[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17054-17059]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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}  1458


                     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. Barrett of 
Nebraska (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) had been withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 printed in Part B of 
House Report 106-235.


                Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Bilbray

  Mr. BILBRAY. 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. 33 offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 703. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SEWAGE TREATMENT ALONG 
                   THE BORDER BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 
                   MEXICO.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) The Congress finds that it must take action to address 
     the comprehensive treatment of sewage emanating from the 
     Tijuana River, so as to eliminate river and ocean pollution 
     in the San Diego border region.
       (2) Congress bases this finding on the following factors:
       (A) The San Diego border region is adversely impacted from 
     cross border raw sewage flows that effect the health and 
     safety of citizens in the United States and Mexico and the 
     environment.
       (B) The United States and Mexico have agreed pursuant to 
     the Treaty for the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and 
     Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, dated February 3, 1944, 
     ``to give preferential attention to the solution of all 
     border sanitation problems''.
       (C) The United States and Mexico recognize the need for 
     utilization of reclaimed water to supply the growing needs of 
     the City of Tijuana, Republic of Mexico, and the entire 
     border region.
       (D) Current legislative authority limits the scope of 
     proposed treatment options in a way that prevents a 
     comprehensive plan to address the volume of cross border raw 
     sewage flows and the effective utilization of reclamation 
     opportunities.
       (E) This section encourages action to address the 
     comprehensive treatment of sewage emanating from the Tijuana 
     River, so as to

[[Page 17055]]

     eliminate river and ocean pollution in the San Diego border 
     region, and to exploit effective reclamation opportunities.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
       (1) encourages the Secretary of State to give the highest 
     priority to the negotiation and execution of a new treaty 
     minute with Mexico, which would augment Minute 283 so as to 
     allow for the siting of sewage treatment facilities in 
     Mexico, to provide for additional treatment capacity, up to 
     50,000,000 gallons per day, for the treatment of additional 
     sewage emanating from the Tijuana area, and to provide 
     direction and authority so that a comprehensive solution to 
     this trans-border sanitation problem may be implemented as 
     soon as practicable;
       (2) encourages the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the United States section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission to enter into an 
     agreement to provide for secondary treatment in Mexico of 
     effluent from the International Wastewater Treatment Plant 
     (IWTP);
       (3) encourages the United States section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission to provide for 
     the development of a privately-funded Mexican Facility, 
     through the execution of a fee-for-services contract with the 
     owner of such facility, in order to provide for--
       (A) secondary treatment of effluent from the IWTP, if found 
     to be necessary, in compliance with applicable water quality 
     laws of the United States, Mexico, and California; and
       (B) additional capacity for primary and secondary treatment 
     of up to 50,000,000 gallons per day, for the purpose of 
     providing additional sewage treatment capacity in order to 
     fully address the trans-border sanitation problem;
       (C) provision for any and all approvals from Mexican 
     authorities necessary to facilitate water quality 
     verification and enforcement at the Mexican Facility to be 
     carried out by the International Boundary and Water 
     Commission or other appropriate authority;
       (D) any terms and conditions deemed necessary to allow for 
     use in the United States of treated effluent from the Mexican 
     Facility if there is reclaimed water surplus to the needs of 
     users in Mexico; and
       (E) return transportation of whatever portion of the 
     treated effluent which cannoted by reused to the South Bay 
     Ocean Outfall; and
       (4) in addition to other terms and conditions considered 
     appropriate by the International Boundary and Water 
     Commission, in any fee-for-services contract, encourages the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission to include the 
     following terms and conditions--
       (A) a term of 30 years;
       (B) appropriate arrangements for the monitoring and 
     verification of compliance with applicable United States, 
     California, and Mexican water quality standards;
       (C) arrangements for the appropriate disposition of sludge, 
     produced from the IWTP and the Mexican Facility, at a 
     location or locations in Mexico; and
       (D) payment of appropriate fees from the International 
     Boundary and Water Commission to the owner of the Mexican 
     Facility for sewage treatment services, with the annual 
     amount payable to be reflective of all costs associated with 
     the development, construction, operation, and financing of 
     the Mexican Facility.

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

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed, I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today the House has the pleasure of supporting a bipartisan amendment 
that will help clean up the environment and could possibly save 
hundreds of millions of dollars for the American taxpayer. It is an 
amendment that is supported by not only the chairman, but also the 
ranking member of the committee. It is an amendment that hopefully can 
be used as an example of bipartisan ship and international cooperation, 
for the good of the taxpayers of this country and for the environment 
in the United States and Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment specifically addresses an issue that has 
gone on for much too long, it is something that addresses the issue of 
the Tijuana sewage problem that has for so long polluted the beaches of 
southern California. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) has 
worked with me on this issue in order to pursue a solution that may be 
able to save hundreds of millions of dollars.
  The issue really is tied to the fact that Tijuana does not have 
adequate sewage treatment capabilities at this time and has not 
historically had those. This amendment would encourage a bipartisan 
minute order between Mexico and the United States, through the vehicle 
of the International Boundary and Water Commission, that specifically 
states that the agencies will work together and cooperate in finally 
addressing the treatment of the sewage and the appropriate disposal of 
that sewage, in consistency with not only the Clean Water Act of the 
United States, but also with Mexican environmental regulations.
  This amendment specifically is a sense of Congress, and it is a sense 
of Congress supporting the concept that the Administration, working 
with Mexico, will look at the most cost-effective alternatives and 
opportunities of treating Mexican sewage. That opportunity may exist in 
the United States, but it may also exist in Mexico.
  It may seem like a rather novel idea to some people, but I think if 
we have the potential to treat Mexican sewage in Mexico and do it 
cheaper and in a more environmentally sensitive manner, than what we 
could do on our side of the border, we not only have a right, Mr. 
Chairman, we have a responsibility to look into this.
  I would like to include for the Record a statement from the Surfrider 
Foundation of San Diego County dated July 9, 1999. It is titled, the 
Surfrider Policy Regarding Delays in Achieving Secondary Treatment at 
the U.S.-Mexico Border. Mr. Chairman, I will just quote briefly from 
this statement. Surfrider states in their communique that ``a 
comprehensive solution will offer the benefits of timeliness as well as 
the consideration of other priority issues such as the ability to treat 
all of the sewage problems within the region.'' It says that the 
proposal is within the existing systems of wastewater treatment that 
will benefit both Mexico and the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this simple, 
bipartisan, and common-sense amendment. This may seen like a relatively 
minor element of such an important and sweeping bill, but it has a 
potentially huge positive impact on the public health and environment 
of the international border region between the cities of Tijuana and 
San Diego. I would ask our colleagues to focus on it for just a moment, 
and give it your attention and support.
  Many of you are well aware of the ongoing health and environmental 
threats which have existed along this border region for decades as a 
result of renegade flows of untreated sewage from Mexico. You have 
heard me and my colleague Mr. Filner speak to this problem on a number 
of occasions, and I am happy to report that progress has been made in 
recent years and months, and is being made even now. An International 
Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) has been constructed on the U.S. side 
right at the border and is operating now, treating Mexican sewage to 
primary levels, with a second treatment component to follow. After a 
lengthy environmental review of alternatives for providing the required 
levels of secondary treatment, a decision must be made as to how to 
proceed with selecting and implementing an environmentally preferable 
secondary alternative. Right now, the leading alternative is a 25 mgd 
plant which would consist of an arerated ponding system, which under 
existing international agreement would be constructed on the U.S. side 
of the border.
  We have come a long way to reach this point, and we now find 
ourselves at something of a strategic crossroads. I wholeheartedly 
support secondary treatment of these sewage flows, in order to better 
protect the beaches, estuaries, and citizens on both sides of the 
border region. However, it has become clear that the secondary ponds 
alternative which could be constructed on the U.S. side, while clearly 
benefited, will be overwhelmed and operating beyond its capacity--25 
million gallons per day (mgd)--from its day of operation. Under these 
circumstances, we would need to immediately begin working on 
establishing a means to treat the excess capacity of flows--50 mgd and 
higher--on the U.S. side of the border. This will necessarily take 
additional

[[Page 17056]]

time to develop, and additional U.S. tax dollars to construct and 
implement. I am more than willing to spend whatever time and money may 
be needed in order to deal with this problem conclusively, but both 
time and available dollars are precious commodities, especially when 
the public health continues to be at risk.
  An opportunity has emerged to ``think outside the box'' and carefully 
consider a progressive and comprehensive strategy which would entail a 
public-private partnership, and benefit the entire region well into the 
future, by constructing in Mexico a 25 mgd treatment plant, using the 
same ponding technology, but with the capacity for safely treating 
anticipated future flows of 50 to even 100 mgd. In the process, this 
facility would be able to reclaim treated wastewater and make it 
available to the rapidly expanding business and industrial sectors of 
Tijuana. In this growing and arid border region, water is a scarce 
commodity, and water reclaimed from treatment facilities could free up 
precious potable water for use in Mexican households.
  There is tremendous potential in this innovative approach, and the 
intent of our amendment is to provide every encouragement that it be 
pursued to the fullest. We simply want to send the message that 
Congress supports the idea of a binational agreement, which would be 
needed in order to facilitate the development and implementation of 
such a public-private arrangement, with the consent of both federal 
governments. This potential strategy has considerable popular support 
in the region, including the City of San Diego and other local elected 
officials, and respected environmental organizations such as the 
Surfrider Foundation. I have a brief statement on this topic from the 
Surfrider Foundation which I would ask to be entered into the record at 
this point.
  If it can be developed and implemented, a long-term and comprehensive 
solution to a chronic environmental problem will be at hand, U.S. tax 
dollars will be saved, a new source of reclaimed water will be 
available to a ready market in Mexico, and the children and families of 
both Tijuana and San Diego will be able to go to their beaches, play in 
the estuaries, fish in the oceans, and live their lives in their 
communities without the chronic stigma and health threat of sewage 
pollution which is an unfortunate fact of life in the region.
  The amendment is respectful of the sovereignty of both nations, and 
the missions of local, state, and federal governments and agencies 
which are working on this issue on both sides of the border. Its intent 
is simply to establish some momentum behind this strategy, and indicate 
that this Congress is serious in encouraging that it be fully explored 
and evaluated by both governments and other involved stakeholders as a 
solution for the region's sewage problem.
  There is work that remains to be done at several levels for such a 
scenario to unfold, but its potential is tremendous, and we can help 
grow this potential today by supporting this amendment, and laying the 
groundwork for what could be the final chapter of one of the biggest 
and for too long most overlooked environmental problems this country 
has ever seen.
  Please help explore this possibility by supporting the Bilbray-Filner 
amendment.

  Surfrider Foundation Policy Regarding Delays in Achieving Secondary 
                  Treatment at the U.S. Mexican Border

       Currently, more than 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of 
     raw, untreated sewage enters the Tijuana River and the 
     Tijuana Municipal Wastewater System. Less than half of this, 
     approximately 25 mgd, is treated to advanced primary 
     standards at the International Wastewater Treatment Plant 
     (ITP) and discharged into the ocean via the South Bay ocean 
     outfall. A portion of the remaining untreated sewage, up to 
     17mgd, receives some indeterminate level of treatment at the 
     San Antonio de Los Buenos Treatment Plant in Mexico. The 
     remainder of untreated sewage is discharged directly into the 
     nearshore marine environment at the mouth of the Tijuana 
     River and at Punta Banderas, 5 miles south of the Border. 
     Together with numerous other groups, the San Diego County 
     Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation is concerned about the 
     environmental impacts and human health risks of discharging 
     any raw sewage into the ocean, as well as effluent that 
     receives anything less than secondary treatment.
       The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and International 
     Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) are required to achieve 
     secondary standards of treatment for all sewage discharged 
     from the ITP by December 2000. Several options for an 
     appropriate treatment plant have been considered by EPA and 
     IBWC, however, no final preferred option has been chosen. The 
     frontrunner to date is a 25mgd secondary treatment plant 
     using ``Completely Mixed Aerated'' pond technology at the 
     ``Hofer'' site adjacent to the ITP. Because the deadline to 
     begin construction of a secondary treatment plant which would 
     be operational by the December date has passed, the agencies 
     have sought more time to select a preferred alternative. 
     Additionally, this added time as been sought to fully 
     consider options not previously considered, which would 
     provide for a comprehensive solution to the known and future 
     anticipated volume of sewage.
       The Surfrider Foundation agrees with many others that 
     secondary treatment must be achieved as quickly as possible. 
     The harmful effects to the deep ocean environment, the 
     public, as well as to the beaches and beach communities of 
     southern San Diego County must not continue. However, 
     recognizing that a partial solution is no solution, the 
     Surfrider Foundation is strongly in favor of a comprehensive 
     solution, fully aware of the risk of slight delay. A 
     comprehensive solution will offer the benefits of timeliness 
     as well as the consideration of other priority issues such as 
     the ability to treat all present and future flows, impact of 
     the plant location upon the immediate environment and 
     population, plant expansion capability, feasibility of 
     beneficial water reuse, proper sludge handling, and the 
     relationship and compatibility of the proposal within the 
     existing system of wastewater treatment in both the U.S. and 
     Mexico.
       Therefore, the Surfrider Foundation will support the EPA 
     and the IBWC in their efforts to provide comprehensive 
     secondary treatment of all sewage flowing from the Tijuana 
     River as quickly as possible.

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Huntington Beach, California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my 
fellow colleague.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentlemen 
from California (Mr. Filner and Mr. Bilbray) for working together on 
this important piece of legislation. We all live along the coastline of 
Southern California and this issue of sewage, especially from Mexico 
going into our waters, is of utmost importance to the health of our 
people; and both of the gentlemen from California (Mr. Filner and Mr. 
Bilbray) have put out an enormous effort. They have shown bipartisan 
spirit.
  I want to commend both of them, and I appreciate the efforts they 
have been putting out, especially those of us who do surf in the ocean, 
recognize the importance of the quality of that water.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member, for working with us to 
have this amendment in order and to support it. And of course I want to 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), my colleague, for 
being the chief sponsor of this amendment.
  The two of us have been knee deep, literally, in this problem for 
probably 50 years between us; he when he started as a city council 
member and the mayor of Imperial Beach, California; myself since I was 
a city council member in San Diego. The two of us in local government 
have worked very hard to deal with an issue that few people in this 
House could face, and that is 50 million gallons a day of raw sewage 
flowing through their districts. This occurs because Mexico simply does 
not have the facilities to treat this sewage.
  We are in the process of solving that. Because of timing, because of 
the processes of budgeting, we are in an interesting and unique 
situation. We have a chance, with this House's support, to have a 
bipartisan, binational environmental-friendly, taxpayer-friendly 
solution, finally, to a problem that has plagued us for nearly 5 
decades.
  What we want this House to go on record to do with this amendment is 
to approve in concept an innovative public-private partnership that 
says, we can treat this raw sewage originating in Mexico in Mexico with 
the highest standards to which we would be accustomed to in this 
country, with an environmentally-sound process which would be paid for 
up front by the private sector, and which would provide a comprehensive 
solution, finally, to this problem.
  This is a rare opportunity where an innovative solution can be 
considered. It is not in the box of thinking of the traditional 
bureaucracies. They have had some trouble studying this to the degree 
that we would have liked, and so this Congress we are asking to go on

[[Page 17057]]

record to approve the concept of studying this innovative public-
private partnership, environmentally-friendly approach.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for this problem in Southern California, in 
southern San Diego which crosses the borders of not only Mexico, the 
districts of Mr. Bilbray and myself, to solve this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire on how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman 
from San Diego (Mr. Bilbray) has one 1 minute remaining; the other 
gentleman from San Diego (Mr. Filner) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are talking about the basic decency of allowing our children and 
families not to have to face pollution and sewage closing our beaches, 
polluting our estuaries, and especially sewage that is not coming from 
our neighborhoods or our area. It is actually coming from a foreign 
country.
  Now, the Federal Government has finally awoken to the fact that we 
have a legal and moral obligation to address this environmental issue. 
This is a chance for both Republicans and Democrats to stand up to 
protecting American soil, making sure that the environment really does 
count, and also saving the taxpayers massive amounts of money. It is, I 
hate to use the cliche, a classic example of a win-win. I think that is 
why we see both the ranking member and the chairman of the committee 
supporting this, with such diverse political views as Mr. Filner and 
myself supporting this.
  It really comes down to the fact that those of us who have lived in 
this area have been suffering under huge amounts of pollution for 
decades. Sadly, my children are second generation sewage kids. It is 
time Congress sends a clear signal that this will come to an end now, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to lend my voice of 
support for this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. It gets rid 
of raw sewage that originates in Mexico and finds its way on to our 
shores.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen from California have found a way to clean 
up this issue and to protect American soil. It is very important that 
we support this amendment, and I am pleased to lend my voice of 
support.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I again want to thank certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray) and his staff for working with me and my staff in preparing 
this comprehensive amendment. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) have been very 
supportive. Also, I want to acknowledge the experts on the Clean Water 
Act and these issues as they relate to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) for their support of this approach.
  Again, it is a win-win situation. We are going to save taxpayers' 
money. We have an environmentally sustainable solution that is being 
applied. It allows Mexico to make use of reclaimed sewage water for its 
agriculture and commercial purposes. It solves the problem that has 
been with us for 50 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues in the Congress to support this 
approach and finally close out a problem that too many of us have 
suffered with too long.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would like to thank the chairman for cooperating with us on this 
issue. This is good for the environment on both sides of the border, as 
well as on both sides of the aisle. It is time that Congress sends a 
clear message that we should do whatever we can to help the environment 
in the most cost-effective, reasonable, and intelligent way. All this 
says is let us do it the right way with the least amount of cost.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BILBRAY. 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 California 
(Mr. Bilbray) will be postponed.
  Pursuant to the order of the House, it is now in order to consider 
Amendment No. 31 printed in Part B of the 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:

       Part B 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).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As my colleagues know, I offered an amendment that would instruct the 
State Department to use all diplomatic efforts for the release of Lori 
Berenson. Again, I reiterate that Lori Berenson is a young woman who 
hails from New York. She is a journalist. She comes from a fine family. 
She went to Peru to work on human rights issues. She has been jailed by 
Fujimori. She has been placed high in the Andes in a room, in a prison 
where the temperature never gets above 40. Her health is failing her. 
She has been accused of being a terrorist, and she has been sentenced 
to life in prison.
  We have done everything in our power to try and persuade President 
Fujimori to give her a fair trial. The trial that she received was 
certainly not fair. It was a trial by a military tribunal. They were 
hooded. She did not have a chance to offer a defense. She did not have 
a chance to offer any evidence. She did not have a chance to do 
anything that would ensure that she could have a fair trial. And so, 
she has been in prison now for 3 years and 8 months. She has been in 
prison for 3 years and 8 months with Americans trying to go down there 
to visit her.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has been there. We are 
working with her parents. Mr. Chairman, 176 Members of Congress on both 
sides of the aisle have joined in a campaign for her release, Democrats 
and Republicans. We are outraged that we would allow Fujimori to do 
this to a young American woman.

[[Page 17058]]

  There is no reason that we should allow Fujimori, who has basically 
dismantled his government, who has taken over and appointed all of his 
judges, who really literally has shut down the media, we should not 
allow him to continue to imprison this young lady. She has said she is 
not a terrorist, she was not involved in any terrorist activities; and 
the human rights groups throughout this Nation have asked for a fair 
trial. He has refused a fair trial.
  Now the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is saying that he would 
like to see her get a fair trial.

                              {time}  1530

  We have some compromise language. Our language would concede to his 
concerns about a fair trial, even though we do not think she can get 
one. We would amend our language to say that she should have a fair 
trial according to international standards, within a year, and failing 
that, that she should be released.
  Now, everything is fair about this. Number one, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) said he wanted to see a fair trial. Despite the 
fact that we do not think she can get one, we are conceding to him that 
we will ask one more time, by way of this formal procedure that we are 
involved with here in the Congress on the floor of the House, to ask 
for a fair trial, but we want it according to international standards.
  We want to make sure that we are on the same track and we have the 
same definition for what is fair. Failing that, and only failing that, 
for example, if they say, no, we will not give her a fair trial, if 
they say, no, wait 10 more years, if they say we do not know what is 
meant by a fair trial, if they do not do it, if they do not actually 
carry out, rather, a fair trial, then we are asking for her release.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know what could be any fairer than that. We do 
not believe, again, that she can get a fair trial; but we are going to 
go along, and we are going to ask for it. We do not think it should 
hang out there forever, with them saying 5, 10 years from now we are 
trying to give her a fair trial.
  So we have asked for a fair trial according to international 
standards within 1 year and, failing that, and only failing that, she 
should be released.
  I would say to the Members of this House that I think that we can at 
least do this for this American, for a young woman who has not been 
proven guilty of anything; for a young woman who may be idealistic, but 
she does not deserve to have her life taken away from her.
  Her parents are people who live up in the district of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney). They travel throughout this country. They 
knock on the doors of the Members of Congress. They are begging us to 
please, to please, understand what is going on.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I want to repeat my request to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters). We were unable to work it out in that 
short time we had together.
  I wanted to put, in lieu of ``the release of'' Lori Berenson, ``a 
fair trial pursuant to international standards.'' Regrettably, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) wanted to add the words, ``or 
release,'' or, as she just pointed out, 1 year later there would be a 
release.
  I can say this having raised this issue myself before, with all my 
force. I have been concerned about it, like many Members on both sides 
of the aisle. But the issue here is one of fair trial and not of 
judging the evidence, because there is a lot of evidence, pro and con. 
Regrettably, in a sense of the Congress, which is a very serious 
matter, we should not go on record calling for the release of someone 
about whose innocence we are not persuaded one way or the other when 
the allegation is of a very, very serious terrorism charge.
  The MRTA, with which Ms. Berenson has been identified--and I think 
this should be underscored--is exceedingly violent. It was responsible, 
as I said earlier in the debate, among other acts of terrorism, for the 
seizure of the Japanese ambassador's residence in Peru.
  Remember, I say to my colleagues, day in and day out, as we watched 
CNN and we watched the news clips of those ambassadors and support 
personnel and everyone else who were caught behind those closed doors. 
Those hostages lived in agony for 5 months. To be associated with that 
group is a serious charge.
  Although we cannot effectuate it, we must at least use the moral 
suasion of Congress to emphasize that there needs to be a fair trial, 
pursuant to international standards. The gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) goes far beyond what we should be recommending in this 
situation.
  I would also point out that I have raised this issue. I take a back 
seat to no one regarding human rights violations that occur in Peru, or 
anywhere else in the world. My Subcommittee on International Operations 
and Human Rights has had something on the order of 100 hearings since I 
have been chairman. We have had fact-finding missions, including one to 
Peru, to raise issues of human rights.
  I believe in due process rights. I believe that she deserves them. As 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) knows, our embassy was 
trying, our personnel were trying, to get her to serve out her sentence 
here in the United States in what, hopefully, would be a more pleasant 
situation or circumstance, relatively speaking.
  So I really reluctantly rise in opposition to this.
  Mr. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) articulate where we differ? We have agreed that there should be 
a fair trial. We agree on that.
  Where do we differ? We have said that if they do not give her a fair 
trial within a year, then that would be what would trigger release. We 
do not say release without a fair trial. Now, where do we differ?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, the word ``release'' 
should not appear in this document, in this Sense of the Congress, 
because we should not be coming down on the side of releasing someone 
who has been accused of a very, very serious offense in cooperation 
with a terrorist organization that has a despicable record in Peru. 
But, again, we must demand that the charges against her be properly 
adjudicated.
  Let me remind Members that there were Americans who were held hostage 
in the Japanese ambassador's residence by this very group. I would urge 
a no vote on this, and I say that with reluctance. This is not a 
properly constructed amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentlelady from California, Maxine Waters. 
This amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the United 
States should increase support to democracy and human rights activities 
in Peru; urge the Organization of American States to investigate 
threats to judicial independence and freedom of the press in Peru; use 
all diplomatic means to get Peru to release Lori Berenson (a U.S. 
citizen sentenced to life in prison by a military judge in 1996 for 
alleged terrorist acts); and take into consideration the willingness of 
Peru to release Lori Berenson before providing economic or other 
assistance to Peru.
  While I understand that Peru is a sovereign nation, the country is 
lacking three principles that are fundamental for a democratic society 
governed by law: (1) freedom of expression; (2) integrity of a judicial 
system in a constitutional government; and (3) due process.
  In its annual human rights report on Peru, the U.S. State Department 
has flagged several serious violations, with particular emphasis on 
freedom of the press. Peru has been condemned by several international 
organizations for serious ``freedom of the press'' abuses.
  On Thursday, July 1, 1999, the House Committee on International 
Relations passed by voice vote H. Res. 57, expressing concern with the 
interferences with both the freedom of the press in Peru, as well as 
the judicial institutions of Peru.
  Due process is a fundamental human right and completely necessary to 
a functioning democracy. Without due process, there can be

[[Page 17059]]

no fairness, no justice, and no protection for any of the other 
fundamental freedoms of expression.
  In November 1995, a U.S. citizen, Lori Berenson was arrested and 
subjected to a secret, hooded military tribunal in which she was denied 
due process, according to the State Department, human rights groups and 
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. She was convicted of 
treason and given a life sentence without parole for allegedly being a 
leader of a terrorist group. Lori has proclaimed her innocence to these 
charges and in a letter to the human rights community, has denounced 
violence and terrorism.
  Lori has continuously been denied the opportunity to speak with human 
rights groups and the media. She has been held under horrendous prison 
conditions in the Peruvian Andes and we are all very concerned with her 
failing health. Lori has been subjected to long periods of isolation 
which have been cited by Amnesty International as cruel, inhumane and 
degrading treatment, in violation of Article 5 of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights.
  Dennis Jett, the U.S. Ambassador to Peru, has publicly stated that 
Lori Berenson has been singled out and treated badly simply because she 
is a U.S. citizen. The Peruvian military tribunal that convicted Lori 
was in secret. Additionally, the Peruvian government has never 
demonstrated any significant evidence against Lori because it does not 
exist. Meanwhile, Lori has continued to proclaim her innocence.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are to carry out the full intent of Title 22 
U.S.C. section 1732, by which Congress has given the President the 
authority, short of war, to gain the release of a U.S. citizen who has 
been wrongly incarcerated abroad, then we must do all that we can do to 
bring Lori home.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. 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 Bilbray amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 234, answered ``present'' 5, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                               AYES--189

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--234

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--5

     Barrett (WI)
     Hill (IN)
     Reyes
     Snyder
     Wilson

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chenoweth
     Kennedy
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Towns

                              {time}  1544

  Messrs. SHOWS, WELDON of Florida, BENTSEN and WISE and Mrs. BONO 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KELLY, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. ENGLISH and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________