Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TROPICAL FOREST CONSERVATION ACT OF 1998 THROUGH FY 2004; THE ILSA (IRAN/LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT) EXTENSION ACT OF 2001; CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO RELEASE ALL AMERICAN SCHOLARS OF CHINESE ANCESTRY BEING HELD IN DETENTION, AND OTHER PURPOSES; AND EXPRESSING THAT LEBANON, SYRIA, AND IRAN SHOULD CALL UPON HEZBOLLAH TO ALLOW REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS TO VISIT FOUR ABDUCTED ISRAELIS HELD IN LEBANON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:23 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry Hyde, (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman HYDE. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the Bill H.R. 2131 for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House.
Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
The Chair yields himself 5 minutes for purposes of presenting a statement.
I am pleased that the Committee will consider H.R. 2131, the Reauthorization of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. The current act expires at the end of this fiscal year.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The bill, H.R. 2131, follows:]
Chairman HYDE. H.R. 2131 reauthorizes this successful program through fiscal year 2004 and authorizes $50 million for fiscal year 2002, $75 million for fiscal year 2003, and $100 million for fiscal year 2004.
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act helps to protect the world's dwindling tropical forests through debt-for-nature swaps, buy backs or debt restructuring. This successful program builds on former President Bush's innovative Enterprise for the Americas Initiative and is another creative example of how we can address developing country debt while helping to protect our planet's environment.
The act gives the President the authority to reduce certain forms of debt owed to the United States in exchange for the deposit by eligible developing countries of local currencies in a tropical forest fund to preserve, restore and maintain tropical forests. These funds are used by qualified non-governmental organizations working to preserve the world's most endangered tropical forests.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This program is overseen by a board of directors in the United States that is comprised of U.S. public and private officials, and reports on progress made to implement the program are provided annually to the Congress.
I commend Mr. Portman of Ohio and our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos of California, for their leadership and support for conservation efforts in the developing work and for their work to reauthorize this program.
I urge my colleagues to support the Reauthorization of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act that provides direct benefits to both developing and developed countries.
I yield to Mr. Lantos for such statement as he cares to make.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hyde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
I am pleased that the Committee will consider H.R. 2131, the Reauthorization of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. The current Act expires at the end of this fiscal year.
H.R. 2131 reauthorizes this successful program through fiscal year 2004 and authorizes $50 million for fiscal year 2002, $75 million for fiscal year 2003, and $100 million for fiscal year 2004.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act helps to protect the world's dwindling tropical forests through debt-for-nature swaps, buy backs, or debt restructuring. This successful program builds on former President Bush's innovative Enterprise for the Americas Initiative and is another creative example of how we can address developing country debt while helping to protect our planet's environment.
The Act gives the President the authority to reduce certain forms of debt owed to the United States in exchange for the deposit by eligible developing countries of local currencies in a tropical forest fund to preserve, restore, and maintain tropical forests. These funds are used by qualified non-governmental organizations, working to preserve the world's most endangered tropical forests.
This program is overseen by a board of directors in the United States that is comprised of U.S. public and private officials, and reports on progress made to implement the program are provided annually to the Congress.
I commend Mr. Portman of Ohio and our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, of California, for their leadership and support for conservation efforts in the developing world and for their work to reauthorize this program.
I urge my colleagues to support the Reauthorization of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act that provides direct benefits to both developing and developed countries.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me say at the outset I am a strong supporter of H.R. 2131, and I would like to commend my friend, Congressman Rob Portman, for introducing the reauthorization of this bill and you, Mr. Chairman, for moving it so expeditiously through the process.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Three years ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved the landmark Tropical Forest Conservation Act. This legislation provides funding for the Administration to pursue actively debt swaps, buy backs and debt reduction and restructuring with developing nations in return for concrete efforts to protect our precious tropical forests.
Since we enacted this important legislation, the Clinton Administration successfully concluded an agreement to reduce the debt owed by the government of Bangladesh to the United States in exchange for a new plan to protect 4 million acres of mangrove forests in that country. These forests protect the world's only genetically secure population of Bengal tigers.
At the moment, Mr. Chairman, there are 11 nations on three continents which are interested in negotiating debt reduction agreements with the United States. It is critical that the Bush Administration continue the active implementation of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act.
Tropical forests around the globe are rapidly vanishing. The latest figures indicate that 30 million acres of tropical forests, an area which is larger than the state of Pennsylvania, are being lost every single year.
Tropical forests harbor much of the world's bio diversity. They act as carbon sinks, absorbing massive quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby reducing greenhouse gasses.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified over 3000 plants, Mr. Chairman, that are active against cancer, 70 percent of which can be found in tropical forests.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In short, Mr. Chairman, we must continue to play a leadership role in protecting the world's tropical forests. Our act is an innovative program, exchanging debt for tropical forest protection. It is a critical tool to provide our executive branch to achieve that most important goal.
By reauthorizing the legislation and providing reasonable funding levels for the next 3 years, I am confident that we can help save tens of thousands of acres of tropical forests around the world.
At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I will offer a technical amendment to make some changes in the act and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for his initiative in promoting this very worthy program and the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos for his support. It is a long way from Ohio to the closest tropical forest, but the gentleman has a broad vision relative to the environment. We are in his debt. We originally authorized this program in the 106th Congress and it is appropriate to now reauthorize it at this time. I thank the Chairman for yielding and I urge my colleagues to fully support this measure.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Portman from Ohio for his authorship of this reauthorization and to you also, Mr. Chairman, and our Ranking Democrat, Mr. Lantos, for moving this piece of legislation before the Committee.
I guess after living or coming from a tropical area or region of the world, Mr. Chairman, it would be natural that I urge strong support of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act basically allow less developed nations that owe loans to the United States to restructure their debt repayment, funnelling savings into a tropical rain forest protection fund which provides for a conservation and maintenance of native forest resources in each participating country.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, in recent years, up to 42 million acres of tropical forests have been devastated annually throughout the world. Indeed, approximately one-half of the planet's tropical forests no longer exist.
In the Asian-Pacific region alone, it is estimated that 88 percent of the original forest lands have been destroyed.
Mr. Chairman, these careless actions have a dramatically negative impact on the environment that is global in nature. The destruction of tropical forest lands of this scale destroy the earth's ability to recycle carbon dioxide, significantly contributing to greenhouse gasses and climate warming. Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Chairman, we sacrifice and lose the rich and unique bio diversity of these tropical forest ecosystems which, incidently, contain over half of the world's plant and animal species.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, tropical forest plants have been used for centuries for indigenous native peoples to treat illness and disease. Most of the earth's 265,000 flowering plants are located in tropical regions and less than 1 percent of these plants have been scientifically tested for effectiveness against disease. We must preserve these tropical resources that may hold the key to a cure perhaps for cancer or even AIDS and other deadly diseases afflicting humanity today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to express my strong support for reauthorization of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act introduced by our distinguished colleague from Ohio, Mr. Portman. The gentleman from California and the gentleman from American Samoa have just explained the dramatic potentially positive impact this legislation can have in preserving some of our tropical forests, and I will not have to duplicate that. However, I do think we need to be mindful always of the potential good that we can accomplish by debt swaps.
They have been used for a variety of things around the globe, not just as we hope to do more successfully in the future with tropical forests, but on a whole range of development issues, water development, family enterprises and so on.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One of the countries that has fallen through the cracks when it comes to debt forgiveness is Bangladesh. I have been concerned about that for some period of time. Their debt is primarily related to the Food for Peace Program, but they have not qualified for debt forgiveness because of a timing issue and a set of other problems.
As Mr. Portman came forward in his legislation, I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the act that we are hoping now to reauthorize and have hoped that it might also have some influence and impact on Bangladesh and its debt problem, which is very substantial.
Most of the debt that is really uncollectible in effect is in Africa and certain parts of Latin America, but you have heard from Mr. Lantos' description what has happened in Bangladesh. By the way, it is the only use thus far of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act that has reached the final stage where it is implemented. Others are on the way. We need some time to make sure that this opportunity is extended to other countries in the various continents and in the islands of Southeast Asia where we have tropical forests left to preserve.
It has brought relief to Bangladesh. They were not even aware of its potential applications, but we now see that we are having a major impact, not only on the tropical forests but on the endangered species that live in those tropical forests in Bangladesh, and the people have relief.
This is an outstanding program, and we need to look for other uses of debt swap. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and do it enthusiastically.
Thank you.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this being brought forward and look forward to supporting it. I hope, Mr. Chairman, and our Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, that there may be an opportunity for this Committee at some point this year to spend a few minutes looking in a comprehensive fashion at the various elements that we have before our jurisdiction so that we might in a more comprehensive fashion make a statement—not just make a statement—but fashion some legislative responses that will help deal with global climate change.
We find the Administration is somewhat hesitant, is looking at studying it further. But it would seem to me that we have a number of opportunities that come before us where we might be able to help take the lead on items like this that are relatively noncontroversial, that we may be able to expand our reach, do some good, and be able to help generate some momentum in this session of Congress.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say that I certainly will be supporting the efforts of Mr. Lantos and Mr. Portman on this legislation, perhaps for different reasons. I certainly agree with Mr. Lantos and Mr. Portman about the importance of rain forests in terms of plants and bio diversity and wildlife, endangered species, et cetera. I certainly also agree and applaud Mr. Bereuter for the efforts that he has made in terms of debt swap and all that that means to countries that are going through major economic challenges that can be devastating to their economy. So I applaud Mr. Bereuter's focus on Bangladesh and other countries that might be helped with debt swap.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
However, let me say that I support the legislation and am concerned about rain forests. I would hope that this is not interpreted as some sort of confirmation of global climate change. I have gone through numerous hearings on global climate change in the Science Committee and on various Subcommittees on which I sit.
It should be noted that if you do believe in global warming, which I do not, that what would you want to do with the rain forests is to bulldoze them. The rain forests are not a sink hole for CO2 and greenhouse gasses. Every expert to whom I have spoken has had to admit grudgingly that the rain forests produce much more CO2 than they absorb; that the rain forests along with the termites and the bugs within the rain forests are one of the major sources on this plant of supposed greenhouse gasses, because rotting wood and termites actually produce more CO2 than does the internal combustion engine.
That to me is not a reason for us not to be concerned abut the rain forests because I happen not to believe that global warming is a problem. I happen to believe that it is global baloney. After having gone through all of these sessions and having had a chance to question the scientists who end up admitting to me within a few minutes that it could be global cooling as well as global warming, I believe that perhaps there is some confusion in the scientific community. But that the rain forests are a source of CO2 is not one of those debatable issues.
So while I would suggest that we support this debt swap for economic reasons, that we support this debt swap concept in order to protect bio diversity and the endangered species and plants that exist, let us not be sucked into misinformation and confirm false scientific premises like the rain forests being a sink hole for CO2, which they are not. They are a source of CO2.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With that, I do support the legislation in order to support bio diversity and protection of endangered species and also to help the economies of some of our struggling brothers and sisters in the developing world.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, for purposes of an amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Mrs. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Lantos. Page 1 after line 2, insert the following. Section 1——
Mr. LANTOS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take 5 minutes because I believe that my amendments are noncontroversial and acceptable to all Members.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The first change clarifies that some countries which under present legislation would not be eligible by virtue of my amendment become eligible. The two countries are the Philippines and Costa Rica.
The second amendment confirms the Administration's intent that the State Department chair the committee that oversees this program. It is a program which cuts across every single aspect of our relations with many countries, and it is appropriate that the Department of State provide the chairmanship. I move the approval of my amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Is there any further discussion?
If not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.
All in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. Understanding there to be no further amendments, the question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 2131 favorably as amended.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Lantos follows:]
061901.AAB
Chairman HYDE. All in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The motion to report favorably is adopted.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House Rule 22 and, without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Democrat, Mr. Lantos, for purposes of an introduction.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this is both a sad and a happy day for the Committee. It is a sad day because our friend and colleague, Alcee Hastings, despite my strong attempt to persuade him otherwise, has decided to leave our Committee and accept an appointment to the House Rules Committee. On this occasion I want to extend to Alcee our deepest appreciation for his extraordinary service over many years.
We are most fortunate to have our new colleague, Ambassador Diane Watson, joining the Committee. I have had the privilege of knowing Ambassador Watson probably longer than anybody in this room, with perhaps one or two exceptions. She served in the California State Senate as the first woman of African-American ancestry, for 2 decades, with unique distinction. Many important pieces of legislation that we in California are grateful for are Diane's gift to the State of California.
Most recently, Mr. Chairman, she served our country in the capacity of Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia with great effectiveness, dignity, and with passionate patriotism. On behalf of all of us, I believe, I want to welcome Diane, Ambassador Watson, to the Committee and look forward to her many contributions to our work.
I would like all of us to join in giving her a hand.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[Applause.]
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum and we will proceed to complete the markup of the bill H.R. 1954. When the Committee recessed last week, we were considering H.R. 1954 for amendment. No amendment was pending, but the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, for purposes of an amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Paul. Page 3, line 5, strike 10 years and insert 7 years. Amend the title so as to read ''A Bill to Extend the Authorities of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 Until 2003.''
Chairman HYDE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, in support of his amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This amendment merely changes the length of time of the extension. Instead of extending the sanctions for 5 years, it extends it for 2 years, a very moderate, modest approach to a difficult international relations problem.
The President has asked for this, believing that it will help him in his diplomatic dealings, not only in the Middle East, but in Europe as well because our allies in Europe are not in support of our position of extending this for 5 years.
Five years represents a sort of a closed minded approach that we cannot even review it after 2 years, and this at least gives a little bit of flexibility and a little bit of recognition that we are willing to work with both Iran and Libya.
We work with many countries around the world, even during the heyday of the Cold War, as well as at this time with the communist Chinese. We work real hard to trade with those who are more antagonistic toward us, believing that free and open trade is the way to go rather than depending on a more arrogant, authoritarian approach of putting on sanctions.
So I think this would be a very modest approach to send a message that we are willing to talk with these countries, believing that there is a moderate element in both countries that may move in our direction if we are not so flagrant in our ability to push our way around in the world. I think this would be a modest step in the right direction.
There is a real question about the effectiveness of sanctions. There is no clear evidence that they are really good. Certainly, the sanctions on Cuba have not done the job. I mean, they have been there for 40 years. So a strong believer in free trade, I think, would support this position, believing that the reason we trade with people is that we get along with them better.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Atlantic Council not too long ago issued a report dealing with mainly Iran. The Atlantic Council is co-chaired by Lee Hamilton, James Schlesinger and Brent Scowcroft, and they have concluded that we should get rid of the sanctions with Iran.
So this is an approach that we have to deal with, and we cannot remain static and we cannot remain arrogant about our position. Quite frankly, I think our method of pursuing foreign policy over the last several decades literally encourages and stimulates the radicalism that we find around the world, because they feel like we have no openness to their position and that we are close minded and only support one side. I think this is an opportunity for us to at least say that we will consider something else.
So to me, it is a good opportunity for us to support the President as well as support our free trade and support a more sensible foreign policy, whereby we do not pursue the policy so much of telling people all the time what they must do. So often, either we put on very penalizing sanctions or we bomb them. Quite frankly, I think that this is a much better method where we at least try to talk with countries with whom we are in conflict. If we think this can help us with China and other nations, there is no reason why we cannot consider that with these countries, fully realizing that they are far from angels. I mean, that is not the position at all. But to argue the case that we should not do it because they are not the best leaders in the world, is really canceling out the whole argument that that is exactly when we want to deal with foreign countries and not isolate them.
If you believe in communication, if you believe in trade, if you believe that talking with people is beneficial, we should not always be so willing to close our mind to talking to other people. This is not arguing the case for eliminating sanctions, this is a real token effort just to say maybe we can lighten up a little and have a more open mind to dealing with other countries.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I see this as an opportunity for us to support the President as well as support the position of free trade.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Paul concerning the non-angelic nature of Iran and Libya. As a matter of fact, that is the only comment he made with which I find myself in agreement.
As I was listening to the rest of his comments, they reminded me of the most vitriolically anti-American statements of recent decades that we have heard around the world—we are penalizing countries, we bomb them, we are arrogant. Let me just say that when Ronald Reagan spoke of the Evil Empire or called for the bringing down of the Berlin Wall, that could be viewed as arrogant, but it was in defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that is what this legislation is all about.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment in the strongest possible terms. Cutting back from 5 to 2 years in the first place is non-relevant because the existing legislation provides for an automatic suspension of sanctions against both Iran and Libya.
In the case of Iran, it is effective if it stops developing weapons of mass destruction, which is one of our prime concerns, and if it stops subsidizing and supporting and financing and aiding international terrorism. So all the regime in Tehran needs to do is stop building weapons of mass destruction and stop subsidizing and supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and the sanctions are lifted.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With respect to Libya, the sanctions are automatically lifted if Libya admits having had one of its intelligence officers, now condemned and found guilty, as being responsible for the bombing of our aircraft (Pan Am Flight 103) and the death of large numbers of innocent American citizens and is prepared to pay compensation.
It would be a singularly dangerous signal to indicate our vacillation or our timidity or our unwillingness to assert the position that has served us well for the last 5 years. The oil companies that will be reluctant to invest if we have the 5-year provision would be perfectly prepared to wait out 2 years, so we would in a sense facilitate investment in Iranian properties were we to let the sanctions expire after 2 years.
We are merely indicating to Iran that we are pleased that the Iranian people voted for the most moderate of the candidates who was allowed to run. I think it is important to add that provision, ''who was allowed to run,'' because while the man who won the presidency was the most moderate of the candidates, it was the mullahs and the ayatollahs and the hard liners who had to provide a Good Housekeeping stamp of approval before anybody had the right to run for this position. So this is not a moderate person. This is the most moderate person approved by the ayatollahs.
Secondly, his moderation relates only to domestic policy. He is fully in support of the most aggressive policies in the Middle East, underwriting terrorism and denouncing the peace process and attempting to eliminate the one political democracy in the region.
I think it would be a singularly ill-advised gesture on the part of this Committee to reduce the time for our proposed sanctions from 5 to 2 years, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bipartisan support for this measure has been growing stronger. At the present time, we now have 245 co-sponsors in the House and 74 Senators and they are still counting over there. And while I hold the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, in high regard, I regret that I must oppose his amendment to reduce the duration of this measure to 2 years.
It is important that we renew ILSA for a 5-year period instead of two. Shortening the time period would be perceived as a victory by Iran and Libya, and we should not give them the impression that they can wait us out. We want them to change their behavior. We should not allow the foreign oil companies to maneuver in the expectation that they will be able to get involved with Iran free of any risk of sanctions. Moreover, the President of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 has sent us their objections to reducing the 5-year duration of this measure and they state in their letter, ''We are deeply disappointed that less than 5 months after declaring Libya guilty of murdering our loved ones the Administration has proposed slashing the extension from 5 years down to 2 years. We strongly oppose any change which Colonel Gadaffi will read as a sign of weakening U.S. resolve.''
And they go on to state ''Reducing the time period to 2 years will give Colonel Gadaffi a strong incentive to continue stonewalling as he has done since the verdict was announced in January and wait until the sanctions expire. Sanctions against Libya have been effective in achieving results.'' That is from the President of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Moreover, the Khobar Towers investigation in Saudi Arabia is still ongoing, and Iran may be linked to that attack on American servicemen down the road. We do not know when the FBI will be able to complete their investigation and we do not know what the results will be.
We do not want to have to take the time of the Administration and the Congress and cause needless friction with those who are offended in principle by this law by renewing it constantly. The President has enormous flexibility in this measure in fine tuning his enforcement of this law if circumstances change.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge my colleagues to renew ILSA for another 5 years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join my Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Gilman, in urging a no vote on this effort to shorten the term of the extension of ILSA to 2 years. I think it would be more straightforward just to oppose the reauthorization of the legislation, because when you reduce the term of this legislation to 2 years, you eviscerate the fundamental purpose of the bill.
But let us review the bidding for a second.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The gentleman from Texas talks about, almost as a matter of religion, the belief that trade produces good things, more trade produces better things, and that things will get better if there is more trade. I on balance tend to think trade is better. I do not think it is a matter of religion. I do not think that is established beyond doubt. I do not think history can prove that in all situations more trade produces better results.
We only have to go back 15 years to watch the fact that even as Iraq harbored terrorists, funded terrorist organizations and provided diplomatic pouches for terrorist bombs, when the United States took Iraq off the list of countries supporting terrorism, it thereby opened up a whole variety of dual-use exports to Iraq. Even as Iraq used chemical weapons in its war with Iran, our failure in the veto of efforts to impose sanctions on Iraq for that did not lead to better behavior and better relations with Iraq. It led to a recognition that the United States did not seriously pursue its own acts of aggression and use of and development of weapons of mass destruction, and we ended up with an attack on Kuwait that Iraq truly thought would not be responded to based on prior actions by the United States.
No one here, I think, certainly not this Member, is calling for trying to isolate Iran. No one here is trying to prohibit travel to Iran, diplomatic contacts with Iran, basic trade with Iran. We have an executive order that this Administration could eliminate with one stroke of a pen that could open up all kinds of new activities on trade.
This bill is a carefully targeted effort to focus on that aspect of Iran's economy, that is, the development and strengthening of its energy sector, which will ensure that it has the resources to pursue a weapons of mass destruction program and to continue to finance the cargo planes that on a regular basis go from Tehran to Damascus with arms and supplies and resources to be spread to the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and to other terrorist organizations in the Middle East who finance and support suicide bombers and other acts of violence that work against the continuation of the peace process there.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Going from 5 years to 2 years tells the only group that is targeted by this amendment, that is, foreign entities that seek to invest more than $20 million in the Iranian energy sector—and that is all we are focused on here—to get ready, to start looking at the bids, to start making the decisions, to put together your partners because in a very, very short time you will not have to worry about the possible imposition of sanctions.
Mr. Lantos has already talked about the external behavior of Iran that could immediately deal with the elimination of these sanctions. The law provides already waiver authority for the President to waive in a particular situation any imposition of sanctions, but the message about 5 years to 2 years is not a message about wanting more contact and engagement with Iran. We can do that right now and perhaps in some fashion we should seek to try and do that right now.
We are not talking here about internal democratic processes in Iran, respect for pluralism, domestic reform. We are talking here about developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver those weapons, biological and chemical weapons, and active, direct financing and arming of terrorist organizations that seek to destroy the peace process and existing regimes in the Middle East and in other areas.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. I would think if we are going to reauthorize this bill, let us reauthorize it for a period of time that shows we are serious and that we are staying the course. I would oppose the Paul amendment.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it looks like there is sort of overwhelming support for this. I do not happen to agree with it. Who knows, I am not an Iranian, I cannot get inside their minds, but it just seems from a practical standpoint it does not make a lot of sense. I would prefer to do away with the whole thing, but since that is not on the cards, maybe even Mr. Paul's amendment is not on the cards. I still would like to support his amendment and there are really three basic reasons.
First of all, the concept of secondary boycotts really makes no sense at all. I mean, I have been in this business for a long time and it does not affect American companies at all. What it does is really affect those people who otherwise are trying to be our friends.
Frankly, if you want to stop the flow into Iran of cash for them to develop all sorts of horrible weapons, stop doing business with them because although you have company X from another country giving $25 million in investment, you could easily develop an export-import relationship which gives them the same amount of money so they could invest in the business themselves. I think the secondary boycott concept does not make a lot of sense.
Secondly, say what you will about Mr. Khatami—I am not sure that is the right pronunciation of his name—he got 77 percent of the vote. You could say that in any country—here is an element trying to break out of the control of mullahs and you can say that is not going to work and he is only there because he has the sanction of the mullahs, but at least it is a ray of hope.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thirdly, when you take a look at what has happened in the last few years, this thing has not worked. Japan and France and England and Canada and others, they have spent billions of dollars. So forgetting about my philosophic differences, if it had worked, that would be one thing; but it has not worked, so therefore I would like to support Mr. Paul's amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek recognition to speak against the gentleman's amendment. I know he uses China constantly as a reference, but if after 30 years of engagement with China, religious persecution, forced abortions, arrests of dissidents, Tianenmen Square, ethnic cleansing in Tibet, arrests of the Falon Gung, child and prison camp labor, and a trade deficit that fuels China's military build up equal to the amount of the trade deficit that we have with them, and sending our plane back in pieces in a Russian made aircraft is our sense of success in terms of engagement, then I hope that others will reconsider it.
Sending dangerous signals is what this amendment does. It says the United States is weakening its opposition to Iran and Libya's dangerous behavior. It will undercut the real forces in Iran who seek real change of their society, and I will speak about that in a minute. I think it will encourage foreign investors to wait out the time period necessary when we limit it to 2 years. The President, it has been stated, has all the flexibility he needs to cease the sanctions both against Iran and Libya if they change their behavior, and what is it? It is very simple. The law simply says that if Iran ceases its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and ends its support for international terrorism, the sanctions would terminate. Tomorrow.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, which one of those two things is not in the national interests and national security interests of the United States? And, similarly, for Libya to accept responsibility in the downing of Pan Am 103's victims?
This has all the safeguards, and it has other safeguards for the President. So we send a very, very clear message if we demonstrate that we are willing to put profit over principle, that we are willing to see the color of foreign policy be green in terms of money, instead of standing up for real national interests, real national security interests.
As it relates to Iran, we all have hope in the nature of the elections that took place, but let us not be deceived. Khatami may be the hope, but Khameni is the one who holds the power. The reality is when we look at what both of them say, Khatami's moderation is domestic, but when we talk about what he says abroad, it is far from moderation. He speaks in terms that clearly are not moderate whatsoever, and he continues to support the hard line cleric's antipathy to the west and to ensure that Iran has the ability for weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to develop them. So it is not in the interests of the United States to engage and to allow resources to take place in such a way that strengthens their ability to further weapons of mass destruction and to provide the missile capacity to deliver them both to our allies in the region as well as against forces that we have.
When you look at the statements of the recent conference that they had where Khameni, who is the Iranian supreme leader, says there is proof that the Zionists had close relationships with the German Nazis and that the presentation of astronomical figures on the massacre of Jews was in itself means of making people express sympathy with them, in this way a government that was hostile to Islam was established in the very heart of the Islamic world under the guise of supporting relatives of the victims of racism. And Khatami himself says Israel is the violent face of Zionism and symbolizes disrespect for truth, inalienable rights of people and human dignity. Those are not in my mind the words of moderation.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So let me close by saying we need to send a very strong message and we need to disavow those who believe that the United States is quickly arriving at the conclusion that we will put commercial interests ahead of national interests, that we will put a commercial interests ahead of national security interests, irrespective of a country's support of terrorism, irrespective of a country's promotion of weapons of mass destruction and proliferation, irrespective of their ability to deliver such weaponry, both against our allies and against our troops.
It makes no sense to send such a message. If you really want to support those who want change in Iran, then you will vote to sustain the 5-year period of this legislation and vote against the gentleman's amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am a co-sponsor of this bill and I would just like to say that I am also going to be voting for Mr. Paul's amendment. I believe, and I agree with Mr. Menendez, we need to have a strong stance against some of the things that are going on in Libya and Iran. There is no doubt about it, that is why I am a co-sponsor to the bill. But we have to be aware that actions like the vote that we are about to take have their nuances that are being heard overseas. I do not believe what will be heard overseas, that if we reduce the number of years of this extension from 5 to 2, I do not believe that will be taken as weakness. And, if I did, I would not be supporting this.
I disagree with, of course, Mr. Paul's assessment that trade is going to bring about peace with dictators and tyrants. Dictators and tyrants do not give a damn about trade that improves the life of their people. But what is happening in Iran is not just a message to the mullahs who have ruled Iran these last few decades. It is also a message to the Iranian people to be courageous. They have voted by 75 percent for what I believe most people believe is a moderate.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, certainly, this moderate Iranian leader is not going to be a friend of Israel. People in the Muslim world are siding with their fellow Muslim Palestinian people in what they consider to be a conflict, a legitimate conflict, between the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, and they are siding with them. You cannot think if we have to judge Muslims by how they are going to support or not support Israel, there is ever going to be a Muslim that we can deal with.
But Khatami at least is trying from what we can see to loosen the restrictions on the Iranian society, which I believe will yield a change in their policies toward the development of weapons of mass destruction and their support for not just the Palestinian people but support for terrorism, which we all are opposed to and must insist on. There are ways of supporting someone who is in a conflict and there are ways that are unacceptable. Supporting terrorist bombers is not acceptable.
So I believe that a reduction of this extension will tell the Iranian people that we recognize that you are standing up to these mullahs and we are on your side and we are going to reexamine this in a couple of years, in 2 years instead of 5. If you are going on the right course, we are going to be opening up more doors to Iran, but we expect—we are not eliminating these restrictions, we are not eliminating them—so we expect the words and the will of the people to lead to actions by the Iranian government.
In terms of Libya, the only thing they can really do is get rid of that nut case that they have running their country. I mean, Gadaffi is a man who has already made his mark in the world many times and has been involved with some of the most heinous acts of terrorism in my lifetime. I believe, hopefully, we could say that within 2 years maybe Gadaffi will not be around and he will not be the stumbling block.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I support Mr. Paul's efforts to reduce this extension. I do not share his optimism that simply——
Mr. PAUL. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not until I finish this one last point, that I do not share with you your optimism that trade is going to make things better.
I think that people of Iran know that they are friends of the United States and that they are enemies of the mullah. This is our way of showing the people of Iran we are their supporters and we join them in their opposition to the radical mullahs and, yes, I would be happy to yield time to Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you for yielding. It is not a religious principle that I believe in free trade, it is an economic principle. I do not have blind faith in sanctions, and I do not believe that trade is a panacea, so that is not exactly my position. I would argue the case that we are a lot better off today with China; our men got back, they got freed; those were not the conditions when we were fighting China and our men were being killed, so I would say there has been some improvement, but certainly not a panacea. It is just that when we are more open and talking and trading with people, the interests of both countries are best served by——
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired and the Chair would announce the has the following names on his list of those who wish to speak: on the Democratic side, Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Ackerman; on the Republican side, Mr. Nick Smith of Michigan, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Flake and Mr. Bereuter.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Chair is not disposed to recognize any others beyond this list so that we might complete this bill. There will be votes around noon. We have this bill and a couple more and I think the issues have been vetted very effectively, so with your cooperation we can vote this bill out. It is an important bill.
Yes, Mr. Cantor also, but he has not been here and we will consider when he comes back.
Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take your admonition and be brief. While I do not necessarily agree with the characterizations, with some of the supporters of this amendment in terms of their rationale, I will support it. I think there is strong evidence that the current non-system of sanctions that we have works against both our interests and oftentimes those who support sanctions.
We need to carefully review our sanctions regime and to move beyond the speculation and the patchwork that we have.
I support an opportunity that the Administration is doing to review sanctions, moving toward hopefully a rational, comprehensive system so we know when we should impose sanctions, what they should be, when they have succeeded and how to stop them. And currently, we do not have that framework. I commend the Administration for trying to do it.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Until that review is complete and until we have a system in place, I do not feel comfortable continuing to extend the current patchwork and will support the notion of a shorter timeframe.
Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Nick Smith of Michigan.
Is he not here?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Cooksey.
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, will support the amendment by my friend, Dr. Paul. I have nothing but antipathy toward the governments of Iran and Libya. Gadaffi is worthless, he has been devastating to his own people and he has done terrible things around the world. He is an old guy who needs to drop dead or go away.
The leadership of Iran is a little bit better and I think it is moving in the right direction. But sanctions get back to powder puff leadership. I would point out that Dr. Paul, my colleague Mr. Smith, and I were all in the Air Force. My colleague Mr. Houghton who is also supporting this amendment was a Marine from World War II. And it is our attitude or it is my attitude that the thing that works with these people is something like what was done when we bombed Gadaffi's tent. He has stayed in his tent since then. And we were all in the military. If you were not in the military, there is a tendency to powder puff things like sanctions. Hardball works with these bad guys.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The President of the United States would like to have the 2-year sanctions. It gives him a lot more flexibility in negotiating new agreements. I would point out that the term of everyone in this room is limited to less than 2 years in this Congress, and I have confidence that when our terms are up that the next Congress can renew these sanctions if need be.
So the question is do we do some more of this powder puff diplomacy that we have suffered under for the last 8 years and, I think, contributed to a lot of the turmoil between the Palestinians and the Israelis, or do we do firm, real hardball diplomacy?
I support the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Paul.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, as unlikely a prospect as it might seem, I feel as though I have fallen through the rabbit hole and woke up not in Wonderland but in Lala Land. Listening to the maker of the amendment and those who have supported it to some good measure, I find it astonishing that he believes that it is arrogant for us to respond to terrorist states by imposing sanctions for 5 years and that it is too tough, that 2 years would be less of a powder puff approach, as the previous speaker has just suggested, and would be a much tougher deal.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I mean, these are rogue states. China has done some bad things, a lot of countries we deal with have done bad things, but they have not been determined to be terrorist states, rogue nations participating in the murder of innocent human beings in other places of the world. How do you deal with them when the are rogue states? Not just individual organizations acting on their own, but duly authorized and sanctioned governments committing crimes against humanity.
To think it is arrogant on our part to put mere sanctions against them?
My God, is it arrogant to sanction Timothy McVeigh? Should we have had a dialogue with him? I mean, after all, he killed 170 people.
Well, Gadaffi's government killed 270 people and he is getting a better deal.
I do not understand saying that this is a powder puff approach or that we are arrogant when we want to deal with these people in a way in which they should be dealt with. It is absurd.
That Khatami is a moderate? A moderate among what?
Hitler and Goebels and Ghering, who is the moderate?
Khatemi got 77 percent. Let's deal with him. Hitler got 92 percent. Maybe he was more moderate than Goebels, let us deal with him.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This is kind of crazy. We should be holding up the looking glass and trying to figure out what is happening here. These are not individuals going nuts. These are governments that are training people who are criminals, sending them out into the world to cause mass destruction. They are duplicitous and complicitous in crimes against humanity.
And to say that we are arrogant for sanctioning them? How could we hurt the poor people in that poor country? Yes, they love democracy, a lot of people there do.
We had sanctions on South Africa and we had a great feeling of sympathy and kinship to the people who were there. But we have to know what the policy is and to do the right thing.
This is a signal from the United States Congress not that we are going to sanction them for 5 years. If it said 10 years or 100 years, it also says the sanctions are off as soon as they stop committing these crimes against humanity. That could be tomorrow. They release the trigger and pull the finger from it. The President has a waiver. He could do that at any time. We do not tie his hands here.
Come on. Let's get real about this. Let's send a signal. Two years is nothing. Five years is nothing. Committing the crimes that their governments are doing is something and this is our message to them.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In all due respect to my colleague from Texas, Dr. Paul, I speak out in strong opposition to the amendment that would shorten the life of ILSA and I do so for several reasons.
First of all, the question of effectiveness of the sanctions was raised during hearings prior to today's vote on this bill. Clearly it was demonstrated that there has been no major investment in the oil fields of Iran and there is the need for those oil fields to be updated. In fact, if we allow the companies to invest in those fields we will see massive amounts of increased productivity on those fields, and where will that money go? The same place that my colleague across the aisle just said, it will go toward the efforts of state-sponsored terrorism.
Iran remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000, according to our State Department.
Libya remains the primary suspect in several other past terrorist operations and, as was said before by my colleague from California, Mr. Lantos, the act provides for triggers that will automatically end the sanctions if Iran and Libya just do what they are supposed to do: if Iran ceases its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and stops its sponsorship of terrorism, if Libya would comply with U.N. Security Resolution 731 relating to the bombing of Pan Am 103. But yet those countries have not accepted that responsibility and, frankly, I do not think that they are worthy of recognition of the civilized world that we live in.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Therefore, we are doing nothing but holding these countries to the standard that we expect. It does not make any difference whether it is 2 years or 5 years or 7 or 10. If they stop this behavior, they will be accepted into the world of civilized people.
So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANTOR. I will yield to my colleague, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank him for his very eloquent statement and I agree with his position.
Let me just say that there is no reason to sunset the law unless the conditions are met, and I would encourage my colleagues to read or re-read Section 8, Termination of Sanctions for the Iran-Libyan Sanctions Act of 1996 and the Presidential waiver. It is very clear, as my friend said, whether it be 5 or 7, this could be a permanent law and it becomes null and void, becomes moot, if and only if these very carefully thought-out conditions are met.
Let me also remind my friend from California, I remember when Rafsanjani became the leader of Iran, some of our papers, including The Washington Post, were exuding how he was a moderate, how he was trained in the United States and he would certainly steer a different course. How we were wrong on that.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Khatami, I think, has to prove himself. Again, if he proves himself, this legislation terminates in and of itself. I think by allowing them to play to the clock, the clock runs out after 2 years, we will have an arduous time trying to reinstate those sanctions. This goes to the Ways and Means Committee, and we know this could become a dead letter as we try to it again.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. ENGEL. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, I want to strongly support what the gentleman just said and what I have heard before. I think this amendment should be defeated. I can hardly believe some of what I am hearing today.
The United States needs to stand for morality. It really irritates me when we look the other way because we think a few dollars can be made or when we look the other way when we see human rights violations. The world looks to us for leadership, and I cannot think of another country that has contributed more to terrorism and to the killing of innocent civilians than the government of Iran.
I think it is absolutely nonsense to say that if we cut it back from 5 years to 2 years it will not be looked upon as somehow retreating. Of course it will be looked upon as a retreat, and it will look like that we do not have the gumption to really stand up for what we believe.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I think that if we look at sanctions, it worked in South Africa. There is a waiver, as was pointed out, for the President of the United States.
You know, it is not enough to simply say, well, this is the way we can expect anybody in Iran to act. There are other Muslim countries that do not engage in terrorism, there are other Muslim countries that do recognize the right of Israel to exist. Turkey, Jordan, some of the Gulf states have shown moderation. I think Iran has shown no moderation.
Iran and Libya and other countries like Syria who engage in terrorism ought not to get the right time of day from us, so I absolutely oppose the amendment and think it would be absolutely the wrong signal to send.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
Mr. FLAKE. I rise in support of the amendment. I think that we are picking an arbitrary date of 5 years anyway; why not pick a date that will give the State Department and our Administration more flexibility?
Sanctions are a very blunt instrument. It is an instrument that I support in this instance. I am a co-sponsor of the bill, but it is all about flexibility and I think we ought to give that to the Administration.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in favor of the Paul amendment and I do it for the reason that the gentleman from Arizona has just brought, that a certain degree of deference is owed to this Administration early in its pursuit of foreign policies. The Powell State Department has asked us to support a 2-year extension. We have had little, if any, progress in the Middle East in peace and stability.
This is a particularly sensitive amendment because it goes to the security concerns of our ally and friend, Israel, and we know that there are concerns obviously raised by what has happened and continues to be the circumstance in Iran and the terrorist support out of Libya. But I ask my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle on perhaps the first opportunity, as far as I know, that the Administration has asked us to take a particular position, to make it a 2-year authorization rather than an arbitrary 5-year authorization, which is the proposal of some Members.
I think they have an opportunity and we have a responsibility to try to bring a different and more successful approach to the safety and survival of Israel and to peace and stability in the Middle East. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, while not disagreeing with Mr. Menendez's analysis of what probably will be the circumstance in Iran, to give the deference to this Administration, particularly to Secretary Powell and to the State Department that he leads, in the first such request to give them the flexibility, to give them the deference that their recommendations suggest.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, I would say that I think we probably should have had a tougher ILSA bill in the first place. The sanctions probably should have been more comprehensive, I think that was perhaps our initial error. Some of the things that my colleagues on the other side of this issue have raised are certainly valid, and we hope there might be some changes. However, we owe this change to a 2-year period of time for extension of the sanctions rather than an arbitrary 5-year extension to this Administration and to Secretary Powell.
I thank my colleagues. I urge support for the Paul amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul.
All in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[Chorus of nays.]
Chairman HYDE. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, on that I request a recorded vote.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. And you shall have one and the gentlelady in the blue teal dress, Nancy Bloomer, will call the roll.
Mr. LANTOS. It is aquamarine, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes no. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no. Mr. Ballenger?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Chabot?
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
Mr. BURR. Votes no.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes no. Mr. Cooksey?
Mr. COOKSEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes Yes. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes no. Mr. Paul?
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PAUL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes yes. Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes no. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes no. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes yes. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. No.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes no. Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes no. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes no. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes no. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes no. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes. Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes no. Mr. Davis?
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes no. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes no. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes no. Mr. Hoeffel?
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HOEFFEL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes no. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berkley votes no. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes no. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes no. Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Watson votes no. Mr. Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Mr. Gallegly?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were——
Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Nick Smith of Michigan?
Mr. SMITH. May I record a yes vote?
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. You certainly may.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were nine ayes and 34 noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
[No response.]
[The amendment offered by Mr. Paul follows:]
73265a.eps
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 1954 favorably.
All in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, no.
[Chorus of nays.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it, the motion is carried.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman——
Chairman HYDE. The motion to report favorably is adopted.
The gentleman from California——
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE [continuing]. And others request a recorded vote, and the gentlelady in the aquamarine suit will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Yes.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes yes. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes. Mr. Ballenger?
[No response.]
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
Mr. KING. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes yes. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no. Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. Yes.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes. Mr. Burr?
Mr. BURR. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes yes. Mr. Cooksey?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes yes. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. Yes.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes yes. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes yes. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes yes. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes yes. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes yes. Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes yes. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney?
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes. Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes yes. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berkley votes yes. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes Yes. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Watson votes yes. Mr. Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Mr. Cooksey?
Mr. COOKSEY. My vote is yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 41 ayes and three noes.
Chairman HYDE. The motion to report favorably is adopted and without objection the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House Rule 22. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes.
I ask unanimous consent that H.Res. 160 with the Smith amendments considered as adopted and H.Res. 99 be considered en bloc and be favorably reported to the House.
[The resolution, H. Res. 160, follows:]
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
061801.AAB
061801.AAC
061801.AAD
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
061901n.AAB
061901n.AAC
061901n.AAD
061901n.AAE
0618014.AAB
[The resolution, H. Res. 99, follows:]
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, it is so ordered. Without objection, any Member may place his or her remarks in the record of today's proceedings.
[The prepared statements of Chairman Hyde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
H. RES. 160
I want to thank Congressman Chris Smith, the Vice Chairman of our Committee, for this resolution on the arrest and continuing detention of a number of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents by the government of the People's Republic of China.
All of these people are of Chinese ancestry. Most are university professors and other academic scholars, although the detainees also include business people and at least one Falun Gong practitioner. They have been denied any meaningful access to their lawyers and to their families.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Although some of them have been charged with offenses related to ''espionage'' or ''state secrets,'' the authorities in Beijing have not produced any evidence or even given any details about exactly what the defendants are alleged to have done.
Yesterday we were privileged to have the spouses of two of these detainees testify before the Committee. They both insisted that their family members had committed no crimes—they are scholars, not criminals—and that any alleged ''confession'' exacted from the detained family member must have been induced by torture.
We also heard from Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, who told us the Administration has no objection to House Resolution 160 and that he personally thinks it is a great resolution. It is terribly important that Beijing understand there will be no business-as-usual relationship with the United States as long as they hold our residents and citizens as hostages. Passage of this resolution by an overwhelming majority on the Committee and in the whole House will make clear to Beijing that we are determined to bring these brave men and women home.
I strongly endorse the resolution.
H. RES. 99
I appreciate the initiative of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley, in framing this resolution, and the interest of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, Messrs. Gilman and Ackerman, in assuring its early consideration in Committee. I also would like to recognize the role of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, formerly associated with the Committee, who has worked with special diligence on this matter.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The plight of the four Israeli individuals—including Jewish soldiers, a reservist who was on a trip to Europe, and an Israeli Arab soldier—has touched the hearts of many world leaders, including the Secretary General of the United Nations, The Honorable Kofi Annan.
The assistance of our Administration on this issue is also commendable.
Both sides have issues to account for with respect to capturing individuals and holding them. But refusing access to the International Committee of the Red Cross is a matter of grave humanitarian concern.
Hezbollah is fundamentally responsible for the fate of these individuals. However, the resolution properly calls on Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, who either fund Hezbollah or permit it to operate on their territory, to urge Hezbollah to permit the ICRC to have access to these captives. That is the least they can do.
Chairman HYDE. We have accomplished a great deal and the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
H.R. 1954
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin by expressing my firm support for the extension of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. I recognize that some of my colleagues may say that this sanctions program has outlived its usefulness. I would suggest otherwise.
If we are to assess whether or not we should renew the Iran-Libya sanctions act, I believe it is essential to lay out why it was necessary in the first place. Both Iran and Libya have always possessed extensive oil and natural gas resources that have the potential to yield tremendous wealth for these nations. This potential revenue led to a concern over how this considerable wealth would be spent.
The desire to produce weapons of mass destruction and to abet, train, and fund terrorist organizations was a serious threat when these sanctions were implemented in 1995. Therefore, a policy of punishing foreign companies wishing to invest in these nations seemed to be a reasonable one. Though there have been some breeches of the sanctions by several companies during the past five years, I would suggest that on the whole, these sanctions have been fairly successful in deterring Asian and European investment in Libya and Iran's energy sectors.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So the question now becomes, does the situation in Iran and Libya in 2001 warrant the extension of ILSA. Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding yes.
According to the 2000 State Department report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iran, Libya, and several others continue to be nations that the Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. In fact, Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. Iran provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, which seek to undermine the Middle East peace process through the use of terrorism.
Though Libya has taken some steps to improve its international image, these steps are merely cosmetic. According to the same State Department report, Libya continues to have contact with groups that employ violence and terror as a tool to oppose the Middle East Peace Process, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. Five years after the enactment of this legislation, these nations remain a threat to their neighbors and to regional stability.
During the hearing held before this committee on the extension of ILSA, one of the distinguished panelists suggested that we delay the extension to see if President Khatami wins re-election and brings Iran back into the global community as a nation that respects international treaties and denounces terror. Well, as we all know, Mr. Khatami secured re-election by a landslide. He has had four years to make substantive changes to Iranian policy in this area, and has failed to do so.
We should not be rewarding President Khatami and the Iranian government simply because he is the lesser of two evils. There is a reason that these sanctions were imposed in 1995. Those reasons continue to plague these countries today.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
A rejection of the ILSA extension would destroy all credibility of a U.S. decision to enforce sanctions against nations who violate international law and engage in acts of terror. It sends the signal that it is permissible to break the law, as long as you have the ability to endure the consequences for a limited time until the policy unravels.
I believe that we need to send a different message. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
H. RES. 160
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H. Res. 160 and commend my good friend and colleague, Representative Chris Smith, for introducing this important resolution. The resolution before the House of Representatives calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release American scholars of Chinese ancestry being held in detention. Unfortunately, the recent arrests of these scholars is only the latest example of the Chinese government's willingness to invent false accusations against perfectly innocent citizens.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To illustrate the cost in human terms of China's brutality with respect to human rights, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the case of Dr. Gao Zhan. Gao Zhan is an academic who specializes in researching women's issues. She and her husband are permanent residents of the United States, and their five year-old son, Andrew, is an American citizen by birth. Gao, Zhan and her family recently traveled to China to visit relatives. As they stood in line at the Beijing Airport waiting for their flight back home to the United States, they were seized by Chinese officials. Each family member was forced into a separate car waiting outside the terminal and taken away.
lmagine the horror, Mr. Chairman, of a mother being suddenly separated from her child by nameless Chinese agents. Imagine the fear experienced by Gao Zhan's husband who, as we now know, was blindfolded, driven for hours to an unknown destination, and subsequently interrogated about his wife's research. Imagine being a five year-old boy and being torn away from your parents.
Gao Zhan's son was taken to a state-run institution where he was held alone for 26 days—completely separated from his family. Let me repeat that because I rarely come across such an egregious display of callousness. A five year-old boy was held alone for 26 days without his mother or father or even his grandparents who live in China.
Mr. Chairman, these actions violate international law as well as a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and China. Needless to say, they also violate our beliefs of basic human decency for the way in which a child should be treated. The monstrosity of what lurks within the Chinese government revealed its true form when it felt no qualms about wrenching a child from his parents and holding that child alone for 26 days. This isn't about the defense of China's national security. This is just barbarism, plain and simple.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chinese authorities finally allowed Gao Zhan's husband to retrieve his son and return home to the United States. Gao Zhan, however, hasn't been so lucky since she is still imprisoned within the People's Republic of China on these false charges. The Chinese government refuses to reveal the nature of the ''evidence'' against Gao Zhan or give her a chance to publicly defend herself with adequate defense counsel.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we know about the cases of Gao Zhan and the other five scholars mentioned in this resolution because they all have connections to the United States. There are tens of thousands of Chinese citizens without a connection to America who are locked away for years in Chinese jails. No embassies ask about them, no newspapers write about their cases, and they are relegated to a most uncertain fate.
Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely imperative that the Bush Administration make the release of the six Chinese-Americans mentioned in this resolution a top priority in our relationship with the PRC. While we will probably bemoan the horrendous human rights situation in China twenty years from now, we can win the release of these Chinese-Americans today with enough pressure on the Chinese government. If President Bush personally asks President Jiang to release these and other imprisoned scholars, I'm confident that Gao Zhan will see her husband and son again, and that Li Shaomin will come home soon to his wife and daughter.
I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
H. RES. 160
I want to thank Chairman Hyde for expeditiously moving H. Res. 160, a resolution calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release certain American citizens and residents from detention in China. I commend Chairman Smith for drafting this important and timely resolution.
I am concerned that Chinese-Americans are being held by the government of the People's Republic of China. There is no rule of law in that country. In China, a person is not innocent until proven guilty. A person's guilt or innocense is predetermined by the government. Thousands of arrests and imprisonments are carried out for political reasons.
Let us be clear about this. These people are American citizens and some are permanent U. S. residents. Our government owes them a plan of action that ensures that they are given what they are entitled to under international law. The cautious U. S. response that we have given to date just will not do.
Let us be clear about another thing. We have seen this before. Four years the Chinese government has been taking political hostages before a possible summit meeting and then releasing them in order for our government to bend on other issues. The release of our citizens should not be tied to anything—Most Favored Nation, World Trade Organization missile defense, North Korea, Taiwan, or anything else.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The taking of our citizens is an outrage, and they should be release now, and unconditionally. Accordingly, I strongly support H. Res. 160.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
H. RES. 160
Mr. Chairman:
I rise in strong support of House Resolution 160. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disturbed by the Government of China's recent arrests and detentions of American citizens and U.S. permanent residents of Chinese ancestry.
Prosecutions of Americans by China's State Security Ministry and agencies have been rare since the Korean War. With the recent outbreak of detentions, however, it is troubling that China may now feel it is acceptable to target American subjects—as long as they have Chinese blood.
In particular, I find it deplorable that those detained have been held virtually incommunicado for months—denied any contact with immediate family members and even their attorneys. Given the lack of due process and the hidden, clandestine proceedings, it is no wonder that China's charges of espionage and other serious violations against the detainees are viewed as false and any confessions produced as resulting from torture.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In an effort to address these matters, Mr. Chairman, I commend Mr. Smith, Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for introducing House Resolution 160. I am honored to be a co-sponsor of this measure. In addition to calling upon the Chinese Government for the immediate and unconditional release of Dr. Li, Dr. Gao and the other American scholars of Chinese ancestry who have been detained, this important legislation urges President Bush to make their release a top priority in U.S.-Sino relations.
I cannot agree more, Mr. Chairman, that American citizens and U.S. permanent residents, when they go overseas, must be protected and not be subject to arbitrary harassment and detention on unsubstantiated charges, whether by China or any other nation. I strongly urge adoption of this legislation by our colleagues.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
H. RES. 99
Hezbollah has taken four Israelis hostage, in clear violation of international law. On October 7, 2000, in an unprovoked and illegal act, Hezbollah crossed the Lebanese border into Israel and kidnaped three Israeli soldiers, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, and Omar Souad. Eight days later, on October 15, Hezbollah announced it had abducted—apparently under mysterious circumstances—a fourth Israeli, a businessman named Elchanan Tannenbaum.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I urge those nations that have influence over Hezbollah—namely, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon—to press that notorious organization to make the most minimal gesture of human decency by allowing representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit these four hostages. In fact, the Red Cross has persistently asked to do so, but Hezbollah continues to deny it access.
There is no doubt that Iran, Syria, and Lebanon are able to make Hezbollah bend to their will. Hezbollah is dependent on all three states. The State Department's most recent report on foreign terrorist organizations says that Iran and Syria provide Hezbollah with substantial amounts of financial assistance, training, weapons, explosives, as well as other forms of political and organizational support.
As for Lebanon, one can only note that the abductees are being held by Lebanese citizens on Lebanese soil—presumably, against Lebanese law. Unfortunately, lawlessness continues to prevail in many parts of that troubled land, particularly on the Hezbollah-dominated parts of the Lebanese-Israeli border. Lebanon should demonstrate its sovereignty by asserting its authority over Hezbollah. Iran, Syria, and Lebanon also should consider their obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—which all three of them supported with their votes in the UN General Assembly.
The hostages should be freed. Indeed, it is time to end the lawless and dangerously provocative behavior of Hezbollah. As a modest step in that direction, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and send a message to Hezbollah's sponsors that the Red Cross should be allowed to visit the four innocent abductees.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
H. RES. 99
It is with regret that we have to bring this resolution before the Committee today, but it is necessary to do so.
First, I wish to express my appreciation for the efforts of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, on this resolution. Also, I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, our subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, and the Full Committee Ranking Member, our distinguished Chairman Hyde, who has graciously scheduled this resolution.
Last October, Hezbullah terrorists crossed the Israeli border near the so-called Shebaa Farms area and captured three soldiers. Later that month, they kidnaped an Israeli businessman in Europe.
This resolution is not about the appropriateness of the captivity of those individuals, although of course they should be released. The narrow questions we are focusing on is whether they should be visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross—and who should be making that appeal to their captors.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There is no question about who is responsible for this act—Hezbollah. Those countries which allow Hezbollah to operate, or which fund it—namely, Iran, Syria and Lebanon—are in a position to influence it.
It is hoped that they would use their influence. It is just that simple. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
H. RES. 99
I want to begin by thanking our Chairman, Mr. Hyde, our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Lantos, and my republican colleagues Mr. Cantor and Mr. Kirk for bringing this important resolution before the Committee.
In October 2000, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, and Omar Souad were abducted while on routine patrol of Israel's northern border. A fourth man Elchanan Tannenbaum, a reservist, was taken while on business in Europe. At the present time, these men are believed to be held by Hezbollah on Lebanese soil.
The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and the International Committee of the Red Cross have made numerous overtures to Hezbollah in an effort to gain access to assess the physical condition of these prisoners. Hezbollah has rejected these requests each and every time.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The continued detention of these men by Hezbollah troops is unacceptable and must be addressed today. The conditions of their capture and subsequent detention run completely counter to International standards and law.
Given that the State Department report on terrorism has named Iran and Syria as the patron states of Hezbollah, we must hold the governments in Tehran and Damascus responsible for the well being of these men.
As signatories to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Iran and Syria have a responsibility to the international community to take concrete steps to encourage Hezbollah to permit this visit to take place.
President Khatami and President Assad have made statements regarding their desire to join the community of nations. If these statements truly represent the desires of Iran and Syria, I ask them to take the first step toward achieving that objective by exerting their considerable influence over Hezbollah to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross Access to do their job without further delay.
I first met the families of these men during my trip to Israel earlier this year. It was my hope that by the time we met again, that their sons would be home. Last month, I stood beside them once again, but the void left by their sons remained. I know that the family is grateful that they need not take on this endeavor alone.
They are joined by over 70 members of the House and the Senate, by co-sponsoring this resolution. We must send a strong signal to the patron states of Hezbollah, but most of all we must send hope to Adi, Binyamin, Omar and Elchanan.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.