Segment 6 Of 6 Previous Hearing Segment(5)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 551 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
H.R. 1646, THE FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:39 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde [Chairman] presiding.
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill, H.R. 1646, the State Department Authorization for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House.
[The attachment to Chairman Hyde's statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Before us is H.R. 1646 the Foreign Relations Authorization Bill. This bipartisan bill which I introduced with the ranking democratic Member, Mr. Lantos, authorizes the funding and activities for the Department of State for two fiscal years, 2002 and 2003. The accounts covered in this bill are funded at or above the President's request. I note that the President's budget request for the main State Department operating accounts, those included within the Administration of Foreign Affairs, reflects a 19 percent increase over the current fiscal year. The total authorization for this bill is $7.8 billion for fiscal year 2002. For the most part, the bill provides ''such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2003.''
Page 552 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The bill is limited to the narrow scope of authorities for the State Department and the conduct of foreign policy. I remind members that this is not a foreign assistance bill. We will address foreign assistance matters at a later time.
The measure includes several recommendations from the Administration and Committee members. Many of the State Department requests are administrative in nature. However, one of their requests is for the authority to pay arrears to the United Nations. That request is included in the bill before you. Briefly, the bill before us today would modify the Helms-Biden legislation allowing us to pay our arrears to the U.N.. We do so subject to a certification from the Administration that the reforms mandated in that legislation remain on track.
As many of my colleagues are well aware, an agreement reached with the U.N. last December reduced our regular assessment to the world body from 25 to 22 percent. The U.N. peacekeeping budget rate was cut from 30 percent to 28.14 percent on January I of this year, and will be cut again to 27.58 in July of this year with the goal of reaching 25 percent on a sliding scale by 2006.
I appreciate the cooperation we have received in developing the bill before the Committee, and hope that we can proceed in a bipartisan manner with the amendment process and finish the markup today and order the bill reported to the House floor for consideration next week..
I now recognize Mr. Lantos for any opening comments he may wish to make.
Page 553 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. I might add parenthetically, we will expect a vote around 12:30, perhaps two votes, and we will then recess for lunch when the vote is called. We expect to finish the markup of this bill today. So that may mean some evening work, and I just thought I would announce that.
Without objection, the bill will be read by title, and each title will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Due to the considerable number of amendments which I understand Members may wish to offer, opening statements will be limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member. Without objection, other Members who wish to do so may insert statements in the record. The Chair yields himself 5 minutes for purposes of making an opening statement.
Before us is H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Bill. This bipartisan bill, which I introduced with the Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Lantos, authorizes the funding and activities for the Department of State for two fiscal years, 2002 and 2003. The accounts covered in this bill are funded at or above the President's request.
I note that the President's budget request for the main State Department operating accounts, those included within the Administration of Foreign Affairs, reflects a 19-percent increase over the current fiscal year. The total authorization for this bill is $7.8 billion for fiscal year 2002. For the most part, the bill provides such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2003.
The bill is limited to the narrow scope of authorities for the State Department in the conduct of foreign policy. I remind Members, this is not a foreign-assistance bill. We will address foreign-assistance matters at a later time. The measure includes several recommendations from the Administration and Committee Members. Many of the State Department requests are administrative in nature. However, one of their requests is for the authority to pay arrears to the United Nations. That request is included in the bill before you.
Page 554 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Briefly, the bill before us today would modify the Helms-Biden legislation, allowing us to pay our arrears to the U.N. We do so subject to a certification from the Administration that the reforms mandated in that legislation remain on track. As many of my colleagues are aware, an agreement reached with the U.N. last December reduced our regular assessment to the world body from 25 to 22 percent. The U.N. peacekeeping budget rate was cut from 30 percent to 28.14 percent on January 1st of this year and will be again cut to 27.58 in July of this year, with the goal of reaching 25 percent on a sliding scale by 2006.
I appreciate the cooperation we have received in developing the bill before the Committee, and I hope we can proceed in a bipartisan manner with the amount process and finish the markup today and order the bill reported to the House Floor for consideration next week.
I now recognize Mr. Lantos for any opening comments he may wish to make.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me identify myself with your comments, both with respect to paying delinquent U.N. dues and other items. Let me also say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that you and your staff have been both cooperative and collegial, and I am proud to join you in introducing this legislation.
The bill before our Committee today is a critical piece of legislation, not simply because it is the first authorization for the Department of State under our new secretary of state, Colin Powell. The bill is important because it authorizes the full budget request for the Department of State, and it pays our dues to the United Nations. This is a good bill, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it with my good friend, Chairman Hyde.
Page 555 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The bill fully funds the Administration's request for the State Department and contains many of the provisions that Secretary Powell has requested to help him manage the department more effectively and more efficiently. I am also satisfied that the bill provides flexibility for the department for fiscal year 2003. As I argued on an earlier occasion, I was disappointed and disturbed to note the decrease in funds for international affairs in fiscal year 2003 in the President's budget blueprint. However, Secretary Powell has reassured us that he intends to fight for additional resources next year, and I, for one, will help him with all my capabilities to achieve the goal of funding the Department of State and our international activities adequately. By making the second-year funding levels in the bill such sums as may be required, there is maximum flexibility for pursuing increased funding, which I intend to do.
Let me just highlight a couple of areas of particular importance. In the area of human rights, this bill increases the resources for the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to $16 million in 2002 and $20 million for 2003 and provides authority to the bureau to fund overseas staff positions for monitoring and reporting on human rights issues.
With respect to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the bill directs the Administration to oppose membership on the Commission for any country that does not allow human rights monitors. I strongly support this provision. I find it both obscene and absurd that countries like Libya and Cuba should be sitting on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, making judgments and voting on human rights matters.
I was very pleased that many of the initiatives by Members on both sides of the aisle are included in the base text of the bill. For example, the provision submitted by Chris Smith to increase funding for UNICEF and refugees or Bob Menendez's provision to increase funding for the National Endowment for Democracy are all in this bill.
Page 556 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
In the cultural exchanges and public-diplomacy area, this bill expands the programs to include scholarships for Sudanese students and incorporates new fields of study, including HIV–AIDS and the study of the ethics of human-subject research in developing countries.
This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Chairman, but it is a very good bill. We have tried to include the requests of our new secretary of state. We have tried to include many provisions that Members on both sides of the aisle have requested, and I hope that after vigorous and healthy debate, the Committee will approve this truly bipartisan measure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Prior to opening up title I of the bill for amendment, the Chair wishes by unanimous consent to offer a series of amendments to various titles of the bill enbloc. I understand these amendments are noncontroversial, and the minority has been consulted about each of them, and we have attempted to accommodate most of their requests. Each Member has the text of the amendments contained in the enbloc amendments before them, with a list of the proponents. The clerk will read the amendments enbloc.
Ms. BLOOMER. Enbloc amendment offered by Mr. Hyde. ''Page 13, strike lines three through 13. Page 1, after line seven''——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the enbloc amendments is dispensed with, and the question occurs on the amendments enbloc. All in favor say aye.
Page 557 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The clerk will designate title I.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title I, Authorizations of Appropriations.
Chairman HYDE. Are there any amendments to title I?
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from California has an amendment, and the clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Ms. Lee. ''Page 26, after line eight insert the following: Subtitle C, Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001.''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. And since I believe this amendment has been the subject of extended debate in the past, without objection, Mr. Lantos will be granted 45 minutes as the proponent, which he may control, and a Member opposed, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, will also be granted 45 minutes, which he may control. After the 90 minutes has expired, the Committee will proceed to vote on this amendment. The gentlelady from California is recognized.
Page 558 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to offer this pro-family planning amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act before us today. This amendment repeals the Mexico City International Family Planning Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, by adding the text of H.R. 755, the bipartisan, Lowey, Shays, Pilosi, Greenwood Global Democracy Promotion Act.
The Mexico City policy prohibits foreign, nongovernmental organizations from receiving population aid from the United States from using their own funds for providing abortion services as a method of family planning in other countries. Now, let me clarify right off the bat that no United States funding goes to perform abortions abroad. This has been our Nation's policy since 1973. My amendment is about ensuring that international family planning services, which can prevent abortions, can be delivered to millions of women and men all over the world, especially to those in developing countries. My amendment is also about ensuring that these family planning groups do not lose essential funds.
Let me now talk briefly about each of these points. After President Bush issued his executive memo reinstating the Mexico City policy on January 22nd, he stated that it was his conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion either here or abroad.
I would like to clarify one important point regarding this misstatement issued by the Bush Administration. Once again, since 1973, under the Helms amendment, the United States has prohibited foreign recipients of international family planning aid to use United States taxpayer funds to perform abortions. I want to make that perfectly clear once again.
Page 559 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
My amendment would not fund abortions but would allow foreign, nongovernmental organizations receiving United States aid to use their own funds for providing vital family planning services. The truth is that every year approximately 600,000 women die from preventable complications related to pregnancy and childbirth. Nine percent of these women are in developing countries. Complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death and disability among women and young girls, age 15 to 49, in developing countries. Many of these deaths can be prevented by providing women with the means and the information to responsibly plan their families.
United States' funding provides family planning services and reproductive health education to families worldwide. Denying funding for organizations that use their own resources to perform abortions or whatever type of services they perform that is legal within their country; it simply prohibits these individuals from receiving access to family planning services, family planning services, that actually reduce the number of unintended pregnancies as well as the number of abortions. That is what family planning is all about.
Access to international, family planning services is one of the most effective means of reducing the need for abortion and protecting the health of women. However, limiting access to family planning results in high rates of unintended and high-risk pregnancy, unsafe abortions, and maternal deaths.
So it is crucial that women across the world have fundamental access to health care. Our support for international family planning helps save lives, promotes women's and children's health, and strengthens families and communities around the world. By denying these vital services, we deny women access to methods of contraception, leading to the higher risk of spreading HIV and AIDS, also sexually transmitted diseases.
Page 560 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
So my amendment will allow organizations to provide a wide range of vital family planning services that will help curb the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. As we know, international family programs are crucial to stopping the spread of HIV and AIDS worldwide. The HIV and AIDS pandemic in Africa and other developing nations has already left millions of victims. If the Mexico City policy remains in effect, many international, family planning groups will be denied life-saving funds to continue their work to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS through prevention and through education. Since family planning clinics sometimes are the only point of contact women have with the health-care system in their country, these facilities also serve as HIV and AIDS education centers. Additionally, with access to contraception, including condoms, they can protect both pregnancy and passing this deadly disease on to the unborn child and infections.
So let me just briefly give you some facts about the HIV and AIDS crisis that I want you to remember today as you consider this amendment. Thirty-six million people worldwide are living with this disease, 70 percent of whom live in the developing world. Seventeen million people have died from HIV and AIDS in Africa, 3.7 million of whom are children. AIDS has left 12 million—12 million—orphans in Africa alone. More than 600,000 infants become infected with HIV each year worldwide. The prevention of unwanted pregnancies among HIV-infected women through the use of contraception, which comes as a result of family planning——
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order. The lady is entitled to be heard.
Ms. LEE. Thank you very much.
Page 561 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will be in order.
Ms. LEE. The prevention of unwanted pregnancies, Mr. Chairman, among HIV-infected women through the use of contraception, which is a result of family planning education, is one way—it is a very crucial way—to limit the numbers of HIV-infected infants. And if you have been to Africa, especially, you may have seen, and we have seen, many infants who are infected with HIV and AIDS as a result of mother-to-child transmission. Family planning services are crucial to helping these young babies and helping women ensure that our children are not born infected.
So the Mexico City policy really prevents health-care providers from counseling the world's poorest women about all of their legal health options. This ill-advised policy turns our back on the millions of women and children in developing countries who rely on our help. Right here today, they are relying on us. No poor country can increase its standard of living and raise its per capita income while wrestling with the problems of trying to feed and care for a rapidly expanding population. A full range of family planning services will allow countries to finally rise above their impoverished status.
In closing, I am asking you to pause for a minute and imagine yourself, if you will, as a 16-year-old Indian or African young girl living on $500 a year, imagine going into a health clinic searching for answers, searching for ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, pleading for information on how to prevent AIDS or gonorrhea, begging, literally begging, for condoms for your partner, and really desperate to talk to someone about sexual abuse. Imagine being a young woman, going to a rural health clinic, your only health clinic anywhere within 500 square miles, imagine being a young woman going in there seeking counseling, just to learn, basically just to learn how to plan your family so that you can really feed and clothe your children with such meager resources.
Page 562 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
So please, Members, supporting lives, protecting women and children's health; that is what you will be doing by supporting this amendment. And I know it is hard to put yourself in the place of a young girl trying to manage her life with so many complications, but please try to understand what your vote today could mean to millions of women and children. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 10 minutes. I would like to begin by asking the author of this amendment a question. During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, how many family planning organizations accepted the pro-life safeguards and abided by the Mexico City policy?
This is not a new issue, as we all know. It was in effect since the mid-1980's and was repealed on Day Two of President Clinton's presidency. But how many groups accepted it? How many organizations, foreign, nongovernment organizations? The brunt of your amendment deals with, as does the Mexico City policy, the foreign, nongovernmental organizations. How many——
Ms. LEE. I do not have the exact number of organizations accepted, but I do know the number of organizations that received it who provided family planning services and helped prevent unwanted pregnancies and helped prevent——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. With the pro-life safeguards, they accepted the Mexico City clauses.
Page 563 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. LEE. They accepted the Mexico City clauses; however, they were able to receive family planning funds as a result of the Clinton Administration's repeal of the——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. During the Reagan and Bush Administration, when this policy was in effect, how many organizations accepted it?
Ms. LEE. Could you answer me, Mr. Smith, with regard to the abortions that it avoided? How many?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would say to my good friend, I have asked a very specific question.
Ms. LEE. I have no idea what number. I do not have any idea with regards to the number. Okay?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I reclaim my time. Unfortunately, a hyperbole, a gross exaggeration, is made about the Mexico City policy, that somehow it denies family planning money from going to organizations that provide family planning. I would just ask, Mr. Chairman, that this be made a part of the record. It is a letter from the Agency for International Development, dated October 22, 1990, when that same fictitious argument was made repeatedly, as it was when the Mexico City was first put into effect back in 1984, that none of the organizations would accept the family planning provisions, the pro-life, pro-child, and pro-family planning provisions.
Page 564 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Here are the numbers from Ray Randlett, the administrator for legislative affairs. And he writes:
''I would like to call to your attention a few important facts which I believe have become obscured,''
and that is an understatement,
''obscured in this debate. Over 350 foreign, family planning organizations have signed the Mexico City clauses. Only two organizations, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the International Planned Parenthood, IPPF, have formally refused to sign. However, 57 International Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates have signed on to the Mexico City clauses.''
He goes on to say:
''Since 1981''—
remember, this is dated 1990—
''AID has obligated $2.3 billion for population activities. AID accounts for more than 40 percent,''
and this is with the Mexico City provisions,
Page 565 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
''40 percent of all international population-planning funds this year.''
And then it goes on further, and I would ask that the full statement be made a part of the record.
Let me just say to my colleagues, even the title of the Lee amendment, which is before you on your desks right now, which is just the text of H.R. 755, is, with all due respect, Orwellian and misleading. The Lee amendment hides its sole purpose, providing Federal funds to organizations that perform and promote abortion overseas, under the seemingly benign heading of ''Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001.''
This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with building democracy and the rule of law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protection of human rights, all causes to which I have devoted my entire life to. This amendment is not about protecting people. The absolute contrary is true.
As Chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as former Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, and today, as Vice Chairman of this Committee, I have not only traveled on numerous human rights trips around the globe and have been in gulags and have met with despots and tyrants all over the globe. We held over 160 hearings and markups on democracy building in the People's Republic of China, Russia, Vietnam, Sudan, Ruwanda, Indonesia, Cuba, Peru, Turkey, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Belarus, and many other regions, and today I just left our hearing on democracy building in the Ukraine.
I am also the prime sponsor of Public Law 106386, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000; Public Law 10320, the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998; Public Law 10687, the Torture Victims Relief Act Reauthorization of 1999; Public Law 104319, the Human Rights Refugee and Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996, as well as Public Law 106113, Division B, which I worked with Mr. Gejdenson on; fiscal years 2002, 2000, and 2001, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which is filled, like the other bills, with human rights and democracy provisions. In addition to authoring human rights legislation, I have offered scores of amendments to boost the Child Survival Fund, refugee protection, and freedom broadcasting like Radio Free Asia.
Page 566 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
So, frankly, I find it highly offensive when an amendment that seeks to abolish the most fundamental human right on the face of the earth, the right to live, is euphemistically cloaked as a democracy builder. It is not.
Amazingly, no specific mention is made of abortion in either the findings or in the operative clause of the amendment. Why the unwillingness to be up front and totally transparent? Abortion is referred to as a ''particular issue'' or ''medical service,'' but I guess one would have to be blind not to understand the precise nature of this amendment. It is designed to repeal the pro-life, pro-child, Mexico City policy recently reinstated by President Bush to ensure that we do not fund the killing of unborn babies, either directly or indirectly.
Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence against children. Abortion methods are cruel. Abortion procedures referred to in this amendment as ''medical services'' rip and dismember the innocent child or chemically poison the baby with some toxic substance. This and only this is the ''particular issue'' referred to in the amendment.
Today, Mr. Chairman, pro-life laws and policies in over a hundred countries that restrict abortion and protect their babies from the violence of abortion are under siege, and the engines driving this pro-abortion push are the NGOs that have been heretofore funded by the U.S. Government.
The Bush Executive Order, like the original Reagan-Bush Executive Order, permits the funding of only those organizations that provide family planning and only family planning. Innocent children, therefore, are not put at risk. Who we subsidize, I say to my friends, not just what, but who we give to, and this is a matter of millions of dollars, should matter a great deal.
Page 567 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The simple fact of the matter is that as far as back as 1984, the longstanding law stipulating that no U.S. funds can directly be used for abortion was found to be infirm and incomplete, riddled with loopholes. Money is fungible. The millions of dollars we give to a group immediately frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be used, and have been used, for performing and aggressively promoting abortion. It should matter, I say to my colleagues, a great deal, not just what that organization does with our specific subsidy, but the rest of its agenda as well. It is a package deal. Many groups use family planning as the Trojan horse. They talk about that, when their real agenda is abortion on demand.
And so I would ask my colleagues to vote down this amendment. I know where the votes are on this Committee. It is not that likely we will prevail here, but I would respectfully submit that when we get on the Floor, that we will prevail and that this amendment will, indeed, be defeated.
And finally, just let me say one point on AIDS. AIDS is something—and last year Mr. Sherman and I offered an amendment on the Floor to boost—it was his amendment—I was his prime cosponsor—to boost the amount of money for AIDS, and I believe very strongly that we need to stop that terrible, terrible disease. In fiscal year 2000, we spent $200 million on AIDS. In fiscal year 2001, we increased that to $300 million. For 2002, President Bush has made a request for $329 million. That is a good and necessary spiraling up of money to combat AIDS.
Again, for every NGO that may say we do not want the money because we will choose to do abortions rather than do other life-saving work like AIDS work, there will be another NGO that will step into its place and take that money and use it and hopefully use it effectively.
Page 568 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
And, again, past is prologue. This policy has been through the mill. It has been through a court challenge and has survived there, and, despite all of the suggestions to the contrary, we found that NGOs will take that money and do family planning to their heart's content, but they just have to divest themselves from the killing of children. I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my good friend, Joseph Hoeffel.
Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I strongly support the Lee amendment to repeal the Global Gag Rule on family planning. I would like to say to my colleague and good friend in New Jersey that no one is challenging his great record on fighting for human rights. No one is challenging his record in supporting democracy building around the world. The issue here is not the gentleman's record in those two areas. The issue here is whether we want to impose on international organizations restrictions that would not be constitutional if imposed on Americans.
The gentleman from New Jersey says that during the Reagan-Bush years when the gag rule was in place, most or many of the foreign organizations accepted the restrictions so that they could keep receiving U.S. money for family planning. And that is exactly our point, that we are putting these organizations in a situation that they have to make a cruel choice. A choice that will hurt the poorest women in America, not the women from the gentleman's district, not the women from my district, but the poorest women around the world who have to rely upon family planning information and services wherever they can find them to avoid unwanted pregnancies. When those organizations accept U.S. funding with this gag rule, they are not allowed to get all of the information that should be available to them regarding reproductive choices. We impose upon them a restriction that in this country would be unconstitutional, and we should not be doing that as part of our official foreign policy overseas. I support the gentlelady's amendment, and I yield back.
Page 569 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to Mr. Pitts 3 minutes.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to voice my strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is a direct attack on the President's authority and policy to ensure that contractors that promote or perform abortions are not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. When President Bush took office, he reinstated this important policy that protects the use of our taxpayer dollars from subsidizing something to which many Americans are morally opposed.
When the United States funds any activities of contractors that are in the abortion business, it automatically frees up their money to be used for abortions. Further, this policy does not reduce by one penny the $425 million allocated for international, population-control funding. Under President Clinton, in fiscal year 2000, we enacted the compromise Mexico City policy where groups receiving this funding were required to certify that they would not perform abortions or violate the laws of their host country on abortion or lobby to change countries' laws. Groups who refuse to abide by these pro-life protections could still receive funds, but no more than $15 million total.
Well, the sky did not fall. Women were not hurt. Family planning programs continued. In fact, 448 out of the 457 groups agreed to abide by this simple policy. Only nine international-abortion groups refused, a mere 2 percent.
Page 570 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Our disagreement today is on the issue of whether or not taxpayer dollars should be used to subsidize abortion on demand worldwide. We may agree to continue funding international population control but not in a way that is morally objectionable to the majority of taxpayers.
While Americans differ on the issue of abortion, most agree that it is not the role of our government to subsidize abortion on demand worldwide and that it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars to lobby foreign governments to change their abortion laws. I urge you, my colleagues, to oppose this amendment, stand with President Bush in protecting both women overseas and taxpayer consciences, and I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from New York, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment offered by my colleague from California, Ms. Lee, to overturn the Global Gag Rule that President Bush has reimposed by executive order. The passionate comments by my good friend and colleague from New Jersey notwithstanding, Mr. Chairman, at its core the co-called Mexico City policy is not about abortion; it is about free speech, which is also a fundamental human right.
This policy denies the right of a foreign, nongovernmental organization to simply talk about abortion. The Mexico City policy prohibits foreign, nongovernmental organizations from counseling women about abortion in accordance with the laws of their own countries. It prohibits them from providing abortion services with separate, separate, non-U.S. governmental funds by denying them U.S. family planning assistance, and it prohibits organizations from lobbying their own governments in accordance with the laws of their own nations on legalized abortion.
Page 571 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I think, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that there are no similar restrictions on foreign, nongovernmental organizations that lobby against abortion. Imagine, you can speak against, but you cannot speak for. What a hypocritical abrogation of free speech that is. If an organization breaks these rules, it is denied all U.S. funding.
In effect, the Mexico City policy holds women in developing countries, primarily poor women, hostage by denying them vital information and resources for family planning. Prohibiting health-care providers from providing full and accurate information to their patients jeopardizes the health around the world. It is a dangerous double standard, Mr. Chairman to deny any NGO participation in a U.S.-supported program because it provides services like voluntary abortion and counseling that are legal in the NGO's country of operation and are also legal in the United States.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thirty seconds more, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. You will have to ask Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I am happy to yield 30 seconds.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Global Gag Rule makes a mockery of the values that we as Americans hold dear: The right to speak freely and to make informed legal choices. The Global Gag Rule would be unconstitutional in the United States, and I believe that we should apply the same constitutional principles to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy as we would apply here at home. I urge my colleague to support Ms. Lee's amendment, and I thank the Chairman.
Page 572 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. There are two votes on the Floor. It is a little early to go to lunch. Let us go vote and come right back, and then at 12:30 we will recess for lunch.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Mr. BERMAN. Could I ask you to entertain a suggestion? There are a number of us who have luncheon obligations. I am wondering if we could vote on the amendment now or is it possible to indicate a time certain. My assumption is our break now will mean that by the time we finish the debate, it will be time for lunch. Is it possible to schedule a vote at a time certain, say, 1:15 or 1:30, or whenever you were planning to restart, and just have the vote at that time?
Chairman HYDE. Well, we will vote when we are finished with the debate, and we have a time limit on the debate. So when that time is reached, then we will vote, whenever that is. If we go to lunch at 12:30, Howard, you can have a nice, leisurely lunch.
Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to eat right here, but——
Chairman HYDE. As you have so many times. Well, let us go vote, and let us come back, and we will recess at 12:30 for luncheon, and we will stand at ease.
Page 573 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
[Recess.]
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chairwoman of the International Operations and Human Rights Committee 2 minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Smith and Chairman Hyde. As a woman who believes in the sanctity of life and the need to protect the most vulnerable of all children, I strongly oppose Ms. Lee's amendment. U.S. taxpayers should not have their hard-earned dollars go to fund abortions. Nobody is challenging the funding for family planning, so long as that family planning is about life and not about death.
The choice is not removed. What is removed is the U.S. Government's subsidized abortions. If those who advocate for the choice to have abortions want government out of their lives, they should not expect the government to pay for those abortions. The Mexico City policy does not take one penny away from the $425 million that the Administration has requested for global population assistance, and you are going to be hearing this over and over again, and that is the truth.
On the contrary, it strengthens these programs by ensuring that U.S. funds are directed to those groups that provide true family planning, which is something entirely distinct from abortion, but do not perform or promote abortion as a method of birth control.
Page 574 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
And you will hear a lot of people making this claim, but the most outrageous claim by opponents of the amendment is that somehow this interferes with efforts to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which I spoke about on the Floor just this morning. This claim is simply false. The U.S. currently spends more than half a billion dollars per year on fighting AIDS. That is $482.5 million in direct U.S. expenditures in fiscal year 2001, plus many millions more in contributions to organizations such as WHO and UNDP, part of which funds anti-AIDS programs.
The President's Mexico City policy has absolutely no application to these funds. Advocates of international abortion rights have once again dredged up the tired, old argument that the Mexico City policy is a gag rule that violates the right to free speech. Even if the U.S. constitutional provisions applied to foreign organizations doing business on foreign soil, the first amendment would not give these organizations a right to receive Federal tax dollars.
Supporters of the amendment also argue that U.S. family planning grantees should be allowed to perform and promote abortions, so long as their abortion-related activities were carried out with their own money rather than U.S. grant money. But this is nothing more, as we know, than a bookkeeping trick. It ignores the fact that the money is fungible and that when we subsidize an organization, we inevitably enrich and empower all of its activities as well as enhancing the domestic and international prestige of the organization by giving it an official U.S. seal of approval.
The only real effect of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, will have if it passes today is to a great deal endanger the chances of passage of a foreign-appropriations authorizations bill, including the agreement on U.N. funding. If some Members of Congress insist on requiring the President to fund foreign abortion providers, they should do so with the appropriate vehicle—that is the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill—as pro-life members have done in previous Congresses.
Page 575 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Without this killer amendment, Congress has an excellent chance to pass a bipartisan bill that provides the necessary resources for a strong, U.S. foreign policy for the 21st century. And I hope that our colleagues reject this amendment and the false premise upon which it is based. And I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California, Mr. Schiff.
Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. There were a couple of points raised by the opposition to the amendment that I wanted to address.
The first is the idea that somehow by providing funding to family planning clinics without this gag rule, that there is some insidious, indivisible method by which this funding will actually be used to fund family planning services that are anathema to the opponents of the amendment. And the concern that I have with this, is the claim that this is some kind of a bookkeeping trick. Really, this is the same argument, I suppose, that could be made against the President's faith-based initiative. How is it that we can fund religious organizations to provide community services and be comfortable that those funds do not go for nonsecular purposes, and yet say that in the case of family planning services it must be some kind of a bookkeeping trick?
Plainly, if the premise of the faith-based initiatives is correct—which most of the opponents to the amendment, I think, support—you cannot provide funding under one thing and require it not be used for another and recognize that those same organizations may have other missions as well. I think there is a very strong inconsistency between the claims that are made with respect to this amendment and those that are being advanced at the same time and in the same place with respect to the faith-based initiatives.
Page 576 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Beyond that, there is the more troubling inconsistency of our effectively telling people around the world that we will provide funding to you, to your organizations, provided that you accept restrictions that we do not place on our own organizations that operate in the United States. As difficult as it is as a donor nation to step into the shoes of a recipient of our generosity, imagine what it is like to be told that, yes, you can receive these funds, provided you do not use them for family planning——
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed 30 more seconds?
Mr. LANTOS. I would be happy to yield to my friend 30 more seconds.
Mr. SCHIFF. To be told that you can use this funding but not for certain purposes, and then as the recipients say, ''Well, can't you use funding for this in the United States?'' and be told, ''Well, yes, you can, but as a condition of operating outside of the United States, you cannot use this funding for purposes for which some in the United States would disagree.''
Those inconsistencies do not live up to the standard the President has set of a foreign policy that is one of strength and humility. We have certainly had a foreign policy of strength. We have not done very well with a foreign policy of humility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 577 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman, I will just yield myself 2 minutes. And I want to just briefly respond to my good friend, Mr. Schiff.
He has just made a moral equivalency between faith and abortion, and I think it is misguided, in all candor. Faith is ennobling, it is transcendent, it is liberating, and to compare that in any way, shape, or form to a deed, to a procedure, that literally rips the child's arms and legs and head off—a decapitation is what normally occurs in the normal suction of DNC abortion, or in the case of saline abortions where high-concentrated salt water is pumped into the amniotic sac of an unborn child, who dies a slow, miserable, painful death, usually over the course of 2 hours before dying, succumbing to the coercive effects of salt——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. In a moment. And in other instances other kinds of chemicals that kill babies, there is no equivalency——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will Mr. Schiff yield?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. He does not have the time. To suggest there is an equivalency between that and faith-based work, I think, is wrong headed, however well intentioned the gentleman may be.
Page 578 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Let me also make the point that foreign, nongovernmental organizations are an extension of U.S. foreign policy. We can pick, and I think we have the duty to pick, those organizations that provide a service, in this case family planning, and we can have family planning without abortion promotion or performance, and the record is clear that we have had it in the past, by imposing the Mexico City policy. It is pro-child.
The issue of abortion is not a sidebar issue. Children are sacred. A child before birth—even the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of the Child has in its preamble that the child, by reason of its developmental immaturity, is deserving of respect before as well as after birth.
I think we need to show respect for those children as well as for the mothers. As Ms. Ros-Lehtinen pointed out so well, the $425 million that is already covered by the——
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman. The $425 million that is expected to be allocated in fiscal year 2002; all of it will go to family planning programs and to the provision of family planning services. We just say we do not want abortion being a part of that. Family planning is not abortion. They are very much different.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Page 579 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I yield my time to my colleague from New Jersey, I would like to respond to my friend on the other side to clarify a point that our colleague from California made. He did not make the concepts of faith and abortion identical or analogous or parallel. His reference was to the concept of fungibility.
There is an argument, and a legitimate argument, to be made that those who oppose Ms. Lee's amendment, as we have just heard a minute ago, use the fungibility argument as an argument against that, namely, that the funds are provided for Project A, and those funds which were designated for that can be shifted to Project B. That is the concept of fungibility. That is as applicable to this argument as it is applicable to President Bush's faith-based initiative. As a matter of fact, we have heard countless arguments ad nauseam and ad infinitum that a wall of separation will be maintained between funds that are provided for faith-based initiatives and religious instruction.
So the gentleman from California made an argument of impeccable logic. One may disagree on the underlying issue, as we clearly do, but I think it is unfair to claim that he equated faith with abortion. He did not do so. He used the concept of fungibility, which our friends on the other side so often use with respect to faith-based initiatives.
I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos. I stand in strong support of the amendment offered by Ms. Lee. As she made very clear, and there is no need for me to repeat the issues that she made so clearly, the Mexico City policy, as we know, is not about an abortion. We know that the U.S. does not fund abortions overseas. But it is typical of the United States to impose upon the world, because we are sort of king-of-the-hill, to tell them what is really best for them. We even find that in U.S. territory—take Vieques in Puerto Rico, where we are shelling and bombing—that we tell our Puerto Rican citizens that this is the way we do it. And so as long as we have this king-of-the-hill power, this is the way we do it.
Page 580 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I think that it is wrong to prohibit foreign, nongovernmental organizations who are not using any of these funds to promote abortion to even talk about the full range of options to women. Women are raped in some African countries. Someone has to go out for the wood, and sometimes a decision has to be made whether the male goes out and risks the loss of his life or a woman goes out and risks being raped. These are decisions that some people have to make—unbelievable decisions that families have to discuss. But we sit here pontificating, talking about what is best for the least of us in this world. And so I strongly support Ms. Lee's amendment. It is very clear we are in the first day of Mr. Bush's bipartisan, compassionate Administration——
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PAYNE. May I have 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. LANTOS. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds.
Mr. PAYNE. And the first move was to strike down this rule. So it certainly sends the tone of what we should expect. I think that the poorest among us should be given the consideration that this resolution would do. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Before yielding to Mr. Issa, I just want to respond very briefly to my good friend, Mr. Lantos. The previous speaker, Mr. Schiff, did equate the idea that under some faith-based organizations under the faith-based initiative some money might trickle into religion with the argument that if you fund abortionists, some money might be shifted to abortion.
Page 581 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
It seems to me that if the fungibility permits a church or a synagogue or a mosque to expand their other work, that is a benign consequence. We would argue because the killing of an unborn child is of high interest to us, many of us, if fungibility permits the killing of an unborn baby, that is not a benign——
Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. On your time, I would be happy to yield all you would like.
Mr. ACKERMAN. May I have 30 seconds?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just answer one other question by my good friend from New Jersey. He mentioned the issue of rape. The Mexico City policy specifically includes a rape exception, as it did going back to 1984, when it originally was announced by President Reagan at the Conference on Population in Mexico City. I would like to yield 3 minutes to Mr. Issa.
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment not on the base issue of abortion, although I do oppose abortion. I rise because this is the International Relations Committee. Our responsibility is to participate in setting a consistent policy on behalf of the American people abroad and to foster improved relations with every country in which we operate, which is virtually every country on the face of the earth.
Page 582 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
And when we fund NGOs, even though they are often called nongovernment organizations, they carry with them the prestige of the United States' dollars that they say they were funded with, and they do the good work of the American people in promoting a better relation with that country.
It is a compromise that some of these organizations promote birth control, but I think it is a compromise that has been longstanding and which the world has become comfortable with. It is very clear that many NGOs, if allowed to promote abortion, do so in direct opposition to the position of the country in which they are hosted. And for that reason, it is not consistent with the policy of improving relations and is not appropriate for this Committee to hamstring, if you will, the Administration.
I believe that in America, where you get a very large tax deduction if you choose to give to nonprofits, and those nonprofits often give to these efforts overseas, but do not carry the prestige of the United States Government. This is a mechanism for those who believe strongly in this need to provide this other service but to do so with an organization that does not, in effect, represent the United States policy.
For that reason, I strongly recommend my colleagues look at this as an obligation of the International Relations Committee not to allow government to get involved in abortion, something which my colleagues—many on the other side—are often wanting to say, that government should stay out of abortion. If we fund abortion overseas, we, as a nation, are putting dollars into abortion in exactly the opposite of what pro-choice advocates in America are constantly saying. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 583 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me you have one more speaker and yourself on your side. Is that correct?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. That is correct.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Smith, may I then reserve my time and yield to you?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would like to yield such time as she may consume to Ms. Davis, the gentlelady from Virginia.
Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, we see the pro-abortion advocates attempting to override the reinstatement of the Mexico City policy by attempting to paint this policy as an antifamily, yet their objections to this policy have nothing to do with families. This current attempt to repeal President Bush's executive order banning U.S. Government aid for U.S. and foreign contraception groups that perform abortions overseas is another disturbing sign of the pro-abortion movement's contempt for the vast majority of Americans who oppose the spending of their tax dollars on abortion. The President's executive order protects the desires of millions of Americans who ethically and morally oppose the Federal funding of abortion.
Mr. Chairman, I also wish to address the current misconception being spread by the Mexico City policy that it hurts family planning efforts overseas. This, Mr. Chairman, simply is not true. By withholding funds from groups that violate the Mexico City policy, the U.S. does not reduce the amount of foreign family assistance. Instead, most of this funding is redirected to organizations that agree not to promote abortion. It is that simple, Mr. Chairman.
Page 584 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Abortion is not needed for family planning, and according to statistics, most family planning groups agree. According to an AID report, approximately 400 nongovernmental organizations were receiving funds under the Mexico City terms in 1991. Under this policy, the U.S. provided about 45 percent of all international, family planning assistance in more than 100 countries. Eighty-five of those countries were developing countries. And it has been successful. According to the New York Times, there was a ''near halt in the liberalization of abortion laws in Third World countries, while at the same time population-control programs were not hindered in pursuing their objectives.''
While my colleague on the other side of the aisle gave a very passionate plea on how the Mexico City policy would harm women, it simply is not true. It does not harm the woman's ability to have family planning.
Mr. Chairman, we must respect the views of millions of Americans who do not want their tax dollars spent overseas to promote abortion. The Mexico City policy continues family planning funding while respecting the views of millions who cherish life and oppose abortion. Mr. Chairman, I hope we will defeat this amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend, Congressman Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. I wanted to make a comment and then ask a question of Representative Smith. I support the Lee amendment for several reasons, and I do not support using Federal tax dollars to fund abortion overseas. That is not the subject of this amendment today.
Page 585 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
One of the reasons I support the amendment is that without the amendment we are essentially telling not-for-profits, including potentially some faith-based organizations that—Mr. Smith, you and I are glad in some of these issues to serve the needs of people in Third World countries—we are telling them how to spend their own money. It seems to me that by denying them of control of their own funds and exercising a right of control over their funds, we are essentially making them our agents.
And if we are not going to adopt the Lee amendment, shouldn't we go ahead and just exercise total control over these NGOs and really begin the transformation of making this a truly governmental agency with full governmental control? I think that is the path we are headed down here. So I would like to direct a question to that effect to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I thank the gentleman for his question. I think this Congress and the President has every right and an obligation to establish meaningful and reasonable guidelines when it comes to any program, whether it be domestic or foreign. We would make the argument on this particular piece of legislation or on this policy that if you care about protecting a child from the violence of abortion, if it were my baby, my wife was having a baby, would I buy into the fungibility that they are killing that baby with somebody else's funds, so, therefore, I wash my hands of it and say I had nothing to do with it?
We know for a fact that many of these organizations had at their core the idea, the proposition, that abortion on demand, even minors' abortions without parental knowledge or consent, and I am talking about the International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London, there is no doubt Vision 2000 articulates that throughout, which is their document, their manifesto, that they want government-sponsored abortion. I disagree with that. A majority, I believe, of the full House will disagree with that. I dare say, a majority of this Committee probably will not. So the real fight will be on the Floor of the House of Representatives.
Page 586 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
But we have an obligation to establish parameters that are reasonable. We do it when it comes to bookkeeping. We do it when it comes to scope and mission that we fund. These are our dollars. We are not saying that——
Mr. ACKERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given an extra minute, being that his time is up.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman for reminding me.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. You know, when it comes to establishing these programs, we would not give money to a racist regime, and that is as it should be. We have made a collective judgment that racism is an abomination; and, therefore, if a group espouses racism, we are not going to fund that group, even though they may provide another laudable—maybe feeding of the hungry or something else that we think is important. We will find another NGO.
For those of us who believe that abortion is killing and takes the life of an innocent girl or boy, we believe that we need to get them out of harm's way to the greatest extent possible. And as Ms. Davis pointed out so well, we do provide family planning money. We do not reduce it by a single penny.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, reclaiming my time, let me just close by saying that I think you need to be prepared for where your argument is taking you, Mr. Smith, which is for us to eventually exercise total control over these NGOs on any matters with which we disagree.
Page 587 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I appreciate the gentleman's. I yield myself a couple of minutes, and then I will yield to Mr. Cantor.
Just to respond a little bit further, that has not happened in the past. Again, this is not a brand-new policy. It was in effect during the Reagan years and the Bush years, the previous Bush Administration, and it worked. And I remember when good friends of mine took to the Floor when I first offered the amendment in 1985 to protect the Mexico City policy, good friends like Sam Gejdenson, and we worked very closely on the Violence Against Women Act and other bills in the last Congress and said no one will accept these pro-life—I call them pro-life guidelines, but the Mexico City clauses.
In fact, as Ms. Davis pointed out and I point out, earlier, virtually every NGO accepted those guidelines. We have a duty to establish those guidelines. I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Cantor, our final speaker, except for Mr. Hyde.
Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, in my view, what we are talking about here is the use of American taxpayers' dollars and whether it is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars to underwrite abortion activities in foreign countries. Certainly there are tens of millions of Americans who come down on the issue that our taxpayer dollars should not be used for that purpose, and it is my opinion that under no circumstances should American taxpayer dollars be used for that purpose. Clearly, by saying that organizations can use their own money to engage in promoting or allowing for abortion in foreign countries and then allowing U.S. taxpayer dollars to flow to those organizations, we are simply talking a shell game with the use of the money.
Page 588 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Currently, a hundred countries restrict abortion, and it should not be the policy of the United States to undermine those countries in the promulgations of those laws. The amendment would allow American aid to go to groups that violate existing foreign laws dealing with abortion, and I simply find that unacceptable. If one thinks taxpayer dollars should go to fund organizations that are going to try to overturn these laws in foreign countries, then they should oppose President Bush and support the amendment. If, on the other hand, my colleagues think that it is an inappropriate use of the taxpayer dollars of all hard-working Americans, then vote against the amendment and stand with the President. I urge defeat of this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we are ready to vote, and before we do, do you want to speak? I will be happy to yield. How much time would you like? One minute.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding the time. I rise in strong support of the gentlelady's amendment. I do not believe this is about abortion. Again, I believe, as I said last year, I believe this is about providing contraception to the most needy people in the world. I think in the end it will save the lives of women and children, as I said before, in the most needy countries the world knows today.
And I think that the gag rule would be unacceptable here in the United States, and I know people know and understand I am not a big fan of abortion in any way, shape, or form, but when it comes to the issue of family planning, I think we should make everything available that we possibly can to women and men to make rational decisions about their families and their lives. So I support the gentlelady and yield back the balance of my time.
Page 589 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. LANTOS. If I may take 1 minute, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, to save time, since everything has been said on this subject, may I express my strong support for Ms. Lee's amendment and indicate to my colleagues on both sides of this issue and on both sides of the aisle, reasonable people may differ on many issues. We certainly differ on this issue. Funding abortions with U.S. taxpayers' dollars has been illegal since 1973. This issue, in our view, is a freedom-of-speech issue, not an abortion issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee all of our remaining time.
Chairman HYDE. Can someone tell me how much time we have left?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lantos has 17——
Chairman HYDE. Well, he has yielded back. How much time have I?
Ms. BLOOMER. Okay. Eighteen minutes, 15 seconds.
Chairman HYDE. Well, I certainly will not use more than a very few of those, so I want to allay the fears of my colleague.
Page 590 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. LANTOS. I will be happy to yield my 17 minutes to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. You want me to wear out my welcome.
Very quickly, on this very important issue, it is true we have talked about it for years. We are not telling NGOs what to do. We are not destroying their autonomy. We are saying, hey, if you want our money, we would like to tell you what to spend it on, and what you spend it on is fertility rates, population, but not abortion.
Abortion is not a part of population control, except in the grossest sense, but we do not pay for abortions in America with Federal money. We are carrying this policy overseas, and we are not going to pay for them overseas. We will pay for family planning up to the extent of $425 million. The money is there. Plan away, but do not exterminate unborn children. We do not do that in America with Federal money. We have not since 1976. And so the same policy should apply overseas.
Now, as far as it being unconstitutional, Mr. Hoeffel mentioned that in his remarks, in 1980, in the case of Harris v. Macrae, the Supreme Court said we have a right of free speech, but it does not mean you have a right to have the taxpayers buy you a typewriter. You can exercise free speech, but the Federal Government does not have to subsidize your exercise of your constitutional right. Therefore, if the Federal Government will not permit its dollars to pay for abortions domestically, they need not overseas, so there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
Page 591 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Lastly, I think if this amendment prevails, that is to say, if Ms. Lee's amendment prevails, the bill will be vetoed. There are a lot of good things in this bill, including U.N. arrearages, et cetera, and I think we ought to think about whether we want the bill to be vetoed. But in any event, family planning is important. We play the major role in the world in funding family planning, but we should not fund exterminating unborn children with taxpayers' dollars. We do not do it domestically. We should not do it in foreign aid. And I yield back the balance of my time, and all time has expired. And the clerk—the question occurs on the Lee amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. All opposed, nay.
[A chorus of nays.]
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE. A recorded vote has been requested, and the gentlelady, Nancy Bloomer, will call the role.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Aye.
Page 592 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes no. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no. Mr. Ballenger?
Page 593 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes. Mr. McHugh?
Page 594 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
Mr. BURR. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes no. Mr. Cooksey?
Mr. COOKSEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes no. Mr. Tancredo?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. No.
Page 595 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes no. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes no. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes no. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes no. Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes no. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Page 596 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes. Ms. McKinney?
Page 597 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes. Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Engel?
Page 598 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. ENGEL. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes yes. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt votes yes. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Aye.
Page 599 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley votes yes. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes yes. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
Page 600 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 26 ayes and 22 noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to, and the Committee will stand in recess for 1 hour.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee recessed, to reconvene at 1:44 p.m., the same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. The Chair will ask if there are any further amendments to this title, and we look for a Republican.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey.
Page 601 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I have an amendment at the desk, and I will be very brief.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith. ''Page 14, after line 16 insert the following''——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment authorizes an international scholarship program for students of foreign origin to specialize in Judaic heritage, culture, ethics, and law at the New Jersey and Jerusalem college campuses of Beth Madrash Govoya of America. Currently, that organization offers, or that Yeshiva offers, an exchange program for students from all around the world, the Mideast, Africa, Central and South America, Eastern Europe, specifically recruiting students from Third World and poor countries, countries where democratic values are under attack and countries where the populations are suffering from internal and external conflicts. Through the exchange program students are exposed to American and democratic values and ideals, many of which are rooted in ancient Judaic culture, history, law, and ethics.
Page 602 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, approximately 200 students participate in the program each year. Like other companies funded by this bill, this program creates opportunities for the United States and foreign publics to better understand each other's societies and thereby provide a thoughtful context in which the United States can better articulate our policies and activities abroad. The amendment would provide an earmark in the bill for this exchange program.
However, in deference to a longstanding transition with regard to not tying the hands of USIA and now the State Department by specifically naming educational institutions as grantees in the bill, I plan on withdrawing the amendment at the appropriate time. However, I am seeking the Chairman's support for report language that would strongly recommend this unique program to appropriate officials at the State Department.
Historically, USIA and the State Department have been particularly attentive to the recommendations of this Committee, and, again, out of deference to the Committee staff who have voiced some concern about this earmarking, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment at this time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is asking unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. The Chair extends his deep appreciation to the gentleman for doing that. It is not the most prudent thing to start earmarking, as this amendment does, no matter the merit, the evident merit, of what the gentleman seeks to do. And I would strongly support appropriate report language covering this topic. Is there any further discussion from anyone? Very well, the amendment is withdrawn. Is there a Democrat ready? If not, are there further amendments? Mr. Flake.
Page 603 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk and wish to offer them enbloc.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered, and the clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendments offered by Mr. Flake. ''Page 15, strike lines five through 13; page 18, strike lines three through 10.''
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendments.
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to offer these amendments to strip funding for the Asia Foundation, the East-West Center, and the North-South Center. I want to point out from the beginning that I am not against these organizations. I think they do great work. I am certainly not opposed to work done in Asia. I am a huge supporter of engagement with China. I was one of only four, I believe, who voted against the resolution urging that we argue against the Olympics going to China. I believe that we ought to have trade and commerce and cooperation.
But my only point here is that these organizations do work that other groups do as well. They ought to have to compete for grants from the State Department and from other groups, like other organizations do. If we Republicans are serious about keeping our budget in check and living under budget constraints that we have set for ourselves, then we have got to look at actually trimming some of these funds.
Page 604 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
If we look, the Asia Foundation is slated for a 62-percent increase over last year. That is pretty hefty. The North-South Center is actually coming in for a 185-percent increase over last year. I should note that both House and Senate appropriators in the last cycle actually zeroed out funding for these organizations. Funding only came back when the omnibus bill came through.
So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I full well respect and understand my colleague's concern for the budgetary constraints that we are confronted with here in Congress as well as in this Nation.
I would urge my friend, Mr. Flake, to take into consideration, maybe with a bit of melancholy, the name of the North-South Center, not to mention the substantive aspects of its research agenda. It's named the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center. That is no accident. That is done because he is a pre-eminent scholar and former colleague of people who still serve here, our Chair and our Ranking Member. He was the former Chair of this International Relations Committee and was a spearhead in recognizing the critical need to have programs to support and implement the Department of State's strategic agenda for the Western Hemisphere.
Let me make it very clear, I am a firm advocate of the North-South Center, but I also am equally firm in my support of the East-West Center, which I have visited on two occasions, and I can tell you that if there are research organs that benefit Congress, then these particular organs, as they exist, help us a lot.
Page 605 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Let us take this Administration, which I find myself ideologically opposed to from time to time, the more recent circumstances giving rise to President Bush's activities at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec. Emanating from that and this President's great belief that there should be a free-trade area of the Americas and his belief in Plan Colombia, I want you to know that all of these priorities that are expressed by this Administration are supported with the underpinnings of the research that is ongoing at the North-South Center.
I do not see how in the United States Congress, when it comes to having information regarding major initiatives of American foreign policy, that we can find ourselves in a position of cutting organizations that have proved on a continuing basis their value to us as it pertains to inter-American issues that are vital. There are too many things happening in the Western Hemisphere for us to believe that we are going to get all of that information without dealing with organizations who, I might add, go out and seek additional funding. The North-South Center, for example, has received additional funding from private entities and does, in fact, say to us that we are in a position to be able to have philanthropic and private-sector input so that we can keep matters going.
So I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose not the spirit, Mr. Flake, of your amendment and its concerns for our budgetary constraints, but I do believe the amendment to be misguided because it, in the final analysis, cuts the information arms that are vitally needed by all of us, and I will not even begin to tell you again how strongly I believe this President, with his emphasis on the Western Hemisphere, as rightly it should be, is going to be in need of the North-South Center. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Page 606 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The gentlemen from California, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this singularly ill-advised amendment. Let me say, first, that both the North-South Center and the East-West Center contribute enormously to our international, foreign-policy objectives. They stimulate intellectual exchange, scholarly work, the opportunity to build a society where nongovernmental organizations, civic institutions, educational forums have a vital role. It would be one of the most ill-advised moves on the part of this Committee to agree to cutting funding for that.
Now, a number of us have recently returned from Asia, and I would merely like to tell my friend, Mr. Flake, that in Cambodia and Vietnam, the Asia Foundation does incredibly valuable work with a broad spectrum of sincere, hard-working, and honest private organizations that are trying to create a civic society, protect human rights, and enhance multicultural understanding in all of these areas.
I find it also incomprehensible that at a time when some of my colleagues are in favor of giving tax breaks to billionaires we are trying to cut out literally puny sums in the most important work we do in the field, which is not an economic field and not a military field. I do not think it is just helpful to have trade with these countries. It is important to develop these countries' civic societies so they will become respectful of human rights, religious freedoms, the rights of women, and opportunities for people to develop themselves into full human beings.
The Asia Foundation does that. The East-West Center, the North-South Center does that. And I strongly urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to reject these amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 607 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have great respect for the knowledge and the experience that Mr. Flake brings to this Committee on Asian issues—among those others—and even greater expectations about the contributions he will make. But I do oppose the amendment enbloc. I am not intimately familiar with the workings of the North-South Center, but I do know that the Asia Foundation has made a very important contribution to our national interest by its performance.
We depend upon that external organization, the East-West Center, which has a formal relationship with our government, and on the new Center for Asian Pacific Security Studies, which the Department of Defense has recently created in the last several years, operating out of Honolulu. I understand the gentleman's concern—a principled one—that these organizations ought to compete with other organizations for funds that are available from the Federal Government, but I do think it is important that we demonstrate our continuing commitment to funding these organizations on a very modest level, as we have been, and that we authorize sufficient funds for those appropriations.
Something that was said a few minutes inadvertently might have been a bit misleading. The House appropriators have, to my knowledge and in my experience, never zeroed out funding for the Asia Foundation. In fact, I think the suggestion there was probably the North-South Center, but it seemed to imply that they have zeroed out for all three.
Now, there has been a game going on between appropriators on the two sides of the Hill for some time with respect to the East-West Center and the Asia Foundation, where House appropriators unfortunately always zero out the East-West Center, depending on Senator Inouye to appropriate funds for the East-West Center, and the Senate zeros out the Asia Foundation. We have got to get over this gamesmanship, but we have not yet at this point.
Page 608 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. Berman and I have circulated to you a brief, ''dear colleague'' letter which went to all Members in the last day or two. He is the former Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and I am the former Chairman of the Subcommittee. We have watched the Asia Foundation. We have noted that they have substantially increased their nongovernmental funds for programs. We believe that they leverage very well the appropriated funds that are provided, and appropriators have provided a modest amount within the $15 million authorization level for the Asia Foundation in the past.
We have never, I think, reached that point where we have actually used the full authorization level. But in this instance I think the demonstrated commitment to the Asia Foundation, for example, provides them with the continuity. They know that they will have a minimum level of support from the Federal Government they can count on, demonstrating good performance, and that is important to them in gaining additional funds from nongovernmental sources.
I think they do exceptional work in Southeast Asia and other parts of Asia. We have seen it in a direct sense. And I know that Congressman Sanford in the past offered such an amendment, but I do ask my colleagues to reject the Flake amendment enbloc because it does include the Asia Foundation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomagaeva.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, it is Faleomavaega, but that is all right.
Page 609 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. I cannot spell it either.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my appreciation in understanding also the sentiments expressed by the gentleman sponsoring this amendment, Mr. Flake from Arizona. I respect his opinion, and I know that it is incumbent upon all of the Members in the Congress to know the fiscal constraints to make sure that we properly spend the taxpayers' money as far as issues reflecting our responsibility in this Committee, but I would respectfully object to the gentleman's proposed amendment.
If I may, I would like to, in particular, address my remarks to the establishment of the East-West Center, which is a federally chartered organization that is dedicated to the promotion of better relations between the United States and the nations of the Asia-Pacific region.
Creation of this institution since 1960 was an initiative by the Congress, whose farsighted leaders saw the challenge and opportunities that America would face in a dynamic region where two-thirds of the world's population resides, where our national trade with the Asia-Pacific region is twice that of Europe or any other region of the world, where six of the largest armies of the world are located in the Asia-Pacific region. So I think we do have very important, national interests in this region.
Today, the nations of the Asia-Pacific region loom even larger on the world stage, and their relations with the United States have become increasingly important and even more complex. The world's most dynamic economic growth has and will continue to be experienced in the Asia-Pacific region, which has become the center of world trade. For my friend's information, it is America's largest market, the Asia-Pacific region, where we conduct well over $400 billion in annual trade, as well as the home of our most aggressive competitors.
Page 610 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
In addition to economic revolution, many of the Asia-Pacific nations are also undergoing fundamental changes in their political, social, and military structures that pose potential threats not only to the region's stability, but as well as to our own national interests. Clearly, Americans must attach greater priority to the Asia-Pacific region than they have ever done before and be prepared to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that will confront us, such as recent incidents with China in the North Korean Peninsula.
For the past four decades, Mr. Chairman, the East-West Center has worked to fulfill the mandate set out for it by the U.S. Congress, which is the projection of U.S. values abroad. The center's programs of cooperative study, training, and research have attracted thousands of students. Scholars, government officials, business leaders, journalists, and other professionals from the entire Asia-Pacific region, including the United States, come to the center to study, to give and receive training, forums, and the like.
In so doing, the center has built an elite, Asia-Pacific network of scholars and professionals numbering well over 40,000, which reaches from the South Asian subcontinent to the United States and provides the East-West Center direct access to governments, businesses, and educational institutions that is not found in any other organization in the region. And because of this network, Mr. Chairman, the East-West Center is an irreplaceable bridge, in my humble opinion.
Contacts in our government, educational agencies, and multinational corporations turn for recommendations, advice, and information on issues impacting the Asia-Pacific region as well as our own. In drawing on these unique assets, Mr. Chairman, the East-West Center has been active in several initiatives. It is well known today in our ties with Okinawa, Japan, scholarship program exchanges, bringing together various factions, and even in the situation in an island nation like Fiji.
Page 611 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, given the importance of the Asia-Pacific region to America's immediate and long-term future and given the effectiveness and contributions of this important institution, it is vital that we retain our present, modest level of funding. I might also add, Mr. Chairman, this has the full support of the Administration and President Bush. And I urge again, respectfully, to reject my good friend's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. I have five more speakers. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. As I understand the gentleman from Arizona's purpose in this amendment, it really has two different purposes. One is a fiscal question. I think it is important to note that the funding levels authorized here still leave these below the authorization levels of these programs back in the early and mid-1990's.
I also fundamentally believe we should be spending significantly more money on international relations functions and reinvigorating the variety of different programs under that part of the budget. And I know the Secretary of State came here and eloquently spoke to his belief that that should happen as well.
But the other issue that I really want to address is what I understand is the notion that if you are going to spend all of these dollars, quit earmarking and micromanaging from the congressional point of view. Let the State Department decide what the best use of that money is. And there I want to make a case that in the context of these programs, and I have all kinds of experience with all three of those programs and think a tremendous amount of good work is done with it—I am not going to take my time to recite all of that now, but there is a broader and, I think, important philosophical reason here.
Page 612 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
There are things that the Asia Foundation does and can do, because we earmark and appropriate funds to them. The State Department, because of its concern with diplomatic niceties, because of its government-to-government relationships, because of its influence over AID, cannot really engage without creating a diplomatic kind of wild fire that intimidates these organizations from supporting things in the areas of human rights monitoring, of helping to build constituency support in some of these countries for democratic elections, and in terms of making contacts and keeping contacts with dissidents.
When we made a decision to spin off our Radio Free Asia and our Voice of America from State Department control, it was because we recognize that there are things at the director, diplomatic, ambassadorial, embassy country-desk officer level that are limited by virtue of the need to maintain certain kinds of relationships. And these programs, both in the context of research and, even more importantly, in the context of actually implementing and funding other groups, can do things with greater freedom and latitude, all in the name of promoting the things that I think the overwhelming majority of Congress believes in—promoting democracy, pluralism, respect for religious and human rights around the world in furtherance of those ideals.
So that the notion that this could be done through AID or the State Department is not right when you look at the practical conflicts those governmental agencies have in doing some of these kinds of things. And so that is why I think it is critically important to maintain and increase levels of funding for these kinds of activities through congressional direction because otherwise they will not happen, or they will happen in a compromised version, or they will be so diluted and tainted with U.S. Government imprimatur, that they will not be successful. So just as we have with our National Endowment for Democracy, we are filling some other areas that the NED does not fill. They are very important, and I would urge that we oppose the amendment.
Page 613 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to urge strong support for this amendment. It is argued that this is a puny amount. Well, you know $65 million used to be a significant amount, but in the age of big government, it is puny. There is an argument that we should have more, not less. But if you are a poor person in America, and you live in the inner city, $65 million is still a significant amount of money.
If we are demanding that we spend this money, why don't we spend it here at home? What moral right do we have to extract it from our economy and shift it to these overseas operations? I do not even think we should be doing this. I do not think it is proper. I do not think it is morally correct. I do not think it is constitutional, but that is not the argument of the sponsor of the amendment. He is not even arguing to get rid of these programs, but he does make a very important point. Why duplicate it? Why just pour more money into it? Call it puny.
The other departments can do this: The Department of Commerce, the Department of State. They can and will, so it is not like he is saying do away with it. But, you know, it just bothers me a whole lot when we should support this because it is puny. You know, there is a lot of puny stuff that we vote on, and that is why we have this huge budget. That is why we have runaway taxation. That is why we have a lot of poor people in this country.
If all of the money that we spend overseas, this whole appropriation authorization, if we spent it all at home, think how many poor people could be helped. But, no, we think we are so rich that we can spend endlessly and never call back at any of this funding because it is puny. Well, I think we ought to vote against some of this puny stuff because after a while it will be a significant amount, and it will affect our budget.
Page 614 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I am going to yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Paul. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the comments of those in opposition to the amendment. I am pleased to hear my sentiments reinforced about the good work that these organizations are doing, and having heard what I have heard, I have no doubt that they will be able to survive without the subsidy that we provide.
Mr. HASTINGS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. Yes.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Paul, the North-South Center is situated at the University of Miami, and the East-West Center is situated, for all intents and purposes, in Honolulu. That said, I just would hope to be able to, most respectfully, to disabuse you of the notion that this is money being spent abroad. It is money being spent in our country for purposes of furthering the understanding in the Western Hemisphere——
Mr. PAUL. Let me reclaim my time and ask the gentleman, this money that goes to the University of Miami; does it help the poor people in your district?
Mr. HASTINGS. You know, that is a very good question. If you will continue to yield. I best might describe this to you by saying, yes, it does. While the center is at the University of Miami, the Caribbean Basin is one that I have a substantial number of constituents involved. This same center has sponsored activities that led to economic development between Caribbean Basin countries and my constituents, who were involved in import-export. So there is a direct relationship, if you wish to have it put that way.
Page 615 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. PAUL. Well, let me just conclude by saying, the activity is directed for overseas activity. Some of this money is being spent overseas. Some of it is being spent here for special interests and influential people who can get these grants. But nevertheless, I see no long-term benefit to the activity. It just means that we have to continue the funding, continuing the increase, never questioning it, and just saying because it is puny, we must support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from Miami, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say increasing funding for the North-South Center by 185 percent is really mixing apples and oranges, because the statement compares the appropriation levels from last year with the authorization ceilings of this year. And I'd like to just briefly explain that the Fascell Center, because I am very proud to represent the University of Miami, where it is located, here in Congress.
And the Fascell Center has worked extensively with the U.S. Department of State and other government agencies, the World Bank, the Organization of American States, private business corporation, academic and research institutions, Latin American and Caribbean governments, in a series of projects with the U.S. Government and with U.S. business, both new and ongoing, aimed at creating information technology opportunities in developing areas; bringing marginalized communities, including women, into the global market place; training entrepreneurs and educating businesses and policy makers in Latin America and in the Caribbean, on the challenges and the opportunities of globalization; contributing to the study and the debate on the economic integration of the Americas through a free trade area, the Americas through continuing studies, concerning weakness and political representation; failures in the rule of law; unresolved issues in civil and military relations; collaboration with civil and government and academic entities, in the areas of environmental security and environmental protection in the Americas; studies and collaborative efforts aimed at enhancing the role of civil society, which is so needed in our neighbors; seminars on fiscal and management reform for senior, federal, and state level officials, to improve efficiency, to root out corruption, to improve measurable results.
Page 616 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
And with its strong institutional base at the University of Miami and its ideal geographic location in Miami, which is the cross roads of the Americas, the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center is well placed as the primary research and public policy study center dedicated to finding its practical responses to vital hemispheric challenges that confront us here in the United States. It is a domestic issue.
The Center's research agenda focuses on vital inter-American issues, such as trade and investment, migration, security, democratic governance, civil military relations, corruption, institution reform, civil society participation, sustainable development. These are our issues, as well. This research through us responds to a hemispheric agenda that directly impacts American people, in the form of our jobs and our prosperity, the drug problem in our communities, migration, export opportunities for businessmen, environmental quality, the promotion of shared democratic values.
The Fascell North-South Center played an important role in the recent summit of the Americas. And in January, the leadership counsel for Inner American Summitry, organized by the Fascell Center and consisting of notables from around the hemisphere, they met in Miami and they drafted a report, offering recommendations to the heads of state, who met in Quebec, and that meeting was President Bush's first multilateral agreement.
In the past year, the Fascell Center has received private support grants from Federal agencies, from international organizations, private donors. They include the John and Catherine McArthur Foundation, the Tinker Foundations, the Organization of American States, the U.S. Agency of International Development, the World Bank, Governments of Japan, Dominican Republic, and on and on. The core founding for the Congress has enabled the center to attract such support from private sources.
Page 617 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
And the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center, in summary, Mr. Chairman, is a reflection of the belief that the nations benefits—that all of the nations benefit, when the great issues of the western hemisphere are analyzed and when they are debated by the private sector and non-governmental groups, and organized to get an opinion, for academic institutions to have a different mandate and get a different perspective.
As a respected independent public policy institution that is fully cognizant of the special responsibilities attached to its Federal funding, the Center has served its function successfully for many years. It is crucial that business people, professionals, non-governmental organization have a trusted, non-partisan policy center that can assist them in changing opinions and bringing their views to the attention of policy makers.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady's time——
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. The issues involved today——
Chairman HYDE [continuing]. Has expired.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. In an increasingly integrated hemisphere, Mr. Chairman, touch the lives and the interest of all American families, U.S. families, in one way or another. This is a U.S. project of benefit to Americans.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman.
Page 618 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I rise in opposition to the Flake amendment to our Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which would completely eliminate all funding for the Asian Foundation, the Center for Cultural Exchange between East and West, and the Dante Fascell North-South Center, to the detriment of our U.S. national interest. I was around when Dante Fascell created the North-South Center and I want to join our colleagues who have spoken out in support of these centers.
Now, the Asia Foundation has a 46-year proven track record promoting successful democratic economic activities across Asia. It remains in the front line of advancing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, economic reform, and sustainable recovery in emerging democracies, like countries in the jurisdiction of our South Asia Committee, such as Bangladesh. It is trying to lay a foundation for positive changes in both China and Vietnam.
And the North-South Center does an outstanding job, as Ms. Lehtinen has indicated, in promoting good relations between all nations in the western hemisphere, and I think both of them do great work for all of us. When we take a good look at the works in both of these foundations, I think it's incumbent upon us to continue their authorization.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief. I was going to revise these summary remarks.
Page 619 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I know in the future, I will probably be supporting many of Mr. Flake's amendments, because I have a great deal of respect for him. But, on this one, I reluctantly oppose it.
Just to point, and I think many of the speakers have made the argument, these foundations, and East-West Center and the North-South Center, provide an intellectual and academic framework, to promote democracy, human rights, environmental protection, and capitalism. We have held extensive hearings on them in the past and when I was Chairman of the International Ops Committee and have had numerous conversations with people associated with them.
Just for the record, we did provide 1.4 million dollars last year for the North-South Center, although we had authorized 2.5. And, Mr. Chairman, the Hyde-Lantos bill very modestly ratchets that up to four million and I think that is an appropriate amount. We straight lined the Asian Foundation from last year's authorization, 15 million dollars, and there is a one million dollar increase for the East-West Center.
So, these are all, I think, modest sums. It can be justified. And, again, I reluctantly oppose my friend's——
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say ''aye.''
[Ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. All opposed, ''nay.''
Page 620 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
[Nays.]
Mr. LANTOS. I request a rollcall, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman has requested a rollcall. He shall have one. The gentlelady, Ms. Bloomer, will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes no. Mr. Bereuter?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton?
Page 621 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no. Mr. Ballenger?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
Page 622 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo?
[No response.]
Page 623 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes yes. Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes no. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes yes. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. Aye.
Page 624 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes yes. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes yes. Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes no. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes no. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes no. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no. Mr. Payne?
Page 625 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney?
Ms. MCKINNEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes no. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no. Mr. Sherman?
Page 626 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes no. Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes no. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt votes no. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes no. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. No.
Page 627 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Crowley?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes no. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes no. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley votes no. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes no. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. No.
Page 628 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes no. Mr. Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez asked for his vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez has not voted.
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. No.
Page 629 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. I thought sure you were.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes——
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER [continuing]. No.
Chairman HYDE. And now the clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were six ayes and 30 nos.
Chairman HYDE. Then the amendment is not agreed to. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach, is recognized for purposes of an amendment.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that gets two sections of the bill, but it is the same subject matter and I will ask unanimous consent that both of these amendments be considered in one.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. And the gentlelady will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. En Bloc amendments offered by Mr. Leach, in section 104(a)(1).
Page 630 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. LEACH. Without objection, I ask the amendments be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, in support of his amendment.
Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What this amendment does, it calls for the United States to return to UNESCO and provide some resources necessary to accomplish this task.
By background, in the 1980's, there was a great deal of concern in some political circles for the U.N. system. A number of institutions were considered for U.S. withdrawal, led at one point by EA, which was then determined that we should remain a part of. But, UNESCO was chosen as an agency that the United States might appropriately withdraw from.
There were considerable problems at the time at UNESCO. One was excessive budgeting; another was a severe political polarization on journalistic issues, as well as on the subject of Israel.
On the big issue of concern for the U.N., I personally believed that the government was a bit misguided. But whether or not it was, on the specific issues relating to UNESCO, there was a meritable case; whether it was a persuasive one is another matter. In any regard, on the budgeting issue that has been brought under control at UNESCO, the GAO almost a decade ago reviewed the issue and said that the concerns of the United States Congress had been met.
Page 631 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
With regard to the subject of Israel, it is always possible that international foreign governments could attack. But, the government of Israel has always held that it is better for the United States to be participatory in such settings and they are better protected with U.S. participation than without it.
As far as the journalistic issue, which was an issue that some had advocated involving the possible licensing of journalists, that is an issue that is now appropriately and thoroughly dead.
As far as I am concerned, UNESCO is perhaps the least dangerous international organization I know of, from almost any conceivable perspective. I can't say it is most important; but in the world in which ideas matter, the issues of science, of education and culture are of more than slight significance, and UNESCO has a small, but symbolic niche on these circumstances.
The Secretary of State, George Schultz, who took part in the decisionmaking to withdraw from UNESCO, spoke up last fall and suggested that now is the time for the U.S. to return. Whether or not we made a mistake in withdrawing from UNESCO, I believe that it is clear folly not to rejoin. If one thinks it through, there are 188 member nations of UNESCO. All of the concerns the United States had at the time of our withdrawing have now been ameliorated, and we stand as a self-made pariah.
I, personally, believe that empty chair diplomacy is an oxymoron and it should be ended. And there is no reasonable case that I know of, of any measure, for the United States not to withdraw from UNESCO. And so, I believe it is incumbent upon this Congress to begin the process of authorizing its rejoining.
Page 632 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. First, let me commend and congratulate my friend and colleague from Iowa for offering this amendment, which I strongly support. Last year, as a matter of fact, I introduced legislation that was designed to achieve precisely this goal.
In order to save time, I shall not repeat all of the good arguments Congressman Leach has made. Let me just state the obvious. Secretary of State, George Schultz, recommended in 1984 that we withdraw from UNESCO for good and substantial reasons. It was a corrupt anti-American organization. It has cleaned up its act. There is a cultural reform, which has swept through UNESCO. It is now fiscally a responsible organization and its anti-American taint has been removed.
As my friend indicated, it is an absurdity to have 188 countries on the face of this plant be part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, but the United States, the only super power, staying out of it.
Since some of my colleagues will no doubt in opposition raise the question of cost, let me indicate what the cost is of rejoining UNESCO. It is a little less than 25 cents per person a year. It is difficult to argue, it seems to me, that we cannot afford a quarter a year, to be part of the world's only global educational, scientific, and cultural organization.
Secretary Schultz, who properly recommended that we withdraw from this organization, is now recommending that we rejoin it. I think it is long overdue that we rejoin it and I urge all of my colleagues to support the Leach amendment.
Page 633 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Yield back with my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, so much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment directs the U.S. to begin the process of rejoining UNESCO, the United Nation's Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. I hope that we reject this amendment and an organization, which we withdrew from in 1984.
While I am aware that my colleagues have made some good points that this agency has indeed reformed itself over the past 15 years and that its Director General has instituted measures leading to staff reductions, greater accountability, the fact remains that there are serious funding restraints on our ability to rejoin this organization. It would cost us some 67 million dollars to come back in and I question whether this is a wide use of our resources. And I am informed that the Department of State actually does not favor our rejoining UNESCO and has not provided the needed resources for doing so in the international organization account.
David Malone, the President of the International Peace Academy in New York and the former Canadian foreign ministry official in charge of relations with international agencies, is not optimistic about the prospects for reform by the new Director General of UNESCO, Mr. Masuri of Japan. In fact, Mr. Malone says,
''I think Mr. Masuri faces an uphill battle in turning around an organization that is deeply scarred.''
Page 634 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
He continues by saying,
''The problem of UNESCO is that successive heads have turned it into a personal patronage machine, neglecting programs and bloating the staff.''
He continues saying,
''We used to all know what UNESCO's objectives were. Now, nobody knows what UNESCO does beyond world heritage sites and whoever consults UNESCO now on science.''
That is his quote.
And how specifically does the Director General plan on fulfilling his mandate? Well, in a very concrete way, one of his plans is by spending millions of dollars to restore colonial Havana, for example, historical preservation of foreign buildings. Why should we be joining an organization, which is promoting tourism in Cuba and in the process of helping provide hard currency to one of the worst human rights violators in the world?
We would all like historical preservations of our buildings. Why are we shipping our U.S. tax dollar abroad to do it for someone else? Is this the type of effort that the U.S. Congress should be funding? It is not clear how we can justify to our taxpayers, taking this much money away or even from other U.N. agencies, for an organization, whose time appears to have come and gone.
Page 635 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I understand that seven studies have been conducted on UNESCO over the past 12 years, citing the reforms that have been made in management and accounting practices. But, I will argue that the cost of rejoining this organization is very high and that we would be forced to reduce our participation in other important development and standard setting agencies. If we have 67 million dollars extra, shouldn't we be spending it on UNICEF, for example, or any other organization that is more noteworthy and that can really help people?
I would, therefore, oppose any amendments that direct the U.S. to rejoin this agency that is really no longer needed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I cannot join my good colleagues, Mr. Leach and Mr. Lantos, who are offering amendments directing our Nation to begin the process of rejoining the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, known as UNESCO, an organization from which we withdrew our support back in 1984.
While I am fully aware that my colleagues are making some good points—that this agency has reformed itself somewhat over the past 15 years and that its Director General has instituted measures leading to staff reductions and greater accountability—I do point out that there remains some serious funding restraints on our ability to rejoin this organization.
It is going to cost us 67 million dollars to get back into UNESCO. I question whether this is an appropriate use of our resources and I am informed that the Department of State does not favor our rejoining UNESCO and has not provided resources for doing so in its international organization account.
Page 636 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
In sum, it is not clear how we can justify taking these funds away from other U.N. agencies, for an organization, whose time appears to have come and gone. I understand that seven studies have been conducted on UNESCO over the past 12 years, citing the reforms that have been made in its management and accounting practices. But, I would argue that the cost of rejoining is extremely high and that we would be forced to reduce our participation I other important development standard setting agencies.
Accordingly, I reluctantly oppose this amendment, directing our Nation to rejoin this U.N. agency. And I yield back the rest of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say ''aye.''
[Ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Oppose, ''nay.''
[Nays.]
Mr. LANTOS. Request to record the vote, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Page 637 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes yes. Mr. Bereuter?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Page 638 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no. Mr. Ballenger?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Page 639 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
Page 640 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes no. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes no. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes no. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes no. Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes no. Mr. Lantos?
Page 641 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. I'm sorry, Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes. Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
Page 642 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes. Mr. Hilliard?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes. Mr. Davis?
Page 643 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt votes yes. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel?
Page 644 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley votes yes. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes yes. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Mr. Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo?
Page 645 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. TANCREDO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Chairman HYDE. How is Mr. Wynn recorded?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard has not voted.
Chairman HYDE. Is that Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Payne?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne has not voted.
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Page 646 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Engel?
Ms. BLOOMER. Has not voted.
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish? The clerk will call the roll—the clerk will report it, having already called the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 23 ayes and 14 nos.
Chairman HYDE. Then the amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendment to this title?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate title II.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title II, authorities and activities of the Department of State.
Page 647 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Are there any amendments to title II? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of myself and Mr. King of New York.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith, page 28, after line 13, insert the following——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me just point out that this amendment I offer on behalf of Mr. King and myself, builds on provisions that we, together, inserted in Public Law 106–113, which is suspend the training and exchange programs between the FBI and the Royal Officer Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Police Force, until certain human rights standards are met.
As this Committee well knows, the issue of policing and the conduct of the RUC is at the very heart of the Good Friday agreement. Over the last 3 years, I have chaired some seven hearings on human rights violations in Northern Ireland. A recurring theme presented by numerous international human rights experts at these hearings has been at the RUC's long history of involvement in human rights abuses against the people of Northern Ireland.
Page 648 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order.
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will be in order. If Mr. Berman has something to share with us, we would all love to hear it. The gentleman will continue.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Sorry, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And thank you Mr. Lantos, as well.
Accordingly, our amendment keeps the suspension of the FBI–RUC exchanges in place, ensuring that the United States is not subsidizing or supporting the efforts of a Northern Ireland police force without first vetting those officers, who are believed to have committed or condoned violations of internationally recognized human rights.
It also puts a time certain on a previously mandated report on the scope of the FBI–RUC exchange programs, and we have learned from this, if you do not have a time, don't expect a report to show up. So, now, we have put an exact time.
Additionally, our amendment requires the President to report within 60 days of enactment the extent to which the government of the United Kingdom has implemented the 175 recommendations contained in the Patton Commission's recommendations for police reform in Northern Ireland. Mr. Patton, Members might recall, was a witness at one of our hearings held by the Subcommittee. And while many of us were disappointed that the Patton Commission failed to find a way to rid the force of what he called ''bad apples,'' we at least felt that his 175 recommendations for reform could serve as a floor, rather than a ceiling—a beginning for subsequent changes for the better.
Page 649 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Recent reports indicate, however, that the British Government's implementation legislation merely cherry picks, and Mr. Patton had warned against that. The Patton Commission's recommendations, some were adopted, some were ignored. The President's report will help identify the progress made and underscore the reforms still to be accomplished.
The amendment also requires a report on the status of the investigations of the murders of human rights attorneys Patrick Fenucken and Rosemary Nelson, as well as a report on the investigation of the murder of Robert Hammel.
No one, who was at the Subcommittee's September 1998 hearing, will ever forget the chilling testimony provided to us by human rights attorney Rosemary Nelson. Rosemary sat in this very room and told us about harassment, intimidation and threats by the police against defense attorneys, simply because of the politics of their clients. She testified that she had been physically assaulted by a number of RUC officers. She sat right there, where Nancy Bloomer is sitting today, and said that the RUC is going to kill me. She feared for her life and 6 months after her testimony here on the Hill, defense attorney Rosemary Nelson was killed, the victim of an assassin's car bomb.
That was 2 years ago and still, no one has been arrested for the murder. Amazingly, the RUC remains very much involved in the investigation, despite her stated fears and despite subsequent findings by Northern Ireland's independent commission on police complaints, the RUC officers were, indeed, hostile toward Rosemary and the death threats that she had reported.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Chairman, several international human rights organizations, as well as the U.N. Special Replitoire on The Independence of Judges and Lawyers, have called for the creation of an independent judicial inquiries into the murders of Rosemary Nelson and Pat Fenucken.
Page 650 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude, and I would ask my full statement made part of the record, we hope that this amendment gets passed. It is high time that this provision and the reports that we are requesting be provided to the Congress.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. King, for bringing this amendment before us, and I strongly support it. I urge all of my colleagues to do so.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Smith and Mr. King. All those in favor, say ''aye.''
[Ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Oppose, ''nay.''
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The Committee will stand in recess for the vote and then we will return. We are making good progress. We might finish this bill—we will finish this bill, so please come back.
[Recess.]
Page 651 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had asked Mr. Smith if he would engage in a colloquy with me. Would the author of the amendment we just considered, calling for a report on recruitment efforts to get Catholics to join the new police service, agree that the report to be provided by the Administration should also include the facts surrounding the recent refusal of two Garda police officers in the Republic, for any consideration for the position of assistant chief constable position in the North, and also tell us what both British and Irish government are doing about fixing that violation of the Patton Commission's recommendations, to have senior level officers transferred to the North. Would the gentleman agree to make that part of the report language?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I thank my good friend from New York and I think he makes a very important observation, and I would fully agree that that should be a part of the report language in that report.
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Delahunt for purposes of an amendment.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before you would mandate two different——
Page 652 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Before the gentleman explains it, the clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Delahunt, page 34, after line two, insert the following section——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman now is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you and the staff for your cooperation and support on this amendment.
And it simply mandates two reports that I believe are very significant, that will help Congress monitor the progress and provide us with the data and the empirical evidence, to assess the effectiveness of our assistance under Plan Colombia. And as every Member of this Committee is aware, Plan Colombia was considered by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed into law last year. It provided well in excess of 1.3 billion dollars, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to deal with the issue of drugs flowing from Colombia into the United States.
Now, the strategy, itself, had two aspects. One dealt primarily with eradication and support of those efforts, as well as interdiction. Eighty percent of American aid, in excess of one billion dollars, was allocated to this aspect of the comprehensive strategy that was the basis for many of us supporting Plan Colombia. The remaining 20 percent, again which most of us felt was critical to a successful implementation of Plan Colombia, was directed to provide civic and economic development, to encourage stability, social and economic justice in Colombia, and to strengthen democratic institutions, to reduce the attraction of the Campesinos, who, for lack of other opportunities, are growing coca and poppy.
Page 653 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Now, many of us had reservations, including myself, about this balance of 80 percent and 20 percent.
Chairman HYDE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I will yield.
Chairman HYDE. Does the gentleman intend to offer another amendment En Bloc with the one you are discussing now?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I do, sir.
Chairman HYDE. We are prepared to accept those amendments. I just would like you to know, if you would like to abbreviate your remarks. [Laughter.]
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, maybe, Mr. Chair, maybe I won't take—submit them En Bloc——
Chairman HYDE. The question has been answered.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you talking about the denial of the visa amendment, as well as——
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Page 654 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. DELAHUNT. You are?
Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir. Are you offering them En Bloc?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I didn't plan to; but after listening to the plaintive tone of your voice, I will offer them En Bloc, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Very well. Without objection, they are received En Bloc. And would you want to yield to Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I will obviously yield to my friend and Chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr. Ballenger.
[The attachment to Mr. Delahunt's statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
REPORTING AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1646
Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos, I want to thank you and your staff for your cooperation and support on this amendment. It simply mandates two reports that I believe will enhance Congress' oversight role of our efforts in Colombia.
Page 655 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
One of the reasons I supported the Colombian aid package last year was because it was described as a comprehensive strategy, in which the military offensive and fumigation effort would go hand-in-hand with alternative development assistance and programs to strengthen the civilian part of Colombia's government. This coordination is critical to the program's success. Fumigation alone will only make coca cultivation move to new areas, and a military offensive without a strengthening of Colombian institutions will simply cause more chaos.
Unfortunately, while the military side of the package is operating on schedule, it has come to my attention that the economic and social side seems to be moving much more slowly than planned.
Here's an example: The Administration has been talking about an ambitious program to support Colombian government ''pacts'' with coca-growing peasants, in which they agree to pull up their coca in exchange for aid. The first pacts were signed in December and January, but my understanding is that so far, the peasants haven't received a dime in assistance. If this delay continues, not only will it undermine similar efforts in the future, but these farmers will most likely return to growing coca.
Therefore, the first part of the amendment would require the State Department to report regularly on the progress of social and economic programs in Colombia, to provide explanations for delays, and offer suggestions on how those delays can be addressed. In this way, Congress can oversee these operations in Colombia.
The second part of this amendment concerns the use of private US civilian contractors by the State Department in Colombia.
Page 656 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
These contractors play a significant role in the US program. Among other tasks, they fly planes that spray drug crops, serve as mechanics and logistics personnel, and fly helicopters that transport Colombian troops.
I'm concerned these civilians are getting too close to Colombia's conflict. Guerrillas and paramilitaries shoot at their aircraft, and in early February, US contractors were involved in a firefight with guerrillas.
Are these contractors performing tasks and operating in zones that would be off-limits to U.S. government personnel? If not, why has the State Department chosen to hire private companies instead of US government employees? And wouldn't it be better for both the US and Colombia if these tasks were performed by members of the Colombian counternarcotics police?
This part of the amendment simply states that it is the policy of the US to ''Colombianize'' these tasks and puts a reporting requirement on private contractors' role in Colombia. I want to emphasize that while I hope this report is unclassified, I don't want the State Department to produce a document that threatens the contractors' security in any way.
I hope that the committee will support this amendment in the interests of transparency and effective oversight. Thank you.
VISA DENIAL AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1646
Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos, I want to thank you and your staff for your cooperation and support on this amendment.
Page 657 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
According to the State Department, the illegal armed groups in Colombia—the FARC, ELN, and AUC—are responsible for egregious human rights abuses, including horrific massacres, kidnappings, and acts of terrorism. These groups are also involved, to one degree or another, in the narcotics trade. These activities are tearing apart Colombian society and are contributing to the spread of drugs throughout the world.
Despite their barbarity, these terrorists receive financial support from both inside and outside of Colombia. This amendment would discourage such support by denying U.S. visas to any alien who willfully assists these groups.
I stress willfully because one of these groups' favorite tactics is to raise funds through extortion and ransom for kidnapping victims. This amendment should in no way be interpreted to deny visas to people whose are forced to support these groups. Such a policy would be obscene, and would only further punish the victims of these groups. Rather, this amendment applies to those who voluntarily give assistance to the FARC, ELN, or AUC.
This amendment actually mirrors and corrects a similar provision that was included in the Colombian aid package last year which prohibited funding for visas for supporters of these groups. Since that package did not actually fund the issuance of visas, it was not effective. This new measure fixes that, and I urge the committee to support this amendment. Thank you.
Mr. BALLENGER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am obviously pleased to offer my support to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts and concur with the proposed requirement for a report on the implementation of alternative development assistance to Colombia.
Page 658 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendments En Bloc offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. All those in favor, say ''aye.''
[Ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, ''nay.''
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. I understand there are no amendments to titles III, IV, V, and VI; therefore, the clerk will now designate title VII.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title VII, miscellaneous provisions.
Chairman HYDE. Are there any amendments to title VII?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez. The clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez, after section 737, insert the following new section.
Page 659 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I am introducing a sense of the Congress amendment on climate change. My amendment, introduced on behalf of Congressman Hastings, Congresswoman Lee, and Congressman Faleomavaega, would send an important message to the world—that this Committee and this Congress are concerned about global warming and seize the need to take constructive action now for the benefit of future generations.
Treasury Secretary O'Neill, as Chairman of the board and CEO of ALCOA Corporation, in a most thoughtful presentation on this issue in 1998, said the following:
''I think that there are certain issues that are different, issues that transcend individual companies and individual industries and individual countries. There are two that rise to a specific level of consideration and concern. One is nuclear holocaust and the danger of renegade states having available to them nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The second is environmental, specifically the issue of global climate change and the potential of global warming.''
And I wholeheartedly agree with Secretary O'Neill's comments made in his capacity as an industry leader. I would also point out that Mr. O'Neill expressed concerns, as do several industry leaders today, that annual cost of global warming can run up to three trillion dollars in insurance costs, addressing sea level rise and property damage. So, it is in this bipartisan and cooperative spirit that I offer this amendment.
Page 660 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The industrialized countries, with less than 25 percent of the world's population, are responsible for about 75 percent of the accumulated carbon dioxide emissions currently in the atmosphere. And despite this, no serious efforts to reduce the industrialized worlds skyrocketing missions have yet taken place.
Recently, the Bush Administration made it clear that it has declined to take a leadership role in the global community on this issue, by unilaterally abandoning ongoing negotiations on climate change. However, since the announcement was made to walk away from the Kyoto protocol, we have heard that there may be an effort on the way in the Administration to constructively pursue this issue, and we look forward to hearing about that effort and to working with the Administration on this vital global issue.
The intergovernmental panel on climate change, a scientific body established by the United Nations to study the latest science on global warming, issued its third report this past January. In that report, over 3,000 climate experts conclude that the global average surface temperature has already increased by 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the 20th century and projected an increase of as much as 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit from 1990 to the end of this century.
This was the third such report in 15 years and shows more than ever that this problem is real, has a real element of human causation, and has real consequences. Even under the median range of temperature change predicted by the IPCC, the world will go through some significant, if not devastating changes. Already glaciers are shrinking at an alarming rate and some plant and animal populations in arctic regions have entered decline. In the future, the report predicts a reduction in crop yields, decreases in water availability in drought-prone regions, and increases in the number of people exposed to diseases, like cholera and malaria, all due to climate shifts from climate change.
Page 661 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
In addition to its devastating impact on the global environment, global warming is also likely to lead to dramatic shifts in populations, food supplies, and water resources. The most at risk echo systems, low lying areas, and drought prone regions also tend to be home to the world's poorest countries, countries that will not be able to bear the brunt of the tremendous cost associated with adapting to a changing climate. It is impossible now to predict the political implications of a world, where millions of already starving people in debilitated countries will have to migrate away from an ever increasing seashore.
The United States, as the world's leader in so many areas, must make common cause with other industrialized nations to address this problem. There is no question that developing countries will have to do their fare share, as well.
But we, in the industrialized world, have long been leaders in one area of climate change that we should not be proud of, and that is emissions of greenhouse gases. Let us demonstrate our responsibility as global leaders, in a globalized world, and take the lead in mitigating climate change, a problem to which we have contributed to greatly.
My amendment states more efficient technologies and renewable energy sources will mitigate global warming and will make the United States economy even more productive and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, the burden placed on America and its allies by their leadership role in this world and the potential for devastating changes ahead, I strongly urge my colleagues here today to vote for the Menendez, Hastings, Lee amendment. Let us show that there is real concern in this Congress for the impacts of global warming here and abroad. This amendment urges and I urge this Administration to remain engaged in the only current ongoing international negotiations on climate change, those of the Kyoto protocol, the international climate change treaty.
Page 662 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak in opposition to this amendment for several reasons. You know, there has been some points made that we shouldn't be in the Kyoto agreement, we shouldn't follow it for economic reasons, because it is expensive. And I don't think there is any doubt about that. It is true. But, I don't think that is the real argument against us participating. I think there are a couple of other reasons for us to avoid this intervention with this—in this treaty.
And the one is the environment, itself. You know, I have not yet met anybody in the Congress or in the United States, for that matter, who is against the environment. I have never heard anybody running for Congress and say, you know, I am opposed to the environment. But, there are two different ways of handling the environment. One is through what I call an authoritarian compulsive approach through big government and the other is through private property.
And this is just more big government, with authoritarianism behind it, with compulsions and regulations and rules. And it literally rejects the notion of the private property approach. And if you look at history and if you even look at our country, the more private property is, the better the property is taken care of. So, the extreme, of course, would be the Soviet system. They didn't do a very good job in taking care of the environment. But, if you have private property ownership, the owners take care of it much better.
Page 663 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Now, you say, yes, but what about polluting your neighbor's property? You have no right to pollute your neighbor's property under the private property arrangement. It is taken care of by the rejection of that. But, it rejects the notion that you have a lot of rules and regulations and you spend a lot of money setting up standards and enforcing them in this manner. Actually, there is no evidence to show that the environment is better taken care of.
So for those of us, who reject the big government approach to protecting the environment, it isn't that we don't care about the environment; we actually have a very sincere deep belief that the environment is better taken care of under the private property arrangement. For this reason, I would reject the notion that we should go in the direction of agreeing to the Kyoto treaty and going along with those types of regulations.
And there is another reason that we should think about not doing it this way and that has to do with the sovereignty issue. When we go to an international body through treaty, we literally give up our responsibilities here in the U.S. Congress, because rules and regulations and laws are written by an international body. In this instance, when we accept that principle, what we do is we literally amend the Constitution, by saying that laws can be written by an international body. That should not be permissible. That means the House, itself, has been totally excluded and the Senate, itself, agrees to a treaty, and it flies in the face of everything that we believe in, under Constitutional law.
So, I would say under our Constitution, it is not legal. I don't think it will work and I don't think it really does the best job to protect the private property. But, both individuals these days, both on the left and the right, are strongly in opposition to a lot of the international activities going on with the WTO and IMF and World Bank, because for this precise reason, they don't believe the environment is being protected and labor law is not being protected.
Page 664 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
And the real truth is, is we are rejecting the principles that were laid down by the founders in this country, in establishing the Constitution, that we deal with these problems, that we don't deal with it by more entangling alliances, and with the rejection and the belief that private property can take care of the environment much better than more authoritarian government.
And I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I applaud your ability to pronounce my name in the most fashionable way. Thank you, again.
As you recall, Mr. Chairman, when our Committee had our first hearing or meeting with the distinguished Secretary of State, Collin Powell, I extended a courtesy in the fact that I had raised only one question with Secretary Powell, at the time. And the question that I raised with the Secretary then was what was the Administration's position on global warming. And as I recall, the Secretary's position was there was no administrative position, at the time. In fact, the Administration even requested that further time be given to the Administration, maybe around July or August, that the Administration will then have a policy decision to be made about global warming.
Well, as we all know, Mr. Chairman, one thing led to another with the recent pronouncement that the President had made. I want to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I am very pleased that the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, has offered this amendment and I am honored to join our colleagues in strong support of the amendment before the Committee, which urges the United States leadership to address global climate warming, and continue participation with the Kyoto protocol negotiations.
Page 665 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, there is a growing consensus that global climate change is occurring. The nations of the world must engage in a good faith process to find the solutions. United Nations studies projected that in the next century the earth may warm by as much as six degrees Celsius, which will raise ocean levels by 50 centimeters, or almost 20 inches. I might add, Mr. Chairman, I know something about ocean levels, coming from this area of the world. Already rising sea levels threaten the existence of low lying island nations of the South Pacific, such as Vonwatsu, Kirvas, the Solomons, the Marshalls, and have caused massive destructive floodings in Bangladesh, Egypt, and China. Parts of the United States, in particular the coastal areas of Florida, Louisiana, and other states, also stand to be inundated in rising sea levels, and global warming are unchecked.
I don't know if our colleagues are aware that El Nina happens to start from the Pacific, right in Vonwatsu, not too far from where I live. Many consider global climate change to be the most challenging environmental issue to ever face our generation and generations to come. Even the initial skepticism over global warming expressed by many U.S. businesses have been replaced by the acknowledgment of the problem, as evidenced by the adoption of emission reduction targets more stringent than the Kyoto protocol by major companies, like IBM, Johnson & Johnson, and Polaroid. Major auto and oil companies, such as Ford and AMOCO, have declared reduction of carbon dioxide to be a top priority.
Mr. Chairman, the United States is only 4 percent of the world's population, but our Nation is responsible for almost 25 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere—the main cause of global warming. As the world's per capita leader in fossil fuel emissions, there is very strong indication that Americans see climate change as a serious threat and want our government to take measures.
Page 666 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, with the international community having committed over a decade's work, 10 years of work on the Kyoto protocol, we cannot simply walk away from the process. As the planet's worse polluter, the United States has a moral responsibility and duty to lead global efforts, to address climate warming, and it is vital that we work with the Kyoto process, to ensure even our interests are also protected.
Mr. Chairman, if I might say, it is not that—we understand that that there is some very key provisions in the Kyoto protocol that even I would not have accepted, given the fact that the Senate even voted 95 to zero to reject the Kyoto protocol, but the idea that at least we should be actively engage and continue the process. I am against the idea of India and China having a different emissions standard from us. But, that certainly should not be the reason why we should not continue to engage nations that are very concerned about this issue. I think this is the essence of what this proposed amendment tries to achieve, and I sincerely urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I glad to yield to my fair friend.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I want to thank the gentleman for his support and take the opportunity to just comment on the previous gentleman's comments, and that, in terms of compulsory, the fact is that voluntary measures have not worked. At the '92 Real Earth Summit, the U.S. committed itself to returning to 1990 levels of greenhouse pollution by 2000, but insisted on voluntary compliance. We are 12 percent over the 1990 levels. So, it hasn't worked. Even Mr. O'Neill, in his speech, recognized that, as well, the President's Treasury Secretary.
Page 667 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
And lastly, I want to reenforce what Mr. Faleomavaega said. The protocol is a work in progress. We have an opportunity to be at the table, be part of the negotiating sessions, one that was just completed in France and another one that is going to be scheduled in the Hague in November. And if we are not there, we are not only not asserting leadership, we are not protecting our interest.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee.
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am really proud to be one of the authors of this amendment. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Hastings, and Mr. Faleomavaega, for this very important amendment today.
Unabated greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, represents a really profound threat to American national security, to the U.S. economy, and to our relationship with our allies. The act, or even the appearance that the United States is abandoning efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions endangers longstanding relationships and really does threaten environmental health and sustainability.
Now, we have been hearing a lot about burden sharing recently. I agree that burden sharing is important and the United States also must bear its share of this burden in dealing with global warming.
British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott recently declared that the United States cannot pollute the world while free riding on action by everyone else. Ramona Prody, the President of the European Union Commission stated that if one wants to be a world leader, one must know how to look after the entire earth and not only American industry.
Page 668 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Some of said that voluntary commitments will be sufficient, and they will not be. In 1992, the United States and other industrialized countries of the world signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change, which would voluntarily reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000. But, it failed. Not one country lived up to its voluntary commitments. That is why in 1997, 165 countries negotiated and signed the Kyoto protocol, which would commit us to binding emissions reductions. The Kyoto protocol is the best instrument that we have at hand to curb global climate change.
As the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, we must live up to our responsibilities as global leaders and global citizens. This is a matter of national interest and international obligation. Failure to do so will poison both our planet and our relationship with our allies.
I yield back the balance of my time and I urge an aye vote on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I raise a strong opposition to this amendment. You know, I remember when President Clinton, who decided this global warming issue was going to be a priority for him, invited a whole bunch of meteorologist, weather people, to the White House, to discuss global warming. There must have been hundreds of them over there. And in the middle of the meeting, a rainstorm broke out, as sometimes happens in Washington. It was one of the heaviest rains for the year, but only three of the meteorologists had managed to bring an umbrella with them, which indicates they really hadn't predicted the rainstorm that was upon them at that moment. In fact, most of the people, who are predicting global warming, can't predict the weather 3 days from now, much less that there has been this massive temperature change in the works in the world.
Page 669 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
One of the first things President Clinton did when he became President was to fire the chief scientist at the Department of Energy. And he fired him, because that chief scientist was open-minded toward global warming. For the last 8 years, we have had an Administration that has done everything they could in the scientific community, to provide the scientific community to come up with studies that suggest that there is a major threat called global warming.
Being on the Committee on Science and being Chairman of Subcommittee on Space Energy for 2 years, as well as now being the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aeronautics, I can tell you I have sat through many hearings on global warming and what I come away with, that this is not global warming, this is global bologna that we are talking about. The fact is that some scientists and even some government officials will come to your office afterwards, and they will remain nameless, and say, you know, these people don't know what they are talking about. I can't tell you that in public, and then point out, for example, that the studies for global warming don't take into account cloud cover, when today they take the temperature reading. That was given to me by someone very high up in the government, who is afraid to say that publicly, during the Clinton Administration.
It also doesn't take into account sun spots. Oh, sun spots in cloud cover don't have anything to do with a temperature on a day. It doesn't take into consideration the amount of cement that happens to have been built up in an area that is now urban, where 100 years ago, the temperature that was taken was taken in an area that had yet to be developed.
All of these studies that suggest that they can prove global warming have enormous flaws. The water temperature, for example, of the ocean isn't taken into account. When talking about the temperatures that were taken by ship captains years ago—however ship captains took the temperature—are now being taken by satellites.
Page 670 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
For example, we have heard all about the ice cap that—that is the latest trend—is melting. Well, there was—just 2 days ago, there was a report issued from Canada that said the ice caps are not melting. In fact, the ice caps are as thick as they have ever been and that all of these other reports are just so much gobbley gook or, as I say, bologna.
Now, what is happening is there may be some little bit of warming going on and I have concluded that is impossible. It is possible that, yes, the glaciers are receding, as they have probably done 20 times over the history of this planet, back and forth. Even before mankind existed, the glaciers went back and forth. There were ice ages and there were little warmer areas. And, yes, the glaciers, guess what, have been receding for the last about 500 years. That was before mankind got into this big industrialization that supposedly has caused global warming.
Using the reports that we have, the supposed pseudo scientific reports that we have got, to prove a point about global warming and then using that has a hammer to put draconian ''reforms'' on the American people is an obscene attack on the standard of living of the American people and the worst hurt will be on the poorest of the American people, of course. What we have got here is a situation where China and other countries are exempt and we are called the world's—by the way, to show how cockamamie this idea is, even here, today, we have heard that the United States is the world's worst polluter. Give me a break.
Now, you measure pollution, CO2 is the only pollutant. Well, the bottom line is that the United States produces less CO2 per unit of wealth than any country of the world, any country of the world.
Page 671 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would ask permission for one additional minute.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Let me just say that the standard of living has to come down. What they are judging when they say the world—that we are the world's worst polluter—is that they judge CO2 emissions by population, which is ridiculous. We shouldn't be attacking the standard of living of the American people, which is exactly what is happening here. If people get their way on the other side, the poor in our country will be the worst hurt by this cockamamie idea of global warming, and I would suggest that we reject this amendment wholeheartedly. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the sake of time, let me just say, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a farsighted, intelligent amendment. When the Chairman and I met with Chancellor Schroder the other day, he spent a good deal of his time on this issue. As to all of our friends and allies in the developed world, we are totally out of step, as we walk away from Kyoto. We should support this amendment.
I yield the balance of my time.
Page 672 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The Chair yields himself 2 minutes and states that he opposes this amendment. I do not doubt the environmental concerns are real and deserve study. We have not had any hearings on this. This is very important and should not be trivialized, in the sense that we just take a look at it and react emotionally.
The Kyoto treaty is an important document that has been rejected in the Senate by a sense of the Senate vote. It has never been submitted for ratification. And so to implement the treaty through the passage of this amendment, it seems to me is getting ahead of ourselves.
The Kyoto protocol exempts 130 nations, including China and other of the world's greatest polluters. And I don't say we should do nothing, but I do say that we should make a judgment on this issue after hearings. And the jurisdiction doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the Committee on Science and Technology.
So, I just think this is misplaced and ill-advised. The people, who hate nuclear, hate fossil fuel. And I would hate to reduce America to the level of the Amazon. So, we ought to study this and study it by the Committee of jurisdiction.
I yield back and the question is on the amendment. All those in favor—no, the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Page 673 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes no. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Page 674 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Houghton?
[No response.]
Page 675 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey?
Mr. COOKSEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes no. Mr. Tancredo?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts?
Page 676 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. PITTS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes no. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Cantor?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes no. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes no. Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes no. Mr. Lantos?
Page 677 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Page 678 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes. Ms. McKinney?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes. Mr. Hastings?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes. Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Aye.
Page 679 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt votes yes. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes. Mr. Blumenauer?
Page 680 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley votes yes. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes yes. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Mr. Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Cantor votes no.
Page 681 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Burton votes no.
Ms. BLOOMER. Burton votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted, who wish?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Sorry, Mr. Burton, yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Votes no. Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no. Mr. Tancredo?
Page 682 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Engel?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Page 683 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 23 ayes and 20 no.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley.
[Applause.]
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. As soon as the tumultuous applause subsides, we will get to your amendment. The clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Crowley, after section 737, insert the following new section, section 738.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with and Mr. Crowley is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I would like to call your attention to an issue that is of great importance to me and to the members of my constituency. In 1998, the Irish, British, and U.S. Governments, for unionists and nationals from all traditions together, signed the historic Good Friday agreement. After generations of bloodshed, the parties involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland came together as one voice, to say that the cycle of violence will never bring a lasting peace. Ninety-five percent of the electorate in the Republic of Ireland and 71 percent in Northern Ireland voted in favor of revisions outlined in this agreement.
Page 684 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The Good Friday agreement laid the foundation for fair and equitable democratic institutions to be established throughout the north of Ireland. One such institution is the North-South Ministerial Counsel. This body was created to bring together those with executive responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, to discuss matters of mutual interest on a cross border, all island basis.
The Northern Ireland side of this body is comprised of four parties that make up the Northern Ireland executive: the Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labor Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, and Sinn Fein. Each of these four parties has selected their respective ministers to participate in the North-South Ministerial Counsel, in accordance with the terms of the Good Friday agreement. Unfortunately, First Minister David Trimble unilaterally excluded Sinn Fein ministers Martin McGuinness and Barbara DeBruin from these meetings, putting the integrity of the North-South body in jeopardy.
Mr. Chairman, if I may use as an example the action taken by Mr. Trimble is no different than if you decided one day to prohibit the Members to your left from attending International Relations Committee meetings, no matter how appetizing that may be for you to do. We all know that you would never take such action, but the point is quite clear.
On January 30, 2001, the Belfast high court ruled that First Minister David Trimble had acted illegally in preventing the Sinn Fein ministers from attending the North-South meetings.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order.
Page 685 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will be in order. We don't have very much to go, so let us please attend to the proceedings.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. Thank you, Member and Chairman. Thank you.
It troubles me to report that Mr. McGuinness and Ms. DeBruin continue to be excluded in defiance to the Belfast high court and the Good Friday agreement. This should not be an issue of participation in the political party. This should not be an issue of religious affiliation, nor should this be an issue of unionists versus nationalists. This is an issue of doing what is right for the people of Northern Ireland.
This amendment calls upon First Minister David Trimble to lift the ban on Sinn Fein ministers and allow Mr. McGuinness and Ms. DeBruin to take their rightful place in the North-South Ministerial Counsel. In the interest of keeping the prospects of peace alive in Northern Ireland, I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment. And, Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield whatever remaining time I have to the former Chair of the Committee, Mr. Gilman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman from New York. I am pleased to support Mr. Crowley's timely and important amendment on Northern Ireland. His proposal goes to the very heart of the peace process and its very integrity. It is worthy of our support in lifting the ban on the participation of Sinn Fein ministers in the North-South Ministerial Counsil.
Page 686 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The unionist's First Minister's arbitrary and unlawful exclusion of Sinn Fein, the second largest Catholic nationalist party in Northern Ireland, from the North-South governing bodies representing the all Ireland dimension of the Good Friday settlement is wrong. There is serious damage to the peace process in Ireland. It is corrosive. The high court of justice in Belfast recently found this arbitrary exclusion of Sinn Fein totally unlawful, saying that the exclusion, I quote, ''will at least inhibit, if not frustrate another objective, effective North-South Counsil meetings.''
The exclusion is both illegal and bad policy, since it is frustrating an already difficult situation. One would have to be totally ignorant of the Good Friday accord to endorse or support that exclusion position. The nationalists community, which has long sought a united Ireland, accepted the accord's shared governance, including those North-South ministerial bodies as a compromise. Now, they are being arbitrarily excluded from the very institutions that are a key part of the accord and settlement. It ought not to stand.
The unionists forever use the old arms issue Canard as a straw man to block progress on many agreed upon fronts, in order to hold on to the majority status quo, which, today, is still theirs. The IRA can and will verifiably put arms beyond use; in other words, it will cement them over, for example. They have already had the international observers look at their arms dumps and verify that they are still intact. Unionists know these limits on the surrender of IRA arms and the two governments in the region know it equally well.
So let's get on with the implementation of all of the terms of Good Friday accord, not solely linking arms with those North-South bodies, and using the arms surrender question to illegally exclude Sinn Fein is certainly bad policy and very disruptive of the entire process. It is all disingenuous and has been ruled illegal by the courts in Northern Ireland.
Page 687 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Crowley amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the Crowley amendment. All those in favor, say ''aye.''
[Ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Oppose, ''nay.''
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments to title VII? Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I call up my amendment number 027.
Chairman HYDE. Excuse me for a second. All right. The clerk will designate title VIII.
Page 688 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. BLOOMER. Title VIII, security assistance.
Chairman HYDE. Now, Mr. Engel has been recognized for purposes of an amendment under title VIII. The clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Engel, at the end of title VIII, relating to miscellaneous provisions, insert the following.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Mr. Engel is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Committee has long taken an interest in the United States policy toward Cyprus. During my previous tenure on this Committee, the Committee passed two measures I authored: one directing the State Department to investigate missing Americans on Cyprus; and another urging the demilitarization of the island. We also considered and passed other important legislation on the issue.
Turkey invaded the island almost 27 years ago, yet, still the occupation continues. The U.S. has played a significant role in the efforts to negotiate a resolution to the longstanding Cyprus conflict over the years. Yet, our efforts, to date, have not produced lasting results.
All involved with the process recognize that one party to a seemingly endless negotiations has been stonewalling the talks, and that party is the Turkish Cypriots led by Rauf Denktash. Several years ago, Congress passed legislation directing the President to report to Congress on efforts to achieve a Cyprus statement. According to the law, and I quote,
Page 689 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
''Because progress toward a Cyprus settlement is a high priority of the U.S., the President and the Congress shall continually review that progress and shall determine U.S. policy in the region accordingly. To facilitate such a review, the President shall transmit to Congress every 2 months a report on progress made toward the conclusion of a negotiated solution of the Cyprus problem.''
These reports were intended to be a serious effort by Congress to engage the executive branch on U.S. policy toward Cyprus. Unfortunately, if one reads the reports, as written during the Clinton Administration and now under the Bush Administration, it would seem that they have become almost totally separated from the reality of the Cyprus negotiations. The reports do not discuss the lack of progress in the negotiations, nor do they name Mr. Denktash as the main stumbling block to progress.
In his last report, President Clinton merely talked about a series of meetings he and other U.S. officials held with regional leaders, mentioned continued support for U.N. sponsored proximity talks, and even claimed that there has been a qualitative step forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the transmittal letter be placed in the record.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection.
[The attachment to Mr. Engel's statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Page 690 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
IN SUPPORT OF THE MANAGER'S EN BLOC AMENDMENT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manager's en bloc amendment. I would like to extend my thanks to you and to our ranking member, Mr. Lantos, for incorporating my three amendments into the en bloc amendment. Having just returned to the Committee, it is a pleasure to be working with you on these important foreign policy issues and to have done so in such a cooperative manner.
The first of my amendments relates to elections in Kosova. As you are aware, Kosova-wide elections are expected later this year. These elections are a critical element in restoring stability to the region. As long as we are going to ask the Kosovars to take responsibility for their lives and for some of the problems in their community, we must give them the authority to do so. This amendment offers strong support for holding elections this year and for transferring real authority so that the people can govern themselves, as envisioned under Security Council Resolution 1244. Because it appears likely that the minority Serb community may not participate in the elections, the amendment also makes a special appeal for all citizens of Kosova, regardless of ethnicity, to take part. Only through the democratic process will stability return to the Balkans.
My second amendment also affects the Balkan region. This amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that Radio Free Europe should begin local programming in the Macedonian language in Macedonia. Due to the threat to regional security posed by the current crisis in Macedonia, I believe that the United States government should do all it can to help all citizens of Macedonia have access to unbiased local, regional, and domestic news service. RFE recently expanded its programming in the Albanian language in several areas of Macedonia, including Skopje and Tetovo. It should do so as well in the Macedonian language.
Page 691 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
While on the subject of Macedonia, I am pleased that President Bush is meeting today with Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski. I have strongly opposed the militant violence in Macedonia and condemn the recent killing of eight Macedonian security personnel. I am equally outraged by the attacks on Albanian shops and cafes yesterday in Skopje. However, the best way to undercut the militants, boost the legitimate elected Albanian politicians, and restore stability to the region is to address the very serious concerns raised by the Albanians of Macedonia.
Finally, my third amendment reaffirms the United States' commitment to pressing the International Red Cross Movement to recognize the Magen David Adom Society, the Israeli counterpart to the American Red Cross, and grant it full membership. Prior to the recent Palestinian uprising, it appeared that this issue was proceeding toward resolution. Yet, even though former Israeli Prime Minister Barak went the extra mile at Camp David in his peace proposal, the renewed Intifada has now halted all progress. We must no longer allow Yasir Arafat to hold MDA hostage to the violence of his regime.
It is long past the time to rectify this injustice imposed upon the Magen David Adom Society. My amendment calls upon the ICRC to recognize the MDA and grant it full membership immediately. If the International Red Cross Movement does not recognize and grant the MDA full membership soon, I believe that Congress should consider additional action, including looking to the United States' contributions to the International Red Cross Movement as a potential means of leverage.
Finally, I would like to thank my Subcommittee Chairs and Ranking Members for their help on this legislation. In particular, I extend my appreciation to Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Hastings on the Europe Subcommittee and Mr. Gilman and Mr. Ackerman on the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee.
Page 692 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I urge my colleagues to support the Manager's en bloc amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. With all due respect, this report did not discuss the reality of the Cyprus situation, not only that the talks stuck, just as they have been for almost 27 years, but the report does not single out the source of the problem, the Turkish Cypriot leader.
As weak as the previous Administration's reports were, President Bush's most recent report is even worse. I will now read the letter submitted accompanying the report.
''Dear Mr. Speaker, in accordance with public law, I submit to you this report on progress toward a negotiated settlement of the Cyprus question, covering the period February 1 through March 31, 2001. The previous submission covered events during December 2000 and January 2001. The U.N. continued in its efforts to sustain the proximity talks that started in December 1999. The United States remains committed to a U.N. effort to find a just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem. Sincerely, George W. Bush.''
No mention is made in the transmittal letter of the need to achieve a solution, based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation, as is consistently been executive branch practice. The report the Administration has just submitted is not useful, as it substantially sidesteps Congress's intent, in trying to help create a United American stance in policymaking toward Cyprus.
Because I happen to take this reporting requirement quite seriously, I have written an amendment, which would clarify what the President should be placing in his report to Congress. While I will withdraw this amendment with unanimous consent, I would like to read the addition it would make to the reporting requirement. I hope if the State Department receives this message, that restoration of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus, in a bizonal, bicommunal federation, with a single sovereignty, as specified by the Security Council, is of the highest importance to Congress and that our reporting requirements must be followed in both letter and spirit.
Page 693 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
My amendment would add to the reporting requirement, ''a description of the willingness of the parties to the dispute, to engage in a negotiating process. If there has been a lack of progress in negotiations, a detailed description of the reasons therefore and the United States' plan for encouraging any recalcitrant party to the dispute, to engage more cooperatively in the negotiations.''
In the future, it is my hope that subsequent presidential reports on Cyprus will offer a real appraisal of the Cyprus talks, an explanation, if there has been a lack of progress, and a proposal as to how to encourage more cooperation at the bargaining table. Mr. Chairman, I ask you unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Flake, to strike the last word.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for the work that you have done on strengthening the munitions licensing process. I want to move a bit further in this regard. I have introduced a free-standing bill to do this and I would just like to introduce a statement for the record, in that regard, without objection.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the gentleman's statement will appear at the record, at this point.
[The attachment to Mr. Flake's statement follows:]
Page 694 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFF FLAKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Experts from both ends of the political spectrum agree that our nation's export control regime is obsolete and ineffective. Despite its supposed objective of protecting America's national security and technological advantage, it usually only makes the lives of those attempting to engage in international commerce difficult and perplexing. President Bush has stated that repairing the nation's export control licensing system is a top priority, and I congratulate Chairman Hyde and the members of his staff for including language in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act improving the Congressional notification thresholds for allied countries. These dollar amounts have not been updated since 1981, and it is only logical that they be modified to reflect the pace of inflation. Raising the monetary thresholds on transactions requiring Congressional notification will streamline and ease the export process on many transactions by U.S. companies doing business internationally.
While this improvement to the export control regime is laudable, I am about to introduce legislation that will move the debate forward even further. It is my hope that the introduction of this legislation will set a benchmark for our export control licensing system, and will encourage my colleagues on the International Relations Committee to work with me on this issue that is of vital importance to our nation's economy. My bill, the International Commerce Enhancement Act, includes three major modifications to the Arms Export Control Act.
The first section of the bill increases dollar amounts for transactions that require Congressional notification. The Arms Export Control Act requires the President to notify Congress of all proposed exports of major defense equipment valued at more than $14 million and exports of defense articles and services exceeding $50 million. These amounts have not been adjusted since 1981, in spite of inflation and the fact that, as weapon systems have become more complex, their unit costs have risen. An increase in threshold amounts is a logical change to current law. My bill goes a step further than the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, as it raises the thresholds not only for ''NATO-plus'' countries, but for all of the United States' trading partners.
Page 695 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The second section of the bill eliminates formal Congressional notification for ''NATO-plus'' countries in order to facilitate transfers to countries that are close allies of the United States. The State Department and Pentagon will still need to grant approval for an export license, and an informal Congressional notification will still be referred to the House International Relations Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Formal notification is a step that can be removed without adversely impacting the oversight of the relevant Congressional committees.
The third and final section of my bill removes the required existence of signed contracts for commercial sales in order to achieve Congressional notification. Current law requires a contract for commercial sales before Congressional notification of a defense export. Many countries object to going through a contract negotiation without a guarantee that an export license will be approved. The bill gives the State Department the flexibility to permit exporters and their customers to submit approval for licenses at an advanced stage of negotiations, but not necessarily when a signed contract is in hand. If there are significant alterations to the sale after the original notification, approval would have to be resubmitted to Congress. This option is not for contractors to ''test the waters'' on the likelihood of license approval. Due to the lengthy and sometimes-arduous process involved in obtaining Congressional approval, the parties involved are not likely to request Congressional notification unless they are at an advanced stage of negotiations.
In order to permit U.S. companies and technology to survive in today's global economy, our export control system must effectively protect our nation's national security, but not to the point of weakening the industry upon which U.S. military-technological supremacy depends. I look forward to collaborating with the members of the Committee as we work toward much-needed reforms of the export control system.
Page 696 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman. The clerk will designate a new title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Berman, page 118, add the following——
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Have you designated a new title?
Ms. BLOOMER. I have not, sir. Title IX, additional provisions.
Chairman HYDE. Are there any amendments——
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Yes, ma'am, just a moment. Are there any amendments? Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes. Is there a point of order on the title?
Chairman HYDE. Not yet.
Page 697 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. BERMAN. I have an amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Your certificate of election is under scrutiny, but——
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Just anything after your name.
Chairman HYDE. All right. Let us, please——
Mr. BERMAN. Not anything.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Not everything; not everything.
Chairman HYDE [continuing]. We are trembling on the brink of finishing this bill, so——
Mr. BERMAN. You are putting a lot of pressure on me, Mr. Chairman, but I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. Very well, to title IX. And you have designated title IX?
Ms. BLOOMER. Yes, sir.
Chairman HYDE. Very well. The gentleman—the clerk will report the amendment.
Page 698 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady reserves her point of order.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Berman, page 118, add the following after line——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed with. Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have some comments I want to make on this and I may seek your indulgence to add one or two additional minutes to my time.
My amendment would end existing travel restrictions on American citizens that have been imposed under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Those restrictions—in a law, which is no longer operational, except for the countries that are grandfathered in, that would mean that this would end travel restrictions that now exist in two countries: Cuba and North Korea; only those countries, in the amendment, in this form.
I believe that these travel restrictions are totally inconsistent with one of the primary goals of U.S. foreign policy, which is the goal of spreading democracy, regard for human rights, and the rule of law. I also believe they are an infringement of our fundamental constitutional rights.
Page 699 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Even during the darkest days of the cold war, we never sought to prevent U.S. citizens from traveling to the Soviet Union. That is because we recognized the power of American ideas, to bring about political, social, and economic change. We saw the impact with the fall of the Berlin wall and the dramatic collapse of communism.
We talk a lot in this Committee about the importance of spreading the gospel of democracy and human rights in authoritarian countries around the world. We promote that in this bill, through international broadcasting, cultural exchanges, and other public diplomacy programs. I believe these official programs are very important and I strongly support them; but, they are no substitute for private, informal people-to-people interactions. The American people, not the government, are the best advocates for American values.
I know that some of my colleagues are concerned that allowing Americans to travel to Cuba would put money in the hands of Fidel Castro. I know there is this debate out there, some people, even in the House, have a view of Castro that I think is romanticized, to some extent. He is trying to bring progress and good education and health care for the people and the revolution has accomplished certain things. I am in the category of people, who think that Castro is a totalitarian dictator, who has killed political prisoners, who has repressed political rights, who has fought against free elections and free press, and deserves our strongest condemnation for his repression of the Cuban people. I supported the gentlelady from Florida's resolution, on the deplorable human rights situation in Cuba.
Having said that, I believe that our interest in depriving Castro regime of financial resources, to the extent that this amendment, I believe, in a relatively modest fashion, would loosen that restriction, is far outweighed by our interest in accelerating the spread of democratic ideas and information, supporting the development of a healthy civil society.
Page 700 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
What is more, all sorts of important activities we seek to promote can take place under the guise of ordinary travel, even tourism. The more American travelers there are, the harder it is for repressive governments like Castro's, to keep track of and prevent those activities.
It is important to note that our laws do not restrict Americans from travel to countries that pose some of the world's most repugnant regimes, including Sudan, Afghanistan, Burma, and Iran. Travel restrictions are not only contrary to our foreign policy interest, they are also a disturbing infringement on the fundamental constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech and association.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BERMAN. Could I finish and then I——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Mr. BERMAN [continuing]. Would be happy to? I really would. I encourage the debate.
The law is sort of riddled with a number of my amendments in this area already. But, the Supreme Court, I think most eloquently recognized, that the right to travel is protected under the fifth amendment, as a liberty that cannot be deprived without due process of law. In Kent v. Dallas, the court held that freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. Even when the court has upheld these currency restrictions, they have done so reluctantly, based on weightiest considerations of national security. I, frankly, don't think that test can be met in the present situation and under the present circumstances in the post-cold war world.
Page 701 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, I guess my appeal to you is that I know the politics of this and I understand and share the feelings regarding Castro and Cuba; but, isn't the essence of big brother, the notion that some office of foreign assets control in the Department of Treasury will now review your reason and your motivation for deciding to go down to Cuba, to see if it fits within what terms? This is a level of regulatory activity on individual choice and individual decisions that I think really has no place in the American government and I——
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. I would ask unanimous consent for three additional minutes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. BERMAN. By the way, an amendment was passed in 1994 and is now the law and it prohibits any future economic embargo from us ever providing this kind of currency restriction. As I mentioned, we embargoed Iran, but there is no effort to restrict American's right to travel there. The same thing applies in Sudan and with a lot of the sanctions in Afghanistan and in Burma. We recognized in law that this should no longer be the power of the government.
We have grandfathered in a couple of situations, at that time, and I suggest it is time to revisit that grandfather, both on the grounds of American liberties and on the grounds of our interests of ultimately destablizing the current regime and the current leader. If there is one thing we know, is that current policy toward Cuba has been in place for 40 years. And I think the guy, who it was designed to overthrow, is still there and I don't think there is any other country in the world that has a leader, who has been on top for that long. It hasn't worked.
Page 702 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
So, this bill doesn't touch the embargo. It just deals with the incidental right to travel. And I think I will close my comments at this particular point and yield, if the gentleman wishes, the gentleman from California, my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Shouldn't we require of Castro, before we commit this act and give him this gift of what he would like? I mean, he will think this is some positive step. Shouldn't he be required to have a positive step? You know, maybe shave his beard or release all his political prisoners or something like that?
Mr. BERMAN. If I were doing this to provide a gift to Castro, then I would think it would be nice to get a little gift in return. My motivation is twofold. One, it is based on this restriction on the American citizens ability to travel where he wants; and, secondly, because I really believe that this will destablize and undermine Castro's regime. So, I don't think of this as a gift.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time——
Mr. BERMAN. If it is a gift, it is a gift of thorns.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has long since expired. Now, technically, we should go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to ask her if she still persists in her point of order. But, Mr. Smith, who I am happy to welcome to the Committee, wants to be heard on this. And so, extraordinary as it may be, the gentleman is recognized for a reasonably brief time.
Page 703 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute. I have a substitute for the Berman amendment.
Chairman HYDE. You are not offering that, are you?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I am not offering that substitute, but I would——
Chairman HYDE. Because you are not recognized for that.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I am not offering that substitute, but I would like the opportunity to comment on my substitute motion because I think it is an area that we need to address.
Chairman HYDE. Proceed.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. The substitute motion would have opened travel for the scientific community. We have already started to do that to some extent, but in our efforts to move ahead with more travel, we should start maybe with one step at a time rather than all at once.
I see travel being denied both ways. I see the United States denying visas for certain scientists attending scientific meetings and conferences in the United States, and also the United States is refusing licensing to certain scientists in a couple of the scientific fields, refusing licensing for those scientists to go into Cuba.
Page 704 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
One of the affected fields is biotechnology. Cuba probably ranks in the top 10 nations in the world as far as their progress in biotechnology areas, so some of our old regulations I think do not apply.
When we consider what can be achieved in terms of scientific evolution that can improve human health not only in the United States and Cuba, but throughout the world, I think that door needs to eventually be opened a little more than it currently is.
Let me just conclude by saying that I visited Cuba a couple weeks ago looking at new proposals for allowing food sales to that country. I think the potential is there to move ahead. It depends where we go in this Administration in terms of the licensing provisions, but they have a great need for food in that country, while we have an interest in not allowing the rest of the world to take advantage by supplying Cuba with their particular food needs.
In effect, food, like money, is somewhat fungible, so we export to Europe and Canada, and then they export those commodities that might even be grown in their country into Cuba. It is something that needs serious consideration.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida. Does she persist in her point of order?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my premature reservation. It is a common dysfunction suffered by many Cuban-Americans. Maybe I will team up with Bob Dole, and we can do TV ads together.
Page 705 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Okay.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I believe that the amendment is not germane. It deals with authorities not contained in the bill.
Chairman HYDE. Does anybody else wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes. I would like to see if I can persuade you to rule the dysfunctional point of order out.
Chairman HYDE. What are you offering?
Mr. BERMAN. In this Committee on five separate occasions I have introduced a free trade and ideas bill, which as its primary purpose removed the currency restrictions authority contained in TWEA and IEEPA and other legislative efforts, TWEA being the Trading with the Enemy Act and IEEPA being the International Economic Emergency Powers Act.
Each time that bill was assigned to the Committee and only to this Committee, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of Treasury, as delegated by the President, has authority to enforce these currency restrictions. The parliamentarian and the leader each time referred that bill to this Committee and only this Committee.
Page 706 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The bill we are legislating on, the State Department authorization bill, has at least 15 separate statutes that it seeks to amend. I believe that restricting me from seeking to amend a law clearly in the jurisdiction of this Committee in this bill, while we are already amending 15 others, is a selective form of discrimination here, and I would ask you to let this issue pass or fail on its merits.
This bill already has provisions that affect the Secretary of the Treasury's authorities, sections 337 and 844. In other words, in the bill we are now marking up the Treasury Secretary's authorities are already impacted, and it makes no sense to establish a bright line on foreign policy issues between the authorities of the State and Treasury Departments. They share responsibilities in a number of critical foreign policy areas; counter narcotics, counter proliferation.
In the context of travel restrictions, the Secretary of State has statutory authority for imposing travel restrictions under the Passport Act, while the Secretary of Treasury has been delegated by the President, not by statute, with the authority to enforce the restrictions on travel related transactions.
For all these reasons I believe this amendment is germane, and I hope you rule it in order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman?
Page 707 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Delahunt.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. May I inquire of the proponent of the amendment? Does the amendment remove the licensing requirements promulgated, administered by the Department of Treasury?
Mr. BERMAN. The amendment in its current form, yes. The amendment seeks to amend the Trading with the Enemy Act, which is within the jurisdiction of this Committee, which gives the President the power to impose currency restrictions on U.S. dollars spent in certain countries, which power the President has delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury. It eliminates that power.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I would suggest that if that is the gravamen of the gentleman's amendment, then the point of order should not lie, and I particularly want to support the gentleman's amendment because for the reasons that he has articulated I think it makes eminently good sense, and it protects American constitutional rights in terms of foreign travel.
I respectfully suggest that the point of order should not lie.
Chairman HYDE. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order?
Page 708 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentlelady makes a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. Parenthetically, the Chair would like to say because a subject matter is within the jurisdiction of this Committee it does not mean it is germane to this particular bill. I heard from many Members in support of the amendment that such and such an act is within the jurisdiction of this Committee. That is certainly true, but we are talking about germaneness to this particular bill.
The fundamental purpose of the bill is to provide authorization for the activities of the Department of State and its employees, including, but not limited to, the Secretary of State. The amendment has several fundamental purposes with the common thread being the President's authority to restrict travel and the amendments to the laws under which he exercises that authority.
The laws contained in the amendment are not addressed in the underlying bill. Since in the opinion of the Chair these activities do not relate to the authorities contained in the bill, the amendment is not germane, and the point of order is sustained.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Bereuter to strike the last word.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was my motion.
I regret that my responsibilities over at Financial Services kept me from being an active participant in this markup, but I do have two issues that I would like to raise as concerns of mine, perhaps in light of the possibility I may need to take these up on the Floor. I did want to serve notice that I have concerns in two areas.
Page 709 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
With respect to en bloc amendment item No. 16, inserting a new section in title 7 sent to Congress related to broadcasting the Macedonian language by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, I know the Administration has split views on this issue. I am not quite sure what the implications are on that issue, and I wanted to voice my concerns about that at this point.
Before I do anything I will consult, obviously, with the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and Mr. Engel, who I think has a particular interest in this, but I did want to raise this as an undetermined concern. In light of the visit today with President Bush of the President of Macedonia I think it is a particularly sensitive issue.
Second and finally, with respect to section 108, Migration and Refugee Assistance, it strikes me that the authorization level of $817 million is a dramatic increase over the existing request of the Administration and over the existing funding level. In light of reduced demand, or I will say, at least as a result of reduced refugee flows the last few years, it seems to me exceedingly high. I offer it as a concern so as not to surprise any Members on this issue.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California strikes the last word.
Page 710 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, as we are about to conclude our work, may I express on our behalf on this side of the aisle our tremendously sincere appreciation for the manner in which you have conducted the first markup of the Committee under your leadership.
You have done it with your customary wit and wisdom and warmth for which we are most grateful, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in giving the Chairman a hand.
[Applause.]
Chairman HYDE. The Chair is prepared to yield to the gentleman such time as he wishes. I sense he was just warming up. [Laughter.]
The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Burton?
Ms. BERKLEY. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you. It will not take quite that long.
Included in the managers' amendment is the return of portraits painted by Dina Babbit at Auschwitz. I am very grateful that the Chairman and the Ranking Member agreed to include this very important and non-controversial provision relating to this amazing woman.
Page 711 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I would request that I make my statement a part of the record and expand it.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Berkley follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
I would like to express my support for this manager's amendment, and thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for agreeing to include a very important, non-controversial provision relating to an amazing woman, Dina Babbitt. I know that the honorable Ranking Member and his wife have heard first hand Dina's story, and I can't thank him enough for his leadership on the issue.
At the age of 20, Ms. Babbitt was interned at the Auschwitz death camp for a year and a half. Even as a young woman, Dina Babbitt had a remarkable talent as a portrait artist. She was forced to paint the portraits of other prisoners at Auschwitz by the infamous war criminal Josef Mengele, who selected her subjects. When she completed the painting, Mengele would kill the prisoner. It was solely her artistic ability that saved both herand her mother from certain death in the gas chambers. When she was liberated from Auschwitz she fled, obviously without her portraits. For the last 30 years, Dina Babbitt has desired only one thing. She wants her paintings back. She has worked through official channels for more than 20 years to retrieve the seven original water colors bearing her signature. These are the paintings that saved her life and her mother's life. They represent a legacy of survival for her family, a family which would not exist but for her artistic ability.
Page 712 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The resolution included in the manager's amendment simply recognizes the moral right of Dina Babbitt as the owner of her own artwork, recognizes her true courage in the face of unspeakable evil, and calls on the President, the Secretary of State, the Government of Poland, and the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum to facilitate the transfer of these works of art to their rightful owner.
Dina has been denied what is rightfully and morally hers for too long, and it is time to help heal the pain and suffering she endured during her Auschwitz internment by returning her portraits to her.
Dina Babbitt has exhausted all avenues to gain justice. She has been told ''no'' at every turn. Now, facing advancing years and health problems, I am elated that Congress is helping her win justice.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection. So ordered.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 1646, favorably as amended.
All in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Page 713 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, no.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it, and the motion reports favorably and is adopted without objection. The Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House Rule 20.
Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and without objection the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule I request the normal time in which to file additional views to report on the bill just completed.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chairman thanks the Committee and says you are every bit as good as the Judiciary Committee.
Page 714 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:14 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
MARCH 7, 2001 HEARING—COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Secretary, I welcome you in your first appearance before the Committee as Secretary of State and extend my hearty congratulations on your nomination and confirmation. Given your outstanding military career including service as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, your appointment to serve as Secretary of State sends an important signal about the Bush Administration's commitment to making foreign policy a highly visible and serious part of its overall agenda.
Mr. Secretary, it has been reported that you view diplomacy as America's first line of defense. I certainly agree with you. Our presence overseas sends the most direct impression of who we as a nation are and of what we embrace as our foreign policy goals to those nations with whom we have diplomatic ties.
Page 715 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The Bush Administration's proposed 5% increase in funding for the State Department is encouraging—mildly so—and especially necessary are the increases in the areas of embassy security and telecommunications which I will address later. I read in one account your comments that the Department needs a ''steep increase'' in funding and that you ''will be back' to get funding for specific programs. I hope you will, Mr. Secretary, while of course I will look at the details, I would expect to strenuously support your request for additional funding. Also, Mr. Secretary, I am very interested in your comments on your assessments of the Department's funding and reform needs beyond the resources proposed in this budget.
As I mentioned earlier, I am pleased that the Administration's proposal includes $1.3 billion for embassy security—an increase of $500 million—which would provide for ''the construction of new secure facilities'' for our men and women overseas. Through my responsibilities as a member of the International Relations Committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and a member of the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with many outstanding Foreign Service Officers and civil servants serving in our overseas embassies and consulates. Their dedication to representing U.S. national interests is almost always noticeably impressive and inspiring. I feel very strongly that Congress and the American people must in turn remain dedicated to supporting their effort by providing the necessary resources to provide for their effectiveness and security.
Mr. Secretary, in your confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you indicated that you have directed ''an independent assessment'' of how to address the embassy security issue, including embassy construction. Any comments you have on the findings of this assessment are welcome.
Page 716 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
As you are certainly aware, several other published reports have outlined, among many other items, the dire need to update, for the benefit of embassy security, the State Department's physical plants overseas. The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP) Report, chaired by Lewis Kaden, and the Carlucci Report contain recommendations which would completely overhaul the embassy construction and management system.
Mr. Secretary, for the record, since you are very aware of this situation, the Foreign Buildings Office (FBO) currently constructs and manages all overseas State Department facilities—non-residential and residential. For a whole variety of reasons, it often takes literally a great many years, even a decade or more, to work through the priority systems and the labyrinth of bureaucracy associated with constructing a new embassy. In part, the potential solution to this problem is stymied by the scoring rules imposed by OMB, re-enforced by congressional budgeting practices, that require all the costs of construction or lease purchase be scored in the first year. This makes it extremely difficult to secure the necessary appropriations in a timely fashion. It also costs taxpayers millions of additional dollars by forcing the Department to rely on short-term lease arrangements which are far more expensive in the long run than either lease/purchase or sale/leaseback. Recently, I have tried unsuccessfully, to change this situation, but I am committed to making this change.
Mr. Secretary, as you are aware, the OPAP, or the Kaden Report, and Carlucci Report both propose an innovative approach to resolving the problem by establishing a performance-based government corporation (the Overseas Facility Authority (OFA) to replace FBO. These reports indicate that such a corporation should have the ability to use the full range of financial tools and receive funds from rents, appropriations, asset sales, forward-funding commitments, Treasury loans, and retained service fee revenues. It should also have authority to engage in cost-effective financing alternatives such as lease/purchase and sale/leaseback.
Page 717 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The OPAP Report concludes that ''in order to undertake the sort of fundamental change in the funding and management of U.S. Government overseas assets, FBO should be replaced by an OFA with more authority, more flexibility, and increased participation by other U.S. Government agencies.'' Both the Carlucci and the OPAP reports make, I believe, compelling cases as to why a public corporation would be a more efficient and effective way of managing U.S. Government facilities overseas and of dealing with the urgent issue of making these facilities more secure.
Mr. Secretary, I would ask you to give the Bush Administration's stance on this issue, if not today, then as soon as possible. It seems to me that there would be many advantages to proceeding with the OPAP recommendation to replace FBO with a Federal government corporation. One of these advantages is that we will have secure embassies years earlier than would otherwise be the case. We have an impossible backlog of urgent construction or security upgrade requirements that is increasing in length every year. Mr. Secretary, we absolutely must make a fundamental change in the way the Department builds or retrofits its overseas facilities. We cannot continue on the current course. Therefore, I hope the State Department will continue to look at this excellent recommendation and then move expeditiously towards implementing the proposal. I would be pleased to assist in shepherding legislative initiatives to cut the backlog of embassy construction projects and I volunteer to assist. As you may recall, I pushed successfully, with the help of my colleagues, an initiative which fully authorized the amount for embassy and plant security outlined in the Crowe Report.
Mr. Secretary, of course I recognize that the effectiveness of operations in our embassies and consulates does not, however, rest solely on the conditions of the structures. Today's Foreign Service Officers must also have an effective communications systems. Several people, whose judgment I trust, have approached me with their concerns about the ability of officials overseas to electronically communicate with their co-workers in the U.S. and to conduct information gathering as a result of outdated computer hardware and software. This impossibly bad situation is very well documented. For the country which leads the world in information technology, it is embarrassing how poorly we have equipped our State Department to carry out its mission.
Page 718 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I understand that the Bush Administration's budget proposal includes a $200 million increase over last year's budget request in the area of computers and telecommunications. I would be interested in learning what part of the actual investment in new equipment needed that the $200 million constitutes.
Mr. Secretary, of course you have forcefully noted that it is not secure buildings and effective communications systems alone which will improve our overseas presence. Ultimately, it is the men and women serving as Foreign Service Officers and as civil servants who execute the Administration's policies. In recent years, I have heard reports that many employees, in both the Foreign Service and the civil service, feel too far removed from the overall mission of the Department. Your efforts to utilize the talents of Foreign Service Officers in a greater range of positions and your meeting with the civil servant community at the Department (a significant departure for a Secretary of State, I understand) are to be highly commended. These immediate outreach efforts certainly will bear fruit as you seek to make reforms. If you are ready to preliminarily discuss your intentions regarding the direction the Department will take under your guidance in the areas of recruiting and retaining capable, dedicated personnel in the long term, we are anxious to hear them at this time or when appropriate.
Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EARL F. HILLIARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Page 719 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The International Community faces unique challenges. Democratic ideals often emerge in times of peace and economic prosperity, however the challenge is to achieve the same objectives in a changing political landscape.
Newly independent regions have been left with little preparation and few resources to govern effectively and meet the needs of their population. Former colonial states still struggle to effectively compete and participate on an equal basis in the changing international marketplace.
The new backdrop of a global economy and sophisticated technology can aid as well hinder our goals. The effectiveness of traditional military strategy has decreased in this new setting. Civilians have increasingly become the targets of war, and soldiers are now asked to defend against obscure opponents during peacekeeping operations.
I am in agreement with the Secretary when he stated during his nomination hearing, ''The passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act was one of the most important measures that Congress considered last year''. Establishing a strong economic base and strengthening trade relations will have as much or even greater impact, than any diplomatic or military action the U.S. could initiate.
Once individuals have acquired the means to meet the basic necessities of life, they obtain the luxury of transcending the usual struggles faced by a majority of the world's population and can focus on expensive values such as freedom, equality and world peace. We, as Americans, take this for granted, yet enjoy this luxury in greater proportion than most. We have noble goals when we seek to give others the same privilege, but we must be respectful when we seek to accomplish this task
Page 720 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I look forward to hearing the Secretary's testimony and wish him success in transforming policy into a promising, and lasting reality.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Secretary, as Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee, I want to welcome you here today and to express our Subcommittee's interest and willingness to work with you and the Department on all issues relating to Europe. Your experience, expertise and management style will certainly serve the Department well.
I also want you to know that our Subcommittee has already had contact with Assistant Secretary Dobbins and the Europe Bureau and the response thus far has been very positive and helpful and we are appreciative of that.
Mr. Secretary, for more than a decade after the fall of the former Soviet Union and after the rejection of totalitarian political authority and closed economies, a significant part of the world has moved closer to the goals of freedom, democracy, market economies and a lessening of military conflict and competition. And yet, this country still needs to more clearly articulate the role the United States will play in a post-cold war world and how best this nation will use the political, military and economic power we enjoy. Your task will not be easy as you respond to the challenges presented to the United States every day. But I am confident you will be up to the task.
Page 721 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
With respect to Europe, I believe our policy will, of necessity, have to adjust to the changing times on that continent. We are seeing the expansion of a one-Europe initiative which is seeking respect as a major player in the international community and, I believe, an attempt to lessen overall U.S. dominance in the area. As a result we face many challenges such as the impact of E.U. enlargement; NATO expansion; the question of a missile defense system; the European Security and Defense Initiative and multiple trade disputes. These bi-lateral issues are not insurmountable but they are providing irritants in the trans-Atlantic relationship.
Beyond that, we must be vigilant in the Balkans. We must look to problems in the Aegean and the Caucasus and we must continue to promote the peace process in Northern Ireland. Finally, we must be steadfast in our approach to Russia so that we do not see a backward slide to a more authoritarian political structure in that great nation.
In sum, Mr. Secretary we have a full agenda and we wish you well in your role as our Chief diplomat.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Secretary Powell, I want to thank you for joining us today to frame for us the State Departments foreign policy agenda. While you were not able to meet with Congressman Leach and I prior to today's hearing, I want to let you know that I am encouraged by your comments, thus far, about the global AIDS crisis, particularly as this deadly disease is devastating Africa and look forward to meeting with you soon.
Page 722 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
In hearings last year, two things were made clear. One, AIDS is a crucial priority and two, the U.S.'s bilateral response does not go far enough.
As I reviewed the President's Budget Blue Print for FY01, there appears to be a commitment to increase bilateral spending efforts as a response to the global AIDS crisis. However, I remain dismayed that there is no mention of increasing our multilateral efforts as well.
1. Why was the multilateral strategy, the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund, not included in the budget blue print presented by the President?
2. In the President's Blue Print, there is not a funding request assigned to the AIDS crisis in Africa or globally. What level of funding should we expect from the Administration and the State Department? And, how can we ensure that neither agencies, regions of the world, or other global health programs will be traded off for one another in the year end negotiations?
3. Finally, what will the State Department do to provide badly needed life saving AIDS drugs to desperately ill people?
The previous Administration established a Bi-national Commission between the United States and South Africa. The commission was established because South Africa is one of the United States' most strategic allies on the continent, Thus, the commission plays a crucial role in further developing and maintaining the US's relationship with South Africa. Will the current administration retain the commission? What will the State Department do to support the commission's efforts?
Page 723 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
4. Jeffrey Schilling, a constituent from my district, has been held hostage by the Abu Sayef in the Philippines since last year. Reports indicate that he is now quite ill. Can you tell me what the State Department is doing to ascertain his condition? Is there more that can be done to obtain his release?
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC CANTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Chairman,
I would like to first welcome our distinguished witness, The Honorable Colin Powell. Secretary Powell is the right man at the right time to implement our nation's foreign policy. He set the right tone his first day on the job when he addressed the employees and said ''I'm not coming in just to be the foreign-policy adviser to the President, I'm coming in as the leader and manager of this department.''
Internal reform is just one of the many challenges facing Secretary Powell in the coming months and years. Another crucial issue that requires the Secretary's immediate attention is the instability in the Middle East. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary Powell stated that, ''we seek a lasting peace based on unshakeable support for the security of Israel . . .'' I applaud the Administration's notion of peace with security and for not adopting the previous Administration's position of peace at any cost. I believe that the Bush Administration and Secretary Powell are off on the right foot in dealing with the Middle East. Any peace deal must be agreed to by the Israelis and Palestinians, on their terms, not ours. Israel and her neighbors must work at their own pace and not be forced into an artificial time frame created by the United States.
Page 724 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Before any peace deal is discussed, the violence perpetrated by Yasser Arafat and his people must come to an end. Only then should Israel return to the peace table. I have been disappointed to read statements in the press blaming ''both sides'' for the current Palestinian violence against Israel, thereby equating Israeli self-defense measures with Palestinian terrorism.
I commend Secretary Powell and President Bush for taking a new regional approach to Middle East foreign policy. The Israel-Palestinian question is only one part of a bigger picture. The Bush Administration's policy of taking a comprehensive approach to stability and prosperity in this vitally important region of the world is a sound one. Syria and Iran are quickly becoming major threats to the region and U.S. policy to address this potential danger is essential.
Furthermore, I urge President Bush to direct the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Israel is the only country where we have an embassy that is not located in the capital, and moving the embassy would be the first step in the United States recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
I look forward to working with Secretary Powell on these issues and others. President Bush could not have picked a better person to lead American foreign policy in this new century. Once again, welcome and I look forward to hearing your testimony today. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Page 725 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
71262a.eps
71262b.eps
71262c.eps
71262d.eps
71262e.eps
71262f.eps
71262g.eps
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Question:
Is it a mistake to think that Prime Minister-Elect Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount sparked Palestinian violence?
Answer:
Page 726 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
We think it is incumbent upon all concerned parties to avoid actions that inflame the situation and create tension.
PA INVOLVEMENT IN VIOLENCE
Question:
Does the U.S. agree that official organs of the Palestinian Authority such as members of Arafat's Force 17 are engaged in terrorist attacks? Are the Fatah Tanzim also engaged in such acts? These incidents and the Minister's statement are a clear indication of the violations of the PLO commitment to ''renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of violence.'' What is the administration doing to raise these issues with the Palestinian Authority?
Answer:
Both sides have been called upon to respect the agreements they have signed. For the Palestinians, this includes implementing their commitment to renounce terrorism and violence, to exercise control over all elements of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, and to discipline violators. Since the violence broke out, elements of Fatah and members of the PA's security forces have instigated and participated in anti-Israeli violence. It is not clear, however, whether they acted with the approval of the PA or PLO senior leadership. We will continue to raise this issue with Chairman Arafat and encourage him to bring the violence under control.
SRI LANKA
Page 727 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
Recently, progress appears to have been made in Sri Lanka with regard to the tragic ethnic strife in that country. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have declared a unilateral cease-fire since December and, with the assistance of the Government of Norway, progress has been made to begin genuine negotiations and dialogue between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. Many of the underlying reasons for this ethnic strife are rooted in discriminatory practices, human rights violations, a weak judicial system, and generally poor rule of law practices in Sri Lanka. Accordingly, is the United States prepared to increase funding, through Economic Support Funds or Development Assistance resources, for the rule of law, good governance, and human rights programs in Sri Lanka as requested by Members of the International Relations Committee?
Answer:
The Administration agrees that use of foreign assistance funds to improve the climate of human rights, good governance and rule of law in Sri Lanka can make a significant contribution to ending the conflict there. For this reason, of the approximately $1.6 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) the State Department's South Asia Bureau has allocated for Sri Lanka in FY 2001, more than $1.3 million will be applied to projects that help address the underlying causes of the conflict.
Specifically, $300,000 will go to community-based organizations for development of inter-ethnic confidence building measures. Another $300,000 in ESF will promote delivery of legal services by supporting legal services clinics, funding branch offices of the national Human Rights Commission, and helping to develop a consortium of legal aid organizations. A third $300,000 ESF program will help local election monitoring organizations document election irregularities and fund the development of a database of documented irregularities. Lastly, the Department is targeting $410,000 in Sri Lanka to help ''At Risk Youth'' recover from the effects of the Sri Lankan conflict. Additional funds will go to training journalists and promoting professional journalistic coverage of the conflict, as well as assisting the government of Sri Lanka in developing efficient and clean energy use.
Page 728 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
In FY 2002, the State Department will request $3 million in ESF specifically for Sri Lanka to strengthen support for democratic institutions and community-based organizations, and to mitigate the worst effects of the conflict, especially on Sri Lankan children.
INDIA
Question:
Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Clinton signed a 11vision statement'' last year that set out a series of goals for the relationship between the world's oldest democracy, the US, and the world's largest democracy, India. Among those goals were bilateral meetings at the cabinet level across a range of issues. Do you expect that the Bush Administration will implement this ''vision statement'' and are there additional efforts that you now contemplate in order to deepen our relationship?
Answer:
The Bush administration is strongly committed to broadening this country's continuing dialogue with India. Regular ministerial meetings will occur on a full range of subjects, and American officials will seek out opportunities to meet with their Indian counterparts.
On May 17, for example, India's Foreign Secretary and Under Secretary Grossman are planning to meet in Washington to continue the ''Foreign Office Consultations'' described in the ''Vision Statement.'' In June, the Joint Working Groups on Counter-Terrorism and Peacekeeping will meet here also.
Page 729 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Deputy Secretary Armitage is going to New Delhi on May 1011 to discuss the President's NDU Speech, in the process furthering our dialogue on security issues.
PAKISTAN'S TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY/U.S. ASSISTANCE
Question:
Nearly a year and a half after the military coup in Pakistan, we see little real progress toward restoring democracy. While the military leader has promised national elections in 2002, he has undermined the people's ability to organize or hold political assemblies, eroded press freedoms, weakened the existing political parties, and failed to deal with Pakistan's economic crisis. What are you planning to do in order to help Pakistan prepare for real, free and fair elections and a stronger economy and civil society?
Answer:
We continue to stress to the Government of Pakistan that the speedy return to representative, civilian rule is critical for the stability and development of Pakistan. While General Pervez Musharraf, head of Pakistan's military regime, has stated publicly he would abide by the Pakistan Supreme Court order to return the country to democracy by October 2002, he has not clarified important aspects of Pakistan's return to democracy as we have continued to urge. We have also expressed concern over the Government's arrest of thousands of political activists during the last two months in the Punjab and Sindh provinces to prevent public rallying. However, we would like to note in this context that General Musharraf has not eroded press freedoms. To the contrary, the press has enjoyed more freedom under Musharraf than it had under the democratically elected regime it had replaced. Also, corruption does not appear to be as much at the forefront of political life as under the previous regimes.
Page 730 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The USG is involved in a number of initiatives aimed at strengthening Pakistan's civil society and helping the country prepare for its transition to democracy and for free and fair elections by October 2002. However, we are limited in the types of programs we can support, due to a number of bilateral sanctions including sanctions triggered by the military coup (Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act) and nuclear-related sanctions. This has restricted our ability to support democratic reform. However, since 1995, through an exception to the sanctions that allows for nongovernmental assistance, we have funded a Pakistan NGO Initiative (PNI) to support civil society in the areas of education, health, empowerment of women and micro-credit finance. PNI has enabled over 9,000 girls to receive schooling, over 10,000 women to gain access to credit and over 150,000 community members to gain access to better health facilities.
In addition, in the coming months, we will be implementing programs through NGO's that strengthen civil society's participation in the country's democratic development and that promote political party reform (FY 2000–02, approximately $3 million in Economic Support Funds).
Thanks to legislation spearheaded by Senator Brownback and enacted in FY 2001, authority now exists that allows the United States to engage the Pakistan government directly in the area of basic education. We are now working with USAID to implement a program to increase access to and improve the quality of primary education in Pakistan. We view improving Pakistan's weak education system as key to addressing many of the economic, political and social problems in Pakistan. In FY 2001, $2 million has been allocated to improve basic education in Pakistan. We hope to increase this amount in the out years.
Page 731 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
On the economy, General Musharraf has put together an able economic team, which has crafted an ambitious economic reform agenda. Last year the IMF approved an economic stabilization package for Pakistan that required some difficult reforms. The seriousness with which the Government has begun to implement these reforms has earned it credibility with the creditor and donor community. While Pakistan's economic performance this year has been mixed, it has stayed on track on its reform, and thus qualified for the second tranche of IMF funding. Exports and the manufacturing sector have picked up, but a serious drought and water shortage will have a significant adverse impact on the agricultural sector, which.will ripple through the economy. So far our approach has been to express support for the economic reforms that are necessary for a sustained economic recovery. We have also supported the January Paris Club rescheduling of Pakistan debt. An economically stable and prosperous Pakistan is in the U.S. interest.
Question:
Do you anticipate that as part of your request for additional funds, you will provide for more resources for the Colombian National Police? Right now, I understand that they have a desperate need for supply planes. Are we going to consider Colombia's requests for supply planes, spare parts and other operating expenses, which the CNP needs?
Answer:
There will be additional funding for the Colombian National Police (CNP) in the FY 2002 request. Our response will consider the totality of the CNP request, as made through our Embassy in Bogota, and will be prioritized within the funds available. In other words we will work through our Embassy with the CNP to fill their priority needs. That said, our contribution was never envisioned as being able to satisfy all of Colombia's operational needs, and we knew from the beginning that the Government of Colombia's contribution, as well as those from other donors, would become critical factors vis-a-vis expanded operations in Colombia.
Page 732 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
HAITI: ARISTIDE—ACTION AND PROMISES
Question:
Have we made it clear or are we going to make it clear to Mr. Aristide after having spent billions of dollars to try to help that country that our priority toward his government will be determined by constructive action on his part rather than mere promises?
Answer:
President Bush wrote to President Aristide on February 13 and, noting that Aristide has pledged to resolve the controversies that impede Haiti's progress expressed our conviction that Aristide's December eight-point commitment to rectify election problems and address other serious issues is a starting point for realigning the relationship between our two countries.
We have further informed President Aristide, through our Ambassador to Haiti, that a national accord resolving the electoral impasse is a minimal prerequisite for our consideration of much-needed bilateral assistance and a potentially favorable U.S. view on renewed lending from the international financial institutions.
SECURITY SETBACK FOR NEW EMBASSIES
Page 733 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
This committee has held numerous oversight hearings on embassy security. One of the critical security issues facing embassies all around the world is establishing a 100-foot physical setback, required since the Inman Report. This setback helps defend our employees against terrorist attacks. I believe that 80 percent of our embassies do not meet the setback requirement at present.
In your written testimony, you indicate that you are willing to settle for a setback as small as 50 feet in some circumstances. Are you prepared to demonstrate to the Committee that a reduced setback, when combined with those other physical steps you seem to be prepared to approve, will provide the same level of physical (blast) protection as a 100 foot setback when combined with the other physical barriers now required?
Answer:
The Department of State is committed to providing a secure work environment for all our overseas personnel. However, in some circumstances, the Department may simply not have the option of procuring a site that would allow for a full 100 feet of setback. That decision is based not on a single factor, but on the totality of circumstances, which must be reconciled as the Department moves forward to meet its obligations. If a 100 foot setback is not attainable given the realities faced, does compromising on setback still afford a significantly improved and secure environment for our employees? The decision is made based on input from multiple sources. Integral in the process is the exploitation of every opportunity to mitigate the lack of setback. These methods may include better reinforcing the structure from blast, taking advantage of topographic features, or other anti-blast methodology.
Page 734 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Congress has provided the Secretary with waiver authority from the legislatively mandated requirement to provide 100 feet of setback and to collocate our personnel. These methods may include enhanced building wall construction, taking advantage of topographic features, or other anti-blast methodology.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Question:
What is the U.S. going to do to reinvigorate the Lusaka process in the DRC? Does the U.S. condone the continued occupation of the DRC by Rwandan and Ugandan troops? What security guarantees is the U.S. prepared to give to the Rwandans to reassure them that the genocide of 1994 will not be revisited upon them? What does the Secretary envision as the appropriate role for U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo?
Answer:
The Lusaka process has been reinvigorated by the willingness of the new government of the DRC to engage in the process. We welcome the progress that the parties have made on withdrawal of troops and deployment of U.N. observers. We also welcome the progress made on the preparations for the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. The process is generally proceeding well. We will continue to urge the parties to meet their commitments to the Lusaka process.
Page 735 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The Lusaka Agreement calls for the ultimate withdrawal of all foreign forces. We have never condoned the occupation of the Congo by Rwandan and Ugandan troops. We believe that the parties can best resolve this issue through the framework of the Lusaka process.
The security of Congo's neighbors is another essential element of the Lusaka Agreement. The Agreement recognizes Rwanda's legitimate security concerns about the presence in the Congo of those who participated in the 1994 genocide. The governments of Congo and Rwanda are discussing the difficult issue of disarmament of these armed groups in the context of the Lusaka Agreement. We will work with the parties to ensure that individuals who are responsible for the genocide and other atrocities are brought to justice. We encourage continued talks to resolve the disarmament issue in a manner that will satisfy Rwanda's security concerns. It will ultimately be a matter for the Lusaka parties to deal with the issue of disarmament. Disarmament of the dangerous armed groups in the Congo is not an appropriate role for U.N. peacekeepers and it is not part of the U.N. Security Council mandate.
The role of the U.N. peacekeepers is to verify disengagement and withdrawal of military forces.
LIBERIA AND THE WEST AFRICA CRISIS
Question:
What will be the new Administration's approach to this regional crisis and Liberian President Charles Taylor, in particular?
Page 736 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
This Administration is deeply concerned by the continuing violence, instability, and suffering in West Africa, particularly Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. The Administration believes that President Taylor's continued support for the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels in Sierra Leone contributes to this tragic situation.
On May 7, a ban on the import of rough diamonds from Liberia and a travel ban on senior Liberian government officials took effect as part of UN Resolution 1343. We sponsored this resolution which passed unanimously March 7 and immediately strengthened the 1992 arms embargo on Liberia. We will work closely with the UN Liberia sanctions committee to achieve effective enforcement of these sanctions, which are aimed at severing Liberia's support to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels in Sierra Leone. We are exploring a number of other options, possibly including additional sanctions, to convince Liberia to forego its negative role in the subregion.
Liberian sanctions are part of our comprehensive strategy to stop the conflict, address humanitarian needs, and enhance stability throughout the region. We also support the existing strong mandate for the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), which is now deployed deep into RUF territory and is planning additional deployments so that the Government of Sierra Leone can extend its authority throughout the country. In addition, we support the establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which will bring to justice those bearing the greatest responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law. Also, we are working closely with countries in the region, through our train and equip program—Operation Focus Relief—and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), to increase the political and military pressure on the RUF to comply with its commitments to disarm and demobilize. The United States also provides about $50 million per year in humanitarian assistance to Sierra Leone, the largest single source. Further, we are providing economic, humanitarian, and non-lethal military assistance to Guinea to help it deal with the humanitarian and security impact of RUF attacks across its borders and provide for the nearly 500,000 refugees and 100,000 internally-displaced persons in areas affected by the fighting.
Page 737 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
AFRICAN CRISIS RESPONSE INITIATIVE FUNDING
Question:
The African Crisis Response Initiative was developed to give Africa the capability to respond more quickly to crises on its continent than if it had to wait for the mobilization of forces under the U.N. command. Given the many wars on the continent, will the Administration continue to support and full fund ACRI?
Answer:
The enhanced capacity for peacekeeping and complex humanitarian response that ACRI partnership Provides has permitted the participants to Join in peace support or humanitarian relief operations mandated by African subregional organizations or coalitions of the willing. For example, Mali and Ghana sent forces to Sierra Leone as part of the ECOWAS peacekeeping force. Benin sent a contingent, at the urging of ECOWAS, to restore order following political upheaval in Guinea-Bissau, while Senegal sent peacekeepers to the Central African Republic. Malawi put its ACRI equipment to constructive use responding to the Mozambique floods.
Discussions are underway to improve and enhance the program while responding to continuing African requests to meet changing peacekeeping conditions on the continent. The Administration is requesting full funding, $20 million, for the program in FY 2002.
GLOBAL AIDS CRISIS
Page 738 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
Seventy-five percent of HIV infections are in Africa, where resources to confront the epidemic are most scarce. According to CDC, a 15-year-old boy in South Africa has almost a 70 percent chance of dying of AIDS. In neighboring Botswana, his chances are nearly 90 percent.
How will the State Department assist Africa in addressing this issue? Are there any plans to increase the number of USAID personnel assigned abroad to work in this area? Will the level of funding for HIV/AIDS increase this year?
Answer:
The United States continues its strong commitment to addressing international HIV/AIDS issues. President Bush's FY2002 budget proposal reflects the U.S. commitment to curb new infections, help those with HIV/AIDS, and work to find a cure.
The budget proposal includes $480 million in overall funding to fight the international HIV/AIDS epidemic. The Department is seeking a 10% increase over FY 2001 request levels for USAID, bringing the USAID budget to more than $350 million in HIV/AIDS prevention and assistance. In FY 2001, about two-thirds of USAID's HIV/AIDS-fighting expenditures will be in sub-Saharan Africa. We anticipate a similar proportion in FY 2002.
Between 1992 and 1999, the number of USAID foreign service employees working overseas declined by 40 percent due largely to budget cuts. These underlying staffing shortages are now compounded by the need to add technical expertise in new areas of program emphasis, including reduction of mother-to-child transmission. USAID Administrator Natsios is aware of these challenges, and he and I will work to assess critical staffing needs of Missions abroad and develop strategies to meet those needs.
Page 739 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I co-chair with Secretary Thompson a new cabinet-level task force to ensure that the US Government's international HIV/AIDS policy is well coordinated and reflects a wide range of sectoral interests.
We are working with our G–8 partners and the U.N. to have all partners meet their commitments for funding HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment.
The Administration is supportive of the goals of those who have suggested the establishment of an international trust fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. We are urgently considering how this can best be done.
GLOBAL HIV/AIDS CRISIS
Question:
Why was the multilateral strategy, the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund, not included in the Budget Blue Print presented by the President for FY 01?
Answer:
The Budget Blueprint did not address specific program allocation levels. However, as part of the overall $369 million included in the President's Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, $20 million is included to support the HIV/AIDS Trust Fund.
Page 740 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
In the President's Blue Print, there is not a funding request assigned to the AIDS crisis in Africa or globally. What level of funding should we expect from the Administration and the State Department? And how can we ensure that neither agencies, regions of the world, or other global health programs will be traded off for one another in the year-end negotiations?
Answer:
The President's FY 02 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations provides for $369 million for USAID in international assistance for HIV/AIDS programs around the world. Of this, the greatest part, $190 million, is specifically budgeted for African countries under the expanded response. Most of this money is contained in the Child Survival and Infectious Diseases budget category specifically designated to these programs. We would hope that the Administration's FY02 budget request is fully funded to obviate the need for trade-offs that would adversely affect other global health programs.
Question:
What will the State Department do to provide badly needed life saving AIDS drugs to desperately ill people?
Answer:
Page 741 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The U.S. is working with international partners to help make HIV/AIDS drugs more accessible to developing nations. In our programs, we will train health providers and strengthen health delivery systems in order to provide better care. We will also procure diagnostic tests, and drugs in order to fight the opportunistic infections associated with HIV, especially tuberculosis. This should prolong life and enhance the quality of life for the greatest majority of persons living with HIV/AIDS. We will provide the antiviral drug, nevirapine, to inhibit mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection, to both mother and newborn. We will partner with governments and other health care providers to establish pilot projects to evaluate the feasibility of using antiretrovirals more extensively in low resource settings.
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
Question:
You have the good fortune of being Secretary of State during the implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which passed the Congress last year. In order to ensure that this issue continues to get a significant amount of interest, will you ensure that the Department establishes a separate office with a high-level director that reports directly to you? Will you personally take a leadership role in ensuring that other agencies coordinate and address this issue intensely?
Answer:
Trafficking in persons, especially women and children, is a serious human rights abuse and criminal issue. As chair of the Cabinet-level Anti-Trafficking Task Force, I will coordinate with other government agencies to ensure the full implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
Page 742 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
At the State Department, we are in the process of establishing the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and looking at possible high-level candidates for the directorship. The director will have access to Under Secretary Dobriansky, the Deputy Secretary Armitage and me.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Question:
I believe it is important to make sure that U.S. military assistance and U.S. arms sales do not get into the hands of people who commit human rights violations. Don't you agree that some portion of the money set aside for U.S. security assistance should be used to make sure this does not happen in the future?
Answer:
We are already obligated under section 563 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (P.L. 106–429) (the ''Leahy Amendment'') not to provide any of the funds made available by that act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights, unless the Secretary determines that the government of such country is taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice. The annual DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 106–259) contains a similar provision applicable to training programs. We are committed to implementing the Leahy Amendment.
Page 743 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Furthermore, we leverage U.S. assistance to encourage host nation governments to prevent such violations and to hold persons who commit such violations accountable.
Therefore, we prefer not to divert security assistance funds for an alternative monitoring process.
ARMS CONTROL/MISSILE DEFENSE
Question:
Some have claimed that the ABM Treaty originally concluded between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, since the Soviet Union no longer exists. Is it the Administration's view that the ABM Treaty is currently binding on the United States? Is it the Administration's position that we should dispose of the ABM Treaty even before we have a technologically proven and reliable system to deploy? Is the Bush Administration's NMD system designed to be effective against China's nuclear forces?
Answer:
As the President made clear in his May 1 speech, this Administration is treating the ABM Treaty as in effect. That said, the 1972 ABM Treaty reflects the thinking of the Cold War.
We seek to work together with Russia to replace the ABM Treaty with a new framework that reflects a break from the past adversarial relationship and that reflects a new, cooperative relationship based on openness, mutual confidence, and real cooperation including the area of missile defense.
Page 744 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Our missile defenses will not be a threat to China or any other state—except to those who would use missiles to attack or blackmail the United States or our allies.
PEACEKEEPING
Question:
Do you anticipate that the Bush Administration will end its support for any of the existing UN peacekeeping missions around the world? If so, which ones? In terms of peacemaking operations to stop potential genocides around the world, what standards will you use to determine whether to initiate or participate in these operations, and how are those standards different than the ones used by the Clinton Administration?
Answer:
We do not anticipate ending our support for any of the current fifteen UN peacekeeping operations.
As a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, the United States supported these operations in the beginning and has voted in favor of renewal because we believed it was in our best interest and because it allows us to address serious security problems while sharing the burden.
Page 745 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
We are firmly committed to making UN peacekeeping as effective as possible and keeping these operations under review. We will consult with the Congress on new developments. The U.S. has a continuing obligation, as the most prosperous nation and sole superpower, to support these operations.
Our evaluation of any proposed peacekeeping operation will first consider whether it advances U.S. interests. Then we will assess the level of international interest to see if adequate support for a multilateral operation exists. We will insist on having clear objectives, an acceptable level of risk, and a reasonable duration with a realistic exit strategy and end-state.
These are the same criteria used by the previous administration. The difference will be in how they are evaluated. The President has made it clear that we will be examining peacekeeping proposals in a far more critical way to ensure they are effective and further U.S. interests.
SPECIAL ENVOYS
Question:
The State Department has announced that it will be cutting back on Special Envoys to the Middle East, Cyprus and other regions in conflict. In the absence of these Special Envoys, what is the new modus operandi for dealing with these conflicts?
Answer:
Page 746 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
A reduction in the number of special envoys is a decision that reflects no diminution of interest on our part in dealing with particular challenges; to the contrary, where we eliminate a special envoy it will be because we believe the work can better be done—more efficiently and more effectively, that is—by the State Department bureau responsible for that issue. I want to empower the existing bureaus to do their jobs. These bureaus are staffed by talented professionals who know their areas and who have the requisite expertise to promote U.S. national interests.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIOLENCE
Question:
In statements made by President Bush and by your State Department spokesman, the unprovoked Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens has been treated in largely equivalent terms as the Israeli government's efforts to protect Israeli citizens against that violence. Does the Administration really view the Israeli government's efforts to restore order and protect its citizens as being equivalent to the organized violence being carried out by Palestinian terrorists?
Answer:
Both sides have a responsibility to break the cycle of violence. The United States has made very clear to the Palestinians that they must carry out their responsibilities to prevent continued provocative acts of violence emanating from areas under their control. That includes shootings, bombings, and mortar attacks. These attacks undermine efforts to defuse the situation and bring an end to violence.
Page 747 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
CONTROL OF IRAQI REVENUES
Question:
What is to prevent Saddam Hussein from substituting assets lost through ''smart'' sanctions with assets derived from the increased flow of commerce which will result from lifting the present sanctions?
Answer:
The new Iraq policy is designed to strengthen controls on Iraq's ability to acquire weapons and weapons-related materials through tighter control of Iraq's oil revenues and increased border and export controls. At the same time, the new policy expands Iraq's range of trade in civilian goods.
Similar to the current Oil-for-Food program, Iraq will be allowed to export unlimited amounts of oil. Purchasers will deposit payment into UN-approved escrow accounts outside of Iraq's control. Iraq will be allowed to contract with suppliers for civilian goods. The suppliers will be paid directly from the escrow accounts. Iraq will at no time have access to funds in the escrow accounts. Consequently, increased civilian trade will not lead to direct Iraqi control of revenues.
ESDI/P
Page 748 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
After President Bush's meeting with Prime Minister Blair, the President announced support for the European Defense Initiative. What assurances did he receive that this proposal will not jeopardize the operations of NATO? At a time when European Defense budgets are shrinking to the point where there is emerging a ''generation gap'' between their weaponry and ours, how do they intend to meet their NATO commitment and at the same time develop a new defense structure?
Answer:
During their meeting in February, British Prime Minister Tony Blair reassured President Bush that the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) is intended for circumstances where NATO as a whole chooses not to be engaged militarily as an Alliance. The President welcomed Prime Minister Blair's assurances that ESDP would be developed to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the transatlantic community.
At the 1999 Washington Summit, Allies affirmed that ''a stronger European role will help contribute to the vitality of our Alliance for the 21st century.'' In this regard, we welcome the determination of our European Allies to reinforce the Alliance's European pillar through strengthening their military capabilities and avoiding unnecessary duplication. We note that the EU Headline Goal capability is not a separate force or standing army. We also note that because most European countries contribute military assets and capabilities to both NATO and the EU, the two organizations will draw upon the same pool of European forces. We are, therefore, seeking to ensure that NATO and EU efforts are coherent and mutually reinforcing so that increases in defense spending support mutually compatible NATO and EU goals.
Page 749 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
SUPPORT FOR INDEPENDENT MEDIA IN RUSSIA
Question:
Recently, the Russian Government has been putting pressure on independent media sources in Russia. Do you agree that the U.S. needs to continue and find new ways to support independent media in Russia?
Answer:
A free press is crucial for Russia's continued democratic development. Supporting the growth of strong, vibrant, independent media is one of our highest priorities. We are providing assistance to both print and broadcast media through production grants and training and by consulting with them on how best to promote their economic viability and make them more effective advocates for journalistic freedom.
We are consulting with other donors to develop a joint response to the immediate crisis and to help prevent other outlets from meeting the same fate as NTV, Itogi and Segodnya.
We will also examine media assistance in the Administration's overall review of our Russian assistance programs, a process that we hope to complete by late June.
CHANGES IN NIS ASSISTANCE
Page 750 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
What changes, if any, in democracy, good governance, support for independent media and other non-ETRI (Enhanced Threat Reduction Initiative) assistance funds do you envision? What level of resources does the State Department consider to be sufficient for this effort?
Answer:
Our FY 2002 request for the FREEDOM Support Act (FSA) for the New Independent States (NIS) totals $808 million, of which over 90 percent would be directed to non-ETRI programs that support democratic and market reform.
This budget request would direct a larger share of funds than last year towards promoting change at the grassroots of NIS societies, by supporting exchanges that bring NIS citizens—including large numbers of young people—to the U.S. for first-hand exposure to our system; strengthening NGOs; increasing Internet access; and aiding pro-reform regional and local governments. With freedom of the press under threat in many countries of the region, the most notable change next year will be an increase in support for the independence and viability of the media.
RUSSIAN PRESSURE ON GEORGIA AND AZERBAIJAN
Question:
Page 751 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Although the U.S. has continued to strongly protest Russia's pressure on the government of Georgia, including the imposition of a visa regime and an interruption of gas deliveries for Georgia's power plants, the situation has not improved. What specifically is the U.S. doing to ensure that the sovereignty of Georgia and Azerbaijan is not threatened by the Russians? How far is the U.S. prepared to go to protect Georgia's sovereignty?
Answer:
The United States strongly supports the independence and sovereignty of Georgia and Azerbaijan. There are a number of programs and initiatives in place—both bilateral and multilateral—to help us counter Russian pressure tactics, and we will continue and build on them.
Pressure on the countries of the South Caucasus is a standing agenda item in our bilateral contacts with Russian officials, and we coordinate carefully with our European partners on this issue. Over the last two years, the United States has spearheaded diplomatic and assistance initiatives, both through the OSCE and bilaterally, to prevent spillover into Georgia and Azerbaijan of Russia's campaign in Chechnya, to demand full and timely implementation of Russia's Istanbul Summit commitment to withdraw military equipment and close military bases in Georgia,' and to counteract Russia's interruption of energy supplies to Georgia. At present we are actively assisting the Georgians to develop strategies to prevent energy shortfalls next winter. The United States remains committed to supporting Georgia and Azerbaijan's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Page 752 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Most importantly, U.S. assistance priorities are focused on helping to develop the long-term capacities—protecting their borders, and meeting their citizens' material and social needs—that will render the South Caucasus vulnerable to external threats.
EAST TIMOR: US SUPPORT FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH
Question:
East Timor is on the verge of independence after decades of rule by Indonesians. However, thousands were killed in East Timor's struggle for independence, hundreds of thousands dislocated, and Indonesian-supported militias destroyed almost all of East Timor's infrastructure as that burned their way to West Timor. Doesn't it make sense to continue to support the multilateral efforts underway to develop East Timor's economy and its security situation so that it won't become permanently dependent on international aid? Shouldn't we be encouraging American firms to become involved in east Timor, and reduce barriers to East Timorese exports to the U.S.?
Answer:
The U.S. and the international community as a whole have been heavily engaged in working with the East Timorese in the reconstruction of their country and preparing for independence later this year. Part of this preparation has been laying the groundwork for a thriving private sector that will allow East Timor to become a full participant in the international economy.
Page 753 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Towards this end, such physical infrastructure as electricity, roads, telephones and roads have been re-established. A monetary and fiscal authority is in place, two banks have established themselves, and schools, including a university, have been reopened to provide the economy with skilled workers. Much, however, remains to be done. Investment law needs to be put in place, longstanding property disputes need to be resolved so that investors have secure title to physical assets and, most importantly, negotiations with Australia over the sea bed energy assets between the two countries must come to a successful conclusion. This alone would bring in significant tax and royalty revenue, create employment and demonstrate how East Timor deals with major foreign investors, in this case, a major American oil firm.
Through USAID, the US has been the most active of all East Timor's donors in growing the agriculture sector into an export-producing industry. The East Timor coffee cooperative is an USAID inspired project which has been successful in bringing thousands of farmers together to produce organic coffee for the international market, including Starbucks. This project will be expanded to include other agricultural products such as vanilla. These projects not only generate export earnings but absorb large quantities of labor in a country that is still largely rural.
As East Timor becomes independent and its new administration sets its economic policies, we will continue to be supportive of Timorese efforts to create an economy which will lessen their current dependence on foreign assistance.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Page 754 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
The budget blue print made reference to ''delayering the bureaucracy'' and reducing the number of middle management positions in the State Department. Can you elaborate on this? Are you planning to reorganize the State Department?
Answer:
Secretary Powell has made clear that he will not embark on a grand scheme of reorganization of the Department. That said, there will be individual organizational changes to increase the efficiency of the Department's operations. Twenty-three special envoy positions were eliminated as a way to,reduce layers of bureaucracy and clarify lines of authority. Those functions were woven back into the operations of existing Bureaus. In four months the Secretary will review six additional ''special envoy'' titles for possible elimination. Seven titles required by legislation were retained.
The Secretary is also planning to reorganize the Department's budget and planning authorities to achieve organizational unity with respect to financial management, strategic planning, and budget activities. This proposed reorganization will improve and strengthen the coordination of budget formulation, presentation, and execution responsibilities. .
The Department is continuing to implement the human resource recommendations of the Report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP). Many of these recommendations: developing a comprehensive human resources strategy, reshaping the reporting and policy functions, and supporting the concept of small posts, are designed to streamline operations and enhance the Department's effectiveness.
Page 755 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
LIBYA
Question:
What actions are you and the Administration taking to ensure that sanctions against Libya are not removed before the country (1) accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials, (2) pays compensation to the families, and (3) renounces terrorism?
Answer:
Following the verdict in the Pan Am 103 trial, we launched an extensive diplomatic effort to maintain international pressure on Libya to comply with the demands outlined in UN Security Council resolutions. We enlisted the support of Security Council members and of other countries that lost nationals in the bombing of Pan Am 103. Our efforts continue. We, along with the United Kingdom, have also met with Libya's permanent representative to the United Nations to outline the remaining requirements that Libya must satisfy.
As President Bush said, we will continue to pressure Libya to accept responsibility for this act and to compensate the families of the Pan Am 103 victims.
Page 756 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
As noted in this year's annual State Department report on terrorism, Libya has taken some positive steps on terrorism, including issuing official statements renouncing terrorism. We now wish to ascertain if these steps reflect a new policy. A Libyan decision to pay appropriate compensation and accept responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials in connection with this crime would be a strong indicator of a new direction in Libyan policy.
The burden is on Libya to act in its own interest. We will sustain our diplomatic effort as long as necessary.
Question:
As you know, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 will expire this August. Has the Administration considered reimposing the sanctions or adding new ones in light of Libya's refusal to renounce terrorism?
Answer:
The Administration has not yet determined a position on the question of ILSA renewal. Noting the August expiration date, we will have some thoughts to share with the Congress in moving forward together on this matter. In the aftermath of the Lockerbie verdict, we are continuing to work to secure full Libyan compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, especially acceptance of responsibility and payment of appropriate compensation. As noted in this year's annual State Department report on terrorism, Libya has taken some positive steps on terrorism, including issuing official statements renouncing terrorism. We now wish to ascertain if these steps reflect a new policy or are simply a tactical maneuver.
Page 757 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
NORTHERN IRELAND: IMPLEMENTATION OF PATTEN REFORMS
Question:
Does the State Department believe the Patten reforms are being fully implemented?
Answer:
We strongly support the goals of the Patten Report—to take the politics out of policing and establish a service that enjoys the support of the community as a whole. Police reform along the lines of the Patten Report recommendations is one essential building block of peace in Northern Ireland.
Implementation of the Patten recommendations is still ongoing. The process has not yet concluded. We support the efforts of the parties and the governments to overcome the difficulties surrounding this matter and to ensure that such a service is established. We will monitor developments closely and prepare a report for Congress in accordance with the law.
NORTHERN IRELAND: ADVANCING POLICING REFORM
Question:
What do you believe we can do in the interim to help to advance policing reform in Northern Ireland—so that more and more Catholic nationalists are attracted to careers in the new police service—to integrate a 93 percent Protestant police force?
Page 758 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
We can support the goals of the Patten Report—taking the politics out of policing and establishing a force that enjoys the support of the community as a whole. However, it is up to the parties and the governments to determine whether that process is successful. We will look at appropriate training and other cooperation consistent with U.S. law once that force is in place.
NORTHERN IRELAND: ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN THE PEACE PROCESS
Question:
How would you respond to the assessment that the distancing of the Department of State and the National Security Council from the peace process until it is appropriate or the United States is asked to return could ultimately cause the collapse of the process?
Answer:
The substance of this Administration's policy will continue to reflect the bipartisan consensus in this country that supports the Good Friday Agreement; our approach will differ in that the State Department, as the Cabinet agency charged with conducting foreign policy, will have the lead operational role. But we are all carrying out the President's policy, and the President has told Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern that he will help in any way he can.
Page 759 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Working with colleagues here in Washington and at our posts in Belfast, Dublin and London, Richard Haass, the Administration's point person for Northern Ireland, will work to ensure the United States fully supports the British and Irish governments and the parties in their efforts to implement the Good Friday Agreement. Clearly, the intensity required will fluctuate depending on events on the ground.
We expect that a more active phase of intra-government and intra-party negotiations will recommence after expected British Westminster elections. The British and Irish governments and the parties to the Good Friday Agreement know that we are willing to offer our good offices, in any way that might be appropriate.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
ARMS CONTROL/MISSILE DEFENSE
Question:
Is it wise to invest tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in a program that threatens the ABM Treaty and arms control efforts, is opposed by many of our European allies and the international community, and is of questionable technology—when NMD will do nothing to make our nation more safe against terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction that can presently be delivered by low-tech means over land or sea?
Page 760 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
The President has established as a top priority for the Administration the deployment at the earliest possible date of effective ballistic missile defenses, based on the best available options, that are capable of defending not only the U.S. but also friends and allies and deployed forces overseas.
The new threats that we face, especially from weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles, are growing. It is these threats that are at issue, not defenses against them.
The United States today faces threats from diverse, unpredictable, and risk-prone states that are aggressively seeking to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction and longer-range missiles as a means of their delivery.
CHINA: DEMONIZATION
Question:
Mr. Secretary, now that we have prevailed in the Cold War, there is a tendency by some to want to replace the former Soviet Union with China as the greatest enemy and threat to the security of the United States. What are your thoughts on the ''demonization'' of China, and is it productive or counterproductive?
Page 761 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
I do not believe that China has been ''demonized'' in the United States. Our policy should be and is based on a clear-eyed assessment of our interests, which include our values. As I have said before, a strategic partner China is not. But neither is China our inevitable and implacable foe. China is a competitor and a potential regional rival, but also a trading partner willing to cooperate in the areas, such as Korea, where our strategic interests overlap. We want to cooperate with China where we can. At the same time, we intend to hold China to its bilateral and multilateral commitments and to international norms of behavior generally and on human rights in particular. We should not and will not keep silent if China does not respect these commitments and norms. This is not demonization; this is giving expression to our national values and principles and is a normal component of any country's foreign policy.
CHINA: HANDLING THORNY ISSUES
Question:
To encourage China to become a responsible member of the international community, how should we go about handling thorny issues with China over Taiwan, human rights abuses, and nonproliferation concerns?
Answer:
As the President has said we will be frank, but respectful. We seek to build constructive relations with China based on dialogue on the issues where we agree as well as disagree.
Page 762 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
PACIFIC ISLANDS
Question:
Congress has passed legislation recognizing the importance of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Pacific Island nations and urging that the Administration call a summit meeting with the Pacific Island heads of government and state. The Pacific Ocean covers one-third of the earth's surface and the 22 Pacific Island nations and territories wield control over millions of square miles of the ocean. These vast tracts of ocean encompass productive fisheries, undersea minerals and important sea lanes—vital assets in the future of the global economy. Asian nations, such as Japan, China.and South Korea, recognize this and have made heavy diplomatic investments in the region to promote their interests.
For economic as well as strategic reasons, the United States should not permit other nations to step into the vacuum created by the lack of a strong U.S. policy and presence in the region. To protect our interests, many have urged that the United States government convene a summit meeting with the leaders of the Pacific Island nations to improve diplomatic relations.
What are your thoughts on such an initiative?
Answer:
The United States enjoys good diplomatic relations with and appreciates the strategic and environmental importance of the Pacific island nations. It actively cooperates with many of these nations to protect fishing stocks, to protect the environment and to combat international crime in the Pacific region. The United States believes its current bilateral and multilateral cooperation with Pacific island nations provides for a strong presence and effectively addresses our most important policy interests in the region.
Page 763 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Given prevailing regional peace and stability and the U.S. Government's good-relations with states there, we do not believe a regional summit is necessary.
THE GLOBE
Question:
Mr. Secretary, there is a growing consensus that global climate change is occurring, and that nations must engage in a good faith process to find solutions. United Nations studies project that in the next century, the Earth may warm by as much as six degrees centigrade, raising sea levels by 50 centimeters or almost 20 inches. Already, rising sea levels threaten the existence of low-lying island nations in the South Pacific, such as the Solomons, Marshall Islands and Kiribati, and have caused massive flooding in Bangladesh, Egypt, and China. Many consider global climate change to be the most challenging environmental issue to ever face our generation and generations to come.
Even the initial skepticism over global warming expressed by many U.S. businesses has been replaced by an acknowledgement of the problem, as evidenced by the adoption of emissions-reduction targets more stringent than the Kyoto Protocol by major companies like IBM, Johnson and Johnson, and Polaroid. Major auto and oil companies, such as Ford and Amoco, have declared reduction of carbon dioxide to be a top priority.
The United States has four percent of the world's population but is responsible for almost 25 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, the main cause of global warming. As the world's per capita leader in fossil fuel emissions, polls have shown that Americans see climate change as a serious threat and want our government to take measures. Mr. Secretary, given these concerns, what are your plans to move forward the Kyoto Protocol at the upcoming UN climate summit to be held this May in Bonn?
Page 764 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
The Administration is currently undertaking a cabinet-level review of U.S. climate change policy. This review will consider what policies the United States should pursue domestically and internationally to more effectively and affordably address climate change.
We are aware of the IPCC projections regarding sea level rise, and we understand that small islands feel particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and other potential impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol would do little, if anything, to stem sea level rise because it exempts some of the largest emitters in the world. The Administration opposes the Kyoto Protocol for this reason and because it would cause serious economic harm to the United States.
Since the U.S. is a party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), we intend to participate in the upcoming resumed session of the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP–6 bis) to the UNFCCC, which is scheduled to take place in Bonn July 16–27. However, our objectives for COP–6 bis will naturally depend on the results of our cabinet-level policy review. Moreover, at present it is not possible to foresee all the possible issues that will be raised at COP–6 bis and how they might be resolved. In the interim, we plan to continue to exchange views with other countries that are friends and allies as our policy review progresses. We are looking forward to working productively with other countries on an effective and fair response to the challenge of climate change.
Page 765 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
ISLAMIC EXTREMISM IN KAZAKHSTAN
I have been very concerned about the political,situation in Kazakhstan. Over the last two years, I have had several groups, both from Kazakhstan and the U.S., come to me and express their deep concerns about President Nazerbayev's administration. I have been told that the judiciary lacks independence and that freedom of the press is virtually non-existent under the Nazerbayev administration. I have also been told that many people in Kazakhstan are quickly losing faith in democracy and, as a result, the influence of Islamic extremists is growing.
Question:
Could you tell me what strategies the State Department may be considering to confront the rise of Islamic extremism in Kazakhstan and throughout Central Asia?
Answer:
Islamic extremism poses a threat to Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states through acts of terrorism. In September 2000, the Secretary of State designated the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan a ''Foreign Terrorist Organization'' under U.S. law. U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Central Asia include fostering regional cooperation to address terrorist threats and promoting comprehensive counterterrorism strategies that incorporate respect for human rights and rule of law. The U.S. will host a second Central Asia Regional Counterterrorism Conference June 18–20 in Istanbul.
Page 766 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
To help Kazakhstan prepare to combat transborder security threats, the U.S. will provide $4 million in assistance and training under the Central Asia Security Initiative this year for border and export controls and over one million dollars in Anti-Terrorism Assistance to the Government of Kazakhstan. The U.S. will also provide over $25 million in democratic and economic assistance for Kazakhstan's transition to a free-market democracy, the key to its long term security and stability.
BBG REDUCTION IN BROADCASTING TO TURKEY
Question:
On January 19, 2001, less than 24 hours before President Bush's inauguration, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) announced a decision to reduce Voice of America's (VOA) broadcasting to Turkey. Currently, the VOA broadcasts in Turkish eight hours and 45 minutes a week. Under the new plan first announced by the Board, VOA Turkish broadcasting would have been cut to one hour and fifteen minutes a week. Later, the BBG revised its plan and increased Turkish broadcasting to three and one-half hours per week. Mr. Secretary, were you ever consulted by the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors regarding their recently announced plan to reduce VOA Turkish broadcasting? Do you support the cut to three hours and 30 minutes per week? Would you support restoring Turkish broadcasting back to eight hours and 45 minutes per week?
Answer:
In an annual review of language services January 10, at which the Department's representative was present, the BBG voted to eliminate VOA Turkish and replace it with an internet-based Turkish service. The Department advised the BBG against eliminating the VOA Turkish Service. We are pleased the BBG modified their original decision. We feel a half-hour daily program in Turkish, as ultimately decided by the BBG, is the minimum acceptable level of service.
Page 767 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Turkey is an important Ally and friend. We cooperate closely as NATO members and bilaterally on a vast range of issues. Turkey plays a vital role in the Middle East, where the BBG has decided to increase USG broadcasting. Through VOA and RFE/RL, the U.S. government broadcasts to all of Turkey's neighbors, including Greece. I believe it is just as important to present to the Turkish public in their national language the kind of news, information and analysis about America and its policies that the VOA provides to other publics in the region.
Although the dominant source of news and information in Turkey is now television, radio remains significant and considerably more widespread than the Internet.
The Department respects the BBG's expertise and authority on U.S. government international broadcasting and will continue to consult closely with them.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT MENENDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DECLINE IN ASSISTANCE LEVELS FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
Question:
Though the numbers are not yet official, and I know that you are fighting for more, the request this year will be for approximately $448 million, about a 10 percent decrease from last year's figures. For a region that contains 17 percent of the world's countries, 13 percent of the globe's population, and fully 30 percent of the world's impoverished, this is not sustainable. How and where do you propose to do more?
Page 768 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
We do, in fact, propose to do far more in FY 2002 and our request level fully reflects that intention. Though our request level for Development Assistance funds (DA) is down marginally, our request level for Child Survival and Disease funds (CSD) increased slightly. More to the point, however, our request level for Economic Support Funds (ESF) is up by more than $50 million over our appropriated level for FY 2001. Similarly, our International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) request is up by 373% over the appropriated level for FY 2001. $292.5 million of these INCLE funds are for alternative development and institution building. We will use these resources to take advantage of all opportunities to advance our foreign policy objectives in the region, with the foci of our expanded efforts on the Andes and on the Caribbean.
It is our intention, by parlaying our limited Economic Support Funds, Development Assistance funds and Child Survival and Disease resources with the proposed significant increases in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funds (INC), to augment our regional efforts in the Andes to address the social and political roots of the narcotics epidemic. our resources in the Andean region will be focused upon providing alternatives to illicit narcotics production as a way of life, upon modernizing outmoded, inefficient and corrupt judicial systems, strengthening and modernizing democratic institutions and helping our regional allies provide their citizens with economic growth.and safe, secure, neighborhoods to counter the climate of lawlessness which has fostered and sustained the explosive growth of illicit narcotics production and drug trafficking.
In the Caribbean,—our nation's vital ''Third Border''—we are developing a package of targeted assistance that will enhance our cooperation with Caribbean partners to address the economic, health and educational deficiencies that have led to a decline in the quality of peoples' lives. The centerpiece of this ''Third Border Initiative'' is $20 million in FY 2002 to further HIV/AIDS prevention and education programs in the region. Through President Bush's initiative to establish three ''Centers for Excellence''—including one in the Caribbean and one in the Andes—we will make a down payment of $10 million on promoting improved educational opportunities throughout the Americas.
Page 769 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
In addition, in the coming year we intend to expend greater resources in Mexico to help President Fox to address corruption, promote education and to maintain the democratic momentum his election established. In El Salvador, 2002 will mark the second year of President Bush's two-year $104 million commitment to assist that nation's recovery from the devastating earthquakes of earlier this year.
U.S. RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKES IN EL SALVADOR
Question:
President Flores has asked for help; he's facing $2.43 billion in reconstruction costs. What prospects do you see for the U.S. providing a reasonable amount of that aid?
Answer:
Various U.S. Government agencies have already provided $27 million in emergency disaster relief. Earthquake reconstruction costs for El Salvador are estimated at between $1.6 billion to $2 billion. We have made a commitment to provide $110 million in reconstruction assistance in FY 2001/02.
At the Madrid Consultative Group donors meeting on March 7, a total of $1.3 billion in international assistance was pledged for El Salvador. The U.S. commitment represents a significant portion of the grants of new money contained in that figure.
Page 770 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
THE DRUG WAR AND HEMISPHERIC RELATIONS
Question:
Our penchant for focusing first and foremost, when dealing with our neighbors to the South, on the flow of illicit narcotics out of their countries is beginning to harm our relations in the region. You have stated that ''good relations with our hemispheric neighbors (is) a paramount priority.'' While the issue of drug control is an important one, the U.S. in the past few years has focused far too singularly at times on eradicating and interdicting drugs. Our relations and our priorities are beginning to suffer. Hopefully, your visit with President Bush to see President Fox in Mexico will help to better balance our focus. What else, though, do you see as concrete steps you will take toward picking up some of the issues that have been relatively neglected, such as democracy and civil society promotion, transparency, and anti-corruption, rule of law and judicial strengthening, environmental and labor issues and, overall importance, poverty reduction?
Answer:
Our key foreign policy objectives in the Hemisphere—fostering economic development, deepening and strengthening democracy and addressing the hemispheric scourge of transnational crime, including narcotics production, trafficking and consumption—are mutually supportive.
The illegal drug trade poses a significant threat to our efforts to strengthen democracy by undermining programs that promote civil society, transparency, the rule of law and anti-corruption. Similarly, our efforts to support economic growth, protection for the environment and progress on labor issues are undercut by the corruption, violence, and tremendous social havoc created by transnational crime, particularly narcotics trafficking.
Page 771 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The complexity of the problems in the region requires a comprehensive approach to solutions which will address our nations' goals in the region. None of the region's problems you highlight can be successfully addressed in isolation. After much consideration, the Administration has proposed to allocate approximately $880 million in FY02 funds for an Andean Regional Initiative. This initiative, which is being briefed to Congress, will focus Economic Support Funds, Development Assistance, International Narcotics Control, Childhood Disease and Survival funds, and Foreign Military Financing to promote and support democracy, democratic institutions, and respect for human rights; address poverty by fostering sustainable economic development and trade liberalization; and significantly reduce the supply of illegal drugs to the United States at the source.
LATIN AMERICA
Question:
Colombia/Plan Colombia: Given the amount of money that we are providing Colombia in support of that country's Plan Colombia to eradicate illicit drugs, are we paying close enough attention to the problems and whether or not we are effectively working toward their solution?
Answer:
Yes. I think that one of the outstanding initiatives we have been able to pursue, with broad bipartisan support, is a realistic assessment of Colombia's problems, as well as its ability to respond. We have also developed a fluid and effective interagency response mechanism. Our support for Plan Colombia is structured as part of an integrated overall strategy, which looks at all the problems complex and interrelated as they are—as part of the whole. In that regard, we and the Colombians are monitoring our efforts and progress and trying to adapt to successes and mistakes and to an ever-changing environment.
Page 772 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
I realize that you are doing away with many of special envoy positions at the State Department, but should we be considering a special coordinator for Colombia?
Answer:
No. During my transition into the Department of State, I specifically reviewed the organization and command structure for many of the Department's,special programs, including our efforts in Colombia. I believe that the current organization, which includes weekly interagency coordination teleconferences and regular interaction between U.S. and Colombian officials, is working well. I am, in general, opposed to the proliferation of special coordinator positions.
Question:
Also, could you tell us what is being done to ensure that alternative development programs are working ahead of eradication efforts? And, are you willing to work with your colleagues in the White House and throughout the Bush Cabinet to make sure we are doing everything we can to bring down demand for illegal drugs in this country?
Answer:
Page 773 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Actually, aerial eradication and alternative development efforts are, in general, being conducted in different areas. We conduct alternative development where small family farms grow coca, and we focus our spraying on large-scale agro-industry coca plots. The timing of the voluntary eradication that accompanies alternative development projects depends on the farmers themselves, as they are responsible for the removal or their illegal crops during the initial twelve months of the program.
While the Department has a less significant role to play in domestic programs, my personal commitment to addressing drug issues in this country are widely known and supported by this Administration.
COLOMBIAN PEACE PROCESS
Question:
What is the Administration doing to support the Colombian Peace Process?
Answer:
The Administration shares President Pastrana's assessment that Colombia's inter-related problems of drugs, violence by guerrillas and paramilitaries, institutional weakness and poverty cannot be effectively resolved while illegal armed combatants continue to wreck havoc upon civilians. We also share President Pastrana's belief that Colombia's civil strife cannot be won by military means. We support President Pastrana's efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with both the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas. We have publicly called upon the FARC and the ELN to reciprocate the Government's good-faith efforts.
Page 774 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The Colombian Government carefully manages its peace discussions with the FARC and ELN guerrillas. At the request of the Government and the guerrillas, the U.N. is playing a helpful role trying to advance the FARC and ELN peace discussions. Specific countries are also involved in the Colombian peace process, whether as active facilitators in the ELN/Government discussions or as essentially passive observers in the FARC/Government discussions. We welcome this international engagement. Although we frequently exchange views with the Colombian Government and others on the peace talks, we are not party to either of the peace talks.
BILATERAL RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL
Question:
The largest country in Latin America, Brazil, is a country very much like ours. Almost our equal in land mass, and with nearly 180 million inhabitants, and sharing much of the same history and many similar problems—both are rich with immigrants, and trouble by race relations; both have vast natural wealth, beauty and bio-diversity, yet share threats to the environment and a similar rate of HIV/AIDS infection. Both, too, have great aspirations to be leaders in the region and the world. Yet it seems we rarely talk to each other about working together to address problems in the region of poverty, corruption, threats to democracy, drug flows, and the like. Do you envision greater cooperation in the future with Brazil?
Answer:
Page 775 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Our bilateral relationship with Brazil is outstanding. Since 1994, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso's personal interest in developing an internationalist, forward-looking Brazilian foreign policy has created new opportunities for concrete bilateral cooperation. Traditionally, Brazil stressed non-interventionism in its international relations.
While Brazil's efforts to exercise leadership in South America and differences over trade issues often dominate the headlines, our governments are steadily developing a framework of agreements and consultative mechanisms to institutionalize our growing cooperation. Over the last two years, we have signed agreements strengthening cooperation on defense, energy, technology, law enforcement, and agriculture. We have been meeting annually to discuss our Common Agenda on the Environment since 1995. Regular diplomatic consultations provide opportunities to reiterate our commitment to deepening our collaboration with the GOB on regional and global issues.
THREATS TO DEMOCRACY IN LATIN AMERICA
Question:
Democracy in Guatemala may be threatened as we speak. What would the State Department response be to an interruption to the constitutional, democratic order in Guatemala? What about recent or ongoing threats to democracy in Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Paraguay? What will the State Department do to encourage human rights and democratic transition in Cuba, the only remaining state in the region without a democratically-elected government?
Answer:
Page 776 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
REGION. In their Declaration at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec in April, the elected leaders of the Hemisphere firmly recommitted themselves to the rule of law and democratic government. They affirmed that any unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order in a state in the hemisphere would disqualify it from participation in the Summit process.
However, in a number of countries in the Hemisphere, weak democratic institutions, corruption, lawlessness, and poverty retard and threaten democratic progress. Regionally, we must promote democratic reforms to reinforce the institutions of democratic government, including the judiciary and civil society, and strengthen the economic underpinnings of democracy by promoting free and open trade.
GUATEMALA. Although democracy in Guatemala seemed at risk in early March, timely and resolute action by the organization of American States, with our support, to back democratic government and constitutional order averted a potential crisis. Our assistance program supports Guatemalan government efforts to pursue political reforms, open an inclusive political dialogue, and combat corruption to address some of the underlying causes of political instability.
PERU. With strong U.S. support, Peru has made substantial progress in strengthening democratic institutions. We provided funding for a special mission from the organization of American States (OAS) to establish a national dialogue in Peru to negotiate democratic reform. We also provided technical assistance, voter education, and observer mission funding to help Peru stage transparent and democratic national elections in April, to rectify the deeply flawed electoral process of May 2000. We plan to provide assistance for such long-term reforms as decentralization and improving civil-military relations.
Page 777 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
VENEZUELA. Although Venezuelan democratic change to date has occurred through a series of free and fair elections, current trends bear watching. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, encourage the Venezuelan government to strengthen checks and balances, and look for opportunities to support Venezuelan civil society organizations dedicated to protecting democracy.
ECUADOR. Our quick response to threats to democracy in Ecuador in January 2000 persuaded military leaders and congressional deputies to restore order by installing constitutionally-elected Vice President Noboa as President. For the last 15 months, President Noboa has guided Ecuador toward economic and political stability, implementing reforms while addressing the demands of Ecuador's marginalized poor.
PARAGUAY. Despite a faltering economy and burgeoning fiscal deficit, Paraguay has shown remarkable ability to weather crises. With Argentina and Brazil, we have encouraged President Gonzalez Macchi to combat corruption and undertake reform measures to spur economic growth and build popular support. A U.S.-assisted OAS electoral observation team helped assure voter confidence during the election of the country's Vice-President.
CUBA. The fundamental goal of United States policy toward Cuba is to promote a peaceful transition to a stable, democratic form of government and respect for human rights. our policy has three fundamental components: maintaining pressure on the Cuban government for change through the embargo and the Libertad Act, providing humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people and helping develop civil society in the country and addressing cross-border issues such as migration. We also pursue multilateral efforts to urge our friends and allies to actively promote a democratic transition and respect for human rights.
Page 778 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
CHILD SURVIVAL COMMITMENT
Question:
Can you please comment on this Administration's commitment to child survival and can you assure me that funding will not be reduced in FY 2002 for these important programs.
Answer:
This Administration maintains a strong commitment to child survival. Despite the tremendous demands on our development assistance budget, we are providing a slight increase in FY 02 funding for child-survival and maternal health. We will continue our strong support of programs in diarrheal disease control, child nutrition including vitamin A distribution, treatment of acute respiratory infection, breastfeeding promotion, and the development of health technologies that improve child survival. Over the past 15 years, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with Congress' support, has spent over $3.5 billion on child survival programs, a period during which under-five mortality has fallen from 145 deaths per 1,000 live births to about 116 per 1,000 live births today.
Page 779 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
IMPRISONED POLITICAL ACTIVISTS
Your report on Human Rights in Kazakhstan has mentioned the case of politically motivated imprisonment of two members of the opposition Republican Party of Kazakhstan, Pyotr Afanasenko and Satzhan Ibrayev. OSCE and international and domestic human rights observers charged that government prosecution and sentencing of them was politically motivated. Some Human Rights observers also criticized the authorities for incarcerating Afanasenko and Ibrayev in ordinary prisons rather than in special institutions created to protect former members of the security forces from possible retribution by other prisoners. Right now both political activists are experiencing continuous harassment and being held in inhumane conditions in the Gulag-style prison camps. Their lives are in danger.
Question:
What is our U.S. State Department or U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan doing to raise this horrendous case with the Kazakhstani regime and to protect basic rights of two political activists?
Answer:
The U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan reported on the arrests and trials of Afanasenko and Ibrayev, bodyguards to opposition figure leader Akezhan Kazhegeldin. Our 2000 Country Human Rights Report for Kazakhstan noted that although there could be a factual basis for the cases, international and domestic human rights groups have charged that government prosecution and sentencing of them was politically motivated. We regularly raise human rights concerns as a central issue of our relationship with Kazakhstan at the highest levels in both Kazakhstan and Washington. We specifically urge the Government of Kazakhstan to put more substance into its stated commitment to democracy and to allow the legitimate activities of a political opposition.
Page 780 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
SILENCING POLITICAL OPPOSITION
Your report mentioned that Kazakh authorities confiscated the passport of Amirzhan Kosanov, an official of the opposition Republican Party of Kazakhstan and known Kazakh poet and journalist, he tried to fly to London to brief British Human Rights organizations on the situation in Kazakhstan. The government alleged that Kosanov had access to state secrets when he served as press secretary to former Prime Minister and now opposition leader Akezhan Kazhegeldin. Authorities used the 1999 Law on State Secrets to justify their actions. Mr. Kosanov is suing the government to recover his passport, but the case is being deliberately stalled by the courts in the country where every judge is appointed personally by the corrupt President Nazarbayev. Apparently, poetry now is a state secret in Kazakhstan!
Question:
How much longer will we tolerate such behavior of oppressive regimes that are trying to silence their critics using any ridiculous means? What has the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan done to address this issue?
Answer:
Once again, whatever merit there may be to the charges against Amirzhan Kosanov is overshadowed by the Kazakhstani government's manipulation of the judicial system. The government contends that as secretary to the then Prime Minister, Kosanov had access to state secrets and that he refused to sign a standard non-disclosure agreement and follow other simple procedures under the 1999 law. The government further claimed that other former officials with knowledge of sensitive information were allowed to travel after complying with the procedures. Our 2000 Country Human Rights Report for Kazakhstan noted the details of Kosanov's case. We regularly raise this and other human rights concerns at the highest levels of the Kazakhstani Government.
Page 781 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE EARL F. HILLIARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Question:
According to the news media, the war in the Congo has been dubbed ''Africa's World War One,'' because of the number of nations involved. Do you agree with the media's analogy? What analysis would you use to examine this particular crisis?
Answer:
The complexity of the issues and the tragic scale of human suffering defy easy summaries. Certainly, the number of countries involved in this war is unprecedented in Africa. All of the foreign states having troops in the Congo have given their own reasons for being there.
There are many causes of the war which have to be considered in any analysis. They include: decades of misrule in Congo/Zaire; the lack of a government in Congo with broad support from the people; the continuing effects of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the legitimate security concerns of Congo's neighbors. One of the results of the war is the exploitation of Congo's natural resources which are being used now, a they were 100 years ago, for the benefit of foreigners rather than the Congolese people.
Page 782 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
We believe that the Lusaka Agreement provides the framework for all the parties to find a solution that will address the causes of the war and to establish the regional stability and security that will allow foreign troops to go home. While finding peace is principally a matter for the parties, there is an important role for the United Nations and others including he United States to play in supporting the process.
THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT (AGOA)
Question:
In your confirmation hearing before the Senate you stated, ''The passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act was one of the most important measures that Congress considered last year.'' What particular elements of the bill do you find most critical? How do you plan to implement those elements into your current role as Secretary?
Answer:
The most critical element of the African Growth and Opportunity Act is the package of trade and other incentives for sub-Saharan African countries to continue to open their economies, build free markets, and advance human rights, worker rights, democracy, political pluralism, and respect for rule of law.
I look forward to working with African nations to advance these mutual objectives in the context of extending trade preferences to individual countries and participating in the annual U.S.-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Forum later this year.
Page 783 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Thirty-five countries have been designated eligible for AGOA benefits and 1,835 additional products have been added to the Generalized System of Preferences list for duty-free import under AGOA. Five countries so far have met the requirements and been certified for textile benefits, and we expect several more will be shortly. We are working with nine countries now to help them implement the textile visa systems and meet all the legislative requirements.
We look forward to the first Forum meeting and are coordinating with the other Cabinet agencies involved. This will be an important opportunity to begin with sub-Saharan Africa the kind of broad economic dialogue we have with other regions. Shortly, we will consult with the Congress and our African partners on scheduling and an agenda.
TARGETING OBJECTIVES FOR AFRICAN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TRADE
Question:
Do you plan to target objectives and programs within the State Department to facilitate economic growth and trade relations with Africa?
Answer:
Yes, we do. Expanded trade and investment is an important priority for Africa. We are grateful for the bipartisan support in the Congress for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The State Department and other agencies are working to implement it and to help African countries take full advantage of it. Through an interagency effort and through our embassies in Africa, we are carrying out an energetic and creative effort that has included, for example, a private sector speakers program on AGOA, regional seminars, including on customs issues, and training of commercial officers from African embassies here. In addition, our embassies in Africa are helping governments understand the complex textile anti-transshipment measures required for textile and apparel benefits. Through the Africa Trade and Investment Policy Program, funded by USAID, government agencies and nongovernmental organizations are carrying out a variety of programs in Africa aimed at trade and investment-enhancing policy reform and creating business linkages.
Page 784 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Concern for openness of world markets to trade with Africa and other developing countries is one reason we support a new round of multilateral trade liberalization, which would bring down barriers between developing countries and with developed country markets in ways that will go far beyond what we can achieve on our own.
NEW CHALLENGES
Question:
As Secretary, you will be faced with enormous challenges in rapidly changing areas such as health care, crime, and a global economy. Are you willing to adopt cutting edge strategies to deal with these issues? If so, can you provide an example where you foresee having this opportunity?
Answer:
I am willing to adopt—and will adopt—innovative strategies to deal with challenges successfully. One of the most dramatic challenges our government has to deal with is the pandemic caused by HIV/AIDS, currently affecting many countries in Africa and expanding rapidly in the former Soviet Union, the Caribbean and Asia. President Bush has formed a task force to confront this challenge. Secretary Tommy Thompson and I co-chair this task force. Both of us are busy organizing our respective portions of the government, as well as creating the proper interagency architecture to energize all the relevant cabinet level and agency people that can help in the fight against HIV–AIDs. We are also actively engaged internationally to create a sound global strategy to save lives and ease the suffering caused by HIV–AIDs. Finally, the United States has world-class medical knowledge and institutions, and they will join us in leading the world to new approaches to the terrible problem of HIV–AIDs. I hope to be part of many efforts to bring U.S. teamwork and know-how to bear creatively on today's global challenges.
Page 785 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE THOMAS G. TANCREDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Question:
What is the Administration's position on organizing the Inter-Congolese Dialogue and appointing a mediator?
Answer:
The Congolese parties to the Lusaka Agreement agreed in December 1999 to appoint the former President of Botswana, Sir Ketumile Masire, as the facilitator of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue.
Former President Laurent Kabila's lack of co-operation with the facilitator was an obstacle to progress on the Inter-Congolese Dialogue, which we view as an important part of the Lusaka Peace Process. However, President Joseph Kabila has said that he supports the Dialogue process. The Congolese parties met with President Masire in Lusaka on May 3rd and 4th and reaffirmed their commitment to Lusaka and to the Inter-Congolese Dialogue.
Page 786 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
Does the Administration believe that such a neutralization [of Congolese military forces by the U.N.] would be effective in stopping a leader from rising to power simply based on the strength of the military forces that back him?
Answer:
The U.S. strongly supports MONUC's current role in assisting the parties in the implementation of the Lusaka Agreement but does not anticipate MONUC becoming involved in enforcement action.
This is the position of Secretary-General Annan, as well. He stated in his April 17, 2001 Report to the Security Council on the situation in the DRC: ''Any recommendation I make concerning the assistance MONUC can provide to the disarmament, demobilization, reintegration, repatriation and resettlement process will be based on the assumption that MONUC will not be called upon to use enforcement action.''
CONGO FUNDING
Question:
In addition, I understand that the funds for the dispatch of peacekeeping forces to the Congo have been frozen. What is the Administration's position on these funds?
Page 787 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
The Department has not received any bills this year for the UN peacekeeping operation in the Congo.
We have allocated funds in a reprogramming notification to Congress for our FY 2001 CIPA appropriation which we hope will be approved soon.
The UN is proceeding with the planned deployments.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ARMS CONTROL/MISSILE DEFENSE
Question:
Do you agree that adhering to the provisions of the ABM Treaty continues to serve as a cornerstone of.strategic stability between the U.S. and Russia? And is the concept of a unilateral U.S. National Missile Defense system deployed by 2006 (which may or may not work by that date, if ever) and built only by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and without the support of our NATO allies acceptable to you?
Page 788 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
The 1972 ABM Treaty reflects the thinking of the Cold War and the adversarial relationship we then had with the former Soviet Union.
We need a more healthy foundation for our political relations with Russia. The ABM Treaty, as currently formulated, is not a sound basis for our strategic relations with Russia, and it does not address today's strategic reality.
Our missile defenses will not be a threat to any state except to those who would use missiles to attack or blackmail the United States or our friends and allies. They will exist solely to defend the United States and its friends and allies against attack or blackmail.
NONPROLIFERATION
Question:
What are your views about what more can be done to stem or slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states such as Iraq and Iran? How do you propose to deal with Russia on this issue, given its past cooperation with Iran on nuclear technology and missile issues?
Answer:
Page 789 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Stopping Iraq and Iran from acquiring and developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles is vital to our nonproliferation strategy. However, our approaches to the two countries must be quite different. Iraq is subject to UN sanctions. To prevent Iraq from reconstituting its programs, we need to re-focus existing controls and target them on Iraq's WMD and missile programs. We also need to be sure Iraq does not smuggle oil out of Iraq (to gain cash free of UN oversight) or illegal goods into Iraq by tightening borders and export controls.
In the case of Iran, we have to persuade individual countries not to supply Iran with nuclear and missile technology, although there is no international legal bar to them doing so. The toughest target is Russia. We have made clear to Russia at the highest levels that its continued nuclear and missile cooperation with Iran threatens our national security and is a problem for our bilateral relations. I will be candid in articulating these concerns in upcoming meetings with Foreign Minister Ivanov.
GETTING THE PALESTINIANS TO LIVE UP TO SIGNED AGREEMENTS
Question:
Clearly, there can be no real peace between Israel and the Palestinians unless both sides accept the fact that they will have to live in peace with each other and that both will have to make concessions in order to make that peace. Since the Oslo process began over seven years ago, there has been an intense debate within Israel about the extent of those concessions. Unfortunately, there has been nothing resembling such a debate on the Palestinian side. What can be done to encourage such a debate and to prepare the Palestinian people for peace and not for continuing conflict? What can be done to ensure that the Palestinians live up to the agreements that have already been signed?
Page 790 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
The United States has made very clear to the Palestinians that they must carry out their responsibilities to break the cycle of violence, and prevent continued provocative acts of violence emanating from areas under their control. That includes shootings, bombings, and mortar attacks. These attacks undermine efforts to defuse the situation and bring an end to violence. We have also urged the Palestinian leadership to help prepare the groundwork for eventual co-existence with Israel by, among other things, addressing the issue of incitement.
ANTI-ISRAEL UN RESOLUTIONS
Question:
In my view, progress in the peace process and in our bilateral relations with the countries of the Arab world has not been hurt but, in most instances, helped by the clarity that comes with the consistency of our close ties to Israel. Is that your view as well? In that regard, will you have any hesitation about recommending the veto of anti-Israel U.N. resolutions that are one-sided and unhelpful to our and Israel's interest in the Middle East?
Answer:
The special relationship between the U.S. and Israel has been maintained since Israel's founding and remains a central and unshakeable tenet of U.S. foreign policy.
Page 791 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The U.S. is committed to preventing adoption of resolutions in the Security Council, as well as in other UN bodies, that unjustly single out Israel or complicate the search for a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace.
The Administration will use every available diplomatic tool, including the veto when necessary, to block passage of resolutions that are unbalanced or that seek to prejudge issues that can only be settled through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
ISRAEL'S AID RESTRUCTURING PLAN
Question:
In 1998, Israel and the United States constructed a bold plan to restructure the aid that Israel receives from the U.S., proposing a ten-year plan to gradually eliminate its economic aid and slightly increase its military assistance. Do you support the plan?
Answer:
The aid restructuring plan proposed by the Government of Israel in 1998 was accepted by both Congress and the previous Administration; the Bush Administration is continuing this process. We are now in the third year of that ten-year process. Over the ten-year period, economic assistance to Israel will be phased out at the rate of $120 million per year, and military assistance increased by $60 million each year. This restructuring reflects the unshakeable commitment of the United States to Israel's security, while recognizing the strong economic progress Israel has achieved over the past two decades.
Page 792 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
SUPPLEMENTAL AID PACKAGE FOR ISRAEL
Question:
The previous Administration submitted to Congress a supplemental aid package, for Israel to respond to two specific threats: to help Israel alleviate the large expenses it incurred while pulling out of Lebanon and to help Israel confront new strategic threats, including through theater missile defense efforts and combating weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Secretary, I support increased military assistance to Israel, and I would like to know: will the Administration submit a supplemental aid package for Israel and, if so, when and for what amount?
Answer:
At present, there are no plans to request a supplemental aid package for Israel. If additional needs arise, they will be evaluated later in the year.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
DEALING WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN
Page 793 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
Why do we trade and subsidize a country like China, pursue talks with Iran and North Korea, and act as a conduit for peace in the Middle East while all we seem to know what to do with Iraq is bomb, kill and impose sanctions? Surely we are not expected to believe Saddam Hussein is the only totalitarian in power today?
Answer:
Iraq brutally invaded Kuwait and used missiles to attack Saudi Arabia and Israel. The UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein's regime from reconstituting weapons of mass destruction, rebuilding its military, and once again threatening the region's security. Those controls remain in force because Iraq has refused to comply with its obligations under relevant resolutions, including disarmament, and continues to pose a serious threat to the region.
The U.S. carefully abides by UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq and is currently working to ensure those resolutions effectively achieve their purposes without unnecessarily adversely affecting the Iraqi people.
BASIS FOR NO-FLY ZONES, BILATERAL RELATIONS WITH IRAQ, AND TRADE WITH IRAQ
Question:
Is not the continued bombing of Iraq an act of war? Where does the Administration get its authority to pursue this war? Is this policy not in violation of our Constitution that says only Congress can declare war? There is not even a UN resolution calling for the U.S.-British imposed no-fly zone over Iraq. Our allies have almost all deserted us on our policy toward Iraq. Is it not time to talk to the Iraqis? We talked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War; surely we can do the same with Iraq today. We trade with and subsidize China and we talk to the Iranians; surely we can trade with Iraq?
Page 794 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
The no-fly zones were established in order to carry out vital UN Security Council resolutions, in particular UNSCRs 678, 687, and 688. The coalition maintains the no-fly zones against military but not civil aircraft flights and has employed force only in self-defense, when threatened or fired upon. If Iraq were to cease its threats against coalition aircraft, coalition strikes in response would cease.
UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein's regime from reconstituting weapons of mass destruction, rebuilding its military, and once again threatening the region's security. Those sanctions remain in force because Iraq has refused to comply with its obligations under relevant UN Security Council resolutions, including disarmament, and continues to pose a serious threat to the region. Until Iraq complies with those resolutions, we see no purpose in pursuing bilateral discussions with Baghdad. UN Security Council resolutions allow for civilian trade with Iraq under the UN Oil-for-Food program. U.S. businesses participate in that program.
U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE GULF
Question:
If investors of a foreign nation had a stake in oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and their country were dependent on oil imports for subsistence, is that country justified in militarily dominating the gulf and use of U.S. soil for basing operations? My guess is that Americans would be furious even if done with our government's official approval. Yet we expect the Arab world—a world quite different from ours—to accept our presence and domination. Is it not possible for our policy in the region to show more ''humility'' rather than pursue a policy that incites Islamic fundamentalists against us, leading to what they see as acts of self-defense and we see as acts of terrorism?
Page 795 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
The U.S. military presence in the Gulf promotes regional security and responds to the concerns of our friends in the region. Our presence is not directed against the people of any country in the region. There is probably more that we—together with the governments in the region—could do to explain this better to the people of the region, and we will look for ways to do this. Fundamentally, though, our policy in the region responds to core U.S. interests to promote regional security and free economic trade.
SUPPORT FOR THE IRAQI NATIONAL CONGRESS
Question:
How would you, the U.S. government, and the American people respond if a foreign power subsidized subversive groups whose goal it was to overthrow our government as we are doing with the Iraqi National Congress?
Answer:
We have always believed that change in Iraq must come from the Iraqi people themselves. So long as the Saddam Hussein regime is in power, Iraq will continue to be a threat to the countries of the region, and the people of Iraq will continue to live in circumstances of almost unparalleled oppression. We,'therefore, support the Iraqi National Congress (INC), which has an important role to play in planning for the future of Iraq, and which supports instituting a representative government, respectful of human rights, and willing to live at peace with its neighbors.
Page 796 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
US LAWS: INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Question:
On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions, I am pleased that the Administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty.
95. As a policy matter, can you explain why the Administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty. Also on the ICC topic, if the Administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H.Con.Res. 23 calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise.
Answer:
As a sovereign state, the United States is free to enter into cooperative arrangements with other states. The Administration has strong objections to the ICC's purported authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. nationals without the consent of the United States. The other organizations you mention (WTO, UN, NATO) are entities in which the United States has agreed to participate. With regard to UN and NATO resolutions in particular, resolutions authorizing use of force can only be taken with U.S. consent.
Page 797 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, to which you may be referring, were established by the United Nations Security Council with strong U.S. support to address violations of international humanitarian law.
On signature of the ICC treaty, we are of course not bound by provision of a treaty requiring ratification on the basis of our signature alone, and we can become bound only after compliance with our Constitutional requirements. The Administration has no intention to submit the treaty to the Senate or become a party to it.
U.S. LAWS
Question:
Since World War II, each of our Presidents has engaged in wars—both big and small, from Korea to the continued bombing of Iraq—without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. Yet, the Constitution clearly vests the decision to go to war (as opposed to the execution by the commander in chief, once declared) with the Congress. If, however, the ''war decision'' is allowed to come from Presidential directives or UN resolutions, of what value to the American people is the constitutional constraint upon a President who would otherwise wage war without congressional approval? Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional? If so, why? If not, why not?
Answer:
Page 798 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The President has extensive authority as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution to order the deployment of US forces in order to protect US interests. Congress also has important authorities in this area, including its authority with respect to the appropriation of funds in addition to its authority to declare war. Congress is fully capable of acting to constrain military operations that it opposes when it so chooses.
With respect to the War Powers Resolution, every Administration since its enactment in 1973 has raised questions about its constitutionality and wisdom. This Administration certainly shares those concerns, and believes the provisions purporting to require the withdrawal of US forces from actual or imminent hostilities within stated time periods are unconstitutional. Despite these concerns regarding the Resolution, we are strongly committed to working with Congress in this area of foreign policy, and fully recognize the importance of congressional and public support for decisions to deploy US armed forces.
Question:
Is it not clear that a U.S. treaty, although it is called the law of the land, was never intended to be used to amend our Constitution?
Answer:
It is my understanding that Article V of the Constitution sets out the procedures for amending the Constitution.
Those procedures include no mention of the use of treaties or the treaty-making power.
Page 799 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
ENDING MILITARY DRAFT AND SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION
Question:
In your earlier remarks before this Committee you said that you regard the military as a vital component of U.S. foreign policy. I am wondering if you, as a former military officer, would comment on the antiquated idea of a military draft and selective service registration. I believe you have spoken against the draft in the past. Do you still hold that a draft is unwarranted? Would you support ending draft registration?
Answer:
I favor continuation of peacetime registration to maintain the capability to reconstitute U.S. forces. Maintaining the requirement to register for selective service signals to young Americans that readiness to come to our nation's defense remains an obligation of all our citizens. It provides insurance against our possible underestimation of the level of threat to American interests. It also signals allies and potential adversaries, who watch for signs of U.S. resolve. Additionally, as fewer and fewer members of society have direct military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain the link between the All-Volunteer Force and our society at large.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Page 800 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
BUSH ADMINISTRATION APPROACH TO ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATIONS
Question:
How do you expect a Bush presidency to differ from the previous administration regarding the Middle East Peace Process? Given that the Palestinians have demonstrated a lack of interest in real compromise through negotiations, is the Administration reassessing its role vis-a-vis negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis?
Answer:
The United States remains actively involved in the Middle East. My first foreign trip was to the Middle East. .President Bush and I have met with a number of leaders from the region and will continue to do so. The President and I talk frequently by phone with regional players, and our diplomats in the field are engaged daily with the parties.
The U.S. has a vital interest in a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We are actively engaged with both sides in an effort to halt the violence and restore trust and confidence between them.
BUSH ADMINISTRATION APPROACH TO DEALING WITH ARAFAT
Question:
Page 801 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
How does the administration plan to let Yasir Arafat know that we will no longer tolerate terrorism instead of diplomacy? If Arafat continues to acquiesce and increase his support for the use of violence and terrorist activity, contrary to his Oslo obligations, will the U.S. no longer deal with him as a world leader, but rather as a terrorist?
Answer:
The United States has made very clear to the Palestinians that they must carry out their responsibilities to break the cycle of violence, and prevent continued provocative acts of violence emanating from areas under their control. That includes shootings, bombings, and mortar attacks. These attacks undermine efforts to defuse the situation and bring an end to violence.
PLOCCA REPORT
Question:
The PLO Commitments and Compliance Act (PLOCCA) calls for a report on Palestinian compliance every six months. This report was due in late February. When does the State Department plan to transmit this report to Congress? Can you certify that the Palestinians are living up to their commitments?
Answer:
Page 802 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The next PLOCCA report will cover the reporting period from December 15, 2000 to June 15, 2001. The last PLOCCA report covered the period from June 15, 2000 to December 15, 2000. As was the case with previous reports, the next PLOCCA report will respond to the reporting requirement, including the issue of PLO actions and policies with respect to its commitments set forth in Chairman Arafat's September 9, 1993, letters to Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Norwegian Foreign Minister Holst and those in, and resulting from, the good faith implementation of the Declaration of Principles (DOP) and subsequent agreements.
U.S.-ISRAELI BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP
Question:
In recent years, U.S.-Israel bilateral relations have been defined almost exclusively in terms of what happens in the peace process. As President Bush stated during the campaign, ''I recognize the importance of the peace process and the key role that the United States can play. But my support for Israel is not conditional on the outcome of the peace process. America's special relationship with Israel precedes the peace process. And, Israel's adversaries should know that in my administration, the special relationship will continue, even if they cannot bring themselves to make true peace with the Jewish state.'' Is that your view as well? How do you expect to help strengthen the relationship?
Answer:
President Bush's comments reflect the views of the Administration. It is the policy of this Administration to broaden and deepen our relationship with Israel for the mutual benefit of our two countries.
Page 803 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
ISRAEL'S AID RESTRUCTURING PLAN
Question:
In 1998, Israel working with the United States, initiated a bold plan to restructure its aid levels, proposing a ten-year plan to gradually eliminate its economic aid and slightly increase its military assistance. Last year, the Clinton Administration signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Israel in support of that plan. Do you support the plan?
Answer:
The aid restructuring plan proposed by the Government of Israel in 1998 was accepted by both Congress and the previous Administration; the Bush Administration is continuing this process. We are now in the third year of that ten-year process. Over the ten-year period, economic assistance to Israel will be phased out at the rate of $120 million per year, and military assistance increased by $60 million each year. This restructuring reflects the unshakable commitment of the United States to Israel's security, while recognizing the strong economic progress Israel has achieved over the past two decades.
SUPPLEMENTAL AID PACKAGE FOR ISRAEL
Question:
Mr. Secretary, I support this increase in military assistance to Israel and am curious as to what your thinking is regarding the supplemental aid package to Israel. Will the Administration submit a supplemental aid package for Israel and, if so, when and for what amounts?
Page 804 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
At present, there are no plans to request a supplemental aid package for Israel. If additional needs arise, they will be evaluated later in the year.
EGYPT-ISRAEL RELATIONS
Question:
Will you remind Egypt of the commitments it made at Camp David to full recognition, diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with Israel, and the termination of economic boycotts against Israel? When do you expect the Egyptian Ambassador to return to Israel?
Answer:
Egypt has been a staunch advocate of peace in the Middle East since the 1978 Camp David Accords, which still form the bedrock of Middle East peace. Egypt's commitment to peace with Israel remains solid.
Working with the Jordanians, Egypt has offered suggestions to Israel and the Palestinians on ways to stop the ongoing violence. We believe this effort by Egypt and Jordan is constructive. We have commended the effort. Following his May trip to Cairo, Israeli Foreign Minister Peres advised the Secretary that the Egyptians have played a constructive role in this effort.
Page 805 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The GOE has said the withdrawal of their Ambassador was a minimal step in response to actions by the Government of Israel that the people of Egypt found intolerable. High level contacts geared towards ending Israeli-Palestinian violence and restoring negotiations continue. The Egyptian Embassy in Tel Aviv remains open and functioning. We have urged the GOE to return its Ambassador to Tel Aviv, and we will continue to do so. The GOE has assured us it wishes to return its Ambassador once violence diminishes and a productive atmosphere for talks is restored.
HIZBALLAH ATTACKS
Question:
What is the United States doing to halt Hizballah's attacks on Israel? Are we pressing the Lebanese to deploy their army to the South and take control of the region?
Answer:
We remain concerned about Hizballah attacks across the Blue Line. The situation has the potential to become very dangerous. We have called upon all sides at every opportunity to exercise maximum restraint and take steps to end the violence.
We continue to call on the Government of Lebanon to exercise sovereign control over the south—both militarily and administratively. While Lebanon has dispatched some security personnel, augmented its administrative presence, and restored order at some points on the border, these steps fall short of Lebanon's full responsibilities under UNSCR 425.
Page 806 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
SYRIAN PRESENCE IN LEBANON AND SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM
Question:
Is it still the policy of the United States that all Syrian forces should withdraw from Lebanon? What is the United States doing to press Syria to remove its armed forces from Lebanon? Will Syria remain on the State Department list of terrorist nations? What is our country doing to encourage the nascent democratic opposition movement in Lebanon?
Answer:
We remain committed to Lebanon's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity and have long supported the withdrawal of all foreign forces. The Syrian presence is an issue that should be decided between Syria and Lebanon. We can most effectively contribute to this objective by working to achieve comprehensive peace.
Syria retained its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in our 2000 assessment. Future designations will be determined by Syria's actions.
Lebanon has an active political life, a multi-party system, and vigorous public debate on domestic and regional issues. We meet with representatives from Lebanon's full political spectrum, excluding Hizballah, and through our assistance programs, seek to strengthen democratic values and national cohesiveness.
Page 807 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
IRAN
Question:
Iran remains a very serious threat for the U.S. and Israel. It continues its aggressive pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them, its violent opposition to the Israeli—Arab peace process, and its support of international terrorism. Iran is a major supplier of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini recently stated that ''It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.'' (Tehran Radio, 2/5/01) Iran has tested a missile that can hit U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf as well as Israel.
The United States has undertaken a series of unilateral steps to improve relations with Iran over the past few years, but to no avail. Iran has pocketed the gestures and has not responded to these efforts at improved relations or even supported dialogue with our government. Despite this lack of progress, some in the Administration have talked about adjusting the sanctions regime and reaching out to Iran.
Do you detect any changes domestically in Iran or in its foreign policy relating to these major issues? Is it your sense that the situation is improving or worsening? What policy regarding Iran do you expect the Administration to take? Do you believe it makes sense to ease up on U.S. sanctions against Iran just when the Iranian regime appears to be stepping up support for terrorist actions against the U.S. and Israel?
Answer:
Page 808 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
We have seen little or no improvement in the areas of major concern to the United States, including support for terrorism, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and long range missile technology, opposition to Middle East peace negotiations, and human rights.
In light of this, the new administration plans to review U.S. Iran policy in its entirety to consider whether adjustments or modifications are warranted, keeping in mind that our core concerns have not changed. We will consult closely with Congress in this process.
REBUILDING THE COALITION TO ENSURE CONTROLS REMAIN ON IRAQ
Question:
Mr. Secretary, you have proposed adjusting the international sanctions against Iraq by reducing or eliminating economic sanctions and strengthening the regime designed to prevent key weapons technologies from reaching Saddam Hussein's military. How will you go about rebuilding the coalition to ensure that key sanctions remain on Iraq until it allows the return of UN weapons inspectors?
Answer:
We are consulting closely with regional states and UNSC members on a new approach to Iraq. We have found widespread concern that Iraq continues to pose a threat to the region. We have also found the general perception that current UN sanctions punish the people of Iraq and strengthen the regime's grip on power.
Page 809 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The new approach seeks to establish a reunified consensus on addressing these concerns. It strengthens controls on weapons and weapons-related materials by tightening border and revenue controls. It also expands the range of civilian trade with Iraq and reduces the current level of holds on Iraqi goods under the UN Oil-for-Food program. We will continue to consult with regional and UNSC states on the details of implementing this new approach to ensure that it enjoys strong support and backing.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE NICK SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
CHINA: U.S. RESPONSE TO PRC PROVOCATIONS
Question:
If China decided that the U.S. will continue to act tepidly rather than aggressively in response to its provocations over Taiwan, it could decide that further actions, such as firing missiles at Taiwan's ten major airfields would not meet with a significant U.S. response. What would the United States do if such an action were to occur? How should we communicate our resolve to China?
Answer:
Page 810 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
It is, as was stated in the Taiwan Relations Act, ''the policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means to be a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.'' China is well aware of this.
We have consistently insisted to the PRC over the years that any resolution of the Taiwan question must be peaceful and acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The PRC is well aware of our resolve on this issue.
TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT AND AEGIS DESTROYERS
Question:
Section 3(A) of the Taiwan Relations Act states that the United States ''will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' What steps are being taken to ensure compliance with these provisions? What is the status of the United States response to Taiwan's request for Aegis Class destroyers?
Answer:
The Administration is committed to upholding the Taiwan Relations Act, including its security provisions. We regularly consult with Taiwan on its defense requirements and will continue to do SO. The Administration's decisions are based solely on our assessment of Taiwan's defense needs.
Page 811 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
State and DOD consulted with the staffs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee in classified settings both prior to and following the most recent talks with Taiwan military representatives. At those consultations we reviewed the Administration's decision on the provision to Taiwan of ships equipped with the Aegis-like Evolved Advanced Combat System (EACS). We would be pleased to brief you on this decision at your convenience. We look forward to consulting periodically with the Congress on Taiwan security issues in the future.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
OTHER HEALTH QUESTIONS
Question:
What will this Administration be doing to ensure that UNFPA receives the funding it so desperately needs?
Answer:
The Administration is committed to supporting UNFPA and its voluntary and non-coercive family planning programs. To that end, the Administration has requested $25 million for UNFPA in FY 2002, the same amount as authorized for FY 2001.
Page 812 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The USG will provide solid financial and political support so that UNFPA can continue its valuable work.
DEFERRED PAYMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA)
Question:
I would like to know what the intention of the Administration is with regard to payments to the IAEA. Will there be a review of the current fourth quarter payment policy and, if so, will consideration be made of a change in that policy so that we can make our payment in the first quarter? In the interest of the IAEA, so important in the implementation of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation objectives, I would hope that the Administration considers such a review.
Answer:
Our practice of paying our annual dues to the ten largest international organizations at least ten months late places a severe financial management burden on them. Certainly we would prefer to pay on time. However, we cannot address this problem in a piecemeal manner. The one-time budgetary ''cost'' of eliminating our deferred payment practice would be about $600 million. This would not provide ''extra'' money to these organizations, but would simply allow us to pay our bill when it is due and thereby eliminate the problems caused by our late payment. However given the cost of moving off deferral, we have been unable at this point to include this funding in our budget request. We continue to look for ways to address this matter constructively.
Page 813 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
ARAB RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL AND THE BOYCOTT
Question:
What steps does this Administration plan to take to facilitate the restoration of Arab nations' diplomatic relations with Israel?
Answer:
The U.S. Government continues to encourage those countries which closed Israeli missions to restore them, if possible. Egypt and Jordan have maintained their Embassies in Israel, as has Mauritania, and bilateral trade continues. The largely moribund Arab League boycott of Israel is no longer an issue for U.S. firms in most places, as described in President Bush's response to House Speaker Hastert on Section 539 of the FY 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. However, the establishment of Israeli diplomatic relations with most other Arab countries and the official elimination of the boycott is likely going to come about only after peace agreements are signed between Israel and the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon.
EFFECT OF UNSC RESOLUTIONS ON THE IRAQI PEOPLE
Question:
Like many members of this body, I am concerned about the effects of the sanctions against Iraq on the Iraqi people. While there is no question the Iraqi people are suffering, the cause of that suffering is certainly up for debate. Through the multinational sanctions regime, we established a mechanism by which Iraq could sell oil, and receive revenue to be deposited into a tightly controlled escrow account to provide food and medicine for its citizens. Saddam Hussein has chosen not to provide this assistance to his people in order to facilitate the deterioration of support for these sanctions. Your recent statement regarding revisions to the sanctions against Iraq have troubled me.
Page 814 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
According to your revised plan, we will take steps to improve the humanitarian crisis in Iraq by permitting food, medicine and certain non-dual use items to enter the country, while simultaneously tightening the arms and weapons control aspects of the sanctions. Given that Saddam has always had the ability to provide for his citizens through the U.N. oil-for-food program, how will these adjustments do anything but reward Hussein for his non-compliance?
Answer:
The new approach to Iraq in no way rewards Saddam Hussein's regime. In fact, it targets the regime—tightening revenue and border controls and limiting the regime's ability to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction and rebuild its military.
At the same time, it expands the range of trade with Iraq in civilian goods, thereby countering the widespread perception that current UN sanctions punish the Iraqi people instead of the regime. By doing so, we make the regime more clearly responsible for the welfare of the Iraqi people. We also deny it the basis of much of its propaganda to encourage sympathetic efforts to end all UN controls and remove a major obstacle to building a consensus approach to tightening controls over its ability to use revenues and smuggling to obtain weapons and weapons-related materials.
ANDEAN REGION: PLANS FOR ASSISTANCE
Question:
Page 815 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
In your written statement, you mentioned funding in the President's budget for Colombia's neighbors in an effort to control drug production and the drug trade. I am wondering if you could elaborate on the details of the plan.
Answer:
The Andean region represents a significant challenge and opportunity for U.S. foreign policy in the next few years. Democracy is under pressure in all of the countries of the Andes. Economic development is slow and progress towards liberalization is inconsistent. The Andes produces virtually all of the world's cocaine and an increasing amount of heroin, representing a direct threat to our health and security. All of these problems are interrelated. The region's problems need to be addressed comprehensively to advance US interests in the region.
The Administration is proposing a regional initiative to provide assistance to the Andes. The Administration's FY 2002 budget requests $882 million in international affairs funding for counternarcotics programs, democratic institution building and development assistance in seven countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Venezuela. In contrast to last year's Plan Colombia supplemental, less than half of the assistance will be for Colombia and only half will be for counternarcotics and security assistance. This non-security assistance will include significant funding for alternative development, justice sector reform, human rights and environmental protection. We have briefed the initiative in general terms both to other donors and potential recipient nations, and it has been well received. We have begun Congressional consultations in concert with presentation of the Administration's budget.
Page 816 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Question:
Recently, I joined several of my colleagues in traveling to India, Pakistan, Algeria and Western Sahara. My impression is that the Sahrawi people in the region have lost hope. There is only a small window of opportunity left to preserve peace, which if it closes will further destabilize and weaken the region. Tensions are also high between India and Pakistan. The ongoing conflict over Kashmir and the nuclear arms race threaten regional stability and our own national security. What do you see as the role of the U.S. in encouraging a peaceful resolution to the conflict over and within Kashmir; and what recommendations do you have to stem the proliferation of military technology through, and quiet the nuclear arms race between, India and Pakistan?
Answer:
We share your concern about the importance of reducing tension between India and Pakistan and averting a nuclear arms race. Closer engagement between the two governments is essential. We have encouraged India to resume direct official dialogue with Pakistan, and have urged Pakistan to improve prospects for fruitful dialogue by continuing its restraint along the line of control in Kashmir and by taking steps to reduce violence on the part of insurgent groups with ties to Pakistan.
Page 817 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The proposed meeting of Indian and Pakistani Foreign Secretaries on the sidelines of the June South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation committee meeting offers an opportunity to take a step in the right direction, but both sides will need to bring new flexibility.
The U.S. does not seek to mediate between India and Pakistan. We are willing to consider playing a role in promoting dialogue if this is what both sides want and if there is a reasonable prospect that our doing so could bridge differences.
The U.S. encourages restraint in nuclear and missile programs. We have urged both countries to avoid a nuclear arms race, maintain strict export controls, and continue their testing moratoriums.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
VIETNAM BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENT (BTA)
Question:
With such an easy foreign policy and trade victory waiting for action, has the Administration given thought to accelerating approval of the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) in order to help serve as a catalyst for future trade progress with Congress?
Page 818 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
In addition to the Vietnam BTA, a number of other important trade initiatives will require Congress' attention this year, such as trade promotion authority, trade preference legislation, and the bilateral free trade agreement with Jordan. The Administration is interested in working with Congress to determine the best means of moving all of these important pieces of trade legislation forward this year.
The President anticipates sharing an outline of his trade agenda with Congress shortly. The Vietnam BTA is an important element of that agenda, which the President will want Congress to address expeditiously.
Question:
Does the Administration plan to have Congress pass the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by this summer and, if so, when do you expect it to be introduced?
Answer:
The Administration is working to achieve the earliest possible transmittal to Congress of the BTA, within the overall context of the Administration's legislative trade policy agenda.
The President anticipates sharing an outline of his trade agenda with Congress shortly. The Vietnam BTA is an important element of that agenda, which the President will want Congress to address expeditiously.
Page 819 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Question:
Does the Administration see the Jordan Free Trade Agreement and Vietnam NTR agreements, in addition to being important bilateral trade agreements, as important foreign policy initiatives?
Answer:
Jordan is a key friend in a volatile region. It is an important partner working with the U.S. to promote peace and prosperity. The FTA sends the signal that support for peace and economic reform yields concrete benefits.
The Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) completes an important chapter in the 15-year bipartisan effort to normalize U.S.-Vietnam relations. Approval of the BTA by Congress and its ratification by Vietnam would send a strong pro-trade message to our allies and friends in Asia, and would also promote regional stability.
VIETNAM—BTA AND HANOI MEETINGS
Question:
The United States' involvement with Vietnam for more than half a century has been one of the most painful, divisive and controversial in our nation's history. During the last fifteen years, due in no small measure to the work of the prior two Administrations, bipartisan Congressional leadership, including Senators Kerry and McCain and former House Member Pete Peterson, tremendous progress has been made. This last year proved to be the most momentous, with the overwhelming bipartisan support for the Jackson-Vanik waiver (332–91) and the signing of the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam. All of these culminated with the Presidential visit to Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City last November. As a member of that mission, I was struck by the warmth of the Vietnamese people and the broad recognition that we have been presented with a great opportunity to move forward. There is strong bipartisan support for the trade agreement and interest is high in moving to a new era between our two countries.
Page 820 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Would rapid passage of the BTA present you with a significant accomplishment to carry to Vietnam later this year when Vietnam hosts the ASEAN Conference?
Answer:
The Administration is working to achieve the earliest possible BTA transmittal to Congress, within the overall context of the Administration's trade policy agenda. While BTA passage would be a positive development to bring to the July meetings in Hanoi, our relations with Vietnam encompass more than the BTA. During bilateral meetings on the margin of the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference and ASEAN Regional Forum Ministerial, we hope to engage Vietnam on a wide range of bilateral and multilateral issues, including human rights and religious freedom.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
BUSH ADMINISTRATION APPROACH TO DEALING WITH ARAFAT
Question:
Mr. Secretary, the Palestinian Authority made a commitment to end their policy of violence and support negotiation and the peace process. Isn't it time to tell Chairman Arafat that the U.S. will not accept terrorism instead of diplomacy? Does being an honest broker preclude us from publicly laying blame where it belongs?
Page 821 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
The United States has made very clear to the Palestinians that they must carry out their responsibilities to break the cycle of violence, and prevent continued provocative acts of violence emanating from areas under their control. That includes shootings, bombings, and mortar attacks. These attacks undermine efforts to defuse the situation and bring an end to violence.
EGYPT-ISRAEL RELATIONS
Question:
The Palestinian Authority made a commitment to end its policy of violence and support negotiation and the peace process. Isn't it time to tell Chairman Arafat that the U.S. will not accept terrorism instead of diplomacy? Does being an honest broker preclude us from publicly laying blame where it belongs?
I am deeply concerned about recent actions taken by our ally and recipient of foreign aid, Egypt, which withdrew its Ambassador from Israel, in complete violation of the original Camp David accords. Furthermore, President Mubarak has made public statements supporting an economic boycott of Israel. These actions run completely contrary to the spirit and law of the peace process. As Secretary of State will you remind Egypt of their commitments to the peace process to give full recognition to the diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with Israel? When do you expect the Egyptian Ambassador to return to Israel?
Page 822 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
Egypt has been a staunch advocate of peace in the Middle East since the 1978 Camp David Accords, which still form the bedrock of Middle East peace. Egypt's commitment to peace with Israel remains solid.
Working with the Jordanians, Egypt has offered suggestions to Israel and the Palestinians on ways to stop the ongoing violence. We have commended this effort, and Israeli officials—including Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Minister Peres—have said that it is constructive.
The GOE has said the withdrawal of their Ambassador was a minimal step in response to actions by the Government of Israel that the people of Egypt found intolerable. Nevertheless, high level Egyptian-Israeli contacts geared towards ending Israeli-Palestinian violence and restoring negotiations continue. The Egyptian Embassy in Tel Aviv remains open and functioning. We have urged the GOE to return its Ambassador to Tel Aviv, and we will continue to do so. The GOE has assured us it wishes to return its Ambassador once the violence diminishes and a productive atmosphere for talks is restored.
IDF HOSTAGES AND SOUTH LEBANON
Question:
On Oct. 7, 2000, three Israeli soldiers, Avi Avitan, aged 21, Benny Avraham, 20, and Omar Souad, 27, were kidnapped by Hizballah terrorists who crossed onto the Israeli side of the UN certified international border. These Lebanese terrorists, financially supported and trained by Syria and Iran, also kidnapped Elchanan Tanenbaum, an Israeli businessman, in Europe. What is this Administration going to do to help ascertain the whereabouts and bring about the release of these soldiers, and other Israeli MIA's, some of whom are American citizens? What can be done to quiet the northern border of Israel and to get Hizballah and Syrian forces to leave Lebanon?
Page 823 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Answer:
We are monitoring developments on this issue very closely. We immediately contacted the governments of Lebanon and Syria to urge their assistance in facilitating the soldiers' release and have been in subsequent contact, and we are in touch with Israel on this issue. We have asked UN Secretary General Annan and the International Committee of the Red Cross to urge continued efforts to gain access to the soldiers and facilitate mediation. U.S. officials have also met with family members to hear their concerns. While we will continue to do what we can to encourage resolution of this issue, the involved parties have opted to conduct negotiations through non-U.S. channels.
We continue to call on all parties to adhere to their pledge to UN Secretary General Annan to respect the ''Blue Line,'' exercise restraint, and use their influence to prevent provocation actions that can lead to miscalculation and serious escalation.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SUPPLEMENTAL AID PACKAGE FOR ISRAEL
Question:
Page 824 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I support an increase in military assistance to . Israel and am curious as to what your thinking is regarding the supplemental aid package to Israel. Will the Administration submit a supplemental aid package for Israel and, if so, when and for what amounts?
Answer:
At present, there are no plans to request a supplemental aid package for Israel. If additional needs arise, they will be evaluated later in the year.
US-ARMENIA TASK FORCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Question:
The U.S.-Armenia Economic Task Force recently held a round of meetings in Yerevan to discuss how to promote increased trade and investment between the two nations. What plans do you have for building on the work of the Task Force and helping Armenia develop economically in the face of dual blockades by Turkey and Azerbaijan?
Answer:
Since its independence, the US has provided Armenia with over $735 million in assistance with another $90 million budgeted for FY 2001. The US-Armenia Task Force, now over a year old, is the best vehicle for focusing our assistance efforts to help promote market reforms, integrate Armenia into the world economy and meet priority needs, such as fighting corruption or developing the information technology sector.
Page 825 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
One outcome of the Task Force is the support of the US Trade and Development Agency for the Armenia business and investment conference in May 2001 in New York City. Also, USTR sent a mission to Yerevan at our request to help the Government of Armenia with its efforts to join the WTO. The Task Force will continue to promote these kinds of activities as well as to focus US assistance on job creation and investment.
MARCH 7, 2001 HEARING—SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
ERRATA TO THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARLOS SALINAS, ACTING DIRECTOR FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA
IN THE SECTION ON CAMBODIA:
The following . . .
''The characterization of efforts to establish a war crimes tribunal for the Khmer Rouge appears to have some spin:''
should read . . .
''The characterization of efforts to establish a special tribunal for the Khmer Rouge appears to have some spin:''
Page 826 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The following . . .
''The Report, perhaps reflecting overall U.S. policy, fails to address the issue that crimes against humanity have international jurisdiction and thus need to be taken up in an international war crimes tribunal.''
should read . . .
''The Report, perhaps reflecting overall U.S. policy, fails to address the issue that crimes against humanity are crimes of international jurisdiction and thus can be taken up by an international tribunal if the state where these crimes occurred proves unwilling or unable to try these crimes in proceedings meeting international standards of fairness.''
The following . . .
''The U.S. government has played an ''intermediary'' role between the UN and the Cambodian government on the war crimes negotiations, and has undermined efforts to establish a truly international tribunal.''
should read . . .
''The U.S. government has played an ''intermediary'' role between the UN and the Cambodian government on the trial negotiations, and has undermined efforts to establish a truly international tribunal.''
Page 827 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
IN THE SECTION ON JORDAN:
The following . . .
''The Report is very thorough with one exception.''
should read . . .
''The Report is very thorough and we would like to point out one of the exceptions to this assessment.''
IN THE SECTION ON SRI LANKA:
The following . . .
''Also, the Report did not include a single violation brought to our attention of violations against sexual minorities.''
This sentence should be deleted.
MAY 2, 2001 MARKUP—COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Page 828 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONALD M. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1646, OFFERED BY MR. MENENDEZ, MS. LEE, MR. HASTINGS OF FLORIDA, AND MR. FALEOMAEVAGA
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a written statement for the record. I rise in support for the Menendez, Hastings, Lee, Faleomavega Sense of the Congress Amendment on climate change to the Foreign Relations authorization bill. This amendment will send an important message to this Administration and the rest of the world that the United States Congress is concerned about global warming, and wants to remain engaged in the international process to deal with that problem.
There is no question that global warming is real, and is a serious threat to our economy, health, and environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC), a body of leading climate scientists from around the world has concluded that temperatures have already increased and will continue to increase this century. Projected climate change will be accompanied by an increase in heat waves, often exacerbated by increased humidity an urban air pollution, which will cause an increase in heat-related deaths and illness episodes.
With all of these effects occurring, it is vital that the United States remain engaged in the international negotiations with the goal of completing the rules and guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol. I, along with my colleagues, am very disappointed in the Bush Administration's opposition to the treaty, in spite of the overwhelming data, and the support from the American public and around the world. As a country responsible for most greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, we should be a leader in reducing emissions.
Page 829 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The evidence is clear: unchecked global warming will cause a significant increase in human mortality due to extreme weather and infectious diseases, as well as ecological damage in the forms of droughts, fires, hurricanes and floods. No country, even industrialized nations like the United States, will escape these impacts. We cannot sit idly by as these ecological trends become the norm. It's time for the U.S. to firm our resolve and work to leave a healthy environment for future generations of Americans.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DARRELL E. ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to closely examine legislation, which will authorize much-needed funding to reform and revitalize the State Department.
I am pleased to see that the FY2002 budget significantly increases the Department's resources, which is a good first step toward modernizing one of our most important global investments. Funding the State Department, its personnel, and systems represents a good down payment on our future relations around the globe as we continue to engage an increasingly complex world.
We can no longer ignore the crucial role our diplomatic arm plays on the global stage, especially as countries become more and more interconnected through improvements in technology, trade, telecommunications, and the Internet. In the past, Congress misjudged the importance of the Department, which led us to under-funded facilities, outdated systems, inadequate security provisions, and major staffing shortages.
Page 830 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
I know I am not alone when I say that I am confident that under the leadership of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who recently addressed this Committee, our resources will be well-spent and well-directed.
Again, I thank the Chairman, and I look forward to moving this legislation through the Committee.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Thank You Mr. Chairman:
I would like to raise one other matter of grave importance to this committee. It concerns the as yet unsolved mystery surrounding the 1994 assassination of two African Presidents.
On April 6 1994, the Rwandan Presidential aircraft carrying Rwanda President Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot out of the sky by unknown assailants as it approached the Kigali Airport. Both Presidents were killed along with all the other passengers and crew. The importance of this terrorist act cannot be underestimated because this singular event unleashed a torrent of violence in Rwanda which claimed the lives of an estimated one million men, women and children in just 100 days. And immediately following this genocide in Rwanda a bloody regional war initiated by Rwanda and Uganda erupted in the Great Lakes taking a further two to three million lives.
Page 831 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Both Belgium and France have taken strong introspective looks at what went wrong in their policies that allowed the slaughter of over one million innocent people in Rwanda and over two million people in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, is quoted as saying that she begged Washington to act and stop the genocide in Rwanda. But neither United Nations nor United States records reflect that Albright did anything to intervene or to persuade others to intervene to stop the killing. I have asked the State Department to supply me with the cables indicating such requests. To date I have received nothing. In contrast, the record does reflect that she championed for promotions those who were responsible for the colossal failures and the ensuing coverup: Albright successfully ushered the Director of the Office of UN Peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, to a promotion to Secretary General of the United Nations; Louise Arbor, Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, who unilaterally shut down the United Nations investigation into the plane crash, was ushered onto the Canadian Supreme Court; Ambassador Albright, herself, received a promotion to United States Secretary of State, and her young protege at the National Security Council, Susan Rice, became Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.
During Albright's tenure as Secretary of State she did absolutely nothing to help stop the suffering of the people of Africa's Great Lakes region. In fact, she left Africa in far worse shape than she found it. I tried to have a hearing on Rwanda to receive State Department input on what went wrong. While we had witnesses to travel from as far away as Pakistan and Belgium, principals in Washington, DC, involved intimately in the decision making on Rwanda, refused to travel across town to testify at the hearing. No one with decision making authority in the Clinton Administration at the time has ever had to account publicly for US inaction in the face of a genocide; no one has even stated publicly what went right, wrong, or even the lessons learned from this great tragedy. However, I have been contacted by a number of courageous State Department personnel who have gone on the public record refuting the official US position that the US didn't know a genocide was occurring and refuting that the US did all it could to stop the catastrophe. On the contrary, they suggest that the State Department actually chose to ignore the genocide and allow nearly one million people to perish.
Page 832 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
On April 6, 2001 I convened a hearing to discuss what has since become known about US activity in Africa since the downing of the plane carrying the two African presidents. Included with this statement are the testimonies of the participants. Attached (also available @ www.house.gov/mckinney ) are supporting documents distributed at the hearing. I appreciate being able to make this submission on behalf of truth, justice, democracy, and transparency.
Thank You.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC CANTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Thank you Mr. Chairman for your support in securing $15 million for the Middle East Radio Network. I also want to thank my colleagues Mr. Wexler and Sherman for their support making this a bipartisan effort.
Currently, Voice of America Arabic only reaches about 2% of the populations in the region, far behind BBC and other major international networks. The Middle East Radio Network initiative will serve to broadcast American traditions of individual choice and freedom to a region where anti democratic rhetoric is strong. Some in the Middle East are opposed to American policies but are drawn to the American ideals of free speech and free press.
Page 833 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
This measure will provide the resources for Middle East Radio Network programming that will be a combination of news, music, talk, and interaction with listeners. Featuring reliable news and discussion of issues relevant to the audience, MRN will appeal to young adults and to news-seekers of all ages. Constant program themes will be individual choice and respect for others.
The Middle East Radio Network is a worthwhile program to spread American ideals and democratic principles. Thank you again Mr. Chairman for your continued leadership and support on this issue and in the Middle East.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION BILL—MENENDEZ, LEE, HASTINGS AMENDMENT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Thank you, Chairman Hyde. I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Unabated greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, represent a profound threat to American national security, to the U.S. economy, and to our relationships with our allies. The act or even the appearance that the United States is abandoning efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions endangers longstanding relationships and threatens environmental health and sustainability.
Page 834 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
The average American consumes twice as much energy as the average European, and per capita greenhouse gas emissions are twice as high in the US as in Europe. The disparities grow even wider when comparing American energy consumption with that of the developing world.
We have been hearing a lot about burden sharing recently. I agree that burden sharing is important, and the United States must bear its share of this burden in dealing with global warming.
British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott recently declared that the United States ''cannot pollute the world while free-riding on action by everyone else.'' Romano Prodi, the president of the European Union Commission, stated, ''If one wants to be a world leader, one must know how to look after the entire earth and not only American industry.''
Global climate change is underway. Deserts are spreading, islands and coastline are disappearing, and the atmosphere itself is being transformed. In 1998, the CEOs of the largest one thousand corporations in the world declared that global climate change was the most critical problem facing humanity. Since then the problem has gotten worse, not better. And this country has yet to act despite our obligations to do so, on a voluntary basis, according to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). According to this treaty, which was the predecessor of the Kyoto Protocol the U.S. and other industrialized countries of the world would voluntarily reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses to 1990 levels by 2000. But it failed. Not one country lived up to its voluntary commitments, and the U.S. failure was particularly glaring. That is why in 1997, 165 countries negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol, which would commit us to binding emissions reductions.
Page 835 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Voluntary controls on emissions have not stopped global warming. Our emissions have increased 13% above 1990 levels, and continue to increase despite the UNFCC.
The Kyoto Protocol is the best instrument we have at hand to curb global climate change. It sets targets for reductions from industrialized counties that are responsible for historical accumulations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Much like the Montreal Protocol, the treaty envisions that, once the industrialized world begins to take action, the developing world would as well.
It is important that the United States continue to take the lead in technological development and, as the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, that we live up to our responsibilities as global citizens. This is a matter of national interest and international obligation. Failure to do so will poison both our planet and our relationship with our allies.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
The State Department authorization is perhaps our Committee's single most important piece of legislation that we will consider over the course of the year. The programs and budget contained within the State Department impact the lives of thousands of federal employees, millions of American citizens both at home and abroad, and the diplomatic relations between the United States and the rest of the world. Few other federal agencies that Congress works with have such an impact on our nation's economy, security, and livability.
Page 836 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, I have a great interest in bringing about common-sense practices in the planning and management of our overseas buildings infrastructure. I am impressed with the business-like approach being taken by General Chuck Williams (US Army Corp of Engineers, Ret.), Chief Operating Officer for the State Department's Office of Foreign Building Operations and I look forward to working with him on some needed reforms.
The Office of Foreign Building Operations manages buildings in 260 locations in some 130 countries around the globe. Gen. Williams is instigating a long-range planning process akin to that practiced by the Department of Defense in its 5-year Future Years Defense Plan. This kind of planning ahead makes sense, and should achieve cost savings, and more important, greater value for our investment of resources.
There are some statutory changes that may need to be made in order to best assure that our 260 diplomatic missions have appropriate facilities to achieve our foreign policy objectives. We need to provide all 20,000 employees at our missions with safe, secure, and functional facilities. I want to begin a dialogue on this topic to prepare to make needed changes.
In addition, I would like to thank my colleagues Representatives Menendez, Lee, and Hastings for providing an important amendment encouraging the United States to participate in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I commend them for their leadership on this key issue.
The science is in; global warming is a significant problem for our planet. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the federal government take steps to both prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change. I am one of those people who believes that global warming is actually a problem for our planet, and I think that the federal government should take steps to both prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change. Our planet has warmed by more than a degree in the past 100 years and sea level has risen between four and eight inches. But the problems are predicted to get much worse.
Page 837 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
Today, more than 50% of our nation's population lives within 30 miles of the coast. By 2025, that number is predicted to be more than 75% of our population. At the same time, the threat of more dangerous and more frequent coastal storms threatens our beaches. On the California coast alone, 5000 homes will be lost to erosion in the next 60 years.
For these reasons, the federal government should take a leadership role—not only in its participation in the Kyoto Protocol, but also in preparation for and mitigation of impending natural disasters.
There are many ways that Congress can help. We can support programs like FEMA's Project Impact, which invest small amounts of federal money to develop the emergency management partnerships and planning in advance of a disaster. We can strengthen policy, such as legislation Congressman Bereuter and I introduced to reform the National Flood Insurance Program. We can work with our international partners to implement the Kyoto Protocol. It's time for Congress to step up to be a full partner rather than supporting short term parochial interests that only encourage people to be in harm's way, waste tax dollars, and ultimately make the problem worse. I urge support for this global warming amendment.
Finally, I plan to support the Lee Amendment to the State Department reauthorization legislation under consideration by the International Relations Committee. This amendment restores critical funding to family planning clinics across the world.
US aid for international family planning is used to provide health education, family planning, contraception, and women's health services to women across the globe. By law, US aid cannot be used to perform abortions, instead these funds provide resources critical to combating mother and infant mortality and diseases like HIV/AIDS which cripple development efforts in third world nations. Without these funds, millions of women's lives are put in jeopardy and democracy is stagnated through profound public health threats and U.S.-imposed limits on freedom of speech.
Page 838 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
President Bush's first official act was to eliminate US aid for international family planning services. Non-governmental agencies in 52 developing nations will be forced to lose or severely reduce their efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. I commend the work of Congresswoman Lee to overturn the President's ''Global Gag'' order.
hr1646.AAB
hr1646.AAC
hr1646.AAD
Page 839 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.AAE
hr1646.AAF
hr1646.AAG
hr1646.AAH
hr1646.AAI
Page 840 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.AAJ
hr1646.AAK
hr1646.AAL
hr1646.AAM
hr1646.AAN
Page 841 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.AAO
hr1646.AAP
hr1646.AAQ
hr1646.AAR
hr1646.AAS
Page 842 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.AAT
hr1646.AAU
hr1646.AAV
hr1646.AAW
hr1646.AAX
Page 843 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.AAY
hr1646.AAZ
hr1646.ABA
hr1646.ABB
hr1646.ABC
Page 844 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ABD
hr1646.ABE
hr1646.ABF
hr1646.ABG
hr1646.ABH
Page 845 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ABI
hr1646.ABJ
hr1646.ABK
hr1646.ABL
hr1646.ABM
Page 846 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ABN
hr1646.ABO
hr1646.ABP
hr1646.ABQ
hr1646.ABR
Page 847 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ABS
hr1646.ABT
hr1646.ABU
hr1646.ABV
hr1646.ABW
Page 848 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ABX
hr1646.ABY
hr1646.ABZ
hr1646.ACA
hr1646.ACB
Page 849 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ACC
hr1646.ACD
hr1646.ACE
hr1646.ACF
hr1646.ACG
Page 850 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ACH
hr1646.ACI
hr1646.ACJ
hr1646.ACK
hr1646.ACL
Page 851 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ACM
hr1646.ACN
hr1646.ACO
hr1646.ACP
hr1646.ACQ
Page 852 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ACR
hr1646.ACS
hr1646.ACT
hr1646.ACU
hr1646.ACV
Page 853 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ACW
hr1646.ACX
hr1646.ACY
hr1646.ACZ
hr1646.ADA
Page 854 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ADB
hr1646.ADC
hr1646.ADD
hr1646.ADE
hr1646.ADF
Page 855 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ADG
hr1646.ADH
hr1646.ADI
hr1646.ADJ
hr1646.ADK
Page 856 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ADL
hr1646.ADM
hr1646.ADN
hr1646.ADO
hr1646.ADP
Page 857 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ADQ
hr1646.ADR
hr1646.ADS
hr1646.ADT
hr1646.ADU
Page 858 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.ADV
hr1646.ADW
hr1646.ADX
hr1646.ADY
hr1646.ADZ
Page 859 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.AEA
hr1646.AEB
hr1646.AEC
hr1646.AED
hr1646.AEE
Page 860 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.AEF
hr1646.AEG
hr1646.AEH
hr1646.AEI
hr1646.AEJ
Page 861 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
hr1646.AEK
hr1646.AEL
hr1646.AEM
hr1646.AEN
hr1646.AEO
71262h.eps
Page 862 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
71262i.eps
71262j.eps
71262k.eps
71262l.eps
71262m.eps
71262n.eps
71262o.eps
71262p.eps
71262q.eps
71262r.eps
71262s.eps
71262t.eps
Page 863 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
71262u.eps
71262v.eps
71262w.eps
71262x.eps
71262y.eps
71262z.eps
71262aa.eps
71262ab.eps
71262ac.eps
71262ad.eps
71262ae.eps
71262af.eps
71262ag.eps
Page 864 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
71262ag.eps
71262ah.eps
71262ai.eps
71262aj.eps
71262ak.eps
71262al.eps
71262am.eps
71262an.eps
71262ao.eps
71262ap.eps
71262aq.eps
71262ar.eps
Page 865 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
71262as.eps
71262at.eps
71262au.eps
71262av.eps
71262aw.eps
71262ax.eps
71262ay.eps
71262az.eps
71262ba.eps
71262bb.eps
71262bc.eps
71262bd.eps
71262be.eps
Page 866 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
71262bf.eps
71262bg.eps
71262bh.eps
71262bi.eps
71262bj.eps
71262bk.eps
71262bl.eps
71262bm.eps
71262bn.eps
71262bo.eps
71262bp.eps
71262bq.eps
Page 867 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
71262br.eps
71262bs.eps
98
71262bs1.eps
71262bt.eps
71262bu.eps
71262bv.eps
71262bw.eps
71262bx.eps
71262by.eps
71262bz.eps
71262ca.eps
71262cb.eps
Page 868 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 6
71262cc.eps
71262cd.eps
71262ce.eps
71262cf.eps
71262cg.eps