[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 23, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1519-H1522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    OIL DISTORTS U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the recent events in Venezuela have given 
the American people yet another example of the way that oil distorts 
U.S. foreign policy. Most Americans do not realize it, but Venezuela is 
a crucial supplier of oil to the United States. According to the CIA, 
petroleum dominates the Venezuelan economy, accounting for 
approximately one-third of its economy and 80 percent of its export 
earnings. In fact, Venezuela ranks third on the list of countries that 
provide with us petroleum, approximately 1.5 million barrels every day, 
or more than half of its total production.
  Stanley Weiss, founder and chairman of Business Executives for 
National Security, a nonpartisan organization of business leaders, 
wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times that the United States imports 
twice as much oil from Canada and Venezuela as it does from the Persian 
Gulf. And Venezuela is particularly important as a source of 
reformulated gasoline, which is required in many American cities that 
are struggling to meet USEPA emission standards for clean air.
  Every time an American citizen pulls up to a Citgo gas pump, they are 
pumping dollars into the Venezuelan national oil company known as 
Pedevesa. And it was labor unrest at the Pedevesa facilities throughout 
Venezuela that helped to spur the 1-day coup against Venezuelan 
President Hugh Chavez.
  So important is Venezuelan oil to the world's market that the price 
of oil dropped precipitously after Chavez was deposed and rebounded 
just as quickly when he was restored to power by the people of 
Venezuela.
  The Bush administration, which is dominated by oil in much the same 
manner as the Venezuelan economy, could barely contain its glee when 
President Chavez was overthrown in a coup d'etat. Meanwhile, every 
other government in this hemisphere reacted negatively to the overthrow 
of a democratically elected government. By putting the interests of the 
oil economy first and democratic rule second, the Bush administration 
not only found itself out of step with every other government in Latin 
America but foolishly forfeited the high moral ground.
  Now the administration has a lot of sorting out to do. It has to 
explain to Congress about what really happened in Venezuela. Did the 
Bush administration actively encourage antidemocratic forces to 
overthrow a leader with whom we happen to disagree? Did the Bush 
administration give a wink and a nod to the coup plotters? Under what 
authority was the Bush administration acting when U.S. military 
advisers found themselves on the side of the insurgents? When was that 
action authorized by the Congress of the United States? When did 
President Bush learn about the attempted coup and direction was given 
to U.S. diplomats, military officials, and advisers in the region? What 
did they receive from the White House, the State Department or the 
Defense Department? What relationship does the President, Vice 
President, or any of his advisers have with any oil interests in 
Venezuela? On whose order did the Bush administration officials choose 
not to speak out against the overthrow of a democratically elected 
president from a nation that is America's third largest oil supplier?
  The United States simply must occupy the moral high ground. We are 
engaged in a worldwide battle against terrorism and antidemocratic 
forces. We are trying to show the rest of the world what it means to 
stand up for democratic values. Not to support a legitimately elected 
government, no matter how much we may disagree with its president, has 
damaged the perception of the United States as a standard bearer for 
legitimate elections and democratic governments.
  The Organization of American States took a position diametrically 
opposed to this country's position. I hope the Committee on 
International Relations demands a full explanation by the Bush 
administration so there is no repeat of this sorry performance. 
President Chavez should understand that Americans believe in democracy 
and view Venezuela as a friend, not just as an oil well. And the 
American people can take from this latest sordid experience another 
lesson in the many ways in which dependence on foreign oil distorts our 
politics and our policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record two articles, one from 
the Toledo Blade that talks about the administration's flip-flop in our 
policy towards Venezuela, and also a time line and related article from 
the New York Times on ``2 days that Shook Venezuela: The Fall, and 
Return, of President Hugo Chavez.

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 20, 2002]

   2 Days That Shook Venezuela: The Fall, and Return, of Hugo Chavez

       The killings at the anti-Chavez demonstration rocked the 
     country, reviving memories of the violent events in 1989, 
     known as the Caracazo, in which hundreds were killed by 
     government forces. Venezuelans across the political spectrum 
     swore that such violence would never take place again.
       According to witnesses, shots were fired from several 
     buildings as well as from a bridge one block from the 
     presidential palace, which overlooks the route of the march. 
     One of the buildings that witnesses identified as a source of 
     gunfire contains the offices of Freddy Bernal, the mayor of 
     the borough that includes downtown Caracas and one of the 
     leaders of the Bolivarian Circles.
       Eddie Ramiez, an executive with the state oil company, was 
     in a part of the march that came close to the presidential 
     palace. ``Shots were fired from a building,'' he said. ``I 
     think there were people there waiting for us, and some crazy 
     person started to shoot.''
       None of the snipers who fired from rooftops (as opposed to 
     the bridge) have been identified, with pro-Chavez forces 
     arguing that

[[Page H1520]]

     much of the gunfire was directed at Miraflores Palace and 
     that some anti-Chavez demonstrators were also armed.
       Since Mr. Chavez's return to power last Sunday, his 
     followers have sought to place the blame for the killings on 
     the Metropolitan Police, which reports to one of his main 
     political adversaries, Alfredo Pena, the mayor of Caracas. 
     However, after an independent investigation, the country's 
     two main human rights groups concluded that the shootings 
     took place ``to minimize the action of the opposition with 
     the acquiescence of organisms of the state,'' and police and 
     military officers.
       Gen. Nestor Gonzalez, an ally of Mr. Chavez who broke with 
     the president early last week, said that the military high 
     command already had information at midday that there would be 
     an attack on the anti-Chavez march. He said this week that 
     the top commanders learned of the plans from ``a general who 
     had personally infiltrated in the Bolivarian Circles.''
       As the confrontation in the streets raged, Mr. Chavez 
     ordered all television stations to join a national network 
     and began delivering a speech warning Venezuelans ``not to 
     fall into provocation.'' But independent stations split the 
     screen so as to continue broadcasting the violence near the 
     palace. Their transmissions signals were cut, and public 
     opinion began turning against Mr. Chavez.
       Feeling vulnerable, Mr. Chavez ordered tanks and troops to 
     move to the palace from army headquarters at Fort Tiuna, in 
     Caracas. But military commanders, fearing a repetition of the 
     1989 bloodshed, told the president that they would not obey 
     him. ``The result would have been a massacre,'' General 
     Gonzalez said. Military dissidents who had plotted against 
     Mr. Chavez had sought out business leaders thought to be 
     sympathetic. they included Pedro Carmona Estanga, the 
     president of Fedecamaras, the main national business 
     confederation.
       Entreaties were also made to the American Embassy here but 
     it appears they did not meet with encouragement.
       ``They were always impeccable at the embassy, from the 
     ambassador on down,'' said a businessman who was a witness to 
     several ``what if'' conversations. ``I can't tell you the 
     number of times they made it clear that they would not 
     countenance a coup. There was no winking going on, either. 
     They would always say, ``We do not want a rupture.''
       Other anti-Chavez groups also traveled to the United States 
     to meet with Mr. Cisneros, the media magnate who has business 
     interests there, and with American officials. The Bush 
     Administration's two top officials for Latin American policy, 
     Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich and John Maisto, the 
     national security adviser for Latin America, are both former 
     ambassadors to Venezuela and have maintained close ties with 
     business, political and news media leaders here.
       So early on Thursday night top military officers, including 
     the army commander, Gen. Efrain Vazquez Velasco, were 
     confident when they delivered an ultimatum to Mr. Chavez: you 
     must quit. Cornered, Mr. Chavez said he was unwilling to 
     resign but would agree to ``abandon his functions,'' a 
     slightly different procedure under Venezuelan law that would 
     require the approval of the National Assembly, in which Mr. 
     Chavez has a majority.
       The key figure in the hours of negotiations that followed 
     was the armed forces commander, Gen. Lucas Rincon Romero, 
     whose true loyalties still are not clear. Early on Friday, he 
     announced that Mr. Chavez had ``resigned,'' which led 90 
     minutes later to Mr. Carmona being named as head of a 
     military-supported transitional government.
       That part is still confusing to me,'' Mr. Carmona said of 
     General Rincon's actions and statements this week, after he 
     was placed under house arrest and General Rincon was once 
     again at Mr. Chavez side, apparently forgiven by the 
     president. ``There are facts that are still in a gray area.''
       By midmorning on Friday, Mr. Chavez, himself a former army 
     colonel who in 1992 led a failed coup attempt, looked to be 
     finished. He was being held in military custody at Fort 
     Tiuna; Cuba was beginning efforts that would have allowed him 
     to go into exile there, and the Bush administration was 
     already signaling its support for the new government.
       On Friday morning, the day Mr. Carmona claimed power, Mr. 
     Reich, the assistant secretary, summoned ambassadors from 
     Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. The 
     representative from Brazil read a communique that stated that 
     his country could not condone a rupture of democratic rule in 
     Venezuela, diplomats said.
       They said Mr. Reich responded that the ouster of Mr. Chavez 
     was not a rupture of democratic rule because he had resigned. 
     ``He stressed the position that Chavez was responsible'' for 
     his fate, ``and said we had to support the new government,'' 
     said one Latin American envoy.
       Almost immediately, though, Mr. Carmona began making the 
     political blunders that would quickly bring him down. After 
     working hand in hand for months with Carlos Ortega, the 
     leader of the Venezuelan Workers' Federation, the country's 
     main labor union group, he named a cabinet that had no labor 
     representatives and was tilted heavily toward a discredited 
     conservative party.
       In addition, Mr. Carmona fanned military rivalries by 
     naming two navy officers to the cabinet, including Adm. 
     Hector Ramirez Perez as minister of defense instead of 
     General Vasquez Velasco, and none from the army.
       ``There were many more people with aspirations than space 
     to accommodate them, and they all seemed ready to jump ship 
     when they felt they were being excluded,'' said Janet Kelly, 
     a political science professor and commentator here.
       But the biggest mistake was a decree, announced at Mr. 
     Carmona's swearing-in on Friday afternoon, that dissolved the 
     National Assembly, fired the Supreme Court and called for new 
     presidential elections only after a year. The effect was to 
     suspend the Constitution, which generated immediate 
     opposition to the new government, both at home and in the 
     rest of Latin America.
       ``In hindsight, it was the most idiotic thing that could 
     have been done,'' said a person who was at Miraflores for the 
     ceremony. ``But we had just come out of an ambush and we were 
     venting our distaste for the people who occupied those 
     positions, so everyone applauded the dissolution.''
       As Mr. Carmona spoke, military officers were jostling for 
     position behind him, trying to make sure they would appear in 
     photographs in the papers the next day, spectators recalled. 
     But some civilian political leaders were already unhappy with 
     the look of things, and ducked out of the ceremony.
       By Saturday morning, it was clear that Mr. Carmona's 
     transition government was floundering. Ambassador Shapiro had 
     breakfast with him at 9 a.m., and told him that dissolving 
     Congress was an error and should be reconsidered.
       The government's image was further undetermined by raids on 
     the home of some key Chavez supporters. Among those singled 
     out were Tarek William Saab, who as chairman of the 
     congressional Foreign Relations Committee was regarded as Mr. 
     Chavez's main link to Iraq, Iran and Libya; and Ramon 
     Rodriguez Chacin, who as minister of the interior and justice 
     was in charge of the state spy apparatus.
       At the same time, though, Mr. Chavez's supporters in the 
     poor neighborhoods of western Caracas were taking to the 
     streets. By early afternoon, thousands were congregating 
     outside Miraflores, demanding that Mr. Chavez be restored.
       At Fort Tiuna, though, some 30 generals and admirals were 
     still arguing about who should get what post in the Carmona 
     government. ``This was grave for Carmona,'' said Gen. Rafael 
     Montero, a former minister of defense sympathetic to the 
     anti-Chavez forces. ``He didn't have the advice he needed.''
       With the high command distracted, the presidential guard, 
     which was thought to be loyal to Mr. Chavez but had still not 
     been replaced, was able to retake control of Miraflores. ``We 
     never abandoned the president,'' said Col. Gonzalo Millan a 
     member of the palace guard. He added, ``Kings are the only 
     ones who do things by decree, but no one here is a king.''
       In the interior of the country, unit commanders were also 
     beginning to defy the desk generals and to declare their 
     support for Mr. Chavez. At 1:30 p.m., Gen. Raul Baduel, 
     commander of a paratrooper brigade in Maracay in which Mr. 
     Chavez himself had once served, and four other senior field 
     officers announced they were rebelling against the new 
     government and began to organize a plan to ``rescue'' Mr. 
     Chavez from his captors.
       Though he had by now been moved from Caracas to a naval 
     base on the coast, Mr. Chavez was still refusing to sign a 
     document of resignation. When a sympathetic corporal named 
     Juan Bautista Rodriguez, a member of the unit watching over 
     the deposed president, learned of Mr. Chavez's position, he 
     offered to smuggle out a message to that effect to encourage 
     the Chavez forces. ``I put it at the bottom of a trash can to 
     disguise it,'' Mr. Chavez said this week. ``Later I learned 
     that the soldier had recovered it. I don't know how he did 
     it, but he discreetly transmitted a fax to someone who got 
     the message to Miraflores.''
       With the balance clearly shifting in favor of Mr. Chavez, 
     who had by now been moved to the Caribbean island of La 
     Orchila, the same military officers who had overthrown him 
     began to distance themselves from Mr. Carmona. At 4:30 p.m. 
     General Vazquez Velasco, still irate at not having been named 
     defense minister, told Mr. Carmona that military support of 
     his government would be withdrawn unless he revoked the 
     offending decree dissolving congress.
       Mr. Carmona acted about half an hour later, but by then it 
     was too late. A few blocks away from the palace, the pro-
     Chavez National Assembly was already convening to appoint 
     Diosdado Cabello, Mr. Chavez's vice president, as interim 
     president, as established by the Constitution.
       Around 10 o'clock, Mr. Carmona stepped down and the 
     uprising was effectively over. Four Air Force helicopters 
     headed to La Orchila to pick up Mr. Chavez, who arrived in 
     triumph back at Miraflores around 3:00 a.m. on Sunday.
       ``I was absolutely sure, completely certain, that we would 
     be back,'' Mr. Chavez said in a speech to his jubilant 
     supporters. ``But you know what? The only thing I couldn't 
     imagine was that we would return so rapidly.''

[[Page H1521]]

     
                                  ____
                 [From the Toledo Blade, Apr. 21, 2002]

                        Divisions Over Venezuela


         Flip-flop pits dislike for Chavez, issue of democracy

                           (By Frida Ghitis)

       Washington.--The news from Venezuela blew like a cool 
     breeze on a sweltering summer day for U.S. leaders in 
     Washington following those developments.
       Administration officials, tense and tired from watching the 
     unraveling of the Middle East; edgy from suddenly facing 
     domestic criticism that President Bush's policies on 
     terrorism were losing their moral clarity with his call for 
     Israel to stop its actions against Palestinians; weary from 
     threats by Muslim oil producers to suspend oil shipments if 
     the United States didn't get Israel to stop attacking 
     Palestinians, suddenly found reason to rejoice. The word from 
     Venezuela brought a welcome bit of news. The troublesome, 
     often irritating president of the South American country, had 
     moved aside. A new president was taking over. At last, some 
     good news!
       Not so fast. What occurred in Venezuela and, more 
     importantly, the way Washington reacted to it, has become a 
     major embarrassment for the Bush administration, which found 
     itself on the defensive, deny charges that, at the very 
     least, it knew about the coup before it happened. Even if 
     those charges are proved to be false, Washington's rejoicing 
     over a bungled coup that kept the Venezuelan out of office 
     for only 48 hours, left the administration open to charges 
     that it turned its back on democracy.
       Most think of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, as the 
     principal source of America's oil. But Venezuela, on the 
     northeastern corner of South America, is one of the world's 
     major oil producers. The country is the third largest 
     provider of oil to the United States, exporting about 1.5 
     million barrels to America every day. Venezuela, a member 
     of OPEC, long had been one of the organization's least 
     disciplined members, going over its quota frequently and 
     thus making it almost impossible for the oil cartel to 
     control prices. That all changed when the colorful Hugo 
     Chavez came to power.
       Mr. Chavez, a former paratrooper who had once led a failed 
     military coup of his own, was elected president 
     democratically with promises of bringing radical change to a 
     country that, although awash in petroleum, suffers from 
     horrific poverty. Just months before he took power in 
     Caracas, a barrel of oil was selling for about $10, less than 
     half today's price. President Chavez immediately set to 
     transform his country, and to revitalize the oil cartel.
       Enjoying enormous popular support, Mr. Chavez tore down and 
     then rebuilt government institutions. He had a new 
     constitution written after his chosen delegates were approved 
     as the drafters of the document. He gained control of the 
     judiciary and the legislature, and he stacked just about 
     every part of government with his supporters, many of them 
     military men. In the process, Mr. Chavez managed to insult 
     the church, calling priests ``devils in vestments.'' He 
     routinely attacked the rich, calling them oligarchs who 
     should move to Miami. Most observers agreed, Mr. Chavez was 
     concentrating powers into his own hands, severely crippling 
     democratic institutions in his country. But he did it all 
     within the law.
       Then Mr. Chavez set out to work on the world oil markets. 
     He paid visits to Muammar Kaddafi of Libya, to Saddam Hussein 
     in Baghdad, while continuing to develop a deeply personal 
     friendship with Fidel Castro of Cuba, constantly irritating 
     Washington. Mr. Chavez helped OPEC set production quotas and 
     stick to them. He was instrumental in producing a tightening 
     of oil supplies that brought oil prices to new levels.
       It's not surprising then, that when Venezuela announced a 
     few days ago that Hugo Chavez was no longer its president, 
     oil prices took a sudden drop--about 6 percent (They went 
     back up after he was reinstated). The timing, for the 
     United States and many others, could not have been better. 
     Oil prices had gone up 25 percent this year alone, as the 
     American economy picks up steam, and as tensions in the 
     Middle East continue to mount. Only recently, Saddam 
     announced that he was stopping shipments of oil as a 
     gesture of support for the Palestinians, and Iranian 
     President Mohammed Khatami (the ``moderate'' Iranian) 
     reiterated his country's call for Muslim countries to stop 
     selling oil for 30 days, also in support of the 
     Palestinians.
       What superb timing by the masses in Caracas! On April 11, a 
     large protest by Venezuelan workers, angry over Mr. Chavez's 
     installation of a new board of directors of the traditionally 
     independent national oil company, spun out of control. 
     Tensions had been building for months. The country is sharply 
     divided, with Mr. Chavez's populist rhetoric intensifying 
     class differences. Major military figures had come forth 
     calling for his resignation, and what was once a sky-high 
     approval rating had dipped to about 30 percent. When the 
     protests were met with gunfire from Chavez supporters, the 
     military stepped in and took over. They installed Pedro 
     Carmona Estanga, a business leader who didn't last long.
       The head of the country's largest business association was 
     declared president, with an announcement that Mr. Chavez had 
     resigned. But Chavez supporters refused to believe their man 
     had folded. A top executive at the oil company said the 
     country would start pumping more oil, probably exceeding its 
     OPEC quota.
       It is unlikely that a single Latin American president felt 
     that Mr. Chavez really would be missed. And yet, the 
     Organization of American States condemned the Venezuelan 
     coup. Almost all democratically elected leaders in the 
     Americas made it clear that, like him or not, Mr. Chavez 
     legally, democratically had been elected president. 
     Removing him constituted an affront against the principle 
     of democracy, a principle worth preserving, even when one 
     disagrees with the outcome of the process. The president 
     of Mexico declared that he would not recognize the new 
     government. Statements throughout the hemisphere condemned 
     what appeared to be a coup. The United States, however, 
     did not speak out against the overthrow of a 
     democratically elected president. American officials 
     stated that Mr. Chavez himself was responsible for the 
     events that lead to his ouster.
       The United States did itself enormous damage. Latin America 
     and, for that matter, much of the Third World, where the 
     image of America as a nation that supported despotic regimes 
     that suited its goals during the Cold War has been changing 
     very slowly. When the United States sent troops to Haiti to 
     ``restore democracy'' many in the hemisphere believed perhaps 
     America was truly standing up for the democracy it claimed to 
     hold so dear. That image now has been set back.
       Worse yet, many in Latin America believe that the Bush 
     administration, with a sharp focus on controlling oil 
     markets, played an important part in the failed coup. 
     Washington is denying it ever lent even tacit support to 
     plotters although it admits that Chavez adversaries did seek 
     support, and that the man who took office for a short time 
     after deposing Mr. Chavez was, in fact, in contact with Otto 
     J. Reich at the State Department. Mr. Reich is in charge of 
     Inter-American affairs at the State Department.
       The government says the United States did nothing to 
     encourage the assault on democracy. And yet, it is guilty, at 
     the very least, of badly mishandling the crisis in Caracas. 
     The mistakes of mid-April may take years to repair.
                                  ____


                 [From the Toledo Blade, Apr. 21, 2002]

                Latin Policy Chief Gives Little to Foes

       Washington.--Reacting to criticism of the reaction to the 
     resignation and revival of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, 
     the Bush administration's chief policy-maker for Latin 
     America, Otto J. Reich, came back swinging. ``We have 
     reviewed our actions since last Thursday [April 11],'' he 
     said. ``I find very little that I would do differently.''
       Such is the confidence of Mr. Reich, a former ambassador to 
     Venezuela whose conservative credentials and combative 
     demeanor have made him popular among Republicans and stirred 
     the suspicions of Democrats.
       After a few short months, Mr. Reich is facing his second 
     crisis in Latin America (the first was the collapse of the 
     Argentina economy, and he has taken a hands-off approach to 
     it). He is thoughtful and meticulous, with experience in the 
     region as a development agency official, diplomat, and 
     businessman.
       He also is a fierce partisan who cedes little ground to his 
     opponents, particularly those who fail to share his concern 
     over the threats posed by President Fidel Castro of Cuba and, 
     more recently, by Mr. Chavez, who has built close ties with 
     Castro.
       In January, after Senate Democrats denied Mr. Reich a 
     hearing on the Latin policy post and refused to confirm him, 
     President Bush granted him a recess appointment, which allows 
     him to serve until the end of the congressional session--and 
     beyond, if reappointed.
       Secretary of State Colin Powell fully backs Mr. Reich, said 
     the secretary's spokesman, Philip Reeker, calling him a ``key 
     player''.
       Some of the animus toward Mr. Reich stems from his 
     involvement in what became known as the Iran-control scandal 
     in the Reagan administration. As director of the State 
     Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, Mr. Reich tried to 
     influence public opinion in support of the Nicaraguan 
     contras, the General Accounting Office found, by resorting to 
     ``prohibited covert propaganda'' like preparing newspaper 
     opinion articles for pro-contra authors.
       Mr. Reich has denied wrong-doing and never was charged. 
     Recently, in his first major policy speech as assistant 
     secretary, he made light of the controversy, greeting the 
     ``former colleagues'' and ``unindicted co-conspirators'' in 
     the crowd. Then he complained, ``That was supposed to get a 
     better laugh than that.''
       Otto Juan Reich was born in 1945 in Cuba, which he fled as 
     a teenager. He thrived in his adoptive country, earning a 
     bachelor's degree at the University of North Carolina and a 
     master's in Latin American studies at Georgetown University.
       His uncompromising views on Cuba have made him a pillar of 
     support for the American trade embargo of four decades.
       His appointment was championed by Cuban exiles, who 
     supported Mr. Bush's presidential campaign, and viewed as a 
     setback to advocates of more open contracts with Havana. He 
     has criticized corruption in Latin America and has advocated 
     free trade.
       When the crisis flared up in Venezuela, Mr. Reich, who had 
     made no secret of his disdain for Mr. Chavez, was ready to 
     respond. He had been the Venezuela envoy in the late `80s. 
     After that, as a lobbyist he numbered among his clients Mobil 
     Oil, which has interest in Venezuela.

[[Page H1522]]

       ``My entire life I've done things that have prepared me for 
     this job,`` Mr. Reich said last week.
       Mr. Reich said the administration had had no involvement or 
     knowledge--indeed had been operating under an ``information 
     blackout'' in the first hours of the revolt on April 11.
       He defended his decision on the next day to establish 
     contact with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the business leader who 
     sought to replace Mr. Chavez. He said the administration 
     would have been criticized even more harshly had it failed to 
     warn Mr. Carmona of its desire to see democratic processes 
     respected.
       ``I think it would be irresponsible not to do it,'' Mr. 
     Reich said.

                          ____________________