[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3591-H3632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 159 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. 1757.

                              {time}  1257


                     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. 1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to 
authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related 
agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Ewing--Chairman pro tempore--in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Thursday, June 5, 1997, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 5, 1997, each 
further amendment to the bill, and all amendments thereto, shall be 
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, except for the following amendments which 
shall be debated without a time limit:

       1. Amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from New 
     York [Mr. Gilman] pursuant to the previous order;
       2. The amendment by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
     Kennedy] regarding Indonesia;
       3. The amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
     Miller] regarding Cuba;
       4. The amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
     Schumer] regarding Egypt;
       5. The amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] 
     or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] regarding 
     Palestinian land transactions;
       6. The amendment by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] 
     regarding Libya;
       7. The amendment by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
     Sanford] regarding authorization levels;
       8. The amendment by the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. 
     McKinney] regarding arms transfer code of conduct;
       9. The amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
     Capps] regarding Tibet;
       10. The amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
     Gilman] regarding counternarcotics authorities;
       11. The amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
     Hamilton]; and
       12. The amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
     Gilman].

                              {time}  1300

  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, or his designee, with the concurrence of the 
ranking minority member of that committee, or a designee, to offer 
amendments en bloc. Those amendments en bloc shall be considered read, 
shall not be subject to amendment, shall not be subject to a demand for 
a division of the question, and may amend portions of the bill 
previously read for amendment.
  The original proponents of an amendment included in such amendments 
en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately 
before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we are now resuming consideration of the foreign 
relations authorization bill for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. We have a 
unanimous-consent agreement that makes in order several amendments to 
be considered under the 5-minute rule without any special time 
limitation. Other amendments not mentioned in the unanimous-consent 
request are debatable for up to 10 minutes equally divided between a 
Member in support and a Member in opposition on the amendment. I 
request that any Members having an amendment would advise our committee 
if they plan to offer an amendment. It would help facilitate our work 
here for the remainder of the day.
  I would also like to point out that we are continuing to work with 
the administration to reach an agreement on reorganization of the 
foreign affairs agencies. The President has directed that consolidation 
of USIA and the Arms Control Disarmament Agency take place over a 2-
year period. That is our responsibility, to implement that decision. It 
is my intention to find a solution. I hope that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will work with us to that end, and I want to 
thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton], for his cooperation. We will try to move this bill as 
expeditiously as possible, and we appreciate the cooperation of our 
colleagues to work within the agreed time limits.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is the amendment one of those 
specifically listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. GILMAN. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman:
       At end of Title XVII (relating to foreign policy 
     provisions) add the following new section (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC.  ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 481(e)(4) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291(e)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), inserting ``or under chapter 5 
     of part II'' after ``(including chapter 4 of part II)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following: ``, other than sales or financing 
     provided for narcotics-related purposes following 
     notification in accordance with procedures applicable to 
     reprogramming notifications under section 634A of this 
     Act.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to assistance provided on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the euphemism, war on drugs, is often 
misused to describe the struggle against the illicit narcotics which 
destroy our communities and takes the lives of so many of our young 
people. However in Colombia, the major drug producing nation in our 
hemisphere, there is a raging narcotics based drug war, and it is only 
a short 3 hours away by aircraft from Miami. The Colombian National 
Police, the CNP, our longtime courageous and honest allies in the fight 
against the drug cartels and their narcoguerrilla allies, in the last 
10 years alone they have lost nearly 3,000 police officers. These heavy 
casualties were taken fighting ours as well as their own grave struggle 
against the illicit drug trade. These brave police officers captured or 
killed all of the leadership of the ruthless Medellin cartel as well as 
all of the key kingpins of the more sophisticated and powerful Cali 
international drug cartel.
  The administration twice decertified the Government of Colombia over 
the last 2 years without a national interest waiver because of alleged 
corruption surrounding the Presidency. At the same time, it has badly 
hurt the Colombian National Police and military fighting the real drug 
war from the safe and secure office of the Presidency in Bogota.

[[Page H3592]]

  The annual drug certification statute as now written automatically 
cuts off foreign military sales and international military education 
and training. That assistance is given once a nation like Colombia is 
decertified, without being given a national interest waiver.
  As a result, today in Colombia we cannot routinely provide FMS and 
IMET assistance to the police and the army. In addition, we cannot 
provide any lethal assistance, ammunition and explosives, in the middle 
of their raging narcowar.
  Nor can we help adequately maintain the numerous pieces of U.S. 
military equipment we have provided to the security forces in the past 
to fight drugs. The net effect has been a classic case of shooting 
one's self in the foot in a matter involving our vital national 
security, illicit drugs coming from abroad.
  The certification law also creates a catch-22 situation for the 
nation decertified. We are denying them the very military assistance 
and training they often need to produce increased results in fighting 
drugs, results they will need later to get certified for fully 
cooperating in the following year.
  My amendment is simple. It was included in H.R. 1486 as it came out 
of our committee without any opposition. It makes clear that FMS and 
IMET narcotics-related assistance, when the United States decertifies a 
nation in the future, without a national interest waiver, would no 
longer automatically be cut off.
  Under my proposal, while the administration need not automatically 
provide FMS or IMET drug-related assistance, they are not precluded 
from doing so especially when needed in such clear cut cases like the 
current drug war that exists in Colombia.
  I urge my colleagues to please join in this common sense solution to 
correct a serious glitch in the current law. Let us give our courageous 
friends and allies in the Colombian National Police and military in its 
vital struggle for their lives and that of our children a real fighting 
chance, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the chairman's 
amendment which inserts into this bill one of his sections in the 
foreign aid division, which of course the Committee on Rules had 
stripped from the bill.
  This amendment, taken out of the foreign aid division of H.R. 1486, 
would remove the current legal prohibition against providing military 
training and military aid to decertified countries. What that means is 
that, if a country is decertified because it is not cooperating with us 
in the fight against drugs, the United States would still automatically 
cut off most development assistance as well as OPIC and Exim which help 
U.S. companies, but lethal equipment and other military assistance 
could still be sent to those decertified countries.
  I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, the amendment, I 
think, is an affront to fair process. The Committee on Rules stripped 
out the foreign aid half of the Committee on International Relations' 
bipartisan bill. Now the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is coming 
back with a provision out of the foreign aid division. Members of 
Congress, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] and I, had a provision to revise 
the drug certification process, but we did not attempt to add it to a 
State Department authorization bill where it does not belong.
  I do not like fooling around with the process. This approach, I 
think, is unfair to other Members who had provisions in the foreign aid 
division. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is trying to attach 
an undoubtedly popular amendment from the foreign assistance bill to a 
different vehicle. This approach, I think, shows that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman] has no confidence in the Committee on Rules' 
pledge that the foreign aid bill will be taken up at a later time. What 
he is doing now is putting very popular, very attractive, provisions 
from the foreign aid division into this bill, rewriting it so that it 
fits under the State Department authorization bill.
  Second, however, I oppose the amendment on substance. One of the main 
reasons for prohibiting military aid is to have a powerful stick to 
persuade militaries in major drug countries to become U.S. allies on 
counternarcotics. This amendment removes one of the key levers that the 
United States has under current law.
  What we do here is we would decertify a country saying that they do 
not cooperate with us, and then we turn around under this amendment and 
say, ``Even though you do not cooperate, we are going to continue to 
supply you with all of the military aid that you want.''
  With this amendment, for example, the United States would provide 
approximately $30 million in additional military assistance to 
Colombia. Keep in mind Colombia is a country that does not cooperate 
with us by our own finding in the fight against drugs. This contradicts 
this amendment, I believe, the very purpose of cutting off assistance 
to decertified countries. Colombia's military has less incentive to 
improve Colombia's record if it is getting the aid that it wants any 
way.
  Now I do agree with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] that 
automatic sanctions are counterproductive. The entire decertification 
statute is badly flawed, and for this reason the committee voted to 
revise the decertification process and voted to remove all mandatory 
sanctions. The committee has been denied a chance to bring that product 
before the House.
  In my view rather than make piecemeal changes, as proposed in the 
Gilman amendment, we should revise the entire statute. The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman] said at committee markup that major changes 
to the decertification statute should undergo a close review including 
hearings. Well, this amendment is such a change. The gentleman from New 
York should withdraw this amendment until such time as the committee 
has completed that review.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a short colloquy 
with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's understanding that the 
administration supported this legislative fix to the decertification 
statute?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman asking me if the 
administration supports his amendment?
  Mr. GILMAN. No, I am asking if it is the gentleman's understanding 
the administration supported this legislative fix to the 
decertification statute so that they could meet IMET and FMS in these 
cases?
  Mr. HAMILTON. May I respond?
  Mr. GILMAN. It is my understanding that the administration did 
support it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I took the position I did without 
reference to the administration. I do not know what their position is. 
They can speak for themselves.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, in further addressing the gentleman's 
comments I want the gentleman to know that I have full confidence that 
we are going to move the foreign aid bill at a later date, but this 
proposal is a matter of extreme urgency. Today the Colombian National 
Police have only 10 days worth of ammunition in order to continue to 
conduct the kind of fight that they are conducting against the 
guerrillas who have been trafficking in narcotics, and it is for that 
reason that I propose this amendment which merely restores FMS and IMET 
so that these courageous fighters in the drug war could continue in 
their efforts.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I was very pleased to hear him say a moment ago that he believes the 
foreign aid bill will be brought up.
  Does the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the committee, have 
the assurance of the leadership that a foreign aid bill will in fact be 
brought up on this floor?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have been conferring with the 
leadership,

[[Page H3593]]

and I will continue in my efforts to try to bring the foreign aid 
measure to the floor of the House.
  Mr. HAMILTON. But the gentleman has no assurance from the leadership 
that such a bill will be brought forward?
  Mr. GILMAN. I have no guarantees at this time. I can only state to 
the ranking minority member that I will continue strenuous efforts to 
try to bring the measure to the floor of the House.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Let me assure the gentleman I support him in those 
efforts.

                              {time}  1315

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Ney

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. NEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ney:
       At the end of the bill add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                  DIVISION C--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 2001. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO ANY COUNTRY 
                   THAT ASSISTS LIBYA IN CIRCUMVENTING UNITED 
                   NATIONS SANCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available in this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be made 
     available for assistance to any government if the President 
     determines that such country has assisted the Government of 
     Libya in violating sanctions imposed by United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 748 (1992).
       (b) Exception.--This section shall not apply if the 
     President determines that making such funds available is 
     important to the national security interest of the United 
     States.

  Mr. NEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, Steven Burrell, Shannon Davis, Christopher 
Jones, Sarah Phillipps, Cynthia J. Smith, these are names of students, 
not the names of students who I would like to say today are in their 
communities and able to continue their education and add to their 
communities' benefit, and maybe one of these names could have found a 
cure for cancer, maybe one of these names would have done a great 
humanitarian effort. No, Mr. Chairman, the names I read, Steven 
Burrell, Shannon Davis, Christopher Jones, Sarah Phillipps, Cynthia J. 
Smith, these are the names of just a few of the 35 students from 
Syracuse University who cannot be with us today and never will be with 
us because they were passengers on Pan Am Flight 103, which was blown 
out of the sky by a powerful bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland. All told, 
all 259 passengers and crew aboard the plane were killed, along with 11 
people on the ground.
  After one of the most extensive investigations in history, two Libyan 
intelligence agents were implicated for planting an explosive device on 
the plane that murdered all of the passengers on the plane. After 
repeated requests, I stress repeated requests, and Libya's failure to 
extradite the two Libyan agents, the United Nations imposed a ban on 
air traffic in and out of Libya as a result.
  Last week, in a reckless attempt to have the sanctions lifted without 
actually delivering the two suspects, the Libyan Government, under the 
direction of Moammar Qadhafi, sent a direct appeal to the families of 
the victims talking about a compromise. Unfortunately, the letter was 
more of a cynical propaganda ploy aimed at manipulating the victims' 
families than it was an actual concession, and the victims' families 
recognized this publicly.
  On top of murdering the families, I think one of the worst things 
that could have been done was to try to involve them in a propaganda 
ploy of the Libyan Government.
  Now, why did this happen? It happened because earlier this year, on 
May 8, the Libyan leader, Moammar Qadhafi, defied the U.N. ban on all 
traffic in and out of Libya. He flew a flotilla of four Boeing 727's to 
two Libyan countries, Niger and Nigeria. Now this matter is currently 
being pursued in the U.N. Security Council and the Sanctions Committee.
  My amendment, very simply, will prohibit any funds made available 
through this bill from going to any government that assists Libya in 
circumventing the U.N. sanction.
  We took upon ourselves, and the United Nations agreed, these 
sanctions for a reason. Not for the pleasure of Moammar Qadhafi to do 
as he pleases without doing the right thing, which is to turn these 
people over for trial that killed all of the people on the Pan Am 
flight, but on top of it, Mr. Chairman, it is blatantly obvious that 
Moammar Qadhafi does not take the U.N. sanctions seriously, and that 
Libya continues to harbor and finance terrorist groups that share 
Qadhafi's anti-Western views all over our planet.
  However, real problems begin to arise when other nations of the world 
assist rogue governments and rogue countries like Libya in 
circumventing U.N. sanctions. That does not add to the peace or the 
security of any citizen of any country who at any point in time can 
fall victim to the rogue activities of a rogue government headed by a 
ruthless rogue leader, which is what Moammar Qadhafi is.
  The United States has the ability, however, to help deter other 
countries from assisting Libya through the threat of withholding 
American assistance, and that is the sole purpose of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment on 
behalf of the innocent Americans and the innocent peoples from all 
around the world who were on this flight and for the other people who 
have fallen victim to the hideous ways of this brutal leader. I again 
urge my colleagues' support of this amendment. I would also like to 
thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and his staff for all of 
the hard work that they put into this bill. They have done a wonderful 
job.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I 
will vote for it. I want to work to refine it down the line, and I have 
a question or two to the sponsor.
  Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the gentleman from Ohio, what 
countries would be affected by this amendment?
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, the countries that would be affected would be 
those countries who, in fact as the amendment states, the President 
feels has violated the U.N. sanctions. So it could be any country of 
the world in fact that would allow for a situation like the flotilla to 
land in their country and they would violate U.N. sanctions. So it is 
not specific to what countries, but it would be any country who 
violates the already existing U.N. sanctions.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman name any country that 
would be affected, any specific country that would be affected?
  Mr. NEY. Well, if the gentleman would further yield, it could be 
whatever country that violated from this point forward.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Is there a country that now violates, if this were law?
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the two countries that allowed him 
to land, and of course the United Nations has to make that decision, 
which was Niger and Nigeria, but this amendment would be a deterrent to 
future situations where a country would allow the leader, Moammar 
Qadhafi, in fact to land on their soil.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman 
should be commended. All of us want to support tough sanctions against 
Libya, because there is not any doubt that Libya has not cooperated 
with respect to the investigation of Pan Am 103, and there is not any 
doubt that Libya is not complying with the U.N. resolutions. But I do 
want to point out in the interest of indicating that some refinements 
probably have to be made on the gentleman's amendment, the kinds of 
problems that arise.
  For example, South Africa. President Mandela has invited Qadhafi to 
visit. Is

[[Page H3594]]

South Africa going to get caught up in this amendment? Or take Tunisia, 
who is the largest recipient of United States antiterrorism assistance. 
It is certainly hostile to Libya on a state-to-state basis, but through 
the Island of Djerba is a major international gateway to Libya. It is 
quite possible, for example, that Tunisia would be caught up in this 
amendment.
  I point these things out not to be critical of the gentleman's 
amendment, but simply to encourage him, as the bill moves forward, to 
be open and receptive to refinements to the bill which would permit us 
to deal with these fairly specific and fairly difficult situations.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
would just note that I am willing to communicate during the process, of 
course, and I know the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] would 
agree that we would have to be narrow in the scope so that certain 
unforeseen situations such as the ones that were mentioned, but I think 
that we would have to be careful, obviously, to always encourage 
countries to not deal with such regimes, but again, I think we can 
definitely have a discussion of what situations are appropriate, and 
also note the language. There is a certain amount of executive 
flexibility which we can communicate on.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee is willing to accept the amendment by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], and I want to commend him for his good 
work on this measure.
  I appreciate the work that has been done in trying to improve our 
sanctions legislation. I will note that the amendment cuts off aid to 
any country that breaks U.N. sanctions against Libya, and while there 
is some concern that this amendment will cut off aid to some key 
allies, I note that this provision does have a national security waiver 
which the President may exercise in order to continue aid amongst those 
countries.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the House Resolution 159, 
further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Ney] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Capps

  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. CAPPS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Capps:
       At the end of Title XVII (relating to foreign policy 
     provisions) add the following new section (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly);
       Notwithstanding section 1407(b)(1) of this act, for each of 
     the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 at least 30 scholarships shall 
     be made available to Tibetan students and professionals who 
     are outside of Tibet (if practicable, including individuals 
     active in the preservation of Tibet's unique culture, 
     religion, and language), and at least 15 scholarships shall 
     be made available to Burmese students and professionals who 
     are outside Burma.

  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment directs USIA, whenever 
feasible, whenever practical, to include individuals that are active in 
preserving the culture, religion and language of Tibet in the existing 
Tibetan Education and Cultural Exchange Program authorized in this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Tibetan people have suffered 
tremendously under a succession of regimes, present regimes in Beijing. 
Beijing has singlemindedly implemented policies that have plundered and 
decimated spiritual life, the cultural life, the religious life, and 
specifically the monastic life, the life of the monks of the people of 
that country, and forced change in the day-to-day cultural traditions 
of the Tibetan people.
  In the last 2 years, regrettably, this repression has increased. The 
current Chinese policy toward Tibet may well end in relegating Tibetan 
culture and language to the history books unless we make conscious 
efforts to support the preservation of this culture.
  Mr. Chairman, before I came here as a Congressman, I was professor of 
religious studies at the University of California in Santa Barbara. 
Tibet is very much on my mind these days. Last week I participated in a 
celebration at Santa Barbara to establish a professorial chair in 
Tibetan Buddhist studies in my own department.

                              {time}  1330

  My own dedication to the study of religion is born of the belief that 
the cultural and spiritual life of the world benefits immeasurably from 
the diversity of the world's religious traditions. In Tibet, as in all 
places, the religion and culture inextricably intertwine and is the 
glue that holds the people of Tibet together.
  Furthermore, the richness of the Tibetan culture in my judgment 
benefits all of humanity. It enriches the human spirit. The 
annihilation of this would be a loss to all of us.
  This amendment encourages Tibetans to participate in this 
preservation activity. The preservation of Tibetan culture, religion, 
and language, as I have said, is important to us all. This amendment is 
a significant step in that direction.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to express my commendation to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps] for offering this amendment. 
He is a very distinguished scholar in this field. He is applying his 
expert knowledge to a provision of law and refining it, I think, in a 
very productive and constructive way. I fully support the amendment and 
congratulate him for offering it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Capps]. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, 
has diligently and courageously sought to protect Tibetans' unique 
cultural and religious heritage. The Fulbright Exchange Program has 
helped in that goal. Accordingly, we are pleased to accept the 
gentleman's amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. CAPPS. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps].
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       At the end of title XVII, insert the following section:

     SEC. 1717. CUBAN CIGARS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the United States should 
     not prohibit the importation into the United States, or the 
     sale or distribution in the United States, of cigars that are 
     the product of Cuba.

  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment 
is twofold. One is to put an end to the duplicity that takes place so 
very often inside the beltway in Washington, DC, as members of the 
government, both the executive branch, the congressional branch, and 
others denounce the Cuban embargo, or denounce Cuba and continue to 
support the embargo against Cuba, and then after doing so, light up a 
Cuban cigar and extol the pleasures and the attributes of that cigar.

[[Page H3595]]

  However, this practice of lighting up Cuban cigars is not something 
that is just limited to those who favor, oppose, or have a position on 
the Cuban embargo. What we know now is that for many, many years, the 
life of the embargo, over 30 years, is that even in its inception it 
was designed not to be respected and not to be honored. President 
Kennedy, when he knew he was going to sign an embargo against Cuba, 
immediately asked one of his aides to go out and purchase all the Cuban 
cigars that he could get his hands on so he would have a full stock of 
them when the embargo went in place.
  Since that time, Members of Congress have gone to Cuba in official 
delegations and met with Fidel Castro and met with other officials in 
the Cuban Government and have come back with Cuban cigars. They have 
shared them on a very discreet basis with their good friends, and 
again, they have enjoyed them to the hilt.
  Those of the Members who have served here for some time know very 
often Members would report to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Tip O'Neill, about their trips and their conversations 
with the Cuban Government; and he would very quickly ask you, where are 
the cigars, knowing that a box of cigars had been sent from Fidel 
Castro or from some other Governmental official to him.
  So the point is this, the point is this: that we have people in the 
political elites, we have people in the media elites, the intellectual 
elites, who visit the island or who travel overseas and who have the 
money to buy these cigars, to purchase them. What has happened? For the 
middle-class cigar smoker, it means the cigar costs somewhere between 
$15 and $35, maybe more. I think we ought to, if it is good enough for 
those in the Government, if it is good enough for those in the media, I 
think we ought to share it with the middle class in this country.
  We understand the purposes of this embargo. The idea was that we 
could impose hardship on the Cuban Government and they would change 
their ways. This was a sacrifice we were prepared to enter into. If 
this sacrifice is worth making, it is worth sharing. I think that is 
what this amendment does.
  This amendment also understands that we cannot have it both ways. We 
cannot have it to condemn and to support the embargo and then engage 
openly in the products of that. This is what we are talking about. This 
is the Cohiba cigar. This is the mother lode of cigars.
  This is what, when people get together and go to cigar smokers, a few 
people in the room will have it, and the rest in the crowd will watch 
them light it up with great admiration. They will talk about how they 
acquired it; did they mail order it on the Internet? Did they have it 
sent to them from Holland, where the bands were removed, the Cohiba 
bands were removed, it entered the country, and then they had the bands 
sent separately so they could get the bands back on to impress their 
friends? Or did they get it from a governmental official, a Member of 
Congress who traveled to Cuba and brought them back to hand them out; 
let me do you a favor, let me give you a cigar.
  Why should not all Americans, if they so desire, enjoy that pleasure? 
But what we have done is established an embargo on cigars that now 
means it is really only for the elite. It is only for the elite. This 
amendment suggests that that should not be allowed, that we should not 
continue that purpose. We should end the duplicity about this.
  Some have suggested that if the ban and embargo were truly enforced, 
we probably could not get a quorum in the Congress of the United 
States, or in the U.S. Senate, or maybe even in the President's 
Cabinet, because they would all be taken off for smoking contraband. Is 
that what forces us to spend over $1 million a year in customs agents 
just in Miami for the purposes of searching out cigars?
  Do we not have larger problems in terms of our customs service, 
drugs, other illegal materials, piracy? Should we spend this kind of 
money just in one city to search out this dangerous little cigar that 
is enjoyed only inside of the beltway and in the parties among the 
elite?
  I think we can do better than that. I think we can do better by 
redirecting our resources to those things that are causing the American 
public great angst, mainly the illegal importation of drugs into this 
country where we would better use those customs agents. I think we 
could do better in terms of ending the hypocrisy by those who will 
raise cain about the Government of this island, about the Government of 
Fidel Castro, and then enjoy a Cuban cigar.
  This is not a partisan amendment. This smoke flows as heavily from 
the Republican Cloakroom as it does in the Democratic Cloakroom.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] has expired.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 
30 additional seconds.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.


 Amendment offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                          Miller of California

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       Delete the final period and at the end of the amendment, 
     add the following: ``at such time as the government of Cuba 
     has (1) freed all political prisoners, (2) legalized all 
     political activity, and (3) agreed to hold free and fair 
     elections.''

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California, an attempt to trivialize the suffering of 
the Cuban people and the apartheid economy that the Cuban worker has to 
live under, is truly unfortunate. The issue is not cigars, the issue is 
the fact that the Cuban worker in this example, for example, those who 
work in the fields and in the factories producing the cigars, their 
product is sold only in dollars, in hard currency. Yet the Cuban worker 
cannot collect in any way, shape, or fashion the earnings produced by 
the dictatorship from his labor.
  So he is paid in almost worthless Cuban currency, made worthless, by 
the way, by the apartheid economy. And of course the dictatorship 
collects the very handsome, substantial sums in dollars that are 
generated by the actions of the Cuban worker; in this case, the cigar 
manufacturer and the agriculture manufacturer, the agricultural worker 
who works in the fields taking the tobacco to the factories.
  So what my amendment to the amendment says, to this very obvious 
attempt to trivialize the suffering of the Cuban worker and the 
apartheid economy, what my amendment to the trivializing effort says is 
very simple: We will have no objection to making Cuban cigars legal 
when the Cuban producers and the workers involved in that process are 
able to collect what their labor produces.
  Once there is a government in Cuba that frees political prisoners and 
legalizes political activity, and agrees, in effect, to return 
sovereignty to the people through willingness to hold free and fair 
elections, then that will be a government, obviously, that will permit 
that when the Cuban worker produces something like a cigar, then that 
currency that is generated by that sale will go to the worker, and not 
like now, where the dictatorship collects the dollars and keeps the 
worker in a situation, on the verge of the 21st century, of a total 
apartheid economy and abject, almost slavery, as I say, just a few 
years from the 21st century.
  I think it is really unfortunate we are trivializing this situation, 
but that is, in effect, what the amendment, what the core amendment, 
seeks to do. That is why I think, Mr. Chairman, it is important to 
amend the amendment by making clear that yes, the American people will 
be glad to help support the Cuban economy by the purchase of that 
wonderful product that nature makes possible and the hard work of the 
Cuban worker makes possible, the Cuban cigar, once the Cuban worker is 
able to benefit from his and her labor and not an apartheid economy, a 
regime that imposes an apartheid economy on the Cuban worker.
  That is what the amendment makes clear, Mr. Chairman. It is self 
evident.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H3596]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Diaz amendment to the Miller 
amendment. Cuba is one of the few countries in the world in which the 
struggle against totalitarianism has not yet been won. Because of the 
proximity of Cuba to the United States and the historical close 
relationship between the peoples of our two nations, it is especially 
important that this victory come sooner rather than later.
  In evaluating all proposed legislation, in evaluating all 
administrative action and diplomatic initiatives with respect to Cuba, 
it is important to keep several principles in mind.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart] has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, in evaluating all of the proposed legislation, any kind 
of diplomatic or administrative initiative vis-a-vis Cuba, it is 
important to keep these following principles in mind: First, such 
actions must be calculated to emphasize the status of the Castro 
government as a rogue regime with whom the civilized nations of the 
world should have no dealings.
  Second, our actions must be calculated to hurt the dictatorship and 
not the Cuban people.
  Finally, we should make it clear that Cuba will receive a warm 
welcome back into the family of free and democratic nations.

                              {time}  1345

  By this standard, we have made some terrible mistakes, such as the 
1994 Clinton-Castro antirefugee agreement. We made this agreement just 
a few months after the Castro regime had brutally murdered 40 men, 
women, and children who were trying to escape from Cuba on the vessel 
the Thirteenth of March. The agreement gave the Castro government just 
what it wanted, an end to the longstanding United States policy of 
accepting people who escape from Cuba.
  The agreement specified that Castro was to use mainly persuasive 
methods to keep people from fleeing from Cuba. The United States 
thereby accepted moral responsibility for whatever forms of persuasion 
he should choose to employ. And it enhanced the international prestige 
and the domestic power of the regime.
  The Castro government returned the favor a year later by murdering 
four American citizens, members of the pro-freedom organization 
Brothers to the Rescue who were flying in international airspace. So we 
got tough again for a little while.
  Mr. Chairman, the adoption of the Miller amendment, if it is not 
amended successfully by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], 
would send a clear signal that the get-tough period is over again. It 
would send a signal, and it would signal an unwarranted unilateral 
departure from our policy of isolating Castro. Once again we would send 
a signal to the world that Castro is not so bad after all.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that we remember just what kind of 
regime we are dealing with. We must bear in mind that the Castro regime 
is the No. 1 violator of human rights in our hemisphere.
  According to the State Department's country reports on human rights 
practices for 1996, Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by Fidel 
Castro, who has exercised control over all aspects of Cuban life. 
According to the country reports, among the more serious human rights 
violations by the regime in recent years are, and I quote:

       The authorities were responsible for the extrajudicial 
     killing of dozens of people.
       The government continued to employ acts of repudiation, 
     which are attacks by mobs organized by the government but 
     portrayed as responsible public rebukes, against dissident 
     activity.
       The government also metes out exceptionally harsh prison 
     sentences to democracy and human rights advocates whom it 
     considers a threat to its control.
       Police and prison officials often use beatings, neglect, 
     isolation, and other abuse against detainees and prisoners 
     convicted of political crimes, including human rights 
     advocates, or those who persisted in expressing their views.
       Citizens have no legal right to change their government or 
     to advocate change.
       The government does not allow criticism of the revolution 
     or its leaders. The Communist Party controls all media as a 
     means to indoctrinate the public.
       Religious persecution continues,

  The country reports point out.
       The government has ignored calls for democratic reform and 
     labeled activists who proposed them as worms and traitors.

  The decision on whether to embrace or isolate the Castro regime 
raises the question of what role human rights and basic decency are to 
play in our foreign policy. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote for the Diaz-
Balart amendment, and salute him for his longstanding support for 
democracy in Cuba. His amendment is a step in the right direction in 
that endeavor.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment originally proposed by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and in support of the new 
amendment as proposed by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  The Miller amendment comes across as a parody or a caricature, very 
cruel, of the Cuban people. It makes a mockery of the suffering Cuban 
people, of their subjugation, and it belittles their suffering. The 
Miller amendment is also an affront to the more than three-decades-old 
United States policy toward Cuba, for it focuses on violations of the 
trade embargo as justification or cause to weaken our United States 
policy.
  I think it defies all logic when violations in and disregard for U.S. 
laws are used to defend a position of accommodation with smugglers or, 
in the final equation, with the Castro regime itself.
  Essentially, this Miller amendment is saying that if we cannot beat 
them, join them. If we cannot curb the violations of U.S. laws and we 
cannot inhibit interest in Castro's blood products, then let us just 
make things easier for all and lift those prohibitions.
  This is not the way, certainly, that U.S. foreign policy should be 
run. I really do not think that the United States would have won the 
cold war and sit as the leader of the free world, if every time its 
laws were blatantly disregarded, we had thrown up our hands in the air 
and said, fine, we cannot seem to enforce the laws because people are 
violating them, so let us just change the law.
  This is not the way to proceed. We do not change laws because someone 
decides to violate them or skirt them. This is like saying we cannot 
prevent murderers from killing or drug traffickers from polluting our 
society, so we should change our laws to accommodate those crimes. That 
is unconscionable and it is just plain wrong.
  It would be helpful for the cause of freedom if the gentleman from 
California would instead introduce an amendment that focused on human 
rights violations in Cuba, or on the narcotics trafficking by the 
Castro regime, or on their sponsorship of activities to undermine 
United States security and hemispheric stability.
  If the gentleman would only reflect on four innocent, unarmed victims 
shot down over international waters on February 24 of last year, three 
of them United States citizens and the fourth a U.S. legal resident, 
one of these brave young men served this country proudly in Vietnam, 
having been decorated for courage in defending the ideals of democracy. 
I suppose it would be too difficult to think of them or think of the 
men, women, and children killed by Castro's thugs in Cuban waters 
because they merely tried to seek freedom; or think about the thousands 
who perish in Castro's jails because they had the courage to stand up 
to this cruel regime and defend their right to be free.
  That is much more difficult and much less financially rewarding. This 
amendment certainly seems to be the easy way out.
  They should be remembered, and we should remember every day the blood 
shed by so many throughout the years in the struggle to free Cuba from 
its enslavement at the hands of the Castro regime. We should not be 
considering an amendment like the one introduced by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], which only serves to provide a lifeline to the 
Castro dictatorship.
  The Miller amendment contradicts and undermines the objectives and 
the priorities of United States policy toward Cuba. It serves to 
belittle the views of the majority of this body, and of the Senate as 
well, that overwhelmingly supported the passage of the Helms-Burton 
law. It disregards United States foreign policy priorities and national 
security interests by placing

[[Page H3597]]

greater emphasis on financial gain than on the overarching commitment 
of the United States to help bring democracy to Cuba.

  The United States must assume its leadership role and effect 
concrete, positive changes within the last remaining bastion of 
totalitarianism and dictatorship. It should not be wasting its position 
of influence to help fill the pockets of a ruthless dictator.
  Unfortunately, it appears that some in this body cannot shift the 
focus from dollars and cents. It appears that the desire for a Cuban 
cigar and the idea of capitalizing on trade is stronger than the human 
instinct to protect the downtrodden and the oppressed.
  I hope that the latter will prevail, and that my colleagues will 
overwhelmingly reject the Miller amendment and instead support the 
Diaz-Balart amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Diaz-Balart perfecting amendment 
and to oppose the Miller amendment of my colleague from California.
  I have respect for his desire and the desire of a lot of people in 
this country who want to smoke a Cuban cigar. I understand that. I 
understand that. But the nature of the question is, What has worked to 
move the Castro regime to make some positive changes?
  And the fact of the matter is, I would quote to the body the 
realities that our policy, which is to deny the regime hard currency, 
thereby forcing it to move toward a greater opening, hopefully, for 
democracy and human rights, has been a policy that has begun to work, 
especially over the last several years for which the loss of the Soviet 
Union $6 billion a year and the tightening of our embargo, ending the 
loopholes and the Libertad legislation, have taken effect so much so 
that we hear the regime constantly, daily speak against them, and they 
would not even pay attention to it if it was not having an impact.
  Now, the fact of the matter is that our policy has created some very 
significant things. It has reduced the third largest army in the 
Western Hemisphere after the United States and Brazil per capita, good 
for the people in Cuba. Less of a military means more food for Cuban 
families, less of a military means less instability throughout the 
Americas, and certainly it is a good action. That has happened because 
of the necessity created on the regime.
  What else has happened? The fact of the matter is that international 
investment, limited as it is in Cuba, has only been created and 
accepted over the last couple of years out of necessity, necessity by 
the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists and no longer does 
their aid flow to the regime, and at the same time our policy. So in 
fact, whatever we believe, for those of us who even disagree with the 
policy that economic opportunities would create democratic movements, 
that has been created by necessity.
  Lastly, the American dollar, the most hated symbol of the revolution, 
illegal to own until a couple years ago, is now actively sought within 
Cuba.
  So the fact of the matter, it is our policy of denying the regime 
hard currency that has moved them, albeit ever so slowly and ever so 
limitedly, that has moved them to the only positive openings that we 
have seen.
  The other thing is, I know that my colleagues, especially on this 
side of the aisle, are in strong support of labor rights. A laborer in 
Cuba, particularly in the tobacco industry and the cigar and leaf-
producing and cigar-making industry, does not have the right in Cuba to 
receive resources directly from a foreign company investment in terms 
of a salary. That is to say, the foreign company comes into Cuba 
producing cigars for export and in fact they cannot be paid directly by 
that foreign company. In fact, they pay the regime. The regime takes 
the overwhelming amount of the salary and gives a subsistence wage to 
the worker.
  I am sure that my colleagues do not want to be part of an enterprise, 
as we talk about China and the people's army there, and products 
produced there and other parts of the world, I am sure that we do not 
want to exploit Cuban workers who are not able to fully receive the 
benefits, working conditions and the salary of their sweat and labor.
  In fact, by doing this, we would do that. We would permit hard 
currency to go to the regime. We would not improve the life of workers. 
On the contrary, we would continue to promote the subsistence wages 
that they get. We would continue to promote the under class that in 
fact they slave in on behalf of the regime, and we would permit the 
regime to be able to continue to oppress its people because it would 
have resources flowing into it in very significant dollars.
  While this is only a sense of the Congress, I think it is the wrong 
sense. Right now at this very moment, I just finished getting off of 
Radio Marti, doing a program in which people from the islands are 
connected to people through Radio Marti. When we think of the work of 
independent journalists who get arrested every day for trying to report 
what is going on in Cuba, if we think about the dissidents that are 
active in Cuba, the fact of the matter is, this debate even makes a 
mockery of what they are trying to accomplish every day.
  Just a little while ago the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] offered an 
amendment pertaining to Libya. No Member here would consider offering 
an amendment to allow any single Libyan product to enter the United 
States because of Libya's actions. I can think about that replicated in 
a whole series of countries across the globe, that we say we will not 
permit their products to come in because of the nature of forced labor, 
prison camp labor, or in fact the exploitation of workers.
  I have heard many of my colleagues passionately speak about those 
rights. And so I would urge my colleagues to support the Diaz-Balart 
amendment. Let Cuban cigars in when freedom and democracy come to the 
people of Cuba, and when workers are not exploited and they can share 
in the benefits of proceeds received from the work of their labor.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I am rising in opposition to the Miller amendment and in support of 
the Diaz-Balart amendment. As much as some appreciate the Cuban cigars, 
it is certainly not the key issue. The key issue today with regard to 
the Miller amendment is freedom in Cuba.
  Cuba is not free and this Congress has acted repeatedly to tighten, 
not loosen, the embargo against Cuba. I cite the Cuba Democracy Act 
passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President. I 
cite the Helms-Burton Act passed by a Republican Congress, signed by a 
Democratic President. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is 
right, Castro cannot have it both ways or either way, Republican or 
Democrat, Congress or the President.
  The message has been the same, from President Kennedy through 
Presidents Reagan and Clinton: Free Cuba.
  I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to note that there 
are many fine cigars made outside of Cuba, and I urge the gentleman to 
familiarize himself with the Opus X or Arturo Fuente cigars until Cuba 
is free, and let us not allow our strong commitment to human rights to 
be blown away by any cigar smoke.
  Accordingly, I support the Diaz-Balart perfecting amendment. I urge 
its adoption and defeat of the Miller amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the arguments of 
my colleagues, and that is the reason we have the embargo, but they 
obviously missed the point on the amendment; that it gets a little old, 
as people are thumping their chests in the media, in the intellectual 
discussion groups, in Washington, DC, and in the Halls of Congress 
about the evils of the Cuban Government and of Fidel Castro, and then 
kick back to light up a Cuban cigar.
  Now, we have an embargo, and the American public does not imbibe in 
Cuban sugar or Cuban medical services, or financial services or travel, 
or whatever, and that is a shared sacrifice. That is a shared 
understanding.

[[Page H3598]]

  But somehow among the political elites and Members of Congress, the 
Supreme Court, the U.S. Senate, the President's Cabinet, people can 
light up a cigar and go on like nothing has happened. The purpose of 
this amendment is just to point that out; that we ought not to have a 
policy that is so ragged because of the duplicity that is put in it by 
the opinion makers in this country. That is the purpose of this 
amendment. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the reaction I have gotten from 
my colleagues points that out; that we cannot have it both ways.
  But with this policy, a lot of people in this country believe in fact 
that they can, they can go on and they can condemn these practices and 
then they can decide to smoke a Cohiba or some other Cuban cigar.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge passage of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]; 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough]; 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Engel]; and 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Nethercutt].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


  Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Scarborough to Title XVII, 
                       Foreign Policy Provisions

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify a 
previous amendment that we are about to vote on.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to the amendment offered by Mr. Scarborough.
       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       ``This restriction shall not be interpreted to restrict 
     humanitarian assistance or transactions relating to normal 
     diplomatic activities.''

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like 
the gentleman to explain the changes he has in mind, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Florida for that purpose.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I advise him 
that we were going to have the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] 
speak to this, but the vote is coming up right away and I regret that 
we were not able to give the gentleman the background that we gave the 
gentleman from Indiana.
  We add the last line, ``This restriction shall not be interpreted to 
restrict humanitarian assistance or transactions relating to the normal 
diplomatic activities'' in Sudan. And we did so because the gentleman 
from Indiana had some concerns that the language would actually hamper 
humanitarian efforts.
  Obviously, we are concerned about persecution in Sudan, and we want 
to do everything we can do to expedite humanitarian assistance to the 
people in that troubled land, so we have agreed to work with the 
gentleman from Indiana in any way we can to ensure that humanitarian 
assistance to Sudan would not be adversely affected.
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for 
his amendment. I think it is a worthy objective.
  I certainly do not intend to object. I do simply want to indicate to 
him that I think the amendment needs further refinement, and I have 
appreciated the fact that he is willing to work with me and others, and 
I think the chairman of the committee, to try to achieve that.
  For example, I think under the language as it stands, it may be the 
case that United States nationals could not receive payment for claims 
from the Sudanese Government even for a terrorist act. It is possible 
under the language that U.S. nationals could no longer travel to the 
countries, even journalists, for example.
  I simply point these things out, not to object to the gentleman's 
amendment, but to raise concerns about it and to say that I will work 
with him to tighten the amendment and to refine it, and I appreciate 
very much his willingness to do that.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, and I certainly would defer 
to the judgment of the chairman and the ranking member on matters such 
as this. Obviously, they have had experience in these areas much longer 
than I have. So, actually, I look forward to working with the chairman 
and the ranking member.
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
intend to object, I merely wish to advise the gentleman that we accept 
his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The modification is agreed to.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 185, after line 17, insert the following section:

     SEC. 1717. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING RELIGIOUS 
                   PERSECUTION AND SUPPORT OF TERRORISM BY SUDAN.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Continued disregard of the freedom of religion by Sudan 
     is unacceptable.
       (2) Continued support of terrorist activities by Sudan is 
     of deepest concern and shall not be tolerated.
       (c) Financial Transactions With Terrorists.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the exception 
     with respect to Sudan under section 2332(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code (provided in regulations issued in August 
     1996 by the Office of Foreign Assets of the Treasury 
     Department), shall cease to be effective on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. No such exception under such section 
     may be issued with respect to Sudan until the President 
     certifies to the Congress that Sudan is no longer sponsoring 
     or supporting terrorism. This restriction shall not be 
     interpreted to restrict humanitarian assistance or 
     transactions relating to normal diplomatic activities.


                    Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Stearns] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns: At the end of title XVII 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . STUDY OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the President and the 
     Permanent Representative of the United States to the United 
     Nations should strongly encourage the United Nations to 
     establish a commission to study, report promptly, 
     concerning--
       (1) establishing a new location for the headquarters for 
     the United Nations; and
       (2) to establish the United Nations as a part-time body.

[[Page H3599]]

                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 108, 
noes 315, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--108

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Bono
     Brady
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Foley
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jones
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Moran (KS)
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Linda
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Borski
     Farr
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Kasich
     Molinari
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Rothman
     Salmon
     Schiff

                              {time}  1432

  Messrs. SMITH of Texas, McCOLLUM, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, DICKEY, and 
GORDON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. THUNE, DeLAY, BACHUS, SANFORD, WELLER, GOODLATTE, and CRAMER 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 170. I was unavoidably 
detained and could not be present to vote had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


           Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Scarborough

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The unfinished business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment, as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment, as modified.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Scarborough:
       Page 185, after line 17, insert the following section:

     SEC. 1717. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING RELIGIOUS 
                   PERSECUTION AND SUPPORT OF TERRORISM BY SUDAN.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Continued disregard of the freedom of religion by Sudan 
     is unacceptable.
       (2) Continued support of terrorist activities by Sudan is 
     of deepest concern and shall not be tolerated.
       (c) Financial Transactions With Terrorists.--
     Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the exception 
     with respect to Sudan under section 2332(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code (provided in regulations issued in August 
     1996 by the Office of Foreign Assets of the Treasury 
     Department) shall cease to be effective on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. No such exception under such section 
     may be issued with respect to Sudan until the President 
     certifies to the Congress that Sudan is no longer sponsoring 
     or supporting terrorism. This restriction shall not be 
     interpreted to restrict humanitarian assistance or 
     transactions relating to normal diplomatic activities.

                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415, 
noes 9, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 171]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost

[[Page H3600]]


     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--9

     Campbell
     Conyers
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Paul
     Rahall
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Borski
     Farr
     Flake
     Hall (OH)
     Molinari
     Owens
     Rothman
     Salmon
     Schiff
     Thune

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SPENCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Engel] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
       At the end of title XVII (relating to foreign policy 
     provisions) add the following (and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1717. SANCTIONS AGAINST SYRIA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Syria remains in a state of war with Israel and 
     maintains large numbers of heavily armed forces near the 
     border with Israel.
       (2) Syria occupies Lebanon with almost 40,000 troops and 
     maintains undue influence on all aspects of the Lebanese 
     Government and society.
       (3) Syria continues to provide safe haven and support for 
     several groups that engage in terrorism, according to the 
     Department of State's ``Patterns of Global Terrorism'' report 
     for 1996.
       (4) Syria was listed by the Department of State as a 
     country that does not cooperate in the war on drugs.
       (5) Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, 
     and numerous reports indicate that Syria has increased the 
     production and level of sophistication of chemical weapons. 
     Reports also indicate that such unconventional warheads have 
     been loaded on SCUD-type ballistic missiles with the range to 
     reach numerous targets in friendly nations, such as Israel, 
     Turkey, and Jordan.
       (6) Syria routinely commits a wide array of serious human 
     rights violations, and according to a recent Human Rights 
     Watch report, is engaging in the abduction of Lebanese 
     citizens and Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
       (7) Several reports indicate that Syria knowingly allowed 
     the explosives used in the June 1996 Dharan bombing, which 
     killed 19 United States service personnel, to pass through 
     Syria from Lebanon to Saudi Arabia.
       (8) More than 20 trips by former Secretary of State 
     Christopher to Damascus, a meeting between President Clinton 
     and Syrian President Hafez Assad, and a Department of State-
     sponsored intensive negotiation session at Wye Plantation 
     were all unsuccessful in convincing Syria to make peace with 
     Israel. At the same time, most reports indicated that Israel 
     was prepared to make substantial concessions of land in 
     exchange for peace.
       (9) According to the Central Intelligence Agency World Fact 
     Book of 1995, petroleum comprises 53 percent of Syrian 
     exports.
       (10) By imposing sanctions against the Syrian petroleum 
     industry, the United States can apply additional pressure 
     against Syria to press the Assad regime to change its 
     dangerous and destabilizing policies.
       (b) Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress that the 
     United States should consider applying to Syria sanctions 
     which are currently enforced against Iran and Libya under the 
     Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 if the Government of 
     Syria does not eliminate its dangerous and destabilizing 
     policies.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410, 
noes 15, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               AYES--410

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee

[[Page H3601]]


     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--15

     Bonior
     Conyers
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     John
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     McDermott
     Minge
     Obey
     Paul
     Rahall
     Sabo
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Farr
     Flake
     Hall (OH)
     Livingston
     Molinari
     Rothman
     Rush
     Salmon
     Schiff

                              {time}  1449

  Mr. BONIOR changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment Offered By Mr. Nethercutt

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Nethercutt] on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill add the following section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO THE ABDUCTION AND 
                   DETAINMENT OF DONALD HUTCHINGS OF THE STATE OF 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Al-Faran, a militant organization that seeks to merge 
     Kashmir with Pakistan, has waged a war against the Government 
     of India.
       (2) During the week of July 2, 1995, Al-Faran abducted 
     Donald Hutchings of the State of Washington, another American 
     John Childs, and 4 Western Europeans in the State of Jammu 
     and Kashmir. John Childs has since escaped.
       (3) Al-Faran has executed one hostage and threatened to 
     kill Donald Hutchings and the remaining Western European 
     hostages unless the Government of India agrees to release 
     suspected guerrillas from its jails.
       (4) Several militants have been captured by the Indian 
     Government and have given conflicting and unconfirmed reports 
     about the hostages.
       (5) Donald Hutchings and the 3 remaining Western European 
     hostages have been held against their will by Al-Faran for 
     nearly 2 years.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the militant organization Al-Faran should release, 
     immediately, Donald Hutchings and 3 Western Europeans from 
     captivity;
       (2) Al-Faran and their supporters should cease and desist 
     from all acts of hostage-taking and other violent acts within 
     the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
       (3) the State Department Rewards Program should be used to 
     the greatest extent possible to solicit new information 
     pertaining to hostages; and
       (4) the governments of the United States, the United 
     Kingdom, Germany, Norway, India, and Pakistan should share 
     and investigate all information relating to these hostages as 
     quickly as possible.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 425, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               AYES--425

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano

[[Page H3602]]


     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Farr
     Flake
     Hall (OH)
     Livingston
     Molinari
     Rothman
     Salmon
     Schiff

                              {time}  1458

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Paxon

  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997.
  Mr. PAXON. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Paxon:
       At the end of the bill add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

              TITLE XVIII--OTHER FOREIGN POLICY PROVISIONS

     SEC. 1801. CONDEMNATION OF PALESTINIAN DEATH PENALTY FOR LAND 
                   SALES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In recent weeks, senior officials of the Palestinian 
     Authority have announced that the death penalty will be 
     imposed on anyone who sells land to a Jew, based on a now-
     repealed Jordanian law, even in Israel.
       (2) Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat stated on 
     May 21, 1997, ``Our law is a Jordanian law that we inherited 
     . . . and sets the death penalty for those who sell land to 
     Israelis. . . . We are talking about a few traitors, and we 
     shall implement against them what is written in the law 
     books.''.
       (3) Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu 
     Middein stated on May 5, 1997, ``I warned the land dealers 
     several times through the media not to play with fire. For 
     us, whoever sells land to Jews and settlers is more dangerous 
     than collaborators. Therefore, they must be put on trial and 
     sentenced to death . . . they are traitors.''.
       (4) Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu 
     Middein stated on May 28, 1997, ``it is obligatory to forbid 
     the sale of land in Ramle, Lod, the Negev, and everywhere 
     else. . . . There are many [land dealers] who have fled from 
     Palestine, but anyone who has broken this serious law will 
     remain a wanted fugitive by the Palestinian people, wherever 
     he may go.''.
       (5) Legislation implementing the death penalty was prepared 
     for consideration by the Palestinian Legislative Council, but 
     has not yet been considered.
       (6) Since the pronouncement of senior Palestinian leaders, 
     at least three Palestinians have been killed for selling land 
     to Israelis, some after visits or other scrutiny by 
     Palestinian security officials. There is further evidence 
     that the killings were committed by Palestinian security 
     officials.
       (7) Three Palestinians were extrajudicially executed 
     following their sale of land to Israelis.
       (8) The International Covenant on Civil and Political 
     Rights, to which the United States is a party, states, 
     ``sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious 
     crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of 
     commission of the crime. . . . This penalty can only be 
     carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a 
     competent court.''.
       (9) The United States has made a financial commitment to 
     the Palestinian Authority with the understanding that the 
     rule of law would prevail, that there would be no official 
     sanction to extrajudicial killings or violations of human 
     rights, and that basic principles of peaceful and normal 
     relations would be upheld.
       (10) Despite claims to the contrary, there is no law in 
     Israel forbidding the sale of land to Arabs or people of 
     other ethnicities or nationalities.
       (b) Declarations of Policy.--The Congress declares the 
     following:
       (1) The Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms 
     the abhorrent policy and practice of murdering Palestinians 
     for sales of land to Jews. Such actions are violations of 
     international law and the spirit of the Oslo agreements, 
     casting strong doubt as to whether the Palestinians are in 
     compliance with their commitments to Israel. The Congress 
     finds the endorsement and encouragement of this practice by 
     the most senior leadership of the Palestinian Authority to be 
     reprehensible.
       (2) The Congress demands that this practice of murder and 
     racism be condemned and renounced by the Palestinian 
     leadership and that it will end immediately. If it does not, 
     the Congress should not permit the provision of direct aid to 
     the Palestinian Authority when the Middle East Peace 
     Facilitation Act of 1995 is considered for reauthorization. 
     The Congress urges the President to take this practice fully 
     into account as he now determines whether the Palestinian 
     Authority is in compliance with its commitments to Israel, 
     which he must do in accordance with the Middle East Peace 
     Facilitation Act of 1995.
       (3) The Congress strongly urges the Palestinian Legislative 
     Council to reject categorically legislation imposing the 
     penalty of death on those who sell land to Israelis.
       (c) Transmission of Copies.--The Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate are directed 
     to transmit copies of this section to the President of the 
     United States, the Secretary of State, the United Nations 
     Secretary General, the United States Ambassador to Israel, 
     the Consul General of the United States in Jerusalem, Israel, 
     the Rais of the Palestinian Authority, all members of 
     Palestinian Legislative Council, and the office of the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington, District of 
     Columbia.

  Mr. PAXON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to discuss a 
serious matter that threatens the continued progress toward peace in 
the Middle East. Early last month we became aware that Yassir Arafat 
demanded that action be taken to prevent the sale of land to Jews. The 
Palestinian Authority's Justice Minister later announced the death 
penalty, death penalty for any Palestinian who sold land to Jews.
  Since this announcement, three Palestinians who sold land to Jews 
have been murdered. There is now a substantial body of evidence showing 
the involvement of the Palestinian Authority police officers in these 
murders. Two of the victims were interrogated just days prior to their 
murder, and in the case of the third victim, one of the suspects under 
arrest is an active duty Palestinian Authority police officer.
  The Israeli Government now says that they have evidence that the 
chief of the Palestinian General Security Service in the West Bank was 
directly, directly involved in carrying out two of these killings.
  Now, my colleagues, what has been the response of Yassir Arafat to 
these murders? On May 16, Arafat was quoted in an Arab newspaper as 
saying, and I am quoting him here,

       Recently a decision was passed to punish anyone who sells 
     land, property or homes. We are keeping track of land dealers 
     and we are punishing them.

  Later in May the Palestinian Justice Minister expanded this death 
threat even to Arabs living in Israel outside of the control of the 
Palestinian Authority.
  In brief, my amendment condemns the abhorrent policy of murdering 
Palestinians for the sale of land to Jews. It also calls upon the 
Palestinian Authority to condemn this practice and for the Palestinian 
Legislative Council to reject any legislation imposing the death 
penalty for the sale of land.
  After reviewing and discussing this matter with my colleagues, I 
think it is clear that we must consider terminating direct U.S. 
assistance to the Palestinian Authority when we consider extension of 
the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act later this summer.
  Mr. Chairman, the behavior of Yassir Arafat and other members of the 
Palestinian Authority is completely unacceptable, and we must demand 
that the Palestinian authorities publicly condemn these reprehensible 
actions and take necessary steps to ensure that there are no more 
killings.
  I want to be clear: This amendment is not directed to the Palestinian 
people, but to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, whose 
commitment to the Oslo Accords are certainly called into question by 
their recent actions.
  This amendment is necessary today because Congress cannot stand by 
and

[[Page H3603]]

allow the peace process to be wrecked. I would hope that the 
Palestinian leadership will heed our warnings today and put an end to 
these murders so that this body will not be forced to terminate direct 
U.S. assistance.
  I understand that the State Department is in the process of 
completing a report to determine if the Palestinian Authority is in 
full compliance with all of their peace commitments to Israel. I would 
hope that the State Department take notice of this amendment today and 
carefully weigh the statements of Yassir Arafat and the recent killings 
before they make their final certification.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my 
distinguished colleague and friend from New York [Mr. Engel] and other 
Members of this body on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I join with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Paxon] in sponsoring this amendment today. Certainly 
he said it all. It is an absolute outrage that we would even think 
about such a proclamation whereby anybody would be threatened with 
death for selling land to Jews.
  I ask my colleagues to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and 
if it was reserved, if the Government or Israel or any other government 
issued such a decree that if land was sold to another group, that 
person would be condemned to death? It is just outlandish and 
outrageous to even think that this could happen.
  Mr. Chairman, we call on the Palestinian Authority to condemn this 
practice. Simple enough, it ought to be condemned. If you say you are 
for peace, if you are for the peace process, if you believe in 
coexistence, then this practice should be condemned.
  We do not believe that it ought to be coddled, we do not believe that 
the Palestinian Authority, whether it is Mr. Yassir Arafat or anybody 
else, ought to again be allowed to speak out of 16 sides of his mouth.
  Now, I am very, very disturbed because I would like to read into the 
Record some quotes. In recent weeks, some officials of the Palestinian 
Authority have announced that the death penalty will be imposed on 
anyone who sells land to a Jew, based on a now repealed Jordanian law, 
even in Israel.
  Now, listen to this: Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassir Arafat 
stated on May 21 of this year, and I quote,

       Our law is Jordanian law that we inherited and sets the 
     death penalty for those who sell land to Israelis. We are 
     talking about a few traitors, and we shall implement against 
     them what is written in the law books.

  Another quote: Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu 
Middein on May 5 said,

       I warned the land dealers several times through the media 
     not to play with fire. For us, whoever sells land to Jews and 
     settlers is more dangerous than collaborators. Therefore, 
     they must be put on trial and sentenced to death. They are 
     traitors.

  The third quote: Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu 
Middein stated on May 28,

       It is obligatory to forbid the sale of land in Ramle, Lod, 
     the Negev, and everywhere else. There are many land dealers 
     who have fled from Palestine, but anyone who has broken this 
     serious law will remain a wanted fugitive by the Palestinian 
     people wherever he may go.

  I submit to my colleagues that this kind of language is unacceptable, 
absolutely unacceptable and reprehensible and ought to be condemned in 
the strongest possible words by this legislative body. Certainly, those 
of us in the Congress that believe in the peace process may have 
disagreements from time to time, but certainly to say that they will 
absolutely murder anybody who sells land to Jews is not something that 
any civilized nation should tolerate.
  As my colleague from New York pointed out, there have already been 
three murders. There is no doubt about it that those people were 
murdered because they were looked upon as having sold land to Jews. We 
cannot tolerate this. We cannot put up with this. We must condemn it. 
It violates international law. It is a racist policy. It is something 
that every person in this world and every country that believes in 
freedom and democracy ought to condemn in the strongest possible terms. 
The United States should consider suspending aid that is in this bill. 
It does not mandate it, it says we should consider it, because I think 
there has to be some kind of accountability.
  Mr. Chairman, at what point do we say enough is enough? At what point 
do we say that actions speak louder than words? We need to absolutely 
say that it is not enough to say you are for peace, but on the other 
hand, you make these kinds of proclamations and you sort of judge it 
and say I will play it both ways. We cannot agree to have the 
Palestinian Authority say one thing in English for American 
consumption, American television consumption, and quite another thing 
in their own language to their own people, certainly when we are 
talking about murdering people.
  Let me say one final thing. These are Palestinians that were murdered 
by Palestinians. These are people that were condemned to death because 
they were perceived as selling lands to Jews. So this is nothing that 
is inherent in an Arab-Israeli conflict. These are Palestinians 
murdering Palestinians, and it ought to be condemned in the strongest 
possible terms.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from New York [Mr. Paxon] for 
putting forth this resolution with me and others who are going to 
speak, and I urge a very, very strong ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Paxon amendment, and I 
commend the gentleman for bringing forcefully to this Congress' 
attention the fact that there is a new campaign of brutality in the 
Middle East that threatens the lives of innocent people and the spirit 
of the peace process.
  Imagine this: People whose only crime is selling privately owned land 
are being killed because they are selling to Israelis. This simply must 
stop. One might imagine that the Palestinian leadership, engaged as 
they are in a peace process with Israel, would have been the first to 
condemn these outrageous killings. But that has not been the case, far 
from it. Instead, the Palestinian leadership have been instigators in 
these killings.
  On May 5, Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein 
announced that, ``The death penalty will be imposed on anyone who is 
convicted of selling one inch of land to Israel. Even middlemen 
involved in such deals will face the same penalty.''
  On May 16, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassir Arafat said, ``We 
are taking forceful steps against those who do this. Recently a 
decision was passed to punish anyone who sells land, property or homes. 
We are keeping track of land dealers and punishing them.''
  Three Arab realtors have now been brutally murdered under Palestinian 
control. Israeli security forces have collected evidence implicating 
the Palestinian Authority security forces directly in the 
assassinations. Incredibly, the Palestinian Authority continues to 
strongly defend the acts. The justice Minister stated on June 1, ``I 
advise the land dealers to commit suicide instead of getting killed and 
having their bodies thrown here and there.''
  In addition, the Palestinian Authority has marked 16 other Arab 
realtors for death and turned over their names to Palestinian Authority 
security organizations for execution, according to Israeli defense 
officials. Fortunately, Israel has been able to foil some of these 
attempted executions. On May 31, Israeli police arrested six heavily 
armed Palestinians, at least four of whom were Palestinian Authority 
policemen, during the attempted abduction of Assad Rajabi, a 
Palestinian resident of Jerusalem. Also on May 31, three Palestinian 
Authority policemen attempted to break into the Jerusalem home of 
Mohammed Abu-Meleh. When family members began screaming, Arab soldiers 
arrived and the Palestinian Authority policemen fled.
  These extrajudicial murders and their endorsement by the Palestinian 
Authority leadership cast strong doubt on the leadership's commitment 
to peace. The Palestinians must be on notice that these senseless acts 
must stop. The vigilante murder of realtors by Palestinian security 
officials is an egregious violation of human rights and of 
international norms. The killings must be renounced by the Palestinian 
leadership and end immediately. If not, I, for one, will actively

[[Page H3604]]

oppose the continuation of any aid to the Palestinian Authority.
  This is the kind of action we identify with Nazis. This is the kind 
of racist activity that the planet holds to be reprehensible and 
unacceptable.
  Mr. Arafat, you owe it to the world to stop this kind of killing, to 
protect people engaged in decent commerce, and I think everybody in the 
United States should take notice. There can be no peace process with 
murders, torturing, and killings of innocent people only because they 
sold to somebody who might not be racially or religiously acceptable. 
That is the behavior of Nazis. That is not a behavior that this country 
will tolerate.
  For every person who went to the Holocaust Museum, consider carefully 
how it begins. Look at what is happening in Palestine now. Mr. Arafat, 
I think it is time for you to publicly condemn it. It is time for your 
security forces to provide security to the innocent, and we serve 
notice that the United States, at least this House, is paying careful 
attention to deeds, not simply words.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I want to 
commend the two gentlemen from New York, [Mr. Paxon] and [Mr. Engel], 
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], and the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], for introducing this amendment and pushing it 
forward.
  I think no matter how any of us might feel about the death penalty, 
all of us would find it deeply troublesome that it might be applied to 
someone involved in a commercial transaction, the sale of land, and 
that it would be applied based on an ethnic, religious, or nationalist 
identity of the buyer or the seller.

                              {time}  1515

  It is simply outrageous, as the Speaker has said and others, that any 
member of the Palestinian leadership would make any statement that, 
implicitly or otherwise, endorses individuals taking the law into their 
own hands to carry out acts of vengeance against other Palestinians who 
may be involved in such land sales.
  The Palestinian authority has made some positive steps toward 
establishing accountable institutions of governance. I believe they are 
trying to establish a system based on the rule of law. But as the 
instances that have been called to our attention show, they have a very 
long way to go. These statements that have been quoted by their leaders 
are a definite step backward.
  I want to make clear that all of us should understand just how 
sensitive the transfer of land by Palestinians to Israelis and Israelis 
to Palestinians is. Who controls that land is one of the central issues 
with which the peace process must grapple. For many Israelis and 
Palestinians, the sale of land to the other party is perceived as an 
act of treason.
  The Israeli press, for example, has given extended coverage to a 
protracted and very ugly legal battle in Israel where one Israeli Jew 
has filed suit against an Israeli Jewish neighbor for selling their 
family home to an Israeli Arab. The Israeli Jewish family who sold the 
home has been subject to extreme harassment, as well as to court 
action.
  Mr. Chairman, I highlight this case only to underscore how sensitive 
an issue we are confronting here, and how extensive the sensitivities 
are on the part of all parties. I support this amendment because I do 
not support anyone being put to death for the sale of land. I am 
critical of the lack of adherence to the rule of law by the Palestinian 
authority. I understand; there are legitimate concerns about various 
activities involving land sales at this point. I want to underscore to 
the Palestinians and the Israelis the importance of resolving these 
disputes when they occur on an individual level through a credible 
legal process, and on the larger level of issues between the parties at 
the negotiating table. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to first commend the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Paxon], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] for bringing this matter to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, as everyone has heard here today, it is not pleasant 
but it is not difficult to describe the actions of the Palestinian 
Authority and their policy, which is simply stated as: Death to those 
who would sell land to Jews and other Israelis.
  Unfortunately, there have been those of us who have stood in this 
well a year ago and 2 years ago and suggested that things were not as 
we all had hoped they would be with the peace process. This is perhaps 
the most dramatic action that has been taken that serves as an example, 
but only one of a number of examples, of the attitude of the leadership 
of the Palestinian Authority, of course, involving most directly Yasser 
Arafat.
  Over the last 2 years in particular, we have time and again called 
upon the Palestinian Authority to recognize the right of Israel to 
exist. But instead, we heard nothing. We also called, time and again, 
for the fulfillment of the promise that Yasser Arafat made in the Oslo 
Accords and in subsequent statements when he promised to condemn 
terrorism but never did.
  We also view a map of Palestine on Palestinian letterhead which 
includes the land of Israeli, and we have spoken out as forcefully as 
we could to suggest to the Palestinian Authority that it would be a 
good idea to remove that parcel of land that is known to the West and 
to the world as the State of Israeli from inclusion on their map, but 
it is still a part of their map.
  We have heard speeches aplenty from Yasser Arafat, one set of words 
in English and yet another set of words, quite different, in his native 
tongue. So when we began to hear in the media and hear other reports 
that there was a new Palestinian policy or a reawakened Palestinian 
policy of threatening to kill, in the beginning, those who sold land to 
Israelis, and particularly to Jews, and then later when we heard that 
in fact, Palestinians who carried out that act that we consider in a 
free society an act of daily commerce, without discrimination, in this 
country, at least, and in most of the Western world, and, in fact, in 
most of the world, about who can sell land to whom; when we saw that 
policy carried out at least on three occasions when Palestinians were, 
in fact, killed, exhibiting or carrying out their rightful act of 
commerce, selling land to others, it reminded, I guess, the Western 
world that perhaps those of us who have been talking about the 
recognition of Israel as was promised, who have been talking about the 
condemnation by the Palestinian Authority of terrorism, who have been 
talking about the use of the territory or the country of Israel 
included in the map of Palestine, and who have listened carefully in 
Arabic and in English to Yasser Arafat's speeches; in short, I think it 
would be good to say that if Yasser Arafat does change his actions, we 
are all for peace. But in light of the fact that Yasser Arafat has 
established a clear track record, the most dramatic part of which is 
killing his own people who sell land to Jews, it seems to me that it is 
incumbent upon us to follow the leadership of those who say that we 
should not support this type of a regime.
  The question to my fellow Members is simply this: What kind of regime 
are we supporting, with upward of $100 million a year in financial 
assistance? A regime that has this record, that has been spelled out 
clearly by other Members before me here today, including the Speaker. 
Is this regime going to uphold basic human rights or human law? Their 
record clearly, clearly suggests otherwise.
  Mr. Chairman, therefore I join with those who say today that it is 
time for us to take stock, review our policy on aid to the Palestinian 
Authority, and I urge all Members to vote in the affirmative on this 
amendment.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think for most of us in the Congress and most 
Americans, if we have heard about the statements of the Justice 
Minister of the Palestinian Authority or, for that matter, if we have 
heard or read the statements of Yasser Arafat himself on this issue, it 
is almost impossible for us to believe that they have actually said 
what they have said. The statements, which, in fact, have led to deeds 
as well, are so

[[Page H3605]]

far from any concept that we as a society and we as a world society 
hold as values that we want to live by, it is just absolutely almost 
literally unbelievable.
  There are particular parts of the statements, and the activities, I 
think are particularly offensive. It truly is a pleasure this afternoon 
to join the Speaker in his comments toward this point as well. Because 
the statements have not just been to prohibit commerce, but the 
statements absolutely, specifically have been directed against Jews.
  It is a scary thing, it is a scary thing in 1997 that someone who is 
a leader by definition on the world stage, a leader by definition in 
the Middle East, Yasser Arafat, at the present time specifically says 
that if someone sells property to a Jew that the death penalty is an 
appropriate punishment, without mincing words, without hiding it; 
saying the same in English and Arabic in terms of his statements: that 
if someone sells property to a Jew, the appropriate penalty is death.
  It is hard in some ways to conceive how the Israelis can stay in the 
peace process and negotiate with someone who has that frame of 
reference, who speaks that way, and, in fact, on many occasions has 
acted that way as well.
  There is no alternative to a peace process, but I think that my 
colleagues and the American people unfortunately need to understand 
some of the challenges that the Israelis are literally living and 
occasionally dying with in terms of their partners in peace.
  It is also, again, not just the statements but what appears, 
unfortunately, to be consistent evidence of state apparatus being used 
to kill people for that action up to the point that has been mentioned, 
but just absolutely incredulous that it occurred, and irrefutably this 
occurred; that members of the Palestinian police force actually entered 
Israel, kidnapped someone who was a land trader, and but for really 
luck and circumstance, were prevented from leaving Israel and the 
kidnapping was foiled by Israeli security forces, and using state 
apparatus to carry through this incredulous threat and action.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think 
it is a clear statement that we are making that as partners in a peace 
process, and the Palestinian Authority is the United States's partner 
in the peace process, this is not just a peace process involving the 
Israelis and the Palestinians, the United States of America, this 
Congress, the American people are part of that process as well. We are 
a part of it in many ways. We are a part of it directly in terms of our 
aid, and we are part of it in terms of our support at every level. It 
is a well known fact that both Oslo I and Oslo II were signed in the 
city of Washington.
  But I think what is clear and what we are saying is that there is a 
limit to our partnership. It is absolutely clear that the 
responsibility of Yasser Arafat is not to call for the death of Jews or 
the death of Arabs that sell property to Jews, but his responsibility 
is clearly to condemn that activity, to do everything within his power 
to prevent it from happening. That is the partner who will bring peace 
and that is the partner who we, the United States, need as our partner 
in this process if we are to achieve peace in that part of the world.
  He must do it. If he does not, I believe very clearly that this 
Congress will take appropriate action as well.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Paxon] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] 
for taking the initiative and offering a sense-of-Congress amendment 
for our conversation relating to the congressional condemnation of the 
disclosure of the death penalty for land sales to Jews by Palestinians 
and its support by Chairman Yasser Arafat.
  I also want to thank the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich], for his eloquent remarks in support of this amendment. In 
recent weeks senior officials of the Palestinian Authority announced 
that the death penalty would be imposed on anyone who sells land to 
Jews, and three Palestinian men have been murdered, most likely by 
Palestinian Authority security forces, despite the lack of any 
legislation implementing the death penalty by the Palestinian 
Legislative Council.

                              {time}  1530

  Approximately 1 month ago, I wrote to Palestinian Legislative Council 
Speaker Ahmed Kurei urging that the Palestinian Legislative Council not 
take up such a heinous proposal. The United States has provided 
substantial assistance to the Palestinians based on the assumption that 
the rule of law would prevail, that there would be no official 
sanctions to extrajudicial killings or any violations of human rights, 
and that basic principles of peaceful and normal relations would be 
adopted.
  Regrettably, the situation in the Palestinian autonomous region has 
deteriorated considerably, and the respect for human rights has been 
sorely lacking. Accordingly, this amendment notes that Congress 
condemns in the strongest possible terms the abhorrent, the abominable 
policy and practice of murdering Palestinians for sales of land to 
Jews, and we demand that this practice not only be condemned and 
renounced by the Palestinian leadership but that it end immediately.
  This amendment further notes the sense of Congress in withholding 
direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority, supporting 
correspondence that the Senate International Relations Chairman Helms 
and I recently sent to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. An 
additional $1.25 million has been on hold, funds that were intended to 
be spent on training for the finance ministry staff, until repudiation 
of this practice takes place.
  The Paxon-Engel amendment, Mr. Chairman, also expresses strong doubt 
that the Palestinians are in compliance with their commitments to 
Israel because of this despicable practice, which is in violation of 
the spirit of the Oslo accords and of international law. This amendment 
also urges the President to take this practice fully into account in 
determining when the Palestinian Authority is in compliance with its 
commitments.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fully supported and 
accepted by our committee, with the hope that Chairman Arafat and the 
Palestinian Authority and this administration will closely heed our 
grave congressional concerns. I invite my colleagues to fully support 
this measure.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I would like to join 
my colleagues in congratulating the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Paxon], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch] for introducing it.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would express the sense of Congress to 
condemn the Palestinian Authority for its policy and practice of 
executing Palestinians who sell land to Jews. This policy we have heard 
described today is an obnoxious policy and an illegal policy, a racist 
policy; obviously, it is all those.
  We have also heard that Chairman Arafat on occasion, I spoke to one 
Member who told me that Chairman Arafat looked him in the eye and said, 
``We do not condone this, we condemn this.'' Chairman Arafat has a long 
history of condoning things in one sphere, to one audience, and 
condemning them to another, or promoting them to one audience and 
denying them to another.
  Mr. Chairman, Yasser Arafat said the following. He said: ``We are 
taking forceful steps against those who do this. Recently, a decision 
was passed to punish anyone who sells land, property or homes. We are 
keeping track of land dealers and punishing them.'' This was an 
interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al-Hawadath on May 16, 3 weeks 
ago.
  ``We are keeping track of land dealers and punishing them.'' Well, 
what does punish mean?
  Mr. Arafat's appointee as justice minister, Freih Abu Middein said 
last week, on June 4: ``The land dealers must learn a lesson.'' This is 
the Palestinian Authority justice commissioner. ``We have a list of 
names. The people included on the list and others shall be put on 
trial. The list includes

[[Page H3606]]

more than 310 names.'' Interviewed with Al-Ayyam. They will be put on 
trial.
  And then he says, a day later in the Washington Post, the same 
justice minister, ``Since we are talking about committing suicide, I 
advise the land dealers to commit suicide instead of getting killed and 
having their bodies thrown here and there.'' So that is what a trial 
means to the Palestinian Authority justice minister.
  When Chairman Arafat says, ``We will punish them,'' obviously this is 
what they mean. Extrajudicial punishment, murder of people for ex post 
facto sins, the sins being committed before the announcement that it 
was a terrible thing to do, and this terrible thing being sale of land 
to Jews. We understand that sale of land to Jews by Arabs, or vice 
versa, for that matter, is a sensitive matter and a topic for 
discussion, but not a topic for a cause for murder.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to understand, when we look at this, in what 
context this happens. We keep talking about the peace process, but 
rarely do we hear it mentioned, rarely are we reminded of how 
asymmetrical the peace process is. What is this basic peace process 
that we keep talking about?
  The basic idea of the Oslo accord, the basic idea of the Oslo accord 
is that Israel is to surrender something tangible, control over land, 
in return for something intangible, promises of security; that the 
Arabs, the Palestinians, are to promise that they have given up their 
hope of destroying Israel and murdering its entire population and 
driving it into the sea, which of course has been the official position 
of the Palestinians, of the PLO, for decades. They are supposed to 
promise ``We have given that up.'' They have said they have.
  They are supposed to repeal the charter which calls for abolishing 
Israel and eliminating all its population. They are supposed to show by 
deed that they are against terror, against armed attack against 
Israelis, and not only condemn it but do everything they can to capture 
terrorists, to prevent terrorism, to give information to the Israelis, 
to cooperate in stopping this, in return for which they are to be given 
control over land, for peace.
  It is a lot to ask of someone to give something tangible, land, 
control, control from which they can exercise measures to enhance their 
own safety and security, in return for something intangible, promises, 
words and pieces of paper. But at least if that peace process is going 
to work, the whole idea, we should spend a few years before we got to 
the final status negotiations and give the Palestinians an opportunity 
to show that they meant it, that they would in fact repeal the charter 
eliminating, promising to eliminate Israel, that they would stop 
terrorism.
  I regret to say they have not been showing this and this policy of 
murdering Palestinians who sell land to Jews is one further indication 
of basic untrustworthiness. If this is not reversed very quickly, we 
will have to conclude that the peace process may not be won, may not go 
in the direction it should go. And so, Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, 
support this amendment, and I hope it may be somewhat effective in 
causing the Palestinian Authority to rethink its course and to decide 
finally that if peace is to be achieved, a little honesty and sincerity 
on the part of the Palestinians is necessary.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Paxon] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], but I would also 
let them know that the Members from California and I think every 
Republican and Democrat in this House and in the Senate will be 
supportive of this amendment.
  Will we have peace in the Middle East? I do not believe so in my 
lifetime. I have been in Israel, like many of the Members. I flew 
there, flew fighters in Israel. I think that there will be a tempo of 
high activity and a tempo of low activity. But in our lifetime, I do 
not believe that there will be peace. I think from Ronald Reagan to 
George Bush to President Clinton, that that effort, that what we need 
to do is keep the pressure on to keep moving in that direction, just 
like we must in Bosnia as well.
  But I think we do not have to go very far. There is part of a bigger 
problem that I would like to speak to my colleagues about. This is a 
symptom of a much larger problem. All you have to do is look inwardly 
to our own country.
  This last month, all you had to do is be a cop in Washington, DC, and 
three of them were executed; or it was not too long ago and even today 
that you could end up buying a home in the wrong district, the wrong 
neighborhood, and you could end up with a burning cross on your front 
yard and, yes, you could be killed. This is a symptom of what we are 
seeing, I think, in the Middle East as well.
  But there is a much larger, bigger problem of the terrorist activity. 
It was recently stated that in Iran there was a moderate cleric 
appointed and that possibly our negotiations with Iran might be easier. 
I think that is an oxymoron, a moderate cleric. Because if you look 
around the world between Iraq, Iran, and Libya, where most of the 
fundamentalist Islamic groups come out of are those three countries. 
Just like in France and England and Germany and, yes, even on our World 
Trade Center, these are all symptoms of the same despicable disease 
called bigotry and Islamic fundamentalism.
  I think that if you look at Bosnia today, Izetbegovic, the Islamic 
leader in Bosnia, has over 10,000 Mujahedin and Hamas that have 
assembled in that country, which is a real threat to this country, with 
the same kind of bigotry toward the outside world, not only to Jews but 
to Christians as well. And it is an area in which this country must 
stand, as the Speaker said, and stand strong as a world leader.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we rise, I believe all of 
us, 100 percent, in support, and we would like to thank the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Engel], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], and 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment which 
condemns the deplorable policy and practice of murdering Palestinians 
because they have sold land to Jews.
  I want to thank my colleagues the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Engel], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], and the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for introducing this amendment. There has been 
considerable evidence in recent weeks that Palestinian officials have 
endorsed, either directly or tacitly, the death penalty for 
Palestinians who sell land to Jews. As a result, at least three 
Palestinian businessmen have been ruthlessly murdered. This must not be 
allowed to happen again.
  Whether Palestinian officials have explicitly supported this policy 
or approved of it with a wink or a nod is irrelevant. The facts are 
that Palestinians are being killed for selling land to Jews and the 
Palestinian authority has done nothing to stop it. This amendment calls 
on all Palestinian officials to unequivocally condemn this policy and 
bring the murderers to justice now.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has afforded the Palestinian 
authority several benefits that come with internationally recognized 
autonomy. We have entered into cooperative agreements with them on 
regional issues. We have engaged in direct diplomatic negotiations with 
them. We have provided them with economic assistance.
  In return we must demand adherence to the rule of law. These recent 
killings, which have even been linked to Palestinian security 
officials, represent a total disregard for the rule of law. We must 
demand more. If the parties are going to work together in the Middle 
East to bring a real peace to that region, and I for one heartily 
endorse our active work as facilitators to work with the parties to 
move us closer to peace, then we must demand more from the parties.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and urge 
its adoption.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to 8strike the 
requisite number of words.
  There can be peace in the Middle East in our lifetime, as long as all 
parties live up to their end of the bargain. However, the Palestinian 
authority,

[[Page H3607]]

under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, who professes to be a partner 
for peace in the Middle East, does things that show the opposite is his 
real intention. He issues an edict that those Palestinians who sell 
land to Jews will be killed. In fact, three Palestinians have already 
been killed and a fourth kidnapped. Arafat's actions show he is not a 
partner for peace.
  Moreover, Arafat does not remove from the Palestinian charter that 
clause which calls for the destruction of Israel. Again, Arafat's 
action shows he is not a partner for peace.
  Yet in Israel, through the Prime Minister, Netanyahu, he has complied 
with the Oslo Accords and the peace process by having his government 
withdraw from Hebron, by restoring funds to the Palestinian authority 
that were promised, and by returning prisoners who had actually 
committed crimes against Israelis.
  I stand to support the Paxon-Engel amendment because I believe it 
will help bring about peace, but we can only have that peace if we 
start having positive actions from Mr. Arafat to match his words when 
he calls for peace.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to denounce in the strongest 
possible terms the ghastly policy of the Palestinian Authority, which 
imposes the death penalty on Palestinians who would sell their land to 
a Jew. Clearly, this abhorrent practice is contrary to the Oslo 
agreements, international law, and common decency.
  I would like to join my colleagues--the gentlemen from New York, Mr. 
Paxon and Mr. Engel, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, and the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch--in condemning the actions of the 
Palestinian Authority.
  Time and time again, the United States has tried to work with the 
Palestinian Authority in good faith, but our efforts have not been 
reciprocated. We can not help this holy region toward peace of one of 
the parties abandons all sense of decency and order.
  I urge my colleagues to support this condemnation, and I urge Mr. 
Arafat to renounce this practice of murder and racism.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Payne

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. PAYNE. No, it is not.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Payne: At the end of the bill add 
     the following (and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly):

                 TITLE XVIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 1801. ASSISTANCE TO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO.

       Notwithstanding section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any other provision of law, assistance under 
     chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (relating to development assistance) and under chapter 10 of 
     part I of such Act (relating to the Development Fund for 
     Africa) may be made available for the Democratic Republic of 
     Congo.

  Mr. PAYNE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 
5, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of lifting the ban on all 
humanitarian assistance previously blocked for Zaire, now the 
Democratic Republic of Congo.
  My amendment also includes waiving section 620(q) as it pertains to 
the Brooke amendment, specifically in regard to the Democratic Republic 
of Congo. We used these waivers in the past for Egypt, Ethiopia, and 
Nicaragua when we wanted to assist our allies.
  Mr. Chairman, the Brooke amendment was placed on Zaire in 1991 when 
the corrupt dictatorship of Mr. Mobutu was in full force. On April 17 
of this year, the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] and I, along 
with all the members of the Subcommittee on Africa, introduced H.R. 
115, a bill that called on Mobutu to step down as President of Zaire. 
H.R. 115 was passed overwhelmingly by this House and in response Mobutu 
Sese Seko resigned last month and no longer can harm the people of the 
Congo.
  This bill is symbolic in that it was the first step in getting rid of 
the cruel dictators in Africa, several of whom still exist, that 
prevent true democracy from flourishing.
  Before I came to Congress and for many years after that, I have 
spoken out on the corrupt military regime of Mr. Mobutu. It is alleged 
that Mr. Mobutu has a wealth of several billion dollars in foreign bank 
accounts. I introduced in the 102d Congress, in 1993, a resolution 
calling for the administration to draw on its power to have Mr. Mobutu 
resign and leave Zaire.
  We all know that the Mobutu regime started with Patrice Lumumba, who 
was captured and killed back in the early 1960's, and there were 
considerable activities during the cold war. Zaire suffered from 75 
years of Belgium colonialism, then France's influence on the continent, 
first as a colonial ruler of most of the western and central parts of 
the continent, then as economic and political patron of the 
postindependent governments. Zaire followed with 7 years of chaos and 
31 years of Mobutu's dictatorship, laying a foundation for its current 
crisis.
  Laurent Kabila, leader of the Alliance of the Democratic Forces for 
the liberation of the Congo, has done what so many others have wanted 
to do for the people of Zaire for 32 years; to rid it of Mr. Mobutu.
  Today 1.1 million refugees as well returned to Rwanda and Burundi. 
The alliance has the support of the neighboring countries of Burundi, 
Rwanda, Zambia, and Angola.
  I am not a pro- or anti-Kabila person, but I feel that we must start 
to assist the Congo in getting over the tremendous harm done by the 
Mobutu regime.
  I met with Mr. Kabila in Goma in January of this year and traveled to 
the Congo recently with Mr. Campbell and met with Mr. Karaha, the 
foreign affairs minister, and Mr. Mawapanga, the finance minister. Both 
ministers were very qualified and seemed anxious to begin to move the 
country forward to improve the quality of life for the people in that 
distressed land.
  Mr. Kabila stated at that time that he would hold elections within 2 
years. It is my understanding that Mr. Kabila will bring about a 
transitional government.
  It would behoove us to help bring calm and order and, if possible, 
use our influence to allow the people to learn how democracy works and 
to assist that country as it moves toward democracy.
  There are no roads, no independent media, no functioning police, and 
there has not been a census taken in years. Some believe that there are 
between 40 and 50 million people in Zaire, but no one really knows.
  When I began my statement, I referred to a former U.S. policy in 
Africa that was dictated by the cold war. Now that the cold war is 
over, I think we need to assist in areas where we can to move toward a 
new democratic society in these former dictatorial countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we continue to monitor and that we 
work toward planning and assisting this country move toward elections, 
and I would hope that we would have support for this resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, there is a new beginning in the Democratic 
Republic of Congo. The old kleptocratic regime of Mobutu Sese Seko is 
now in the ash bin of history and, in many ways, the lives of the 
Congolese people can only improve.
  Nevertheless, it is far too early to judge the merits of the new 
Kabila regime. A delegation led by a former colleague, and now 
Ambassador to the

[[Page H3608]]

United Nations, Bill Richardson, returned from Kinshasa only a few 
hours ago. Another delegation from the Agency for International 
Development is still in the Congo and will not return for 2 more weeks. 
And right now the administration has no plan for any assistance to the 
Congo.
  The Committee on International Relations has not been asked by the 
administration to waive the Brooke amendment, and many questions remain 
about human rights and the treatment of the Rwandan Hutu refugee 
populations. On Sunday, an article in the Washington Post detailed 
numerous allegations of massacres of innocent civilians by Kabila's 
troops in eastern Congo.
  Today, human rights organizations and humanitarian agencies still do 
not have access to large portions of eastern Congo, the location of 
many of the refugees.
  While these questions may all be answered satisfactorily in due time, 
I do not intend to oppose the amendment at this time. I will note that 
this is only one stage in the legislative process. In the coming days, 
before we go to conference, we will be putting the Kabila government on 
notice to support democracy and human rights before aid can go forward.
  Mr. Chairman, we are pleased at this time to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island: At the 
     end of the bill add the following (and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly):

                  DIVISION C--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 2001. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO INDONESIA 
                   MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1)(A) Despite a surface adherence to democratic forms, the 
     Indonesian political system remains strongly authoritarian.
       (B) The government is dominated by an elite comprising 
     President Soeharto (now in his sixth 5-year term), his close 
     associates, and the military.
       (C) The government requires allegiance to a state ideology 
     known as ``Pancasila'', which stresses consultation and 
     consensus, but is also used to limit dissent, to enforce 
     social and political cohesion, and to restrict the 
     development of opposition elements.
       (2) The Government of Indonesia recognizes only one 
     official trade union, has refused to register independent 
     trade unions such as the Indonesian Prosperity Trade Union 
     (SBSI), has arrested Muchtar Pakpahan, the General Chairman 
     of the SBSI, on charges of subversion, and other labor 
     activists, and has closed the offices and confiscated 
     materials of the SBSI.
       (3) Civil society organizations in Indonesia, such as 
     environmental organizations, election-monitoring 
     organizations, legal aid organizations, student 
     organizations, trade union organizations, and community 
     organizations, have been harassed by the Government of 
     Indonesia through such means as detentions, interrogations, 
     denial of permission for meetings, banning of publications, 
     repeated orders to report to security forces or judicial 
     courts, and illegal seizure of documents.
       (4)(A) The armed forces of Indonesia continue to carry out 
     torture and other severe violations of human rights in East 
     Timor, Irian Jaya, and other parts of Indonesia, to detain 
     and imprison East Timorese and others for nonviolent 
     expression of political views, and to maintain unjustifiably 
     high troop levels in East Timor.
       (B) Indonesian civil authorities must improve their human 
     rights performance in East Timor, Irian Jaya, and elsewhere 
     in Indonesia, and aggressively prosecute violations.
       (5) The Nobel Prize Committee awarded the 1996 Nobel Peace 
     Prize to Bishop Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos 
     Horta for their tireless efforts to find a just and peaceful 
     solution to the conflict in East Timor.
       (6) In 1992, the Congress suspended the international 
     military and education training (IMET) program for Indonesia 
     in response to a November 12, 1991, shooting incident in East 
     Timor by Indonesian security forces against peaceful Timorese 
     demonstrators in which no progress has been made in 
     accounting for the missing persons either in that incident or 
     others who disappeared in 1995-96.
       (7) On August 1, 1996, then Secretary of State Warren 
     Christopher stated in testimony before the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate, ``I think there's a strong 
     interest in seeing an orderly transition of power there [in 
     Indonesia] that will recognize the pluralism that should 
     exist in a country of that magnitude and importance.''
       (8) The United States has important economic, commercial, 
     and security interests in Indonesia because of its growing 
     economy and markets and its strategic location astride a 
     number of key international straits which will only be 
     strengthened by democratic development in Indonesia and a 
     policy which promotes political pluralism and respect for 
     universal human rights.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the United States should not provide military assistance 
     and arms transfers for a fiscal year to the Government of 
     Indonesia unless the President determines and certifies to 
     the Congress for that fiscal year that the Government of 
     Indonesia meets the following requirements.
       (1) Domestic monitoring of elections.--(A) The Government 
     of Indonesia provides official accreditation to independent 
     election-monitoring organizations, including the Independent 
     Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP), to observe national 
     elections without interference by personnel of the Government 
     or of the armed forces.
       (B) In addition, such organizations are allowed to assess 
     such elections and to publicize or otherwise disseminate the 
     assessments throughout Indonesia.
       (2) Protection of nongovernmental organizations.--The 
     police or military of Indonesia do not confiscate materials 
     from or otherwise engage in illegal raids on the offices or 
     homes of members of both domestic or international 
     nongovernmental  organizations, including election-monitoring 
     organizations, legal aid organizations, student 
     organizations, trade union organizations, community 
     organizations, environmental organizations, and religious 
     organizations.
       (3) Accountability for attack on pdi headquarters.--As 
     recommended by the Government of Indonesia's National Human 
     Rights Commission, the Government of Indonesia has 
     investigated the attack on the headquarters of the Democratic 
     Party of Indonesia (PDI) on July 27, 1996, prosecuted 
     individuals who planned and carried out the attack, and made 
     public the postmortem examination of the five individuals 
     killed in the attack.
       (4) Resolution of conflict in east timor.--
       (A) Establishment of dialogue.--The Government of Indonesia 
     is doing everything possible to enter into a process of 
     dialogue, under the auspices of the United Nations, with 
     Portugal and East Timorese leaders of various viewpoints to 
     discuss ideas toward a resolution of the conflict in East 
     Timor and the political status of East Timor.
       (B) Reduction of troops.--The Government of Indonesia has 
     established and implemented a plan to reduce the number of 
     Indonesian troops in East Timor.
       (C) Release of political prisoners.--Individuals detained 
     or imprisoned for the non-violent expression of political 
     views in East Timor have been released from custody.
       (5) Improvement in labor rights.--The Government of 
     Indonesia has taken the following actions to improve labor 
     rights in Indonesia:
       (A) The Government has dropped charges of subversion, and 
     previous charges against the General Chairman of the SBSI 
     trade union, Muchtar Pakpahan, and released him from custody.
       (B) The Government has substantially reduced the 
     requirements for legal recognition of the SBSI or other 
     legitimate worker organizations as a trade union.
       (c) United States Military Assistance and Arms Transfers 
     Defined.--As used in this section, the term ``military 
     assistance and arms transfers'' means--
       (1) small arms, crowd control equipment, armored personnel 
     carriers, and such other items that can commonly be used in 
     the direct violation of human rights; and
       (2) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.; relating to 
     international military education and training or ``IMET''), 
     except such term shall not include Expanded IMET, pursuant to 
     section 541 of such Act.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am 
offering today will attempt to confirm a commitment from Indonesia to 
cease its human rights violations throughout that country and, in 
particular, East Timor.
  It will state the sense of this Congress that the United States 
should impose military sanctions on the country of Indonesia if its 
human rights record fails to improve.

[[Page H3609]]

  It is very similar to provisions already included in the original 
version of the Foreign Policy Reform Act that were accepted in 
committee by voice vote.
  Because the foreign aid portion of this bill is not before us today, 
I am offering this sense of Congress amendment in its place.
  As many Members know, last week the Indonesian Government announced 
that they have dropped their participation in the expanded IMET 
military training program and have scrapped plans to buy nine F-16 
fighter planes.
  This action on the part of Indonesia is a major victory for all of us 
in this House who believe in the importance of human rights and for 
those of us who have worked hard to bring about change in the country 
of Indonesia.
  It was clear they were feeling defensive, it was clear they were 
feeling vulnerable and, as such, they did not want to be beat to the 
punch and embarrassed by this Congress' action with respect to those 
planes. And this bill they wanted to get out of the way before this 
Congress expressed its strong opinion on the human rights abuses in 
Indonesia.
  We cannot rest on this victory, however, and in fact Indonesia's 
official statement on this issue declared that the criticisms of this 
body were, and I quote, ``wholly unjustified.'' However, the death of 
one-third of the people of East Timor for the past 21 years, nearly 
one-third of the whole population, is evidence enough that these 
criticisms are indeed justified.
  I believe that through the visit that I have made to East Timor 
myself, personally, my own visits not only with the Government 
officials representing the Indonesian Government but also with the 
human rights community who are stationed there in East Timor, that I 
have a good appreciation of this issue.
  I have spoken to both the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jose Ramos Horta, 
on several occasions, both here in Washington and in my own State of 
Rhode Island, and I have spoken to Carlos Belo, Bishop Belo, from the 
East Timor parish. He has given me many examples of the terrible 
injustices that occur on a daily basis in East Timor by the Government 
of Indonesia.
  Mr. Chairman, these abuses are occurring in East Timor in large part 
due to the free hand that the military has given in suppressing the 
independence movement in East Timor. There is no question that the 
attacks and abuses are escalating throughout the country, and I am 
aware that there has been much violence preceding and surrounding the 
so-called democratic election that has just taken place there. But 
anybody watching that election knows that it is far from ever being 
considered a democratic election when the Indonesian Government outlaws 
campaigning on the part of the opposition.

                              {time}  1600

  Unfortunately, Indonesia repeatedly denies that there is a problem 
with the human rights abuses in their country, and yet the evidence is 
so crystal clear. In fact, there have been instances like the St. Cruz 
massacre when it was captured on tape and the tape tells the truth, the 
truth that the Indonesian Government wants to refuse to believe, and 
yet we have the evidence and the statistics and the weight of the human 
rights community and our own State Department report. I might add, the 
Department of State has considered Indonesia one of the top countries 
that this country finds is violating human rights.
  So, in this legislation, the sense of Congress, we have called for 
various policy reforms including free and fair elections in East Timor, 
respect for labor rights, protection of nongovernmental organizations, 
rights for the East Timorese people, and, of course, for the fair 
adjudication and release of political prisoners.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not the current situation in East Timor. Just 
wearing a yellow T-shirt, celebrating Bishop Belo's receipt of the 
Nobel Peace Prize is enough to get you arrested and thrown in jail. In 
East Timor, the free and fair election, there have not been any. 
Protections for nongovernmental organizations, that has a dismal 
report.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude with this one point: I visited 
the ICRC, the International Committee on Red Cross, and they told me 
they have never been busier. Well, if any of my colleagues know what 
the ICRC does, they look out for human rights abuses. So if they have 
never been busier, we know what they are talking about. It means there 
have never been as many human rights abuses as are going on this day.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] particularly for their efforts 
to bring us this amendment to the floor.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in objection to the Kennedy 
amendment because it is unbalanced in its characteristics, and it is 
biased by referring only to one side of the violence that has occurred 
and continues to occur in Indonesia.
  And in contrast to what the gentleman from Rhode Island has 
indicated, I feel that the recently announced self-denial of E-IMET by 
Indonesia and their expression of no interest in purchasing American-
made F-16's is not a major victory for the United States, as the 
gentleman intends, it is an unfortunate blow to our relationship.
  The E-IMET program, or Extended IMET, is designed specifically to 
encourage better human rights practices and proper civil action, 
methods of operating and living in a civil society, for military and 
civilian personnel that take advantage of this training program in the 
United States. The F-16 sale, of course, was not something that 
Indonesia itself sought, but the Clinton administration, trying to find 
some way to dispose of F-16's that it sold to Pakistan but which could 
not be delivered because of the Pressler amendment, was looking for 
other purchasers. They found Indonesia as a possible sales prospect.
  So it is understandable that Indonesia now, faced with continued 
opposition and criticism in this Congress, some of it entirely 
justified, admittedly, but an unbalanced kind of objection and a denial 
even of something that is in our national interest, the E-IMET program, 
naturally does not want that fight. The E-IMET program is not that 
important to them, but it certainly is a loss to us in maintaining good 
relations with Indonesia and to our effort to improve human rights 
procedures in Indonesia.
  Let us take a look at some of the reasons why Indonesian-American 
relations are important to this country. First of all, surprising to 
most people in this country, Indonesia is now the fourth most populous 
country on Earth. There have been harsh, one-sided amendments offered 
in this Congress and the committee and on the floor in the past which 
have reduced our credibility with the Indonesian Government and the 
military. Why? Because the amendments, this one in particular, will be 
seen in Indonesia as Indonesian bashing if it is not such criticism 
offered in some kind of equitable and valid manner. That is to say, if 
it is not balanced, or if we do not remove the one-sided bias to it.
  Indonesia is not Burma or Iraq. It is an important country, a key 
member of ASEAN, APEC, the ARF, the OIC, and the United Nations. 
Indonesia has played a very important role in the settlement in 
Cambodia and peace between the Philippines and the Moros Liberation 
Front. Indonesia has contributed to efforts to resolve the dispute over 
the Spratly Islands and has contributed to the Korean Energy 
Development Organization. Indonesia supported the gulf war efforts 
against Iraq.
  Indonesia's sealanes and air routes are important to United States 
forces. We, of course, have major economic interest in Indonesia. Our 
annual bilateral trade is about $12.3 billion. But these are not 
reasons enough to justify or to be silent about abuses that exist 
there. I want to try to make this amendment of the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy] a balanced amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, therefore, I will offer an amendment to the Kennedy 
amendment.


   Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                        Kennedy of Rhode Island

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island:
       In the Findings Section (a), after (4)(A), insert the 
     following new sections (B) and (C):

[[Page H3610]]

       (B) From May 27 to May 31, the East Timorese resistance 
     forces carried out deplorable human rights violations, 
     including the reported killing of over two dozen persons in 
     an apparent attempt to disrupt national elections. A 
     resistance attack on a truck resulted in the deaths of 16 
     policemen and one soldier. Attacks on polling places also 
     resulted in the deaths of two election officials.
       (C) Violence on the part of either the Indonesian military 
     or the East Timorese resistance forces is not conducive to 
     the just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor.
       Change former section (B) to (D) and add the following new 
     section (E);
       (E) The Indonesian authorities and the resistance forces in 
     East Timor must refrain from human rights violations, 
     including attacks on civilians and non-combatants.
       Insert after sense of the Congress section (b) a second 
     sense of the Congress section to be labeled (c) to read as 
     follows:
       (c) Sense of the Congress.--It also is the sense of the 
     Congress that the violent acts of the resistance in East 
     Timor should be condemned, as they discredit the East 
     Timorese cause, and could result in additional violent 
     reprisals by the Indonesian armed forces.
       Renumber current section (c), United States Military 
     assistance and arms transfers denied. It will now be numbered 
     (d).

  Mr. BEREUTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as we began to hear, we have had 
substantial violence which is directly attributable, in substantial 
part at least, to the guerrilla movement in East Timor. I will read now 
from a report from Human Rights Watch/Asia, dated June 4, 1997.

       A series of attacks between May 27 and May 31 by resistance 
     forces in East Timor, leading to the deaths of at least 9 
     civilians and more than 20 military and police, has led to 
     widespread arrests of suspected resistance supporters 
     throughout the territory. Human Rights Watch/Asia condemns 
     any targeting of civilians or other noncombatants by East 
     Timorese guerrillas as being in clear violation of 
     international humanitarian law.

  That statement on the part of Human Rights Watch lays out a variety 
of abuses which led to death attributed to the activities of the East 
Timorese guerrillas. They issued a report the following day which 
backed away from one of those specific reported incidents, saying, ``We 
do not have the kind of documentation we need.'' But basically, their 
assessment stands.
  From the Washington Post News Service, I read to my colleagues an 
account from May 31, 1997. ``Separatist guerrillas bombed a police 
truck with grenades Saturday, killing 17 officers during one of the 
worst outbreaks of violence in years in the disputed Indonesian 
territory of East Timor. The deaths raised to 41 the number of people 
killed in rebel attacks in the past week in East Timor.''
  I would like to see some of my colleagues who are concerned about 
violence in East Timor stand up and bring this guerrilla violence to 
the attention of the House under a 1-minute statement or a Special 
Order. That did not happen.
  Let me mention to my colleagues a few more sections of the secondary 
amendment that I am offering here today. The following statement is a 
part of the amendment in addition to the section which the Clerk read: 
``The Indonesian authorities and the resistance forces,'' and bear in 
mind I am talking about both there, ``Indonesian authorities and 
resistance forces in East Timor must refrain from human rights 
violations, including attacks on civilians and noncombatants.''
  Finally, in addition to the sense of Congress elements that the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] has added, I add this sense 
of the Congress section:

       It is also the sense of the Congress that the violent acts 
     of the resistance in East Timor should be condemned, as they 
     discredit the East Timorese cause and could result in 
     additional violent reprisals by Indonesian armed forces.

  So, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, in the amendment that I have 
offered, I am striking nothing that the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Kennedy] has in his amendment. I am striking not a single word of 
it. But I am adding, by the words of my secondary amendment, an 
indication that violence on the part of the Indonesian rebels in East 
Timor is itself a very counterproductive step and one that we should 
deplore. This violence is not the approach to efforts to gain 
additional degrees of autonomy or whatever their legitimate goals might 
be.
  Finally, I want to say as a matter of personal privilege that, of 
course, while I respect the organization granting the Nobel Peace 
Prize, I do have to say that while I certainly have nothing but praise 
for what I understand to be the positions and actions of Bishop Belo, I 
do indeed wonder about Jose Ramos Horta and whether or not his efforts 
are totally directed toward finding, as the Kennedy amendment says, a 
just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor. I say that in 
part because when he came to my office earlier this year, when I 
visited with him, he made false reports about the conclusions and my 
views after we had that meeting, which he sent to Chairman Gilman by 
letter. That is not the kind of conduct that I think we would expect 
from a person who was the corecipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, nor do 
I think such a false statement by Mr. Horta serves us well or serves 
his cause well, either.
  I understand that his intent probably is to pursue independence for 
East Timor. That objective is contrary to U.S. policy. It is a 
legitimate intent on his part, but I believe he ought to use proper 
means for arriving at those goals. So I hope for reasons of a balanced 
amendment on this matter related to Indonesia, that my colleagues will 
support the secondary amendment offered by the gentleman to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 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 want to thank the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy] for introducing this measure and the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for his perfecting amendment. I think it 
is critically important that our Nation express its concern with regard 
to some of the problems in Indonesia.
  Although Indonesia is a critically important nation in southeast 
Asia, the record of the Suharto government in terms of democratic 
freedoms, human rights, labor rights, and basic civil liberties has 
significant shortcomings, as defined in this amendment. I call on all 
parties in and outside of the government to renounce violence and 
embrace peace and democratic principles in resolving all of the issues 
of contention in that part of the world.
  Regretfully, the administration has fallen woefully short in trying 
to influence Indonesia in the direction of democracy and human rights. 
Therefore, it is appropriate for the Congress to make the President 
accountable for the use of the taxpayers' dollars for security 
assistance until he can certify an amelioration in the conditions of 
Indonesia.
  I urge my colleagues to support this sense of Congress amendment, 
including the perfecting amendment by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I would like to say that we accept the Bereuter amendment. We do not 
condone violence on any side. I would like to follow up with a few 
comments with respect to the points made by the gentleman from Nebraska 
[Mr. Bereuter].
  That is, having visited East Timor myself this last year, I had an 
opportunity to sit down with Nobel Peace Prize winner Bishop Belo and 
spoke with him for a considerable length of time and do have a sense of 
how these violent occurrences are precipitated. I might add that Bishop 
Belo himself has said to me that there is a situation where the 
government is hiring East Timorese to instigate and act as catalysts 
for violent uprisings, because what it does is give the excuse for the 
Indonesian military to then crack down on whomever they want to crack 
down on.
  I just want to add that because I have spoken to our own Department 
of State and some of their officials there, and there is an 
acknowledgment that the Indonesian government is training such, I 
guess, double agents, although I do not think they are agents in the

[[Page H3611]]

cold war sense, but they are East Timorese that are on the payroll of 
the Indonesian Government that front for this terrorist group in East 
Timor and thereby justify the reprisals that the Indonesian Government 
then uses as an excuse to put down these uprisings in the first place. 
I want to point that out.
  I also just want to point out that in the wake of those violent 
outbreaks that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] pointed out, 
some of those reports are still yet to be confirmed, although I take 
nothing away from his effort to deplore any kind of violence.

                              {time}  1615

  I want to also add that in the aftermath of the election there were a 
series of roundups and manhunts by the military and widespread arrests 
in Dili, Baucau, Ermera and Los Palos under circumstances which torture 
is very likely. Of course, we have evidence of torture of those who 
have been detained in jails within East Timor. I can tell my colleagues 
that Constantio Pinto, for example, in my district in Rhode Island has 
given me graphic descriptions of his time in jail when he was tortured 
repeatedly.
  We know that Indonesia is feeling discomfort because of the attention 
that we are bringing to these issues. It is unfortunate that it has to 
affect the relationship, but the best way for Indonesia to solve this 
problem is to clean up their human rights abuses instead of trying to 
get us to not recognize their human rights abuses.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on two points the 
gentleman has raised. First, I would ask this question, it is 
rhetorical, but if the gentleman has a response to it I think the world 
would like to know it. What does the gentleman expect the Indonesian 
Government would do when up to 41, or perhaps more, people were killed 
by guerrillas when in fact some of them were poll watchers, and others 
were civilians. What does the gentleman think the response should 
legitimately be in that situation? Do they try to protect people and 
bring people to justice or not?
  The second point I would raise about the allegations that the 
guerrillas may be or are totally on the payroll of the Indonesian 
Government, and I refer to those guerrillas that caused the deaths and 
the tragedy that took place there. I hope the gentleman does not 
believe that that is the case in all instances, if any. It certainly is 
not the view of our Government, our State Department, our intelligence 
agencies and those people that have spoken out on this issue. I just 
want to raise those two points if the gentleman cares to address them. 
I certainly do not believe that everybody, if anybody, if any, who 
killed those people at the polls is on the Indonesian Government 
payroll.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
would like to respond to the gentleman's points.
  On the first one, I clearly think that justice needs to be done, but 
of course there is no justice in East Timor because people can be 
summarily arrested and tortured without legal representation. I do 
acknowledge that the gentleman is correct that in the event there is 
any violence, there should be justice. But the justice system as it 
currently exists is a one-sided justice system.
  On the second point in terms of the payroll, I would acknowledge that 
I do not think in every instance that those instigating these points of 
violence whereby the Indonesian Government uses as a pretext to crack 
down on the East Timorese, that in all those instances it is those that 
are on their payroll, but I would point out that it is something that 
is acknowledged on the ground there as being a fundamental truth of the 
situation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment and also 
further in support of the Bereuter amendment to the Kennedy amendment. 
Most certainly we should take every opportunity we can on the floor of 
the House to renounce violence, especially when there is collateral 
damage involved affecting the lives of civilians.
  However, I do take issue with the characterization of what is 
happening in East Timor. I think our Members should understand that 
East Timor is a very small place and a large percentage of its 
population has been killed by the Indonesian Government. Some of that 
has happened with U.S. weapons. That is most unfortunate. That is why I 
support so strongly the Kennedy amendment as well as the gentleman's 
leadership for fighting this fight with such knowledge and such 
commitment.
  The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] shared a story of his 
visit with Mr. Ramos Horta. I will convey mine. Last night in our 
community over 5,000 people turned out for a conference on nonviolence 
entitled the Power of Nonviolence. They all gave a standing ovation to 
Jose Ramos Horta for his appeal for nonviolence in East Timor and 
throughout the world.
  Certainly there are those within a situation who may lose patience, 
and I think that is the biggest challenge to those who are involved in 
the nonviolent crusade for change, whether it is in Tibet, and His 
Holiness was there last night and spoke as well, whether it is in 
Tibet, Indonesia, or in any other country, that while the leadership of 
the issue, its initiatives may be based on a commitment to nonviolence, 
that there are those who have lost their family members, their 
community people to violence in Indonesia and they may take action. We 
reject it, we denounce it, but we do not paint every leader of the East 
Timor movement with the same brush.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
think the gentlewoman knows that current law forbids the kind of 
military sales to Indonesia that can be used in repressive measures 
against the civilian population. This amendment does not put that in 
place. That is a matter of law already.
  I would say to the gentlewoman, I hope that she would be concerned 
when Mr. Horta comes into my office and after he leaves with a very 
clear understanding of what my point of view is, and which it happens 
to be the view of the official view of the U.S. Government, which I am 
supporting as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, 
for him to go out and lie in writing about it to my chairman and 
mischaracterize 180 degrees is highly inappropriate. I would hope the 
gentlewoman would not condone that kind of activity and would be 
sympathetic as one Member of Congress to another on this matter. I 
would hope she agrees that Mr. Horta should not be using those tactics. 
It is unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, on the first point the 
gentleman brings up about what is the law regarding Indonesia, yes, 
sir, I am very well aware of it as ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations' Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs. We spend a great deal of time, of our committee's 
time and indeed the floor time, on the issue of military weapons to 
Indonesia as well as on whether we should have expanded IMET or IMET to 
Indonesia. My problem with the expanded IMET to Indonesia is that it 
simply does not seem to be working or taken seriously by the Indonesian 
military. Certainly it would be appropriate, if properly employed, for 
us to train the Indonesian military in the importance of human rights 
in dealing with civilian populations. We just have not seen that 
happen. The case of East Timor I think is a tragedy for the world.
  Around here, and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] knows the 
respect, the esteem, in which I hold him, Roshomon lives, people go to 
meetings, they hear different things, they carry away a more optimistic 
or less optimistic view of a conversation. I respect the gentleman's 
view of that conversation as a Member of Congress on this floor. I 
would hope that the gentleman would give Mr. Ramos Horta the ability to 
respond back to the gentleman to say this is why I drew those 
conclusions, because I know him to be an honorable man, and I think 
that the Nobel committee chose well in honoring Jose Ramos Horta and 
Bishop Belo.

[[Page H3612]]

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I 
would say the gentlewoman has a very generous soul, which is one of the 
reasons I admire her greatly. Her putting the best characterization of 
the best construction on Mr. Horta's comments about my views are very 
generous on her part. In this case that generosity is mistaken. There 
is no doubt that he intentionally mischaracterized the position of this 
Member, but I thank the gentlewoman and say that her sentiments are a 
credit to her.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the 
Kennedy amendment as amended by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the amendment that has been 
offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] which states 
in a very strong way that it is the sense of Congress that the United 
States should not give military assistance and arms transfers to the 
Government of Indonesia until that Government complies with a few basic 
human rights benchmarks. I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and 
the Pacific, for his perfecting amendment to put us on record in 
roundly condemning all violence, no matter who commits it. Violence is 
not an acceptable means to any end. I want to commend my friend for 
offering that perfecting amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, for over 20 years, international human rights advocates 
have been calling attention to abuses by the Indonesian Government and 
its occupation of East Timor. Over the years the United States has 
provided countless millions of dollars worth of military assistance and 
arms transfers to the Government of Indonesia. There have been no 
reliable safeguards to ensure that this assistance and these transfers 
did not facilitate the ongoing brutality. Indonesia's Armed Forces 
invaded East Timor in 1975 only weeks after East Timor had attained 
independence from Portugal. Since then the Indonesian Army has carried 
out a campaign of what amounts to ethnic cleansing against the Timorese 
through a program of forced migration.
  Persecution has been particularly harsh against the Christian 
majority. More than 200,000 Timorese out of the total population of 
700,000 have been killed directly or by starvation in forced migrations 
from their villages since the Indonesian invasion. There are recent 
reports of renewed campaigns of repression of Catholics in East Timor. 
These reports include atrocities such as the smashing of statues of the 
Blessed Mother. The campaign has also been directed personally against 
the Catholic Bishop Belo, along with the independence leader Jose Ramos 
Horta. Bishop Belo's phones are tapped, his fax machine is monitored, 
his visitors are watched, and his freedom of movement is restricted. 
But Bishop Belo persists in his courageous efforts to defend justice, 
peace, and the preservation of the dignity of his people. Recently, he 
set up a church commission to monitor human rights abuses there and a 
radio station to disseminate information and news.
  There have also been reports of renewed military activity by pro-
independence guerrillas in East Timor. I want to make it absolutely 
clear that violence is unacceptable no matter who commits it. In this 
respect, again the Bereuter perfecting amendment strengthens the 
Kennedy amendment and makes it a resolution worthy of support by this 
body.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I was in my office, I saw the debate that was 
taking place, and I wanted to make a comment in strong support of the 
Kennedy amendment. I had the opportunity, as the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy] did at Christmastime, I visited East Timor in 
January of this year. Members ought to know Bishop Belo, who got the 
Nobel Peace Prize because of the nomination of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] and others in the Congress. We visited Bishop Belo. On the 
Island of East Timor, there have been over 200,000 people killed in the 
last 20 years. If Members were to extrapolate that to the United 
States, I do not know what that would mean, would it mean 60 million 
killed or something like that? It is an unbelievable amount.
  We met with Bishop Belo. We also were followed by the military and 
their people, but we went out in the field and talked to a number of 
people. We went to the Santa Cruz Cemetery, where the massacre took 
place. For Members who did not follow that massacre, the Indonesian 
army opened up fire and in cold blood killed these people at the Santa 
Cruz Cemetery.
  We also talked to young people. First, they were afraid to speak, 
then we got close to them. They started to talk and told us they were 
afraid. The very nights we were there at 2 o'clock in the morning the 
Indonesian military would come into their homes and take the young 
people away. They would not allow them to be visited by their moms and 
dads.
  I personally believe, and this gets a little controversial, I believe 
that Web Hubbell was hired by the Indonesian Government and we now 
later found out that Web Hubbell, after he was hired by the Indonesian 
Government, went to East Timor. East Timor is not the garden spot that 
one goes to to sit on the beaches. I believe that maybe the 
administration's policy changed.
  The Kennedy amendment is the right thing to do. When we pass this 
amendment, it will send a message back to the Indonesian Government, 
who we have a good relationship with and we want to continue to have a 
good relationship with, but that we care.
  Bishop Belo will be in the United States next week. I think we should 
pass this amendment. I did not want the time to go by without urging 
strong support for the Kennedy amendment. Frankly, if it were defeated, 
the message that that would send to the people of East Timor, 500,000 
left, 200,000 killed, military occupation, up to maybe 28,000 military 
people all over the island. Last, there were elections 1\1/2\ weeks 
ago. Up to 41 people were killed. I have been urging, as I know the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] and others feel, that this 
administration should appoint a special envoy. We saw that they 
appointed a special envoy to Cyprus, which is very good. They should 
appoint a special envoy here and do something about it.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], I 
want to thank him for taking the time to go over there at Christmas, 
and I strongly support the amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to 
commend the gentleman for his own visit to East Timor. There is nothing 
like seeing it in person, to speak to Bishop Belo in East Timor, to 
visit with the people as the gentleman has, that gives one the strong 
feelings such as the gentleman has about it.
  Like the gentleman from Virginia, I have read a lot about it. But it 
was not until I visited and saw it myself and heard from the people 
dramatically about the overwhelming military presence in East Timor and 
the fear that everyone has going to bed at night, that they are not 
going to be woken up in the middle of the night, have a gun to their 
head and dragged out in the middle of the street, go to jail, never to 
be seen again.
  This is the constant state of fear and terror that the people of East 
Timor live under, given that occupation by the Indonesian Government; 
and I want to salute the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for his 
strong words on this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island. We 
spoke to one youngster who was there who had his ear cut off, that they 
cut off his ear; and now we spoke to a mom, a mother, who had three 
children, and they were all, all, missing. One had been killed in Santa 
Cruz, another had been taken away, and another had been taken away 
several nights just before we got there.
  So the Kennedy amendment is a good amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H3613]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kennedy amendment 
to urge that military sanctions be imposed on Indonesia because of 
Indonesia's terrible human rights record. I certainly have no 
objection, and I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] to the amendment because I think that we should 
be ready to condemn atrocities and brutality wherever they occur.
  I have stood on this floor many times, Mr. Chairman, in recent years 
to criticize 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, Indonesia continues 
to receive United States military assistance. According to the State 
Department's country report on Indonesia, quote, the government 
continues 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 do not think so.
  Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people 
who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, 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, and 
I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy, for 
bringing these issues to our attention and speaking so eloquently on 
these issues. I do hope that this body will respond to the specific 
stories which my colleagues have shared, which my good friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], has shared. I have not been to East 
Timor, but I have met many times privately with people who have 
recounted these stories to us, and we cannot let this record stand. We 
must take action, and I want to just tell the gentleman, ``I support 
you.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say 
there are countless stories. Unfortunately the ICRC cannot tell them to 
us because it would abrogate their mandate to be an impartial, as my 
colleagues know, observer and support to human rights in the countries 
that they are situated in. But they are only situated in those 
countries with gross human rights abuses, and they do not want to 
jeopardize that mission. But they did tell me that they are exceeding 
their ability to keep on top of all the cases that they have to stay on 
top of, and what that says to me is volumes about the current situation 
there.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
her support.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island 
again for his leadership.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise in support of the Bereuter amendment. This perfecting 
amendment seeks to add a level of balance and accuracy to the Kennedy 
amendment which will improve upon its content. It places the House of 
Representatives on record of being against violence and abusive human 
rights by all parties to the conflict in East Timor, and for that 
reason I urge adoption of the amendment to the amendment.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy 
amendment which expresses the sense of Congress that the United States 
should stop military assistance and education to Indonesia. It appears 
to me that this amendment will only have a negative effect on United 
States-Indonesian relations. I believe that this amendment would 
actually hinder the kind of changes and increased respect for human 
rights that its proponents claim to seek.
  An insult such as this will have a direct and negative impact on all 
facets of the United States-Indonesian relationship, including economic 
ties. In 1995 alone, the United States exported $3.3 billion in goods 
and services to Indonesia. Indonesia is also the host to over $6 
billion in United States investment. The only people cheering for the 
misguided symbolism of this amendment are our foreign competitors who 
look to take advantage of a souring in United States-Indonesian 
relations.
  The action that this amendment advocates--including cutting off 
expanded international military education training [E-IMET]--will do 
nothing to improve human rights in Indonesia and East Timor. What 
better way to improve human rights in Indonesia than to properly train 
the military. That is what E-IMET does; it provides educational courses 
to teach respect for civil authority, human rights, and the rule of 
law.
  While I recognize that improvement is needed in Indonesia, this 
amendment will have no positive impact on East Timor. The Kennedy 
amendment is simply pandering to special interests in East Timor at the 
expense of overall United States interests in the region.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kennedy amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: The amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney]; the amendment, as 
amended, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                      Amendment Offered By Mr. Ney

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Ney] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 426, 
noes 0, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 174]

                               AYES--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske

[[Page H3614]]


     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Farr
     Flake
     Hall (OH)
     Molinari
     Rothman
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Wolf

                              {time}  1656

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded


       Amendment Offered By Mr. Miller of California, As Amended

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Ewing]. The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller], as amended, on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment, as amended.
  The Clerk designated the amendment, as amended.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 375, 
noes 49, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 175]

                               AYES--375

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--49

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Castle
     Clay
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dellums
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Rangel
     Sabo
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Farr
     Flake
     Hall (OH)
     Molinari
     Neal
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Wolf

                              {time}  1706

  Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. DeGETTE, and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H3615]]

  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
       At the end of the bill add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1818. INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``MacBride Principles of Economic Justice Act of 1997''.
       (b) Additional Requirements.--
       (1) Purposes.--Section 2(b) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement 
     Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-415; 100 Stat. 947) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``United States contributions shall be used in a manner that 
     effectively increases employment opportunities in communities 
     with rates of unemployment significantly higher than the 
     local or urban average of unemployment in Northern Ireland. 
     In addition, such contributions shall be used to benefit 
     individuals residing in such communities.''.
       (2) Conditions and understandings.--Section 5(a) of such 
     Act is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by striking ``The United States'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The United States'';
       (ii) by striking ``in this Act may be used'' and inserting 
     the following: ``in this Act--
       ``(A) may be used'';
       (iii) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) may be provided to an individual or entity in 
     Northern Ireland only if such individual or entity is in 
     compliance with the principles of economic justice.''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``The 
     restrictions'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Additional requirements.--The restrictions''.
       (3) Prior certifications.--Section 5(c)(2) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``principle of 
     equality'' and all that follows and inserting ``principles of 
     economic justice; and''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``and will create employment 
     opportunities in regions and communities of Northern Ireland 
     suffering the highest rates of unemployment''.
       (4) Annual reports.--Section 6 of such Act is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) each individual or entity receiving assistance from 
     United States contributions to the International Fund as 
     agreed in writing to comply with the principles of economic 
     justice.''.
       (5) Requirements relating to funds.--Section 7 of such Act 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Prohibition.--Nothing herein shall require quotas or 
     reverse discrimination or mandate their use.''.
       (6) Definitions.--Section 8 of such Act is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) the term `Northern Ireland' includes the counties of 
     Antrim, Armagh, Derry, Down, Tyrone, and Fermanagh; and
       ``(4) the term `principles of economic justice' means the 
     following principles:
       ``(A) Increasing the representation of individuals from 
     underrepresented religious groups in the workforce, including 
     managerial, supervisory, administrative, clerical, and 
     technical jobs.
       ``(B) Providing adequate security for the protection of 
     minority employees at the workplace
       ``(C) Banning provocative sectarian or political emblems 
     from the workplace.
       ``(D) Providing that all job openings be advertised 
     publicly and providing that special recruitment efforts be 
     made to attract applicants from underrepresented religious 
     groups.
       ``(E) Providing that layoff, recall, and termination 
     procedures do not favor a particular religious group.
       ``(F) Abolishing job reservations, apprenticeship 
     restrictions, and differential employment criteria which 
     discriminate on the basis of religion.
       ``(G) Providing for the development of training programs 
     that will prepare substantial numbers of minority employees 
     for skilled jobs, including the expansion of existing 
     programs and the creation of new programs to train, upgrade, 
     and improve the skills of minority employees.
       ``(H) Establishing procedures to assess, identify, and 
     actively recruit minority employees with the potential for 
     further advancement.
       ``(I) Providing for the appointment of a senior management 
     staff member to be responsible for the employment efforts of 
     the entity and, within a reasonable period of time, the 
     implementation of the principles described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (H).''.
       (7) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. ENGEL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 
5, 1997, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  Is there a Member seeking recognition in opposition?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the Engel-Gilman amendment on the International 
Fund for Ireland principles. I want to at the outset thank the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] from the Committee on 
International Relations for all his help and hard work on this 
amendment.
  This amendment is very simple. It simply says that the International 
Fund for Ireland, to which the United States contributes $20 million 
per year, that funding for the International Fund for Ireland should 
not go to any entity in the north of Ireland that discriminates.
  We want to ensure that any entity which receives money from the 
International Fund for Ireland is committed to the principles of 
nondiscrimination. This is very similar to what was done in South 
Africa with the Sullivan principles, and this essentially embraces what 
is called the MacBride principles of nondiscrimination.
  This is identical to a bill that I have carried for the past 8 years 
and under the current Congress, H.R. 150, which sets up nine guidelines 
to eliminate religious-based discrimination in employment and job 
training processes in the north of Ireland, while banning provocative 
sectarian and political emblems from the workplace. Again, we want to 
ensure that U.S. money is given to entities which promote equal 
opportunity employment for both Protestants and Catholics and to 
regions where targeted investment is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, these are critical times for the peace process in 
Ireland. I commend the fact that right now the parties seem to be lined 
up in terms of really making progress for equality in the peace 
process. It is very, very important, I believe, that at this point 
Congress go on record as saying that moneys for the International Fund 
for Ireland cannot go to entities which discriminate against anybody, 
be they Catholic or Protestant. That is simply what this says.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the committee.
  (Mr. Gilman asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer, along with the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel], the Federal MacBride principles. This important 
bipartisan antidiscrimination measure dealing with employment practices 
in Northern Ireland is included in our amendment as a condition for 
receipt of any of the U.S. taxpayer contributions to the International 
Fund for Ireland.
  This amendment, which we introduced today, incorporates all of the 
changes we have made in the MacBride principles; in other words, the 
principles of economic justice as defined and passed by the last 
Congress is part of the U.S. contribution to the IFI in the foreign aid 
bill.
  We must treat equally those who would receive any United States 
foreign assistance the very same as we do for many United States 
employers doing business in Northern Ireland,

[[Page H3616]]

where today many of these firms voluntarily comply with the MacBride 
fair employment principles.
  Much more still needs to be done to address the serious continuing 
problem of discrimination in Northern Ireland, where Catholics are 
still twice as likely to be unemployed as their Protestant 
counterparts. This is unfair. It must change if lasting peace and 
justice are ever to take hold in Northern Ireland.
  As a candidate, Mr. Clinton pledged during the 1992 campaign that he 
would support the MacBride principles. They have been passed into law 
in all 16 States, including our own State of New York, and American 
cities and towns have also passed similar resolutions. We must do more 
to codify these principles in the law this year.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of our colleagues concerned 
about lasting peace and justice in Northern Ireland to support the 
amendment we are introducing today.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the Irish 
National Caucus in support of this initiative.
  The letter referred to is as follows:


                                  Irish National Caucus, Inc.,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1997.
     Hon. Ben Gilman,
     Chairman, House International Relations Committee, U.S. House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gilman: We, the undersigned leaders of Irish-
     American organizations, support the linking of the MacBride 
     Principles of economic justice to the International Fund for 
     Ireland as contained in HR 1486.
       Attaching the MacBride Principles to foreign aid to 
     Northern Ireland will help to guarantee that hard earned tax-
     payer's money will not be used to subsidize sectarian 
     discrimination in Northern Ireland.
       The MacBride Principles have proven to be the most 
     effective response to anti-Catholic discrimination in 
     Northern Ireland, and the Principles enjoy massive support in 
     the Irish-American community.
       Proof that the MacBride Principles are still needed was 
     provided by the recent example of anti-Catholic 
     discrimination in the office of Baroness Denton, the British 
     Minister formerly responsible for fair employment laws in 
     Northern Ireland.
       We thank you, Chairman Gilman, for your long and consistent 
     leadership for justice and peace in Ireland.
           Sincerely,
         Edward J. Wallace, National President, AOH; Francis 
           Hoare, Chairman, Brehon Law Society; Jean Forest, U.S. 
           Voice for Human Rights in Northern Ireland; Edmund 
           Lynch, Chairman, Lawyers National Alliance for Justice 
           in Ireland; Andrew Somers, President, Irish-American 
           Unity Conference; Kathleen Holmes, Chairwoman, American 
           Irish Congress; James V. Mullin, Irish Famine 
           Curriculum Committee; John McPhillips, President, Clan 
           Na Gael; Paul Doris, Chairman, Irish Northern Aid 
           Committee; Fr. Sean McManus, President, Irish National 
           Caucus; Dennis E.A. Lynch, General Counsel, Hibernian 
           Civil Rights Coalition; Frank Durkan, Americans for a 
           new Irish Agenda.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. I, of course, realize the 
popularity of the amendment but I do think it is important to state the 
other view. I am not exactly alone in my opposition to this amendment.
  The Irish Government has opposed this amendment. They have a new 
government today, of course, and they have not yet spoken so far as I 
know. The British Government has opposed this amendment. They, too, 
have a new government. I am not sure exactly how they feel about 
MacBride principles, but the British Government has opposed it in the 
past. And the U.S. Government opposes this amendment.
  All of us in this Chamber support fair employment and 
nondiscrimination in the workplace in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, 
but I think we have to be very careful about putting layers of red tape 
into an assistance program. We need to be very careful about imposing 
conditions that will work at cross-purposes with our shared goals. The 
investment experts have said to us that mandating conditionality on 
U.S. assistance to the IFI will have the effect of hindering 
international investment in the region.
  Listen to the words of John Hume; there is not anybody more respected 
in this Chamber on the Irish question than John Hume. What does he say? 
I quote him: ``If you really want to help us, then encourage investment 
in areas of high unemployment in Northern Ireland. That is a positive 
thing to do. The effect of the MacBride principles campaign, whether 
people like to admit it or not, is to stop investment coming in and 
that is bad for us.''
  Now, I suspect most Members in this body do not support affirmative 
action programs in the United States with all kinds of mandatory 
requirements. I do not know why they would want to try to legislate 
affirmative action in another country, but that is precisely what this 
amendment tries to do. Moreover, I think the amendment is not needed. 
All enterprises in Northern Ireland must already conform to the United 
Kindom Fair Employment Act of 1989, which imposes one of the strongest 
and most comprehensive antidiscriminatory sets of regulations in 
Europe. Likewise, they must comply with the very elaborate regulations 
of the European Union.
  The IFI board oversees the allocation of all IFI funds. They already 
rigorously promote fair employment practices and economic development 
in disadvantaged communities in Northern Ireland. They evaluate each 
project to ensure that it does not discriminate and funding is 
specifically targeted to minority and disadvantaged areas.
  I believe a better way to proceed here is to preserve support for the 
IFI, to have confidence in them, to have confidence in the governments 
that are involved, including our own, and their goals of promoting fair 
employment practices in Northern Ireland.
  We should not be legislating intrusive conditions which are opposed 
even by these governments and which others could criticize as going 
beyond U.S. law with respect to affirmative action.
  I urge a vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Engel] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].
  (Mr. MANTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations. The 
chairman's commitment to the peace process in the north of Ireland has 
made him an integral part of the Congressional Ad Hoc Committee for 
Irish Affairs.
  At the same time I also want to acknowledge the deep commitment to 
fair employment legislation and to the peaceful resolution of the 
conflict in the north of Ireland by another friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. Chairman, with the election of the new government in Ireland and 
the United Kingdom and the continued leadership of Senator Mitchell and 
the Clinton administration, the possibility for a genuine peace process 
is finally becoming a reality.
  The International Fund for Ireland is designed to stimulate job 
creation and is an integral facet of the peace process. The support of 
the United States has a tangible effect of contributing to the search 
for lasting peace by giving the chronic unemployed, the underemployed, 
a stake in society, thereby drying up the pond that extremism can swim 
in.
  Mr. Chairman, Catholic males are 2\1/2\ times more likely to be 
unemployed than their counterparts from the other tradition. My support 
of this amendment is driven by a desire to raise the standard of living 
of those who have experienced chronic generational unemployment from 
both communities. I urge the passage of this bill, which is akin to the 
Sullivan principles that took the moral high ground in South Africa.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.

[[Page H3617]]

Kennedy] is recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds.
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] to this 
legislation. I think that the gentlemen from New York, [Mr. Gilman], 
[Mr. Manton], and [Mr. Engel], and others ought to be congratulated for 
the leadership that others like the gentleman from New York, [Mr. King] 
and the like have shown in trying to make certain that we eliminate the 
kind of terrible discrimination against Catholics that has existed in 
the north of Ireland.
  I was interested to hear the ranking member describe the fact that 
there are provisions under the existing laws in Great Britain to 
protect against employment discrimination. Those protections are simply 
a sham. The truth of the matter is, all they do is allow people to 
understand that there is a job available. They do nothing about 
guaranteeing the fact that Catholics can get those jobs.
  There has been traditionally a terrible unemployment rate, in some 
communities as high as 90 percent for generation after generation 
because of employment discrimination that has existed. All this 
legislation would call for is that when funds are available from this 
country to Northern Ireland and to the border communities, that they in 
fact cannot discriminate against the Catholic minority in the north of 
Ireland. It is sound legislation, it is the right legislation, and it 
is the moral and correct thing to do. I congratulate the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], for his foresight in pursuing this legislation.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
King].
  Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Engel-Gilman 
amendment. I commend them for their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, the Irish peace process is right now at a very defining 
moment. One of the main causes of violence over the years has been the 
systematic discrimination against the nationalist community. If 
American money is going to the north of Ireland for the Fund for 
Ireland, it is essential that discrimination not be allowed, that 
systematic discrimination be rooted out and uprooted. It is only then 
that we can have real peace in Ireland. It is essential that the United 
States stand by the absolute commitment to peace and justice, and also 
to ensure that no systematic state-sponsored discrimination be allowed 
in the north of Ireland.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed for an additional 30 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
is recognized for 30 seconds.
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support 
of the Engel-Gilman amendment to link United States contributions to 
the international fund for Ireland to these very important MacBride 
principles, principles we passed as part of H.R. 1561 last year.
  I want to remind Members that when the President vetoed H.R. 1651 
last year he went out of his way in a letter to Brian Atwood, the 
administrator of AID, to say that he is committed to fair employment 
principles for Catholics in the north of Ireland. The President went on 
to say that he vetoed that bill for reasons unrelated to the section 
dealing with the MacBride principles. So while today, the 
administration may put out language suggesting they are against this 
provision, in his August 1996 letter to Brian Atwood, the President 
himself said he was for the MacBride principles.
  This is a very important fair employment piece of legislation.
  Astonishingly, job discrimination against Catholics in the north of 
Ireland is the status quo. Consider these facts. Out of the 87,000 
children below the poverty line, 58,000, or 66 percent, are Catholic. 
In Northern Ireland, over 42 percent of Catholic men are unemployed 
compared to 25 percent of their Protestant colleagues. According to the 
most recent Labor Force Survey, 55 percent of the unemployed are 
Catholics, even though they comprise 38 percent of the population over 
the age of 16.
  United States support to the IFI is intended to help mitigate the 
social and economic problems that contribute to the civil unrest in 
Northern Ireland. People cannot come to a lasting peace agreement if 
they are the subject of ongoing, systematic, disparaging 
discrimination. The MacBride principles, which would eliminate 
religious-based discrimination in employment and job training, are 
modest and will go a long way to foster peace and justice in Northern 
Ireland. At least 16 States--including my home State of New Jersey--and 
more than 30 U.S. cities have adopted the MacBride principles. 
Similarly, the Federal Government should adopt this code and ensure 
that U.S. taxpayer funds do not go to subsidize discrimination in the 
work force.
  Human rights abuses are far-reaching in the north of Ireland. 
Juryless Diplock courts, ill-treatment of individuals in detention, 
lack of access to attorneys, search and seizure abuses, sectarian use 
of plastic bullets, and religious discrimination are common human 
rights abuses in Northern Ireland. Linking our financial contributions 
to the IFI to the MacBride principles is a small step in addressing 
just one of the many human rights abuses that need to be eliminated in 
order for a lasting and just peace to be achieved in that region.
  I wholeheartedly support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       At the end of title XVIII insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1712. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ASSISTANCE TO 
                   LITHUANIA AND LATVIA.

       It is the sense of the United States House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) adequate assistance should be provided to Lithuania and 
     Latvia in fiscal year 1998;
       (2) assistance to Lithuania should be continued beyond 
     fiscal year 1998 as it continues to build democratic and free 
     market institutions; and
       (3) the President should consider continuing assistance to 
     Latvia beyond fiscal year 1998, as appropriate, to build 
     democratic and free market institutions.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 
5, 1997, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It just expresses the sense of 
Congress that foreign aid to the Baltic states of Latvia and Lithuania 
should be provided in the fiscal year 1998 and beyond for Lithuania. It 
also states that Latvia should continue to receive aid as the President 
determines it necessary. This amendment supports these nations as they 
continue to evolve toward a free market economy and develop democratic 
institutions.
  On behalf of all the Latvian and Lithuanian Americans who have made 
this country their home, I am pleased to offer this amendment. Since 
gaining their independence from the former Soviet Union earlier this 
decade, Latvia and Lithuania have both made important strides towards 
democracy and the removal of the shackles of oppressive communism. 
Lithuania and Latvia have a long, proud history and have struggled 
valiantly against forces on all sides of their borders, forces that 
would suppress their freedom in demanding the Soviet troops be removed 
from their soil and that the Baltic states be granted independence.
  In 1990, pro-independence forces were able to win a majority in 
parliamentary elections in Lithuania. Despite an attempted coup by 
Soviet soldiers, Lithuania and the other Baltic states were able to 
gain their independence.

[[Page H3618]]

 Last fall, Mr. Chairman, national elections brought reform forces back 
into the Parliament following a collapse of the private banking sector 
and the ensuing Government crisis.
  Despite this renewed democratic reform, the State Department made a 
curious decision to end the aid program to the Lithuania through the 
Support for the Eastern European Democracies or the SEED Program as 
reflected in the President's budget request, this in spite of the fact 
that USAID's in-country mission, the U.S. Embassy and nongovernment at 
organizations such as the Lithuanian-American community all support 
continued aid to Lithuania at this time.
  The reasons for aid are clear. Continued threats to safety and 
stability by organized crime in Lithuania are a serious concern. The 
previous government failed to place walls between the Government and 
private interests, resulting in corruption and one of the reasons for 
its fall from power.
  The people of Lithuania responded democratically to these problems by 
voting in a new reform Government. The new reform Government is trying 
to adopt anticorruption legislation and is in critical need of 
technical experts to assist them. Without our aid, this will not be 
possible. In addition, there is a continued need for technical experts 
to assist with the reorganization and privatization of the energy 
sector. Again, our aid is critical.
  Mr. Chairman, Lithuania and Latvia have proven to be our allies and 
our friends. They have requested an invitation to join NATO at the 
earliest possible date, a request which Congress may soon grant them.

                              {time}  1730

  Should we not continue assisting Lithuania and Latvia at this 
important moment in their history?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to support this amendment of continued 
support to Lithuania and Latvia in fiscal year 1998, and Lithuania 
beyond, as they continue to build democratic free market institutions.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
rise in support of the amendment offered by our good colleague from New 
York.
  The amendment is not an earmark, it is simply an encouragement to the 
President to make certain that our aid to Lithuania and Latvia is going 
to be adequate enough to support necessary political and economic 
reforms in those two Baltic States. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge 
the adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman very much.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It is 
an appropriate expression of congressional support for United States 
assistance programs in support of democratic and free market reform in 
Latvia and Lithuania. I simply just urge very strong support for the 
Slaughter amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. McKinney

  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Ms. McKINNEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. McKinney:
       At the end of the bill add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):
               DIVISION C--ARMS TRANSFERS CODE OF CONDUCT
                TITLE XX--ARMS TRANSFERS CODE OF CONDUCT

     SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Code of Conduct on Arms 
     Transfers Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2002. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Approximately 40,000,000 people, over 75 percent 
     civilians, died as a result of civil and international wars 
     fought with conventional weapons during the 45 years of the 
     cold war, demonstrating that conventional weapons can in fact 
     be weapons of mass destruction.
       (2) Conflict has actually increased in the post cold war 
     era, with 30 major armed conflicts in progress during 1995.
       (3) War is both a human tragedy and an ongoing economic 
     disaster affecting the entire world, including the United 
     States and its economy, because it decimates both local 
     investment and potential export markets.
       (4) International trade in conventional weapons increases 
     the risk and impact of war in an already over-militarized 
     world, creating far more costs than benefits for the United 
     States economy through increased United States defense and 
     foreign assistance spending and reduced demand for United 
     States civilian exports.
       (5) The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms can be 
     an effective first step in support of limitations on the 
     supply of conventional weapons to developing countries and 
     compliance with its reporting requirements by a foreign 
     government can be an integral tool in determining the 
     worthiness of such government for the receipt of United 
     States military assistance and arms transfers.
       (6) It is in the national security and economic interests 
     of the United States to reduce dramatically the 
     $840,000,000,000 that all countries spend on armed forces 
     every year, $191,000,000,000 of which is spent by developing 
     countries, an amount equivalent to 4 times the total 
     bilateral and multilateral foreign assistance such countries 
     receive every year.
       (7) According to the Congressional Research Service, the 
     United States supplies more conventional weapons to 
     developing countries than all other countries combined, 
     averaging $11,889,000,000 a year in agreements to supply such 
     weapons to developing countries for the six years since the 
     end of the cold war, 58 percent higher than the 
     $7,515,000,000 a year in such agreements for the six years 
     prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
       (8) Since the end of the cold war, 84 percent of United 
     States arms transfers have been to developing countries are 
     to countries with an undemocratic form of government whose 
     citizens, according to the Department of State Country 
     Reports on Human Rights Practices do not have the ability to 
     peaceably change their form of government.
       (9) Although a goal of United States foreign policy should 
     be to work with foreign governments and international 
     organizations to reduce militarization and dictatorship and 
     therefore prevent conflicts before they arise, during 4 
     recent deployments of United States Armed Forces--to the 
     Republic of Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, and Haiti--
     such Armed Forces faced conventional weapons that had been 
     provided or financed by the United States to undemocratic 
     governments.
       (10) The proliferation of conventional arms and conflicts 
     around the globe are multilateral problems, and the fact that 
     the United States has emerged as the world's primary seller 
     of conventional weapons, combined with the world leadership 
     role of the United States, signifies that the United States 
     is in a position to seek multilateral restraints on the 
     competition for and transfers of conventional weapons.
       (11) The Congress has the constitutional responsibility to 
     participate with the executive branch in decisions to provide 
     military assistance and arms transfers to a foreign 
     government, and in the formulation of a policy designed to 
     reduce dramatically the level of international 
     militarization.
       (12) A decision to provide military assistance and arms 
     transfers to a government that is undemocratic, does not 
     adequately protect human rights, is currently engaged in acts 
     of armed aggression, or is not fully participating in the 
     United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, should require 
     a higher level of scrutiny than does a decision to provide 
     such assistance and arms transfers to a government to which 
     these conditions do not apply.

     SEC. 2003. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to provide clear policy 
     guidelines and congressional responsibility for determining 
     the eligibility of foreign governments to be considered for 
     United States military assistance and arms transfers.

     SEC. 2004. PROHIBITION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE 
                   AND ARMS TRANSFERS TO CERTAIN FOREIGN 
                   GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), beginning on and after October 1, 1998, United States 
     military assistance and arms transfers may not be provided to 
     a foreign government for a fiscal year unless the President 
     certifies to the Congress for that fiscal year that such 
     government meets the following requirements:
       (1) Promotes democracy.--Such government--
       (A) was chosen by and permits free and fair elections;
       (B) promotes civilian control of the military and security 
     forces and has civilian institutions controlling the policy, 
     operation, and spending of all law enforcement and security 
     institutions, as well as the armed forces;
       (C) promotes the rule of law, equality before the law, and 
     respect for individual and

[[Page H3619]]

     minority rights, including freedom to speak, publish, 
     associate, and organize; and
       (D) promotes the strengthening of political, legislative, 
     and civil institutions of democracy, as well as autonomous 
     institutions to monitor the conduct of public officials and 
     to combat corruption.
       (2) Respects human rights.--Such government--
       (A) does not engage in gross violations of internationally 
     recognized human rights, including--
       (i) extra judicial or arbitrary executions;
       (ii) disappearances;
       (iii) torture or severe mistreatment;
       (iv) prolonged arbitrary imprisonment;
       (v) systematic official discrimination on the basis of 
     race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, or 
     political affiliation; and
       (vi) grave breaches of international laws of war or 
     equivalent violations of the laws of war in internal 
     conflicts;
       (B) vigorously investigates, disciplines, and prosecutes 
     those responsible for gross violations of internationally 
     recognized human rights;
       (C) permits access on a regular basis to political 
     prisoners by international humanitarian organizations such as 
     the International Committee of the Red Cross;
       (D) promotes the independence of the judiciary and other 
     official bodies that oversee the protection of human rights;
       (E) does not impede the free functioning of domestic and 
     international human rights organizations; and
       (F) provides access on a regular basis to humanitarian 
     organizations in situations of conflict or famine.
       (3) Not engaged in certain acts of armed aggression.--Such 
     government is not currently engaged in acts of armed 
     aggression in violation of international law.
       (4) Full participation in u.n. register of conventional 
     arms.--Such government is fully participating in the United 
     Nations Register of Conventional Arms.
       (b) Requirement for Continuing Compliance.--Any 
     certification with respect to a foreign government for a 
     fiscal year under subsection (a) shall cease to be effective 
     for that fiscal year if the President certifies to the 
     Congress that such government has not continued to comply 
     with the requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (4) 
     of such subsection.
       (c) Exemptions.--
       (1) In general.--The prohibition contained in subsection 
     (a) shall not apply with respect to a foreign government for 
     a fiscal year if--
       (A) subject to paragraph (2), the President submits a 
     request for an exemption to the Congress containing a 
     determination that it is in the national security interest of 
     the United States to provide military assistance and arms 
     transfers to such government; or
       (B) the President determines that an emergency exists under 
     which it is vital to the interest of the United States to 
     provide military assistance and arms transfers to such 
     government.
       (2) Disapproval.--A request for an exemption to provide 
     military assistance and arms transfers to a foreign 
     government shall not take effect, or shall cease to be 
     effective, if a law is enacted disapproving such request.
       (d) Notifications to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall submit to the Congress 
     initial certifications under subsection (a) and requests for 
     exemptions under subsection (c)(1)(A) in conjunction with the 
     submission of the annual request for enactment of 
     authorizations and appropriations for foreign assistance 
     programs for a fiscal year and shall, where appropriate, 
     submit additional or amended certifications and requests for 
     exemptions at any time thereafter in the fiscal year.
       (2) Determination with respect to emergency situations.--
     The President, when, in his determination, it is not contrary 
     to the national interest to do so, shall submit to the 
     Congress at the earliest possible date reports containing 
     determinations with respect to emergencies under subsection 
     (c)(1)(B). Each such report shall contain a description of--
       (A) the nature of the emergency;
       (B) the type of military assistance and arms transfers 
     provided to the foreign government; and
       (C) the cost to the United States of such assistance and 
     arms transfers.

     SEC. 2005. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate should hold 
     hearings on--
       (1) controversial certifications submitted under section 
     2004(a);
       (2) all requests for exemptions submitted under section 
     2004(c)(1)(A); and
       (3) all determinations with respect to emergencies under 
     section 2004(c)(1)(B).

     SEC. 2006. UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND ARMS 
                   TRANSFERS DEFINED.

       For purposes of this title, the terms ``United States 
     military assistance and arms transfers'' and ``military 
     assistance and arms transfers'' mean--
       (1) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to military assistance), 
     including the transfer of excess defense articles under 
     section 516 of that Act;
       (2) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to international military 
     education and training); or
       (3) the transfer of defense articles, defense services, or 
     design and construction services under the Arms Export 
     Control Act (excluding any transfer or other assistance under 
     section 23 of such Act), including defense articles and 
     defense services licensed or approved for export under 
     section 38 of that Act.

  Ms. McKINNEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 8 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to offer the McKinney-
Rohrabacher amendment, which I believe is a significant enhancement to 
the legislation we are now considering, the State Department 
authorization bill.
  This is no longer a controversial amendment. Significant compromise 
and change have been incorporated into this new version of the Arms 
Trade Code of Conduct that I am introducing today. In the first version 
of the bill, the President would certify countries at the beginning of 
each fiscal year that comply with the code of conduct. If the President 
wanted to sell weapons to a noncomplying government, then the President 
would have to come to Congress requesting an exemption and have that 
exemption approved by a vote in Congress.
  The administration and some Members of Congress felt this gave too 
much authority to Congress and deprived the President of his ability to 
make foreign policy. In the spirit of compromise, we have stripped the 
original bill of this language and now all that remains are the 
underlying values that motivated this bill in the first place, and that 
is that the United States ought not be in the business of supplying 
weapons to dictators.
  Gone is the automatic trigger that some objected to. And so now the 
piece of legislation before us asks us to make the fundamental 
assertion of what we stand for in the world and whose side we are on. 
Is it that the United States of America that speaks eloquently on the 
subject of respect for human rights and democracy and democratic 
traditions is only paying lip service to these ideals when confronted 
with a hungry client wanting our advanced technology only to enhance 
their ability to torture and abuse their own population? Or do we stand 
with those people around the world who are victims of the world's 
tyrants, who have no voice in the international arena and who only have 
the conscience of the world to help them?
  This legislation helps to give the United States a conscience for the 
leaders around the world who do not have one. This legislation helps to 
give a voice to those people around the world who cannot speak out in 
their own countries. And finally, this legislation puts the 
international behavior of the United States in sync with our words, our 
beliefs, and our fundamental values.
  The initial opponents of this bill did us a favor, really, by asking 
us to remove and cut certain sections of the bill, because what is left 
is the fundamental answer to the question, ``Will we sell weapons to 
dictators?''
  This bill is no longer about Presidential prerogatives being impinged 
on. This bill is no longer about too much congressional authority in 
the area of foreign policy-making. This bill is simply about whether we 
will apply the standards to our guns and tanks and missiles and bombs 
that we apply to computers and chemicals.
  In this country, even a car is considered a lethal weapon, and we 
apply certain standards on who can operate a car. So getting a driver's 
license and keeping that license subjects us all to certain competency 
requirements, certain standards. If we lose our license, then we fail 
to meet the requirements for operating the car. Do we not consider it 
important who purchases our rifles, tanks, guns, and bullets? We even 
have laws that govern and restrict the flow of certain information and 
knowledge. Should we not at least be concerned about who gets our 
weapons that kill people?

[[Page H3620]]

  At home, after much struggle, we have come up with standards on who 
can buy a gun. Convicted felons and the mentally ill cannot buy guns 
legally in this country. Thank goodness we were able to pass the Brady 
bill so that we could stop certain purchases of guns. Passing the Brady 
bill was done, though, only after the unreasonableness and extremism of 
the NRA was demonstrated to the American public.
  Unfortunately, the code of conduct has its own equivalent to the NRA 
which, I believe, is not only extreme but also reckless in its 
disregard of what happens when these weapons are delivered to our 
dictator clients.
  In 1964, the United States made a decision to support Mobutu Sese 
Seko, who became a tyrant and a dictator to the people of Zaire. Over 
the course of the decades of our support for his dictatorship, we 
shipped almost $170 million of weapons to him. We provided $18 million 
of training to the military; 1,356 officers, virtually the entire 
Zairian officer corps, received officer training. A total of $187 
million of U.S. military aid went to Zaire.
  What was that aid? 2,500 riot control kits; 2,000 military vehicles 
for crowd control; 2,000 rifles; $2 million worth of ammunition, and 24 
military aircraft.
  What we gave Mobutu was not military assistance to defend his country 
from outside intervention. What we gave to Mobutu was the means to 
control dissent and demonstrations. What we gave Mobutu was the means 
to control his own population and hence, to keep himself in power. As a 
result, we are complicit in how he used his military, trained and 
supplied by us.
  This is the kind of end use that concerns us. This is the kind of end 
use that compelled Dr. Arias and four other Nobel Peace Prize winners 
to come together 2 weeks ago in New York to declare their support for 
the code of conduct. Dr. Oscar Arias brought together Jorge Ramos-Horta 
of East Timor, Betty Williams of Northern Ireland, His Excellency the 
Dalai Lama of Tibet, and our own Elie Wiesel. Organizations that have 
won the Noble Peace Prize were also represented at this press 
conference: Amnesty International, the American Friends Service 
Committee, and the International Physicians for the Prevention of 
Nuclear War. Dr. Arias also had letters of support from Archbishop 
Desmond Tutu, Lech Walesa, and several others who were not able to 
attend. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] attended the press 
conference and was moved to a standing ovation after the remarks of 
Elie Wiesel.
  So, people who have been recognized in the international community 
for their dedication to peace have come together to say that this 
legislation is necessary. How will history record those who do not 
support this legislation?
  Member states of the European Union have already agreed to eight 
common criteria governing their own arms transfers. There is growing 
support for European Union-wide code of conduct among all of Europe's 
governments. Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Ireland are 
all leading this fight. But the boldest steps have been taken by Tony 
Blair's Britain. The New Labour Government has declared that centrality 
of human rights in its weapons sales is central to its decisions.
  So we are not alone, those of us who want the United States to stand 
on the opposite side of whatever dictator is there with ready cash for 
our guns and bullets. History teaches us that those weapons do not end 
up in a remote depot, they end up either intimidating or ``in'' people 
who want a better way of life and who dare to say so; who want freedom 
of expression and who dare to act; who want to live in a democracy as 
we do in this country and who dare to confront tyranny.
  We are not alone at home either, even in this administration. The 
recently-confirmed CIA director, George Tenet, on May 6, 1997, at a 
session of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the 
following:
  ``But the proliferation issue--and particularly the proliferation of 
ballistic missiles--and conventional weapons--we often ignore what the 
proliferation of conventional weapons means for U.S. forces--this issue 
is probably the greatest threat to U.S. forces and our men and women 
who deploy overseas than any other'' issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. McKinney was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot say it any better than our CIA 
director. The issue before the Congress today is a national security 
issue and a moral issue. Seldom are we given such a stark opportunity 
to be on the right side of both issues. The Arms Trade Code of Conduct 
is just such an opportunity.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and let us be known by 
the values we espouse and not the weapons of oppression that we supply.
  Mr. Chairman, U.S. weapons are currently being used in 39 of the 
world's current 42 ethnic and territorial conflicts.
  In the past 4 years, 85 percent of U.S. arms sales to the Third World 
have gone to undemocratic governments. The United States is responsible 
for 44 percent of all weapons deliveries in the world. The United 
States is unqualifiedly the arms dealer to the world, and the merchant 
for death to the world's dictators.
  Language requiring Congress to approve an arms sale to a dictator 
before it's been made has been modified to give the President an 
automatic waiver for national security purposes which Congress could 
block after extensive debate.
  A total of 453 American soldiers have been killed by armies 
strengthened by our own weapons and military training: Iraq, Saddam 
Hussein; Panama, Manuel Noriega; Somalia, Siad Barre, and Haiti, the 
Duvalier family.
  In fiscal year 1994 $7 billion of taxpayer money went to subsidize 
U.S. arms exports. In fiscal year 1995, that figure jumped to $7.6 
billion. After agricultural price supports, this represents the largest 
subsidy program for business in the entire Federal budget--Welfare for 
Weapons dealers.
  Our Government employs nearly 6,500 full time personnel to promote 
and service foreign arms sales by U.S. companies.
  U.S. subsidies for arms transfers are scheduled to increase. The 
international market for U.S. arms is estimated to be around $12 to $16 
billion per year. Therefore, our foreign customers aren't even paying 
for the weapons that they get. And more than half of U.S. weapons sales 
will be paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.
  In 1995, subsidies for arms exports accounted for over 50 percent of 
U.S. bilateral aid and more than 39 percent of total U.S. foreign aid. 
the emphasis on promoting weapons exports has come at the expense of 
programs designed to promote economic development and social welfare in 
these recipient nations. I'd much rather see us exporting tractors and 
seeds to dictators than guns and bullets.
  The American arms trade policy is killing our citizens, destroying 
worldwide democracy, and sending us spiraling down a path of economic 
ruin.
  President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, ``There can be no peace without 
law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of 
international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our 
friends.'' We must help to stop the arms trade boomerang. Over 300 
organizations support the No Arms to Dictators Code of Conduct. Among 
these organizations are: Vietnam Veterans Of America Foundation, Young 
Women's Christian Association--the YMCA--of America, and Bread of the 
World, and organizations of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Roman 
Catholic churches.
  I would like to thank the hundreds of volunteers who have put 
thousands of hours into making the U.S. Code of Conduct our law.
  Each of us must be concerned about what happens when we sell weapons 
to dictators.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Arms Trade Code of Conduct.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment, the Arms Transfer Code of Conduct, and it will be the first 
major reform of U.S. arms transfer policy in almost two decades.
  The code of conduct highlights guiding principles on human rights and 
democracy, which I believe are important to America's leadership role 
in the post-cold war era. This amendment would help stem the flow of 
U.S. weapons to countries that brutalize their own people.
  The code of conduct would make it clear that in the 21st century the 
United States of America intends not just to be a military and economic 
superpower but a moral superpower as well. It signals an end to 
business as usual for human rights violators.
  Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of all of our foreign military sales go to 
countries described by the State Department Country Reports on Human

[[Page H3621]]

Rights Practices as human rights violators with undemocratic 
governments.
  Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I made a trip to Croatia when it was 
under siege. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], and I visited a 
city that was literally surrounded by tanks and by military, a place 
called Vukovar. Vukovar was finally leveled, but while we were there we 
saw the bomb casings and we saw the 500-pound bombs that were dropped. 
And I will never forget taking pictures of these bomb casings that had 
U.S. markings all over them.
  I will never forget also talking to President Milosevic and trying to 
ask him to stop that carnage that was going on in Croatia. Later on it 
was rolled out to Bosnia. Much of their military capability came from 
the United States and then was used in a slaughterhouse fashion against 
people who were unarmed, women and children and men who were civilians.
  Mr. Chairman, the code of conduct is not a threat to U.S. national 
security. It contains a provision for an emergency waiver that would 
allow the President to transfer arms to a country that does not meet 
the code's criteria if U.S. national security really did require such a 
transfer, and it provides for an orderly process for Congress to 
consider other exceptions of nonemergency nature.
  Mr. Chairman, year after year in human rights hearings in the 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I now 
chair, we hear there is a disconnect in U.S. foreign policy between 
human rights and other considerations. Amnesty International put it 
best when it said about this administration's human rights policy, that 
``Human rights is an island off the mainland of U.S. foreign policy.'' 
This amendment is a step toward closing the circle, connecting things 
that ought to be connected.
  We must tell the world that freedom and democracy do matter. A good 
way to begin is by telling the world that the United States will not 
put deadly weapons into the hands of the enemies of freedom and 
democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Georgia, 
[Ms. McKinney], and the gentleman from California, [Mr. Rohrabacher], 
for their good work in crafting this amendment, and again I rise in 
very strong support of it.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  First of all, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Ms. McKinney] on fighting the leadership on this issue. This 
is not a left-wing issue. This is not a right-wing issue. I am very 
proud to be here today to stand with Cynthia McKinney and all the rest 
of my colleagues who support this moral code of conduct for the United 
States of America.
  In the post-cold war, the code of conduct is totally consistent with 
America's traditions and America's principles. In the long-term, it 
will not only serve the interest of human freedom, but it will also 
serve our national security and international stability requirements as 
well.
  During the cold war, compromises were necessary. These were 
compromises that we had to make with nondemocratic regimes because we 
were defending against even larger gangsters and thugs who wanted to 
destroy the United States of America and the free world. Today, we 
should stand for freedom and democracy and we should insist that this 
be a basis for any relation that we have with other countries and other 
governments.
  I served Ronald Reagan in the White House, who altered a fundamental 
tactic that was being used during the cold war. Before Ronald Reagan, 
the U.S. Government was always anti-Communist. But during Ronald 
Reagan's term of office, he changed our position to being profreedom. 
Today we should continue Ronald Reagan's successful profreedom policy 
by pulling back from shipping arms to dictatorships and making sure 
that we are on the side of the people rather than on the side of the 
oppressors in those countries where dictatorships exist. This will be 
in the long-term interest of the United States.
  This was, in this policy that Ronald Reagan articulated during the 
1980's, is what ended the cold war. It was not the fact that we had 
more missiles and more guns, although we did increase our weapons. It 
was the fact that America began to realistically and seriously talk 
about the promotion of democracy in the world. And in the end, the 
people who lived under tyranny hammered away at their walls and pulled 
those walls down and united themselves with the good and decent and 
democratic countries of the world.
  This amendment will in fact strengthen American foreign policy by 
empowering our diplomats to tell the military dictators that they 
should liberalize their policies, respect human rights, and join the 
family of democratic nations, or we will not be their friend and we 
will not provide them weapons to repress their own people.
  What does selling weapons to dictatorships really mean? It means that 
we will give weapons to people who thwart democratic elections, oppress 
their people, and then we will expect their people to pay us back. 
Well, is that not something to be proud of. That is something we can no 
longer accept in the United States of America. The cold war is over. It 
is time for us to have a new code of conduct that puts democracy and 
human rights ahead of a fast buck in selling weapons to the dictators 
around the world who repress people and violate the very principles 
which this country is supposed to be all about.
  What will the people of the world think about us if we adopt this 
kind of type of code of conduct? Well, they will know that we are on 
their side and not the side of the thugs and gangsters who hold power 
in too much of the world today.
  Our Founding Fathers believed that America would be and should be the 
beacon of liberty, of hope and justice to the whole world. That was our 
strength. That is what the Founding Fathers believed in. That is what 
America is supposed to be all about. It is not that we are the toughest 
guy in the world and have the most weapons, but we can count on the 
friendship of good and decent people all over the world. That is where 
America's strength is. That is the type of world we are trying to 
build. America's strength was not in that we were allied with 
dictatorships.
  Let me note that on this floor we have two pictures. We have George 
Washington over here and we have the Marquis D'Lafayette here. Why do 
we have a picture of a foreigner on the floor of Congress? This was a 
man who came to the United States before there was a United States. He 
stood for the principles of freedom and democracy and helped us win our 
battle against the most oppressive, imperialistic power of the day, 
Great Britain.
  We do not want to betray our Founding Fathers today and side with the 
oppressors of the world, the people who would use weapons to oppress 
their own people and stifle democratic institutions. If we do, if this 
is our policy now that the cold war is over, I can assure my colleagues 
that if we look at George Washington, the father of our country, and if 
we look very closely into the eyes of Lafayette, that we will see a 
tear because they will know that we are no longer the American people 
that they thought we would be.
  So I stand here today with people who only years ago were my 
adversaries on many issues.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Ewing]. The time of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I am very proud 
to stand with the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], very proud to stand with the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and people on both sides of the 
aisle, who are saying that through this code of conduct, this is the 
way America will be strong, this is the way we will live up to what our 
Founding Fathers wanted us to be, and it is a bipartisan issue, and 
together we are standing for the true and democratic principles that 
our Founding Fathers believed in.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H3622]]

  I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the new code of conduct for 
weapons sales, and I commend the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. 
McKinney] for exceptional leadership on this, as well as the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] for his, as well.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  (Mr. McGovern asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
rise in support of the McKinney amendment.
  Mr. Chairman I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlelady from Georgia [Ms. McKinney]. I want to thank her for the 
leadership she has taken on this very important issue to establish a 
code of conduct on U.S. arms transfers.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States is the world's undisputed political 
leader. We are also the undisputed leader in arms exports, shipping 
more arms abroad than all other countries combined. If we are to set a 
standard that establishes a pro-democracy, pro-human rights criteria 
for arms transfers, U.S. leadership is crucial. If the United States 
sets a standard, then our Government can challenge others to adhere to 
similar standards. When the United States has led the way in the past--
such as in the control of ballistic missiles--other nations soon 
followed.
  Simply put, Mr. Chairman, this code of conduct would declare, clearly 
and unambiguously, that the United States will no longer play the 
dangerous game of putting dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous 
governments. The United States will no longer fuel regional arms races. 
And the United States will no longer be associated with repression and 
international weapons proliferation.
  The code of conduct that would be established by approving this 
amendment is very simple. For a country to be eligible to receive U.S. 
weapons, they must meet four criteria. They must: First, be a 
democratic form of government; second, respect the basic human rights 
of their citizens; third, refrain from aggression against other 
nations; and fourth, fully participate in the U.N. Register of 
Conventional Arms. These criteria are all primary tenets of U.S. past 
and present foreign policy. The President may exempt a country from 
this criteria and the Congress would need to affirm that decision. Over 
100 national organizations in the United States support this code of 
conduct.
  A Commission of Nobel Peace Laureates, made up of 16 Nobel Peace 
Prize winners, have called for an international code of conduct on arms 
transfers. This commission includes such individuals as Oscar Arias, 
the former President of Costa Rica; the Dalai Lama; Jose Ramos-Horta 
from East Timor; Lech Walesa of Poland; Archbishop Desmond Tutu from 
South Africa; Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel; Mairead 
Maguire, the champion of peace in Northern Ireland; Rigoberta Menchu, 
Mayan Indian and human rights advocate from Guatemala; human rights and 
development champion, Adolofo Perez Esquivel of Argentina; Amnesty 
International; the American Friends Service Committee; the 
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War; and several 
others.

  Certainly the United States should be the leader on such an important 
international policy.
  Yet for some reason, the United States has abrogated its 
responsibility to be the world leader on this issue. Instead, of the 
countries that comprise 80 percent of the world's arms exports, only 
France and the United States remain uncommitted to a policy of denying 
arms to dictators and human rights abusers. When the Labour Party won 
the recent elections in Great Britain, they immediately declared that 
the ``Labour Government will not issue export licences for the sale of 
arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or 
international aggression, nor permit the sale of weapons in 
circumstances where this might intensify or prolong existing armed 
conflicts or where these weapons might be used to abuse human rights.'' 
They also pledged that the British Government will now work for the 
introduction of a European code of conduct to govern arms exports from 
all the European Union member states.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come for the United States to establish a 
code of conduct. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the 
McKinney amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I enter into the Record the Labour Government's policy 
on a responsible arms trade along with information on the positions of 
other European leaders on this issue.

          Labour's Policy Pledges for a Responsible Arms Trade


      Eight steps to stop the arms-to-Iraq scandal happening again

       1. A Labour Government will not issue export licences for 
     the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal 
     repression or international aggression, nor will we permit 
     the sale of weapons in circumstances where this might 
     intensify or prolong existing armed conflicts or where these 
     weapons might be used to abuse human rights.
       2. Labour will increase transparency and introduce more 
     stringent controls over the export of defence equipment in 
     line with recommendations of the Scott Report. We will 
     therefore publish an annual report on UK strategic exports. 
     The report will set out the state of export controls and 
     report on their application. It will set out the total value 
     of defence exports to each country, list by country of 
     destination the number of items delivered in each equipment 
     category and give details of all export licences granted and 
     refused. It will be expected that the Foreign, Defence and 
     Trade and Industry Select Committees will wish to examine the 
     annual report which in turn may pave the way for a 
     parliamentary debate.
       3. Labour will press for a European Register of Arms 
     Exports which will provide at a European level the 
     information that Britain will make available in the annual 
     report.
       4. Labour will work to strengthen the UN Conventional Arms 
     Register encouraging greater disclosure of information on 
     arms exports and arms transfers by all countries and 
     extending it to include other categories of weapons such as 
     small arms.
       5. Labour will work for the introduction of a European Code 
     of Conduct setting high common standards to govern arms 
     exports from all European Union member states.
       6. Labour will prevent British companies from 
     manufacturing, selling or procuring equipment, such as 
     electric shock batons, designed primarily for torture and we 
     will press for a global ban.
       7. Labour will ban the import, export, transfer and 
     manufacture of all forms of anti-personnel land mines and 
     their component parts and we will introduce an immediate 
     moratorium on their use. We will also press internationally 
     for more rapid progress in demining operations.
       8. The Scott Inquiry Report demonstrated the extent of 
     ``diversionary routes'' used by Iraq to acquire defence 
     equipment through third countries using false end-user 
     certificates. Labour will strengthen monitoring of the end-
     use of defence exports to prevent diversion to third 
     countries and to ensure that exported equipment is used only 
     on the conditions under which the export licence has been 
     granted. We will also seek cooperation to build a common 
     approach on effective monitoring of end-use within the 
     European Union and under the Wassenar Arrangement.
                                  ____

                                              European Parliament,


                            Member of the European Parliament,

                                                      May 9, 1997.
       Dear Representative: We understand that the House of 
     Representatives will be voting on the US Code of Conduct on 
     Arms Transfers which will be offered as an amendment to the 
     Fiscal Year 1998-99 Foreign Aid and State Department 
     Authorisation Bill (HR 1486). We look forward to Congress 
     taking a lead on this vitally important issue.
       There are important opportunities this year for the 
     European Union and the United States to coordinate the 
     establishment of similar controls on the arms trade. 
     Previously no country has been willing to take significant 
     unilateral steps towards control, fearing the loss of export 
     markets to competitors. It is, therefore, vital that the US 
     and the EU, as the world's leading suppliers, act together to 
     implement restraint.
       Within the European Union (EU), the new British government 
     is committed to establishing an EU Code of Conduct on the 
     arms trade setting high common standards of restraint for all 
     EU Member States. The German, Swedish, Dutch, Irish and 
     Belgian governments have also indicated their support for a 
     restrictive common EU arms export policy as advocated by an 
     EU Code. At European level the European Parliament has passed 
     three resolutions calling on Member States of the European 
     Union to develop a Code of Conduct on arms transfers.
       Lack of restraint in the past has led to so-called 
     boomerang effect situations. During the Gulf War allied 
     troops faced an Iraqi army supplied with weapons from both 
     the United States and Europe. Similarly, US troops in Panama, 
     Haiti, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia have faced hostile 
     forces armed with weapons and weapons technology supplied by 
     the United States.
       The establishment of parallel Codes of Conduct on both 
     sides of the Atlantic would counter the familiar argument 
     ``if we don't sell arms, someone else will''. The debate over 
     US policy on sales of high tech. weaponry to South America 
     highlights the urgent need for a co-ordinated approach. In 
     the past, concerns over the dangers posed by the introduction 
     of new levels of technology dictated US policy in the region. 
     Yet now, the Clinton Administration finds itself under 
     pressure to change its policy, for fear of ``losing'' sales 
     to Europe and other competitors. The establishment of similar 
     Codes in the US and EU removes this risk by creating 
     responsible common controls.
       A European Code of Conduct, similar to that which the House 
     of Representatives is

[[Page H3623]]

     soon to consider, would seek to expand, clarify and implement 
     criteria already agreed by EU Member States. These criteria 
     stress that weapons exports should take into account such 
     factors as the internal and regional stability of recipient 
     states, the human rights record of the recipient state, and 
     the status of democracy in the recipient state.
       The adoption of responsible Codes of Conduct in the EU and 
     US would also encourage progress towards the establishment of 
     an International Code of Conduct within the United Nations. 
     With this in mind a Commission of Nobel Laureates led by Dr 
     Oscar Arias, including Mikhail Gorbachev, Jose Ramos Horta, 
     The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu and The Dalai Lama is 
     currently encouraging the development of a such a Code.
       We write to encourage you to support the Code of Conduct on 
     Arms Transfers amendment. Due to its undisputed position as 
     the world's leading weapons exporter, success in the United 
     States will add significant weight to the move towards 
     efforts to establish a European wide Code of Conduct. We look 
     forward to Congress taking a leading role, and to a positive 
     outcome.
           Yours sincerely,
         Glenys Kinnock MEP (UK), First Vice-President, ACP/EU 
           Joint Assembly; Michel Rocard MEP (France), President, 
           Committee for Development Cooperation; Jan Willem 
           Bertens MEP (Netherlands), President, Sub-Committee on 
           Security and Disarmament; Wilfred Martens MEP 
           (Belgium), President of the European People's Party; 
           Bernie Malone MEP (Ireland), Vice President, Employment 
           and Social Affairs Committee; Pauline Green MEP (UK), 
           Leader of the Socialist Group; Dr Christoph Konrad MEP 
           (Germany), Member, Sub-Committee on Security and 
           Disarmament.
                                  ____


   Codes of Conduct on Arms Transfers: An Opportunity for the United 
            States and Its European Allies to Work Together

       The European Union (EU) and the United States together 
     account for 80 percent of the global arms trade. There is 
     clearly a need for a more responsible, principled approach to 
     arms exports on the part of the major suppliers. More 
     specifically, increased coordination on arms export policy 
     between the United States and the European Union would better 
     allow the allies to work in concert in their efforts to 
     promote democracy and international stability. A coordinated 
     export policy should emphasize regional and international 
     security considerations, as well as human rights and 
     development, and not allow such critical foreign policy 
     concerns to be overshadowed by short-sighted commercial 
     interests.
       The EU has already agreed to eight common criteria 
     governing arms exports, and there is significant progress on 
     expanding the criteria. Specifically, there is growing 
     support among European governments, including the UK and 
     Germany, for an EU-wide Code of Conduct on the arms trade 
     setting high common standards for weapons exports for all EU 
     countries. In addition:
       The new UK Government has pledged that it will ``work for 
     the introduction of an EU Code of Conduct setting high common 
     standards to govern arms exports from all European Union 
     Member States.''
       The German government ``favours the most binding 
     application possible of the fundamentals contained in the EU 
     Code of Conduct on the arms trade.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ The proposed EU Code of Conduct text drafted by the 
     British American Security Information Council, Saferworld, 
     and the World Development Movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    the need for multilateral action

       Focusing narrowly on maintaining market share, to date, no 
     country has been willing to take unilateral steps toward 
     control, fearing it will lose export markets to competitors. 
     Therefore, it is vital that as the world's leading suppliers, 
     the EU and the United States work together to implement 
     restraint. Building on common guidelines already agreed by 
     the EU and by the Organization on Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe (OSCE), the U.S. and EU should institute parallel 
     Codes of Conduct on arms transfers. Together, these Codes 
     would:
       Protect European and American military personnel. Lack of 
     restraint and common policy on arms exports places our armed 
     forces at risk in overseas operations. This weapons 
     ``boomerang'' endangered European and American troops who 
     faced weapons supplied by their own governments during 
     peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda. Allied 
     troops also faced an Iraqi army heavily armed as a result of 
     arms exports from the UK and France during the 1980s.
       Prevent undercutting. In response to concerns over 
     controversial weapons sales, weapons manufacturers often take 
     the focus away from the policy implications of these 
     transfers by arguing that ``if we don't sell, someone else 
     will.'' As a result, threats of lost market share have 
     overshadowed the real consequences of these transfers--even 
     in the most controversial weapons sales. Cooperation on 
     export policy will prevent either U.S. or European companies 
     from undercutting one another in pursuit of sales, and as a 
     result will allow governments to take a more measured look at 
     the foreign policy and human rights implications of proposed 
     transfers.
       Reduce discrepancies on human rights and regional 
     stability. The ``if we don't sell, someone else will'' 
     argument used by the defense industry also misses the point 
     that weapons sales are not just like any other commodity sold 
     on the international market. Governments deal with weapons 
     transfers differently precisely because the impact that 
     weapons transfers can have is so vast. As major suppliers, 
     the U.S. and EU have a special responsibility to ensure that 
     the perceived economic gain of a weapons transfers does not 
     take precedence over key foreign policy concerns, and that 
     weapons transfers do not contribute to instability and 
     global violence. While human rights and regional stability 
     considerations already play a role in decision-making on 
     arms sales on both sides of the Atlantic, there is 
     considerable divergence in how these standards are 
     translated into policy by different governments. For 
     example, in response to human rights violations, the US 
     has a ban on the export of armored personnel vehicles to 
     Indonesia, whereas the UK recently signed a deal for 100 
     such vehicles. Parallel US and EU Codes would encourage a 
     convergence of arms export control policies at the higher 
     levels of restraint, thus helping to iron out such 
     discrepancies.


                   progress on the eu code of conduct

       In the aftermath of the Gulf War, EU countries agreed eight 
     common criteria to govern arms exports. These were designed 
     to restrain arms sales to regions of tension, to countries 
     with poor human rights records and to military aggressors. 
     Currently, however, these criteria are vague and non-binding. 
     Despite the adoption of common guidelines, EU countries 
     continue to maintain divergent national arms export policies. 
     Export policies vis-a-vis Indonesia provide a particularly 
     striking example. The UK and Germany will export weapons to 
     Indonesia, though Germany has a presumption of denial on 
     light weapons transfers. Other EU countries' policies are 
     more restrictive. For example: Portugal has a self-imposed 
     arms embargo on Indonesia; Sweden will not approve any new 
     weapons contracts; and Italy temporarily suspended arms 
     exports to Indonesia in 1993 following UN criticism of the 
     Suharto regime's human rights record.
       This failure to implement common arms export controls has 
     enabled the EU Member States to defend arms exports to 
     countries in regions of tension or with poor human rights 
     records by arguing that ``if we don't sell arms, someone else 
     will.'' Subsequently, several European governments including 
     the UK and Germany support the adoption of an EU Code of 
     Conduct on the arms trade which would provide a common, 
     restrictive interpretation of the eight criteria. Several 
     other governments, including Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, 
     Belgium and Ireland have also given their qualified support 
     for the EU Code. Specifically, the Code initiative seeks to:
       Strengthen the eight criteria already agreed by providing a 
     restrictive interpretation of them and making them legally 
     binding on all EU countries.
       Increase accountability and transparency in the arms trade 
     by providing a tool by which parliamentarians can monitor 
     government practice against objective standards.


       codes of conduct gaining support across Europe and beyond

       Support for an EU Code is growing, with the United Kingdom, 
     Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium and Ireland 
     all lending their support to the initiative. Given the new 
     British government's declarations in support for an EU Code, 
     the initiative is likely to gain significant momentum, when 
     the UK holds the EU Presidency in the first half of 1998.
       A cross-party network of over 300 parliamentarians across 
     Europe have pledged their individual support for efforts 
     underway to establish Codes of Conduct in the EU and US. 
     Supporters include: Robin Cook, UK Foreign Secretary; 
     Margaret Beckett, UK Minister for Trade and Industry; 
     Reginald Moreels, Belgian Development Minister; Michel 
     Rocard, Member of the European Parliament and former French 
     Prime Minister; and Jan Willem Bertens, Member of the 
     European Parliament from the Netherlands and Chair of the 
     Committee on Security and Disarmament.
       An array of over 100 eminent figures have declared their 
     support for national, regional, and international codes of 
     conduct. Supporters include: Dr. Oscar Arias; Dr. Joseph 
     Rotblat; Rev. Desmond Tutu; Mikhail Gorbachev; the Dalai 
     Lama; Patricia Derian, former US Assistant Secretary of State 
     for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs; David Lange, 
     former Prime Minister of New Zealand; Barber Conable, former 
     President of the World Bank; and Nobel Peace Prize laureate 
     Mairead Maguire.
       Former President of Costa Rica Dr. Oscar Arias has convened 
     a commission of his fellow Nobel Peace laureates to serve as 
     a high-profile ``moral voice'' in support of Codes of 
     Conduct. The Commission of Nobel Laureates currently 
     includes: Dr. Oscar Arias, Mikhail Gorbachev, Archbishop 
     Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Lech Walesa, Joseph Rotblat, 
     Mairead Maguire, Betty Williams, Ellie Weisel, Jose Ramos 
     Horta, Adolpho Perez Esquivel, and Norman Borlaug, as well as 
     Amnesty International, and the American Friends Service 
     Committee. Dr. Arias and the Laureates Commission are now 
     actively promoting a model international code to governments, 
     UN officials, and the general public around the world.

  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H3624]]

  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  (Mr. LUTHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of the McKinney 
amendment. I commend the gentlewoman for her outstanding leadership on 
the code of conduct.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McKinney amendment that aims 
to curb the proliferation of conventional weapons around the world. The 
push to sell arms overseas began in the early 1990's after the end of 
the cold war when Pentagon procurement of conventional weapons 
significantly decreased, and today in some instances, the U.S 
Government is actually encouraging foreign government to purchase arms 
from U.S. defense contractors. This policy is unacceptable, and I call 
on the administration to join us in curbing these sales.
  This Code of Conduct simply requires congressional approval for arms 
transfers to foreign governments that are undemocratic, do not protect 
human rights, or are engaged in acts of armed aggression. This common 
sense amendment does not restrict arms sales to our strongest allies 
and makes exceptions in cases where national security is an issue.
  The United States is by far and away the world's premier arms dealer, 
and a high percent of U.S. arms sales to the developing world are to 
non-democratic countries where citizens have no right to choose their 
own government. These sales strengthen repressive and corrupt 
militaries and often these countries purchase weapons at the expense of 
much needed investments in education, health care and basic 
infrastructure needs. Sometimes these weapons are used against our 
country's own armed forces.
  The European Union, as the second largest arms dealer in the world, 
has already agreed to eight common criteria governing arms exports and 
is making significant progress in expanding the criteria. Therefore, 
the argument that ``if we don't sell arms, someone else will,'' cannot 
be used in opposition to this amendment. There should be a coordinated 
policy between the United States and Europe relating to arms sales, and 
the European Union is to be commended for taking the lead in addressing 
this critical issue.
  With the end of the cold war, the proliferation of conventional 
weapons around the globe has become an issue of international concern. 
I urge my fellow House Members to support this responsible amendment. I 
also commend Ms. McKinney from Georgia for her hard work on this issue.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McKinney 
amendment. We ought not to transfer American weapons to foreign 
governments that are undemocratic.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McKinney 
amendment and congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] on his efforts. This is an important step forward.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I sense that we are in the closing moments 
of this debate and I sense that there is clearly an emerging very 
strong bipartisan consensus in support of this amendment. So I would 
simply, in brief, congratulate and thank both my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], and my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] for their persisting in this effort to establish a code of 
conduct for this Nation on the transfer and the sale of military arms.
  In brief, if we continue, Mr. Chairman, to look upon weapons sales as 
one of our major exports, I believe that it is imperative that, as a 
great nation, we establish some basic ground rules on such sales. The 
beauty, the brilliance, and the eloquence of the amendment that is 
before us lies in the fact that it is both basic and simple. It simply 
asks that any country receiving U.S. arms meet four very 
straightforward conditions. I repeat them and underscore them for the 
purposes of emphasis:
  One, have a democratic form of government. Two, respect human rights. 
Three, be nonaggressive. And four, participate in the U.N. register of 
conventional arms. What could be more fundamental? What could be more 
basic? What could be more simple? Therein lies the eloquence, the 
brilliance, and the genius of this amendment.
  As a longtime supporter and one who has given all of my adult life to 
the cause of peace, I am pleased, proud, and honored to associate 
myself with the remarks of all of my colleagues who have spoken prior 
to me at this point. I would urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my 
colleague from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], and I wish to recount to my 
colleagues that during the committee deliberation she was gracious 
enough to accept an amendment of mine to her amendment, which enabled 
me to support it. It may be of importance to other colleagues who had 
the same reservation that I did to notice what this amendment does.
  The concern that I had is that occasionally American foreign policy 
requires the transfer of arms to nations that are not exactly exemplars 
of human rights, but oftentimes we nevertheless find it in our interest 
to transfer arms to such countries so that they might transfer arms to 
others.
  One can imagine, for example, if it is in the United States 
interests, and it might be, to support one side or other in a war, let 
us say an Iran-Iraq situation, but we nevertheless may not wish that to 
be known as a matter of public knowledge. We might transfer arms to 
Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia would then transfer them.
  In any event, whether that hypothetical is accurate or not, the 
thought occurred to me that we must be careful to leave the President 
sufficient freedom when a special circumstance arises that he could 
carry out the policy of the United States without having it spread 
across the front pages of the newspapers.
  And so the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] was kind enough to 
accept in the committee, and we all approved in the committee, the 
amendment which is now found in the committee print of the bill in 
clause (d)(2): ``The President, when in his determination it is not 
contrary to the national interest to do so, shall submit to the 
Congress at the earliest possible date reports containing 
determinations with respect to emergencies under subsection 
(c)(1)(b).''
  That sentence was added at my request. As a result, if I might just 
take a moment and parse this, when the President realizes that it is in 
the national interest not to do so, when it is in the national interest 
not to make this transfer public, he may, under the emergency 
circumstances presented in the bill, refrain from doing so.
  Certainly, it is in the interest of all of us in the normal case, and 
consistent with the sense of the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Ms. McKinney] that we do make public departures from our 
policy regarding States that fail to meet the standards that were 
outlined in the amendment. But, occasionally, this will not be the 
case.
  I note to all of my colleagues who might have had concerns about the 
amendment that as it has now been amended, as it now reads, they should 
not have such a concern. If it is in the national interest to do so, 
the President need not make an arms transfer a matter of public record.
  Accordingly, I was able to support the McKinney amendment. In the 
previous Congresses I was not able to do so. But I thought in this case 
my colleague was gracious, and, I believe, served the national 
interest, in accepting this amendment. So today, Mr. Chairman, I am 
able to support it and I urge my colleagues to support it and 
particularly those of my colleagues who might have expressed some 
concern about the amendment heretofore.
  Last, in one point of lightness to my good friend and colleague from 
California, Mr. Dellums, I believe the provision is that countries must 
be democratic and not Democrat. I could be in error about that, but I 
think that is how it should be.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, democratic 
is

[[Page H3625]]

what the gentleman attempted to say. We tend to get into this Democrat 
business and I do not like that. I would like to think we are talking 
substantively here, we are talking about democracy.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, might I reclaim my time by saying that 
the gentleman portrays the very best of that spirit and I was offering 
the correction only in the sense of humor.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I rise in strong support of my 
colleagues' amendment. I am pleased to have worked with them for many 
years now on the issue of demilitarization around the world. By 
promoting demilitarization we are able to help insure our own Nation's 
security interest.
  In 1995, I joined with Dr. Oscar Arias, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, 
to launch the Year 2000 Campaign. This campaign seeks to have 
industrialized nations condition their aid to promote demilitarization. 
I believe that we should condition U.S. foreign assistance on the size 
of a country's military budget.
  Last Thursday, Dr. Arias joined Betty Williams of Northern Ireland, 
Elie Wiessel the Holocaust survivor, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu of 
South Africa, and ten other winners of the Nobel Peace Prize to 
announce their support for the International Code of Conduct, which is 
based on the McKinney-Rohrabacher bill.
  I do not believe that the U.S. tax dollars should be used to help 
subsidize a country's military expenditures when that country does not 
have a democratically elected government or it spends more on weapons 
than on health care or nutrition or education.
  Non-democratic governments received 84 percent--nearly $50 billion--
of the $59.1 of American weapons that were transferred to developing 
countries through foreign aid or Pentagon administered corporate sales 
during the past 5 years.
  Developing countries received 67 percent of the $88.5 billion total 
of U.S. arms transfers during the past 5 years.
  Perhaps Indonesia provides the best example of what we ought not to 
be doing. The Indonesian Armed Forces have become a military mafia, 
receiving $1.6 billion every year in United States backed loans from 
the World Bank--equal to that country's entire reported military 
budget. Yet it is no secret that the Indonesian military under-reports 
its military expenditures by somewhere between 25 and 50 percent.
  In Indonesia we see a military economy, dictatorship, human-rights 
abuses, and the illegal occupation of East Timor. The army controls 
massive private and state-run corporations. They systematically shake-
down the wealthy ethnic Chinese business community. The military 
maintains a shadow government controlling life from the national level 
to the smallest village.
  This amendment would end United States military support for 
Indonesia. And, after last month's fraudulent elections in which only 
one party was allowed to campaign and opposition leaders were harassed 
and jailed, it is about time that the United States end support for 
Indonesia.
  The code of conduct required foreign governments to promote democracy 
through a free, open, and fair elections. It requires them to promote 
the rule of law. It requires them to respect human rights. It requires 
them not to be engaged in armed aggression that violates international 
law. And it requires them to fully participate in the U.N. Register of 
Conventional Arms.
  These are all ideals which all Americans share. Shouldn't our foreign 
aid policy reflect these ideals?
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has a great deal of power. We also 
have a great deal of responsibility. We should help foster democracy 
and freedom in the world. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this 
amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McKinney-Rohrabacher 
amendment to establish an arms sales code of conduct.
  After more than 30 years of the cold war with record high peacetime 
defense budgets and a tremendous amount of global arms exports, the 
United States has left the world armed to the teeth with millions of 
tons of bombs, jets, submarines, and artillery. The world is awash in 
weapons.
  These excessive exports have fueled armed conflicts throughout the 
world, destabilized regions, and have forced governments of developing 
nations to spend more money on arms and less money on the vital needs 
of their people.
  In 1994 alone the United States sold or gave $13 billion of weapons 
to almost 100 countries, many of which, according to the State 
Department's Country Reports on Human Rights, are run by abusive or 
non-democratic regimes. In Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti, United 
States Forces were threatened by troops assisted by United States 
training, weapons, or military technology.
  We must put an end to this deadly cycle, and this amendment would do 
just that by giving Congress a real role in shaping U.S. arms export 
policy. The bill does not impose an inflexible ban, but instead 
provides for a responsible review policy, whereby Congress must 
carefully consider arms sales to abusive regimes. If congress agrees 
with the President that it is in our national interest to continue to 
sell weapons to a particular country, then sales would be permitted. 
This is not a ban on all arms exports; it is a reasonable step that we 
can take now to begin to curb weapons sales to dangerous regimes.
  As the leading arms exporter, the United States has the opportunity 
and the responsibility to accept certain limitations on the sale of 
American arms. If we act boldly on this issue, I am confident the world 
will follow. When the United States led the way by refusing to export 
anti-personnel landmines, the rest of the world followed and enacted 
bans of their own. Efforts are already underway to create an 
international code of conduct on conventional arms transfers, and 
voting for this amendment will further strengthen those efforts.
  I want to commend Representatives McKinney and Rohrabacher for 
offering this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. I support the measure because we cannot, in good conscience, 
continue to turn a blind eye to the undemocratic and often deplorable 
practices of a few rogue nations.
   The code of conduct legislation does more than just recognize the 
atrocities being committed by these countries. It directs the President 
to certify countries interested in purchasing weapons from the United 
States based on their ability to institute democratic practices. The 
code would prohibit sales of arms to nations partaking in human rights 
violations and acts of aggression.
  Former Senator Hatfield, one of the original sponsors of code of 
conduct legislation in Congress, stated that last year that ``it is 
time for Congress to assume a greater responsibility for our arms 
export policies.'' Those words still ring true. This week, we have 
voted on amendments to condemn various countries from involvement in 
terrorism, for brutal acts of religious or ethnic persecution, and to 
punish countries for acts of armed aggression. Yet, some Members would 
vote to allow continued sales of arms to these same countries which 
have raised our ire. It's time to stop talking about the horrific acts 
of these rogue nations and start doing something to curb the ability of 
those nations to acquire the tools to conduct their atrocities.
  Furthermore, how can we continue to sell arms to nations that may use 
those weapons against American soldiers? This practice puts our sons 
and daughters in further danger whenever our troops are deployed. Our 
soldiers have already faced forces armed with United States produced 
weapons in recent troop deployments in Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and 
Panama. This is unacceptable.
  Let's finally bring some accountability to the process of selling 
arms on the international market. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
implementing a code of conduct for U.S. arms transfers.
  The spread of weapons is one of the most serious threats to our 
Nation's security today. Unfortunately, our own country has contributed 
to this proliferation. Tens of billions of dollars of weapons are sold 
by U.S. arms manufacturers to countries around the world, and today the 
United States is a leading supplier of military equipment to foreign 
nations.
  Many of these weapons sales are made to governments that are hostile 
to the United States or to their own people. There is nothing to 
prevent many of these countries from using American weaponry to 
suppress democracy or violate human rights within their borders. And 
let us not forget United States military engagements in Iraq, Panama, 
and elsewhere where our own troops have been threatened by opposing 
armies armed with American-made weapons. We should not stand for a 
policy that sacrifices the lives of our own soldiers for the sake of 
making a buck.
  Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has been a tireless advocate for 
creating a code of conduct for arms manufacturers which would end this 
senseless and dangerous practice. The code of conduct would not outlaw 
arms sales, but require that arms exports be made only to those nations 
that are democratic and respect the human rights of their own people. 
Weapons sales to any other countries would require approval by the 
President and Congress.
  Let us stop putting the lives of innocent people at risk. I urge my 
colleagues to support creating a code of conduct for U.S. arms sales.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express support for the amendment 
offered by my

[[Page H3626]]

good friend from Georgia, Ms. McKinney. This fine amendment prohibits 
arms transfers to foreign governments that are undemocratic, do not 
protect human rights, or are engaged in acts of aggression.
  We must all recognize that as the leader of the free world, our 
country must set the standard in the effort to prevent the sale of arms 
to dictators. Unfortunately, our Government still provides its materiel 
to some of the world's most autocratic governments. In fact, in several 
recent conflicts where large numbers of American troops have served, 
including Somalia and Panama, we have opposed soldiers armed with 
weapons supplied by the United States. It's time we learned from these 
mistakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Georgia for her 
leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
code of conduct amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Rohrabacher amendment to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act, which would deny United States foreign assistance to Russia to 
prevent the transfer of missile technology to China and Iran.
  While I am a strong supporter of nonproliferation measures, and 
measures to increase stability in the Asia-Pacific region, I firmly 
believe this amendment would have exactly the opposite effect of what 
it intends: it would, in fact, encourage the illegal transfer of 
technology by Russia.
  The primary reason for the transfer of such technology in cash-
strapped Russia is to obtain hard currency. To deny United States aid 
would make Russia's dire economic circumstances worse. The inevitable 
response by desperate business interests will be to seek even more 
illicit trade.
  We are all aware of allegations that have recently surfaced regarding 
Russian technological assistance to rogue nations that would enable 
them to build advanced missiles capable of targeting our friends and 
allies.
  These allegations must be taken seriously, by the administration and 
Congress. I have written to and called our National Security Adviser, 
Sandy Berger, on several occasions and he has arranged several 
excellent briefings for Members. He has also assured me that President 
Clinton took up these issues with President Yeltsin at the May 27 Paris 
summit, follow-up continues, and further efforts will be made at the 
highest levels later this summer.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is well intended but misses the mark. We 
must provide appropriate aid to Russia to help it monitor 
proliferation, and to rebuild its economy so the impulse for illicit 
proliferation is reduced.
  In this case, less is less. Less aid means less control and less 
security. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments?


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, it is not, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       At the end of the bill add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                  DIVISION C--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 2001. ASSISTANCE FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

       None of the funds made available to carry out chapter 11 of 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2295 
     et seq.) for fiscal years, 1998 and 1999 may be made 
     available for the Russian Federation if the Russian 
     Federation, on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, transfers an SS-N-22 missile system to the People's 
     Republic of China.

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the order of House 
of June 5, 1997, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and a 
Member opposed, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Wexler] each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Again I would like to offer my congratulations to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] for the great job that she did 
in providing this code of conduct legislation. Again, I was very proud 
to stand by her and work with her in that effort.
  On this particular amendment, it has something to do with a different 
part of the world in terms of setting standards just for the United 
States. This particular amendment that I am offering would deny all $95 
million in U.S. foreign assistance funding to Russia during fiscal 
years 1998 and 1999 if the Russian Federation transfers supersonic SSN-
22 missiles to China.
  This advanced cruise missile system endangers the lives of countless 
American service men and women and could alter the balance of power in 
key strategic areas such as the Straits of Taiwan and the Persian Gulf. 
This sunburn missile was created by the Russians to attack American 
ships, especially American ships that are equipped with advanced Aegis 
sea and air radar battle management systems. The SSN-22, a supersonic 
sea skimmer missile, can be fired by a ship or from land and it is 
extremely difficult to defend against. A long-range version of that 
missile can damage an aircraft carrier.
  In December 1996 a secret weapon sale agreement was completed in 
Moscow during the state visit of the Chinese premier. The Chinese began 
seeking to acquire this missile in direct response to the deployment of 
U.S. warships in the Straits of Taiwan during China's attempt to 
militarily intimidate Taiwan during its national elections.
  The immediate impact of the transfer of SSN-22 missiles will give the 
Chinese significant offensive advantages over regional navies and 
further their ambitions in the South China Sea and other areas of the 
Pacific. A serious long-term effect is the Chinese ability to reverse 
engineer the SSN-22 technology, thus to develop lethal parity with the 
United States Navy.
  Another immediate grave threat is the potential transfer of SSN-22's 
from China to Iran. China has become the primary arms source for the 
Iranians, to include the shipments of ballistic missiles and chemical 
weapons technologies. An SSN-22 mounted on a mobile land platform would 
be extremely difficult to defend against and would threaten any of the 
ships in the Straits of Hormuz.
  The Government of Russia has gone beyond the threshold of 
acceptability in its conduct by offering to sell this deadly missile to 
China. My amendment will send a strong message that in return for the 
generosity shown by American taxpayers to assist Russia during this 
time of need, the Russian Government must respect the national security 
of the United States and the lives of our young men and women in 
uniform.
  Let me be very clear on this, Mr. Chairman. This missile was designed 
by Russia during the cold war to kill American sailors and American 
airmen. This missile, if it is transferred to the Chinese, will lead at 
least to the situation where our people are being put in jeopardy. If 
we are giving $95 million in aid to Russia while they are sending that 
type of weapons system to a potential enemy, we are making a mistake. 
Shame on us. Not shame on them.
  My amendment simply says, unless they cease and desist from the 
transfer of this deadly weapons system to the Chinese, they have gone 
over the threshold of acceptability and we will be cutting off all of 
our aid to the former Soviet Union, to Russia.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the Rohrabacher amendment. 
The gentleman is someone I admire on the committee and has done much 
good. I will note that when we considered this amendment in committee, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] offered a perfecting amendment 
allowing the President to waive this restriction if he found it to be 
in the national security interest of our Nation.
  U.S. assistance programs in Russia are key to United States security. 
We won the cold war and now it is time to lock in our win to make 
certain Russia

[[Page H3627]]

never is such a major threat to the United States.
  If the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would include a 
Hyde national security waiver, I would not oppose this amendment. 
However, without a Hyde security waiver, I reluctantly have to oppose 
the amendment. I am concerned about weapons to China, but this hurts 
our key interests in Russia without ensuring the end of missile 
transfers.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is certainly meritorious. 
Nobody wants Russia to transfer antiship cruise missiles to China. That 
is for certain. But this amendment would also cut off all assistance to 
Russia if those arms transfers in fact take place. There is always a 
question of balance. We provide assistance to Russia because it is in 
the national security interest of the United States to promote economic 
reform, promote democracy and help prevent future Chernobyls.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], as the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] stated earlier, made these points eloquently during 
our committee markup of the bill. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] offered a waiver to the Rohrabacher amendment to allow the 
President to make a judgment whether continuing assistance to Russia 
was in the national security interest of the United States. The Hyde 
position prevailed. The committee bill included an amendment with the 
waiver.
  There is no such waiver in this amendment before us now. The 
amendment gives the President absolutely no flexibility and raises one 
issue above every other priority in United States.-Russian 
relationships. The amendment distorts United States policy toward 
Russia, and in fact what it is saying is there would be absolutely no 
circumstance in which there would be a valid security interest of the 
United States to provide aid for Russia once the transfer of such an 
antiship cruise missile was made. I do not believe that that is a 
plausible policy for the United States. This is a veto item for the 
President, and I strongly urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am going to have to reject the idea of 
putting a waiver into this bill. The bottom line is when we put waivers 
into these bills, what we do is we are really making them into a sense-
of-the-Congress resolution and not changing a darned thing. If we are 
here to do anything, let us change some things. Let us get down to some 
real policy decisions and assert the fact that the Congress of the 
United States should be here protecting the interests of the people of 
the United States. The McKinney amendment had some real teeth in it and 
meant something about human rights and democracy. This amendment has 
something to do really with the security interest of the United States. 
What we are saying is that there is a threshold over which the Russians 
have passed, over that threshold that we can no longer tolerate and 
continue to give them millions upon millions, $95 million in aid to the 
Russians. It is unacceptable if we are going to give them that kind of 
aid for them to transfer weapons that are aimed at murdering, at 
killing American soldiers and American sailors.
  This amendment would basically prevent us from subsidizing people who 
are then turning around and giving this horrible weapons system to 
potential enemies of the United States and perhaps costing the lives of 
American sailors.
  Please vote for the Rohrabacher amendment for the long-term interests 
of peace and of the interests of the Russians as well.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher] will be postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. No, it is not, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio:
       At the appropriate place add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly);

     SEC.   . STATEMENT CONCERNING CONFLICT IN EAST TIMOR.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975 and has since 
     systematically oppressed the people of East Timor.
       (2) Since 1975 one-third of the population of East Timor is 
     estimated to have perished of starvation, war, and terror.
       (3) Indomesia's invasion was condemned by the United 
     Nations, as was its subsequent occupation of East Timor.
       (4) On November 12, 1991, Indonesian troops opened fire on 
     thousands of peaceful mourners and demonstrators at the Santa 
     Cruz cemetery in Dili, the capital of East Timor, killing 
     hundreds and wounding hundreds.
       (5) Bishop Carlos Felipe Ximenes Bolo has been the 
     preeminent representative of the people of East Timor, and 
     has at great risk to his own life fought for the human and 
     civil rights of the people of East Timor, while also being a 
     steadfast advocate for nonviolence and dialogue between the 
     people of East Timor and the Indonesian authorities.
       (b) Declaration of Policy.--The Congress affirms its 
     support for a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in 
     East Timor.

  Mr. HALL of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 
5, 1997, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a sense of Congress. It is relative to making a 
statement concerning the conflict in East Timor. Basically what I am 
saying is the Congress affirms its support for a just and peaceful 
solution to the conflict in East Timor.
  What happened in 1975 when the country of Portugal pulled out of East 
Timor, the Indonesian Government came into this small island country 
and systematically oppressed the people of East Timor to the point 
where they used to have 700,000 people in their population and a third 
of them, as estimated, have perished as a result of starvation, war and 
terror.
  Indonesia's invasion was condemned by the United Nations, as was its 
subsequent occupation of East Timor. On November 12, 1991, Indonesian 
troops opened fire on thousands of peaceful mourners and demonstrators 
at Santa Cruz Cemetery in Dili, the capital of East Timor, killing and 
wounding hundreds.
  Bishop Carlos Belo has been the preeminent representative of the 
people of East Timor and has at great risk to his own life fought for 
the human and civil rights of the people of East Timor while also being 
a steadfast advocate for nonviolence and dialog between the people of 
East Timor and the Indonesian authorities.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I were fortunate enough to 
nominate Bishop Belo for the Nobel Peace Prize. We were both in Norway 
this past November, and we were overjoyed and excited that East Timor 
got the notoriety that they deserve and the reputation that they 
deserve. The oppression that has gone on in that country has just been 
unbelievable over the years.
  The language that I have in my resolution pretty much parallels what 
was said about Bishop Belo as he received the Nobel Peace Prize. This 
is a sense of Congress. It is my understanding that it has support of 
both sides. I would urge Members to support it.

[[Page H3628]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to claim the 5 minutes in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall] for this amendment. I think once again it underscores 
this body's concern about the actions of the Indonesian Government with 
respect to the people of East Timor, the horrendous brutality that has 
taken place there ever since Indonesia invaded and occupied the small 
island of East Timor.
  I think once again the gentleman is communicating the sentiment of 
this Congress with respect to that troubled part of the world and the 
fact that we are in solidarity with the Nobel Peace Prize winners, 
Bishop Belo from East Timor and Jose Ramos Horta, both of whom have 
received the Nobel Peace Prize for their advocacy on behalf of those 
troubled people in East Timor who have been struggling for human 
rights, and those human rights have been systematically neglected and 
abused by the Indonesian Government. I think the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] should be commended for his longstanding commitment to this.

                              {time}  1815

  I just came to this Congress 3 years ago, Mr. Chairman, and I am 
joining the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] in his longstanding advocacy 
for the people of East Timor. Having visited there myself this past 
December, I was able to see firsthand what was going on on the ground, 
speak to the people there, and learn about the atrocities that have 
been contained within this amendment. Mr. Hall points out that on 
November 12, 1991, Indonesian troops opened fire on thousands of 
peaceful mourners and demonstrators at the Santa Cruz cemetery. I think 
the world watched in horror as film footage was smuggled out of 
Indonesia that depicted this horrible massacre at Santa Cruz where the 
Indonesian soldiers opened fire on the crowd there that was assembled, 
and this told the truth of what was happening in East Timor.
  I salute Mr. Hall for once again reminding this Congress and 
Indonesia that we are not going to sit idly by and watch these human 
rights abuses continue, and that is why I rise in support of Mr. Hall's 
amendment to this bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for his very important not only speech, but 
what he has done relative to this whole issue of East Timor. He is one 
of the few people, along with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], 
who has actually been to East Timor and seen with his own eyes the 
suffering and the oppression that is going on. He has been a real 
leader, a tremendous partner in this issue, and he has really made a 
difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Wexler].
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, and I 
commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] for his leadership in 
bringing it to our attention.
  The situation in East Timor has been a festering sore for Indonesia, 
for United States-Indonesian relations and, most importantly, for the 
people of East Timor for more than two decades. This amendment puts the 
House of Representatives on record as supporting a just and peaceful 
solution to the conflict in East Timor. It deserves our support, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically 
listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?
  Mr. SANDERS. No, I do not think it is, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: After title XVII insert the 
     following new title:

 TITLE XVIII--SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE IMPRISONMENT OF NGAWANG 
                           CHOEPHEL IN CHINA

     SEC. 1801. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE IMPRISONMENT OF 
                   NGAWANG CHOEPHEL IN CHINA

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Chinese Government sentenced Ngawang Choephel to an 
     18-year prison term plus 4 years subsequent deprivation of 
     his political rights on December 26, 1996, following a secret 
     trial.
       (2) Mr. Choephel is a Tibetan national whose family fled 
     Chinese oppression to live in exile in India in 1968.
       (3) Mr. Choephel studied ethnomusicology at Middlebury 
     College in Vermont as a Fulbright Scholar, and at the Tibetan 
     Institute of Performing Arts in Dharamsala, India.
       (4) Mr. Choephel returned to Tibet in July 1995 to prepare 
     a documentary film about traditional Tibetan performing arts.
       (5) Mr. Choephel was detained in August 1995 by the Chinese 
     authorities and held incommunicado for over a year before the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China admitted to 
     holding him, and finally charged him with espionage in 
     October 1996.
       (6) There is no evidence that Mr. Choephel's activities in 
     Tibet involved anything other than purely academic research.
       (7) The Government of the People's Republic of China denies 
     Tibetans their fundamental human rights, as reported in the 
     State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 
     and by human rights organizations, including Amnesty 
     International and Human Rights Watch, Asia.
       (8) The Government of the People's Republic of China is 
     responsible for the destruction of much of Tibetan 
     civilization since its invasion of Tibet in 1949.
       (9) The arrest of a Tibetan scholar such as Mr. Choephel, 
     who worked to preserve Tibetan culture, reflects the 
     systematic attempt by the Government of the People's Republic 
     of China to repress cultural expression in Tibet.
       (10) The Government of the People's Republic of China, 
     through direct and indirect incentives, has established 
     discriminatory development programs which have resulted in an 
     overwhelming flow of Chinese immigrants into Tibet, including 
     those areas incorporated into the Chinese provinces of 
     Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu, and Quinghai, and have excluded 
     Tibetans from participation in important policy decisions, 
     which further threatens traditional Tibetan life.
       (11) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     withholds meaningful participation in the governance of Tibet 
     from Tibetans and has failed to abide by its own 
     constitutional guarantee of autonomy for Tibetans.
       (12) The Dalai Lama of Tibet has stated his willingness to 
     enter into negotiations with the Chinese and has repeatedly 
     accepted the framework Deng Xiaoping proposed for such 
     negotiations in 1979.
       (13) The Chinese have displayed provocative disregard for 
     the concerns of the United States by arresting and sentencing 
     prominent dissidents in close proximity to visits to China by 
     senior United States Government officials.
       (14) The United States Government policy seeks to foster 
     negotiations between the Government of the People's Republic 
     of China and the Dalai Lama, and presses China to respect 
     Tibet's unique religious, linguistic, and cultural 
     traditions.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) Ngawang Choephel and other prisoners of conscience in 
     Tibet, as well as in China, should be released immediately 
     and unconditionally;
       (2) to underscore the gravity of this matter, in all 
     appropriate official meetings with representatives of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China, United States 
     officials should request Mr. Choephel's immediate and 
     unconditional release;
       (3) the United States Government should sponsor and promote 
     a resolution at future meetings of the United Nations 
     Commission on Human Rights and other appropriate 
     international fora regarding China and Tibet which 
     specifically addresses political prisoners and negotiations 
     with the Dalai Lama, until those situations in China and 
     Tibet improve substantially;
       (4) the United States Department of State should advise 
     American citizens that Tibet is not currently a safe 
     destination for American travelers;
       (5) an exchange program should be established in honor of 
     Ngawang Choephel, involving students of the Tibetan Institute 
     of Performing Arts and appropriate educational institutions 
     in the United States; and
       (6) the United States Government should seek access for 
     internationally recognized human rights groups to monitor 
     human rights in Tibet.

  Mr. SANDERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.

[[Page H3629]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 
5, 1997, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and a Member opposed 
will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just speak very briefly about Ngawang Choephel.
  Mr. Choephel is a Tibetan man who studied ethnomusicology at 
Middlebury College at Middlebury, VT, on a Fulbright scholarship in 
1993, and I should tell my colleagues that when he was at Middlebury 
College he made a whole lot of friends, and a lot of folks in 
Middlebury and throughout the State of Vermont are very concerned about 
his fate. In the summer of 1995 he returned to Tibet to make a 
nonpolitical documentary film about traditional Tibetan music and dance 
because he was concerned that his cultural heritage was being 
forgotten. In the fall of 1995 he was arrested and held incommunicado 
in a Chinese prison for 1 year until he was accused of espionage last 
October and sentenced last December.
  Mr. Chairman, Ngawang Choephel's only crime was to film dancers in 
Tibet, but the Chinese Government as part of its long-term campaign to 
stomp out all remnants of Tibetan cultural identity has accused Mr. 
Choephel of espionage and sentenced him to 18 years in prison for 
filming dance in Tibet, and followed by 7 years deprivation of 
political rights. This is the most severe sentence given a Tibetan in 
over 7 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the State Department agrees that there is no known 
evidence Mr. Choephel committed any crime. This is simply one more 
example of an outrageous human rights abuse in China. According to the 
State Department's human rights country report on China and Tibet, the 
repression there is so severe that there are currently no active 
dissidents in all of China; they are all in prison.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment represents the response of the Congress to 
the situation. It is based on language which passed the Senate without 
dissent and which I introduced as House Concurrent Resolution 44 
earlier this spring with the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] and the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  This resolution simply states that Ngawang Choephel and other 
prisoners of conscience in Tibet and China should be released 
immediately, but the United States should seek his release; that we 
should promote access to Tibet for international human rights groups; 
that the State Department should advise Americans that Tibet is not a 
safe destination for American travelers; and that we should continue to 
promote a resolution at future meetings of the UN Commission on Human 
Rights addressing human rights in China and Tibet until the situation 
improves substantially.
  This is a nonpartisan noncontroversial amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Vermont. All the world has come to expect 
and is not surprised when the rulers of China mercilessly persecute 
their own citizens. But the case of Mr. Choephel is different and could 
set a dangerous new trend if left unchecked by civilized nations.
  Mr. Choephel is a refugee, was carried across the Tibetan Himalayas 
by his parents when he was only 2 years old, when they fled the 
Communist Chinese invasion of their country. He has been living in 
India since then, gone to study in the United States under a Fulbright 
Exchange Program established by the Congress to assist Tibetans and His 
Holiness, the Dalai Lama, to help protect Tibet's unique cultural 
heritage. He had gone back to Tibet to make a documentary film, to make 
a film about traditional Tibetan music and dance.
  Mr. Choephel's arrest and imprisonment is a refugee nightmare. To 
return to his own country and to be arbitrarily imprisoned and cut off 
from the outside world is cruel and an abomination. His imprisonment 
sends democracies around the world the same type of message that the 
Chinese Government seeks when it charges parents for the price of a 
bullet used to execute their own son or daughter or when it appoints a 
religious leader that he knows the faithful would never follow. The 
rulers of Beijing apparently want the world to know that we ought to 
think twice when we assist those who struggle under their oppression.
  I do not believe we should, and accordingly I support the gentleman's 
amendment, and I urge our colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Vermont on his amendment. I have spoken on this issue myself. There is 
no reason for this gentleman to be detained in any fashion that I can 
see, and I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for his initiative, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it unanimously.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders] has expired.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take 5 
minutes, even though I am not in opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders] for drawing attention to this human rights case. Mr. Choephel 
should be released immediately. That is the bottom line. I and others, 
I hope, will support the amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Vermont if 
he has any more speakers?
  Mr. SANDERS. I believe we do not, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to congratulate my 
colleague from Vermont for offering this amendment.
  As my colleagues know, it is how we react not only to statistics of 
tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people and even millions 
of people in China who are suffering the brutality of tyranny and 
oppression in that country but also how we treat the case of one 
individual, as we are today, that makes us different as Americans than 
other countries. We care about the individual, we care about people, 
and this message is going to be delivered by this amendment.
  I am very proud to stand with my colleague on this, and I hope that 
the people at home who are listening to this debate on the foreign 
policy and foreign aid amendments and such will understand we have got 
some decisions to make about China. We have got to talk as a country 
about how we are going to confront this growing threat, the clouds that 
are massing just over the horizon.
  The fact is that China and the United States could be at war within 
10 years unless we do what is right, and what is right is not to cower. 
What will lead to a more peaceful world is not to gloss over human 
rights abuses, but instead to stand forward and step forward with a 
solid policy of freedom and human rights and let the people of China 
know that we are on their side and that way encourage the development 
of democratic institutions, rather than continually backing down, 
making loud noises about human rights and then backing down.
  I believe some of our businessmen, if the entire country of Tibet was 
incinerated by the Chinese, if the Muslims in the western provinces 
were all slaughtered, if all the Christians were

[[Page H3630]]

tortured in China, they would still be saying we must maintain the same 
policy with China because we have to have some influence on them.
  We need to discuss this as a people, as a free people. We need to 
talk about the moral implications and decisions we are making, and in 
my opinion morality and practicality go together, and in the long run 
if we gloss over these moral issues and forget the individuals that are 
being tyrannized and going through this oppression, it will not work to 
the best interests of the United States of America.
  So I am very grateful today to my colleague from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders] talking about an individual who deserves our attention, and 
let us pray that he is freed and the people of China, all of the people 
of China, are freed from their oppression.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement. 
I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       Sec.   . Designation of Romania as Eligible for Assistance 
     Under NATO Participation Act of 1994.--
       (1) Sense of the congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (A) Romania has made tremendous progress toward meeting the 
     criteria for accession into the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) by establishing a mature and functioning 
     democracy, a free market economy, civilian control of the 
     armed forces, respect for the rule of law, respect for human 
     rights and civil liberties, and by implementing a strong 
     economic reform;
       (B) Romania has further exhibited its strong commitment to 
     contribute to the stability, reconciliation, and cooperation 
     among the nations of the region by the very significant 
     signing of the basic political bilateral Treaty with Hungary 
     and recent initialing of a similar document with Ukraine;
       (C) Romania has already demonstrated its willingness and 
     ability to contribute as a future NATO ally to strengthening 
     the military capabilities and strategic cohesiveness of the 
     Alliance by joining, first among Central and Eastern European 
     countries, the Partnership for Peace Program and by actively 
     participating alongside NATO allies in Bosnia, Angola, 
     Somalia, and Albania;
       (D) due to its size, geo-strategic location, economic and 
     military potential, and huge popular support for NATO 
     integration, Romania is of immense and key strategic 
     importance to European stability; and
       (E) Romania qualifies under section 203 of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994 to receive assistance in making the 
     transition to a full NATO membership and should be invited to 
     start accession negotiations at the earliest stage.
       (2) Designation.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall, pursuant to 
     section 203(d)(2) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994, 
     designate Romania as eligible to receive assistance under the 
     program established under section 203(a) of such Act.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 
5, 1997, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I will be exceedingly brief.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment.
  Romania is a functioning democracy, and just back in November 1996 we 
saw where they had the free and fair Presidential elections held for 
the third time. We also note with great distinction that Romania has 
had a free market economy, that its foreign investment is protected by 
Romanian legislation, that Romania has good relations with its 
neighbors; further, that Romania has effective control over its 
military under civilian control. Romania further has a high level of 
cooperation with NATO, and more important than that point, it has a 
capacity to deal with security threats in fighting against organized 
crime, terrorism and drug traffic.
  It is for these reasons that I ask the body to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, for yielding this time to me, and I rise 
in very strong support of the Fox amendment.
  Romania's quest for NATO membership was given a significant boost 
when the democratic opposition, led by Emil Constantinescu, was elected 
to office last November.

                              {time}  1830

  The peaceful transfer of power following those internationally 
sanctioned elections was a genuine turning point for that country, a 
political development unimaginable not very long ago.
  At home, the Romanian Government recently announced a bold package of 
economic reforms designed to check inflation, reduce the budget 
deficit, and accelerate privatization. If implemented, these important 
changes could attract much-needed foreign investment.
  An anti-corruption campaign has also been initiated. A series of 
military reforms were adopted in December to ensure civilian democratic 
control and modernization of Romania's armed forces. While each of 
these initiatives will require months to realize, the new Romanian 
leadership has begun to show its courage in taking these important 
steps.
  The first Central European country to join the Partnership for Peace 
and one of the most active participants, Romania has taken concrete 
steps to advance its candidacy for possible NATO membership. Of a 
particularly important note is the historic Treaty of Understanding, 
Cooperation and Good Neighborliness concluded with Hungary last 
September. Romanian troops played an active role in the NATO-led 
Operation Joint Endeavor, part of IFOR in Bosnia, and has continued to 
contribute to peacekeeping efforts through its participation in 
Operation Joint Guard.
  These developments underscore the positive role Romania can play in 
fostering stability in NATO's southern flank. Romania's desire to join 
NATO was clear through its active participation with its Partnership 
for Peace as well as the ongoing intensified dialogue with the Alliance 
since April of 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank my good friend for offering this 
amendment. It puts us squarely in line.
  Let me just say finally as a footnote, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf] and I and others, going back to the 1980's, led the effort 
to remove the MFN during the Ceausescu regime, they have absolutely 
turned the corner, and I think with confidence we can say they will be 
a good partner as part of NATO.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letter for inclusion in the 
Record.
                                            Commission on Security


                                     and Cooperation in Europe

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1997.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We urge that the United States actively 
     support the inclusion of Romania among the countries which 
     will be invited by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) to begin negotiations for accession to the Alliance. 
     The NATO summit meeting scheduled to be held in Madrid, 
     Spain, on July 8 and 9, 1997, will formally invite some 
     candidate states to commence such negotiations. We believe 
     that Romania deserves to be invited to accede to the 
     Washington Treaty because of both its recent progress in 
     meeting the criteria for membership and its strategic 
     location along NATO's future southeastern edge.
       While NATO accession should not be extended to states that 
     do not meet the criteria set forth in the NATO Enlargement 
     Facilitation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208), we believe that 
     Romania has demonstrated great progress in all areas and 
     should be favorably considered for inclusion in the first 
     round of enlargement. At a hearing of the Commission on 
     Tuesday, May 13, 1997, we heard testimony from Romania's 
     Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Mircea Dan 
     Geoana, on the wide range of concerns the Commission and the 
     Congress have had with Romania in recent years. We believe 
     that the evidence supports Romania's claim to meet the 
     criteria for membership, especially in the areas of human 
     rights, national minorities, and freedom of expression and 
     media issues that have been troublesome in the past

[[Page H3631]]

     and were particular subjects of Commission interest.
       In light of the rapid approach of the Madrid summit, and 
     the intensive schedule of high-level NATO meetings leading up 
     to that summit, we believe the United States should promptly 
     and publicly clarify its position regarding the NATO process 
     for accession by all states which meet the criteria. An 
     announcement of U.S. support for such a process would lessen 
     diplomatic and media speculation about a possible delay in 
     the invitation for negotiation, supposedly to make more 
     credible a subsequent round of enlargement. We believe all 
     currently qualified states should be invited now to negotiate 
     for accession, and as other states meet the criteria, the 
     process whereby they, too, may be invited to join the 
     alliance should be clearly formulated. This is the only fair 
     way to manage Alliance enlargement and protect important 
     reform efforts underway in those candidate states not 
     included in the first group to be announced at Madrid.
       We appreciate your kind attention to our views on this most 
     important matter.
           Sincerely,
     Christopher H. Smith, M.C.,
       Co-Chairman.
     Alfonse D'Amato, U.S.S.,
       Chairman.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the gentleman's 
amendment, and admission of Romania into NATO. It is a great country.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment that would support the 
entry of the country of Romania into the NATO alliance in the first 
move.
  Romania has, without question moved towards irresistible democracy, a 
free market economy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and 
are making great strides in their ability to communicate and 
interoperate militarily with our NATO forces.
  Without question they are qualified and should be admitted to NATO at 
the earliest convenience.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of 
the committee.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The key 
message of this amendment, the European Security Act we will be 
considering, is that the door to membership at NATO should remain open 
and include Romania.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding 
my failure to oppose, that I may claim the 5 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the fact that I do not oppose, I 
would say to the gentleman, the gentleman from New York and I, along 
with nine of our colleagues, recently led a delegation before we went 
to the North Atlantic Assembly, to Slovenia, and all of us came back I 
think very much impressed with the tremendous progress they have made 
in democratization and in their economic reforms and in their ability 
to pay for modernization to meet the NATO requirements.
  We felt, in fact, they were well-qualified to be taken in as a member 
of NATO in the first round, and we made that recommendation to the 
Secretary of State, and I know I personally made it to the Secretary of 
Defense, and I think some of my colleagues have as well.
  This matter of Romania is certainly not one that I oppose. I thank 
the gentleman for his initiative. I just want to make sure that nothing 
being said here suggests that we have any less respect or support for 
Slovenia as a first-round entry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, we were in Slovenia and they have also made 
great progress toward the irreversible democracy, toward a free-market 
economy, as has Romania. I just wanted to call to the attention of the 
Members that Romania in particular is one country that has appreciated 
the support of the United States of America. In doing so, I want my 
colleagues to know, on both sides of the aisle, they are buying 
American. In other words, if they and other countries become a part of 
NATO, member of NATO, they have to be able to communicate and 
interoperate militarily with the NATO defense organization, and in 
doing so, they are buying American military equipment that is terribly 
important if the taxpayers are going to support the expansion of NATO, 
that these countries, these prospective countries, turn around and then 
buy American.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am proud to mention 
that my colleague from New York has emphasized this point, the 
importance of buying American equipment, because it is interoperable in 
NATO forces and because it is important to our economy.
  So taking nothing away from Romania's case, because military-to-
military cooperation with Romania and the United States could not be 
better, and certainly no country has pressed harder for first-round 
membership than Romania, I did want to make sure that by our action 
today we say nothing negative about Slovenia's case, and I thank the 
gentleman for his initiative.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] that this in no way diminishes 
our support for Slovenia, and we appreciate the gentleman's support as 
well for Romania, and the support of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], our chairman.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fox 
amendment regarding to Ukraine and adopted by the House.
  Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has made some significant 
progress in advancing both democracy and stability in the region. It 
has held free and fair elections without violence for both Parliament 
and the President, adopted a new democratic constitution, and made 
significant strides toward reorganizing its economy from command-and-
control to market-driven.
  Under the reform plan and the leadership of President Kuchma, Ukraine 
has tackled its runaway inflation, which has dropped from an 
overwhelming level of 10,000 percent in 1993 to 181 percent in 1995 to 
3.5 percent for the first quarter of this year. In addition, 
privatization efforts have begun to move at an accelerated rate.
  Ukraine has also made significant contributions to the future peace 
and stability of Eastern and Central Europe. First and foremost, 
Ukraine lived up to its agreement to completely dismantle its entire 
nuclear arsenal which it inherited from the former Soviet Union and has 
signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ukraine is also in full 
compliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe Agreement, is an 
active participant in NATO's Partnership for Peace Program, and has 
given its full support for the soon to be announced expansion of the 
NATO alliance. Ukraine has also agreed not to participate in any 
program to help build a nuclear powerplant in Iran.
  These achievements deserve acknowledgment and appreciation from this 
body. Instead of facing a potentially hostile and nuclear armed country 
situated on the edge of Europe, the United States benefits from 
cooperative arrangement with an emerging democracy.
  There remain, of course, serious challenges and problems. I am 
disturbed by press reports in recent months of widespread government 
corruption and informal barriers to U.S. investment. These are 
allegations that warrant careful and deliberate consideration.
  The answer to these concerns is not to sever relations and threaten 
to cut off aid as some have proposed. Such proposals run counter to our 
national and strategic interests in this region and would leave us 
without leverage to encourage change with Ukraine.
  Ukraine is beginning to take some steps to solve these problems. We 
must encourage this process. President Kuchma has formed an 
international advisory committee on investment made up of Ukrainians of 
unquestioned reputation and corporate leaders from around the world. He 
has established a commission that will work directly out of his office 
to investigate and prosecute reported corruption. In addition, 
President Kuchma has removed several Ministers for questionable actions 
while putting others on notice that he will not accept this behavior.

[[Page H3632]]

  President Clinton and the administration have indicated their concern 
over the issue of corruption and clearly communicated that progress 
needs to be swift. These concerns are clearly laid out in a joint 
statement from the United States-Ukraine Binational Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, with the facts in mind, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the Fox amendment and commend Ukraine for its contributions 
to Europe. As President Clinton said at the close of the first session 
of the United States-Ukraine Binational Commission.

       The United States values its partnership with Ukraine and 
     believes that we cannot have a successful, undivided, 
     democratic Europe, without a successful, democratic, 
     progressive Ukraine.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment authorizes U.S. citizen 
employees to adjudicate nationality abroad and to adjudicate immigrant 
and nonimmigrant visas. The amendment requires that these U.S. citizen 
employees: First, successfully complete a program of training 
essentially equivalent to the training that a consular officer who is a 
member of the Foreign Service would receive; and second, be certified 
by an appropriate State Department official to be qualified to perform 
consular functions.
  I am concerned that the amendment may be interpreted to allow 
students, interns, part-time employees, or short-term contract 
employees to handle the important function of adjudicating nationality 
and immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. Because of the steady increase in 
visa and document fraud, the security of these functions requires that 
they be performed by a specialized corps of professional, full-time, 
experienced U.S. citizen employees.
  Due to security and fraud issues, the amendment should not be 
interpreted to mean that students, interns, part-time employees, or 
short-term employees--with the exception of retired Foreign Service 
Officers returning to perform consular services or the spouses of 
Foreign Service Officers being hired to perform consular services--may 
adjudicate nationality, immigrant, and nonimmigrant visa, and other 
consular functions. It is my understanding that Mr. Smith of Texas 
agrees with this statement.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Engel amendment on 
Albania. Albania suffered greatly under the misguided rule of its 
previous Government and needs international support to get back on the 
path to democracy.
  Albania endured many harsh years of totalitarian rule and isolation. 
It was the last country in Eastern Europe to throw off the yoke of 
communism and open its borders to the world. It still struggles today.
  Albania is the poorest nation in Europe. Matters worsened when high-
risk pyramid investment schemes collapsed, robbing tens of thousands of 
Albanians of their life savings. The result has been mass chaos and 
anarchy. The Government fell and demonstrations and unrest turned to 
open rebellion.
  Today, the rebellion has been quieted by an international 
peacekeeping force deployed by the United Nations. A coalition 
government that includes elements from both the former government and 
its opposition has been formed to get the country back on track. This 
new government has promised to hold elections for President and 
Parliament at the end of this month.
  The international community, spearheaded by the Red Cross, has 
committed humanitarian aid to help Albanians get back on their feet and 
get on with their lives.
  The Engel amendment directs the United States to encourage and 
support the new unity government and urge it to guarantee human rights 
and free and fair elections. In addition, the amendment commends the 
U.S. military and diplomatic personnel who evacuated U.S. citizens from 
the country during violent uproar. Finally, the amendment commends our 
negotiators.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the Engel amendment because restoring 
stability to Albania is vital to our national interests in this region. 
We cannot allow chaos and unrest to overtake Albania again because it 
would have a devastating effect on the already delicate situation in 
this turbulent corner of the world.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease), having assumed the chair, Mr. Ewing, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1757), to consolidate international affairs agencies, to authorize 
appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________