses.
Sadly, sadly, Mr. Chairman, that lesson has not been learned. It is
incumbent upon us today to once again reiterate our strong opposition
to these abuses and to do it in a palpable, tangible way, to do it by
eliminating IMET funds for the Government of Indonesia and their armed
forces. This is a position which, I think, has strong support in many
different quarters.
Mr. Chairman, I will at the appropriate time introduce a letter in
the extension of remarks from the Catholic Conference in support of
this amendment, and included in that letter is the following language:
``Curtailing IMET funding to Indonesia constitutes a small but
symbolically important expression by our government of the need for
Indonesia to show greater will in resolving these problems.'' We cannot
allow another 20 years of abuses to continue in East Timor.

I would also say for the record, which I think is important, Mr.
Chairman, we have spent our the last several days debating this bill,
in different guises, talking about Desert Storm and over valiant
efforts to liberate Kuwait from the unprovoked aggression of Iraq in
1991.
Well, the similarities in this situation are ironic but associate,
but in this situation it was the Government of Indonesia that struck a
defenseless country, overran it without any justification under
international law, and today not only do we not condemn that invasion
vigorously but we continue to assist the Indonesian military. It would
be as if we had stood by idly and passively in the gulf and now today
continued to assist the Iraqi Armed Forces.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think justice and human rights and sound policy
is on the side of this amendment and I hope it passes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Wilson], the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Of course, the
administration is also opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, IMET for Indonesia was completely cut off from 1992 to
1995. In fiscal year 1996, as part of a compromise on the issue,
Congress agreed to allow for expanded IMET only. This means any
training provided has to contain some elements of human rights
training. The bill contains the same restriction as last year, that is
only expanded IMET for Indonesia which ensures training and human
rights.
I would, therefore, vigorously oppose this amendment. The committee
has taken a compromise position and it should be sustained.
Mr. Chairman, I would like also to read a couple of paragraphs from a
letter that I just received a few minutes ago from Secretary of Defense
Perry and General Shalikashvili.

Strategically located Indonesia, with the world's fourth
largest population, is increasingly important to United
States interests. It is influential regionally, where it has
been a force for stability, and globally. As we continue to
rationalize and economize on our overseas military
deployments, military cooperation with key countries such as
Indonesia becomes an ever greater element in our ability to
project power and influence. The IMET program in Indonesia
enhances rather than diminishes U.S. ability to positively
influence Indonesia's human rights policies.

That from the Secretary of Defense.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the United States has very,
very broad interests in Indonesia, ranging from vast commercial
contracts to arms sales. It represents one of Asia's most promising
expanding markets for American goods, with the United States occupying
12 percent of total imports. Our aid program helps protect the
environment, improve conditions in East Timor, open opportunities for
U.S. business, and stop the spread of AIDS. Any of those reasons, I
submit, are reason enough to vote against this amendment and I urge the
House to do so.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Frank
amendment to eliminate international military education and training
funding for Indonesia.
First of all, I would like to commend Chairman Callahan for his
efforts to address my concerns on this issue. I appreciate his support
for expanded IMET for Indonesia when I know he might rather have
allowed Indonesia to receive full IMET assistance. However, as the
chairman knows, I still have very serious concerns about Indonesia's
human rights record.
In 1992, we voted to end all IMET assistance for Indonesia because of
that country's abysmal human rights record and their continued
oppression of the people of East Timor. Despite the lack of improvement
in Indonesia's human rights record, and the opposition of myself and
many of my colleagues, a modified IMET program was approved for
Indonesia in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year
1996.
When this provision was added to the foreign aid bill last year, we
said we would monitor the human rights situation in Indonesia very
carefully and act accordingly this year. Well, the State Department's
country report on Indonesia was released in March, and according to the
report, ``The Government continued to commit serious human rights
abuses.''
The State Department report also said that in Indonesia ``reports of
extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture of those in custody
by security forces increased.'' Not decreased. Not stayed the same.
Increased. Should we really be sending Indonesia more military
assistance now when they have not addressed these critical human rights
issues? I don't think so.
Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people
who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and repress the people
of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who have been
slaughtered since the Indonesian occupation in 1975; 200,000 killed out
of a total population of 700,000. It is about genocide.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to
Indonesia that we will not tolerate continued human rights abuses.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], chairman of the Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, the
House of Representatives' most leading expert on Southeast Asia and on
trade and American businesses in the region.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his coming to the floor and especially
waiting for an hour to make his observations.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind
remarks.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. We have to remember always, when we approach
these issues, what is in our national interest and what is not; what
has a positive impact and what does not.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from New York began to make clear,

[[Page H6153]]

Indonesia does not have an IMET Program from us, they have an E-IMET
Program or an expanded IMET Program, and there is quite a difference.
In fact, an expanded IMET Program is specifically oriented to focusing
on improving human rights activities and practices within a military.
We also have to get over the idea that the IMET or E-IMET Program is
a grant of assistance to a foreign government. We do it because it is
in our national interest to increase military-to-military cooperation,
and because it is in our strategic interest to have this relationship.
There are many economic and strategic reasons why the E-IMET Program
should be continued for Indonesia, but I would like to focus on the
Human rights concerns and why, in fact, the frustrations of the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] are not well taken. He can
certainly be frustrated with the failure, as he sees it, to improve
conditions in East Timor, but, in fact, the E-IMET Program is designed
specifically to deal with human rights issues and human rights policies
within the military. The E-IMET Program improves their performance in
that respect. It is to our advantage, if we are interested in improving
the human rights conditions.
The E-IMET Program is one of the most effective tools that we have
for promoting both our security interests and improving human rights
performance in other countries. The IMET or E-IMET Program in Indonesia
enhances rather than diminishes our ability to influence the Indonesian
military's policies and behavior.
Now, I understand that the gentleman from Massachusetts, and both
gentlemen from Rhode Island have very big Portuguese American
populations in their districts. These are great people, exceptional
Americans, but they have to, in fact, I think be educated to the fact
that there are better methods for improving human rights performance
than to deny E-IMET.
Mr. Chairman, the E-IMET Program is bringing results within the
military, and I will provide an example in a few minutes. The E-IMET
Program exposes Indonesia's military students to western values, to
civilian rule, and to the role of a professional military in a
democracy. It will encourage efforts underway in the Indonesian
military to improve professionalism, accountability, and respect for
human rights.
The E-IMET Program for Indonesia, which is a product of this
gentleman's amendment in a foreign aid bill in the past, is all that
H.R. 3540 allows for Indonesia. It is designed to address issues,
again, in democracy, human rights, military justice, and the concept of
civilian control over the military. We should support human rights
training for Indonesia through E-IMET, and this Member urges his
colleagues for that reason to vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment.
As some of my colleagues know, one of the troubled areas in Indonesia
right now is a part of the island that is a part of Indonesia called
Irian Jaya. The legal adviser on the staff of the Kodam command in
Jayapura, Irian Jaya, it has recently been revealed, is the author of a
human rights handbook distributed to all troops in the command; it
contains his innovations. They have also issued rules of engagement
annexes to operational orders, which specifically says what troops
should do and, more important, what they should not do when they engage
in field operations in that respect.

I am talking very specifically about how they treat the citizens of
their country, regardless of religion.

{time} 1445

It has been said that since January when he started issuing these
rules of engagement annexes, there have been no human rights violations
in the Indonesian military in Irian Jaya. When asked where he came up
with these innovations, he said it all came out of his experience at
the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School, where he was an IMET
student.
Let me end by reminding my colleagues why the E-IMET Program is a
positive step toward improving human rights in Indonesia. The United
States engagement with the Indonesian military, through IMET and
specifically through E-IMET and other programs, enhances our ability to
influence Indonesian human rights behavior and serving our broader
interests in the region.
Second, it provides the Indonesian military with the human rights
courses in the E-IMET Program that will contribute to their
professionalism and the human rights sensitivity of the Indonesian
military.
Third, in 1991, Congress established the expand E-IMET Program with
four explicit objectives, three of which directly relate to human
rights issues: A, to foster greater respect for the principles of
civilian control of the military: B, to improve military justice and
military codes of conduct in accordance with internationally recognized
human rights; and the third of the four points that relates to human
rights, to enhance cooperation between the military and local police in
the area of counternarcotics.
Mr. Chairman, these elements in our E-IMET Program are exactly what
we need to have happening within the Indonesian military. The human
rights concerns that we have with Indonesia should be addressed by
appropriate means. The E-IMET Program is an appropriate means to
address human rights performance within the Indonesian military.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, therefore, to reject the Frank
amendment. It is not only a questionable amendment in its impact; it is
a step in exactly the wrong direction.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a
supporter of IMET. This is a program which is right in the right time
and in the right place, but IMET in Indonesia at this time represents
the wrong place at the wrong time.
Congress did the right thing in 1992, when at the urging of my
predecessor from Rhode Island, Ron Machtley, we cut off IMET to
Indonesia. When Congress did that, they sent a clear message to the
dictatorship in Jakarta. They said: You need to stop the human rights
abuses in East Timor; your record in East Timor does not merit your
receiving IMET.
Last year, unfortunately, Congress restored IMET to Indonesia. Since
this time human rights abuses have continued and have gotten worse.
Another year will just provide more encouragement for those carrying
out these abusive practices.
Since Indonesia brutally invaded East Timor 20 years ago, almost one-
third of the population has been killed. One-third of the population
has been killed. This could not have happened without the knowledge and
participation of the military, the very military that we are going to
reward if we pass this IMET in this bill and if we do not pass the
Frank amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the record of leadership in Indonesia is clear and
unmistakable. After the Santa Cruz massacre, General Try Sutrisno, the
commander of the Indonesian military at the time, and he is now
currently the vice president of Indonesia, was quoted as saying that
those who had gathered at the cemetery were disrupters who must be
crushed. He said, and I quote, ``Delinquents like these have to be
shot, and we will shoot them,'' he said. General Mantriri, the regional
commander for East Timor, was quoted just after the Santa Cruz massacre
as saying, quote unquote, that, ``The massacre was proper,'' and, I
quote, ``We do not regret anything.''
These are the words of the military commanders that this U.S.
Congress is about to lend assistance to. These very military commanders
who are saying these things.
These abuses continue. Just yesterday, just yesterday, there are
reports that are yet to be confirmed that East Timorese youths were
shot at by police forces in Baucau. They were protesting the
destruction of the portrait of the Virgin Mary, and youths took to the
streets. There are reports that house-to-house searches were conducted.
My office has learned that Bishop Bello, who is recognized by all as
the conscience of East Timor and is one of the most respected human
rights leaders in the world and was one of the finalists for the Nobel
Peace Prize last year, Bishop Bello was more upset than friends have
said they have heard him in years.
Mr. Chairman, I think we need to send a clear message to the leaders
of Indonesia that we will not sit by and

[[Page H6154]]

let these abuses continue. And I urge my colleagues to support the
Frank amendment and send a clear message to Indonesia we are not going
to sanction continued abuses of human rights.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
(Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I am here in opposition to this amendment
not because I condone the human rights policies of Indonesia but
because I am very, very strongly committed to our own Nation's defense
program. Make no mistake about it, the IMET program is one of the most
valuable tools that we use as a Nation to engage in preventive defense
on behalf of our country.
This program enables us to bring to this country distinguished
military officers from other countries and train them in the way that
our military does business, in the way our military relates to the
civilian sector, and the way our military works with other militaries
around the world. It is a very important program. It is not a program
designed exclusively for the benefit of in this case Indonesia or, for
that case, any other foreign nation. It benefits the United States of
America.
It makes our defense program stronger. It extends the scope of
influence of the United States of America.
When these people come and visit in this country, they take back with
them characteristics that we cannot communicate or instill any other
way. And time and again we have heard the military of our Nation talk
about working with other military members that are in foreign countries
and having a first-time relation with them because of the fact that
these people have come to the United States of America, have worked in
our schools here, have worked with our military people, and have taken
back with them personal relationships that they continue to build on
year after year after year.
It is a magnificent investment that we make, and one that has
returned dividends manyfold on the money that has been invested in it.
It should not be looked upon as simply a gift over something to trade
off for some kind of conduct of another nation. It is much, much too
valuable for that. This is a very strong component of our Nation's
defense program. And you might ask, well, why is it in the foreign
operations bill? And my answer is I do not know. I think it more
properly belongs in the defense appropriations bill. But nevertheless
we are here with it. But we should not let the fact that it is in the
foreign operations bill obscure from us the reality that this is indeed
a defense expenditure and one that is a very valuable component of our
Nation's defense program and experience has shown that it works well.
For example, the top three military officers in Indonesia have all
participated in this program, and they are people that our military
works with on a regular basis, based upon the contacts that have been
built up as a result of their working with the IMET program.
As has been said before, this program is going to enhance rather than
diminish the ability of our Nation to influence the conduct of
Indonesia in the way it handles its human rights policies.
I would urge the Members to recognize the importance of this program
to our own military and to reject this amendment because I think it
will not serve the long-term interests of our Nation.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I respect a great deal both the gentleman from Nebraska
[Mr. Bereuter] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett] and their
comments.
Mr. Chairman, this is not an amendment attempting to undercut the
very important goals of IMET. I spent 12 years in the U.S. Army, and I
had the opportunity to actually train with and serve with foreign
officers who were brought into this country through the IMET program.
It is a very valuable program and a very worthwhile program. And it
does, as the gentleman from Virginia indicated, give our country an
opportunity to impress upon foreign officers our values, both our
democratic values and our professional standards.
But the other side of that equation is that this program gives, in
many respects, an imprimatur to the military forces that participate in
the program, and I think we have to ask very serious questions at this
juncture, given the record in Indonesia, whether we want to give the
imprimatur to the armed forces of Indonesia. There have been
indications that progress is being made.
But progress in human rights in East Timor is in the eye of the
beholder. And I would refer to the letter I made reference to before
from the Catholic Conference from Father Drew Christiansen: ``Rather
than improvements in human rights, there have been over the past year
numerous reports from authoritative sources of continued harassment and
arrests of many, especially young people, seeking to express in a
nonviolent fashion their disagreement with the status quo. There
continue to be vicious attacks by gangs of paramiliataries and a
climate of fear created by the security forces that at times amounts to
a reign of terror.''
And so I would argue, based upon the observations of Father
Christiansen and his colleagues in the Catholic Conference, that our
IMET training has not achieved success yet and, in fact, what it does
is provide a symbolic approval of these operations in East Timor by
Indonesian security forces. And also it has not yet moved forward the
Government of Indonesia together with other world leaders in the world
community to recognize their occupation, their illegal occupation of
East Timor, and to give justice to the East Timor and to its people.
And I think in that regard we have again invoked the leverage of
withdrawing IMET from the armed forces of Indonesia.

Now, the gentleman from Nebraska talked about the strategic value of
Indonesia. I believe there is strategic value there. But I would point
out that in the period from 1992 until about a year or so ago, when we
restored expanded IMET, the Government of Indonesia did not turn away
from the United States, did not seek to ally itself with other regional
powers. And I would suspect that if once again we revoked IMET, they
would not turn away from us, turn away from their own self-interest,
which is a relationship with the United States in the world community.
We are not at all seeking to undercut the economic ties that we are
developing with the Government of Indonesia. Those ties, I think, also
are based upon mutual self-interest, but what we are doing is trying to
establish very clearly that the Government of Indonesia and its armed
forces must act with more sensitivity, more consideration of the people
of East Timor, and if they cannot do that, they then would not be
allowed to participate in this expanded IMET. And for all of the above
reasons, I would urge that this measure be adopted and the amendment be
accepted by the committee.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], which would cut off all IMET to
Indonesia.
Mr. Chairman, I notice that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] had other business and could not be here to hear the extended
debate; not here to hear the eloquent statements of people that are
knowledgeable in this affair. But I am sure that had he been here, no
doubt he might have taken serious consideration to withdraw this
amendment.
But since it has not been withdrawn, as the gentleman knows, the
subcommittee has been very attentive to this issue and in last year's
bill we agreed to provide expanded IMET to Indonesia. Expanded IMET is
only for training the military in the areas of democratization, respect
for human rights, and the rule of law. It really should be called
restricted IMET.
Because our fiscal year 1996 bill was not enacted into law until
early this year, Indonesia really has not had the benefit of this type
of training. The committee's position this year simply reflects last
year's compromise on this issue--it allows the expanded IMET program to
work with Indonesian officers to improve their human rights
performance. No military training is provided. Personally, I support
full

[[Page H6155]]

military training for Indonesia, but I reached a compromise with my
colleagues on the committee and last year I supported the House
position in conference.
Currently the administration is planning visits to Indonesia by the
U.S. Naval Justice School's Military Justice Mobile Education Team and
the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School's Civil-Military Relations Mobile
Education Team. Are these really the types of IMET programs that the
House should be prohibiting? Well, that is exactly what the amendment
by the gentleman from Massachusetts will do.
I strongly oppose this counterproductive amendment which will deny, I
repeat deny, human rights training to the Indonesian military. Please
vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Frank,
Kennedy, Reed and Kennedy amendment to the fiscal year 1997 foreign
operations appropriations bill which will prohibit all international
military education [IMET] funding for Indonesia.
The Indonesia invasion and occupation of East Timor in 1975 was the
beginning of a period of repression and human rights abuses in East
Timor that has continued for over 20 years. It has claimed the lives of
200,000 Timorese, one-third of the original population. It has been
done in defiance of the U.N. Security Council, which has twice called
on Jakarta to withdraw without delay. The United States fully supported
these resolutions.
The human rights situation remains serious in East Timor. In this
year's State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices, the
Department notes ``the most serious abuses, by Indonesia, include harsh
repression of dissidents in East Timor * * * Reports of extrajudicial
killings, disappearances and torture of those in custody by security
forces increased.''
Since the November 12, 1991, Santa Cruz Cemetery massacre, in which
Indonesian troops armed with American M-16's gunned down more than 200
Timorese civilians, Congress has taken a series of initiatives which
have begun to shift the direction of United States policy.
While imperfect, the ban on IMET funding for Indonesia has been one
source of leverage. First imposed in October 1992, the ban has sent an
important message to Indonesia about our concerns regarding human
rights in East Timor. By approving IMET military training funds,
Congress turns a blind eye to continued abuses in East Timor and lets
Indonesia off the hook.
The political issue in East Timor is a very basic one: The people
simply want the right to vote in a U.N.-supervised referendum, in which
they would be given the right to choose whether they want to be
independent or become part of Indonesia. Without any international
pressure on the regime in Jakarta, the ability of the people in East
Timor to exercise their right of self-determination will continue to be
infringed upon.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Frank
amendment to prohibit the use of international military education and
training funds for Indonesia. It appears to me that this amendment is
designed only to insult Indonesia and would have only negative effects
on United States-Indonesian relations. Furthermore, if enacted, I
believe this amendment would actually hinder the kind of changes and
increased respect for human rights its proponents claim to seek.
First, let's be clear on what IMET is. IMET is not guns and
ammunition. It's not even combat training. The IMET program sponsors up
and coming Indonesian military officers to come to the United States to
receive either technical training--like accounting--or professional
education including military justice and human rights awareness. Thus,
IMET participants are exposed to the very issues about which the
sponsors of the Frank amendment are most concerned. How better to
ensure that the Indonesian military enhances its professionalism and
sensitivity to the human rights concerns we've identified than to
include this in their training? Especially when the Indonesian military
wants this training? They are seeking our help. If the sponsors of this
amendment listen to their own words, then they would see that we ought
to continue to provide this training.
Second, IMET also plays an important role in improving United States-
Indonesian security ties. Indonesia occupies a very central and
strategic position in Southeast Asia. Indonesia is a key member of
ASEAN and a moderate leader of the non-aligned movement. It is the
world's largest Moslem country. Indonesia is very supportive of the
United States presence in Southeast Asia and provides us with places in
lieu of bases. The modest support the Indonesian military receives from
IMET goes a long way in solidifying this relationship. It also provides
our own military with exposure to senior and mid-level Indonesian
military officers with all of the associated benefits such relations
provide.
Third, with 190 million people, Indonesia is a growing market for
American goods and services. Last year alone, the United States
exported $3.3 billion, an increase of over 20 percent from last year.
Indonesia is the host to over $6 billion in United States investments.
Whether we like it or not, IMET has, in part, come to represent a
bellwether of United States engagement with Indonesia. It has become a
symbol of United States attitude toward Indonesia. Therefore, to
prohibit IMET will be seen by Indonesians--all Indonesians, not just
the Suharto government--as a slap. Unlike most of my colleagues, as a
first generation Asian-American, I have a pretty good understanding of
how East Asians think. And, I can assure every one of you, this will be
interpreted as a direct insult against the Indonesian Nation as a
whole.
Such an insult will have a direct and negative affect on all aspects
of our relationship, including economic ties. At risk are jobs and
incomes of Americans rights here at home. The only ones really cheering
for the misguided symbolism of the Frank amendment are our Asian and
European competitors.
Finally, I am sensitive to the situation in East Timor.
Unfortunately, the history as well as the future of East Timor is not
as simple and black and white as proponents of this amendment claim.
Progress is being made with regard to East Timor, though I agree that
more is needed. However, cutting IMET will have no positive effect on
East Timor. The Frank amendment is merely pandering to only special
interest in East Timor at great expense overall U.S. interests in the
region. In fact, as I pointed out, prohibiting of IMET could actually
setback the process of improving human rights in Indonesia.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for America's best interests
and reject this misguided amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank-Kennedy-Reed
amendment to prohibit IMET for Indonesia. I appreciate Chairman
Callahan's initiative last year and again this year to limit IMET for
Indonesia to expanded-IMET only. Nonetheless, in light of continuing
human rights abuses and Indonesia's economic strength I do not believe
that the Indonesian military should be trained with United States
taxpayers' dollars.
According to the U.S. State Department's country reports on human
rights practices for 1995, human rights in Indonesia continued to be a
problem. The report notes that--in Indonesia ``there continued to be
numerous, credible reports of human rights abuses by the military and
police * * *.'' The human rights problems in Indonesia noted by the
State Department report include:

The (Indonesian) Government continued to commit serious
human rights abuses. The most serious abuses included harsh
repression of dissidents in East Timor, Aceh, and Irian Jaya.
Reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and
torture of those in custody by security forces increased.
Reports of arbitrary arrests and detentions and the use of
excessive violence (including deadly force) in dealing with
suspected criminals or perceived troublemakers continued.

The State Department's report also states:

Elements of the armed forces continued to be responsible
for the most serious human rights abuses. Military leaders in
some cases showed willingness to admit publicly abuses by
military personnel and take action against them, including in
a brutal incident in East Timor. Punishment, however, rarely
matched the severity of the abuse.

Some of our colleagues will argue that IMET benefits the United
States by increasing the professionalism of the armed forces of other
nations. That may, in some cases, be true. Unfortunately, history is
now littered with cases of egregious human rights abuses being
perpetrated by people who received U.S. military training. In some
countries, IMET training endows those who receive it with a mantle of
prestige and privilege. IMET provides a seal of approval of sorts for
military people who receive it and therefore bestows a seal of approval
on their military practices. The United States should not be in a
position of supporting repressive or abusive practices either in an
explicit or implicit way.
It is clear, to those who are willing to look, that the human rights
situation in East Timor is terrible. The State Department's report
provides documentation of some of last year's atrocities, many of which
were perpetrated by the military. These practices have not ended. I
have in my possession a list provided by a reputable human rights
organization of 17 East Timorese people who have been arrested, beaten
and tortured by the Indonesian armed forces at various locations around
East Timor since January 1996. This list is incomplete, but it is
representative of the ongoing practices of the Indonesian military.
The repressive activities of the Indonesian armed forces are by no
means limited to East Timor, which Indonesia occupies illegally.

[[Page H6156]]

They also occur in many other places in Indonesia, including Irian
Jaya, where NGO and church sources provided eyewitness accounts of over
40 victims of torture by the Indonesian military in late 1994 and early
1995.
I urge my colleagues to express their concern about human rights
abuses in Indonesia by supporting the Frank-Kennedy-Reed amendment to
prohibit IMET for Indonesia.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
funding for expanded international military and education training
[IMET] for Indonesia. The actions perpetrated by Indonesia against the
people of East Timor have been no less than reprehensible and do not
deserve to be condoned by this Government. I do not question the
efficacy of IMET programs in general, but rather the value to be gained
by the United States in providing assistance to the Indonesian
Government. As a champion of human rights throughout the world, the
United States should make every effort to ensure that systematic
aggression, like that against the East Timorese, is not allowed to
continue. In order to do this, though, it is imperative that the
Indonesian Government receives a firm answer from this country--such
behavior will not be tolerated.
Indonesia's invasion of East Timor spawned an era of oppression
directed against the East Timorese. Torture, abductions,
disappearances, and massacres have all been common occurrences under
its rule. The result has been the annihilation of nearly one-third of
the East Timorese population. Portugal has strenuously objected to
Indonesia's conduct in East Timor, but these objections have gone
unheeded. Instead, the international community has silently accepted
the situation. However, I refuse to stand idly by as the Indonesian
Government is no less than rewarded for its actions with funds from
this country.
The violence which has been unleashed against the people of East
Timor must be stopped. A restoration of IMET funding to Indonesia,
though, does not send this message. Rather, it encourages the
Indonesian military to perpetuate the cycle of abuse. The East Timorese
must be recognized for the basic human dignity we all share. For this
reason, I stand opposed to this country's financial support of the
Indonesian regime.

{time} 1500

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149,
noes 272, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 227]

AYES--149

Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Doggett
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Furse
Gejdenson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hefner
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaHood
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Stupak
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--272

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Roth
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--13

Bateman
Brown (CA)
Calvert
Deutsch
Gibbons
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Lincoln
McDade
Rose
Schiff
Studds
Torricelli

{time} 1520

Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mr. WAXMAN changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Ms. WATERS and Messrs. CLAY, FLAKE and VOLKMER changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to address the Committee
for 1 minute.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter] for a colloquy.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, very recently, elections were held in
Albania that international observers feel were rife with
irregularities--including ballot stuffing, physical intimidation of
voters and other acts of fraud and coercion. This is a grave cause of
concern and I would inquire whether the Chairman would be open to
consideration of provisions withholding assistance to Albania unless
new elections are held.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I understand the gentleman's concern over the
disturbing elections in Albania, and I will remain open to
consideration of this matter in our conference committee with the
Senate on this legislation.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule and the order of the House of June
6, 1996, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hefley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union,

[[Page H6157]]

reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 3540) making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 445, he
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the
House for 2 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a few seconds to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for a comment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds that I have allocated to
me I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], our
chairman, for his excellent leadership of our subcommittee and for his
shepherding us through these different issues. While I do not agree
with all that is in the bill, I do commend the gentleman.
In addition to commending our excellent chairman, the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], for his magnificent shepherding of this
legislation through subcommittee, full committee and to the floor, I
want to join with him in acknowledging the fine work of our ranking
member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. While he will be on the
floor when we take up the conference report, I am certain, this is the
last bill that he brings to the floor from the committee, and I know
that all the members of the subcommittee join our colleagues in
commending him and thanking him for his leadership on the committee,
his good humor in the face of strong opposition on some issues in the
committee and his leadership to rally us around some of the issues of
agreement.
With that, I want to once again commend the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Callahan]. I do not think our colleagues have any idea how
difficult it is for this bill, to reach consensus on it, and we are all
deeply in the debt of the gentleman.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, I am sorry that the confusion and
the timing does not permit us to do justice to the gentleman from
Texas, who is sitting in on his last few minutes of an appropriation
bill, who has been sitting here for 19 years doing this same thing
every 2 years. And I would like to thank also the subcommittee members
who have worked so hard and are so allied with us in trying to
formulate a bipartisan bill. And certainly the staff deserves
recognition for the yeoman job that they have done, as does the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and all the people of our
committee.
The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] also deserves recognition for
his yeomanship and his great handling of this bill sitting in the
Speaker's chair.
Mr. Speaker, once again, in the final passage of this bill there have
been those who came and tried to increase this level of spending that
we do on foreign aid, but thanks to this committee and this Congress,
we are cutting foreign aid, we are cutting the President's request by a
billion dollars, we have now, with the passage of this bill, reduced
the level of appropriation for foreign operations to less than 1
percent of our total budget.
So this is a vote to cut foreign aid and to appropriate responsibly
what limited amount of money we are going to. I would encourage each
Member to vote ``aye'' to cut foreign aid and to pass this responsible
legislation.
Mr. DURBIN. I rise in support of assistance to Israel in the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997.
The legislation before us today includes the President's full request
for assistance to Israel, including economic support funds, foreign
military finance grants, counterterrorism assistance, and funds for the
resettlement of refugees from Eastern Europe. In addition, the
legislation requires that this assistance be provided on an expedited
basis.
The security and the prosperity of the United States are intricately
interwoven with the security and prosperity of Israel. The American
people and the people of Israel are inseparably joined by a common
heritage, shared values and democratic forms of government. The threats
to Israel--from political conflict, extremism, economic instability and
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--are also threats to
the people of the United States.
We have seen historic changes in the Middle East in recent years as
Israel has reached out to its neighbors for peace. But real dangers and
significant obstacles to peace remain.
The people of Israel have just recently held elections and voted for
new leaders. This is a time of transition for Israel, and Israel's
people must know that the United States will remain a steadfast and
strong ally.
The assistance we provide to Israel will strengthen our most
important ally in the Middle East, deter aggression from hostile
nations in the region, and ultimately protect the security of the
United States. This assistance will help Israel to preserve a
qualitative advantage in defense, even though it is heavily outspent by
its larger neighbors. It will help Israel to absorb the economic cost
of maintaining a strong defense. And it will once again assure the
people of Israel, and its adversaries, of unwavering American support.
We must support Israel because it is the right thing to do, and
because it is the wise course to take. I urge my colleagues to support
the President's request for assistance to Israel and vote for final
passage of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
1997.
Ms. PELOSI. I commend Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Wilson for
their successful efforts for the second year in a row in putting
together a foreign aid bill which has bipartisan support. As a member
of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I know the work that has gone
into this bill and the efforts that have been made to bridge many
differences on the purpose, the priorities, and the funding level of
our foreign aid programs. I would like to thank the subcommittee staff,
Charlie Flickner, Bill Inglee, John Shank, and Lori Maes, and our
Democratic staffpersons Mark Murray and Kathleen Murphy for their hard
work on this bill.
In the current fiscal climate, we have to make many difficult choices
cutting funding for many worthy programs. Our decisions must be based
on fact, not myth. We have before us today one of the most
misunderstood and maligned bills the Congress is regularly privileged
to consider. The misperceptions surrounding foreign aid are legion and
we, as leaders, have an obligation to set the record straight.
We will hear today from some of our colleagues that the American
people do not support foreign aid. That is not true. The American
people's overwhelming humanitarian response to crisis, to famine, to
tragedy overseas, is evidence of their concern. According to recent
surveys, Americans believe we should spend 15 percent of our budget on
foreign aid--they think we spend 40 percent on foreign aid--and do not
know that we spend less than 1 percent on foreign aid. Today's bill
continues the recent downward trend in spending on foreign aid,
providing $1 billion less than the President's request for fiscal year
1997 , and $458 million less than the fiscal year 1996 level.
Foreign aid is a good investment in a number of ways. Our limited
foreign aid dollars provide returns to our country many times over
through assisting our allies and increasing our national security,
providing much-needed humanitarian relief and easing human suffering.
In addition, we get numerous economic benefits from our foreign aid
investments. Eighty percent of our development assistance is spent here
in the United States, providing jobs for American workers, and
expanding markets abroad.
I support a number of this bill's provisions and thank Chairman
Callahan, in particular, for his continued leadership in providing
funding for global AIDS programs and for his assistance in addressing
my concerns about some reporting requirements related to Hong Kong.
That said, I cannot ignore the parts of this bill which I believe
should be changed. I am particularly concerned about the impact of
funding cuts on programs to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor
around the world, including IDA and the IADB's Fund for Special
Operations. I am also concerned about the reduced ability of our
foreign aid programs to meet the development challenges on the
continent of Africa. I believe we should reinstate the Development Fund
for Africa as a separate account and provide funding for the African
Development Bank and African Development Foundation, for example.
And, I am particularly concerned about the consequences for the
global environment of cuts in funding for global environment programs
and of cuts in funding and restrictions on population assistance funds.
Overpopulation is a threat to us all. The world is already
experiencing a serious strain on its natural resources; increased
population

[[Page H6158]]

growth at current rates will only increase environmental degradation.
We cannot be close-minded or short-sighted on this issue. What happens
in other countries must be of interest here at home. Pollution does not
stop at our borders. Diseases also do not stop at our borders.
Stabilizing population growth is critical to us all.
In addition, I am very concerned that the population provisions
contained in this bill will have the opposite impact of what our well-
meaning colleagues intend. The 35-percent cut in population assistance
funding contained in this bill can be expected to result in 7 million
couples in developing countries left without access to modern, safe
contraceptive methods; 4 million women experiencing unintended
pregnancies; 1.6 million more abortions; 8,000 more women dying in
pregnancy and childbirth, including those from unsafe abortions; and
134,000 infant deaths. These are not abstract arguments. These are real
people whose suffering and whose deaths that we have the power to
prevent.
U.S. foreign assistance has been at the forefront in saving lives,
building democracy and achieving economic growth in the developing
world. While failures associated with foreign aid programs have been
well publicized, the success stories receive little attention. We can
be proud that hundreds of millions of people around the world have
achieved substantial improvements in their living standards around the
world. We can be proud of the millions of children in developing
countries whose lives have been saved by the immunization programs
which we have funded.
Yes, improvements can still be made. Everything can always be
improved. The administration should be commended for the progress it
has made in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of our
development programs. We should make every effort to fund these
programs at adequate and appropriate levels. This bill is a step in
that direction.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for
the foreign operations appropriations measure before us today. I am not
satisfied with all of the bill's provisions, notably the continued
restrictions on international family planning. However, I believe that
this bill contains some provisions that deserve our support, including
our Nation's continued commitment to the Middle East peace process.
A new era in U.S. foreign assistance has been taking shape since the
end of the cold war. New trends are developing which will guide the
direction of our foreign policy and foreign assistance programs well
into the next century. In light of these changes, I believe it is
important for the United States to remain committed throughout the
world. Such a commitment will serve to advance our global interests and
influence.
This bill will appropriate $11.9 billion for foreign aid and export
assistance, $1 billion less than the administration's request and $458
million less than the fiscal year 1996 appropriation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the committee has continued to show
its support for sustainable agriculture programs. Programs like the
small ruminants collaborative research support program at the
University of California, Davis, promote sustainable agriculture in the
developing world in the conjunction with the U.S. system of land grant
colleges and universities. Finding and implementing sustainable,
environmentally safe, agricultural techniques and crops is critical to
providing long-term food security in Africa and throughout the world.
In addition, I would like to express my support for the efforts of
Representatives Visclosky, Bilirakis, Durbin, and others to strengthen
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and increase pressure on Turkey to
lift its 3 year blockade of United States relief supplies to Armenia.
This amendment will send a clear message to Turkey that the United
States Congress will not tolerate, much less subsidize, the illegal
blockade of American humanitarian relief aid to needy populations in
Armenia. Turkey's embargo not only perpetuates the humanitarian crisis
in Armenia, but also increases the costs of American assistance
programs because of the necessity to circumvent Turkey. The amendment
will ensure that Turkey complies with the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act
before it receives any additional economic support funds.
I would also like to extend my support for the amendment offered by
Representatives Radanovich and Bonior. This amendment would withhold $3
million of United States aid to Turkey until the Turkish Government has
acknowledged the atrocities committed against the Armenian people. By
linking Turkey's denial of this genocide to United States foreign aid
levels, this amendment provides a practical incentive for Turkey to
finally acknowledge its role in this genocide. Moreover, it would begin
to decrease regional tensions and open the door to improved relations
between Armenia and Turkey.
I would also like to express my support for the amendment offered by
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts to prohibit funding for the U.S. Army's
School of the Americas. While the amendment was withdrawn, his
underlying bill, H.R. 2652, is a legislative proposal worth supporting.
The School of the Americas and its graduates have linked the United
States to some of the worst human rights violators in Latin America.
These human rights abusers have been responsible for murders, coups,
and numerous disappearances. This shameful record casts doubts on the
intentions of the United States and damages our relationships. We need
to take a serious look at the school and the awful legacy that it has
left in Latin America.
I believe that reasonable, responsible levels of foreign assistance
will continue to serve the economic, humanitarian, political, and
strategic interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 366,
nays 57, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 228]

YEAS--366

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts

[[Page H6159]]

Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--57

Barrett (NE)
Beilenson
Bunning
Campbell
Chenoweth
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Danner
DeFazio
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Fattah
Foglietta
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hefley
Herger
Jacobs
Jones
Laughlin
Lucas
McDermott
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mollohan
Montgomery
Neumann
Oberstar
Payne (NJ)
Pombo
Quillen
Rahall
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Sanders
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shuster
Solomon
Stark
Stump
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Traficant
Velazquez
Volkmer
Whitfield
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Bateman
Calvert
Deutsch
Gibbons
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Lincoln
McDade
Radanovich
Schiff
Studds

{time} 1546

Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________