SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC
40—801 CC
1997
H. CON. RES. 16, RELATING TO THE POPULATION OF THE GANGES AND THE BRAHMAPUTRA RIVER BASIN; H. RES. 68, RELATING TO SECURITY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN; H.R. 750, RELATING TO THE AUTONOMOUS GOVERNANCE OF HONG KONG AFTER ITS REVERSION TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; H. J. RES. 58, CONSIDERING MEASURES REVERSING THE PRESIDENT'S CERTIFICATION OF MEXICAN GOVERNMENT COOPERATION ON NARCOTICS CONTROL

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 6, 1997

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations


 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
CAROLINE G. COOPER, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S

APPENDIX

  Committee print of H. Con. Res. 16, Concerning the urgent need to improve the living standards of those South Asians living in the Ganges and the Brahmaputra River Basin
  Committee print of H. Res. 68, Stating the sense of the House of Representatives that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States of America and Japan is essential for furthering the security interests of the United States, Japan, and the nations of the Asia-Pacific region, and that the people of Japan, especially the people of Okinawa, deserve recognition for their contributions toward ensuring the treaty's implementation
  Committee print of H.R. 750, To support the autonomous governance of Hong Kong after its reversion to the People's Republic of China
  Committee report of H.J. Res. 58, Disapproving the certification of the President under section 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for Mexico during fiscal year 1997
  Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.J. Res. 58
  Letter of March 5, 1997, to Chairman Gilman from Richard A. Gephardt, Democratic leader and David E. Bonior, Democratic whip
H. CON. RES. 16, H. RES. 68,
H.R. 750, AND H.J. RES. 58
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
  The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the committee) presiding.
  Chairman GILMAN. The committee will come to order. Members will please take their seats. The Committee on International Relations meets today in open session to consider several important items of legislation. There may be record votes and we will need a quorum present to order one of the bills reported. If members are required to leave the room, I would ask that they apprise the staff of their whereabouts and how they can be reached in the event of a vote. It is the Chair's intent to take up our items in the order listed on the agenda before the members.
  But there is a special time constraint with respect to H.J. Res. 58, relating to the present certification with respect to Mexico. We may have to take that up earlier if we get bogged down.
  After recognizing the acting ranking Democratic member for any comments, I will hold my comments until we reach the items in question and I would ask that my colleagues do the same.
  Mr. Lantos is recognized for any opening comments.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, we will be making our comments as the individual items come up one-by-one. I appreciate your courtesy.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. If there are no other comments, the first item of business is H. Con. Res. 16, relating to the population of the Ganges and Brahmaputra River Basin. This measure was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific yesterday. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Ms. BLOOMER. H. Con. Res. 16 concurrent resolution concerning the urgent need to improve the living standards of those South Asians living in the Ganges and the Brahmaputra Basin.
  Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the resolution for amendment.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas some 400 million people live in Bangladesh, Northern India, and Nepal----
  Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative text of the resolution are considered as having been read and are open to the amendment at any time. The Chair recognizes our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, to introduce the resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. H. Con. Res. 16 concerns the need to improve the living standards of those South Asians living in the Ganges and Brahmaputra River Basin. This resolution was introduced February 6th, 1997, by Mr. Berman, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Royce, Chairman Gilman and myself.
  It expresses a sense of the House of Representatives, that there is an urgent need to improve the lives of those people of Bangladesh, India and Nepal, who live near the Ganges and the Brahmaputra Rivers and their tributaries.
  This river basin has the greatest concentration of poor people in the world. The region has great potential, but regrettably it is beset by natural disasters, including flooding during the monsoon seasons, drought during the dry seasons and occasional cyclones.
  Members will recall that during the last Congress on September 12th, 1996, this member and Mr. Berman introduced H. Con. Res. 213 which expressed the hope that the countries of the region would work together to relieve the poverty of the region's residents, focusing especially on the need to address the critical problems of flooding and drought. The resolution was marked up by the Asian Pacific Subcommittee just before the end of the 104th Congress.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  I am very pleased to say that since then, Bangladesh and India have signed a 30-year agreement on sharing the waters of the Ganges River. India and Nepal have also ratified a treaty that will permit their joint development of the water resources of the Mahakali River.
  These developments are very welcome and despite what the expert told us that progress in this area was impossible and we ought not even suggest it, H. Con. Res. 16 therefore congratulates the governments of Bangladesh, India and Nepal for these achievements and respectfully encourages them to continue their cooperation, which can do much to relieve the poverty of those people living in the Ganges and Brahmaputra River Basin. The resolution urges the world community, including the international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, to provide whatever assistance is appropriate in this effort. I urge the adoption of the resolution.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Lantos.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the resolution. I want to commend my friend from Nebraska for bringing it to our committee. The problem of equitable water sharing among the countries of South Asia has long plagued the region and has kept the people there from enjoying anything but the most destitute level of living.
  As my friend has indicated, in recent months India, Bangladesh and Nepal have reached several water sharing and development agreements and we commend them on those efforts. We hope that others will continue along these same lines. This enlightened diplomacy needs to be encouraged. And I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. I want to commend the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee for drafting H. Con. Res. 16, a concurrent resolution concerning the urgent need to improve the living standards of those South Asians living in the Ganges and the Brahmaputra River Basin. Bangladesh, India and Nepal all depend on Ganges and the Brahmaputra Rivers for their vital irrigation needs.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  The recent signing of the 30-year water-sharing treaty between India and Bangladesh and the ratification of the India and Nepal Water Resources Treaty are both historic agreements that will enable the people of these lands to better plan and utilize their precious resources. Bangladesh's recent Presidential election gives new hope to the fragile democracy there and water sharing, and this water sharing agreement will help to put it on a more solid ground. We commend them for their efforts.
  I support the resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. Is any other member seeking recognition? If not, and if there are no further amendments, the gentleman from Nebraska is recognized to offer a motion.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I move that the committee approve the resolution, and that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of this measure on the suspension calendar.
  Mr. LANTOS. I second the motion.
  Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
  [Chorus of ayes.]
  Chairman GILMAN. As many as are opposed, signify by saying no.
  The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
  The next matter is House Resolution 68 which yesterday was considered and ordered favorably reported with an amendment by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. The Chair lays a measure before the committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
  Ms. BLOOMER. H. Res. 68. A resolution stating the sense of the House of Representatives that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan is essential for furthering the security interests of the United States, Japan and the nations of the Asia Pacific region and that the people of Japan, especially the people of Okinawa, deserve recognition for their contributions toward ensuring the treaty's implementation.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendments proposed by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific will be considered as original text for the purposes of amendment. The clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the resolution for amendment.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and security between the United States of America and Japan is critical to the security interests of the United States----
  Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative text of the resolution are considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point. The Chair recognizes the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, to introduce the resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The resolution was introduced on February 13th, 1997 by Mr. Hamilton with a cosponsorship of Mr. Berman and this gentleman and referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. The subcommittee favorably moved this resolution yesterday.
  The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of U.S. security strategy for the Asian Pacific region and serves as the anchor for the U.S. military presence in the region. Not only do U.S. forward-based forces in Japan contribute to Japanese security, but these assets are absolutely essential for any contingencies on the Korean peninsula.
  Our bases on the Japanese mainland and on Okinawa enable us to protect and advance our interests throughout the Pacific. In addition, elements of the forward-based forces were among the first to arrive in the Persian Gulf during Desert Shield.
  There is no question that American forces in Japan contribute to a sense of regional stability. This member has commented in the past that all of the nations of Asia with the possible exception of North Korea welcome the presence of U.S. forces and want us to remain in the region.
  I would also note that the commitment of the Clinton Administration to keep 100,000 troops in Asia has become an important issue psychologically with the countries of the region who look constantly for reassurance that the U.S. military will remain in the region. The 100,000-troop commitment is an issue that the subcommittee will be considering shortly.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  This member would also note that the government of Japan pays the overwhelming majority of expenses of forward-basing of American troops in what is a model-basing agreement. Also Japan currently incurs approximately 75 percent of our basing costs. Frankly, even considering all direct and indirect cost, it is cheaper to keep our troops in Japan than it is to base them in the United States.
  And as Mr. Hamilton's resolution notes, we would not be able to maintain such a vigorous presence in the Pacific were it not for the generous national support provided by the Japanese.
  Mr. Chairman, H. Res. 68 offers special recognition of the importance of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. The resolution also takes special note of the contributions of the people of Okinawa who have been expected to carry a disproportionate share of the burden of hosting our troops. This is a good and useful resolution, Mr. Chairman, and this member commends Mr. Hamilton for his initiative. I urge approval of H. Res. 68.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
  Mr. Hamilton.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Bereuter for his presentation and I urge support for the resolution. Ambassador Mike Mansfield used to say the relationship between the United States and Japan was the most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none. The bilateral relation has endured and remains strong because the United States and Japan are united not by a common enemy but by common interests.
  In December, 1996, the United States and Japan agreed to measures to renew and strengthen our security relationship. In particular, our two countries agreed to lessen the burdens borne by the people of Okinawa whose island prefixture hosts over half of the forward-deployed U.S. forces in Japan.
  So I think this is the right moment to restate the fundamental importance of the U.S.-Japan mutual security treaty to the peace and prosperity of the entire Asian Pacific area.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  It is also the right time to recognize the contributions of the people of Okinawa toward ensuring regional peace and stability. It is a bipartisan effort. Senator Roth has introduced an identical resolution in the Senate and I thank him for that. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the resolution.
  Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I will vote for this resolution, but I think that Japan's contribution to world peace is woefully inadequate. Their share of the burden is well below ours and I think we should compliment the people of Okinawa for their efforts. But to use this resolution as a chance to say that Japan is doing enough is something I do not want to do.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Are there any other members seeking recognition?
  The peace and prosperity of the Asian Pacific Region is crucial to the security and well-being of our nation. One of the most important aspects of our foreign policy toward Asia is our security alliances. And none is more important than our security alliance with Japan.
  But peace has its price. And those who make contributions to it are often overlooked. Our forces in Japan have made tremendous contributions in preserving the peace in Northeast Asia and have allowed Asia to experience an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity.
  But the people of Japan, especially the Okinawans who host the majority of our forces should be recognized for their vital contributions to peace in Northeast Asia.
  So it is today that we express our support for H. Res. 68 and its recognition of our security alliance in Japan and the contributions of the people of that island nation, especially the Okinawans, in building and preserving peace.
  I want to thank Mr. Hamilton for introducing the legislation and the chairman of our Asia Pacific Subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, for bringing it before us today. We hope to quickly bring it to the floor for further consideration.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  If there are no further amendments, the gentleman from Nebraska is recognized to offer a motion.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee adopt the resolution, that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of this measure as amended on the suspension calendar.
  Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor signify by saying aye.
  [Chorus of ayes.]
  As many as are opposed say no.
  The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
  The next order of business is H.R. 750, relating to the autonomous governance of Hong Kong after its reversion to the People's Republic of China. This bill was marked up yesterday in the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and forwarded with amendments to the committee. The Chair lays the measure before the committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
  Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 750, a bill to support the autonomous governance of Hong Kong after its reversion to the People's Republic of China.
  Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill with the amendments proposed by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, will be considered as original text for the purposes of amendment. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled. Section 1. Short title----
  Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as having been read and as open to amendment at any point. The Chair recognizes the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, to introduce the bill.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Yesterday the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee favorably reported this legislation with one en bloc amendment that was largely resolved with contributions of yourself, the gentleman from California, Mr. Campbell, and the State Department.
  The bill has a long list of impressive bipartisan cosponsors including Chairman Gilman, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Berman, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Crane, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Cox, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Blunt and Mr. Martinez. It was introduced by this gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, in less than 5 months, British rule will end and Hong Kong will become a special administrative region of China. Nobody knows exactly what will happen in Hong Kong on that night, or on the days, months and years thereafter.
  This reversion is unprecedented in its complexity. Hong Kong, one of the world's most efficient economies will become part of an emerging giant that has yet to integrate itself fully into the world economy and which has only begun to experiment with democracy at the village level.
  The United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China have largely agreed on the basic rules for Hong Kong's reversion in the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984. For its part, China has agreed to grant Hong Kong more autonomy than international law requires.
  In Hong Kong's constitution, the basic law of 1989 and the National People's Congress unveiled a one-country, two-systems arrangement for 50 years. During that time, Hong Kong is supposed to enjoy a ''high degree of autonomy'' except in the areas of foreign affairs and defense.
  It is rumored that more than 7,000 journalists from around the world will be on hand at midnight June 30, 1997 to witness the official handover.
  In large part, the attention focused on Hong Kong by the international press has been fueled by misguided efforts by the Chinese Government to disband the current legislative counsel and replace it with a provisional legislature to alter civil rights protections in Hong Kong and to improperly influence the extremely efficient civil service there. Clearly, these actions must not go unnoticed by the international community nor by the U.S. Government.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Therefore, today we are considering the Hong Kong Reversion Act, H.R. 750, to object to these troubling proposals and developments and to express and act to protect the U.S. national interest in Hong Kong which is very substantial.
  Most importantly, this legislation is absolutely clear in demanding that the People's Republic of China fully respect the autonomy that it has promised Hong Kong in the joint declaration of 1984.
  Despite the overwhelming attention to the important issues of the legislative council and civil rights in Hong Kong, American foreign policymakers must also be concerned about more mundane transition issues which affect fundamental U.S. interests.
  And by the way, we have had great help from the Congressional Research Service in a very complicated and comprehensive study of exactly what our legal requirements and rights are. And I encourage members who have questions about that to examine it.
  For example, negotiations are currently underway between the United States and Hong Kong and the United States and China over a myriad of technical issues including an extradition treaty, a bilateral investment treaty, counselor functions and many more important issues. Moreover, we must be very careful to assure that Hong Kong continues to honor U.S. export control laws and regulations after the transition. And it is in that area where I think Mr. Campbell has made suggestions or perhaps it was the Chairman.
  So the Hong Kong Reversion Act will aid the Congress in examining all of the important issues in this complex transition by building on the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. It requires assessments and reports by the Secretary of State in very specific areas so the President can knowledgeably determine under his existing authority, whether to maintain current U.S. relations with Hong Kong.
  I might say that this legislation is the product of the work of myself, the committee, and other members along with the consultation of the State Department; the legislation is certainly not written outside of this institution directly or indirectly. I want to assure members that the legislation focuses exclusively on the autonomy issue.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, has concerns which we will address elsewhere. I appreciate his cooperation and I will try to be helpful to him in addressing other issues that are of concern to his subcommittee and my own. And I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Chairman GILMAN. I thank the Chairman for his comments and explanation of the bill. Is anyone else seeking recognition? Mr. Lantos.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I will support this resolution, but I think it is extremely important for this committee and for all of our colleagues to understand that the policy pursued vis-a-vis China over a period of years under both Republican and Democratic Administrations has made the Chinese clearly understand that commercial considerations and commercial considerations alone will determine the essence of U.S. policy toward China.
  And I think we are kidding ourselves that, on the question of Hong Kong, China will suddenly behave according to international standards or previous agreements concluded. The Chinese have concluded that they can get away with any conduct they choose. They have gotten away with any conduct they choose in the field of human rights. They have gotten away with any conduct they choose in the realm of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And they will get away with any conduct they choose with respect to Hong Kong.
  So while I think the gentleman's resolution is praiseworthy in the sense that it outlines what we hope will happen, we have no leverage over China at this point because we have chosen not to use our leverage.
  We have a $40-billion trade deficit with China that is essential to the conduct of Chinese economic and military plans. There has been not the slightest attempt to use that enormous leverage on other issues. And it is very naive to expect the Chinese to behave as they have promised to behave on Hong Kong.
  As a matter of fact, actions already taken by the government of China in Beijing clearly demonstrate that democracy in Hong Kong is on its way out. The earlier we face up to this, the more realistically we will be able to conduct our affairs with China.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  And I do not believe that this resolution which has no teeth will do anything more than express a pious wish. There is nothing wrong in expressing a pious wish, but I think it would be utterly hypocritical for anyone on this committee to believe that this resolution will be taken any more seriously by the Chinese. There are lots of other resolutions and lots of other issues.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANTOS. I will be delighted to yield to my friend from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to point out that the third major element of this legislation builds on the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 which has been enacted and it gives to the President not only the responsibility to gather reports on the implementation of the Hong Kong agreement between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China.
  But it permits the President to take actions, economic sanctions or whatever he feels necessary for those autonomous agreements; those agreements toward autonomy are not being honored at the present time. So it does place on the President additional requirements and information by the Congress as to what we believe our national interests are.
  So I would say to the gentleman that if the President attempts to use the 1992 Act, we have simply supplemented it by the passage of this legislation and we do have leverage if the President chooses to use it.
  Mr. LANTOS. If I may reclaim my time, while the gentleman is technically correct, neither the previous President nor our current President has chosen to take any of these steps; the overwhelming majority of this body is against taking any steps vis-a-vis Beijing because commercial criteria alone dictate U.S. policy toward China.
  We know this. They know this and it is important to state this publicly rather than to pretend that we are involved with human rights or democracy in Hong Kong. I would not want to bet the ranch on how long democracy in Hong Kong will survive once the Chinese take over. I thank the Chair.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. I want to commend the Chairman and ranking minority members of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee for crafting this measure, a resolution to support the autonomous governance of Hong Kong after its reversion to the People's Republic of China.
  Hong Kong's autonomy is clearly under attack. The government of the People's Republic of China has decided to dissolve Hong Kong's democratically elected legislative counsel on July 1st of this year and appointed a provisional legislature.
  In early February of this year, the preparatory committee appointed by the PRC recommended the appeal and amendment of Hong Kong ordinances including the Bill of Rights, its society ordnance relating to freedom of association and the public order ordnance relating to freedom of assembly.
  These two actions and many threats by Communist officials regarding the types of speech and association in addition to warnings to religious institutions are ominous indicators of what the courageous people of Hong Kong are facing as their territory reverts back to Communist China.
  Hong Kong's autonomy is lost without an elected legislature and the repeal of the bill of rights and other ordinances that protect its citizens against Beijing's intrusion into their freedom.
  H.R. 750 directs the Secretary of State to study these matters and take appropriate action to protect our nation's relationship with Hong Kong. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield to Mr. Campbell.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to offer a very technical and relatively--not relatively, entirely technical amendment. The reason is my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, was exceptionally gracious in allowing me to suggest a few changes in the bill which he graciously accommodated at the hearing, one of which dealt with the phrase on page 8, line 24.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  The substance is simple. We are calling upon the appropriate authority to try to re-establish the democratic rights that are present in the existing law under the British sovereignty which we fear have been taken away to re-establish them.
  And the phrase I think should have been said unless those rights are re-established no later than July 1. Instead, the phrase happens to read unless those rights are re-established prior to July 1, creating at least in my mind a technical, logical impossibility and that sovereignty has not returned to China prior to July 1.
  So I repeat a highly technical amendment and my motion would be for unanimous consent to strike the word prior to and insert the phrase no later than on line 24, page 8. And I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am reserving the right to object.
  Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I reserve the right to object only to say that I thank the gentleman for suggesting this 1-day change. I think that the change is appropriate and I urge its adoption under unanimous consent.
  Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to. I am going to ask Mr. Bereuter to take over for a few moments with the continuing discussion. Mr. Hamilton.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate my support for this bill. I think it is no secret how China handles Hong Kong is going to have a very profound impact in Washington and in the Congress. Members are deeply concerned about what lies in store for Hong Kong.
  Mr. Lantos, of course, is correct in pointing out the limitations of this resolution. But it is intended to alert the PRC of the concerns that we have. We do not intend this bill to be a threat. We do it as a statement of political reality.
  If Americans come to believe that China is somehow subverting the freedoms which the people of Hong Kong currently enjoy, it is going to be very difficult indeed to maintain public and congressional support for decent relations with China.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  On the other hand, if the reversion goes smoothly, then I think Members of Congress and the American people will note that and will support a policy of engagement with China. So this bill is a way of saying to China that if you value your relations with the United States, then respect the rights and the liberties of the people of Hong Kong.
  I think the Administration supports the bill. I support the bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Are there further comments from members? The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Hyde, if you will suspend for just one second.
  Mr. HYDE. All right.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Are there further amendments? Seeing none, I recognize the gentleman for that motion.
  Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of this measure as amended on the suspension calendar.
  Mr. BEREUTER. The question then is on the motion of the gentleman from Illinois. As many are in favor of the motion say aye.
  [Chorus of ayes.]
  As many are as opposed will say no.
  The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And a motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed. The committee will stand in recess for approximately 1 minute.
  [Recess.]
  Chairman GILMAN. H.J. Res. 58 relates to the present certification with respect to Mexico. The Chair lays the measure before the committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
  Ms. BLOOMER. H.J. Res. 58. Joint resolution disapproving the certification of the President under Section 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance from Mexico during fiscal year 1997.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the joint resolution for amendment.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled that pursuant to Subsection D of Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961----
  Chairman GILMAN. I have an amendment at the desk. The staff will distribute it to the members. If the members do not have it, the clerk will report the amendment.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gilman. Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following. Section 1. Disapproval of determination of----
  Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as being the original text for the purposes of amendment and is open to amendment at any point. The Chair will now proceed to explain the amendment purposes of the legislation.
  This resolution that has been introduced by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Shaw, expresses Congress' disapproval of the President's certification to Congress that Mexico has fully cooperated with U.S. anti-narcotics efforts during the past year.
  Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act permits Congress to disapprove Presidential certifications made under this section if it enacts a joint resolution to that effect. The issue before us today is nothing less than the well being of our own children. It is not the value of the peso. It is not the health of the Mexican economy or the status of diplomatic relations between our two nations.
  These critical issues, while important, cannot override the severe importance of fighting drugs in our bilateral regulations. The importance of Mexico's cooperation with our anti-drug efforts cannot be overstated. In the past 4 years, drug use among American teenagers has nearly doubled. Seventy percent of illegal drugs entering the United States come from Mexico.
  On February 28th, our President certified that Mexico has fully cooperated with our anti-narcotics efforts. The facts, regrettably, show that this is not true.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Last month the Mexican equivalent of our DEA administrator was arrested for conspiring with Mexico's largest drug cartel of the past several years. Only hours after President Clinton certified Mexico's cooperation, the Mexican Attorney General admitted that senior officials allowed a top money launderer to walk out of custody as a free man.
  Credible reports assert that the Mexicans deliberately withheld this revelation from the American officials with whom they were supposed to be fully cooperating.
  Drug cartels have penetrated the highest levels of Mexico's anti-narcotics law enforcement agencies. Our own DEA administrator, Tom Constantine, admits, and I quote, ''There is not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has an entirely trusting relationship. Such a relationship is absolutely essential.''
  Mr. Constantine went on to say that the damage from the Mexican law enforcement scandal to the war on drugs appears to be, and I quote, ''worse than that done by the U.S. spy, Aldridge Ames''.
  In the face of these facts, President Clinton still certified that Mexico was fully cooperating with our anti-drug efforts. The Administration should be given a Pinocchio oscar award for this year's performance.
  On Sunday, the New York Times described this amazing assertion this way, and I quote, ''the Clinton Administration, grinning stiffly in the face of Mexico's profound political corruption and official narcosis is now certifying that the war on drugs proceeds at pace in Mexico.'' In reality, the White House uses certification as a convenient cover to do what it pleases no matter what the nation's diplomats or intelligence analysts say is really going on abroad.
  The Administration's statement that the prompt arrest of General Guttierez, the head of their DEA, shows Mexico's full cooperation on drugs is like the young man who murders his parents, then appeals to the mercy of the Court since he is now an orphan.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  The resolution before us is quite simple. It gives Mexico's drug cooperation a failing grade instead of the President's passing grade. Not only are we changing Mexico's grade, we are also sending a message to this Administration that its international narcotics control strategy is in shambles. One only need read today's newspaper headlines from Bogota on the shutdown of coca and opium eradication efforts by our incorruptible allies in the Colombia national police.
  In addition, based upon our experience last year when Colombian decertification unintentionally cutoff key anti-drug support; this resolution gives the President the authority to continue U.S. assistance to Mexico, particularly the military which is our best hope in Mexico if he certifies it is in the vital national interest. I have been pleased to see that our Speaker has indicated that this full certification of Mexico was a mistake.
  Also, the House minority leader and many other members of the President's own party in both houses have expressed similar opposition. The President made the wrong decision and this resolution will help to set the record straight while preserving appropriate assistance and stability in our relationship with Mexico.
  Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Are there any members seeking recognition?
  Mr. LANTOS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, as in the previous case where I supported the resolution and pointed out its flaws, I would like to offer a reality check on this resolution because I think it is sorely needed.
  Everything you said about Mexican drug efforts is accurate and I concur with you, but I think it is the ultimate hypocrisy for this committee not to recognize and to state publicly that our drug problem is a domestic problem. The billions in Mexico drug money are American drug dollars. And it is very easy to engage in political grandstanding and criticize the Mexicans for our drug problem. It is also utterly inappropriate.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Our drug problem stems from demand for drugs here in the United States and you can decertify until you are blue in the face, the drug problem will not disappear because a gigantic and open country with millions of visitors will have a flow of drugs. The only way to stop the flow of drugs is to stop the demand for drugs here in the United States.
  And while voting for this resolution will make every member of this committee feel very good, the fact remains that the underlying issue is not being touched by this resolution. The underlying issue is the demand for drugs by U.S. citizens here in the United States which provides the billions to Mexico and Colombia and elsewhere to do whatever they choose with these funds.
  So I think it is important that we do not just hypocritically approve resolution after resolution without looking at the underlying realities. The Hong Kong resolution was a good case in point and this is another good case in point.
  The way to deal with our drug problem is to deal with it domestically. And if you deal with it domestically, Mexican drug lords will vanish because they will not have anybody to sell drugs to. I thank the Chair.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos, for your remarks. And if you would just yield a moment. Mr. Lantos, there is no question that demand is an important element in our war against drugs, but so too is supply and we have to battle both simultaneously without relinquishing any assistance in any direction.
  So in our war against narcotics, we must make certain that we eradicate, we interdict and we enforce on the demand side. And on the demand side, educate and rehabilitate.
  But one cannot be reduced in favor of the other. They all have to be fought on five major battlefields simultaneously.
  Mr. LANTOS. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
  Mr. LANTOS. As always, you are absolutely correct. However, the underlying causal issue is demand. And while we have to fight the supply side which is why I will vote for the resolution, the supply side would be irrelevant if demand would be diminished or eliminated. The causal factor in the U.S. drug problem is the demand for drugs within the United States. I thank the Chair.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Is anyone else seeking recognition? Mr. Kim, before I recognize you, I want to note that the following State Department officials are available this morning to answer any members' questions regarding Mexico.
  We have Ambassador Robert Gelbard, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement with us and we welcome him. Ambassador Jeff Davidow, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. We welcome Ambassador Davidow. Mrs. Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, and Ms. Sally Cummings from the State Department Legal Advisor's office.
  Mr. Kim.
  Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to this resolution because I have some strong reservations about this whole idea. I think it is an insult to the Mexican Government, a slap in their face, especially after the country-wide publicity following Mr. Clinton's announcement of recertification.
  I am afraid this may create some counterproductive results. The Mexican Government will be upset. They might decide, ''The heck with this nonsense.'' Whatever little cooperation we now get, they might stop it.
  In the end, it is going to be entirely our burden trying to stop drug trafficking. And the fact is that 70 percent of narcotics entering the U.S.A. passes through Mexico.
  I believe the Mexican Government's cooperation is absolutely indispensable to the United States in fighting against drugs. I do not know what we will gain by passing this resolution, thus sending the wrong message to the Mexican Government.
  What we are trying to do here is to stop bilateral U.S. assistance to Mexico. Also, by accepting this resolution, we are going to be asking Mr. Clinton to vote against loan to Mexico in multilateral development bank. This is almost like sanction. I do not think it is right to send such a message to Mexico. Therefore, especially for States--border States such as California, Texas and Arizona--will be impacted by this counterproductive resolution.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  As a result, again because of these feelings I strongly support Mr. Gilman's amendment in the nature of a substitute, especially Section 2 which states an alternative method for waiver. I think I like that better than this resolution, the way it is written. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Kim. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings, is recognized next.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much for the recognition. You know, we all abhor drugs and all of us want to do something about it to try and help society as best we can.
  I am going to support the Chairman's resolution, but not for the reason that I think that it is going to make any difference in what our problem is. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from California. And I thought how facetious it would be and perhaps even arrogant if Mexico were to decertify the United States for its failure to do more about drug usage in the United States. But that aside, I am persuaded that Colombia has done at least as much as Mexico in cooperating with the United States and that is not to suggest at all that there is not corruption in the ranks of Colombia.
  But to point out how ludicrous our overall policy is with reference to certification versus decertification, let me turn to another country right quickly. Nigeria. Nigeria is decertified because they do not cooperate. I put the question in a hearing one day to people from the Administration.
  Is Nigeria a place where drugs are cultivated, grown and manufactured? The answer was no and in essence the response was that Nigeria is a trans-shipment point for drugs. I do not dispute that nor suggest at all that that may not be the case. But if the drugs are trans-shipped from Nigeria, that means they were shipped to Nigeria from somewhere else.
  So when I asked that question, the word was put to me that the drugs that go to Nigeria come from Pakistan and from India and from Thailand and other places in Asia. And I say, well, are any of them decertified? And the answer was no. Look, we cannot each keep acting in the world with one policy for one country, another policy for another country and have ourselves respected. The whole certification issue is a mess and it is a mess as it pertains to Mexico.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  One parting shot on this. Is there anybody in here that believes that a whole hell of a lot of drugs do not come to America through Canada? Then give me a break.
  I just do not quite understand what we are trying to prove. I support the measure and I certainly will support my colleague from Florida who is offering the measure at such time as it comes to the floor. And I will have even stronger words regarding our overall hypocrisy as policymakers.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Do all of the members who intend to speak at least have their names, so that we have an idea of how long this will go, and whether we should recess for a vote or not? Mr. Sherman of California is recognized.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I wonder if Mr. Gelbard and the other folks from the State Department could step forward. I think before we do something of this significance, we ought to hear from the State Department.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for one moment for a procedure? If the gentleman will yield for one moment for a procedural question. Would the gentleman yield? Thank you for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to hear what the Administration has to say and I think it is worthy for every member to hear what the Administration has to say in coming to a final conclusion. That is not possible as we have a vote pending. I would ask the Chair to let us adjourn, go vote immediately, come back and listen to what the Administration has to say. So all members have that opportunity.
  Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman would yield to the Chair, I think that is a worthy suggestion. We do want to have a complete set of information within reason with as much as we possibly can learn, and we will recess to cast our votes, and we will reconvene for reconsideration of this legislation 10 minutes after the vote. Please return.
  [Recess.]
  Chairman GILMAN. The committee will come to order. I was waiting for Mr. Sherman to return because he has the time related to the question. Instead I will call on Mr. Menendez. And if you wish to proceed with the questioning, that would be appropriate. Or if you would rather just take your time for other purposes, you may do that.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make a brief comment to start and then I would like to hear from the Administration. This is a process that I and I believe other members are seriously concerned about as a process that is flawed.
  What is meant as an internal process for the United States with its legislative branch dealing with the executive branch to determine whether or not we are moving forward together with other countries in our common mission to reduce the flow of drugs and ultimately eradicate it has become a question of national sovereignty for these other countries and a question in which we are issuing a report card on countries in the highest ways in terms of profile which undermines our ability to get to where we want to get which is a mutual course under which we in fact ultimately reach what I believe are shared goals.
  And in Latin America where I follow a great deal of my interests in this committee, I know it is particularly difficult because for our longstanding history with our neighbors to the south. This is again seen as a view of interventionists in their affairs instead of the cooperation we mutually seek.
  Although, unfortunately, that is not the issue today, it is an issue that I hope the committee will consider in the days ahead when we look at is there not another process that we can meet our goals of making sure that our interests are promoted and at the same time enhance the process in which we try to achieve the eradication of drugs within the hemisphere.
  Having said that, I would like to hear from the Assistant Secretary and Ambassador Gelbard as well. And I would like for you to give us the reason why the Administration did approve and certify Mexico in this process and what is your view on the resolution pending before the committee? Mr. Secretary.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Will the Administration witnesses please identify themselves?
  Ms. LARKIN. Mr. Chairman, I am Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. Mr. Menendez, I can tell you the Administration opposes both the substitute resolution and the underlying resolution. Assistant Secretary Jeff Davidow from Inter-American Affairs is here and can review for you the reasons behind that and why the President determined that Mexico met the requirements in the statute.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Unfortunately, Ambassador Gelbard had to go. We had a briefing occurring at 11:30 for members of the Senate. So the Ambassador has gone to do that briefing. But Mr. Davidow can, I think, answer your questions.
  Mr. DAVIDOW. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeffrey Davidow. I am the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. And I welcome this opportunity to answer Mr. Menendez' question. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
  I will try to explain, and I believe shall explain why President Clinton decided to certify Mexico and why it is so vital that we prevent counter-productive activity to decertify. It is clear to all who look at the Mexican situation that President Zedillo is fighting a tough uphill battle against drug cartels that corrupt Mexico's law enforcement agencies.
  This battle is not going to be won in a day or a month or a year. But President Zedillo is taking responsibility and taking action against corruption. Just in the past year he has removed more than 1,200 police and other officials for corruption and other related charges. And he expanded the role of the military in counternarcotics. He immediately fired and arrested the recently appointed, subsequently revealed as corrupt, drug czar and he has ordered the new Attorney General to intensively vet and investigate all of Mexico's counternarcotics officials from top to bottom.
  Mexico is making broader fundamental progress. During the last year, drug seizures, arrests, crop eradication and the destruction of clandestine labs and runways have all increased.
  Last year in Mexico, seizures were up. Cocaine seizures up 6 percent, heroin 79 percent, marijuana 29 percent. Eradication continues every day of the working week. The Mexican Army puts between 15,000 and 20,000 men in the field to eradicate narcotics crops. The arrests of Mexicans, Americans and foreigners involved in narcotics trafficking is up. New laws have been passed, including a new money laundering law which has not yet gone into effect.
  But the trend is clearly positive. And President Clinton believes strongly that President Zedillo and his government working with us through the high level contact group, which is chaired at this end by General Barry McCaffrey, is making real progress. That is why he certified Mexico and that is why we oppose these measures to decertify. Thank you.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. BEREUTER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield? I would ask to be recognized, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman would hold just one second, I think we can get to you. The committee, of course, is to permit the Administration to, on occasion, intervene during our markup, and I would ask unanimous consent of two Members of Congress and not members of the committee, one from each side of the aisle who have a direct concern on this issue. If there is no objection, that will be the order. Mr. Shaw, the gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate your allowing me to sit with the committee today and to have these few minutes to comment on the bill. I would first of all like to say that in my experience in Congress and work in the area of law enforcement as it pertains to illegal drugs, every single piece of responsible legislation that has come through the Congress has done so with the assistance of the chairman of this committee, Mr. Gilman.
  And I might say also with very good bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle. And I am pleased to say at a time where we become increasingly partisan in the Congress that we do join together on issues of such importance.
  The greatest threat to the United States is no longer from hostile governments with weapons of a mass destruction. I think the greatest threat to the future of this country today comes in large part from governments that are friendly to the United States and are friends of the United States but come in ways that allow illegal drugs to flow into this country almost unobstructed by the host government. This is certainly the case of Mexico.
  The question has been raised by one of the members of this committee, as to the extent of damage and the extent of harm that these things do to the United States. I would like you to just bear with me for one moment and talk about what effect drugs coming into this company illegally are having on the population of this country. What effect are they having on the future of our country?
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Each and every year 16,000 are killed in drug-related matters. 500,000 injuries each year are drug-related. 12 million property crimes each year are drug-related. One-third of the new AIDS cases each year are drug-related. 70 percent of much of our crime is drug related. The violent crime correlation is, of course, even higher.
  The question has been raised as to whether we were meddling in another country's affairs. I think that goes to the heart of the certification process. We are not here today to question the certification process, but we are here today to question the certification given by the Administration as to the Mexican Government pursuant to the statute which is part of the law under which we have to make this judgment.
  In doing so, I want to be very quick to say that the new bill that has been filed, the amendment in the way of a substitute that is before the committee today I think is a moderating force on the original one that I filed asking just for plain decertification.
  And in addition, I think it shows a compassion and a concern for the law-abiding population of Mexico. And in all, I think it is an improvement on the approach that I originally had taken. And I would applaud Mr. Hamilton as well as Mr. Gilman for making these changes.
  I also want to be very quick to point out that this bill does have the support of the leadership on both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue. This is not a question of the Republicans trying to embarrass the Administration. This is something as to the feeling of Congress with regard to this issue.
  I feel this is a very important statement that must be made by the Congress in this regard. And I thank the committee for the quick action that you have taken, Mr. Chairman, with regard to bringing this matter before the committee. I would certainly hope that it would pass by a big vote in this committee.
  It will send a very strong message to our friends in Mexico and I say that without any reservations. We do have friends in Mexico. And also, it would allow as this has been drawn, it will not interrupt the assistance and trade that we have with Mexico, but I think this is a message that is vital that it be stated by the Congress today. I yield back and thank the gentleman.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shaw, for appearing and for giving us the benefit of your views. Mr. Shaw has been a long-time fighter in our war against drugs. Before I call on Mr. Reyes, how many of our members are seeking recognition? Three. All right. Thank you. Mr. Reyes,
  Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity to come before your committee. I think it is vital and critical that we in Congress understand the issues that are before us and that we have a comprehensive realization that there are two distinct issues that we have to deal with here.
  I think all of us abhor the statistics that my colleague, Congressman Shaw, made mention of a few minutes ago. I think the impact that drugs are having on our society is horrible and I think we all can agree on that.
  There is, however, a difference between what is going on in our country in terms of the impact of narcotics and the issue before this committee and really the issue before the President last week.
  And I am here to tell you having spent 26 1/2 years on the border enforcing this nation's immigration, narcotics and other laws, I think I have a unique perspective on not only Mexico, but on the impact that decisions that we make in Congress such as a resolution to decertify Mexico or even certify with a waiver or decertify with a waiver can have profound and long-term consequences on our relationship with Mexico.
  I would like to, if I could, do a number of things within my 5 minutes. I hope that red light is wrong. I just started. Thank you. You made me feel better already.
  Chairman GILMAN. Please proceed.
  Mr. REYES. The country of Mexico is indeed paying a high price. That is why last week when I found out, and I was home because my mother had a heart attack and was in very critical condition. And so I was not here in order to engage my colleagues in what I think needs to take place and that is an understanding of what we are dealing with here.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  But I did send a letter to President Clinton urging him to certify Mexico because I feel that decertification of Mexico would be grossly unfair. It would be negating a tremendous price that they are paying as a country. And it would be counterproductive to us long-term and it would have a profound and serious consequence in terms of how we relate to each other to the border States, and even between countries in our economies.
  I say that because if we are talking about what kind of commitment Mexico is making and has made and will continue to make, I would ask the Members of Congress to remember that Mexico lost a Presidential candidate because of their fight on drugs. I would ask them to remember that President Zedillo has in fact just recently arrested their drug czar in spite of the realization that to do so would be a tremendous negative public reaction both from within the country and certainly from the United States.
  I think that we need to understand, and this goes back to my experience on the border. We need to understand that every week there are policemen and soldiers that are losing their lives to the fight on the narcotics trafficking through Mexico. Mexico is a trans-shipment country. Mexico has a subeconomy that deals strictly with the narcotics traffic trade. If we decertify Mexico, we have a profound effect on their real economy that might upset the economy to the extent that the narcotics subeconomy becomes the real economy.
  I do not think that we can afford as a nation to ignore and as members that institute public policy, we cannot afford to send a message to Mexico that the job that they have done, the cooperation they have shown, the price they have paid and the price they will continue to pay will be for not simply because we want to send a policy message.
  I think we are at a crossroads with our relationship with Mexico that if we take the wrong road we run a serious threat to our own national security because the implications could be profound enough that it would change our relationship, not only with Mexico but with countries throughout Latin America because we failed to recognize that we have a problem and they are willing to help fight our problem. But we are in a sense not willing to accept or understand the price that they are paying and in the process are seeking to decertify.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  I would just like to finish up because I would like to articulate that as my colleague Congressman Shaw stated, we are not here to debate the certification process. But I would submit that is exactly what we ought to be doing because I do not think that the certification process is realistic. I do not think it serves any purpose and I think it is counterproductive to what our real efforts should be in terms of fighting the scourge trafficking off our hemisphere and the impact that it is having on our country.
  And again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come before you and speak about this very serious issue and our relationship with Mexico.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Reyes, for taking the time to be with us and speaking on behalf of the Hispanic caucus. I am going to suggest that since we have the Foreign Minister of Egypt who will be in our committee room at 1 p.m., that without objection, debate on the amendment before us, the Gilman amendment, will conclude at 10:50 a.m. And the time between now and then will be divided equally. If that is agreeable without objection, then we will adopt that as our procedure. And now I am going to call on Deputy Administrator, DEA, James Milford to please come to the table and address the assessment of the level of law enforcement, cooperation first in Mexico and then Colombia prior to this year's certification. If you would please be brief, Mr. Milford.
  Mr. MILFORD. Mr. Chairman.
  Chairman GILMAN. Please identify yourself for the stenographer.
  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
  Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Burton.
  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, are we going to hear from the witnesses before other members have a chance to comment? The only reason I ask is that I am chairing a hearing in another room and I know some others may be----
  Chairman GILMAN. All right. If you have a time constraint, if you would pause, Mr. Milford. And I am going to call on Mr. Burton.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. BURTON. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I was chairman of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, the 2 years previous to this term and in Colombia we saw the Colombian police, not the Colombian military which I think has a real corruption problem.
  But the Colombian police has done an outstanding job in fighting the drug cartels in Colombia. They have lost hundreds, maybe thousands of people in fire fights with the drug cartels in trying to stop the drug traffickers down there.
  The general in charge down there has met with me and I am convinced that although there may be some corruption there, that in Colombia the police down there have been trying to do their dead level best to cooperate with us. And, yes, we decertified with no exception, Colombia.
  Now we have Mexico. And Mexico on the other hand, there have been many, many times that we have found through my subcommittee's investigations, that planes bringing drugs into a transit point in Mexico would land. The Mexican police and the Mexican military were made aware through our intelligence that these planes were going to be landing at a designated spot.
  They had plenty of time to get there. The planes landed. They were unloaded. Everybody left. And then comes the cavalry. After the fact.
  And the thing that concerns me is we have a double standard here. Colombia, the police down there are trying to do their best to fight the drug cartel. In Mexico, the corruption level is so high, it is unbelievable. It goes from the bottom all the way to the top.
  Our head of the drug investigations here in the United States, our drug czar if you will, said that their drug chief was above reproach. And yet, we found out just a week or 10 days ago that the man was deeply involved with the drug cartels and the drug traffickers down there and he was the man in charge.
  I just think that this resolution does not go far enough. I think the first part of it is very good. But you are giving the President of the United States who has already made a determination, waiver authority. President Clinton has already agreed to grant Mexico that waiver.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Now, if we pass this, this is not doing anything because the President is going to use his waiver authority to waive this. So why pass it in the first place? I have the greatest regard for my chairman, Mr. Gilman. I think he is a fine man doing a good job. Mr. Chairman, the first section is fine. The section that gives the President waiver authority I think just goes too far because what it does is it is just going to negate the whole purpose of this resolution. I thank you.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Mr. Milford.
  Mr. MILFORD. Mr. Chairman, my name is James Milford. I am Acting Deputy Administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration. I have been in my present position for approximately 6 months.
  You asked me and I echo Mr. Burton. As far as Colombia is concerned, from our perspective, DEA's perspective, since General Serrano has assumed the position as Director General of the Colombia National Police, we have had an outstanding relationship with the Colombian National Police. Passing information to them to a specific vetted unit, that has responded positively in directing operations of some of the major cartel leaders, the cartel leaders in Cali and also throughout the country. This is not without some concern on General Serrano's part. He is, of course, aware of corruption within his country, but he has been able to overcome that and move forward in a positive way.
  As Administrator Constantine testified last week, we do not share that relationship with Mexico law enforcement. At the present time, we in DEA do not have a trusting relationship with any of the law enforcement agencies that are presently operating within Mexico.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Milford. Mr. Payne. Mr. Sherman, we will allow you 4 minutes. So do not wait until it gets green. Three. OK, 3 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Davidow, the difference between the amendment we are being offered and the original resolution is that it gives the Administration authority. Do you want this waiver authority? Assuming that we pass one of these two versions, do you want the one that gives you authority or do you not want the authority?
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Ms. LARKIN. Is it all right if I answer that, Mr. Sherman?
  Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
  Ms. LARKIN. I think the President statutorily has a national interest waiver authority. So in terms of the authority that is given, it is something that he currently possesses. The second point is, as we mentioned earlier, the President did determine that Mexico had met the requirements of the statute and felt strongly that that is the case. So in terms of the legislation, we cannot support either one. In terms of the waiver, it is authority that the current law does provide to him.
  Mr. SHERMAN. So you are saying that both substantively identical and the waiver authority and the amendment is superfluous to existing statute?
  Ms. LARKIN. I am saying that they are not identical. The two bills are not identical. As I understand Mr. Shaw's legislation is a straight decertification, a resolution of disapproval of the President's determination. The substitute resolution does disagree with the President's determination and it provides the President with waiver authority. And third, it includes a consulting requirement with the Congress.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Is your interpretation of Mr. Shaw's approach that you would still have waiver authority pursuant to other statutes on the books now?
  Ms. LARKIN. Let me ask my legal counsel. The waiver authority provided in the substitute is slightly different than the waiver authority in the current statute. The substantive problem that we have with both resolutions is the decertification of Mexico. It is not the waiver authority. The two waivers are different. It is a national interest waiver, national security interest. A vital national interest waiver in current law. This is slightly different. But our real problem is the decertification.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I do not know which one of you wants to comment on this question, but would adopting either of these two help or hurt our fight against drugs?
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. DAVIDOW. I would be glad to answer that, Mr. Sherman. I think adopting either of these two would hurt our fight against drugs. We have entered into a collaborative and cooperative relationship with President Zedillo. He is doing more in the fight against drugs and in the presence of many of the members here, and certainly in my presence, he has said that Mexico's No. 1 national security problem is drugs.
  Under his leadership, the level of cooperation has gone up. It is not at a level, as Mr. Milford noted, that any of us would like. But if we compare where we are in Mexico today to where we were as little as a year ago, there have been dramatic changes. Seizures are up. Extraditions are up. Cooperation is up. Border task forces have been formed. A high level contact group headed by General McCaffrey and the Foreign Minister and Attorney General of Mexico is in place. There has been significant and profound change this year.
  Mr. SHERMAN. And the drug czar who was arrested was in power a year ago, correct?
  Mr. DAVIDOW. No, he was not. He was in power for less than 10 weeks. And as soon as the government of Mexico found out that he might be crooked, they investigated. They carried out the investigation and unlike what might have happened in Mexico or other countries not too long ago, it was not swept under the rug. The government of Mexico in a very critical week just before certification went public, exposed this, and did the right thing.
  Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Chabot for 3 minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first of all ask unanimous consent to have entered into the record a letter from--it is signed by both the Democratic leader, Mr. Gephardt, and the Democratic whip, Mr. Bonior, indicating their opposition to certification. In other words, in support of the Chairman's amendment.
  Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the letter will be entered into the record.
  [The letter appears in the appendix, page 63.]
  Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And what we are doing here today is essentially this. The President gave Mexico an A for their role in the war against drugs. And the Chairman's substitute--I think quite rightly--addresses that issue which I really consider to be grade inflation.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  A tremendous amount of drugs come in through Mexico and we know all the figures. And I do agree that we have to do something about our demand here in this country. We have to stop that demand and that certainly is an important element. But the drugs continue to flood in through Mexico.
  And during this time, the Mexican drug czar himself is working hand-in-hand with drug cartels and I think one of the things that concerns me the most is the fact that he compromised the lives of hundreds and hundreds of law enforcement officers. That is an absolute crime in itself.
  We are waging a war for the survival of our children, our grandchildren, our schools, and our cities, and Mexico has been, at best, a weak partner in that war. By adopting this measure, we are telling Mexico that we expect more of them and that we will no longer look at their failing role with a wink and a nod and that if they want the U.S. Government to certify them as a legitimate partner in the war on drugs, they better get their house in order pronto.
  And I would like to just ask the DEA witness here for a moment, can you operate and cooperatively fight drugs in a country without any honest law enforcement entities that we can rely on?
  Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Milford.
  Mr. MILFORD. Congressman, it is my experience through years of working in the international environment that absolutely we cannot work without the cooperation and coordination and trust of our law enforcement counterparts. That is something essential. We, as you know, do not work unilaterally within a country. We work in concert with them and it is essential that we have the ability to pass actionable intelligence, sometimes very sensitive intelligence, directly to an official whom we trust, have trust in and can rely on.
  Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I will yield to Mr. Sanford.
  Mr. SANFORD. Thank you. I just have one quick question. I had noticed a letter from the Democratic leadership. And my question was if Mexico has truly been as cooperative as you would suggest, then why is it that the Democratic leadership is opposed to certification?
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Ms. LARKIN. I cannot speak to why. I think the reasons if it is the same letter that I have seen were outlined in their letter and their speaking on their own opinion.
  Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Clement, 2 minutes.
  Mr. CLEMENT. It is obvious that we have a difference of opinion, and it appears to be between the State Department and DEA about certification and decertification. As a new member of the International Relations Committee, I have listened to Congressman Shaw say that there will be no interference with assistance and trade. I would like for you all to comment on that in a moment.
  I also know of no country right now that more drugs are being transported from than from Mexico into the United States through the border. I also know we surely do not have anywhere close to the number of border guards that we need. I know I had a ''Call Your Congressman'' recently in my congressional district permitting constituents to call me here in Washington, DC. I heard more complaints, and more concern about illegal aliens than any other issue.
  So I have to ask you, Mr. Milford, knowing that we are not getting the cooperation we need from Mexico, if we do not decertify and get Mexico's attention, what are we going to do?
  Mr. MILFORD. Congressman, I am here and really will comment on law enforcement issues and our coordination with countries. I am not here and prefer not to really comment on anything as far as the certification process. The administrator of DEA has passed his recommendations onto the Attorney General for that process and I would prefer not to talk directly about the certification.
  Mr. CLEMENT. And what is that recommendation?
  Mr. MILFORD. I would prefer not to discuss it. We have passed that in confidence and that is where I would prefer to leave it.
  Mr. CLEMENT. But you cannot say today that you support what the State Department has said.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. MILFORD. I am going to speak directly about our relationship with the countries that I am asked about. As far as enforcement concerns, we have enforcement concerns with our relationship with Mexico.
  Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. LARKIN. Mr. Clement, could I just add one thing? We are not just speaking of the State Department. This is the President's determination and the Administration's position. It is not just the State Department's position.
  Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DAVIDOW. If I may, Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
  Chairman GILMAN. You will have to hold a moment. Mr. Smith for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask a couple of questions. First of all, generally speaking, this particular member gets very concerned when for political or expediency reasons standards that ought to be objective are set aside and this seems to be one of those cases.
  Unless we are talking about perspective analysis about whether or not we will get cooperation from Mexico in the future, it seems to me that the certification period is a snapshot of a time certain. At the end of that, we say did they fully cooperate or did they not? And it seems to me that the statute, section 490, is very clear, that full cooperation means just that, full cooperation.
  And General Guttierez' betrayal it seems to me, not only as Thomas Constantine indicated previously before another congressional committee, that is analogous to the Aldridge Ames' betrayal. We do not know how far, to what extent our assets have been compromised, men and women's lives who make up the DEA or are deployed there could be put at risk. And I think the President erred in his finding, but we need to get to the bottom of as to how serious this really is.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  You know, you talk about, Mr. Secretary, about the numbers going up that the President cited that as well. Well, it is half of what it was in 1991. And we know that about 70 percent of all the cocaine somehow transits that border coming into the United States.
  So if you are talking about win/lose, we are losing this game and it seems that it might have been because of betrayals and because of this systemic corruption problem that we have in that country.
  My question, a couple of questions, and maybe you want to sidestep this, and we need to know this to make an accurate and informed decision. We rely on DEA. Do they believe, do you believe, Mr. Milford that there has been full cooperation on the part of the Mexicans with regards to whether--you do not have to say whether or not certification was warranted. Are they fully cooperating?
  Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MILFORD. There is no question that we do not have an open relationship with the Mexican law enforcement. We do not have the ability to pass and expect intelligence information, to be acted upon. And, yes, in many circumstances, we have had information compromised that we have passed.
  Mr. SMITH. Let me ask one other question. I believe I just heard someone from the Administration state that the waiver provision in the Chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute is very similar to the waiver that the President already has under existing law. If that is true, then perhaps we should drop section 2 from the amendment. Thereby deleting as superfluous the waiver that we are providing.
  Before we do that, I would like to hear again from the Administration--are the two waivers in fact so similar that they do not need or want the waiver in Section 2? And would you object if we dropped Section 2 from the amendment?
  Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. SMITH. I would ask that they have time to at least respond.
  Ms. LARKIN. Mr. Smith, the Administration position is we oppose both amendments on both bills, Mr. Shaw's bill and the substitute amendment.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Wexler.
  Mr. SMITH. That answers the question.
  Mr. PAYNE. Two minutes.
  Mr. WEXLER. For me, Mr. Clement and Mr. Milford go to the heart of the matter. I would like if Mr. Davidow would have an opportunity to respond to the issue of accepting Mr. Milford's recitation of the lack of cooperation. And if we in fact do certify, what incentive is there then for better action on behalf of the Mexican policy authorities?
  Mr. DAVIDOW. I have stated, and I believe, that the level of cooperation has gone up dramatically in the past year, both on the police level, but particularly at the higher level of government when you have President Zedillo saying this is our No. 1 national security concern; then finding out that one of the people he appointed was crooked and immediately operating to get him out. I think that shows a level of concern and a level of cooperation that is important.
  Now, there are areas where we are working with the Mexican Government to improve the relationship. One is extradition. Up until a year and a half ago, no Mexican national had ever been extradited from Mexico to the United States. In the last year and a half there have been about two dozen extraditions in general, including Garcia Abrego who was sentenced to eleven life terms in a Texas prison last November. That had never happened before.
  Another area that we are very much concerned about is the protection of our DEA agents inside Mexico, making sure that they have the appropriate immunities and protections that they need. We would like to see the Mexican Government take the new legislation that it has passed, criminalizing money laundering, put it into effect and use it in ernest.
  There are a number of things that are happening. We are in discussions with them. There is progress. The high-level contact group has met several times where formal conversation and informal conversations go on. I expect to see even more progress than we have seen. I will state it again, the decision to certify Mexico was based on the facts and not on political or cultural or social issues.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Bereuter for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there are no easy decisions on this issue. However, the United States cannot continue to apply a rubber stamp of approval on the activities of a State, especially one that has been the beneficiary of our financial assistance to fight drugs as has been the case with Mexico.
  Our drug intervention efforts in Mexico and California have now been severely compromised. We must assume that our strategies have been revealed to Guttierez' pay masters, and the identity of undercover agents have been compromised. How long will it take to rebuild our drug interdiction capability on the ground? At what cost to lives and money will the interdiction come?
  How can we explain to the American people that Mexico is ''fully cooperating'' as evidence according to the Administration, by the fact that the Mexican Government removed Guttierez when they allowed him to ascend to a senior position in the first place?
  Once they looked closely at Guttierez' lifestyle, it was immediately obvious, even to them, that he was corrupt. Widespread drug-related corruption in Mexico is no surprise to anyone remotely familiar with the effort to halt the supply of drugs in this country.
  The administrator of the DEA testified just last week that despite the firing of over 1,200 government officials on charges of corruption by President Zedillo, that subsequently, no successful prosecutions of these individuals has taken place.
  Our DEA officers admit to not fully trusting any of the Mexican institutions they work with, and you heard that here today. Indeed, despite threats against our DEA agents working in Mexico, the government of Mexico previously refused to allow our DEA agents to carry side arms, and in effect, they remained disarmed and vulnerable. Is this cooperation?
  The United States has asked numerous times for the extradition of over 100 Mexican nationals on serious drug charges. To date, not one has been extradited to the United States. Is this cooperation? I believe the United States must lay down a strong marker, but the obviously insufficient care and attention paid by the government of Mexico to drug interdiction and corruption is inadequate and unacceptable. Applying political correctness on this international issue will not cut it, and it will not bring us any closer to an effective anti-drug effort in Mexico.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Yes, there will be political ramifications in this country and in Mexico, but if our certification requirements are to mean anything and to have any credibility, they must be legitimately applied.
  Apparently, Mexico needs a shock if it is ever to escape the pervasive corruption that also effects its anti-drug and law enforcement measures.
  Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Only then, Mr. Chairman, will we have any credibility on these issues.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Capps for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CAPPS. Thank you. I also find this to be a troubling matter. But I disagree with one of my colleagues on the other side. I do not think the political experience here is political expediency. I think in objective terms based on the record that Mexico does not qualify for certification, but there are some other very compelling reasons why one might be tempted to vote in that direction.
  I have heard the testimony of the Secretary of State. I like when I can be to be supportive of the Administration. I think one of the ways for me to become more comfortable with voting in favor of the amendment is that certification happens annually. I understand and this is the form of a question.
  Ms. LARKIN. That is correct.
  Mr. CAPPS. And that perhaps by voting this way we will be putting more pressure on Mexico. And if we can continue bilateral negotiations during that interim period, it might be that a year from now we can vote the other way. Thank you.
  Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. We will have our final speaker, our ranking member, who will resume the chairmanship of this side of the aisle, Mr. Hamilton, for the remainder of the time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Gilman. I am going to support this resolution today, but I must say to you I think it is a very tough judgment and I announce my support in a tentative way. And I am quite willing to explore alternatives to it. I have been impressed with what Mr. Reyes and others have said. I have had an opportunity to talk with the National Security Adviser and others about it.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  The first point I want to make is that I hope we all appreciate the President's dilemma here. He is faced with an extremely difficult decision. If he certifies Mexico, he has to deal with a statute that calls for full cooperation. And quite frankly, that is very tough for him to do. But he made that call. If he decertifies Mexico, there could be very large foreign policy consequences to that decision.
  So no one should underestimate the difficulty of the President's decision here. The relationship with Mexico is an enormously important relationship and it encompasses a lot more than just narcotics control, although that is a major part of it.
  The second point I want to make is that this drug certification statute ought to be repealed. I know this is not the time to discuss this, but it forces a judgment, either you are good or you are bad.
  You cannot make those kinds of judgments when you are dealing with bilateral relations that are so complicated and complex and we really need to revisit this statute that calls for a determination on certification. Because of the difficulties it causes us in a large number of foreign policy relationships, I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we try to review that statute.
  I know the advantages, of course. I will not go into that. But I do think it has caused us a lot of problems.
  Nevertheless, the law of the land today has to be followed. And the law says that the President certifies to the Congress that Mexico has cooperated fully with the United States or taken adequate steps on its own to stop the flow of drugs.
  I just do not see how you can reach the conclusion that Mexico has fully cooperated with the United States. I accept the fact that Mexico has improved its cooperation in the last year. I accept the fact that President Zedillo is genuine about this and wants to help solve the problem. I think there are positive developments in the relationship.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  On the other hand, we all know that there is rampant corruption throughout the system in Mexico today. Maybe there is some improvement there, but it is really bad and it remains rampant. Mexican General Guttierez is, I guess, Exhibit A at this point.
  Mexico has not on its own dismantled any of the major drug trafficking organizations. Several convictions of drug traffickers have been overturned. And, of course, one of them was allowed to escape just a few days ago. Mr. Bereuter mentioned the extradition problem. Not a single Mexican national has been extradited to the United States for drug charges.
  I was informed this morning that Mexico was going to be much more cooperative on extradition and I am very pleased to hear that. If it comes about, that is progress, but we cannot anticipate these things under the law today.
  Mexico has passed important legislation with regard to asset forfeiture and criminalized money laundering and the rest. But the State Department itself says that these laws have not been implemented and, of course, many of the kingpins' assets that were originally frozen under the law have been released.
  U.S. ships and planes have to get 30 days permission before refueling and overflight. In other words, the Mexican Government will not even give us overflight rights or refueling permission. We are negotiating a shorter time. We hope we will get improvement there, but we do not have it. As of this time, a final agreement has not been reached.
  Today our law enforcement agents may not carry weapons into Mexico when they cross in pursuit of criminal suspects. Now, that is just an absolutely unacceptable circumstance. Are the Mexicans going to deal with that? I think they may. We are seeking a formal commitment from them now, but we do not yet have it.
  So all of these things kind of come together and it makes sense to go ahead with the decertification. I believe that Mexico should be decertified. It is also my view that the waiver is warranted because of the special relationship that I have identified.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  I want to mention the consultation section of this bill. I think it strengthens the bill. I say to my friends in the Administration that one of the reasons they are having problems with this is because there has been a breakdown on adequate consultation between the President and the Congress on this subject.
  It would not have solved all the problems, but I think we have had a breakdown in that and now we come along and force a consultative process upon you which you will not particularly like but I think is necessary in view of the recent history of the lack of consultation in this matter.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very tough call. At least it is for me. I will come down in support of it. I do want to say that I am open to other approaches to it and will be glad to explore that with other members of this committee.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton, for your supportive arguments. I yield myself the balance of our time. And as part of our time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox.
  Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. From my perspective, decertification is in order. This is not a close call. When it comes to a law enforcement matter, we must rely on those who are in fact law enforcement specialists and professionals in DEA.
  It is well outlined from evidence here and also from Thomas Constantine when on February 25th he outlined before the House committee the historic corruption that has been a central problem with Mexican assistance on the anti-drug war and the revelations obviously of 70 percent illicit narcotics now coming from Mexico, we must take strong action and it is appropriate that we pass the resolution today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. And as part of my time, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California, Mr. Campbell.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so you understand the facts, what the Administration witnesses tell me, is Mexico extraditing Mexican nationals or not? Two of my colleagues said they were not. I heard you saying they are. What is the truth as you know it?
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. DAVIDOW. As I know it, sir, they have extradited or deported Mexican nationals, including Juan Garcia Abrego for trial in the United States.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. You said two dozen.
  Mr. DAVIDOW. I think the issue here may be a distinction between deported and extradited. But, yes, more Mexican nationals are coming out of Mexico to stand trial in the United States than ever before.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I will yield what I have got.
  Mr. BEREUTER. The question concerning drug-related charges and were they dual citizens? And then you will find that the answer cuts the other way.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I did appreciate the distinction in the way the gentleman answered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Chairman GILMAN. I just would like to note for our members that following my brief remarks we will proceed with the vote on this measure.
  I was disappointed we did not receive a clear answer to the question put to the Administration by our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Smith, just a few moments ago. He noted the Administration has stated that a waiver provision in the amendment in the nature of a substitute is similar to the waiver that the President already has under existing law. And if that be true he said, then perhaps we should drop section 2 from the amendment, thereby deleting as superfluous the waiver that we are providing.
  But before we do that, we would like to hear again from the Administration. Are the two waivers in fact so similar that you do not need or want the waiver in section 2? And would you object if we dropped section 2 from the amendment? Could you be specific on that as quickly as possible?
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Ms. LARKIN. Mr. Gilman, the waiver that is provided in the substitute amendment which you are sponsoring is broader and more useful to the President than the waiver in current law.
  Chairman GILMAN. So then you would not want it dropped, is that correct?
  Ms. LARKIN. That I cannot say. Mr. Gilman, we oppose both pieces of legislation. So I cannot say whether we would want it dropped or not.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
  Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Surely the Administration would find the bill with the waiver preferable to the bill without the waiver.
  Chairman GILMAN. We note your pained expression.
  Mr. HAMILTON. This is a very important point. I know you do not like either one of them.
  Ms. LARKIN. That is correct. We oppose both pieces of legislation, but the waiver----
  Mr. HAMILTON. But surely you would find that the waiver given to the President makes the bill more desirable.
  Ms. LARKIN. It is a broader waiver and is more useful to the President. That is correct.
  Mr. HAMILTON. But the resolution with the waiver is preferable to the resolution without the waiver from your standpoint, is that correct?
  Ms. LARKIN. It is correct that it contains a more favorable waiver. However, we do oppose the legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. I understand.
  Chairman GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, we need the waiver in this bill based upon our experience last year when the Colombian decertification unintentionally cut off key anti-drug support. This resolution before us gives the President the authority to continue U.S. assistance to Mexico, particularly the military assistance which is our best hope in Mexico if he certifies that it is in vital national interest.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  So let us not make the same mistake that we made with regard to Colombia. Pursuant to the order of the committee, the previous question is ordered on the amendment in nature of a substitute by the gentleman from New York. As many as are in favor of the amendment shall say aye.
  [Chorus of ayes.]
  As may are opposed say no.
  [Single No.]
  The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for a motion.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee report House Joint Resolution 58 to the House with the recommendation that the Joint Resolution as amended pass.
  Chairman GILMAN. The question now is on motion by the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as in favor of the motion shall say aye.
  [Chorus of ayes.]
  As many as opposed, shall say no.
  [Single No.]
  The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions under rule 20 of the House rules relative to a conference with the Senate on this or a companion Senate measure and relative to amendments between the Houses.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman?
  Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Hamilton.
  Mr. HAMILTON. May I simply observe that Mr. Kucinich will not be with us much longer. Am I correct about that, Dennis? He is being transferred to another committee. And I think I would just like to thank him for his service.
  Chairman GILMAN. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  [Applause.]
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
  Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
  Chairman GILMAN. Gentlemen, please hold. A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote signify in the usual manner.
  A sufficient number. The clerk will call a roll.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
  Mr. GILMAN. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
  Mr. Goodling?
  Mr. GOODLING. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Hyde?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Bereuter?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
  Mr. Smith?
  Mr. SMITH. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
  Mr. Burton?
  Mr. BURTON. No.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. Gallegly?
  [No response.]
  Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
  Mr. Ballenger?
  Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
  Mr. Rohrabacher?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
  Mr. Manzullo?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Royce?
  [No response.]
  Mr. King?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Kim?
  Mr. KIM. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes yes.
  Mr. Chabot?
  Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
  Mr. Sanford?
  Mr. SANFORD. Aye.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.
  Mr. Salmon?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Houghton?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Campbell?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
  Mr. Fox?
  Mr. FOX. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes yes.
  Mr. McHugh?
  Mr. MCHUGH. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
  Mr. Graham?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Blunt?
  Mr. BLUNT. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes yes.
  Mr. Moran?
  Mr. MORAN. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran votes yes.
  Mr. Brady?
  Mr. BRADY. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. Hamilton?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
  Mr. Gejdenson?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
  Mr. Lantos?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Berman?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Ackerman?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Faleomavaega?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Martinez?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. No.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes no.
  Mr. Payne?
  Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
  Mr. Andrews?
  Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes yes.
  Mr. Menendez?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
  Mr. Brown?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
  Ms. McKinney?
  Ms. MCKINNEY. Pass.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
  [No response.]
  Ms. Danner?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Hilliard?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Capps?
  Mr. CAPPS. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
  Mr. Sherman?
  Mr. SHERMAN. No.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
  Mr. Wexler?
  Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
  Mr. Kucinich?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kucinich votes yes.
  Mr. Rothman?
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
  Mr. Clement?
  Mr. CLEMENT. Aye.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes.
  Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote. Oh, please call the absentees.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling?
  Mr. GOODLING. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes yes.
  Mr. Leech?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Hyde?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Gallegly?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Manzullo?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Royce?
  [No response.]
  Mr. King?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Salmon?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Houghton?
  [No response.]
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  Mr. Graham?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Lantos?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Berman?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Ackerman?
  [No response.]
  Mr. Faleomavaega?
  [No response.]
  Ms. McKinney?
  Ms. MCKINNEY. No.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes no.
  Mr. Hastings?
  [No response.]
  Ms. Danner?
  Ms. DANNER. Yes.
  Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes.
  Mr. Hilliard?
  [No response.]
  Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the tally.
  Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 27 ayes and five noes.
  Chairman GILMAN. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the chief of staff is authorized to make grammatical, technical, conforming amendments and joint resolution. The committee stands adjourned.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
  [Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]