SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
50–757 CC
1998
H.J. RES. 125, H.R. 4095, H. RES. 459, H. RES. 469, H. CON. RES. 277, H. RES. 421, H. CON. RES. 254 AND H. CON. RES. 224
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 21, 1998
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
LOIS CAPPS, California
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff and Counsel
ALLISON KIERNAN, Staff Associate
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
C O N T E N T S
APPENDIX
H.J. Res. 125
Amendment to H.J. Res. 125 offered by Mr. Campbell
H.R. 4095
H. Res. 459
H. Res. 469
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 469 offered by Mr. Brady
H. Con. Res. 277
H. Res. 421
H. Con. Res. 254
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 254 offered by Mr. Gilman
H. Con. Res. 224
Prepared statements:
Hon. Lee Hamilton, a Representative in Congress from Indiana
Hon. Kevin Brady, a Representative in Congress from Texas
Additional material submitted for the record:
June 22, 1998 letter to Chairman Gilman from Administrator J. Brian Atwood
MARKUP OF H.J. RES. 125, FINDING THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ IN MATERIAL AND UNACCEPTABLE BREACH OF ITS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS; H.R. 4905, TO PROVIDE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES CODE OF CONDUCT WITH ALL WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT COUNTRIES; H. RES. 459, COMMEMORATING 50 YEARS OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA; H. RES. 469, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING ASSISTANCE TO MEXICO TO COMBAT WILDFIRES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H. CON. RES. 277, CONCERNING THE NEW TRIBES MISSION HOSTAGE CRISIS; H. RES. 421, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEPLORING THE TRAGIC AND SENSELESS MURDER OF BISHOP JUAN JOSE GERARDI, CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT OF GUATEMALA TO EXPEDITIOUSLY BRING THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRIME TO JUSTICE, AND CALLING ON THE PEOPLE OF GUATEMALA TO REAFFIRM THEIR COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THE PEACE ACCORDS WITHOUT INTERRUPTION; H. CON. RES. 254, CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES CONVICTED FELON JOANNE CHESIMARD AND ALL OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FLED THE UNITED STATES TO AVOID PROSECUTION OR CONFINEMENT FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND WHO ARE CURRENTLY LIVING FREELY IN CUBA; H. CON. RES. 224, URGING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN RECOVERING CHILDREN ABDUCTED IN THE UNITED STATES AND TAKEN TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] The International Relations Committee meets today in open session to mark up several items of legislation. The members will please take their seats.
We'll be moving as expeditiously as possible on what are, in the main, non-controversial items. And I want to thank in advance those Members and staff who worked out their differences on most of these matters. I'll be speaking on the items as they come up under the 5 minute rule, and I hope that Members would likewise speak under the 5 minute rule in their remarks.
I'd like to recognize our distinguished Ranking Minority Member, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, if he has any opening remarks. Otherwise, we'll proceed.
Mr. HAMILTON. No opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. We'll now consider H.J. Res. 125, relating to the situation in Iraq. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H.J. Res. 125, a resolution finding the government of Iraq in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations.''
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full Committee. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language, in that order, for amendment.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and the conditions governing the cease-fire were specified in United Nations Security Council Resolutions.''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read. I'll now recognize myself for 5 minutes to explain the resolution.
[H.J. Res. 125 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Speaker Gingrich and I introduced this measure on June 25th in response to the mounting evidence that Iraq is continuing to defy world opinion relevant to decisions of the U.N. Security Council. The most recent example is a revelation last month that Iraq has managed to put V-X poison gas into missile warheads. This fact has been established by lab testing here in our Nation of missile warhead fragments found by the U.N. inspectors in Iraq. This finding proves that Iraq remains in violation of its obligation under the U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, to disclose and eliminate its weapons, advanced destruction programs, and capabilities. It also demonstrates that Iraq continues even now to lie to the United Nations and to the world about the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
There's nothing new about this, however. The record of Iraq's continued evasion and obstruction of U.N. resolutions is spelled in the 29 ''whereas'' clauses contained in this measure. It quickly becomes apparent from these ''whereas'' clauses that there has been a continuous and uninterrupted pattern of Iraqi non-compliance with Security Council resolutions going back to 1991. This problem emphatically has not been resolved by the deal put together by U.N. Security General Kofi Annan last February.
My colleagues will recall that earlier this year our Nation was on the verge of using military force to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with its international obligations. That threat was withdrawn after Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and came back with promises of better behavior by Iraq in the future. The purpose of this resolution is to draw attention to the fact that Saddam Hussein's behavior has not been improved and that he remains in material and unacceptable breach of his international obligations. The international community cannot continue to look the other way.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe that H.J. Res. 125 is both timely and unassailable as a factual matter, and I urge our colleagues to support the measure.
Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the resolution? Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, of course, concur in the Chairman's statement about the seriousness of the problem with Iraq. All of us agree, I believe, that Iraq is violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, and that its behavior has been erratic and unacceptable. It is certainly appropriate, it seems to me, for the Congress to go on record to express its disapproval and its very strong objection to Iraq's conduct.
Now, I do have some concerns. It's not my intention to oppose this resolution, but I do have some concerns about it. And I think probably the best way for me to start is just to ask the Administration, if they would, to come forward and respond to a couple of questions I have.
Chairman GILMAN. Would you please identify yourself?
Mr. KLOSSON. Michael Klosson. I'm a Deputy Assistant Secretary in Legislative Affairs at the State Department. And I have with me, if it's specific factual questions, I have with me a colleague from the Middle East Bureau which may be more suitable.
Chairman GILMAN. Well, why don't you bring him forward?
Mr. HAMILTON. Well, bring him up. The first question really is the ''whereas'' clauses. Are there any inaccuracies?
Mr. KLOSSON. My understanding is that the list of ''whereas'' clauses is an accurate and telling list of Iraq's non-compliance.
Mr. HAMILTON. Second——
Chairman GILMAN. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that response.
Mr. KLOSSON. It's an accurate listing of Iraq's non-compliance.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. It is an accurate list, not inaccurate?
Mr. KLOSSON. No, it is an accurate.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now, the language of the ''resolved'' clause contains the phrase ''material and unacceptable breach.'' That's language that is used in a U.N. Security Council resolution context often and my understanding of the use of that phrase is that it in effect means a go ahead for the use of all necessary means to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution. Or in other words, it is a go ahead for the use of force. Is that correct?
Mr. KLOSSON. Let me ask my colleague, Ann Korky, from the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau to address that.
Chairman GILMAN. Could you please identify yourself and put the ''mike'' closer to you, please?
Ms. KORKY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm Ann Korky. I'm the director of Northern Gulf Affairs at the State Department. The use of the term ''material breach'' is normally something which the Security Council enunciates. It has done so, I believe, on seven occasions since 1991. In the minds of some members of the international community, it is linked with justification for the use of force. That is not, of course, the Administration's position. We feel that we have the authority we would need to take military action against Iraq if the President judged that to be necessary.
Mr. HAMILTON. I understand that. But the fact is that in a U.N. Security Council resolution, when you have the phrase ''material breach,'' that signals, does it not, to the international community that the use of force is permissible?
Ms. KORKY. Mr. Hamilton, I think for many members of the international community that is their position.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now, in your view, what is this phrase, ''the President is urged to act accordingly'' mean? How does the Administration interpret that phrase?
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. KORKY. The Administration, of course, believes that the President has been acting in an appropriate way to safeguard our national interests and to ensure that peace and stability are well-served in the region. So we don't have a problem with that particular piece of language.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now, this is an H.J. Res., this goes to the President for signature, correct?
Mr. KLOSSON. Correct.
Mr. HAMILTON. And the President is urged to ''act accordingly.'' You find here that Iraq is in ''material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations.'' And then you are instructed—the executive branch is instructed by this to ''act accordingly.'' What does that mean?
Ms. KORKY. In the Administration's view, it means the President will continue to take a prudent course of action to safeguard our national interests in the region.
Mr. HAMILTON. Does it exclude any kind of action?
Ms. KORKY. We have not excluded any kind of action as you'll recall from the crisis of last winter, sir.
Mr. HAMILTON. Would the President see this as a signal to use force?
Ms. KORKY. The President, according to the language in the resolution, is urged to ''act accordingly.'' He feels that he has been acting on the basis of the threat that has been presented to our interests, and will continue to take a prudent course of action in response to any new crisis that might arise.
Mr. HAMILTON. So this phrase doesn't do anything, then, so far as you're concerned?
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. KORKY. It would not affect the decisionmaking process. The Administration feels that the Administration's policies have been prudent, correct, and effective.
Mr. HAMILTON. So you'd ignore it?
Ms. KORKY. We don't oppose this if the sense of Congress is that it wishes to urge the President to ''act accordingly.'' The President's view is that he has been doing so.
Mr. HAMILTON. We have not found prior to this time that ''the Government of Iraq is in material breach.'' Have we, the United States, ever said that before?
Ms. KORKY. I'm not aware that we, as a government, have taken that position before.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now, you are saying it, assuming this goes through, which we all expect it to. And I'm just trying to find out what we're committing ourselves to here. I'd like to ask the chief sponsor of the resolution the same question, but obviously it's an important question to the Administration as well. How do you interpret this? You find that Iraq is in ''material breach.'' The words ''material breach'' have a very specific meaning in international parlance here and it means that all necessary force can be used to correct the problem. The President is signing this and he says he is going to ''act accordingly.'' What does that mean?
Ms. KORKY. The Security Council has found Iraq to be ''in material breach'' seven times since the Gulf War cease-fire.
Mr. HAMILTON. But in this instance it's not the Security Council that is finding it, it's the U.S. Government that's finding it.
Ms. KORKY. I understand that, sir. The point I would make that of the seven instances in which there has been a finding of material breach, force has been employed on only two occasions. So in the minds of many in the international community there is an intimate connection. I don't think the record demonstrates that a finding of material breach is necessarily followed by the use of force. In some instances, Iraq has understood the message to be a very strong one and has backed down.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. I understand that not in every instance has force necessarily followed but the implication clearly is that when you find a material breach, the use of force becomes legitimate. Correct?
Ms. KORKY. We have not taken the same position as other members of the international community on the necessity of a finding of material breach. Last winter, the Council went as far as threatening the most serious consequences and at that time, had it been necessary, the Administration would have employed force. So that the equation isn't quite the same in our analysis, sir.
Mr. HAMILTON. Do you construe this resolution as an authorization for the use of force?
Ms. KORKY. The Administration believes it has all the authority that it would need to use force.
Mr. HAMILTON. I understand that, but do you construe this resolution as authorizing the use of force?
Ms. KORKY. I do not because we do not believe a finding like this is necessary to employ force.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might direct some questions to you as well?
Chairman GILMAN. I'd be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HAMILTON. They're really the same questions in effect. You're the chief sponsor of the resolution. The phrase ''act accordingly,'' what does that mean?
Chairman GILMAN. I'd be pleased to respond. The resolution intentionally does not spell out in detail how the President should respond to the fact that Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations. It calls attention to the fact that Iraq is in breach of those obligations and makes clear the President needs to do something about it. But in deference to our President, the resolution does not presume to instruct the President on how to proceed.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are obviously a number of options available to him. For example, the President may want to go to the Security Council and ask the Council to join in declaring Iraq in a material breach of its international obligations. That, of course, would open the door to a tightening by the Security Council of the international sanctions on Iraq or to the authorization by the Security Council of even stronger collective measures against Iraq.
A second option would involve the unilateral threat of military force by our Nation. That's not a new idea either. Earlier this year, the President came very close to ordering our armed forces into action to compel compliance by Iraq with its international obligations.
And a third option is to assist democratic opposition groups seeking to remove Saddam from power. In this year's emergency supplemental appropriations bill, we made available some $10 million for precisely that purpose. Just 2 weeks ago, the Administration reported on how they intend to spend that money.
And the final option that many of us have talked about is to provide not just political assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition, but military assistance as well.
And all of these options are on the table, and any one of them would, in my opinion, satisfy the resolution's call for the President to ''act accordingly.''
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this phrase is sufficiently broad. When you ask the President to ''act accordingly'' that it includes a variety of options, includes as a matter of fact, as far as I can see, anything you can think about because it's so broad and so vague.
Chairman GILMAN. It's intended to be that way.
Mr. HAMILTON. I guess what worries me here, and, again, I'm not speaking in opposition to the resolution, but you have here a very detailed recitation of the misconduct by the Government of Iraq, very specific, very compelling, I think very forceful, and very well done. And then you move to the resolved clause and it is astoundingly vague. You set out all of these bad things that Iraq has done. You say it's a ''material breach'' and then you say to ''act accordingly.'' We do not in the resolution come to any kind of a conclusion. And all we do is state the problem and say, ''Mr. President, it's all yours. Do whatever you want to do.''
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield? It was intentionally drawn in a general manner.
Mr. HAMILTON. I understand that.
Chairman GILMAN. To give the President those options that are available to him, but to act.
Mr. HAMILTON. I appreciate that, but Congress is a co-equal branch of government and here we find all of these problems with Iraqi conduct. We tell the President in effect, ''Mr. President, do something about it.'' And we don't give him any guidance. That's not being a co-equal branch of government. That's putting all of the burden and all of the responsibility on the President.
Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield, too often we're being criticized for meddling. And we want to set forth our concern about what has happened in Iraq and give the President his options, his administrative authority to act. And all we're urging him to do now is to act, ''act accordingly.''
Mr. HAMILTON. Yes, of course, I yield. Yes?
Mr. BERMAN. I ask unanimous consent the gentleman have two additional minutes.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has exceeded his time but without objection he is granted two additional minutes.
Mr. BERMAN. I was wondering if the gentleman, in yielding to me, would allow me to ask the Chairman a question. Mr. Chairman, you have indicated one of the options the President has is to use force to remedy or rectify the material breach. I know it's the Administration's position, but is it the Chairman's position that the Administration has the authority to use force to remedy and deal with the material breach without subsequent action by the Congress?
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Well, I believe that the Administration believes it has the authority. And if the Administration were to assert that authority, there may be some questions in the Congress that might come up. I know our proponent of the War Powers Resolution is shaking his hand and he may be coming forth, but I think there would be some contention in the Congress about how far the President could go in that regard.
Mr. BERMAN. But what's the Chairman's position?
Chairman GILMAN. My position is that he would have the military authority.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I think I've raised my concerns about it. I know Mr. Campbell has——
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate the Chairman's yielding for the purposes of putting a focus on my point of view and hopefully that which I can convince my colleagues of. I have an amendment at the desk. The amendment strikes the phrase ''and therefore, the President of the United States is urged to act accordingly.'' And if the Chairman will permit, I'd like to offer that amendment and discuss why I believe that's appropriate.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the gentleman may offer his amendment at this time. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell, ''Page 7, line 4, strike everything after 'obligations,' insert period. Lines 5 and 6, strike all.''
[Amendment to H. J. Res. 125 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CAMPBELL. Let's do what's right. Let's not pretend that we're doing something when we're not. If we are prepared today to give the President authority to go to war, let us say so. If we are not prepared to give the President authority to go to war, let us not do so. That's what this amendment does. It leaves a very important result of the resolution. The resolution holds that ''the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations.'' I believe Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and for Congress to say so is very helpful, I believe, to the President in his international negotiations with our colleagues in the United Nations. So it is not an empty resolution. But for heaven sakes look what we're doing and be cautious.
I was in high school when it happened but I will always remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution for its importance in saying that Congress told President Johnson, ''Go, you do it. You do it because we are not prepared to take our responsibility to say whether it should be done or not.'' Whatever ''it'' was and ''it'' turned out to be a war with 58,000 U.S. lives cost.
So my recommendation is by striking the phrase, ''the President is urged to act accordingly,'' we remove any implication that we are hereby giving the President the authority that the Constitution vests in us.
Let me be clear that I would be open to the argument if one of my colleagues wished to put forward a resolution saying that on the basis of what we know, the President is hereby authorized to use force against Iraq. But let's debate that. Let's debate that.
My own view on that is open. However, I am prepared to see that the invasion of a neighbor when Iraq invaded Kuwait would justify such action and I voted yes when I was a Member of the Congress before. The fact that Saddam Hussein has lied about the weaponization of his nerve agent is very serious. Whether it is, however, the premise for going to war again is a different question in that his weaponization occurred prior to the invasion of Kuwait. And the evidence is not presented that he has weaponized since. He has, of course, committed a very grave breach of international obligations and he has lied. But should we approve that the President use military force against Iraq on that basis alone is to me a very different question than whether we should approve the use of force when Iraq has invaded Kuwait.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I suggest that we can do a lot of good today by closing our recommendation, our resolve clause, with the finding that the Government of Iraq is indeed ''in material and unacceptable breach.'' And I reserve the balance of my time to respond to any inquiries if my colleagues wish to put them or otherwise engage in debate.
I thank the Chairman for his courtesy.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Are any Members seeking recognition on the Campbell amendment? Is there any Member seeking recognition? Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Yes, I'd like to ask the gentleman from California how does he view the last ''whereas'' clause in the resolution?
Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman would yield?
Mr. BERMAN. And does that include at least by implication an authorization to use force?
Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman would yield? I clearly don't think it does. It is a statement that is almost a truism. Of course we have existing authority to defend our interests. An economic embargo is an example of defending our interests, military positions adequate to defend an attack upon our carriers in the Persian Gulf is defending our interests. No, I think for its clear lack of reference to any offensive action, the last ''whereas'' clause is not a resolution that would qualify under the War Powers Act, for example.
And, second, as the gentleman knows, a ''whereas'' clause is not binding law. In a joint resolution, only the ''resolve'' clause is.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote against the gentleman's amendment to strike because I agree with what the Chairman articulated as the purpose of this resolution. A finding which no one has disagreed with with respect to what Iraq has done is essentially a statement that we authorize the President in this situation to take one of a number of different options that he might choose to take. I think it would be more straightforward if we explicitly, as the gentleman has suggested, include the authorization of the use of force as one of those options, but I've noticed in the past that this particular Congress and this particular leadership, when it comes right down to it, likes to shy away from these kinds of things, and I think that's unfortunate. But I would take the action to strike that last clause as our unwillingness to authorize the Administration to exercise a variety of the options it might choose to exercise. And so absent an alternative, which more explicitly laid out the options, I would support the language as it is now.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and let me say this. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, the gentleman from California, Mr. Campbell, and the concern that leads him to offer it. But I do not think we want to suggest by any action today that even though there is a very serious problem in Iraq, as a matter of fact a material violation of international law, we don't want the President to do anything about it. That's how adoption of the Campbell amendment, I think, would be perceived. The Administration is satisfied apparently with the language. I think we should leave well enough alone and, of course, I think it's important that we adopt something that would be conclusive after having recited the violations.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Campbell amendment.
Are any other Members seeking recognition?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The dialog we've had here is very consequential. The questions directed by the Ranking Minority Member to the witnesses at the table and to the Chairman are very important. I think what we do here today if it can be unanimously supported is extraordinarily important. I have no doubt that every Member or nearly every Member would agree, after review of this legislation, thinking aback on what they know about what has transpired in the Iraqi region would agree that ''Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations.''
And I could understand why the Administration witnesses would have no objection to the latter phrase which Mr. Campbell seeks to strike because this administration and all administrations protest the War Powers Act and the congressional assertion of our rights and responsibilities with respect to the executive branch and the use of force. So it's no surprise whatsoever for them to agree although they indicate, as you heard, that it's unnecessary because the President has the authority existing to pursue all prudent steps of action to protect or to enforce our national interests.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I think that what the gentleman from California is doing is saying we are giving up our options. We're giving up our responsibility to be involved in the deployment of the use of force. And we in the legislative branch if we believe in the War Powers Act should be wary about doing that.
And I also think what it does is inject controversy in what could otherwise be a unanimous view of the Congress and that would be an important step for us to take, to make it clear to the Iraqis and to the world that the Congress believes that there is, at least the House and hopefully the whole Congress, a ''material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations.'' It would support the Administration considering a wide range of options, including the use of force. But for us to have the words there ''urged to act accordingly'' is a very broad grant of power.
I'd like to support the Chairman and the speaker in those words but I think the gentleman offers an appropriate amendment if we're going to maintain our responsibilities and authority. So I support the gentleman's amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. The question is now on the amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner, this is the Campbell amendment, all in favor in the usual manner.
All opposed?
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Blunt? Who is seeking recognition? All right, then, we'll move on to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I defer this honor to someone else? May I defer this honor to someone else for the motion.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. I'm sorry?
Mr. BEREUTER. May I have someone else offer the motion?
Chairman GILMAN. Would someone offer a motion on behalf of—without objection——
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on a motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. As many in favor of the motion say aye.
As many as opposed say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on the measure are postponed. We now move to—all right, we will recess for the vote and come right back. We have a heavy calendar so please come back quickly. The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. We will now consider—Members please take their seats. We'll now consider H.R. 4095, relating to a code of conduct relative to the Wassenaar Arrangement. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H.R. 4095, a bill to provide that the President shall attempt to establish an international arms sales code of conduct with all Wassenaar Arrangement countries.''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short Title.''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as having been read. It is now open to amendment at any point. I now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, to introduce the bill. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[H.R. 4095 appears in the appendix.]
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a bill that hopefully will begin a process to restrict the proliferation and sale of conventional weapons often to regions of the world where there is no foreseeable conflict, and oftentimes the countries have poverty and other issues before them, that they should take their resources for poverty, and education, and health care and not for additional weapons. And while nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have far greater appeal for discussion, the reality is more people die from conventional weapons every year than from biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons where, obviously, the concern is greater because the potential use would be cataclysmic.
And what happens to all of us as countries, as individuals, is the debate usually runs something like well, they're either going to fly American planes, French planes, German planes, Israeli planes, or British planes, so if they're going to fly somebody's planes at least our companies, our workers ought to be the ones that benefit from the sale. And while there may be some short-term benefits, the impact on world safety and on the populations of the world is obviously negative.
Now, this is not a brazen kind of activity. We're simply demanding that this administration begin the negotiations. And I choose the Wassenaar group because it's the broadest group. I would hope we would include additional countries. I mean we know that, for instance, in the Australia group, in the MTCR and the NSG, there are different countries in each of these groups and there's no reason not to expand beyond the Wassenaar group, but it is clear we've got to start somewhere. The United States sells the bulk of the weapons around the globe. There's a great debate in our country today about sales of sophisticated aircraft to countries in Latin America where there's questionable need for them.
We will impoverish nations. We will create flashpoints where they need not occur. And we need to start this process now. Now when there is no hot conflict between the East and the West, a time where we can reach some consensus internationally. The Europeans have begun a small effort in the EC on arms transfers. We ought to engage that as well, but it seems to me that as the leader of the world, not just the free world, the world, the United States should initiate the action to create a conventional arms agreement.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I won't take up the Committee's time. We've passed this before and I'm hopeful that we'll pass it again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his review of the measure. I'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady, the distinguished chairman of our International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak in support of the Gejdenson bill which he introduced and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of because it helps to protect U.S. national security interests as well as the interests of the American business community. Unlike a domestic code of conduct which would impose restrictions on U.S. arms sales, this measure seeks to bring all the members of the agreement under the umbrella of an international arms sales code of conduct whereby the members of the agreement commit to removing pariah states from their clientele. That is they agree that they will not sell conventional weapons to these rogue regimes.
The measure directs the President to begin negotiations toward the goal of an international arms sales code of conduct and ensures our involvement in the Congress and our oversight by requiring biannual reports to us in the Congress on the status of these negotiations.
I think this measure will help bring some substance to the Wassenaar agreement which some have stated is lacking in discipline and the necessary commitment for compliance. We've seen what providing arms to rogue regimes can do. The death toll is still mounting. We've heard the argument that as soon as the United States stops selling conventional weapons to these pariah states then another country is waiting in the wings and quickly becomes that supplier of the weapons. And this bill provides an opportunity to begin correcting the situation by ensuring that at least 32 other countries also place global security as a top priority.
And I urge my colleagues to adopt the Gejdenson bill.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to commend Mr. Gejdenson for the initiative here and bringing the bill before the Committee. I hope that what this resolution will do is act as a prod to the Administration to exert more vigorous leadership on conventional arms sales restraint. I, frankly, have been disappointed that we have not seen a more vigorous effort in that regard and I think what we do here is go on record and say that we want to see a greater diplomatic effort by the Administration to restrain these arms sales. Mr. Gejdenson has the right approach. We cannot solve the problems of conventional arms transfer by unilateral action. We need a strong international initiative. The United States ought to provide that leadership, and I strongly urge the adoption of the resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Do any other Members wish to be here? Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to commend Mr. Gejdenson for his long and fruitful and productive effort in this respect. I think his initiative is excellent. I thank our colleague, the chairman of the IEPT Subcommittee for her excellent statement in support for it. And I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut if I'm not a cosponsor, I would like to be a cosponsor of the gentleman's resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Are any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I rise in support of this bill and basically it calls on the Administration to establish a code of conduct on international arms sales that would prohibit weapon sales to repressive regimes that do not respect democracy or the rule of law, regimes that violate the rights of their own people and are engaged in armed acts of aggression.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill is a good start in that it establishes an arms sale code of conduct although I believe, and like some of my colleagues say, that it is not as forceful and definitive as the arms code of conduct legislation introduced by Cynthia McKinney, which would halt all U.S. arms sales to repressive regimes. This legislation, and that of Ms. McKinney, suggests the United States should take the lead and set the standard in denying the dictators the tools of their repression and aggression. I don't think that we necessarily have to wait for everybody else in the world before we refrain from arming dictators and bloody repressive regimes around the world.
H.R. 4095 requires the President to begin negotiations on a code of conduct with all the Wassenaar Arrangement countries, which include our Western European allies, Russia, and some Eastern European countries, such as Czechoslovakia and Ukraine. However, there are major international arms dealing nations and nuclear powers not included in the Wassenaar Arrangement and not covered by this resolution, such as China, Israel, Yugoslavia, Pakistan, and South Africa. To be effective, the code of conduct, we must establish our standard that we're not going to sell to repressive governments. But also we must also include and try to get all——
Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I agree with the gentleman completely on extending it to the countries he mentioned and a few others probably. I just picked this group because, the problem in setting this up, if you just listed a group of countries, arranging for the dialog could take the next century and since we have an institution where the dialog exists, I was hoping the Administration would start there. And I fully agree with the gentleman that they should immediately include for these purposes the countries the gentleman listed because they are manufacturers of conventional weapons.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROHRABACHER. And reclaiming my time, I would say, yes, sir, this is a good start. And, however, let me just again state for the record. Because other countries are willing to sell weapons to repressive regimes that murder their own people, doesn't mean that we have to wait for some international standard to do so. I would hate to think, for example, that we would sell weapons to Fidel Castro simply because other countries of the world sell weapons to other repressive regimes. So in order to promote effective conventional arms control and to support the spread of democracy and human rights in countries where it is currently denied, I urge my colleagues to support the Gejdenson language and hopefully in the next session to support the McKinney U.S. code of conduct for arms sales.
Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are any other Members seeking recognition? I'd like to make some comments on the Gejdenson proposal, which directs the President to attempt to achieve an international arms sales code of conduct with all Wassenaar Arrangement countries.
An over-armed developing world not only has a terrible human cost but it's also contrary to our Nation's interest in fostering democracy, building political stability, and enhancing a growing global economy. The solution to the problem of militarization and arms transfers has to be multilateral. It will do neither us nor the developing world any good if we reduce exports only to find the gap filled by other suppliers.
Yet, it's also clear that the multilateral solutions require U.S. leadership both by the President and by the Congress. It is my expectation that this bill will help to provide some guidance and direction to the Administration on this issue. We've not heard very much from them on conventional arms transfer restraints.
I would note that the language in the bill is nearly identical to that included in our Fiscal Year 1998/1999 State Department authorization legislation. Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support Congressman Gejdenson's legislation.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are any other Members seeking recognition? If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending bill on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on a motion by the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as in favor of the motion say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on the measure are postponed.
We now go to H. Res. 459, relating to the longstanding relationship between Korea and our Nation. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. H. Res. 459, a resolution commemorating 50 years of relations between the United States and The Republic of Korea.
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and reported without amendment. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the resolution, in that order, for amendment. The clerk will read.
Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas, the Republic of Korea was established 50 years ago on August 15, 1948; whereas the United States and the Republic of Korea——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H. Res. 459 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to introduce the resolution.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm proud to have introduced this resolution, commemorating 50 years of relations between our Nation and the Republic of Korea. I think it's only right and fitting that the House make note of the special relationship between our Nation and the Republic of Korea that we've shared since 1948, nearly half a century.
Our Nation has important strategic, economic, and political interests, which are at stake in Northeast Asia, and maintaining stability remains an overriding U.S. security concern in the region. South Korean soldiers have stood shoulder to shoulder with American troops on the battlefields of Korea and Vietnam to protect, in advance, those mutual interests.
Today, South Korea remains an important partner and an ally in guarding the peace and maintaining stability in Northeast Asia. To support these objectives, 37,000 American service men and women are stationed in South Korea protecting freedom and democracy, which is threatened on a daily basis by the Communist Government and armed forces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Our Nation is pleased with the flourishing of democracy in South Korea. Let's hope that the Republic of Korea will serve as an example to other nations in the region and will encourage progress in the furthering of democratic principles and practices, respect for human rights, and the enhancement of the rule of law.
Congress looks forward to a broadening and deepening of friendship and cooperation with the Republic of Korea in the years ahead, with the mutual benefit of the peoples of the United States and the Republic of Korea.
And finally, I also want to note how proud we are to—how proud I am—to be the founder of the U.S. Congress Korean National Assembly Exchange Project, which brings Korean university students here to the Congress and sends an equivalent group of American students to the Korean National Assembly. In fact, you may see some of them in your offices over the next week or so.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This program, created in 1981, broadens the perspectives of young Koreans and Americans to each other's unique history, government, people, and culture. It's an outstanding opportunity to foster mutual understanding between our two nations and our future leaders, and we're pleased with the success of the program.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, commemorating the distinctive ties between the peoples and governments of these two great nations.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for your initiative in bringing this resolution forward, and drafting it. I hope it will be widely supported. I presume that it will be. We have enormous admiration for the people of South Korea and for its government. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with them again and again in confronting some of the most difficult problems of the past half century. The nature of the partnership and the relationship is such that I'm sure we'll do that in the future as well.
This resolution reconfirms our commitment to the people of South Korea. It expresses our affection for those people. It's a very worthy resolution, and I urge its adoption.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank you, Mr. Hamilton, for your supportive remarks. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to report to my colleagues that the Asia Pacific Subcommittee unanimously approved this resolution on July 16th.
Over the last 50 years, America has maintained a strong multi-facet relationship with South Korea that includes a range of security, economic, and political issues. Throughout the cold war we've remained close friends and firm allies. The 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty is not only important to the security of South Korea, but to peace and stability in Northeast Asia as well.
Despite the recent financial instability, South Korea's economy experienced remarkable growth since the end of the Korean War. Today, the United States is South Korea's largest trading partner and largest export market. In turn, South Korea is America's seventh largest trading partner, fifth largest export market, and fourth largest market for U.S. agriculture products.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In response to the Asian financial crisis, the Republic of Korea has made significant strides in reforming and restructuring and opening its economy. In January, when I visited, I came away very impressed with the commitment of the Korean people for pulling themselves out of the current difficulties. Also, the newly elected President Kim Djong has committed his administration to making further structural reforms designed to resolve the country's economic and financial problems, and restore international confidence in South Korea's economy.
H. Res. 459 sends a strong message of the importance of our bilateral relationship and our commitment to strengthening this partnership as we enter the 21st century. I'm pleased to be a cosponsor. I want to commend the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee for offering this piece of legislation, marking 50 years of mutually beneficial relationships, and I commend him for his continued interest in the Korean American issues.
I urge support of the resolution. I yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his supporting remarks. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There's much that can be said about the Republic of Korea, but certainly it is the classic positive example of our engagement with them, our defense of their country, their transition to democracy, their graduation from aid, and from a developing to a developed country. And President Kim's recent speech before the joint session of Congress was an important occasion, demonstrating the full transition to democracy which we've seen in South Korea. I urge the adoption of this resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. If there are no other Members seeking recognition, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion, say aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We now move to House Resolution 469, expressing the sense of Congress relative to assistance to Mexico to combat wildfires. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. H. Res. 469, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding assistance to Mexico to combat wildfires, and for other purposes.
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution has not been referred to a subcommittee. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the resolution, in that order, for amendment. The clerk will read.
Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas fires in Mexico and Central America have burned over 1,000,000 acres in recent weeks;
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H. Res. 469 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize Mr. Brady to offer an amendment.
Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk. I am pleased to support H.R. 469, and would like to thank Congressman Hall for introducing this important resolution. Simply, what we are seeking to do is to give congressional support for the negotiation of agreement with Mexico.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Brady, if you'll hold, the clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Brady. Strike the preamble and text that follows and insert the following: Whereas the United States has a Cooperative Fire Suppression Agreement with Canada to address the issue of fires occurring along the border between the two countries; Whereas in the past——
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as read, without objection.
[The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 469 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I recognize Mr. Brady for 5 minutes to introduce his resolution, an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Simply, this resolution, as amended, seeks to give congressional support for the negotiation of an agreement with Mexico addressing fire suppression along the border region of the United States and Mexico. My amendment is friendly, it preserves the substance of the bill, and modifies the resolution to reflect the current situation. It has the support of Congressman Hall.
As you may know, smoke from the recent fires in Mexico and Central America drifted into the southern United States from the Gulf, causing respiratory health problems for people all over the United States. These fires brought to light a missing piece in our international firefighting programs, the lack of a cooperative fire suppression agreement with Mexico.
The United States has such an agreement with Canada, and has had for 16 years, since 1982. This agreement allows U.S. Forest Service firefighters to enter Canada, to aid in fire suppression when fires occurs along a 200 kilometer band along the border, and vice versa.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This Canada-U.S. agreement permits both countries to help contain border fires that threaten their territory and permits either country to seek reimbursement for these services. The agreement has been successfully implemented to address fires that occur along the border, with the U.S. forest firefighters and Canadian firefighters working jointly to protect both countries from wildfires.
Unfortunately, we don't have such an agreement with Mexico, and in the past, small, easily manageable fires have grown into large destructive wildfires that spread into the United States. This type of cooperative agreement is imperative for the protection of U.S. citizens and U.S. property.
At the recent Bi-National Commission between the United States and Mexico, the State Department, with the backing of over 40 Members of the House from all the border states, and with the backing of 6 Senators from those states, presented the Mexican delegation with the draft text of the agreement. It's extremely important that the State Department continue to pursue these negotiations if we are to prevent future catastrophes from occurring along the border.
Currently, as you know, the potential for fire in the border region is remarkably high. The wet winter in the Southwest gave growth to large amounts of grass and underbrush. Since then, the ensuing drought and the massive heat wave have turned these grasses into the perfect tinder for fires along both sides of the border. The danger is real, and as we've seen from the fires in Southern Mexico, you don't have to live next to a fire to be affected by it.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and resolution, and I thank the Chairman for bringing this resolution before the Committee.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the resolution. I certainly commend the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady, for his amendment. We had a very serious problem earlier this summer. I think the smoke from these fires was noticeable as far north as Wisconsin. A lot of people suffered serious health consequences, and I think we're quite right to try to put into place a framework that will maximize cooperation between the United States and Mexico, in case we're faced with this problem again.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I speak really because I wanted to just say a word about the tremendous assistance that was provided by the U.S. fire experts from the U.S. Forest Service and perhaps other agencies and groups, as well. I want to commend their work. They braved some very dangerous conditions. They provided a great service to our country, and I think also to Mexico and to Guatemala, and I think we should recognize that.
I urge the adoption of the resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. I'd just like to note that these recent fires engulfed over a million acres of land in Mexico. Our border states, in particular, Texas, were overwhelmed by the pool of smoke that created the acute pollution problem, raised serious health concerns. The Administration deployed emergency assistance to help Mexico cope with the fires. And I want to join with Mr. Hamilton in commending our fire services in the states for assisting the fire personnel in Mexico in trying to combat these raging fires. And I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Is any other Member seeking recognition?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. As many as are in favor of the amendment, say aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution, as amended, on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question's on the motion by the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion, say aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are now postponed.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We now go to H. Con. Res. 277, New Tribe Mission hostage crisis. The Chair lays the resolution for the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. H. Con. Res. 277, a resolution concerning the New Tribes Mission hostage crisis.
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was referred to the Committee on Western Hemisphere, but it was not acted upon. Without objection, the preamble and operative language of the resolution be read, in that order, for amendment. The clerk will read.
Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas Mark Rich, David Mankins, and Rick Tenenoff of the Sanford, Florida, based New Tribes Mission were abducted on January 31, 1993, from the Kuna Indian village of——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H. Con. Res. 277 appears in the appendix.]
I now recognize the distinguished chairman of our Western Hemisphere Committee, Mr. Gallegly, the gentleman from California, to introduce the resolution to the Committee. I recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On January 31, 1993, armed Colombian guerillas from the FARC organization crossed the border between Colombia and Panama, and kidnapped three American missionaries of the New Tribes Mission. These innocent American citizens were then taken into Colombia and held for millions of dollars of ransom.
Since that day almost 6 years ago, the fate of Rick Tenenoff, David Mankins, and Mark Rich remains unknown. Their families wait anxiously every day for some news of their loved ones. But the FARC guerillas have chosen not to provide any information on the whereabouts of these missionaries. They won't even say whether they're still alive or not.
Our colleague, Roy Blunt, introduced H. Con. Res. 277, asking the Colombia guerillas to release these American citizens or to provide some information as to their fate. For their families, this is the least that can be done. This bill was introduced just prior to the recess and the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee deferred the bill for Full Committee action.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to commend our colleague, Mr. Blunt, for his resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. And I call on the FARC to release whatever information they can about these American citizens.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Blunt, the sponsor of this resolution, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As has already been stated, this is really a resolution that deals with three Americans that were abducted over 6 years ago now. The wives of these three Americans and others from the New Tribes Mission testified at a hearing before this committee on March 31st. This resolution really directly grows out of their testimony and their request that the Congress call attention to some of the areas that the resolution deals with.
This resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that any individual or group with knowledge of the whereabouts of the New Tribes Mission missionaries be encouraged to come forward. It also brings international attention to the abduction and pressure on the Colombian Government to release any information that they may have about the fate of these individuals.
I think 55 at the time the resolution was drafted—I think 58 Members of Congress and Senators had signed letters to 8 different heads of state, including Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, and Portugal, to try to draw further attention to this abduction.
Obviously, the families continue to live with this every day, and I'm hopeful that this resolution is helpful to the families and helpful to bringing a conclusion to what has really been a nightmare for those families that began on January 31, 1993 in Southern Panama, and continues today, Mr. Chairman.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for bringing this resolution to the Committee. I certainly urge the Committee to adopt it, and hope the Congress does as well.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman. I want to commend our colleague, Mr. Blunt, for introducing this current resolution, highlighting the plight of the New Tribes missionaries in Colombia. And I understand that Mr. Mica and Mr. Burton contributed to the drafting of this resolution, and have also been actively engaged on behalf of the families of these victims of terrorist kidnapping.
I want to thank Chairman Gallegly of our Western Hemisphere Subcommittee for waiving jurisdiction, and allowing us to mark up the resolution in Full Committee at this time.
Since 1980, 83 innocent Americans have been held hostage in Colombia. Twelve of these Americans are known to have been murdered. In February 1997, American geologist, Frank Pescatore, was brutally killed by the NARCO terrorist group that calls itself the National Liberation Army. And in 1995, the Florida-based New Tribes Mission lost two other missionaries, Steve Welsh and Timothy Van Dyke, who were murdered by another NARCO terrorist group that calls itself the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the FARC.
These kidnappings and suffering of the victims and their families go largely unnoticed and are unreported in the media. Moreover, in Colombia, kidnappers act with a substantial impunity. Ninety-seven percent of crimes in Colombia are never brought to justice. In March, we held a hearing in which we heard testimony from three Americans whose lives were callously and inexorably altered by kidnapping at the hands of Colombia NARCO terrorists. The testimony of Mrs. Tanya Rich and the other kidnapped missionaries' wives was particularly moving.
Accordingly, I strongly support the resolution, and ask all Members of the Committee to join in unanimously approving it for inclusion on the suspension calendar.
Mr. Hamilton.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to join you in commending the work of our colleague from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, for the drafting of this resolution. Kidnapping in Colombia unfortunately is an industry. Thousands of people there have been kidnapped and held for ransom each year.
No case is more cynical or senseless than the case of these three religious missionaries, Mark Rich, David Mankins, Rick Tenenoff. They were on a mission in Southern Panama when they were kidnapped in January 1993. We hear from time to time about the Colombian insurgency being serious about peace. If they are serious about peace, then the very least they can do is to give us an accounting of these men, and if they're still alive, to release them.
I want to thank Mr. Blunt and the others who have been very active in raising the profile of this very regrettable case. They should be commended for that, and I urge the adoption of the resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Are any other Members seeking recognition? If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution, as amended, on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. Question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor, signify by saying aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We now move to House Resolution 421, by Mr. Brady, the murder of Bishop Gerardi in Guatemala. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. H. Res. 421, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives deploring the tragic and senseless murder of Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi, calling on the Government of Guatemala to expeditiously bring those responsible for the crime to justice, and calling on the people of Guatemala to reaffirm their commitment to continue to implement the peace accords without interruption.
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and reported with an amendment. Without objection, the language recommended by the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, which is before the Members, will be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee recommendation. It is so ordered. The clerk will read the Subcommittee recommendation.
Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas on December 29, 1996, the Government of Guatemala and the representatives of the Unidad Revolutionaria Nacional——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Subcommittee recommendation is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H. Res. 421 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize the Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Gallegly, of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In December 1996, the Government of Guatemala and representatives of the UNRG signed a historic peace agreement ending some 36 years of armed confrontation. Since that historic date, peace and the implementation of the peace accords, especially with respect to political stability, national reconciliation, the observance of human rights, and freedom of expression have made significant gains in Guatemala.
In fact, in recognition of the progress being made on human rights, the U.N. Human Rights Commission recently removed Guatemala from its list of countries under observation for abuses.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, the progress or peace in Guatemala was rudely shattered on April 26th, when Roman Catholic Bishop Juan Gerardi, a leading human rights crusader and author of a recently released report detailing the human rights abuses committed during the years of the conflict, was brutally and senselessly murdered outside his residence in Guatemala City. The murder shocked the people of Guatemala and called into question national attitudes about human rights.
H. Res. 421, introduced by our colleague, Kevin Brady of Texas, expresses our outrage over this murder and calls on the Government of Guatemala to do everything in its power to resolve this crime and bring those responsible to swift justice.
I want to commend President Arzu for acting quickly to establish a high-level commission to help in the investigation, and the efforts made to date to resolve the murder. However, progress has been slow and the effort continues to need the strong support and cooperation of the police and military.
Equally important, however, is that this bill calls on the Government and people of Guatemala not to give up on the peace and reconciliation process, and to make a renewed commitment to carry out the provisions of the peace accords, despite this tragic and unfortunate setback.
On May 13th, the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee marked up this resolution and unanimously adopted it. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to pass this resolution. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your support, Chairman Gallegly's, as well as other Members of this committee who've cosponsored this important legislation.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think it was distressing to all of us to learn that late in the evening on Sunday, April 26, 1998, Bishop Gerardi was brutally bludgeoned to death in his garage, as he returned from usual Sunday night dinner with his sister and her family. Specifically, the skull of Bishop Gerardi was crushed by a wedge of concrete. The autopsy revealed that our Bishop had been bashed in the head and face at least 17 times—bashed in so badly that another priest living in the church's compound could only recognize the Bishop's body by a ring on one of the fingers.
This attack occurred just 2 days after the Bishop, one of Guatemala's foremost human rights activists, released a report providing the most extensive account of human rights atrocities committed during the 36-year civil war that plagued Guatemala until the peace accords were signed in December 1996. One aspect of that agreement called for the conflict to be investigated to determine the truth for historical purposes. This effort was headed by Bishop Gerardi.
This report indicated that, while both the Guatemalan military and the guerillas committed war crimes, the military was responsible for many of the deaths—almost 80 percent of the 150,000 unarmed civilians killed during the civil war—and for the disappearance of at least 50,000 more. Additionally, the document also detailed how at least 1.4 million people were victimized to varying degrees.
Like Chairman Gallegly, I'm pleased that almost immediately after this attack became public, Guatemalan President Arzu formed a commission to investigate the Bishop's death and that a suspect has been indicted for this heinous crime. Furthermore, I'm glad that after the murder, the FBI sent several agents to Guatemala to assist in this investigation. Those agents recently returned with forensic evidence, which is currently being tested. And additionally, just last week, another agent was sent down to help Guatemalan investigators continue their investigation.
I appreciate the efforts of the U.S. Government so far in working with the Guatemalan Government. However, we must continue to provide them the necessary support to help solve this murder, to bring to justice those responsible for committing it, and to continue implementation of the peace accords.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that for human rights' advocates in Guatemala and throughout the world, the question to be answered is not simply who murdered Bishop Gerardi, but who ordered Bishop Gerardi murdered. His death, occurring only 2 days after his defining work, was no random act of violence.
I appreciate your support on this bill. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank you, Mr. Brady. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the resolution. I urge its adoption. I commend the excellent work of our colleague from Texas, Mr. Brady, in putting the resolution before us. I think the outpouring of grief at the Bishop's funeral was a remarkable testament to his work, and I suspect there are few people who worked more effectively on human rights in Guatemala than he did.
I do want to express my concern about the status of this investigation. It is now 4 months since that brutal incident took place, and I think this resolution is helpful in refocusing our attention on that murder. I'm under the impression that the investigation on the murder has bogged down, and that we have heard, I think just in the past week, some public frustration from the people of Guatemala concerning the investigation.
I think we have every right to press hard and to urge a strong commitment by the Guatemalan Government to push forward on this investigation. The United States has put a lot of money into Guatemala. We've provided a lot of assistance to that country. We've pledged further assistance as a result of the peace accords. I think the figure's about $260 million in assistance over the past 4 years. That support is contingent on all of the parties being committed to the letter and the spirit of the accords.
And Guatemala's response to the Bishop's killing is, at least for me, one indication of the willingness to implement the accords. That initial response was positive, but I'm concerned about what's happened in recent weeks. I think we're right to expect much more vigor in the prosecution, and much more progress, and I want to follow this case carefully as an indicator of the government's commitment to human rights and to the spirit of the accords.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I urge the adoption of the resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Brady for his excellent resolution, which is very balanced, and I think continues to push the Guatemalan Government to come to a conclusion as to who did this. And I think Mr. Brady asked the right question: who put the killers up to this? It was an execution-style killing, but I'm sure some orders were given from high up.
I would note though that President Arzu certainly has tried and certainly should be commended for the great work he has done in promoting the accord, as he did when he first came into office. I met with him weeks after he was sworn in—and he sacked over 100 top generals, colonels, and top police officers who had very checkered pasts. For that, even while I was there, there was an attempt on his life.
So there is still, I think, a very volatile situation, although it has improved greatly as is pointed out in the resolution. But, as Mr. Hamilton so rightly pointed out, this is a test, and will, I think, bear significantly on how we view Guatemala into the future. There ought to be an absolute, all-out, aggressive attempt to catch the perpetrators and hold them to account.
So I thank Mr. Brady and Mr. Gallegly for quickly marking up and bringing this to the Full Committee.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend my fellow colleague from the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr. Brady, on putting forth this resolution. I'm happy to join with him as an original sponsor.
Guatemala is at a crossroads. It can follow the path that its Central American neighbors have followed in reconciliation and on to peace, and democracy, and the respect for human rights; or, it can return to the troubles of the past and the loss of life that took place in that past. The full prosecution of this case would be, I think, a beacon of light to all of those who are wondering which path it takes at this crossroads. And all of us, I believe, are waiting and watching, and expect the Guatemalan Government to have the full prosecution and bring those who committed this act to justice.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think this resolution goes a long way to sending that message to the Government of Guatemala and to those who have committed themselves to the peace process, but want to know that there is justice in this process as well.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, I'd like to also commend Mr. Brady for this effort. I do have a question, however. That I think the way to this body and expressing itself is very important; however, what I understand is that you have 10 days. Under Guatemalan law, the investigators do not conclude there's sufficient evidence to prosecute, the investigation will end and his cutoff date is expected to occur at the end of July. So we've got 10 days. Will this have any impact on the facts—on the actual investigation? I ask this of Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I'm not aware of the exact deadline on the investigation. But I would think, if true, that makes this resolution even more important that we, as Americans, have expressed our absolute desire to have this done swiftly, and surely, and accurately. So perhaps the timing could not be better at this point. But if you would, Mr. Houghton, let me double check on that.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Would the gentleman from New York yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. GALLEGLY. It's my understanding that this time limit is in the process of being extended by the Guatemalan Government, and that's something of course we wholeheartedly support. And it is our clear understanding that that is a part of the process right now.
Mr. HOUGHTON. So if the gentleman would yield. So there's a clear signal to us not that we do what Mr. Brady wants, but also we strongly urge the extension of this date.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALLEGLY. That's correct.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you very much.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Houghton. Any other Members seeking recognition?
If not, I would like to state that I've agreed to cosponsor this measure with Mr. Brady, because I was shocked by the news of the senseless murder of Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi. As the resolution points out, a great deal of progress has been made in Guatemala since the signing of the peace accords. And it's a terrible tragedy for that nation to suffer the loss of one of its most steadfast champions on human rights. This brutal act incurred justice in the process of examining the painful legacy of past abuses by security forces and guerillas beginning in earnest.
And I support the Brady resolution, especially its call on the Government of Guatemala, including the national police and the military, to take all the steps necessary to try to resolve the killing of Bishop Gerardi.
This is an historic opportunity for President Alverra Arzu to lead his people in breaking with impunity reformist elements in the Guatemalan army who are working to create a professional military, as well as their former guerilla adversaries in the National Guatemalan Revolutionary Union and should also seize the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to solving this problem.
Accordingly, I urge support for the Brady amendment.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition or offering amendments? If not, the question is on agreeing to the Subcommittee recommendation. As many as are in favor of the amendment, say aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized for a motion.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution, as amended, on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We now turn to a resolution by Mr. Franks. We will now consider H. Con. Res. 254, for expressing the sense in the House relative to the extradition of a convicted felon from Cuba. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. H. Con. Res. 254, a resolution calling on the Government of Cuba to return to the United States convicted felon Joanne Chesimard and all other individuals who have fled the United States to avoid prosecution or confinement for criminal offenses and who are currently living freely in Cuba.
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, marked up, and reported with an amendment. Without objection, the language recommended by the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, which is before the Members, to be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment. And without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee recommendation. So ordered.
Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas on May 2, 1973, Joanne Chesimard and 2 friends were stopped in their vehicle by New Jersey state troopers James Harper and Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike; Whereas, while being questioned, Ms. Chesimard and the driver opened fire with automatic pistols striking Trooper Werner Foerster twice in the chest——
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as read.
[H. Con. Res. 254 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago, a brutal and senseless tragedy took place on a highway in New Jersey. On that day, Joanne Chesimard and two acquaintances were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike by two state troopers. What followed was the brutal slaying of one of the troopers, and the serious wounding of the other. After capture, trial, and imprisonment, Ms. Chesimard escaped from the prison and resurfaced in Cuba, where she has been living ever since under the protection of the Cuban regime.
Our colleague, Bob Franks from New Jersey, introduced this resolution, calling on the Government of Cuba to return Ms. Chesimard to the United States, where she can serve out her sentence and put to rest this issue of justice for the family of the murdered state trooper.
On May 13th, the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee marked up this bill, and reported it unanimously to the Full Committee. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution, and yield back.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm a very proud cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 254, which condemns the Government of Cuba for harboring Joanne Chesimard, the murderer of New Jersey State Trooper, Werner Foerster, and other fugitives who have committed brutal crimes in the United States.
And I do want to thank Congressman Franks for introducing this important resolution.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As my colleagues know, and has just been stated, Joanne Chesimard was convicted in 1977 of first degree murder, and sentenced to life in prison for her brutal execution-style murder of Trooper Foerster. She escaped from jail in 1979, and subsequently fled to Cuba, where she was given political asylum. This escaped murderer now lives a comfortable life in Cuba and has launched a public relations campaign in which she attempts to portray herself as an innocent victim, rather than a cold-blooded killer.
The protection Chesimard and others enjoy in Cuba is yet another example of the lawlessness of the Castro dictatorship. The only truly satisfactory solution is democracy and self-determination for the people of Cuba. In the meantime, however, it is shameful that the Clinton Administration has made deal after deal with the Castro Government, given concession after concession, while Chesimard and other felons are living the high life in Havana.
At the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee markup of the bill, I'm very pleased that Chairman Gallegly and other Members accepted an amendment that I had offered during markup in Subcommittee which altered three words in the resolution, in order to avoid conferring upon the Castro regime a dignity it does not deserve. It changed statements that Cuba should ''extradite'' Chesimard and other fugitives into assertions that Cuba should ''return'' Chesimard and other fugitives to the United States.
Extradition is a legal concept governed by treaty in the international context. Although the United States signed an extradition treaty with Cuba in 1904, long before the rise of Castro, the extradition treaty has not been invoked in many years. So I'm worried that the use of the word extradite might therefore be taken as support for a dramatic expansion of our relationship with the Castro regime to include mutual extraditions under the old treaty.
Cuba's so-called justice system does not deserve such respect. While we can, and do, sometimes expel and return violent criminals to Cuba, the legal means for such returns is the deportation process, not extradition. Extradition requires the interaction of two legal systems, and it is wholly inappropriate to have such dealings with a system where there is no rule of law. By replacing the word ''extradite'' with the word ''return,'' the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee avoided those dangers without dulling the force of our message.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Murderers such as Joanne Chesimard must be returned to the United States to face the judgment they have brought upon themselves.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also am pleased to offer my support for this resolution. I have been working to bring fugitives from the American justice system back from Cuba for many years. The case of Joanne Chesimard is, of course, of particular importance to New Jerseyans. Her cold-blooded murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and Castro's subsequent refusal to acknowledge her presence in Cuba, or to return her to the United States has left the Werner family not only without a husband and a father but with an open wound that can only be completely healed when Joanne Chesimard is brought back to justice.
Shortly after I came to Congress in hearings before this committee, I asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to compile a list of American fugitives residing in Cuba. After surveying their 56 field offices, the FBI was able to provide me a list of 90 fugitives to which Castro provides a safe haven in Cuba. Their crimes range from air piracy to possession of explosives to murder. These are not benign criminals.
Ironically, Castro provides these criminals greater liberty than he provides to his own people. These 90 individuals are allowed to reside in Cuba and live relatively well. In contrast, Castro imprisons Cuban dissidents for much lesser crimes like the distribution of enemy propaganda which simply is different points of view or undermining the revolution.
Unfortunately, no matter how many resolutions we bring before the Congress and how many times we ask the Castro regime to return Joanne Chesimard, she will not be returned from Cuba to stand back before a court of law and ultimately to be re-imprisoned under her original conviction until there is a democratic government in Cuba.
So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and help bring some measure of justice to the Werner family, but also to support our ongoing efforts to bring democracy and human rights to the Cuban people.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. The distinguished chairman of our International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Just to briefly add to the eloquent words of those who spoke before me. This is a partial list of the FBI list that Mr. Menendez discussed, and these are U.S. fugitives from justice that are wanted here in the United States to finish out their times. There are some who after conviction fled the country. They live the kind of life that is unfortunately not even available to the Cuban natives. Cuba has become an international haven for criminal activity, but, of course, the biggest criminal in Cuba is Fidel Castro himself. So he has a great deal of experience on crimes against humanity so that's why he gives them refuge. And I commend Mr. Franks for pushing this resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I support this resolution wholeheartedly and by the way, first of all, one of the reasons I support this, it's not just aimed at this one murder, it is aimed at all the rest of these fugitives that are on the island. Let us remember that Robert Vesco was one of the first of these. And Fidel Castro has over the years denied over and over again that Robert Vesco is there. And then they agree that he is there. And who is Robert Vesco? Robert Vesco is a man who helped organize the distribution system for the drug cartel in the Western Hemisphere.
One of the things that bothered me about the debate about Castro over these years is that we haven't recognized the part, the role that Fidel Castro has played in the distribution of narcotics in the Western Hemisphere. And this man who has kept his own people under an iron grip all of these years has had a tremendous negative impact on this hemisphere both in providing weapons for guerrillas and who would try to put in their own country a Communist dictatorship, but also in the organization of criminal elements in the Western Hemisphere that have undermined stability. It has been a horrendous impact so some of these fugitives that we'd like to have returned actually have been used by Castro to help undermine stability and undermine the well-being of all the people of the Western Hemisphere. So it's about time we pay attention to this. And even though we're just focusing on one name that's been mentioned, there are a lot of really bad people down there.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I support this resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much for your comments. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman. ''Strike the following preamble clause: 'Whereas there are currently approximately 90 other—'''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read. And I'll explain the amendment.
[Amendment to H. Con. Res. 254 offered by Mr. Gilman appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I strongly support the resolution which calls on the Cuban regime to return Joanne Chesimard to the United States. It's shameful and utterly unacceptable that Mr. Castro continues to harbor murderers and hardened criminals like Ms. Chesimard. The victims of her crimes, New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and his widow, Rose, and their family have been denied justice by Mr. Castro's callousness.
I think it's important for the Committee to note that the Cuban regime is holding over 75 felony fugitives from American justice, including, as Mr. Rohrabacher noted, Robert Vesco, and others, Victor Gerena, who is on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted List, Frank Terpil, a rogue CIA agent, wanted for selling explosives to Libyan dictator Mohamar Qadafi.
I'd like to thank Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida for introducing the resolution. I also know that Representative Bob Menendez has been a longstanding and tireless advocate of the Foerster family and we thank him for his continual efforts in pressing for this resolution and for the action by the Cuban Government to see that justice is done for the Foerster family.
Based in part on comments received by our State Department, I would, however, like to offer two minor amendments to the resolution. The proposed amendment was based on information provided by the FBI to clarify the number and nature of the fugitives being harbored by the Castro regime. The language currently in the resolution calling for the countries to respect each other's judicial system is, in my view, subject to misinterpretation. I believe that we would all agree that given the absolute absence of due process in Cuba, the language would best be removed from this otherwise helpful resolution.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are there any questions? If not, the question is on the amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
Those opposed, say no.
The ayes appear to have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further Members seeking recognition or to offer any other amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the Subcommittee recommendation as amended. All in favor signify by saying aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion by the gentleman from Nebraska. As many in favor of the motion say aye.
As many are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings are agreed to.
Now, we'll go to the last resolution for the day and that is H. Con. Res. 224, relating to recovering children abducted in the United States and taken abroad. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H. Con. Res. 224, resolution urging international cooperation in recovering children abducted in the United States and taken to other countries.''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative language of the resolution be read in that order for amendment. The clerk will read.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas many children in the United States have been abducted by family members who are foreign nationals and living in foreign countries; Whereas children who have been abducted by an estranged father are very rarely returned, through legal remedies, from countries that only recognize the custody rights of the father;—''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.
[H. Con. Res. 224 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. This measure calls our attention to a problem of growing concern and while most Americans are aware of the large number of cases involving children who are abducted by a non-custodial parent in the United States, very few are aware of the international dimensions of this problem. I commend the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Berry, for his initiative.
A byproduct of our increasingly interdependent globe has been an increase in the number of American citizens marrying citizens of other Nations. It's a sad fact of today's society that a high number of marriages results in divorce and these international marriages are subject to the strains that affect marriages and so as between citizens of the same country. In fact, there may be additional strains caused by the differences in culture in such relationships. When an international marriage results in children, and the parents become divorced, with the foreign national spouse choosing to return to his or her own country, the offspring can be quickly embroiled in a complex situation, not only torn between the two parents but also between the two nations.
Our citizens need to reflect on the consequences of marriage and divorce with a foreign national if they plan to have children. And while no one believes he or she will divorce a person they plan to marry, statistics do indicate that this has been a concern, one that needs to be examined carefully before a child or children enter the picture. There are tragically nearly 1,000 cases pending with the Office of Children's Issues at the State Department that handles children wrongfully taken from a custodial parent in the United States to another nation.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also need our government, particularly the State Department, to intensify its efforts to get more international cooperation in addressing the criminal aspects of international parental child abduction, and also in getting more countries, particularly in the Middle East, to abide by the Hague Convention on civil aspects of international child abduction.
For all these reasons, this resolution is timely and I now recognize Mr. Berry to make some brief remarks on behalf of the cosponsors.
Mr. Berry.
Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Chairman Gilman and Ranking Member Hamilton for giving your committee's consideration to this resolution. This issue first came to my attention when a child, Mikail Al O'Murray, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the First Congressional District of Arkansas was illegally kidnaped by her non-custodial father and taken to Saudi Arabia where her mother has no right to legal recourse.
Since that time, I have learned that there are hundreds of children who have been illegally taken to another country. If the country is not a signatory to the Hague agreement, the parents are left totally helpless. In many cases when the country is a signatory, justice is often difficult to obtain and comes at a high price.
House Continuing Resolution 224 is a very important first step. Again, I appreciate the Committee for giving its attention to this issue, and I am hopeful that we can eventually have more meaningful progress as a result of hearings on cases of international kidnaping.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berry. Gentlemen, please stand by. This is the last measure we'll be considering. We'll try to wind it up before we go to the floor. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for bringing this forward. I also want to commend Congressman Berry for his initiative. I think it's an outstanding initiative on his part. I fully support it. I urge the adoption of the resolution.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition? If not, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question now is on the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. As many as are in favor of the motion say aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on the measure are postponed.
I'm asking the Members to hold just a moment. All right, the Committee is now recessed until 11 a.m. tomorrow. The Committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 a.m., the Committee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."