[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17022-17054]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 247 and rule XVIII, 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. 2415.

                              {time}  1050


                     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. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and 
personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Kolbe in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 
20, 1999, amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 106-235 offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in Part B of 
House report 106-235.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Part B Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 35, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 211. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERENCE WITH INTELLECTUAL 
                   PROPERTY LAW RELATING TO PHARMACEUTICALS OF 
                   CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       No employee of the Department of State shall take any 
     action to deter or to otherwise interfere with any 
     intellectual property law or policy of any country in Africa 
     or Asia (including Israel) that is designed to make 
     pharmaceuticals more affordable if such law or policy, as the 
     case may be, complies with the Agreement on Trade-Related 
     Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights referred to in 
     section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 247, the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.  Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, cosponsored by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms.  McKinney), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.  Berry) deals with one of the great moral 
challenges of this century.
  Millions of people in Africa and Asia are suffering from the horrible 
AIDS epidemic decimating their countries. Because of poverty, they are 
unable to afford the very expensive prescription drugs needed to combat 
this killer disease.
  Sadly, the major pharmaceutical companies are using their enormous 
wealth and influence to fight legislation passed in South Africa, 
Israel, and Thailand which allows those countries to purchase and 
manufacture anti-AIDS drugs at far lower prices than those charged by 
the major drug companies.
  These laws are consistent with international trade and copyright law. 
Once again, these laws are consistent with international trade and 
copyright laws.
  Tragically, the U.S. State Department is currently working with the 
drug companies to punish South Africa because their government has 
committed the terrible crime of trying to get affordable drugs to treat 
their AIDS patients.
  What South Africa is doing is legal under international law. And it 
is morally right.
  Please support this amendment. Get the U.S. Government on the right 
side of this issue and help save millions of lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the case of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
frankly is completely flawed. And though while his motives may be 
noble,

[[Page 17023]]

the final result of his action will be reduction in new drugs that will 
save lives.
  We have tested the theory here in this Chamber and elsewhere to see 
if governments will come up with the research dollars to invent new 
medicines. Frankly, we cannot get our Government to provide medicine 
for its own citizens let alone citizens of other countries.
  Fully 45 percent of all new drugs are developed in the United States; 
and the next closest country, the U.K., develops but 14 percent. 
American taxpayers, through its Congress, will not provide the research 
dollars to find the cures for cancer and AIDS like the new $4 pill that 
will be able to protect the children of mothers with AIDS by one pill 
given one time at the cost of $4 instead of AZT at the cost of hundreds 
of dollars.
  What the bill does, it will give the opportunity for wealthier 
nations to try to evade our intellectual property laws. The United 
States already loses one out of three dollars when it comes to the 
opportunity of sales overseas for intellectual property. But we are not 
talking about corporate profits here. We are talking about countries 
being able to avoid intellectual property laws, and we are talking 
about denying the resources from wealthier countries, not from the 
poorest countries, they already have the ability to control prices.
  The poorest countries in this world make agreements with 
pharmaceutical companies that limit the price of those products in 
those countries. Frankly, the only country in the world that does not 
limit prices is the United States.
  What the amendment of the gentleman will do is allow wealthy 
countries like Israel, frankly, that has a per capita income of almost 
$16,000, to avoid our intellectual property laws. He will thereby 
undermine the basic flow of funds to research and may reverse what we 
see here today.
  Forty-five percent of all the new drugs come from the United States. 
Accept the Sanders amendment and we will not be helping the poor, we 
will be hurting every one of us in this process as we do not develop 
the new drugs for AIDS and breast cancer and other illnesses around the 
world.
  The poorest countries already get a lower price for those products. 
The legislation of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) would 
prevent the U.S. Government from protecting intellectual property that 
is made here in the United States and give wealthier countries the 
ability to purchase these products through poorer countries. We are not 
helping poor African countries. We are not helping Bangladesh. These 
countries can already control prices in agreements with these 
pharmaceutical companies.
  What his legislation would allow is American countries can see their 
intellectual property transferred to other countries. This is simple 
theft. It seems to me, if we stand by the Sanders amendment, we will 
only have ourselves to blame in injuring what has been one of the most 
productive sectors in the American economy in creating new drugs for 
all our citizens.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, have my colleagues ever seen a bully on 
the playground and they knew it was not right? Well, that is exactly 
what our own State Department is doing right now to South Africa.
  We can tell a lot about a country the way they act when they think no 
one is watching. The State Department of the world's indispensable 
Nation has decided that poor Africans dying of preventable and 
treatable diseases is okay.
  In South Africa, thousands of people are dying every week because 
they cannot afford to treat deadly but preventable and treatable 
diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and typhoid.
  In South Africa, it costs more to get a prescription filled than to 
go to the doctor's office. Therefore, they can go to the doctor to find 
out what is wrong, but they cannot treat it; they cannot treat the 
illness.
  Accordingly, South Africa decided to fight back. South Africa went to 
the free market to buy its prescription drugs rather than to the 
pharmaceutical cartel and the State Department objects to that. Once 
again, seems to prefer corporate profits over healthy people.
  It looks to me like the State Department is the bully on the 
playground and they think no one is watching. Well, let them see that 
the Congress is watching by supporting the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 2-3/4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont.
  I share the concerns of the gentleman from Vermont and all those who 
want to combat the spread of AIDS in Africa and I very much welcome 
Monday's announcement that the administration is joining our House 
Republicans in calling for a $127 million spending program to meet this 
growing health crisis. I will note the Republicans have ensured funding 
for this for some time. I have also held the only hearings on this 
subject last year. I intend to work to ensure that this program 
continues to receive strong support.
  The White House AIDS policy director, Sandra Thurman, has reported 
that the disease is turning millions of children into orphans, reducing 
life expectancy by more than 20 years and undermining economic 
development in large parts of Africa. More than 12 million people have 
died of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa over the past decade.
  However, I believe that the amendment before us is not the way to 
address this important issue. It threatens patent protection rights and 
will create new impediments to future AIDS research efforts. 
Furthermore, its implementation would put the U.S. in violation of our 
obligations under the Uruguay Round Implementation Act to seek the 
strengthening of intellectual property laws.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) has expired.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment be extended for 2 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by me and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this additional time.
  This amendment would use policies such as compulsory licensing and 
parallel trade to make pharmaceuticals more affordable. Compulsory 
licensing would allow generic manufacturers to produce and sell a 
patented pharmaceutical product before the patent expires, without 
protecting the rights of the patentholder in the importing country. 
This approach will discourage research efforts and will not address the 
underlying problems confronting AIDS patients.
  Parallel trade involves purchasing a product at a low price in one 
market and reselling it in another market at a higher price, outside of 
normal distribution channels. This proposal has been tried and found 
wanting in Kenya where it resulted in a flood of counterfeit medicine 
imports.
  Accordingly, I join the gentleman from Connecticut in urging the 
defeat of the Sanders amendment.

[[Page 17024]]


  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), a former pharmacist.
  Mr. BERRY. Madam Chairman, I rise this morning to support this 
amendment. I commend the gentleman from Vermont for introducing this 
amendment.
  It is critical that our State Department allow countries the tools 
they need to fight health epidemics such as AIDS as long as they play 
by the international rules. WTO agreements and fairness should be the 
driving force behind U.S. policy relating to this issue, not a few very 
profitable international pharmaceutical companies. We do not have to do 
things that inappropriately protect their markets like we do in this 
country and allow them to take advantage of other people.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I believe this amendment is a good 
amendment. This amendment will prevent the State Department from 
punishing countries that use legal means to procure low-cost lifesaving 
drugs for their citizens. This practice, called parallel importing, is 
allowed by the World Trade Organization. Many of the poorest nations on 
earth are experiencing some of the highest death rates because there is 
not enough money to pay for the high cost of lifesaving drugs. Some 
countries are even experiencing a return of age-old illnesses such as 
tuberculosis.
  The AIDS epidemic is causing a health care crisis worldwide. What 
good are lifesaving drugs if they are not affordable for people who 
need them? We should not punish countries for trying to save their 
citizens' lives. We should not punish countries for being concerned 
about their own citizens. We should not punish countries for using 
perfectly legal means to procure low-cost pharmaceuticals.
  Help to save millions of lives by ending a counterproductive State 
Department practice. Put human life above profit. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. This amendment deals with one of the great moral challenges of 
our time. While the pharmaceutical industry, which makes wide campaign 
contributions, spends more money on lobbying and campaign contributions 
than any other industry in this country, while they are enjoying 
record-breaking profits, millions of people, poor people throughout the 
world, are dying of AIDS. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies are 
down in South Africa trying to do away with legislation in the courts, 
trying to do away with legislation passed by the South African 
government because the South African government is trying to get 
inexpensive drugs to deal with the epidemic of AIDS.
  What this legislation says very clearly is get the State Department 
off the backs of South Africa when South Africa is operating legally, 
legally under international law. If the pharmaceutical companies think 
they are operating illegally, if the U.S. State Department thinks they 
are operating illegally, go to the World Trade Organization. But the 
State Department does not want to go to the World Trade Organization. 
They want to put unilateral action against South Africa. The drug 
companies want to use their muscle against South Africa. What South 
Africa is doing is legal. The State Department does not want to 
challenge them in the World Trade Organization because they will lose.
  It is a shame and an embarrassment that the government of the United 
States of America is working with the multi-billion dollar drug 
companies to push around South Africa because that country is trying to 
do the right thing for its people with AIDS.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, I share the gentleman from Vermont's 
concerns, but I think this amendment is the wrong way to go about it. 
We do not seek to hurt South Africa, but we also do not seek to hurt 
American companies and their international intellectual property 
rights. When you go down the road of saying to American companies, 
forget about all of the research, all of the intellectual property 
rights that you possess, you go down a road that is going to hurt South 
Africa and Africa ultimately, because you want investment to take place 
and that investment is going to take place if people believe that their 
intellectual property rights are going to be observed.
  This amendment would restrict the ability of the administration to 
protect the intellectual property rights of American pharmaceutical 
companies in foreign countries. The State Department plays a crucial 
role in assisting U.S. companies whose intellectual property rights are 
violated by foreign governments. In fact, the law says we should defend 
intellectual property rights.
  Now, in the context of AIDS, we share that concern. That is why the 
U.S. Global Strategy on AIDS, released in March of 1999, cites health 
care infrastructure problems, including shortage of doctors, clinics 
and laboratories. That is our biggest obstacle. That is what we should 
be doing with the Vice President, $100 million more, but not violating 
the intellectual property rights of our companies.


                          impact of amendment

  The amendment would restrict the ability of the Administration to 
protect the intellectual property rights of American pharmaceutical 
companies in foreign countries. The State Department plays a crucial 
role in assisting U.S. companies whose intellectual property rights are 
violated by foreign governments. The State Department has been 
successful in negotiating acceptable resolutions to these international 
trade conflicts, protecting both American interests and jobs.
  In fact, the law says that we should defend intellectual property 
rights. Section 315 of Uruguay Round Implementation Act states that it 
is the policy of the U.S. to seek enactment and implementation of 
foreign intellectual property laws that ``strengthen and supplement'' 
TRIPs. This amendment contradicts the law and would inhibit the 
pharmaceutical industry from seeking assistance from their own 
government to resolve intellectual property rights issue with foreign 
governments.
  While the author of the amendment contends that the restrictions 
would not apply if the bill was in compliance with TRIPs, I'm not sure 
how such a determination of a violation can be made without going to 
WTO. Unless, we decide that the State Department can make legal 
determinations about the legality or illegality of intellectual 
property rights actions, this amendment would allow the Administration 
to prejudge the outcome of a WTO case.
  The amendment is broadly drafted and could prohibit the 
Administration from acting even when there is a clear violation of 
TRIPs, as in the case of South Africa. The South African Medicines Act, 
which is under litigation in South Africa, not only permits parallel 
importation which is not permitted under Article 28 of the TRIPs 
agreements, it also contains a provision which allows the complete 
abrogation of patient rights at the discretion of the Minister of 
Health.
  Specifically, Section 15c of the South African Medicines Act says 
that, the Health Minister may determine ``that the rights with regard 
to any medicine under a patent granted in the Republic shall not extend 
to acts in respect of such medicine which has been put on the market by 
the owner of the medicine, or with his or her consent.''
  Conceivably the amendment could compel the State Department to 
refrain from action if the government in question--in this case South 
Africa--claims that their actions are in compliance with TRIPs, since 
the amendment does not establish how to determine if an action is 
compliant with TRIPs.
  Members need to know the facts, Article 28 of TRIPs--the WTO 
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property obligates 
countries to prohibit parallel importation of patented products.
  Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars annually for the 
research and development of pharmaceutical products--patents protect 
their intellectual property. If those rights can be arbitrarily 
violated what incentive remains to pursue R&D for new and more 
effective drugs.

[[Page 17025]]

  It is irresponsible to forbid our State Department from acting on 
behalf of companies and citizens and that is what this amendment would 
do.


                              aids crisis

  It is important to note that the amendment is not specific to AIDS 
drugs and as such, would affect imports of all medicines.
  This amendment is not about the AIDS crisis. We do need to address 
the AIDS crisis in Africa. Last Friday this Chamber passed two 
amendments which recognize the need for the public and private sector 
to expand efforts, including legislation to address the AIDS crisis in 
Africa.
  We should address the AIDS crisis by adopting appropriate policies 
and programs. We should not adopt a policy which abrogates property 
rights and international agreements.
  The U.S. Global Strategy on HIV/AIDS, released in March 1999, cites 
health care infrastructure problems, including shortage of doctors, 
clinics and laboratories, as the biggest obstacles to the delivery of 
effective HIV/AIDS care. These are issues which we need to consider. On 
Monday, Vice President Gore announced a $100 million initiative to 
fight the growing AIDS epidemic in Africa, this is the type of action 
that we need to take and I intend to advocate for the authorization and 
appropriations of those funds.
  I urge Members to vote against the Sanders amendment and to look for 
real, meaningful solutions to the AIDS crisis.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would urge the Members to have the courage to stand up to the 
pharmaceutical industry and support this amendment cosponsored by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Let us win this fight.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-235.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Gibbons

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

       Part B amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Gibbons:
       Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 257. ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS FOR THE FIRST TIME TO 
                   CHILDREN UNDER AGE 14.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall issue 
     regulations providing that before a child under the age of 14 
     years is issued a passport for the first time, the 
     requirements under paragraph (2) shall apply under penalty of 
     perjury.
       (2) Requirements.--
       (A) Both parents, or the child's legal guardian, must 
     execute the application and provide documentary evidence 
     demonstrating that they are the parents or guardian; or
       (B) the person executing the application must provide 
     documentary evidence that such person--
       (i) has sole custody of the child;
       (ii) has the consent of the other parent to the issuance of 
     the passport; or
       (iii) is in loco parentis and has the consent of both 
     parents, of a parent with sole custody over the child, or of 
     the child's legal guardian, to the issuance of the passport.
       (b) Exceptions.--The regulations required by subsection (a) 
     may provide for exceptions in exigent circumstances, such as, 
     those involving the health or welfare of the child.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Simply put, this amendment will help protect our American children 
from international parental child abduction. It is an inconceivable but 
irrefutable fact that once a child is taken from the United States, it 
is nearly impossible to get that child returned.
  One of the most difficult and frustrating experiences for parents of 
internationally abducted children is that U.S. laws and court orders 
are not usually recognized in foreign countries and therefore are not 
entitled or enforceable actions abroad.
  Even when criminal charges have been filed against the abducting 
parent in the United States, many foreign nations will not honor a U.S. 
request for extradition. It is therefore imperative that any measure we 
take must be preventive, for once these children are taken out of the 
country, they are often gone forever.
  The aim of this amendment is prevention, prevention of anguish to 
families, prevention of the violation of parental rights, prevention of 
international child abduction.
  These children are often abducted during or shortly after a 
contentious divorce, sometimes by an abusive parent. At a time when 
these children are most vulnerable and most uncertain about their 
future, they are snatched and taken away to a foreign country.
  Let me tell a story, Madam Chairman, of Mikey Kale from my home State 
of Nevada for whom this amendment is named. On Valentine's Day in 1993, 
then 6-year-old Mikey was abducted by his biological father and 
kidnapped to war-torn Croatia.
  Mikey's father and mother were divorced at this time. His mother had 
sole legal custody of Mikey. His father did not. But Mikey's father was 
still able to get a passport for his son even though he did not have 
any legal custodial rights. Thankfully, after a number of weeks and 
months and tremendous emotional and financial effort, Mikey's mother 
was able to get Mikey returned home.
  Mikey's mother, Barbara, had this to say about her family's ordeal:

       I learned through the State Department in Washington that 
     my ex-husband had obtained a passport and birth certificate 
     for Mikey within weeks of the divorce. I didn't think a 
     person could get a passport for their child unless they had 
     legal custody. I was wrong.

  Mikey's mother goes on to say that this one law needs to be revised 
to help protect American children.
  Madam Chairman, I am here to say that Mikey's mom is right. This law 
needs to be revised. It needs to be changed to protect our American 
children. We need to make it more difficult for would-be parental child 
abductors to obtain passports for children to prevent their further 
goal of taking young children out of this country. My amendment is a 
simple legislative solution which will implement a system of checks and 
safeguards prior to the issuance of a passport for the first time 
issuance to a child under the age of 14.
  We who are parents and grandparents know that we are the ones who are 
looked upon as protectors by our children. This is a common-sense 
legislative solution to a devastating and tragic problem. And this 
problem is more common than you would think. Each year, more than 1,000 
children are abducted and then taken out of the United States to 
foreign countries.
  Here in the United States where our missing and abducted children are 
counted meticulously inside our borders, it is still hard to track the 
number of children who are taken overseas because only 45 nations have 
signed a Hague treaty designed to resolve international child custody 
disputes.
  Mikey Kale is one of the fortunate ones. Most children are not. 
Regardless of the number of cases, whether it is 10 or 10,000, one case 
of international child abduction is too many, and my amendment seeks to 
prevent that tragedy from occurring.
  I ask my colleagues to help me join in this effort to protect the 
Mikey

[[Page 17026]]

Kales out there. Until more can be done, I believe this is the 
simplest, most cost-effective legislative solution to protect our 
children's rights and their lives. I would ask all my colleagues to 
join with me.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the efforts by the gentleman from Nevada on this 
amendment and the efforts of the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the 
State Department. We are willing to accept this amendment. Stopping 
child abduction is extremely important and the right thing to do.
  I commend the gentleman for proposing this matter. We accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman. I rise to support the 
amendment of my colleague from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, which adds 
safeguards to the issuance of first-time passports to children. By 
requiring the consent of both parents, or proof that the person 
executing the application has legal custody of the child, it will be an 
important weapon in the fight against international child abduction by 
noncustodial parents.
  The problem is very real. In numerous cases, estranged parents who 
are foreign residents have abducted their children to foreign 
countries, flagrantly violating the orders of courts in the United 
States. The problem is serious enough that the United States has become 
a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International 
Child Abduction. That Convention establishes an international standard 
according to which children abducted to foreign countries will be 
returned to the country of their habitual residence.
  Unfortunately, the problem persists, even under the Convention. there 
are continuing, credible allegations that some countries have become 
havens for child abductors, and ignore return orders issued pursuant to 
the Hague Convention. For that reason, Section 203 of the underlying 
bill extends and expands the State Department's annual reporting on the 
compliance of signatories to the Convention.
  The Gibbons amendment is an additional safeguard that will help 
ensure that children are not wrongfully removed from the United States 
in the first place. I hope it receives wide support from my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Gibbons) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-235.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Gilman

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

       Part B amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Gilman:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be necessary):

     SEC. 703 RESTRICTIONS ON NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH NORTH 
                   KOREA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any international agreement, no agreement for cooperation 
     (as defined in sec. 11 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2014 b.)) between the United States and North 
     Korea may become effective, no license may be issued for 
     export directly or indirectly to North Korea of any nuclear 
     material, facilities, components, or other goods, services, 
     or technology that would be subject to such agreement, and no 
     approval may be given for the transfer or re-transfer 
     directly or indirectly to North Korea of any nuclear 
     material, facilities, components, or other goods, services, 
     or technology that would be subject to such agreement, 
     until--
       (1) the President determines and reports to the Committee 
     on International Relations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that--
       (A) North Korea has come into full compliance with its 
     safeguards agreement with the IAEA (INFCIRC/403) and has 
     taken all steps that have been deemed necessary by the IAEA 
     in this regard;
       (B) North Korea has permitted the IAEA full access to all 
     additional sites and all information (including historical 
     records) deemed necessary by the IAEA to verify the accuracy 
     and completeness of North Korea's initial report of May 4, 
     1992, to the IAEA on all nuclear sites and material in North 
     Korea;
       (C) North Korea is in full compliance with its obligations 
     under the Agreed Framework;
       (D) North Korea is in full compliance with its obligations 
     under the Joint Declaration on Denuclearization;
       (E) North Korea does not have the capability to enrich 
     uranium, and is not seeking to acquire or develop such 
     capability, or any additional capability to reprocess spent 
     nuclear fuel;
       (F) North Korea has terminated its nuclear weapons program, 
     including all efforts to acquire, develop, test, produce, or 
     deploy such weapons; and
       (G) the transfer to North Korea of key nuclear components, 
     under the proposed agreement for cooperation with North Korea 
     and in accordance with the Agreed Framework, is in the 
     national interest of the United States; and
       (2) there is enacted a joint resolution stating in 
     substance that the Congress concurs in the determination and 
     report of the President submitted pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (b) Construction.--The restrictions contained in subsection 
     (a) shall apply in addition to all other applicable 
     procedures, requirements, and restrictions contained in the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and other laws.


          Amendment No. 22, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be modified with the modification that I have placed at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 22, as modified, offered by Mr. 
     Gilman:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be necessary):

     SEC. 703. RESTRICTIONS ON NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH NORTH 
                   KOREA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any international agreement, no agreement for cooperation 
     (as defined in sec. 11 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2014 b.)) between the United States and North 
     Korea may become effective, no license may be issued for 
     export directly or indirectly to North Korea of any nuclear 
     material, facilities, components, or other goods, services, 
     or technology that would be subject to such agreement, and no 
     approval may be given for the transfer or retransfer directly 
     or indirectly to North Korea of any nuclear material, 
     facilities, components, or other goods, services, or 
     technology that would be subject to such agreement, until--
       (1) the President determines and reports to the Committee 
     on International Relations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that--
       (A) North Korea has come into full compliance with its 
     safeguards agreement with the IAEA (INFCIRC/403), and has 
     taken all steps that have been deemed necessary by the IAEA 
     in this regard;
       (B) North Korea has permitted the IAEA full access to all 
     additional sites and all information (including historical 
     records) deemed necessary by the IAEA to verify the accuracy 
     and completeness of North Korea's initial report of May 4, 
     1992, to the IAEA on all nuclear sites and material in North 
     Korea;
       (C) North Korea is in full compliance with its obligations 
     under the Agreed Framework;
       (D) North Korea is in full compliance with its obligations 
     under the Joint Declaration on Denuclearization;
       (E) North Korea does not have the capability to enrich 
     uranium, and is not seeking to acquire or develop such 
     capability, or any additional capability to reprocess spent 
     nuclear fuel;
       (F) North Korea has terminated its nuclear weapons program, 
     including all efforts to acquire, develop, test, produce, or 
     deploy such weapons; and
       (G) the transfer to North Korea of key nuclear components, 
     under the proposed agreement for cooperation with North Korea 
     and in accordance with the Agreed Framework, is in the 
     national interest of the United States; and

[[Page 17027]]

       (2) there is enacted a joint resolution stating in 
     substance that the Congress concurs in the determination and 
     report of the President submitted pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (b) Construction.--The restrictions contained in subsection 
     (a) shall apply in addition to all other applicable 
     procedures, requirements, and restrictions contained in the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and other laws.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agreed framework.--The term ``Agreed Framework'' means 
     the ``Agreed Framework Between the United States of America 
     and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea'', signed in 
     Geneva on October 21, 1994, and the Confidential Minute to 
     that Agreement.
       (2) IAEA.--The term ``IAEA'' means the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency.
       (3) North korea.--The term ``North Korea'' means the 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
       (4) Joint declaration on denuclearization.--The term 
     ``Joint Declaration on Denuclearization'' means the Joint 
     Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, 
     signed by the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's 
     Republic of Korea on January 1, 1992.

  Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, 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. Without objection, the modification is 
agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be joined today in offering this 
amendment by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) who has been a preeminent leader in this body in our fight 
against proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass 
destruction. I know that we were on the right track when this amendment 
was agreed to by Mr. Markey in his cosponsoring this measure.
  Our amendment deals with North Korea. There is a debate among experts 
about the definition of a rogue regime, but so far as I know, everyone 
agrees that North Korea meets that definition. It is a Nation that has 
remained in a state of war with our Nation for some 49 years. North 
Korea has been listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of 
terrorism. If the State Department had an official list of state 
sponsors of drug trafficking today, they would probably be on that list 
as well. And they are probably the leading proliferator in the world 
today.
  Our amendment deals with the so-called agreed framework which is a 
1994 agreement between our Nation and North Korea designed to induce 
the North Koreans to end their nuclear weapons program. The bargain 
contained in the agreed framework is very simple. In exchange for some 
very large benefits from our Nation, the North Koreans promised to 
freeze or shut down their existing nuclear program and eventually to 
stop violating the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the NPT.
  The principle benefit that we have to give them is two advanced light 
water nuclear reactors worth about $5 billion. Until the first of these 
reactors is completed, we are obliged to give them about $50 million 
worth of heavy fuel oil each and every year. Technically, we promised 
to organize an international consortium to deliver these things to the 
North Koreans; but as part of the deal, President Clinton signed a 
letter obligating our Nation to deliver these things to North Korea in 
the event such an international consortium failed to do its part.
  The critical stage for implementation of the agreed framework will 
come a few years down the road when a significant portion of the 
nuclear reactor project has been completed. At this point, North Korea 
is required under the agreed framework to satisfy the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, that it has fully accounted for the 
history of its nuclear program.
  Essentially what this amendment does is to require North Korea to 
meet all of its obligations under the agreed framework including 
satisfying the IAEA before the key components of the two nuclear 
reactors can be delivered. We are not trying to re-write the agreed 
framework, we are not trying to impose any new obligations on North 
Korea. All that this amendment states is they have to live up to the 
obligations they accepted before they receive the $5 billion worth of 
nuclear power plants from our Nation and our allies.
  Now why is it necessary to revise U.S. law to make it clear that the 
North Koreans should be living up to their end of the bargain if they 
want us to live up to our end of the bargain? Their answer is that the 
North Koreans seem to be operating under the misapprehension that at 
the end of the day the agreed framework is more important to us than it 
is to them and that our Nation is going to let them get away with less 
than full compliance with their obligations. This seems to be the only 
explanation for some of their actions. They have not been cooperating 
very well with the IAEA. They have been withholding key operating 
records of their nuclear reactor for the IAEA. Their relations with the 
IAEA could hardly be worse.
  Then there have been many news stories about the North Koreans 
cheating on the agreed framework. Most of those reports are sourced to 
U.S. intelligence reports, so obviously I do not want to discuss that 
issue in detail during today's debate. But allow me merely to point out 
that until last year, the administration repeatedly informed us in 
testimony and in public statements that the agreed framework has ended 
North Korea's nuclear program. Beginning about this time last year, 
they stopped making those statements. Now what they tell us, that the 
agreed framework has ended North Korea's nuclear program at Yongbyon 
which is the location of the nuclear facilities they publicly 
acknowledge under the NPT.
  Obviously there seems to be a world of difference between saying they 
have ended their nuclear program period and saying that they have ended 
it at one location in their country. But that is all that the 
administration is now stating, and I invite our colleagues to carefully 
review the administration's statements and reflect on the implications 
of what the administration is no longer stating to us.
  Now I know that some will claim that our amendment could kill the 
agreed framework, but anyone who states that must believe that North 
Korea is not going to live up to its obligations under the agreed 
framework. Either that or they do not believe that the Congress can be 
expected to use its good judgment in evaluating a certification that 
they have lived up to those obligations.
  The bottom line here, Madam Chairman, is that Congress should not 
abdicate to the Executive Branch all of our responsibility for judging 
whether North Korea is actually living up to its obligations.
  For those reasons, Madam Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support 
the Gilman-Markey amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are 
trying to do. I understand the thrust of their amendment. I remember 5 
years ago Dr. Perry was Secretary of Defense. He asked me to go to 
Korea because the crisis was to the point where he now in retrospect 
calls it the greatest crisis in his tenure as Secretary of Defense. He 
felt we were on the verge of nuclear war.
  I went to Korea with a number of members of the Subcommittee on 
Defense. We looked at our defenses. We

[[Page 17028]]

felt they were inadequate. We came back and made a number of 
recommendations to the administration. We think these recommendations 
played a part in diffusing this very, very delicate situation between 
North and South Korea. General Luck was very vigorous in his concern 
about the possibility of the North Koreans coming south.
  Now I think all of us appreciate the difficulty for an administration 
when it is negotiating with any foreign country to be completely frank 
and public about what is going on. North Korea being completely ruled 
by a dictator, being one of the most unstable countries in the world, 
and yet they have responded to our overtures. From everything I can 
tell, this crisis has been diffused.
  Now Dr. Perry, as all of us know, is heading up a research or a 
committee that is trying to resolve these difficulties between North 
Korea and South Korea. They are trying to make sure there is no 
nonproliferation. He tells me in a phone call that I received just the 
other day that this would undercut his effort to secure an agreement to 
continue the progress that they have made.
  I got a call from Dr. Hamre today, Undersecretary of Defense. He 
contends the same thing, that this amendment would be harmful for the 
progress that they have made.
  I understand the nuances of what the gentleman from New York has 
said, I understand what he is saying about the administration not 
saying the same thing they were saying before. I do not know why they 
have said that. In the intelligence that I have read, intelligence 
reports, the threat is no longer as severe as it was 5 years ago. It is 
substantially less, and it is less because this administration, working 
with the Congress, has made North Korea believe that they would pay a 
heavy price if they were to invade South Korea. One of our most 
important allies in the world today is Korea.
  I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1952 at the height of the Korean 
War. We have had troops deployed there since that time, since the end 
of the Korean war.
  There is no question about our obligation to South Korea and the fact 
that we are trying to prevent any invasion by North Korea, but there is 
also no question about our obligation to stop proliferation by North 
Korea. Dr. Perry tells me they are making progress, and he feels that 
this amendment would not be helpful to man. I do not know that the 
administration would veto the bill. I know this is a long ways off, but 
I think it would cause them great concern, and certainly it is 
something that all of us have to think about.
  So I would request and suggest strongly that the Members vote against 
this. It sounds good on the face, it sounds like we are doing something 
that is marvelous, it sounds like we are stopping proliferation. But 
one thing I found over the years, passing an amendment like this in the 
Congress of the United States does not always do what we think it is 
going to do. Sometimes it backfires, sometimes it has the opposite 
impact, and I think in this particular case, this amendment, although 
everything sounds good, the thrust of the amendment sounds good, it 
could have the opposite impact about what we hope.
  So I would hope that the Gilman-Markey amendment is defeated and that 
we send a message to Dr. Perry that we support him in trying to stop 
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the former chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding this time to me, and I rise obviously with great respect for 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and obviously with some ambivalence since I 
am opposing their position and the position of an administration that 
is headed by a party of which I am a member. So this is not an easy 
issue, and without question this administration has done much good work 
on the subject of nonproliferation, but here I think it is important 
for us to clearly differentiate North Korea from other areas of the 
world where progress is definable, where progress is being made.
  Let us suppose a country spent decades and vast amounts of money to 
develop nuclear weapons while its people starved. Let us suppose that 
it signed a series of international agreements and then broke them and 
that it threatened our allies. Let us suppose that while signing and 
breaking nuclear agreements it went on developing ballistic missiles 
that could reach U.S. territory and went on transferring missile 
technology to other countries.

                              {time}  1130

  Would we agree to provide that country with nuclear materials and 
technology? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.
  North Korea has signed a nuclear nonproliferation treaty and then 
refused to carry out its treaty obligations and threatened to withdraw 
from the agreement. It has signed an agreement with South Korea not to 
develop nuclear weapons or reprocessing and then continued to make 
plutonium.
  It has signed a safeguards accord with the International Atomic 
Energy Agency and then blocked the IAEA inspections of its facilities. 
And, after agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons, North Korea has 
ramped up its ballistic missile program. It is expected soon to test a 
missile that might be able to reach the West Coast of the United 
States. These missiles have only one purpose: to be able to deliver 
nuclear weapons. And, North Korea is spreading this technology around.
  In the last few weeks, 177 crates of equipment for making missiles 
were intercepted on route from North Korea to Pakistan. Yet, in 1994, 
the United States signed an agreement with North Korea to provide them 
advanced nuclear technology and to assist them in the building of two 
nuclear power plants.
  This action was intended to provide incentives to North Korea to 
abandon their nuclear weapons program. But what if they again do not 
live up to their commitments? What do we do then?
  Madam Chairman, this bipartisan amendment has a simple premise. The 
United States should not help North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. 
We should assist North Korea in obtaining nuclear power plants only if 
they actually implement their side of the bargain.
  Specifically, they must give the International Atomic Energy Agency 
full on-site access to verify that they are not using nuclear plants to 
assist a nuclear weapons program, as they agreed to do in 1992.
  Second, they must comply with nuclear treaties they have signed with 
South Korea in 1991 and with the United States in 1994. And finally, 
they must end their nuclear weapons program.
  This amendment does not raise the bar set by the agreement with North 
Korea, but just ensures that it stays in place. This amendment also 
would require the active consent of Congress before the U.S. ships 
nuclear technology to North Korea.
  Too often the executive branch decisions on nuclear exports have been 
heavily influenced by commercial or extraneous diplomatic issues. Under 
current law, nuclear cooperation agreements must be submitted to 
Congress, but they automatically take effect unless both parties pass a 
joint resolution within 90 days. Congress has never voted to disapprove 
a nuclear cooperation agreement. Indeed, most of the time Congress has 
never even cast a vote before the clock runs out.
  Recently, the administration brought into effect an agreement 
allowing nuclear exports to China, despite evidence of continued covert 
Chinese nuclear assistance to Pakistan and Iran. Despite efforts of 
opponents of this agreement to block it, supporters were able to run 
out the congressional clock.
  We think that Congress should actively consider the wisdom of giving

[[Page 17029]]

nuclear technology to North Korea, not simply allow an agreement to 
slip by. We should have a vote in this body and in the Senate before we 
send sensitive nuclear technology to North Korea; and before we vote, 
we should assure ourselves that North Korea is meeting the requirements 
of its agreements with the United States, and of the United States 
nonproliferation laws.
  It would certainly be better to have foreign light-water nuclear 
reactors producing electricity in North Korea than indigenous graphite 
reactors that produce more weapons material and are not even hooked up 
to the electricity grid. But it makes absolutely no sense to provide 
North Korea with any nuclear technologies if they will use our 
assistance to make nuclear weapons, or if they accept the assistance 
and then proceed to thumb their noses at international nonproliferation 
norms.
  We should not help a country get weapons that could explode in our 
face. We should send a strong message to North Korea that we will not 
provide nuclear assistance unless they live up to their commitments to 
end their nuclear weapons program.
  Madam Chairman, I urge a strong ``aye'' vote for the Gilman-Markey 
amendment to limit the spread of nuclear materials on this planet.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
and I do so reluctantly only because of the great respect that I have 
for the sponsors of the amendment, both the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Let me start for a moment at the beginning, if I may, to just give 
the framework of what this is really all about. North Korea is a rather 
isolated country, probably the most isolated country on the planet 
Earth. It is a country that the very few of us who have been there have 
come to realize is almost like a country in a bubble. They are 
absolutely paranoid.
  Madam Chairman, 99.9 percent of the people have never been outside of 
their country, including the leadership of the country. The people have 
no idea what is going on in the real world, and they have all been 
indoctrinated and brainwashed into believing that the entire world is 
lined up against them and the United States and South Korea at any 
moment about to invade their country and usurp their way of life.
  It is very difficult to deal and to negotiate with the North Koreans 
who have very, very little experience in the field of dealing with the 
outside world, let alone the ability to negotiate the way most 
societies can.
  There came a time, Madam Chairman, when we and others were very 
fearful of the very fact that North Korea had nuclear capability; that 
it had nuclear reactors; that it was producing nuclear energy; that 
these were heavy-water nuclear reactors; and that these reactors were 
producing weapons-grade plutonium that could be used in weapons of mass 
destruction.
  At around that time, Madam Chairman, discussions were held with Kim 
Il Sung, the then leader of North Korea, in which he and others within 
his government were persuaded that it would be in their best interests 
if they were allowed because of their financial need and because of 
their great desire to get assistance, to be able to do away with their 
very dangerous heavy-water reactors and exchange those heavy-water 
reactors for light-water reactors.
  The difference between those two kinds of reactors, Madam Chair, is 
that the light-water reactors make it very difficult, if not 
impossible, to produce nuclear weapons-grade materiel. The world would 
be much safer if they had light-water reactors rather than the heavy-
water reactors which were, indeed, already producing this fissionable 
material.
  The North Koreans entered into an agreement only on certain terms. 
They said, if we turn off our heavy-water reactors in order to 
substitute light-water reactors during the interregnum, we will have no 
power for our poor country, after making tremendous investment in the 
heavy-water reactors, albeit for reasons of energy as well as producing 
weapons of mass destruction. So they had a mixed reason.
  But they were willing at that time and signed an agreement that said 
they were willing to swap. But what happens to us, they asked 
realistically, in the meantime, when we have no power to run our plants 
and to meet the energy needs of our country?
  We led an international consortium that was put together, mainly 
funded by our friends in Japan and South Korea, in which they said, 
those other countries said, we will put up the billions of dollars to 
build the reactor. The North Koreans want the prestige of U.S. 
leadership and participation, and the U.S. at that time agreed that we 
would supply them with the money for oil and other alternative sources 
of energy other than nuclear while they closed down one reactor system 
and substituted it for another. That is good common sense. This is a 
very small investment on our part financially, and especially compared 
to the huge commitment being made by our other international partners 
in what is known as KEDO. We have been working on that.
  What this amendment would do is this amendment would take away our 
ability to participate in the project that switches the heavy- to the 
light-water reactors.
  Madam Chairman, if the goal today is to see North Korea resume its 
nuclear weapons program, using their heavy-water reactors, then we 
should vote for the amendment with the gentleman from New York, because 
that is the likely outcome of adopting that amendment. By unilaterally 
adding new criteria to this agreed framework, the amendment sets out 
conditions that the President cannot possibly certify. It guarantees 
failure. The amendment requires the President to certify North Korean 
intentions instead of actions.
  Who in their right mind would certify anybody else's intentions, let 
alone the intentions of North Korea? It is their actions that we should 
be asking the President to certify.
  In addition, the amendment requires the President to certify North 
Korean adherence to the joint declaration on denuclearization, an 
agreement that the U.S. is not even a party to. The adoption of this 
amendment will tell our allies in Seoul and Tokyo that we are not 
prepared to follow through on our commitments. It will also confirm, 
unfortunately, the worst distorted suspicions of the North Koreans who 
already believe that we never intended to uphold our portion of the 
agreement.
  Madam Chairman, the underlying assumptions of this amendment is that 
the administration has not been tough with North Korea in demanding 
that they adhere to the agreed framework. In fact, as the inspection of 
the suspected site at Kamchang-Ri indicated, where everybody thought 
they were rebuilding their original nuclear facilities and which proved 
to be a vast, empty, cavernous system of caves, we found that the 
administration is holding North Korea to its commitments.
  The purpose of the agreed framework was to freeze the North Korean 
nuclear program and it has done so. That is an inconvenient fact for my 
friends on the other side of this issue; but nonetheless, it is the 
fact. The fastest way to unfreeze that program is to abandon the agreed 
framework as this amendment would do.
  Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to seriously consider whether the 
world is more secure if North Korea has nuclear weapons. I think not, 
Madam Chairman; and therefore, I urge all of my colleagues in the House 
to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee 
on International Operations and Human Rights of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, let me just make a couple of 
points. First of all, let me respond briefly to my friend from New York 
on one of the points that he raised. He talked about the visit to 
Kamchang-Ri by inspectors and they found nothing in that hole. Well, we 
had a hearing,

[[Page 17030]]

and the gentleman, I am sure, remembers when Ambassador Lilley, our 
former ambassador to the People's Republic of China, came and testified 
and said, as matter of factly as he possibly could have, that we are 
not going to find anything. They have had about a year to clean it out; 
there are other caves and caverns and holes where they could put this 
material.
  So this is a Potemkin village, if ever there was one, to have a 
preannouncement that yes, we are going to come here. We had to buy our 
way to get into that site to begin with, and wonder of wonders, as 
predicted, as Ambassador Lilley pointed out so clearly, we know we are 
not going to find anything.

                              {time}  1145

  So I think it is very, very disingenuous to raise that somehow North 
Korea is complying. We were told in advance by the former ambassador to 
the People's Republic of China, Ambassador Lilley, that we were not 
going to find anything. And wonder of wonders, we did not find 
anything. They had plenty of time to move it to one of their other 
sites, and there are perhaps 11 other sites that have not been checked 
out where they could have done so.
  So, again, that is why I think the language in here where we talk 
about the IAEA, full access to all additional sites and all 
information, including historical records deemed necessary by the IAEA 
to verify accuracy and completeness and so on, that is the kind of 
unfettered access that is needed. Otherwise we engage in a diplomatic 
fiction. We buy into a potential big lie of which this regime in North 
Korea is certainly highly capable.
  Let me just say, Madam Chairman, I do rise in strong support of the 
Gilman-Markey amendment.
  The CIA recently reported that, and I quote, ``North Korea has no 
constraints on its sales of ballistic missiles and related 
technology,'' close quote.
  As we know, that is alarming; but it is not surprising. In 1992, the 
IAEA concluded that Pyongyang had violated the nuclear nonproliferation 
treaty that it signed in 1985. Furthermore, the North Korean government 
has avoided cooperating with monitoring efforts by the International 
Atomic Energy Agency as required by its subsequent 1994 agreement with 
the United States.
  Thus, until Pyongyang reverses its practices and abides by the 
nuclear nonproliferation treaty, any country that sends nuclear 
reactors and technology to North Korea should assume that it is 
exporting these most dangerous technologies to other dangerous regimes 
around the world.
  Madam Chairman, the government of North Korea has egregiously 
violated the human rights of countless of its own citizens, and I know 
that Members are aware of that. They may not be aware that food is 
being used, regrettably, as a weapon, against some of their own people.
  There are children--estimated to be somewhere on the order of 500,000 
kids--arrested, often incarcerated, because they are poor.
  We have these children who are just being arrested. The government is 
so contemptuous of its own people that these kids are dying; and when 
they escape, sometimes they even escape to China to try to get a meal, 
they are brought back and arrested. The international community has no 
access to them, and that includes UNICEF, which has tried.
  So that is the kind of government we are dealing with. I just put 
that in as a parenthetical because I think it gives a backdrop to what 
we are talking about here.
  Let me just say also, Madam Chairman, before we have any U.S. exports 
of nuclear reactors, technology and the like to North Korea, we 
believe--I believe and the chairman believes and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) believes--the President should be required 
to certify that North Korea is fully complying with its obligations 
under NPT.
  The Congress must shoulder its responsibility to ensure that the 
North Korean government has kept its agreement not to develop or to 
export nuclear technology and weapons. When dealing with a country 
whose record on so many issues has been so poor as North Korea's and 
with such weighty issues as nuclear technology transfers, we have a 
responsibility to do no less.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I would inquire as to how much time 
each side has remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has 17 minutes remaining and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) has 12 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) is correct in his recollection that we all remember the 
discussion that we had. We did have that discussion and his 
recollection of it is correct, but also if the gentleman recalls, that 
cave and the discovery thereof was hyped to the highest degree I have 
ever seen around here, with accusations that this is where the new 
nuclear activity was taking place in North Korea. We insisted, and 
rightfully so, that the IAEA gain admission. It was hyped, I think, 
more than was hyped Geraldo's insistence that he was going to find 
great evidence when they opened Al Capone's safe.
  When, indeed, the IAEA was allowed in, they found several things. 
First, they found the cavernous structure was certainly one that could 
not permit the kind of reactor to be built there.
  Scientific tests by the IAEA revealed two things, that there was no 
evidence that anything of which we are talking about had ever been put 
there, let alone removed. There was no evidence of a nuclear reactor 
being taken out and nor was there any evidence that Al Capone had ever 
visited there.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, just to respond again, it is 
a very unuseful fiction. The diplomatic fiction sometimes has a place. 
I do not like it. I like absolute honesty, transparency, everything on 
the table when dealing with something.
  That is why Ambassador Lilley's testimony was so compelling. He said, 
you are going to go to Kamchang-Ri and you are not going to see 
anything. They have had sufficient time to move everything out.
  For the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my good friend, to 
raise it as an example of some kind of compliance, I think misleads, 
however unintentionally he is doing that.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, in brief response to my colleague from 
New York, who invoked the name of Al Capone and Geraldo Rivera's 
opening of the safe, I think it is fair to say that Al Capone was never 
said to have been involved in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and 
that Al Capone was eventually put away when someone checked his books.
  What we are saying here is, we ought to check their books in North 
Korea. If we verify, then maybe the world can be a peaceful place.
  Now, in the agreed framework, North Korea agreed to take steps to 
implement, and that is, quote, the denuclearization agreement, and 
agreed to, quote, remain a party to, unquote, and, quote, allow 
implementation of its safeguards agreement, unquote, under the 
nonproliferation treaty, and agreed to allow the IAEA inspections and 
account for any current plutonium stockpile before nuclear plant 
components are delivered.
  Now, if North Korea follows through on these promises, meeting the 
requirements in this amendment, there should be no problem. This 
amendment is not meant to renegotiate the agreed framework but to 
ensure that it is implemented, to ensure that we help build nuclear 
power plants in North Korea only if North Korea keeps to its 
commitments to end its nuclear arms program.
  I have a great deal of concern, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Ackerman) and others have spoke, that we

[[Page 17031]]

not exclude North Korea from the world community; but as we seek to 
embrace them, we need to share with them our principles about truth and 
about verification.
  Support the amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I think there is not a general disagreement on our 
goals here. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
actually restates the existing policy. We do have to check their books. 
The administration's agreement is to certify that there is no enriched 
uranium there, that they are not seeking to get additional uranium 
there.
  The problem with the proposed legislation is that if only a handful 
of United States senators, more so than the House, decide they do not 
like something about the agreement, they can stop it with a filibuster.
  What troubles me about the proposal before us is that it mandates 
that both Houses of Congress take an affirmative action once the 
administration has made these certifications.
  Well, the problem, of course, with that, is that the Congress may not 
be in session; there may be a political squabble in the Senate that has 
nothing to do with North Korea but may engender the actions of 
senators, as we watch them hold up nominees because of unrelated 
issues, decide they are going to hold up the agreement.
  Now, the fundamental question is, are we better off today than we 
were before the agreement?
  I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who thinks it would 
have been preferable to have the North Koreans continue the development 
of their own unhindered nuclear program with heavy water reactors.
  Dr. Perry, who has the broadest support in this Chamber, says the 
present approach is right. There is agreement that none of us have any 
fondness for the policies or the actions of the North Korean 
government.
  To stand here today and say that we are offended by the starvation 
and the horrors committed to their own people by the North Koreans, 
there is not an argument over that. The argument on this amendment is 
should the Congress create a process that allows a handful of senators 
to bottle up this agreement that has been so critical for reducing 
tensions on the Korean peninsula? The question is, what happens to 
South Korea in this process? What happens to the agreement that we have 
that has, for the first time, gotten real inspections in North Korea?
  Prior to this agreement, there were not a handful of Americans or 
foreign nationals who had been to North Korea. As a result of this 
agreement, we have begun that process.
  We have more contact with the North Koreans today than we had in the 
previous decade. Now, should we have more? Should we have a new 
government in North Korea? Everybody agrees with that.
  The question is whether or not the Congress ought to set into law a 
process that will undermine the credibility we have with the South 
Koreans and that will allow a handful of United States senators to 
stop, for whatever reasons they may choose, the approval of the 
certification that the President has confidence that they do not have 
the enriched uranium they need to make nuclear weapons.
  Now, it seems to me that it is irresponsible of us to move forward 
with legislation that will undermine what has been a stabilizing factor 
on the Korean peninsula.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members not to 
characterize the actions of the Senate.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the distinguished Member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilman-Markey 
amendment. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their 
inspiration and leadership on this very important issue.
  North Korea presents numerous risks to our national security and to 
the stability of East Asia. The dangerous regime in Pyongyang 
contributes to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
missile technology, engages in drug trafficking, and sponsors terrorist 
activities throughout the international community.
  Given this rogue nation's hostility to American values over the last 
50 years, I believe that it would be irresponsible for the Clinton 
administration to hand over $5 billion worth of nuclear reactors to 
North Korea until it honors its commitments under the 1994 agreed 
framework.
  This agreement calls for the North Koreans to freeze their nuclear 
weapons program and to come into full compliance with the nuclear 
nonproliferation treaty. Compliance must be certified by the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, but to date, to date, 
North Korea has denied the IAEA the access it needs to make this 
assessment.
  Madam Chairman, before the United States provides sensitive nuclear 
technology to the North Koreans, we must ensure that Pyongyang is 
holding up its end of the bargain. To do anything less would undermine 
the credibility of the agreed framework and endanger our national 
security and that of our allies in Asia.

                              {time}  1200

  I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman-Markey amendment. This 
common sense proposal prohibits key components of the two nuclear 
reactors in question from being transferred to the North Koreans until 
the following two things happen: number one, the President certifies to 
Congress that North Korea has fully satisfied the IAEA that it is in 
compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and, number two, 
Congress passes a resolution that it agrees with the President's 
certification.
  Madam Chairman, when it comes to North Korea, we should verify before 
we trust. Instead of providing another carrot to this rogue nation, the 
United States must insist that the requirements of the Agreed Framework 
are met.
  I urge the strongest support for the Gilman-Markey amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gilman-Markey amendment. 
Madam Speaker, like almost everything else having to do with North 
Korea, this amendment appears deceptively simple. In reality, the 
issues it raises are extremely complex. On its face, it makes sense to 
hold North Korea to its obligations under the 1994 agreement that it 
signed with the United States. But when we scratch the surface, it is 
clear that this amendment will not do that, and that in fact it may do 
just the opposite.
  This amendment insists that North Korea keep the bargain it made in 
the 1994 Agreed Framework years before the United States is required to 
keep our end of the bargain. It is unreasonable to expect any country 
to follow the course this amendment suggests, and I urge my colleagues 
to reject the temptation this amendment represents. This is a highly 
sensitive time in relations between the United States and North Korea. 
Now is not the time to micromanage our policy.
  Last year, Congress insisted that the President appoint a special 
envoy to evaluate U.S. policy towards North Korea. That man, former 
Secretary of Defense, William Perry, has painstakingly consulted with 
all of us who have expressed an interest in this issue. He has 
conferred at length with our allies in Japan and South Korea. He has 
met

[[Page 17032]]

with officials in China and North Korea. Dr. Perry brings to this work 
an unparalleled understanding of the military risks that a policy 
failure may bring, and he works without the constraints of bureaucracy 
and career concerns.
  Dr. Perry's work is nearing completion. No matter what the House of 
Representatives thinks of the Agreed Framework, no matter what we think 
of the peace of the IAEA inspections, no matter what we think of North 
Korea's policies, now is not the time to undercut Mr. Perry or our 
national security team.
  Nor is this the time to betray our allies. Japan and South Korea, who 
face a direct threat if North Korea's nuclear program is not frozen, do 
not just support the Agreed Framework in words, they also are bearing 
the entire $4 billion to $5 billion burden for constructing the light-
water reactors that it promises North Korea if it freezes its nuclear 
weapons programs. Officials in both countries have expressed their 
concern to me and administration officials about Congressional meddling 
in U.S. relations with North Korea.
  I believe we owe the safety and the wishes of the 175 million people 
who live in these democratic nations some consideration. This amendment 
serves neither our national interest nor those of our allies, and we 
should reject it.
  In the months and years ahead, Congress will have many opportunities 
to ensure the goals of the Gilman-Markey amendment are met. 
Consideration of this amendment today is premature. Voting for it might 
make us feel good, but it is likely to do real damage to the serious 
efforts under way to ease the threat that North Korea still poses.
  Our vote today and our rhetoric during this debate hinder the real 
progress the United States is making in northeast Asia. I urge my 
colleagues to act responsibly by voting against this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Gilman-Markey 
amendment to H.R. 2415, and ask that my full statement be inserted at 
the appropriate place in the Record.
  Madam Chairman, like almost everything else having to do with North 
Korea, this amendment appears deceptively simple. In reality, the 
issues it raises are extremely complex. On its face, it makes sense to 
hold North Korea to its obligations under the 1994 agreement it signed 
with the United States. But when you scratch the surface, it is clear 
that this amendment will not do that--and that in fact, it may do just 
the opposite.
  This amendment insists that North Korea keep the bargain it made in 
the 1994 Agreed Framework years before the United States is required to 
keep our end of that bargain. It is unreasonable to expect any country 
to follow the course this amendment suggests and I urge my colleagues 
to reject the temptation this amendment represents. This is a highly 
sensitive time in relations between the United States and North Korea; 
now is not the time to micro-manage our policy.
  Madam Chairman, I have visited North Korea on several occasions, 
focusing on the famine there but of necessity examining our broader 
policy. During the three years I have tried to help save the innocent 
people in North Korea from starvation, three things have become quite 
clear:
  First, I am convinced that North Korea is changing. Change is not as 
fast or as dramatic as we all would like, but it is change 
nevertheless.
  Its people, who for 50 years have known Americans only as an enemy, 
no longer run from me and the dozens of other Americans who now visit 
the countryside. They know we and others are helping them, but our 
faces and by the millions of bags of food we have provided--bags that 
now can be found in almost every corner of the country because they are 
used over and over, long after the food is gone.
  Its government, which for 50 years has engaged in few constructive 
discussions with the United States, now is willing to talk about a 
range of issues of concern to both our countries--from its missile 
exports, to nuclear matters, to the fundamental issues of peace in 
Northeast Asia.
  Even North Korea's military, which for 50 years has posed one of the 
world's greatest threats to America--and particularly to the 37,000 
American servicemen who face North Korean soldiers across the tense 
DMZ--is changing.
  North Korean soldiers' cooperation with efforts to recover the 
remains of American veterans of the Korean War is outstanding, 
according to our own military. This work is answering the questions of 
the families of missing servicemen at the same time it is giving our 
soldiers and theirs an opportunity to work side by side--something 
that, until very recently, had been unimaginable.
  Second, it is clear to me that the 1994 agreement is one of the more 
imperfect deals the United States has ever made. It is focused more 
narrowly than Congress would like, on nuclear issues alone--instead of 
on the missile program that now poses an equal challenge to our 
country. and it undertakes an endeavor whose success is dubious: to 
assure changes in a country that has confounded all diplomatic and 
military efforts during the past 50 years.
  In fairness, though, the Agreed Framework is a document that 
represents the best our negotiators could do under difficult 
circumstances. And if it succeeds, it could be a starting point for 
real progress on other issues.
  Unfortunately, the Gilman-Markey amendment asks Congress to look at 
the Agreed Framework as if it is a snapshot; to judge an agreement that 
covers many more years not on the basis of its overall progress--but 
instead by how it appears on July 21, 1999.
  Safeguards are written into the Agreed Framework that will ensure 
North Korea has (1) frozen its nuclear program, and (2) not reprocessed 
plutonium in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty just as 
this amendment insists. But these safeguards are not triggered until 
the light-water reactors are closer to completion, several years from 
now.
  The IAEA's inspectors need every moment of the time between today's 
vote and the day the reactors receive their nuclear cores. They need 
that time to build relationships with their North Korean counterparts, 
relationships that will ensure they get the access they need to make 
the inspections required by the Agreed Framework. And, to persuade 
North Korea to keep its obligation to allow inspections, the IAEA needs 
the United States, South Korea, and Japan to keep their word.
  This amendment will not help the IAEA's inspectors do their work--
because it will convince North Korea that the United States plans to 
renege on our commitment. North Korea's leaders already suspect this is 
our intention, because we have made precious little progress on 
normalizing relations--as we promised in the Agreed Framework.
  Third, it is clear to me that there is great suspicion among our 
colleagues about this Administration's policy toward North Korea. The 
amendment before us today would let many long-time opponents of the 
Agreed Framework wrest the tiller from the President and put Congress 
at the helm of our ship of state.
  Madam Chairman, that is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. 
Adopting this amendment would break new ground--an experiment we 
shouldn't try on a nation that remains a threat to our national 
security.
  Last year, Congress insisted that the President appoint a special 
envoy to evaluate U.S. policy toward North Korea. That man, former 
Secretary of Defense William Perry, has painstakingly consulted with 
all of us who have expressed any interest in this issue. He has 
conferred at length with our allies in Japan and South Korea, and he 
has met with officials in China and North Korea. Dr. Perry brings to 
this work an unparalleled understanding of the military risks that a 
policy failure may bring; and he works without the constraints of 
bureaucracy and career concerns.
  Dr. Perry's work is nearing completion. No matter what the House of 
Representatives thinks of the Agreed Framework, no matter what we think 
of the pace of IAEA inspections, no matter what we think of North 
Korea's policies--now is not the time to undercut Dr. Perry or our 
national security team.
  Nor is this the time to betray our allies. Japan and South Korea--who 
face a direct threat if North Korea's nuclear program is not frozen--
don't just support the Agreed Framework in words; they also are bearing 
the entire $4-5 billion burden for constructing the light-water 
reactors that it promises North Korea if it freezes its nuclear weapons 
program. Officials in both countries have expressed their concern to me 
and administration officials about Congressional meddling in U.S. 
relations with North Korea.
  I believe we owe the safety and wishes of the 175 million people who 
live in these democratic nations some consideration. This amendment 
serves neither our national interests, nor those of our allies and we 
should reject it.
  In the months and years ahead, Congress will have many opportunities 
to ensure the goals of the Gilman-Markey amendment are met. 
Consideration of this amendment today is premature. Voting for it might 
make us all feel good, but it is likely to do real damage to the 
serious efforts underway to ease the threat that North Korea still 
poses.

[[Page 17033]]

  Our vote today, and our rhetoric during this debate, hinder the real 
progress the United States is making in northeast Asia. I urge my 
colleagues to act responsible by voting against the Gilman-Markey 
amendment to H.R. 2415.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, I also would like to support the Gilman-
Markey amendment. I know that both sides on this issue are trying to 
prevent nuclear proliferation by North Korea. But whatever efforts are 
taking place I do not believe are working.
  We have all been concerned in the last few weeks about the conflict 
in Kashmir, because India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. India 
developed its nuclear weapons indigenously, but not so with Pakistan 
that continues to get help from North Korea, China, and other countries 
exporting nuclear weapons and equipment.
  On June 25 of this year, a North Korean vessel, the M.V. Kuwolsan, 
docked at Kandia port, which is an India port in the state of Gujarat.
  During the examination of the cargo on board, it was found to contain 
148 boxes, declared as machines and water-refining equipment. 
Subsequent examination of these boxes established that equipment was, 
in fact, for production of tactical surface-to-surface missiles with a 
range in excess of 300 kilometers. It included special materials and 
equipment, components for guidance systems, blue prints, drawings, and 
instruction manuals for production of such missiles.
  Subsequently, in what seems to establish North Korea's active role in 
Pakistan's missile program, Kuwolsan, the owner of the Korean ship that 
was impounded, admitted that the Malta-bound missile parts-
manufacturing machinery were to be delivered at the Karachi port in 
Pakistan.
  So we know that North Korea's continued support for the Pakistani 
nuclear program missile and missile development program continues at 
this time. Whatever efforts we are making are not working. North Korea 
continues to be a rogue state. There is no reason why the U.S. 
Government should allow their nuclear proliferation to continue.
  I urge support for the Gilman-Markey amendment. I yield back the 
balance.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), our distinguished vice chairman 
of our committee.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Gilman) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I have been involved in committee debate and have not 
prepared remarks for the amendment that is offered by the gentleman 
from New York. But I do think it is so important that we need to see if 
there is any common ground. I want to address some remarks particularly 
to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  As some of my colleagues know, I chair the Subcommittee on Asia and 
the Pacific. In each of the last three Congresses, I have made the 
hearing on North Korea the first held each Congress in the Subcommittee 
on Asia and the Pacific, because I feel it is potentially the most 
dangerous place in the world that, indeed, as the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Ackerman) pointed out, this is a very isolated regime. I 
would go on to say a very paranoid regime that, all too apparently, 
cares very little about the welfare of their people.
  Among the people I have known in the executive branch appointed to 
leadership positions, few, if any, would be up there in the ranks of 
Dr. Perry, a former Secretary of Defense. I have great respect for him. 
I do not want to do anything to undercut his effort in trying to find 
if North Korea is willing to take a different tack.
  On the other hand, I have great suspicion that, in fact, North Korea 
is violating the Agreed Framework, that they are proceeding with 
nuclear development. They are the world's greatest tunnelers. The fact 
that we have examined one site where we have suspicion tells us really 
nothing definitive about what they may be doing.
  I would say, as they approach what appears to be their intent to 
proceed with the launch of a Taepo Dong 2 missile, which has 
extraordinary range, I believe that, if in fact they launch this 
missile, they will have crossed the line; and we will have to conclude 
that they are irrevocably on a path that is dangerous for our interest 
and dangerous for our world and ultimately dangerous for the people 
living in the United States.
  I am very familiar with what we are attempting to do, of course, with 
KEDO, the light-water reactors, two of them, which would be provided 
primarily at the expense of the Republic of Korea, South Korea, and 
Japan, but basically U.S.-licensed design. Of course we have been 
providing heavy fuel to assist during this period of time when North 
Koreans say they need the energy.
  But we have fallen into a pattern of complying with extortion on the 
part of the North Koreans. Again and again, we have provided 
assistance, primarily indirectly through international organizations 
for food, to help the people of North Korea. They have become our 
largest recipient of humanitarian assistance in Asia. This is a country 
that continuously daily, day after day, condemns the United States in 
the most incredible language.
  Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), for whom I have 
great respect, who was a previous chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia 
and the Pacific, says he is concerned that none of the conditions for 
certification by the President could be really implemented, or at least 
some of them could not be implemented because they express intent. I 
read them to be action, not intent. So I am not quite sure I understand 
the gentleman's argument in that respect.
  Mostly, however, I would like to say to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the point that he has made about, I will 
refer to it indirectly, action that might take place to stall any kind 
of affirmative action by the Congress by resolution, joint resolution 
to approve. The House, of course, earlier, by a 300-plus margin, with 
the gentleman concurring, voted for such an affirmative action for the 
transfer of domestic nuclear power components to China. Now, that did 
not become law, but in fact we embraced that as a possibility.
  I would say to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) that an expedited procedure, on a one-time basis only, would 
bridge the gap, would find common ground between those of us concerned 
about what may be happening there, the need for certification, that 
could be something that could be accomplished in conference, for 
example.
  Would the gentleman from Connecticut care to comment to the reaction 
to an expedited procedure so that, in fact, there could be no delays 
which would make it impossible to have an affirmative action by a joint 
resolution?
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I certainly would find it far more 
acceptable for a process that provided for expedited procedure than 
allowing inaction to undermine the entire process.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think that is 
something that we need to consider.
  I would say to the gentleman, if Dr. Perry finds they are on a 
different track, the wrong track for us, clearly this kind of 
resolution will come to the floor, even if the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is not approved today. It is inevitable.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that an 
expedited procedure is something that needs to be supported.

[[Page 17034]]


  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I think that one of my hesitations in this 
legislation, of course, is both process and substance. The chairman of 
the committee was in the process of marking up a piece of legislation 
to address the situation in North Korea, and then we find ourselves 
without really having sat down, held hearings and the substantial kind 
of work that ought to happen with Dr. Perry, that we find ourselves 
presented with this amendment that has the potential of undermining the 
agreement on the Korean Peninsula.
  I would say to my colleagues that I would venture there is not one 
Member of this Chamber that believes we were better off on the Korean 
Peninsula prior to the agreement that the administration worked out.
  Frankly, if my colleagues looked at the facts seriously, they could 
not come to that conclusion. The North Koreans were in the process of 
developing sufficient fissionable material to make weapons. They have 
stopped that program. We have inspectors there. We have more contact 
than we have ever had before.
  I, frankly, think wherever the Communist or totalitarian government 
is, the one element that constantly undermines authoritarian rule is 
contact with Americans and free societies.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this. The chairman of the committee 
has an opportunity to bring a bill forward that could take a look at 
expedited procedures, that could set up a process that makes sense. It 
does not make sense to pass this here. I urge the defeat of this 
legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the 
amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Chairman pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by a 
5-minute vote on the Sanders amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 305, 
noes 120, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 321]

                               AYES--305

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--120

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Chenoweth
     Dicks
     Hinchey
     Kennedy
     Largent
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Talent

                              {time}  1237

  Messrs. HOLDEN, MASCARA, LEWIS of Georgia, LUTHER, BECERRA, NADLER, 
OWENS, OLVER, and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FROST, MALONEY of Connecticut, STRICKLAND, BARRETT of 
Wisconsin, Ms. CARSON, and Mrs. THURMAN changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
247, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 15 
printed in Part B offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), 
and amendment No. 18 printed in Part B offered by the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 15 printed in Part B offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 17035]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated 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 117, 
noes 307, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 322]

                               AYES--117

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dixon
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--307

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Chenoweth
     Dicks
     Hinchey
     Kennedy
     Lewis (CA)
     McDermott
     Mica
     Peterson (PA)
     Talent

                              {time}  1247

  Mrs. KELLY and Mr. RAHALL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WU, TOWNS, GEORGE MILLER of California and BECERRA changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, on rollcall no. 322, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Gibbons

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on Part B amendment No. 18 offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             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 418, 
noes 3, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                               AYES--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson

[[Page 17036]]


     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Barr
     McKinney
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Bishop
     Chenoweth
     DeLay
     Hinchey
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy
     LaFalce
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Talent
     Udall (CO)

                              {time}  1256

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DeLAY: Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 323, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). It is now in 
order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in part B of House Report 
106-235.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Bereuter

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

       Part B amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Bereuter:
       Page 84, after line 16, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be necessary):

     SEC. 703. SELF-DETERMINATION IN EAST TIMOR.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) On May 5, 1999, the Government of Indonesia and the 
     Government of Portugal signed an agreement that provides for 
     a vote on the political status of East Timor to be held on 
     August 8, 1999, under the auspices of the United Nations.
       (2) On June 22, 1999, the vote was rescheduled for August 
     21 or 22, 1999, because of concerns that the conditions 
     necessary for a free and fair vote could not be established 
     prior to August 8, 1999.
       (3) On January 27, 1999, Indonesian President Habibie 
     expressed a willingness to consider independence for East 
     Timor if a majority of the East Timorese reject autonomy in 
     the August 1999 vote.
       (4) Under the agreement between the Governments of 
     Indonesia and Portugal, the Government of Indonesia is 
     responsible for ensuring that the August 1999 vote is carried 
     out in a fair and peaceful way and in an atmosphere free of 
     intimidation, violence, or interference.
       (5) The inclusion of anti-independence militia members in 
     Indonesian forces that are responsible for establishing 
     security in East Timor violates this agreement because the 
     agreement states that the absolute neutrality of the military 
     and police is essential for holding a free and fair vote.
       (6) The arming of anti-independence militias by members of 
     the Indonesian military for the purpose of sabotaging the 
     August 1999 ballot has resulted in hundreds of civilians 
     killed, injured, or missing in separate attacks by these 
     militias and these militias continue to act without 
     restraint.
       (7) The United Nations Secretary General has received 
     credible reports of political violence, including 
     intimidation and killing, by armed anti-independence militias 
     against unarmed pro-independence civilians in East Timor.
       (8) There have been killings of opponents of independence 
     for East Timor, including civilians and militia members.
       (9) The killings in East Timor should be fully investigated 
     and the individuals responsible brought to justice.
       (10) Access to East Timor by international human rights 
     monitors and humanitarian organizations is limited and 
     members of the press have been threatened.
       (11) The presence of members of the United Nations 
     Assistance Mission in East Timor has already resulted in an 
     improved security environment in the East Timorese capital of 
     Dili.
       (12) A robust international observer mission and police 
     force throughout East Timor is critical to creating a stable 
     and secure environment necessary for a free and fair vote.
       (13) The Administration should be commended for its support 
     for the United Nations Assistance Mission in East Timor which 
     will provide monitoring and support for the ballot and 
     include international civilian police, military liaison 
     officers, and election monitors.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the President and the Secretary of State should 
     immediately intensify their efforts to prevail upon the 
     Indonesian Government and military--
       (A) to disarm and disband anti-independence militias in 
     East Timor;
       (B) to grant full access to East Timor by international 
     human rights monitors, humanitarian organizations, and the 
     press; and
       (C) to allow Timorese who have been living in exile to 
     return to East Timor to participate in the vote on the 
     political status of East Timor to be held on August 1999 
     under the auspices of the United Nations; and
       (2) not later than 21 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the President should prepare and transmit to the 
     Congress a report that contains a description of the efforts 
     of the Administration, and an assessment of the steps taken 
     by the Indonesian Government and military, to ensure a stable 
     and secure environment in East Timor for the vote on the 
     political status of East Timor, including an assessment of 
     the steps taken in accordance with subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C) of paragraph (1).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. BEREUTER. For purposes of a parliamentary inquiry, I yield to the 
gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know the appropriate 
time to claim the time in opposition. I do not plan to oppose this 
amendment. I would ask unanimous consent at that point to have the time 
in opposition allotted to this Member.
  When is the appropriate time to take that?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the Member may be 
recognized to control that time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to get the time 
in opposition, to control that time, while I am not in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns the upcoming U.N.-administered 
plebiscite in which the people of East Timor will choose between 
autonomy within Indonesia and independence. Formerly a Portuguese 
colony, East Timor was occupied in 1975 by Indonesia. Since that time, 
its status has been in dispute. The U.N. and most governments, 
including the United States, have never recognized the incorporation of 
East Timor into Indonesia.

[[Page 17037]]

  Mr. Chairman, the human rights violations created by Indonesian 
security forces seeking to suppress the independence movement in East 
Timor have for a long time seriously affected U.S. relations with 
Indonesia and certainly it has been debated here on the House floor 
fairly often. Admittedly some of the actions by the Indonesians were 
reprisals for tragic provocations, but violence from any quarter must 
be condemned.
  Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous Nation. It has the 
largest population of Muslims in the world, and plays a leading role in 
the important Southeast Asian region. Indonesia is currently embarked 
on what we certainly hope is a transition to democracy, following the 
resignation of its longtime ruler Soeharto in May of 1998.
  As described in the ``findings'' portion of the amendment I offered, 
the Indonesian government has taken important steps toward a solution 
to the East Timor problem. Under a United Nations-brokered agreement 
between Indonesia and Portugal, the East Timorese people will choose 
between autonomy and independence in a vote tentatively scheduled for 
August 21 or 22 of this year. Unfortunately, repeated violent incidents 
in East Timor are threatening the ability of the United Nations to 
organize the vote in a climate free from intimidation.
  Much of the violence has been carried out by armed, pro-Indonesian 
paramilitary organizations attempting to bully the population into 
supporting the autonomy option. Since last June, militias have also 
been targeting U.N. officials and non-government organization 
representatives seeking to aid the displaced local population.

                              {time}  1300

  There continues to be evidence that the militias are operating with 
the support or at least the acquiescence of the Indonesian forces. 
Although lesser in scope, pro-independence guerrillas have committed 
violent acts of their own.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment puts the Congress on record in support of 
a free and fair vote in East Timor. It also expresses the sense of 
Congress that the administration should redouble its efforts to prevail 
upon the Indonesian government to disarm the militias and allow the 
vote to proceed in a climate free of violence and intimidation. 
Certainly a peaceful outcome in East Timor is important for its own 
sake. At the same time, it would remove a long standing irritant in 
relations between the United States and Indonesia, and Indonesia can be 
and at times has been a very important ally in proceedings in southeast 
Asia and elsewhere in that region.
  This Member urges, therefore, his colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to join in support of this amendment. The outrage and 
attempted genocide by the Indonesians in East Timor over the last 
decade and more has been an outrageous act. We had initial optimism. We 
now see some sliding back. This resolution does the right thing. I hope 
we pass it unanimously.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that our time be controlled by 
the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
for his support, and I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
for this amendment. The upcoming August vote in East Timor on 
independence from Indonesia must take place in an atmosphere that is 
going to be free and fair. U.N. representatives have been intimidated 
and hundreds of pro-independence civilians have been killed by anti-
independence militias armed by the Indonesian military. The Indonesian 
government should disarm and disband the anti-independence militias, 
grant full access to East Timor by international human rights 
organizations and monitors and allow East Timorese living abroad to 
return home for the August elections.
  Accordingly I am pleased to be supportive of the proposal of the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I urge Members to support 
this amendment.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on April 5 of this year, 25 men, women, and children 
were murdered in a church yard in Liquica, a town about 20 miles west 
of East Timor's capital. Two weeks later, militia members burst into 
the home of a prominent independence organizer and murdered his son as 
well as 14 other people. These attacks and others including attacks 
upon U.N. referendum monitors are being carried out by bands of 
paramilitary thugs with the backing of Indonesia's military who are 
intent on preserving Indonesia's illegal military occupation of East 
Timor.
  They have chosen the tactics of terror over the ballot because it is 
clear that if the August U.N.-sponsored referendum on independence is 
free and fair, the people will choose freedom and independence. But the 
outcome of the referendum is very much in doubt. The people of East 
Timor know very well the brutality of Indonesia. Since Indonesia 
illegally invaded and occupied East Timor 24 years ago, 200,000 East 
Timorese have lost their lives to political violence. Those 200,000 
deaths lend a haunting credence to the threats of the paramilitary 
bands.
  Today we have an opportunity to send a very different message to the 
people of East Timor. Today we can join our colleagues in the Senate 
who voted unanimously last month to support disarming, the militia's 
release of political prisoners, and a free referendum on independence 
for the people of East Timor.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for 
yielding this time to me, and I want to commend the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his amendment regarding self-determination 
in East Timor. It does represent a modest, but much needed, 
congressional statement that deserves the overwhelming support of this 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, for over 20 years international human rights advocates 
have been calling attention to abuses by the Indonesian government in 
the occupation of East Timor. Indonesia's armed forces invaded East 
Timor in 1975 only weeks after East Timor had obtained 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 a total population of 700,000 have 
been killed directly or by starvation in forced migration from their 
villages since the Indonesian invasion. The upcoming August vote on the 
political status of East Timor is of critical importance to the people 
of that region and represents the first step toward a just and humane 
solution of their political status.
  Of course, to be meaningful, that election must be carried out in a 
fair and peaceful atmosphere, free of violence and free of 
intimidation. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, members of the Indonesian 
military have been arming anti-independence militias which have been 
responsible for the intimidation and killing of unarmed pro-
independence civilians in East Timor.
  According to one estimate, more than 58,000 people are now internally

[[Page 17038]]

displaced as a result of paramilitary violence in East Timor. There has 
not been any independent investigation of recent atrocities including 
the atrocity at Liquica, the massacre in which over 50 civilians were 
killed in and around a church.
  Notwithstanding the helpful presence of members of the United Nations 
Assistance Mission in East Timor's capital of Dili, the political 
atmosphere is far from fair and peaceful, especially in rural areas 
where there is no international presence. Much more must be done and 
the Congress must send an unequivocal message to the Indonesian 
military: Stop the violence.
  I would like to at this point, Mr. Chairman, enter into a colloquy 
with my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  In addition to calling on the President and the Secretary of State to 
intensify their efforts to support self-determination, the original 
draft of the gentleman's amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules 
also mentioned the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury 
and U.S. executive directors to international financial institutions. I 
understand that those references were withdrawn for reasons of 
germaneness. However, given the close relationship between the U.S. and 
Indonesian militaries--I would just point out parenthetically that we 
have had hearings in my subcommittee on the JCET program in Indonesia. 
And I have also gone out there and met with them, and I am very, very 
unhappy with what is going on there in our collaboration with Kopassus. 
But because of this relationship and because of the obvious influence 
wielded by the Treasury Department and international financial 
institutions in Indonesia, those actors may well have more leverage 
with Indonesian authorities than the State Department does.
  Does the gentleman believe, as I do, that although these officials 
are no longer mentioned in his amendment, it is just as important that 
they intensify their own efforts in support of self-determination in 
East Timor?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do agree. I would say to the 
gentleman, as a matter of jurisdiction, that those particular high 
officials of our government were not mentioned.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I 
urge strong support for the Bereuter amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Guam (Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
this time to me, and, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) for offering this amendment on East Timor. I would also 
like to take the opportunity to commend the efforts of one of our 
colleagues who is not here, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy) for his dedication and work on this issue.
  As the closest Member to East Timor and Indonesia, all the activities 
in East Timor is taken with a very strong sense of interest and concern 
in Guam. And at a time when the people of East Timor have a window of 
opportunity to decide the future of their political status, we must do 
all that we can to ensure that this process is unhindered and 
reflective of the true desires of the East Timorese.
  Although the language in this amendment is not as forceful as some of 
us would like, I believe it is an important step in demonstrating to 
the Indonesian government and the East Timorese that the United States, 
the American people, is committed to ensuring a free and fair vote in 
East Timor. As the August vote nears, we may see yet a further 
escalation of the intimidation tactics and violence employed by the 
anti independence forces.
  The passage of this amendment will send a strong message to the 
Indonesian government that these activities cannot and will not be 
tolerated and must cease. I am hopeful that the democratic principles 
will prevail in East Timor and that at the beginning of the 21st 
century, we will witness the establishment of East Timorese leadership 
which is in line with the will of the people of East Timor. It is my 
earnest hope that the August elections will go on without intimidation 
and that we stand not only for the elections, fair elections, free and 
fair elections without intimidation but for the principle of self-
determination in East Timor and around the world.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding this time to me as well as I want to thank my colleague on the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) and also, as mentioned before, my good colleague from 
the State of Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). Both of them have done 
enormous work to bring this resolution to the floor.
  I want to thank them particularly. The gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Kennedy) has done an awful lot of work not only for the East 
Timorese, but the Portuguese community throughout our State. He has 
been not only a hard worker, but a hero on these causes, and 
unfortunately, due to circumstances he is not able to be here, but I 
want to congratulate him for bringing this to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, in my first term in Congress, I was visited by 
Constancio Pinto, who many of my colleagues may know him as a well-
known leader in the fight for liberty in East Timor. At the time, Mr. 
Pinto was studying at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island he 
came to the Hill to talk about the atrocities in the situation that has 
occurred in East Timor.
  His experiences, he told us about the horrors not only done upon 
himself but also upon his family and members of his neighborhood and 
his community. The butchering, the slaughtering, and the kind of 
intimidation that was going on in East Timor would shock most any 
person. He was, indeed, arrested and tortured himself in 1991 and into 
1992, but he came back to talk about these atrocities and asked for 
assistance and help.
  His meeting with us, he always asked for us to allow for the East 
Timorese to have the opportunity to vote on independence or autonomy. 
This resolution does that but goes even a step further. It requires and 
requests that there be a disarmament of the militia which are the ones 
that are truly intimidating the East Timorese people. This is an 
atrocity that cannot occur in a democratic government. We ask them to 
cease and desist in this effort so that there can be a fair and open 
vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the Member who brought this to the 
floor, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) as well as the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). This is an important vote 
for democracy and freedom, and I ask all Members to support it.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  The Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor has claimed over 
200,000 lives. One-third of the total population has perished as 
Indonesia continues to violate international law and act in defiance of 
the U.N. Security Council. We must not turn our backs.

                              {time}  1315

  This amendment makes it the sense of Congress to seek democracy and 
peace in East Timor. The amendment calls for the disarmament of anti-
independence militias, full access for human rights monitors, and the 
right of Timorese who have lived in exile to return to their homes to 
vote. The provisions set out in this amendment are necessary if we are 
to set this region down a road towards peace and justice. This 
amendment lays the groundwork for ending the human rights atrocities 
that are committed daily in East

[[Page 17039]]

Timor. We cannot turn our backs on this region. The time to act is now 
and the killing must stop, the injustice must end and peace must come 
to the people of East Timor.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Bereuter amendment. Promote 
democracy, and let us start down that road to lasting peace and 
justice.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the remaining time 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) for his leadership on this, and all of the Members. 
There are so many, their names cannot be mentioned, but for the 
faithful necessary.
  I visited East Timor about 2 years ago, the sites, the scenes, the 
stories of slaughter and death which apparently is still taking place, 
even in a greater amount. This resolution will help, and I would hope, 
and I call on the administration, Assistant Secretary Roth to take a 
high-level official from our DOD to go to Jakarta and also to go to 
East Timor to tell the Indonesian military that if the violence 
continues, there will be no support at all from the United States for 
their military. The gentleman's language I think sets up a good system 
whereby we can send that message.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and 
all of the Members, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and may others for their faithfulness.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by 
Representative Doug Bereuter condemning ongoing violence in East Timor.
  I visited East Timor in 1997 and found the island to be in a state of 
siege. The people with whom I spoke were afraid to look me in the eye. 
I heard stories of young people being dragged away from their homes at 
night and could sense the massive military presence that had kept the 
aspirations of the East Timorese in check since 1974. I met with one 
young man whose ear had been cut by security officials and heard story 
after story of violence.
  This year brought signs of hope when President Habibie announced in 
January of his intention of allow for a referendum on the status of 
east Timor. For the first time, the people of East Timor would be able 
to make their views known in a legitimate process monitored by the 
United Nations and a secret ballot. This was a very positive step 
forward and I personally wrote President Habibie commending this 
action.
  But once again, forces of darkness are conspiring to prevent a 
referendum from taking place. Paramilitaries, widely believed to be 
armed and financed by the Indonesian military, are roaming the island, 
threatening leaders who are calling for independence and terrorizing 
the population. Tens of thousands of East Timorese have been forced to 
flee their homes and are hiding out in the hills and forests. Many 
people continue to die. I enclose for the record a recent article from 
the Washington Post describing this situation. It is terrifying.
  The United Nations mission has been attacked. U.N. monitors are 
restricted to the capital city of Dili and have not been allowed into 
the countryside where much of the violence is taking place.
  Several months ago, Congress heard the testimony of one young man who 
survived a massacre in the village of Liquica on April 5-6. He spoke of 
the violence, intimidation, terror and abuse that was taking place at 
the hands of the pro-integration paramilitary units in Timor. More than 
200 people died. He barely survived after being beaten over the head 
with a concrete block by his attackers. The police and plain clothes 
members of the Indonesian government stood by and watched this attack 
take place. I enclose a copy of his testimony for the record.
  The Bereuter amendment condemns paramilitary violence in East Timor, 
urges the immediate disarmament of all paramilitary units and urges 
that international human rights monitors be given free and open access 
in order to prevent violence in the weeks leading up to the United 
Nations sponsored referendum.
  This amendment is very, very important. Indonesia must get the 
message that its relationship with the United States will not be fully 
restored until a free and fair referendum takes place in East Timor.
  For Jakarta, this could be a win/win situation. The recent elections 
in Indonesia showed tremendous progress and signs of hope. The 
international community, and the American people, are ready to move 
forward into a new era of U.S.-Indonesian cooperation.
  But, the United States should not fully embrace Indonesia until it 
does everything possible to comply with the terms of the United Nations 
agreement set forth earlier this year and cooperate with the United 
Nations mission in East Timor (UNAMET).
  The military leaders in Indonesia must recognize that the people of 
East Timor have a legitimate right to peacefully make their views known 
about their political future. The Indonesian military must become a 
force for peace, rather than violence.
  Personally, I strongly oppose the resumption of a cooperative 
military relationship between the U.S. and Indonesia until there is a 
free, fair and bloodless referendum in East Timor. Congress has denied 
Indonesia the right to participate in the International Military 
Exchange Training Program (IMET) and the Joint Combined Exchange 
Training Program (JCET) because of its concern about ABRI's role in 
East Timor. We did this over the objections of the administration. I, 
and I know many of my colleagues share this view, do not support 
resuming either of these programs until after the referendum takes 
place.
  This message must be relayed regularly and forcefully by high-ranking 
administration officials. I enclose for the record a copy of my recent 
letter to Stanley Roth urging him to visit East Timor before the 
referendum. I have suggested that he take with him a high-ranking 
military officer, such as Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet 
Admiral Blair, so that there is no doubt in the mind of the General 
Wiranto and the rest of the Indonesian military about our intentions. 
The message must be clear: there will be military cooperation between 
the U.S. and Indonesia until a free and fair referendum takes place in 
East Timor.
  This amendment is a step in that direction. I support the Bereuter 
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

               [From the Washington Post, July 20, 1999]

                    Thousands Flee Homes in E. Timor

                         (By Keith B. Richburg)

       Faulara, Indonesia.--Army-backed militias have forced tens 
     of thousands of East Timorese villagers from their homes--
     shoving some over the border into other parts of Indonesia--
     in a campaign apparently aimed at influencing the outcome of 
     next month's United Nations-sponsored referendum on 
     independence for the territory.
       The United Nations, human rights groups and aid agencies 
     have estimated that between 40,000 and 60,000 people have 
     been driven from their homes, with thousands being held in 
     town centers as virtual hostages to the militias, who hold 
     indoctrination classes instructing them to vote against 
     independence. The militias have confiscated radios to ensure 
     that the villagers have no access to outside information 
     about the ballot, say U.N. officials, aid workers and some of 
     the displaced people.
       Some of the people have fled into the surrounding hills and 
     forests where they are suffering from lack of food and 
     medicine and outside the reach of aid agencies. Many of those 
     in the forests and camped along roadsides said they fled 
     after being told they would be killed if they did not join 
     the militia, known in this area as the Besi Merah Putih 
     (BMP), which means Red and White Iron, after the colors of 
     the Indonesian flag.
       ``They came and said you all have to become Besi Merah 
     Putih or you die,'' said Laurendo, 28, interviewed along the 
     road in the Sarai area in the western portion of the 
     territory, which is now home to about 3,500 displaced 
     people.``Some joined, because they didn't want to die. Some 
     ran into the hills. Others were killed. They just killed them 
     right there, and left the bodies for others to collect.''
       Ian Martin, head of the U.N. mission in East Timor, known 
     as UNAMET, said the issue of displaced people is one of the 
     biggest hurdles to overcome in ensuring a free and fair vote 
     next month.
       He said they numbered ``ten of thousands. The nature of the 
     problem is such that you can't hope to put a number on it.''
       Another relief agency, whose officials asked that their 
     names and organizations not be published, put the number of 
     displaced at ``58,000 or more,'' including 11,000 who have 
     sought refuge in the territory's capital, Dili.
       The three western districts where the BMP holds sway are 
     East Timor's most populous provinces. The militias rule with 
     virtual impunity here, and U.N. workers have been attacked 
     and threatened. And it is here that the anti-independence 
     militias have threatened to carve off the western provinces 
     and partition the territory, if East Timor votes for 
     independence.
       Last May, Indonesia signed an agreement at the United 
     Nations setting up the August referendum that most analysts 
     say is likely to lead to approval of independence, almost 24 
     years after Indonesian troops invaded the territory and began 
     a violent occupation that has killed about 200,000 people. 
     But even

[[Page 17040]]

     while agreeing to hold the ballot, the Indonesian military 
     since the beginning of the year has been arming and 
     supporting as many as 13 militia groups like the Red and 
     White Iron, which have been terrorizing and trying to 
     intimidate people into voting to remain a part of Indonesia.
       ``On the face of it, it seems they want to force people to 
     vote for autonomy [and against independence], so they use 
     violence, terror, even money,'' said Aniceto Gutteres Lopes, 
     a Timorese lawyer who heads the Legal Aid, Human Rights and 
     Justice Foundation in Dili.
       Gutteres said his group has data putting the number of 
     displaced people as high as 60,000. ``People are unable to 
     stay in one location,'' he said. He also said his office has 
     received consistent reports of displaced people, mostly 
     women, children and the elderly, who have been forced out of 
     East Timor, across the border to the town of Atambua, in West 
     Timor, which is part of Indonesia. The men, he said, ``are 
     left behind and forced to join the militia.''
       Villagers appeared to confirm reports of a campaign to 
     prevent large numbers of East Timorese from voting. Santiago, 
     20, wearing a ripped white T-shirt, shorts and a herded-band, 
     and armed with a machete, recalls how 30 people from his 
     village were headed away--including his mother and father.
       ``They took them away in an army truck,'' he said. ``All 
     the men were killed. Only the women and old people were 
     spared.'' He said the militiamen told them their relatives 
     were being moved across the border. And now Santiago and his 
     friend, Maumeta, where standing along the road, on watch for 
     any sign of militamen approaching.
       Dan Murphy, an American doctor working in Dili, was on the 
     only aid convoy that went into the area to find displaced 
     people. The convoy, including several U.N. vehicles, was 
     attacked by a militia outside Likisia on the return trip. 
     ``The militias destroy any radio,'' he said. ``You've killed 
     or punished if you listen to a radio. The only information 
     they want you to have is what they tell you.''
       ``Western [East] Timor is decimated,'' Murphy said. ``The 
     entire population has just spread, running through the 
     jungles . . . You can argue about the numbers, but the fact 
     is, the population has been decimated.''
       A trip to the region by three journalists confirmed the 
     extent of the depopulation. Dozens of houses have been burned 
     to ruin along a 30-mile stretch of road between the towns of 
     Likisia and Sarai. The area now seems largely empty of 
     people.
       One village, called Guico, appeared especially hard hit; 
     all that remained from a militia attack were the frames of 
     buildings and a few collapsed corrugated tin roofs. On the 
     wall of one burned-out shell of what may have been a guard 
     shack, a scrawled line of graffiti reads: ``Goodbye, Guico--
     you are a village that will always be in my memory.''
       Some who fled have become so hungry and weak after months 
     in hiding that they have begun the trek back home, despite 
     the risk of encountering the militia. This reverse movement 
     is what aid groups and others say has made a precise count of 
     displaced people difficult.
       The journalists last week encountered a group of 11 
     families making the return trip, after hiding in the forest 
     since February. They came along the road with their 
     belongings tied to their backs, piled in wheelbarrows, and 
     strapped on horseback--plastic containers and wicker mats, 
     machetes for cutting wood and a few burlap sacks.
       Among the group was a 28-year-old woman named Akalina, 
     traveling with her husband, and a 1-month old baby who was 
     listless and underweight.
       ``If we stayed in the forest any longer, we wouldn't have 
     enough to eat,'' she said.
       U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan decided to allow voter 
     registration to begin July 16 despite the problem of the 
     displaced people. Even taking the lowest estimates, they 
     represent more than 10 percent of the voting population of 
     around 400,000.
       To make sure the displaced are not left out, the world body 
     is considering mobile voting registration teams that will 
     seek them out. If they have lost their identity cards or 
     other documents, the refugees will be able to sign an 
     affidavit when they register.
       In addition, the Japanese government has given 2,000 
     portable radios to UNAMET, and David Wimhurst, the U.N. 
     spokesman in Dili, said some of those will be allocated to 
     the displaced people.
       For the moment, the displaced people here at Faulara are 
     interested mainly in survival, and that means staying alert, 
     being ready to move when necessary, and keeping one step 
     ahead of the militias.
                                  ____


                        Mass Killing in Liquica


                              Introduction

       First I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the 
     people and government of the US for this invaluable 
     opportunity to give a testimony about the suffering 
     experienced by the people of Timor Leste.
       My name is Francisco de Jesus da Costa. I am one of the 
     victims and witnesses of the massacre committed by the 
     Indonesian Military (TNI) in Liquica who managed to escape 
     death.
       Before the bloody incident, the TNI and the paramilitary 
     had engaged in various forms of violence such as 
     intimidation, terror, abuse, and killing in Liquica. They 
     perpetrated these horrible acts to pressure and coerce people 
     to choose the autonomy plan offered by the Indonesian 
     government. The targets of this terror and killing are the 
     leaders of the pro-independence movement and their followers. 
     The terror had created an atmosphere of intense fear among 
     the community and caused waves of refugees in different 
     numbers to look for a safer place to live. Usually the people 
     feel more secure in the churches.
       In sub-district Liquica where I come from, the terror 
     reached its peak with the mass killing on April 6, 1999. 
     Before I come to the main part of my testimony, I'll describe 
     the incident on April 5, 1999 which caused seven people to 
     die.


                            a. 5 April 1999

       The militia which is based in Maubara village, about 15 
     kilometers from the town of Liquica, attacked the pro-
     independence people and their leaders in Liquica. At the 
     border of Liquica and Maubara they encountered the pro-
     independence people. In this clash the TNI and the militia 
     killed two civilians and injured seven others.
       At 09:00 AM the militia backed by the TNI moved toward 
     Liquica town and along the way they terrorized just about 
     everybody they encountered.
       Around 02:00 PM they arrived in Liquica town and they were 
     accompanied by Indonesian troops who sent random shots. This 
     action terrorized the population and made some of them fell 
     to the residence of Father Rafael and some others ran away to 
     the jungle to save themselves. About 1000 people gathered at 
     the Father's residence.
       An hour later the TNI and paramilitary troops terrorized 
     the whole town of Liquica by burning people's houses, taking 
     way the vehicles owned by the supporters of independence and 
     other forms of violence.
       Around five in the evening, the paramilitary and the TNI 
     killed a man, Laurindo (48) and his son, Herminho (17), and 
     then they took their car to terrorize other people in the 
     town. After committing this atrocious act, they killed 
     another two civilians at the house of the village chief of 
     Dato. Around seven in the evening they kidnapped another man, 
     Herminho do Santos (38), a worker at the Public Water Office, 
     and killed him later on at night.


                            b. 6 April 1999

       At 06:00 AM the Red and White Iron Rod (BMP) militia began 
     to launch provocation and terror against the refugees at the 
     residence of Father Rafael dos Santos.
       Around 8:30 AM the BMP paramilitary threw stones at the 
     refugees gathering inside the priest residence and this 
     caused two people injured. This act continued until around 
     11:00 AM.
       After that one of the leaders of the militia, Eurico 
     Guterres, came to see the priest and offered a peaceful 
     solution. The priest took the offer. Eurico then went to pass 
     on the message about the agreement to the leader of the BMP, 
     Manuel Sousa, and the head of Liquica district, Leonito 
     Martins. It turned out that both Manuel Sousa and Leonito 
     Martins rejected the agreement made between the priest and 
     Eurico Guterres.
       Around 12:30 PM four trucks full with soldiers and two cars 
     with police from the special force Mobil Brigade came to the 
     area. The military were stationed at the local army 
     headquarters (Kodim), while the police were around the 
     location of incident.
       At 1:30 PM the police attempted to drive away the militia 
     troops from the surrounding of the priest's residence but the 
     militia ignored it. They showed their insistence to attack us 
     at the house.
       Around 2:00 PM the militia with the support of the plain-
     clothes members of the Indonesian army attacked the refugees 
     in the house of Father Rafael. The plain-clothes military 
     shot the people from outside the fence of the priest's house, 
     while the BMP militia rushed into the residence. They started 
     to beat, stab and hack the people inside the priest's house. 
     The police threw some tear gas bomb at the thousands people. 
     The effect of this tear gas benefited the militia because 
     they could easily butcher the refugees. Meanwhile the plain-
     clothes military continued to help the militia by shooting at 
     the hundreds of people who could not get into the priest's 
     house because it was jammed with paniked people. This 
     horrifying attack continued until 5:30 PM. The Police did not 
     do anything toward the militia who slaughtered the people.
       Along with some other people, I hid in the priest's dining 
     room during the killing outside. Around five in the afternoon 
     I was forced to go out to save myself. At that moment the 
     militia beat me with a concrete block and jabbed my head. 
     Later on I realized that there were about six wounds in my 
     head. I was very lucky that I could escape death because a 
     police friend whom I happened to know saved me.
       When I was outside I saw dead bodies scattered on the 
     ground, children, women, young and old people. I was walking 
     among those corpses. I estimated that there were about 200 
     bodies at that time.
       The police who saved me took me to the Mobil Brigade 
     vehicle and I was taken to the

[[Page 17041]]

     house of the district head with more than 30 people who were 
     injured. We received an emergency treatment from a nurse at 
     the house of the sub-district head. We were coerced to 
     promise to choose autonomy during the ballot. The sub-
     district head ordered us to raise the red and white flag once 
     we returned to our house. I returned to my house but the 
     situation was so unsafe that I decided to stay for the night 
     at the house of the policeman. On Thursday I went to Dili to 
     get treatment for my wounds.
       The people who were still alive and wounded were taken to 
     various places, including the sub-district and district 
     military headquarters, the police office and the house of the 
     district head. While the dead bodies were taken away by the 
     military vehicles and thrown out in unknown place. Until now 
     those corpses are not yet returned to their families for 
     proper burial.
       From the above story I want to emphasize several things:
       1. The Liquica incident was a mass killing of unarmed 
     civilians. This massacre was committed by the Indonesian 
     Military.
       2. It can be said that the Indonesian military was both the 
     brain and the actor of the massacre. They openly supported 
     the militia.
       3. According to an Indonesian military official, five 
     people died in this massacre. The church (Bishop Belo) said 
     that 25 people died. But, to me who escaped the massacre and 
     witnessed it as well, I doubt the numbers they announced. I 
     believe that more than 200 people died on that day.
       4. None of the bodies of the victims have been returned to 
     their families for proper burials.
       5. All the brutal actions perpetrated by the militia and 
     the Indonesian troops, whether it be terror, intimidation or 
     massacre, are intended to threaten the people to choose 
     integration with Indonesia or autonomy under Indonesian rule.
       In this golden opportunity I would like to pass on some 
     demands to the international community and to the government 
     and the people of the US:
       1. We call for the UN and especially the US government, to 
     pressure the Indonesian government and the TNI to remove the 
     weapons they supplied to the militia who committed terror, 
     intimidation and killing of the unarmed civilians in Timor 
     Leste.
       2. We demand that the U.S. government as the member of the 
     UN Security Council to be more active in pressuring the 
     Indonesian government and its military to create a safe and 
     secure condition for carrying out the ballot in Timor Leste 
     this coming August.
       3. We demand that the US government pressure the Indonesian 
     government and its military forces to respect the rights of 
     the East Timorese to self determination.
       Hereby our testimony to the people and government of the 
     US. Again thank you very much for your kind attention.
       My best regards, Francisco de Jesus da Costa.
                                  ____

                                                    June 23, 1999.
     Hon. Stanley Roth,
     Assistant Secretary, East Asian and Pacific, U.S. Department 
         of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Roth: I received a briefing from my staff 
     about the meeting in Representative Frank's office. I 
     appreciate your taking time to come up to the Hill to discuss 
     issues related to East Timor and apologize for not being 
     there. I was in an Appropriations Committee markup. My staff 
     informed me that meeting was very useful and that the 
     administration seems to be more proactive in protesting the 
     violence and pushing for an international presence in East 
     Timor. I commend you for your leadership.
       We really cannot do too much to encourage a free and fair 
     referendum in East Timor. People are dying, as you know well, 
     and we must not let up the pressure before the vote. I think 
     it may be beneficial for you to visit East Timor before the 
     referendum and to take with you a high-ranking military flag 
     officer such as Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander-in-Chief of 
     the U.S. Pacific Command, Lieutenant General Edward P. Smith, 
     commanding general of the U.S. Army Pacific region or another 
     comparably ranked official.
       I am pleased that U.S. military officials and high-ranking 
     administration officials have been talking to General Wiranto 
     and others about Indonesian military abuses in East Timor. I 
     think a visit by you and a military officer at this time 
     would help reinforce that message and let them know, again, 
     how important a free and fair referendum, without violence 
     and intimidation, is to the United States government.
       Thank you again for taking time to meet with us. Best 
     wishes.
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bereuter 
amendment on East Timor. This tiny country, so long repressed, is 
facing an historic moment to determine its own future, but only if the 
Government and military of Indonesia allow for free and fair elections 
to take place at the end of August. It is critical that Congress 
express its support for the upcoming plebiscite on independence or 
autonomy in East Timor, and presses the Indonesian government to remove 
Indonesian military forces from East Timor, disarm anti-independence 
paramilitary groups and keep them from interfering with a free and fair 
vote.
  Last week, on Tuesday, July 135, the United Nations Security Council 
called upon Indonesia to urgently improve security in East Timor where 
violence threatens to halt the U.N.-sponsored August plebiscite. United 
Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has already had to postpone the 
ballot once from August 8th to August 21st. The start of voter 
registration was pushed back from Tuesday, July 13th, to Friday, July 
16th, because of violence that included militia attacks against United 
Nations staff and observers.
  On Wednesday, July 14th, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Asian 
Affairs Stanley Roth warned the Indonesian government about the 
consequences of failing to bring under control the pro-Jakarta militias 
that have killed scores of civilians and attacked U.N. personnel.
  According to the U.S. Catholic Conference Office of International 
Justice and Peace, the situation in East Timor has sharply deteriorated 
in recent months, with hundreds killed in paramilitary violence aimed 
at disrupting the referendum. As emphasized in a June 10, 1999 
statement, Archbishop McCarrick, Chairman of the USCC International 
Policy Committee said: ``Thus far this year, the people of East Timor 
have experienced a level of violence not seen since the 1970s when 
Indonesian forces invaded and annexed the territory. Rampaging groups 
of armed militias have committed numerous atrocities upon mostly 
unarmed, pro-independence communities and individuals * * * On April 6, 
dozens of people were shot and hacked to death at the Catholic church 
in Liquica, a massacre Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo of Dili has likened 
to that at the Santa Cruz Cemetery in 1991 * * * Throughout the 
territory, armed members of the dozen or so local militias that have 
sprung up in the months after B.J. Habibie became president of 
Indonesia a year ago have waged a relentless campaign of intimidation 
and violence directed at those thought to favor independence.''
  Clearly a campaign of violence, of intimidation, of terror is being 
fostered by the Indonesian military and anti-independence paramilitary 
groups operating inside of East Timor. Over 40,000 East Timorese have 
fled their homes and farms, raising again the specter of hunger that 
devastated much of the island in the late 1970s. While some of the 
internally displaced persons are in centers assisted by the Catholic 
Church's CARITAS workers, many are without any help and need the 
protection and relief that could be provided by the international 
committee of the Red Cross, if it were allowed to enter in sufficient 
numbers.
  Increased international pressure is urgently needed to address this 
situation, both to provide relief and an international presence to 
diminish the attacks and violence by paramilitary groups, which are 
acting with the support and tolerance of the Indonesian military. 
United Nations monitors have been attacked and not allowed to travel 
outside of Dili into the countryside. Unless the violence is brought 
under control and the militias disbanded, the conditions essential for 
a fair and free vote will be seriously lacking.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for 
bringing this amendment to the floor of the House today. I also want to 
thank Congressmen Patrick Kennedy and Richard Pombo who coordinate the 
Portuguese Issues Caucus for keeping the East Timor situation in the 
forefront of Congressional advocacy and supporting human rights, 
democracy and self-determination for suffering people.
  The United States government and the Congress must do everything 
possible to ensure this historic moment is not lost. The East Timorese 
people have a right to determine their own destiny through a free and 
fair ballot on autonomy or independence.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment 
No. 26 printed in part B of House report 106-235.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Goodling

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

       Part B Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Goodling:

[[Page 17042]]

       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following new title:
 TITLE VIII--PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES THAT CONSISTENTLY 
    OPPOSE THE UNITED STATES POSITION IN THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL 
                                ASSEMBLY

     SEC. 801. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES THAT 
                   CONSISTENTLY OPPOSE THE UNITED STATES POSITION 
                   IN THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

       (a) Prohibition.--United States assistance may not be 
     provided to a country that consistently opposed the United 
     States position in the United Nations General Assembly during 
     the most recent session of the General Assembly.
       (b) Change in Government.--If--
       (1) the Secretary of State determines that, since the 
     beginning of the most recent session of the General Assembly, 
     there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and 
     policies of the government of a country to which the 
     prohibition in subsection (a) applies, and
       (2) the Secretary believes that because of that change the 
     government of that country will no longer consistently oppose 
     the United States position in the General Assembly,

     the Secretary may exempt that country from that prohibition. 
     Any such exemption shall be effective only until submission 
     of the next report under section 406 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 
     2414a). The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a 
     certification of each exemption made under this subsection. 
     Such certification shall be accompanied by a discussion of 
     the basis for the Secretary's determination and belief with 
     respect to such exemption.
       (c) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of State may waive the 
     requirement of subsection (a) if the Secretary determines and 
     reports to the Congress that despite the United Nations 
     voting pattern of a particular country, the provision of 
     United States assistance to that country is necessary to 
     promote United States foreign policy objectives.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``consistently opposed the United States 
     position'' means, in the case of a country, that the 
     country's votes in the United Nations General Assembly 
     coincided with the United States position less than 25 
     percent of the time, using for this purpose the overall 
     percentage-of-voting coincidences set forth in the annual 
     report submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 406 of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 
     and 1991;
       (2) the term ``most recent session of the General 
     Assembly'' means the most recently completed plenary session 
     of the General Assembly for which overall percentage-of-
     voting coincidences is set forth in the most recent report 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 406 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 
     1991; and
       (3) the term ``United States assistance'' means assistance 
     under--
       (A) chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (relating to the economic support fund),
       (B) chapter 5 of part II of that Act (relating to 
     international military education and training), or
       (C) the ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' account 
     under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section takes effect upon the 
     date of the submission to the Congress of the report pursuant 
     to section 406 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, that is required to be submitted 
     by March 31, 2000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I offer a very common sense amendment. It basically says that if one 
cannot vote with us 25 percent of the time in the United Nations, not 
50, not 75, but 25 percent of the time in the United Nations, we do not 
send any military aid.
  Now, it is sheer arrogance for Members of Congress to say to the 
American public that we will send arms to countries who do not believe 
in the importance of human rights, who do not believe in freedom and 
democracy, who do not believe in anything that we believe in the United 
States, and we will send military arms so that they, in fact, can use 
them back against our own men and women. It is just as simple as that.
  Now, there are people who are going to say, oh, we are targeting this 
country; we are targeting that country. I am not targeting any country. 
It is not retroactive. I am telling them up front, in advance, it is 
not retroactive, so we are not targeting any country. Then they will 
say, well, the amendment would cut off millions of dollars of 
development assistance to needy people around the world. Nonsense. It 
does not touch humanitarian aid. It does not touch developmental 
assistance. It is strictly military assistance.
  The next thing they will say is we will tie the President's hand in 
the conduct of foreign policy. Nonsense. There are waivers in there. If 
the President believes it is in our best interest to do what he 
believes is important, the waiver is there, and he can do it.
  Then we will hear that we are only considering a select number of 
votes. Again, we are considering all votes except consensus votes in 
the United Nations.
  So I cannot imagine anybody being able to tell the American people 
that we are so arrogant that we will spend their tax money to send 
military arms to rogue nations, to nations who are going to use them 
back against us, to nations who support terrorism around the world. It 
is not retroactive; it is up front. Either they can find a way to agree 
that 25 percent of the time we are right, or they get no military aid.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. 
McKinney) opposed to the amendment?
  Ms. McKINNEY. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Georgia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, oh, that I wish it was as simple as the 
proponent of the amendment suggests. This is not a simple amendment. 
This is plain and simple and surely an amendment to bash India and 
another attempt to do that in a long series of failed attempts over the 
last several years.
  Sure, it would be easy and nice to say well, they should vote with us 
at least 25 percent of the time at the United Nations. Well, guess 
what? India does that. Mr. Chairman, 77 percent of the votes in the 
United Nations, 70 percent of the time that they have an issue, it is 
done by consensus, with the agreement of India, along with the United 
States and the other people represented in the United Nations. What the 
gentleman refers to as only some recorded votes are quite different 
than all of the matters considered by the United Nations.
  Votes in the United Nations on U.S. aid should not be used to reward 
somebody in order to bribe them to vote the way we think. India is a 
thriving democracy, the world's largest democracy.
  In addition to that, this would be a terrible time to send that 
message. This would ironically reward Pakistan, that has just invaded 
India's side of the line of control in Kashmir and Jammu. When India 
has exercised complete constraint as the world's newest nuclear power 
and handled itself admirably and appropriately in the eyes of the whole 
international community, what a horrible message for us to send out 
now. India has been our friend; they are progressing as a democracy. 
The gentleman's amendment would cut off even the economic support fund, 
if he reads his own amendment, and that would be a terrible thing to 
do.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the 
amendment of my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) which, as he has explained, would withhold 
military assistance from countries that do not support the U.S. 
position in at least 25 percent of the votes before the United Nations 
General Assembly. Let me stress that humanitarian aid and development 
assistance would not be affected.
  Many of my constituents question the amount of money the U.S. spends 
on foreign aid anyhow, including the billions we send to the United 
Nations.

[[Page 17043]]

They question why we continue to send money to an organization wherein 
many of the recipients of that aid routinely vote against U.S. 
interests. And according to the statistics compiled by the State 
Department, that is the case.
  While the United States sends military assistance to fewer nations 
who oppose our interests in the U.N. than it did just a few years ago, 
we have further to go. If we are cutting popular programs at home to 
remain under budget caps, the American people should be able to expect 
that foreign aid takes a fair share of its cuts. The Goodling amendment 
is one excellent way to prioritize our foreign aid dollars, and I urge 
its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) has 2 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. 
McKinney) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, this is nothing more than a slap in the 
face to India. The bottom line is, when did anyone decide that the 
votes in the general assembly, which many people in this body consider 
almost irrelevant, are a basis for deciding whether or not a country is 
a friend or a foe of the United States? I do not need to mention this 
again, but the gentleman's amendment refers to recorded votes. If we 
count all votes in the general assembly, India votes with the U.S. 84 
percent of the time. If we count important votes by the State 
Department, India is with us 75 percent of the time. This is just a way 
to configure largely irrelevant votes in the general assembly to try to 
say that India is bad.
  Well, my friends, India and the United States have a lot in common. 
We have a lot of business interests and trade interests in India; and 
India, in fact, in the last few weeks if we look at what has happened 
in Kashmir, India was attacked, Pakistan was the aggressor, and the 
United States and the President clearly pointed out that Pakistan 
should withdraw and that India showed restraint and cooperated with the 
United States in that conflict.
  This is not the time to send a vote that refers to these irrelevant 
votes in the general assembly. Oppose the Goodling amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is unnecessary and potentially 
destructive to U.S. interests internationally. According to the 
amendment, the sole method for determining how pro- or anti-U.S. a 
country is would be how the country votes in the United Nations General 
Assembly. This is a largely irrelevant way of determining who our 
friends and foes are. Under the Goodling Amendment, all of our other 
diplomatic, political, strategic or economic interests would be 
sacrificed to the mostly symbolic indicator of General Assembly votes--
often on issues of peripheral importance.
  In practical terms, this amendment would serve as a symbolic slap at 
India, the world's largest democracy, a country that is moving forward 
with historic free-market reforms that offer tremendous opportunities 
for American trade and investment. At a time when Congress is working 
on a bipartisan basis to lift the unilateral sanctions imposed on India 
last year, enactment of this provision would set back much of the 
progress we have been making. It would be seen as a purely punitive 
action, creating an atmosphere of distrust that would make it much more 
difficult for us to achieve vitally important goals.
   Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of Resolutions adopted by the 
General Assembly are adopted by consensus. When you count those votes, 
India votes with the U.S. 84 percent of the time. If you look at the 
votes identified as ``important'' by our State Department, including 
the consensus votes, India is with us 75 percent of the time.
  India also cooperates with the U.S. in a wide range of other U.N. 
activities, ranging from health issues to cultural and scientific 
matters. India has sent significant troop contingents to various peace-
keeping missions around the world, serving as a partner to further our 
mutual interests.
  But the U.N. is only a small part of the story of how the United 
States and India work in partnership and friendship in ways that help 
the people of both of our countries. Passage of this amendment would 
create a poisonous atmosphere that would set back these other efforts.
  Most of the other countries that would be affected by this amendment 
are already barred from receiving U.S. assistance under various 
sanctions, many of which have been on the books for decades. Thus, 
realistically, we're talking about cutting $130,000 in IMET funding to 
one country, India, a democracy that shares many of our values and 
interests and works with us in countless positive ways.
   Mr. Chairman, India and the United States have a great stake in 
working for improved relations. We should focus on the significant 
issues that unite us, and not the minor disagreements. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the Goodling Amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I support the Goodling amendment. It is 
about time that we stop giving our money and support to countries that 
in crunch time do not support us. Reports today show, for example, that 
Russia has given some of our foreign aid to Iran to develop a missile 
that could hit America. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) is on target. We have the United Nations; we have recorded 
votes. Those recorded votes are of significance and in significant 
moments those countries that get our money that are not with us should 
think twice.
  I support this amendment, and I think our policies are foolish and 
maddening, that we continue to buoy up our opposition.
  I was elected to the Congress of the United States, not the United 
Nations; and if these countries on recorded votes are not with us, then 
by God, we should not be with them financially.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our security assistance ought to be about U.S. security 
and not about the United Nations. This amendment unfortunately 
establishes an iron link between a country's voting pattern in the U.N. 
and whether or not it could receive security assistance from our 
country. While I understand the value of working to obtain greater 
support for our positions in the general assembly, this is the wrong 
way to go about it. We should give security assistance based on whether 
or not this assistance contributes to the security of the United 
States. That decision has absolutely nothing to do with how a country 
votes at the U.N.
  If this amendment passes, we could be restricted in providing 
security assistance even when it makes our citizens safer. That makes 
absolutely no sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) has 1 minute remaining; the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. 
McKinney) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me make it very clear, we are talking about the security of the 
United States. Let me talk about some of the votes. U.N. embargo of 
Cuba. How about coercive economic measures. How about International 
Atomic Energy Agency report. How about nuclear testing in south Asia. 
How about a new agenda for nuclear disarmament, human rights in Iraq, 
in Iran, human rights in former Yugoslavia, human rights in Kosovo. All 
of those deal with our security. There is no question about it.
  Again, there is a waiver there. If it is in our interests in the 
United States in order to do something contrary to this amendment, the 
waiver is there, the President uses that waiver, and the Secretary of 
State uses that waiver.
  We are talking only about military assistance which someday may come 
back to kill American young men and women, and we are arrogant enough 
in the United States Congress to say, we will take taxpayers' money and 
do with it whatever we want. We do not care what the public has to say.
  I do not know what country might be caught in a web because it is not 
retroactive, and my minister, as a matter of fact, is a wonderful 
gentleman from India.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

[[Page 17044]]



                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, this is a particularly ill-advised 
amendment. What it would do would handcuff the administration in 
dealing with the most populous democracy on this planet.
  Some time in the last month or this month, this world becomes a 6 
billion person planet. We are talking about a country that has 1 
billion people. We are talking about American national interests, and 
when we look at the United Nations most of what happens is by 
consensus. Do not hamstring this or future administrations by a 
standard that really does not measure cooperation.
  In the United Nations, most of what happens is by consensus. This is 
a bad amendment that would harm the relationship we have with the most 
populous democracy on this planet. Think of a challenge of running a 
democratic government with a billion people on it. It is a bad 
amendment. It ought to be defeated.
  I urge my colleagues to join those of us who recognize the folly in 
this amendment to reject it and reject it strongly. I commend those who 
have spoken against it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes divided equally so that we could afford the distinguished 
chairman of the full committee one of those minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling). While well-intentioned and aimed at protecting our interests 
at the U.N., its implementation would only harm our ability to conduct 
multilateral diplomacy. With its arbitrary targets for foreign aid 
cutoffs for those countries failing to support our positions in the 
General Assembly votes, it is likely to end up undercutting our 
relations with key nations in South Asia and Latin America.
  At a time when we are trying to curtail proliferation around the 
world and advance our vital interests, such as stopping the flow of 
narcotics into the United States, we should not put any additional 
roadblocks in the way of our diplomats trying to accomplish these 
important objectives.
  In the near future, we will be attempting to put a U.N. reform 
package together whereby we will be paying our arrearages to the U.N. 
in return for the implementation of significant reforms inside the 
world body and the U.N. specialized agency.
  I am concerned that the adoption of this amendment would undercut our 
ability to achieve these long-sought reforms. In short, I believe that 
its practical effect is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Goodling amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me again emphasize that all this amendment says is 
that they have to vote with us 25 percent of the time in the General 
Assembly if they want our military aid.
  Otherwise, if they cannot vote with us 25 percent, obviously along 
the line they are going to be using that same military aid against us 
or they are going to give it to some rogue nation to use it against us.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that the waiver is big enough that 
the President or the Secretary of State can drive a truck through it. 
So if it has anything to do with protecting our security, he is 
protected. But for goodness sakes, respect for human rights, respect 
for freedom, democracy, respect for individual rights, I cannot imagine 
how we could possibly vote against that.
  Let us not be arrogant and tell the American public we do not care 
what they think about how we spend their taxpayers dollars. We want to 
tell them that, yes, we do have respect for what they believe and what 
we believe is we should not support any rogue nation who is going to 
take care of us at a later time or could, and we are thinking about our 
national security, not someone else's. It is our money; not someone 
else's.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-235.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Condit

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

       Part B amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Condit:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:
            TITLE VIII--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE REPORTING REFORM

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Foreign Assistance 
     Reporting Reform Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 802. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   UNLESS CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.

       Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2351) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second section 620G (as added by 
     section 149 of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat. 1436)) as 
     section 620J; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 620K. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS UNLESS CERTAIN REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, United States assistance may not be provided to a 
     foreign country, and contributions may not be provided to an 
     international organization, for a fiscal year unless--
       ``(1) such country or organization, as the case may be, 
     prepares and transmits to the United States a report in 
     accordance with subsection (b); and
       ``(2) the President transmits each such report to the 
     Congress.
       ``(b) Reports to the United States.--A foreign country that 
     seeks to obtain United States assistance or other 
     international organization that seeks to obtain a United 
     States contribution, shall prepare and transmit to the United 
     States a report that contains--
       ``(1) the amount of each type of United States assistance 
     or contribution sought;
       ``(2) the justification for seeking each such type of 
     assistance or contribution;
       ``(3) the objectives that each such type of assistance or 
     contribution is intended to achieve;
       ``(4) an estimation of the date by which--
       ``(A) the objectives of each type of assistance or 
     contribution will be achieved; and
       ``(B) such assistance or contribution can be terminated; 
     and
       ``(5) a commitment to provide a detailed accounting of how 
     such assistance or contribution was spent.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section the term `United States 
     assistance' means--
       ``(1) assistance authorized under this Act (such as the 
     development assistance program, the economic support fund 
     program, and the international military education and 
     training program) or authorized under the African Development 
     Foundation Act, section 401 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1969 (relating to the Inter-American Development Foundation), 
     or any other foreign assistance legislation;
       ``(2) grant, credit, or guaranty assistance under the Arms 
     Export Control Act;
       ``(3) assistance under the Migration and Refugee Assistance 
     Act of 1962; or
       ``(4) assistance under any title of the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the goal of my amendment is to increase the amount of 
information Congress receives about how

[[Page 17045]]

the U.S. foreign assistance is being spent. Under the amendment, 
recipients of U.S. foreign aid would be required to file a report with 
the U.S. on the amount of money they received and justification for 
this money, the objective of the assistance, and an estimate of when 
such assistance will no longer be needed.
  This amendment is about transparency. I am concerned that our foreign 
assistance process be as transparent as possible and that the Congress 
be held accountable for all U.S. foreign assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy to try to 
resolve some of my concerns.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns of my colleague and 
friend that Congress be provided as much information as possible about 
U.S. foreign assistance and how it is being spent.
  At the beginning of each year, the administration sends up its 
congressional presentation for foreign operations with the President's 
annual budget request. This booklet outlines how the administration 
proposes to spend foreign aid for the upcoming year. The book lists the 
total amount, the type of aid going to particular countries, a 
breakdown on how that money is spent and will be used for regional 
stability and to open markets, expanding U.S. exports, 
counternarcotics, et cetera., the guideline for how it will determine 
whether our foreign aid achieves its goal during that year.
  Throughout the year, the agency for international development sends 
up to the Congress notification to the Hill which indicates any changes 
as to how foreign aid will be used and the name of the AID contractor 
if appropriate.
  Mr. CONDIT. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I am 
concerned that we take every possible step to ensure that any funds 
distributed as foreign assistance is not misspent. I would like to ask 
my colleague if he could address these concerns.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, to ensure that the money is not 
misspent, AID has personnel stationed in many embassies abroad who work 
closely with foreign aid recipients, closely monitoring the expenditure 
of the funds.
  Mr. CONDIT. Under the current law, is it the understanding of the 
gentleman that in the event the U.S. foreign aid is used for purposes 
other than its original intent, such aid would be terminated?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. AID has the authority to suspend its cooperation with 
an AID grant recipient should it determine the money is not being used 
for that intended purpose. The matter will then be referred to the 
Inspector General.
  I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue, because I think there 
are two things that are involved here. One is, he is absolutely correct 
that like all government expenditures, the elected Members of Congress 
who do the work on these programs need to spend more time and be more 
informed of where those expenditures occur.
  The agencies have to do a much better job making sure that every 
Member of Congress, when he or she has a question about how that money 
is spent, that those answers are presented in a timely manner. Members 
of Congress should not be left in the dark about these expenditures, 
and we have to make sure the agencies increase their effort to make 
sure Members are informed of how those expenditures are monitored.
  Mr. CONDIT. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson), for his explanation, and I look forward to working closely 
with him and others during the next year to bring about additional 
transparency and accountability to the foreign aid process.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 29 in part B of House Report 106-235.


         Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Traficant, as modified

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment and ask unanimous 
consent to modify amendment No. 29 pursuant to the language that has 
been given to the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:
       (a) In General.--Funds made available for assistance for 
     fiscal year 2000 under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     the Arms Export Control Act, or any other provision of law 
     described in this Act for which amounts are authorized to be 
     appropriated for such fiscal years, may be used for 
     procurement outside the United States or less developed 
     countries only if--
       (1) such funds are used for the procurement of commodities 
     or services, or defense articles or defense services, 
     produced in the country in which the assistance is to be 
     provided, except that this paragraph only applies if 
     procurement in that country would cost less than procurement 
     in the United States or less developed countries;
       (2) the provision of such assistance requires commodities 
     or services, or defense articles or defense services, of a 
     type that are not produced in, the available for purchase 
     from, the United States, less developed countries, or the 
     country in which the assistance is to be provided;
       (3) the Congress has specifically authorized procurement 
     outside the United States or less developed countries; or
       (4) the President determines on a case-by-case basis that 
     procurement outside the United States or less developed 
     countries would result in the more efficient use of United 
     States foreign assistance resources.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     assistance for Kosovo or the people of Kosovo.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 29, as modified, offered by Mr. 
     Traficant:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:

    TITLE VIII--LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

     SEC. 801. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) In General.--Funds made available for assistance for 
     fiscal year 2000 under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     the Arms Export Control Act, or any other provision of law 
     described in this Act for which amounts are authorized to be 
     appropriated for such fiscal years, may be used for 
     procurement outside the United States or less developed 
     countries only if--
       (1) such funds are used for the procurement of commodities 
     or services, or defense articles or defense services, 
     produced in the country in which the assistance is to be 
     provided, except that this paragraph only applies if 
     procurement in that country would cost less than procurement 
     in the United States or less developed countries;
       (2) the provision of such assistance requires commodities 
     or services, or defense articles or defense services, of a 
     type that are not produced in, and available for purchase 
     from, the United States, less developed countries, or the 
     country in which the assistance is to be provided;
       (3) the Congress has specifically authorized procurement 
     outside the United States or less developed countries; or
       (4) the President determines on a case-by-case basis that 
     procurement outside the United States or less developed 
     countries would result in the more efficient use of United 
     States foreign assistance resources.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification 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. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant)?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the most amazing thing about some of our 
foreign aid is that we give money to needy countries and then these 
needy countries take American money and buy

[[Page 17046]]

products and goods and services from Japan and other developed nations.
  The Traficant language is straightforward. It says if a needy country 
gets money from Uncle Sam, they shall buy that product within their own 
country that we are trying to help, but if they do not produce that 
product or goods, they shall buy it from Uncle Sam.
  Now, it does provide for exceptions on a case-by-case basis, where 
the President could waive this requirement, where the money would not 
be used efficiently or where there are other circumstances, but the 
focus is very straightforward. If someone gets money from Uncle Sam, we 
do not want them buying a Japanese product. We do not want them buying 
a product from another developed country when America makes and sells 
that product at the same competitive and comparable price factor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there a Member in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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, I just rise to say that the majority has no objection 
to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and we 
accept it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 30 printed in House Report 106-235.


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Part B amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 703. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO LINDA SHENWICK.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Linda Shenwick, an employee of the Department of State, 
     in the performance of her duties, informed the Congress of 
     waste, fraud, and mismanagement at the United Nations.
       (2) Ms. Shenwick is being persecuted by Secretary of State 
     Madeleine Albright and other State Department officials who 
     have removed her from her current position at the United 
     Nations and withheld her salary.
       (3) Ms. Shenwick was even blocked from entering her office 
     at the United States Mission to the United Nations to 
     retrieve her personal effects unless accompanied by an armed 
     guard.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that employees of the Department of State who, in the 
     performance of their duties, inform the Congress of pertinent 
     facts concerning their responsibilities, should not as a 
     result be demoted or removed from their current position or 
     from Federal employment.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is pretty simple. I thought for the 
benefit of my colleagues I would read this to them. Quote, it is a 
sense of this Congress that employees of the Department of State who, 
in the performance of their duties, inform the Congress of pertinent 
facts concerning their responsibilities, should not, as a result, be 
demoted or removed.
  So I think my colleagues should realize that this is a sense of a 
Congress that is basically protecting whistleblowers.
  In this great Nation of ours, we have laws to protect Federal civil 
servants from political manipulation. We also have Federal laws to 
protect whistleblowers who, in the performance of their Federal jobs, 
must report to Congress outside of the official channels within their 
bureaucracies information pertaining to their work.
  Now, we have seen the case of the White House Travel Office, where 
with great controversy and there was accusations. We have seen the 
Department of Energy under Secretary Richardson, where whistleblowers 
were very uncomfortable and threatened. Now I think we have a case 
again of a dedicated, honest, trustworthy civil servant who has been 
unfairly and illegally removed from her Federal position.
  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking of Ms. Linda Shenwick, a professional 
State Department employee who has been serving at the U.S. mission at 
the United Nations since 1987. She has held various positions during 
her career at the United Nations while becoming a noted budgetary 
expert on the United Nations finances.
  During her employment, Ms. Shenwick has provided a valuable service 
to the United States Congress by providing to Congress information 
concerning budgetary reforms at the U.N. and information about waste, 
fraud and mismanagement there.

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. Shenwick has been labeled as a malcontent by the administration, 
especially within the State Department, because of her decision to 
perform her job as she saw fit, which required her to notify Congress 
of budgetary details at the U.N. and to notify Congress of waste, 
fraud, and mismanagement there.
  So, in essence, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Shenwick provided Congress with 
information that the United Nations and the administration did not want 
made public. For instance, Ms. Shenwick reported in February of 1993 to 
her superiors that she had seen pictures of large amounts of U.S. 
currency stored openly on tables in Somalia.
  Her reports were ignored. She then provided Congress with this 
information, and it later became public in April of 1994 that $3.9 
million of U.N. cash was reported stolen in Somalia.
  Now, this report and others like it helped Congress force the United 
Nations to create an Office of Inspector General to end such fraud and 
mismanagement as had occurred in Somalia.
  Between 1987 and 1994, Ms. Shenwick received the highest personal 
evaluation, employment evaluation, four times and the second highest 
once. Her job performance has not been based on political consideration 
or political favoritism.
  In 1992, Ms. Shenwick reported that President Bush's ambassador to 
the United Nations, Thomas Pickering, had misused government aircraft 
for personal use and committed other improper activities.
  When she began to report problems at the United Nations in 1993, her 
employment evaluations started to turn negative and the threats that 
she would be removed from her position began.
  Ms. Shenwick has now been forcibly removed from her position at the 
United States Mission. When she attempted to return to her office, she 
was banned from entering her own office. When she attempted to collect 
her personal belongings in her own office, she was told that she would 
have to be escorted by uniformed and armed security officers.
  As of this time, she has lost her Federal position, and her attorneys 
have notified my office that her salary has been terminated.
  So I ask my colleagues this afternoon, how can this happen in our 
great country to a civil servant who has done such a great job?
  The way she has been treated is outrageous and against Federal 
employment guidelines. We have Federal laws to protect whistleblowers, 
but somehow the bureaucrats at the State Department have gotten away 
with this personal vendetta against a Federal employee. It is not 
right. It is not fair.
  My amendment is a simple ``sense of the Congress'' amendment that 
states, as I pointed out earlier, that this

[[Page 17047]]

should not occur. So I urge my colleagues to support my sense of the 
Congress, do the right thing, add their voice of support for this great 
public servant.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that 
time.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my deep concern about the course of 
actions that appear to constitute retaliation against Linda Shenwick. 
In the most recent series of questionable actions, Ms. Shenwick has 
been ordered to vacate her office in New York by the close of 
business--she has already been told to do that--with a directed 
transfer to another Department of State position.
  We believe this action is properly construed as retaliatory and in 
violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Accordingly, I and many 
other Members, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
chairman of the full committee, have asked that she be protected and 
that this proceeding needs to be looked into much more.
  I think the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
certainly puts us on record as being very much against what is 
happening here.
  Let me also say that she has been a whistleblower in a bipartisan 
way, bringing information to the fore that needs to be brought forward.
  One of the things that has galled me in 19 years as a Member of 
Congress--4 years now and counting as the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on International Operations and Human Rights--is our inability to get 
information in a timely and usable form. There is not transparency with 
this administration. We need to have it. I think the whistleblower 
needs to be protected rather than retaliated and punished.
  So I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has done a very, 
very good thing with his amendment. I hope everybody will support it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a significant number of allegations having 
been made here, and there is a process in place to adjudicate those 
accusations. That process is presently under way.
  The gentlewoman in question has availed herself of legal counsel, and 
there is presently under consideration by the Office of Special 
Counsel, an independent Federal agency, a review of this case.
  Now, the accusations are what? That she is being removed from her 
present job. It is true. She is being removed from her present job. 
Why? Because she got an unsatisfactory review. One of the charges, 
among others, is that numbers that she provided were simply inaccurate, 
that she mixed numbers that were preliminary numbers and gave them as 
final numbers.
  So there is a debate here, apparently by some, whether or not this 
individual carried out her responsibilities in a proper, professional 
manner. What is the response of Congress? It seems to me the response 
of Congress ought to be to allow the judicial process to move forward, 
to allow that review so that we have some facts.
  Right now, what we have is the employer saying she is not doing her 
job, the employee saying I am being persecuted, and we have a Member of 
Congress rushing to the floor, several, saying, oh, we have got to 
protect this woman from persecution by the Secretary of State.
  First of all, I think it is nonsense that the Secretary of State 
would be taking her time to go out and go after some staffer based on I 
do not know what. There is no argument here that there is any personal 
animosity. There is a debate about whether or not she was doing her 
job.
  It seems to me that we ought to allow the process to go forward and 
make a determination did she or did she not do her job, did she provide 
false information, did she then end up in a situation where she had to 
be removed from her job because she was not doing it.
  If that is the case, my understanding is they were not ordered to go 
in with uniformed and armed police to make this appear as some 
authoritarian, totalitarian action. She simply had to be escorted by 
another State Department employee, without guns, without machine guns, 
without uniforms, to remove her from a job that she was no longer 
allowed to be at.
  Then the State Department did not say, just because she did not do 
this job well, we do not believe she can ever work again. The 
punishment was, most people would be happy to get this, we are moving 
you to Washington to another job. Oh, she says, no, no, no, no. You may 
be the employer. I may have gotten a bad report. But I do not want to 
move from New York to Washington. I do not want to leave the U.N.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) rushes here to the floor, I 
am sure quite earnestly, with a conclusion that she is being 
persecuted. It seems to me what we ought to do is allow the judicial 
process to come back and determine whether or not there was 
persecution, whether or not she actually did her job. If she did not do 
her job, maybe then we ought to applaud the action.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida, who 
I know is earnest in his desire to see justice served.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this individual got one poor evaluation. 
But her evaluations before that were outstanding, and one she had was 
the highest in her department. When she was escorted back, she said, I 
just want to get my picture frames. I just want to get my personal 
effects. Oh, no, you have got to have a security armed guard.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
right. She could go back and get what she wanted. They simply said that 
a fired employee from a particular job, she is not being fired, she is 
being moved to another division, that want they wanted to do, for lots 
of security and other reasons, people are often very unhappy when they 
lose their jobs, was to make sure that the only thing she does is 
remove the items that are personally hers. They had her escorted. 
Escorted. Perfectly within the rules.
  I urge the defeat of this very bad idea.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
30 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I have to object. I think we have 
discussed this matter enough.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Part B amendment No. 26 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) and Part B amendment No. 30 offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

[[Page 17048]]

  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Goodling

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 26 offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated 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 169, 
noes 256, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               AYES--169

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Archer
     Ballenger
     Chenoweth
     Hyde
     Kennedy
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Roukema

                              {time}  1419

  Messrs. DAVIS of Virginia, HOBSON, PORTMAN, PAYNE, HINCHEY, FOSSELLA, 
INSLEE, WELDON of Pennsylvania, OWENS, and MICA changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 247, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 
5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed 
further proceedings.


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 30 offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 287, 
noes 136, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                               AYES--287

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)

[[Page 17049]]


     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--136

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Archer
     Chenoweth
     Hilleary
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Kennedy
     McDermott
     Obey
     Peterson (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1427

  Messrs. EDWARDS, MEEHAN, NADLER, DEUTSCH, and TURNER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment 
No. 31 printed in Part B of House Report 106-235.


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Waters

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

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 703. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY 
                   IN PERU AND THE RELEASE OF LORI BERENSON, AN 
                   AMERICAN CITIZEN IMPRISONED IN PERU.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the United States should increase its support to 
     democracy and human rights activists in Peru, providing 
     assistance with the same intensity and decisiveness with 
     which it supported the pro-democracy movements in Eastern 
     Europe during the Cold War;
       (2) the United States should complete the review of the 
     Department of State investigation of threats to press freedom 
     and judicial independence in Peru and publish the findings;
       (3) the United States should use all available diplomatic 
     efforts to secure the release of Lori Berenson, an American 
     citizen who was accused of being a terrorist, denied the 
     opportunity to defend herself of the charges, allowed no 
     witnesses to speak in her defense, allowed no time to 
     privately consult with her lawyer, and declared guilty by a 
     hooded judge in a military court; and
       (4) in deciding whether to provide economic and other forms 
     of assistance to Peru, the United States should take into 
     consideration the willingness of Peru to assist in the 
     release of Lori Berenson.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, 176 Members of Congress have signed and joined a 
campaign for the release of Lori Berenson, a young, educated, 
idealistic, middle-class journalist.
  In November of 1995, Lori was arrested as a suspected terrorist, 
subjected to a secret, hooded military tribunal in which she was denied 
every semblance of due process according to the United States State 
Department, every major human rights group, and the United Nations 
Commission on Human Rights. She was convicted of treason and given a 
life sentence without parole.
  Despite President Fujimori's promise for an open democracy when he 
was elected in 1990, he annulled Peru's constitution, dissolved the 
legislature, removed judges and dismantled the courts in April of 1992, 
and he has established secret military trials with jurisdiction over 
civilians. Human rights workers and journalists in Peru have been 
subjected to intimidation, death threats, abductions, tortures, 
interrogation and imprisonment by the Peruvian government.
  On Thursday, July 1, 1999, the House Committee on International 
Relations passed by voice vote H.R. 57 which expresses concern over the 
interference with freedom of the press.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman 
from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my 
friend and colleague from California. I share the Member's concern 
about recent negative trends within Peru. I have held hearings in my 
own Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights focusing 
on some of those concerns with regard to human rights problems. There 
is a serious need for increased press freedom and judicial independence 
in that country. There is no doubt about that. I also agree that the 
procedures used to convict Lori Berenson of aggravated terrorism were 
egregious.
  Lori Berenson certainly deserves due process and to have her case 
tried by an open, civilian court in Peru. The fact that Peru 
discontinued its use of faceless military tribunals in 1997 is a 
further indictment of the process that was used to convict her.
  But the amendment before us calls for something different than a fair 
trial and due process rights for Berenson. Let me just point out that 
it calls for release. It calls for her release. I think that goes 
beyond what we should be willing to do. In so doing, it implies her 
innocence. We should be taking no stance on the merits of the very 
serious terrorism charges leveled against

[[Page 17050]]

Ms. Berenson and we must avoid commenting, even implicitly, on the 
serious evidence against her. To do anything else would denigrate the 
valid interest of the people of Peru in combating terrorism, which that 
has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Peruvian civilians during 
the past two decades.
  Mr. Chairman, the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, or MRTA, which 
Ms. Berenson is accused of assisting, is a terrorist organization. 
According to our State Department, it was responsible for numerous 
killings of civilians, hundreds of violent attacks and other egregious 
human rights violations in Peru during the past year. The MRTA was 
responsible for the siege of the Japanese ambassador's residence in 
late 1996 which resulted in the holding of numerous hostages, including 
over a dozen Americans, for 5 months. Assisting such activities could 
merit someone a life sentence here in the United States. Again, she 
needs due process and a fair trial and we should not comment on whether 
or not she is innocent or guilty.
  Mr. Chairman, people in the United States have the right to a fair 
trial and an opportunity to confront their accusers. I believe we must 
demand such basic rights for U.S. citizens abroad, no matter how 
serious the charges may be against them. We must demand an open, fair 
trial for Lori Berenson. Unfortunately, this amendment does not do 
that. It says in the plain text, it calls for her release. So I must 
respectfully oppose it.
  Let me also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the human rights 
organizations, such as Amnesty International have been calling for a 
fair trial. They have not been calling for her release. I respectfully 
suggest to the gentlewoman from California, these groups--and I am a 
great admirer of Amnesty International--have not said release her. They 
have said she has to get a fair trial.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me draw the gentleman's 
attention to what the amendment actually says: ``The United States 
should use all available diplomatic efforts to secure the release of 
Lori Berenson.''
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, it is the release that 
we are talking about. I believe she needs a fair trial. That is where 
all of our diplomatic efforts must be put. No American should be immune 
from prosecution of a criminal charge, but they are entitled, I say to 
the chairman and to my colleagues, to a fair trial. She has not gotten 
it and that is where I believe that President Fujimori has erred 
completely. I happen to believe that the tendency in Peru is towards 
dictatorship on the part of the President, although there have been 
some trends that may suggest otherwise.
  I would ask for a fair trial, not her release. I would hope--and we 
had asked the gentlewoman through staff and through other ways to 
reword her amendment so we could all support it, asking again for due 
process rights to be protected, not for her release.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney) who represents Berenson's parents.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, Lori Berenson grew up in my 
district. Her parents Rhoda and Mark are living every parent's 
nightmare, the fear that their child could be taken from the streets of 
a foreign country and thrown into jail without American concepts of 
justice.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters from Lori Berenson 
that she was never able to present her point of view in trials. She 
says, ``I was never a member of the MRTA.'' She was never given the 
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against her or to provide 
witnesses in her support.

     Members of the Community of Organizations for Human Rights.
       Esteemed Men and Women: Through this communication permit 
     me to congratulate you on your important work for human 
     rights.
       I would like to inform you of some details about me and my 
     case.
       As you know, I have been confined for more than two and a 
     half years at the Yanamayo maximum security military prison, 
     accused of being a member of the MRTA, and fulfilling the 
     sentence of life imprisonment dictated by a faceless military 
     tribunal.
       I have never been a member of the MRTA; I have never 
     participated in the planning of a violent act, neither with 
     the MRTA nor anybody else; neither have I ever promoted 
     violence, and, what is more, I do not believe in violence and 
     it would not be possible for me to participate in violence.
       I do believe in ideals of justice and equality; to share 
     the ideals of a more just world for the poor majority does 
     not imply that I share in the use of violence to achieve such 
     goals.
       In my own way, I have worked for these ideals. In Peru, I 
     sought to learn about and find ways to help the most poor and 
     oppressed people. I met with, observed, and studied these 
     people, including their history, their culture, their music. 
     I also tried to observe how the government, the law, and the 
     economically powerful treated the poor. I was writing about 
     what I experienced and learned and I had legitimate 
     journalistic credentials from two U.S. publications. I hoped 
     to be able to help the situation of human rights and social 
     justice for the most poor; I still believe in that, and I 
     believe it will happen.
       Certainly, I have not had real justice. I am completely 
     innocent of the horrendous charges made against me, and there 
     could not be real evidence that shows such crimes.
       I hope that these details might give you a better basis to 
     facilitate an understanding of my situation and, at the same 
     time, I turn to reiterate my greatest respect and admiration 
     for your important works for the good of humanity.
           With much respect,
     Lori Berenson.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 1999.
     Hon. Madeleine K. Albright,
     Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Secretary: It has been more than three years 
     since Lori Helene Berenson, an American citizen, was 
     sentenced to life in prison for treason by a secret Peruvian 
     military tribunal. A recent decision by the United Nations 
     High Commission on Human Rights (UNHCR) about Ms. Berenson's 
     case found Peru in violation of international law, while her 
     deteriorating health makes attention to this matter all the 
     more urgent.
       On December 3, 1998, UNHCR, through its Working Group on 
     Arbitrary Detention, rendered its decision on Ms. Berenson's 
     case in Opinion No. 26/1998. It states, ``[t]he deprivation 
     of Lori Berenson's liberty is arbitrary, as it contravenes 
     Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human 
     Rights, and Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant 
     on Civil and Political Rights.'' Peru voted in favor of the 
     Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has both signed and 
     ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further, 
     the Working Group asks the Peruvian government ``to adopt 
     measures necessary to remedy the situation, in accordance 
     with the norms and principles enunciated in the Universal 
     Declaration on Human Rights and in the International Covenant 
     on Civil and Political Rights.'' As of this date, Peru has 
     not adopted any such measures.
       During the last three years, Ms. Berenson has developed 
     physical ailments associated with imprisonment at a high 
     altitude and recently spent 115 days in solitary confinement. 
     Although she has been transferred to a lower altitude at the 
     Socabaya prison, Ms. Berenson's health problems continue to 
     develop; she has numbness in both her hands and at night 
     experiences blindness in her right eye.
       Many of us have previously called for an open and fair 
     proceeding in a civilian court for Ms. Berenson. We now 
     believe that Ms. Berenson's deteriorating health warrants 
     humanitarian release from prison and urge you to use your 
     authority to secure Ms. Berenson's release before her health 
     further deteriorates.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                          Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
                                                James M. Jeffords.


 33 cosigners of a dear colleague letter to secretary-of-state Albright

     Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
     Max Baucus (D-MT)
     Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-DE)
     Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
     Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
     John Breaux (D-LA)
     Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
     Sue Collins (R-ME)
     Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
     Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
     Richard Durbin (D-IL)
     Russell Feingold (D-WI)
     Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
     Tom Harkin (D-IA)
     Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
     James Jeffords (R-VT)
     Tim Johnson (D-SD)
     Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

[[Page 17051]]

     J. Robert Kerrey (D-NE)
     John Kerry (D-MA)
     Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
     Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
     Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
     Carl Levin (D-MI)
     Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR)
     Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
     Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
     Patty Murray (D-WA)
     John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)
     Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
     Charles Schumer (D-NY)
     Arlen Specter (R-PA)
     Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)

       Notes: The letter was sponsored by Senators Jeffords and 
     Moynihan. Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Paul Wellstone 
     (D-MN) agreed to write their own letters.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 31, 1999.
     President William Jefferson Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: For more than three years, Lori 
     Berenson, an American citizen, has been incarcerated in Peru, 
     serving a life sentence after being convicted by a faceless 
     military tribunal for treason. Lori Berenson has always 
     maintained her innocence, but she has been systematically 
     denied due process by Peru. We urge you to do everything 
     within your power to seek justice in her case.
       Recently the United Nations High Commission on Human 
     Rights, through its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 
     stated in its official Opinion 26/1998 that Lori Berenson has 
     been deprived of her liberty arbitrarily and that the 
     government of Peru is in violation of two international pacts 
     to which it is signatory--Articles 8, 9, and 10 of the 
     Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 9 and 14 
     of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 
     The Working Group has declared that Peru take all necessary 
     steps to remedy Lori's wrongful incarceration in accordance 
     with the norms and principles enunciated in the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on 
     Civil and Political Rights. Peru has not taken steps to 
     comply with the Commission's ruling and, in fact, recently 
     Lori was kept in solitary confinement for 115 days in 
     Socabayo prison. On March 11, 1999, the New York Times 
     reported that an American delegation visited Lori and found 
     her to be in poor health.
       Members of Congress have expressed their concerns about 
     Lori's treatment in letters to Peruvian President Fujimori 
     from 20 U.S. Senators and 87 Representatives in August 1996 
     and letters to Secretary Albright from 55 Senators and 180 
     Representatives in December 1997. It is time for stronger 
     action.
       Title 22 U.S.C. Section 1732 directs the President to take 
     all necessary steps, short of going to war, to secure the 
     release of an incarcerated American citizen ``if it appears 
     to be wrongful.'' The finding of the United Nations High 
     Commission on Human Rights is that the Peruvian government's 
     disregard for international norms in Lori Berenson's case is 
     so egregious, relative to impartial judgment, that it has 
     resulted in the wrongful arbitrary deprivation of her 
     liberty.
       Lack of leadership and effective action on Lori's case 
     could endanger U.S. citizens not only in Peru, but in many 
     other countries. It sends the unfortunate message that the 
     U.S. will not act when its citizens are wrongfully imprisoned 
     in foreign countries. In addition, lack of strong action in 
     this case would jeopardize the importance of the office of 
     United Nations High Commission on Human Rights and denigrate 
     the cause of justice and human rights throughout the world.
       We know that you share our concern for Lori Berenson and 
     the unjust treatment that she has received, and we look 
     forward to working with you to resolve her case.
           Sincerely,


     176 cosigners of a dear colleague letter to president clinton

       Abercrombie (D-HI), Allen (D-ME), Andrews (D-NJ), Baldacci 
     (D-ME), Baldwin (D-WI), Becerra (D-Ca), Bentsen (D-TX), 
     Berman (D-CA), Blagojevich (D-IL), Blunt (R-MO), Bonior (D-
     MI), Borski (D-PA), Boucher (D-VA), Boyd (D-FL), Brady (D-
     PA), Brown, G. (D-CA), Brown, S. (D-OH), Capps (D-CA), 
     Capuano (D-MA),Carson (D-IN), Christian-Christensen (D-VI), 
     Clay (D-MO), Clayton (D-NC), Clement (D-TN), Clyburn (D-SC), 
     Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Costello (D-IL), Crowley (D-NY), 
     Cunningham (R-CA), Danner (D-MO), Davis, D.K. (D-IL), DeFazio 
     (D-OR), DeGette (D-CO), Delahunt (D-MA), DeLauro (D-CT), 
     Deutsch (D-FL), Dicks (D-WA), Dixon (D-CA), Doyle (D-PA), 
     Engel (D-NY), English (R-PA), Eshoo (D-CA), Faleomavaega (D-
     AS), Farr (D-CA).
       Filner (D-CA), Ford, Jr. (D-TN), Franks (R-NJ), Frost (D-
     TX), Gejdenson (D-CT), Gonzalez (D-TX), Goode, Jr. (D-VA), 
     Granger (R-TX), Greenwood (R-PA), Gutierrez (D-IL), Hall, R. 
     (D-TX), Hall, T. (D-OH), Hastings (D-FL), Hinchey (D-NY), 
     Hoeffel (D-PA), Hoekstra (R-MI), Holden (D-PA), Holt (D-NJ), 
     Horn (R-CA), Inslee (D-WA), Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Jackson-Lee 
     (D-TX), Jefferson (D-LA), John (D-LA), Johnson, E.B. (D-TX), 
     Johnson, N. (R-CT), Jones (D-OH), Kaptur (D-OH), Kelly (R-
     NY), Kennedy (D-RI), Kildee (D-MI), Kilpatrick (D-MI), Kind 
     (D-WI), King (R-NY), Kleczka (D-WI), Kuykendall (R-CA), 
     LaFalce (D-NY), Lampson (D-TX), Lantos (D-CA), Larson (D-CT), 
     Lazio (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Lee (D-CA), Levin (D-MI).
       Lewis (D-GA), LoBiondo (R-NJ), Lofgren (D-CA), Lowey (D-
     NY), Luther (D-MN), Maloney, C. (D-NY), Maloney, J. (D-CT), 
     Markey (D-MA), Martinez (D-CA), Matsui (D-CA), McCarthy (D-
     NY), McGovern (D-MA), McInnis (R-CO), McKinney (D-GA), 
     McNulty (D-NY), Meehan (D-MA), Meek (D-FL), Meeks (D-NY), 
     Millender-McDonald (D-CA), Miller (D-CA), Minge (D-MN), Mink 
     (D-HI), Moakley (D-MA), Morella (R-MD), Murtha (D-PA), Nadler 
     (D-NY), Napolitano (D-CA), Neal (D-MA), Oberstar (D-MN), Obey 
     (D-WI), Olver (D-MA), Ose (R-CA), Owens (D-NY), Pallone, Jr. 
     (D-NJ), Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ), Pastor (D-AZ), Payne (D-NJ), 
     Pelosi (D-CA), Peterson (D-MN), Porter (R-IL), Price (D-NC), 
     Pryce (R-OH), Rangel (D-NY), Rodriguez (D-TX).
       Rogan (R-CA), Romero-Barcelo (D-PR), Rothman (D-NJ), 
     Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Royce (R-CA), Rush (D-IL), Sabo (D-MN), 
     Sanchez (D-CA), Sanders (I-VT), Sandlin (D-TX), Schakowsky 
     (D-IL), Serrano (D-NY), Shays (R-CT), Sherman (D-CA), 
     Sherwood (R-PA), Shows (D-MS), Slaughter (D-NY), Smith (D-
     WA), Snyder (D-AR), Spratt, Jr. (D-SC), Stark (D-CA), 
     Strickland (D-OH), Stupak (D-MI), Talent (R-MO), Thompson, B. 
     (D-MS), Thompson, M. (D-CA), Tierney (D-MA), Towns (D-NY), 
     Traficant, Jr. (D-OH), Turner (D-TX), Udall (D-CO), Underwood 
     (D-GU), Upton (R-MI), Velazquez (D-NY), Waters (D-CA), Watt 
     (D-NC), Waxman (D-CA), Weiner (D-NY), Wexler (D-FL), Weygand 
     (D-RI), Whitfield (R-KY), Woolsey (D-CA), Wu (D-OR), Wynn (D-
     MD).
       Notes: The letter was sponsored by Representatives C. 
     Maloney, J. Leach, C. Morella, and M. Waters. Representatives 
     Hooley (D-OR), Menendez (D-NJ), Moore (D-KS), and Vento (D-
     MN) agreed to sign post-deadline. Representative Frank (D-MA) 
     decided to write his own letter to Secretary Albright.
                                 ______
                                 

               Statement on Lori Berenson by Noam Chomsky

       Lori Berenson has been subjected to a travesty of justice 
     and a grim exercise of state terror. The victim in this case 
     is a young North American woman of remarkable courage and 
     integrity, who has chosen to accept the fate of all too many 
     others in Peru. She is also--and not so indirectly--a victim 
     of Washington's policies, in two respects: because of its 
     support for the Peruvian terror state and the conditions it 
     imposes on its population, and because of its evasiveness in 
     coming to her defense, as it can readily do, with 
     considerable if not decisive influence. Also not so 
     indirectly, she is a victim of all of those--in all honesty, 
     I cannot fail to include myself--who have done far too little 
     to rescue her from the suffering she has endured for her 
     refusal to bend to the will of state terrorist authorities.
       Lori Berenson eminently qualifies as a prisoner of 
     conscience. She has rightly received the support of the UN 
     High Commission on Human Rights and Amnesty International. 
     With immense courage and self-sacrifice, she is not only 
     standing up with honor and dignity for her own rights, but 
     for the great number of people of Peru who are suffering 
     severe repression and extreme economic hardship as a 
     consequence of policies that sacrifice much of the population 
     to the greed and power of small sectors of privilege--in Peru 
     itself, and in the deeply unjust and coercive global system 
     that has been constructed to yield such outcomes.
       Lori Berenson is not only a wonderful person whose rights 
     are under savage attack, but also an inspiring symbol of the 
     aspirations of countless people throughout the world who seek 
     a measure of the freedom and rights that they deserve, in a 
     world that is more humane and more just, and that we can help 
     create if we are willing to devote to this cause a fraction 
     of the heroism that Lori Berenson has so impressively 
     demonstrated in her honorable and far too lonely struggle.
                                  ____


                 [From the Jewish Week, June 25, 1999]

         Statement on Lori Berenson by Rabbi Marcelo Bronstein

       On May 26, 1999 Rabbi Marcelo Bronstein, Temple B'nai 
     Jeshurun in New York City, participated in an ecumenical 
     delegation that visited Lori Berenson for one hour in 
     Socabaya Prison in Arequipa, Peru. The delegation also 
     included the Reverend Doctor William J. Nottingham from the 
     Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis and Sister 
     Doctor Eileen Storey of Sisters of Charity in New York City.
       The Jewish Week interviewed Rabbi Bronstein upon his return 
     to New York City. The newspaper reported the following: ``The 
     delegation met with Berenson, 29, in a room with guards 
     outside the open door. She declared her innocence and the 
     difficulties of solitary confinement. They spoke about the 
     future, her faith, and her health.''
       The following are the four quotes attributed to Rabbi 
     Bronstein:
       ``I would like to say that Lori is a person with the right 
     values at the wrong place and the wrong time, values of 
     justice, caring.''
       ``I didn't find a drop of bitterness or anger, just lots of 
     pain and sorrow.''
       ``She is thirsty to know what's going on in the world. She 
     feels useless.''

[[Page 17052]]

       ``I am very worried about Lori's spiritual and 
     psychological health.''

  There are further press reports from Fujimori where he announced that 
he would not respect the organization of Americans decision on Lori's 
appeal regardless of the outcome. For years I have tried to get a fair 
trial. Hundreds of my colleagues have joined me in appealing for a fair 
trial. This has been denied.
  I went to see Lori. I went to see her in prison in November of 1997. 
She has permanent laryngitis. Her eyesight is failing. She is 
suffering. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and I 
personally support release on humanitarian grounds.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waters 
amendment.
  The Lori Berenson case illustrates the history of judicial abuse in 
Peru. A closed military tribunal, a hooded judge, no legal counsel, no 
right to defend oneself, and a masked man holding a gun to Lori's head 
throughout the proceeding. But this is a reality experienced by 
hundreds of Peruvians.
  While closed military tribunals have now been abolished in Peru, 
hundreds of individuals are serving life sentences like Lori Berenson 
because of the judgments rendered by these tribunals. In addition, even 
the State Department concludes that it is still impossible to receive a 
fair trial, to undergo a just process in Peru's current judicial 
system. So asking for a new trial in Lori's case is very problematic, 
because it is impossible to get a fair trial in Peru today.
  Over the past 2 years, years during which Lori Berenson has been 
imprisoned, the U.S. has given to Peru over $300 million in economic 
and military aid. During that same period, the U.S. sent over $23 
million in additional military counternarcotics aid. I think we have 
some leverage with Peru and I think it is time we used it. On behalf of 
Lori Berenson and all Peruvians who have been victims of human rights 
abuses by the Peruvian government, military and courts, I urge my 
colleagues to support the Waters amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney), ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the most important part of this amendment 
calls for the release of an American citizen, Lori Berenson, who was 
convicted of involvement with terrorist groups after a trial before 
hooded military judges in which there was no due process whatever. We 
have asked the Peruvian government to give her a fair civilian trial. 
President Fujimori himself has publicly refused.
  Now it is time to do something about this. If Lori Berenson is not 
going to get a fair trial, and she is not, then she deserves to be set 
free. That is what we would do here for people who are tried unfairly, 
and we have no right letting a foreign government get away with less 
when Americans are involved.
  The Waters amendment is about whether Americans overseas should get 
fair trials when they are arrested and whether we believe the rule of 
law and due process are important. They should, and they are. Join me 
in supporting fairness for our citizens, due process and the rule of 
law. Vote for the Waters amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this 
amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from 
California's amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the 
Waters amendment for fairness and justice.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waters amendment 
and say that this is the right thing to do, it is the fair thing to do, 
and I think our colleagues know we must do this.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry of whether 
or not I get the last speaker on this amendment. I think the gentleman 
from New Jersey has 1 minute left.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
has the right to close.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a signatory to the May 31 letter.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waters sense of 
Congress amendment.
  We have heard about the Lori Berenson case, an American citizen 
unjustly imprisoned in Peru on charges of treason. The first problem 
is, how can one commit treason against a country of which one is not a 
citizen?
  Furthermore, Lori's trial was completely lacking in due process. She 
was tried in a military court by a faceless judge. She never received 
written notice of the charges against her. She had only limited access 
to an attorney. She was not informed of the evidence against her, nor 
did she have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. She has been 
sentenced to life in prison under conditions which are cruel and 
inhumane.
  Our State Department has criticized these military tribunals. The 
U.N. Human Rights Commission has judged her case to be one of arbitrary 
detention. In a similar case involving four Chileans, the Inter-
American Court on Human Rights called for a new trial, but Peru did not 
accept that.
  Mr. Chairman, the Peruvian government should provide Lori and all 
others unjustly imprisoned a fair trial with due process. If Lima is 
unwilling to do so, then Lori should be released and deported.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Just let me make a couple of points. In reading over this amendment 
again, I have great empathy for it. I have had hearings in my 
subcommittee about human rights abuses and have gone down to Lima, Peru 
to meet with President Fujimori to express my own concerns, especially 
in light of the ``Fuji coup'' that took place some years back. But 
again my position comports with that of the administration and the 
State Department. And the human rights organizations like Amnesty 
International, are not saying release her, they are saying give her a 
fair trial. I think that is where our efforts ought to be put. We do 
not have the capability or the competence or the information--because I 
have looked at the reams of information--to make a definitive decision 
as to whether or not she should be freed.

                              {time}  1445

  There are very serious charges of terrorism with a group that has a 
despicable track record on the use of violence against individuals and 
innocent people. Whether or not she is a part of it, I do not know, but 
there are serious allegations. She was given a sham trial, no doubt 
about it.
  I would be willing to ask unanimous consent, if the gentlewoman would 
change the wording in her amendment from ``the release of'' Lori 
Berenson to ``a fair trial for'' Lori Berenson. We could all support 
that amendment.
  But again, to say we should release somebody?
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent if the gentlewoman could

[[Page 17053]]

accept that kind of change in the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  Ms. WATERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
for the gentleman from New Jersey to restate his request.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on Line 17, where it says ``to 
secure the release of Lori Berenson,'' to strike ``the release of'' and 
put ``a fair trial for'' Lori Berenson, and also on Page 2, Line 6, 
just so it is internally consistent, ``to assist in providing a fair 
trial for.'' And then I hope we would be unanimous, because I do 
believe it was a sham trial, as I said to the gentlewoman. My 
subcommittee has looked into it. We think it is awful. Her due process 
rights were trashed. But if indeed we are talking about a situation 
where she may have been involved with this, that is something that a 
fair trial has to adjudicate.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. WATERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, do I need unanimous consent for 1 minute in 
order to respond to the request that is being made by the gentleman?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Perhaps the gentlewoman from California 
would care to ask unanimous consent to proceed with debate time for 1 
minute on each side.
  Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to be able to comply 
with the request that the gentleman is making, however when the 
gentleman asked us who are working so hard for fairness for this young 
lady to be put back in the hands of Fujimori who has dismantled his 
government, who has opted out of human rights, the International Human 
Rights Commission, who in no way is committed to democracy, who is 
threatening lives, who is intimidating, how then does my colleague 
expect her to get a fair trial from an unfair dictator?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This is exactly why the attempt has to be at 
the highest levels of our government, going right to the President of 
the United States, who needs to make this a major issue--that she be 
given a fair trial. That goes for all of us. To date, it has not been a 
major issue.
  Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, we have asked Fujimori over and over 
and over again. He has denied us. This is an American young woman that 
is sitting up there in the Andes who is freezing to death, who is 
losing her voice, who is getting crippled from arthritis. This is an 
American child.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. And now he would not respect the 
organization of American decision on Lori's appeal regardless of the 
outcome. What does that tell us? They are not going to give her a fair 
trial. Even if she wins in the OAA, they are saying no.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes 
for this debate, 1 minute on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, again I think it is 
unfortunate that the gentlewoman from California cannot accept a fair 
trial language in place of the release of.
  I think it will be very wrong, I would say to my colleagues, if all 
of us went on record saying that this lady, and she may be innocent, we 
do not know. I believe we have to be honest enough to say that the 
charges, and I have checked with the human rights groups, they are in 
doubt as to her innocence, and that is to leading groups.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes, one on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time just briefly, and then I 
will be happy.
  As my colleagues know, the charges are that she was planning on 
blowing up the Peruvian Congress. Now I do not know if that is true or 
not, but we know how seriously we take those acts of violence that are 
committed on our own Congress, killing of our two policemen which we so 
rightfully honored yesterday.
  This lady may be completely innocent. What she deserves is a fair 
trial, not a de facto exoneration by the Congress or the House of 
Representatives of the United States, and I think we err seriously if 
we make a decision not knowing, and Members will be walking in that 
door voting based on a handout in some cases or just a scintilla of 
knowledge. We need to know the real facts which are voluminous about 
this case.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think all sides here are genuine in 
the desire to come to agreement, and might I make this suggestion?
  I think the gentlewoman from California is concerned that there is no 
structure that could guarantee a free trial, and what I would ask is 
unanimous consent if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) could be given a moment to 
see if they can work out some agreed upon language that would be based 
on the principle that if a fair trial could be guaranteed, if Mr. 
Fujimori were to step down tomorrow, if there was a new election, if 
there was a free and fair judicial process established, then we would 
see a fair trial. If we cannot have that, they ought to release her.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) has expired.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for another 
minute on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent if we would pass 
over this for a moment, go to the next amendment, give these two folks, 
who I think are both intent on achieving justice, an opportunity to sit 
down and see if they can work something out. They may not be able to. 
Then we would come back and conclude and add this to the voting list in 
the regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from 
Connecticut makes a very helpful suggestion. I would hope that the 
gentlewoman from California would agree to that, and that would require 
us proceeding out of order.
  A unanimous consent would be proposed to let the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray) proceed while we discuss, and hopefully we can 
come to language that will send the message to the Peruvian government, 
to Fujimori, that we are united, that she has been denied her due 
process rights, and I mean we all want justice. I do not know if 
exoneration, release is justice. It may be; I do not know. I have 
looked at the case. If I were a jury, I would want to know a lot more.
  So I would hope that we can do what the gentleman from Connecticut 
has suggested.

[[Page 17054]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Would the gentlewoman from California be 
willing to withdraw her amendment momentarily in order to accommodate 
the suggestion made by the ranking member?
  Ms. WATERS. Following the 1 minute of the 2 minutes which were 
granted for the extension of the debate, I would be willing to do that. 
But for the 1 minute that is still left in this debate I would 
respectfully like to take that at this time, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, Lori Berenson has been in prison for 3\1/2\ 
years. She was tried by a military tribunal that was hooded. She did 
not receive any justice. Does not the time served count for anything? 
Or are we to believe that Fujimori, who has said to us by way of 
communication in a letter and otherwise to everybody who has attempted 
diplomatic relations with him that he will not release her, are we to 
believe that this man is capable of giving her a fair trial? Do we not 
care that she may die up in the Andes, a young woman who is an 
idealistic journalist who thinks she is working for the rights, human 
rights, of individuals? Does she deserve to be treated this way?
  My colleague has admitted that he does not know if she is innocent or 
not, but how can he be comfortable not being sure that she is guilty of 
a crime, that she continues to serve even beyond this 3\1/2\ years?
  She has said she is not a terrorist, she does not belong to that 
terrorist organization, and the international human rights committees 
are not demanding a fair trial of Fujimori. They are demanding her 
release.
  This statement, this amendment that I have, is an amendment that asks 
the State Department to use all of its diplomatic relations for the 
release of her. That does not dictate how that is done, but it simply 
says that the Congress of the United States is interested in them being 
about the business of showing some care and concern about an American 
citizen who has been imprisoned unfairly and unjustly over in Peru by a 
dictator.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I have just been informed by the 
Parliamentarian that we would have to go to the full House. So what I 
would suggest at this stage is that the gentlewoman and gentleman sit 
down and work it out. If they cannot work it out, we go right to the 
vote in the appropriate order. If they can work it out, we would 
include the new language in the en bloc amendment at the end.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
just say to my friend we could move to rise, and it will take all of 30 
seconds to do it in the full House and then go right back.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. We achieve the same goal, and I think my colleagues 
could sit down. Either way we get the same result.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am not sure if the gentlewoman is willing.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to table this amendment with the 
understanding that it would be untabled at the appropriate time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. In Committee of the Whole the motion to 
table is not in order.
  All time is expired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of working this 
out, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kingston) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, 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. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and 
personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________