From the Congressional Record

U.S. House of Representatives -- 21 July 1999

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 31 printed in Part B of House Report 106-235.

AMENDMENT NO. 31 OFFERED BY MS. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. Waters:

Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:

SEC. 703. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY IN PERU AND THE RELEASE OF LORI BERENSON, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IMPRISONED IN PERU.

It is the sense of the Congress that--

(1) the United States should increase its support to democracy and human rights activists in Peru, providing assistance with the same intensity and decisiveness with which it supported the pro-democracy movements in Eastern Europe during the Cold War;

(2) the United States should complete the review of the Department of State investigation of threats to press freedom and judicial independence in Peru and publish the findings;

(3) the United States should use all available diplomatic efforts to secure the release of Lori Berenson, an American citizen who was accused of being a terrorist, denied the opportunity to defend herself of the charges, allowed no witnesses to speak in her defense, allowed no time to privately consult with her lawyer, and declared guilty by a hooded judge in a military court; and

(4) in deciding whether to provide economic and other forms of assistance to Peru, the United States should take into consideration the willingness of Peru to assist in the release of Lori Berenson.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

[TIME: 1430]

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, 176 Members of Congress have signed and joined a campaign for the release of Lori Berenson, a young, educated, idealistic, middle-class journalist.

In November of 1995, Lori was arrested as a suspected terrorist, subjected to a secret, hooded military tribunal in which she was denied every semblance of due process according to the United States State Department, every major human rights group, and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. She was convicted of treason and given a life sentence without parole.

Despite President Fujimori's promise for an open democracy when he was elected in 1990, he annulled Peru's constitution, dissolved the legislature, removed judges and dismantled the courts in April of 1992, and he has established secret military trials with jurisdiction over civilians. Human rights workers and journalists in Peru have been subjected to intimidation, death threats, abductions, tortures, interrogation and imprisonment by the Peruvian government.

On Thursday, July 1, 1999, the House Committee on International Relations passed by voice vote H.R. 57 which expresses concern over the interference with freedom of the press.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from California. I share the Member's concern about recent negative trends within Peru. I have held hearings in my own Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights focusing on some of those concerns with regard to human rights problems. There is a serious need for increased press freedom and judicial independence in that country. There is no doubt about that. I also agree that the procedures used to convict Lori Berenson of aggravated terrorism were egregious.

Lori Berenson certainly deserves due process and to have her case tried by an open, civilian court in Peru. The fact that Peru discontinued its use of faceless military tribunals in 1997 is a further indictment of the process that was used to convict her.

But the amendment before us calls for something different than a fair trial and due process rights for Berenson. Let me just point out that it calls for release. It calls for her release. I think that goes beyond what we should be willing to do. In so doing, it implies her innocence. We should be taking no stance on the merits of the very serious terrorism charges leveled against Ms. Berenson and we must avoid commenting, even implicitly, on the serious evidence against her. To do anything else would denigrate the valid interest of the people of Peru in combating terrorism, which that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Peruvian civilians during the past two decades.

Mr. Chairman, the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, or MRTA, which Ms. Berenson is accused of assisting, is a terrorist organization. According to our State Department, it was responsible for numerous killings of civilians, hundreds of violent attacks and other egregious human rights violations in Peru during the past year. The MRTA was responsible for the siege of the Japanese ambassador's residence in late 1996 which resulted in the holding of numerous hostages, including over a dozen Americans, for 5 months. Assisting such activities could merit someone a life sentence here in the United States. Again, she needs due process and a fair trial and we should not comment on whether or not she is innocent or guilty.

Mr. Chairman, people in the United States have the right to a fair trial and an opportunity to confront their accusers. I believe we must demand such basic rights for U.S. citizens abroad, no matter how serious the charges may be against them. We must demand an open, fair trial for Lori Berenson. Unfortunately, this amendment does not do that. It says in the plain text, it calls for her release. So I must respectfully oppose it.

Let me also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International have been calling for a fair trial. They have not been calling for her release. I respectfully suggest to the gentlewoman from California, these groups--and I am a great admirer of Amnesty International--have not said release her. They have said she has to get a fair trial.

[Page: H6054]

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me draw the gentleman's attention to what the amendment actually says: `The United States should use all available diplomatic efforts to secure the release of Lori Berenson.'

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, it is the release that we are talking about. I believe she needs a fair trial. That is where all of our diplomatic efforts must be put. No American should be immune from prosecution of a criminal charge, but they are entitled, I say to the chairman and to my colleagues, to a fair trial. She has not gotten it and that is where I believe that President Fujimori has erred completely. I happen to believe that the tendency in Peru is towards dictatorship on the part of the President, although there have been some trends that may suggest otherwise.

I would ask for a fair trial, not her release. I would hope--and we had asked the gentlewoman through staff and through other ways to reword her amendment so we could all support it, asking again for due process rights to be protected, not for her release.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who represents Berenson's parents.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, Lori Berenson grew up in my district. Her parents Rhoda and Mark are living every parent's nightmare, the fear that their child could be taken from the streets of a foreign country and thrown into jail without American concepts of justice.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters from Lori Berenson that she was never able to present her point of view in trials. She says, `I was never a member of the MRTA.' She was never given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against her or to provide witnesses in her support.

Members of the Community of Organizations for Human Rights.

Esteemed Men and Women: Through this communication permit me to congratulate you on your important work for human rights.

I would like to inform you of some details about me and my case.

As you know, I have been confined for more than two and a half years at the Yanamayo maximum security military prison, accused of being a member of the MRTA, and fulfilling the sentence of life imprisonment dictated by a faceless military tribunal.

I have never been a member of the MRTA; I have never participated in the planning of a violent act, neither with the MRTA nor anybody else; neither have I ever promoted violence, and, what is more, I do not believe in violence and it would not be possible for me to participate in violence.

I do believe in ideals of justice and equality; to share the ideals of a more just world for the poor majority does not imply that I share in the use of violence to achieve such goals.

In my own way, I have worked for these ideals. In Peru, I sought to learn about and find ways to help the most poor and oppressed people. I met with, observed, and studied these people, including their history, their culture, their music. I also tried to observe how the government, the law, and the economically powerful treated the poor. I was writing about what I experienced and learned and I had legitimate journalistic credentials from two U.S. publications. I hoped to be able to help the situation of human rights and social justice for the most poor; I still believe in that, and I believe it will happen.

Certainly, I have not had real justice. I am completely innocent of the horrendous charges made against me, and there could not be real evidence that shows such crimes.

I hope that these details might give you a better basis to facilitate an understanding of my situation and, at the same time, I turn to reiterate my greatest respect and admiration for your important works for the good of humanity.

With much respect,
Lori Berenson.

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 27, 1999.

Hon. Madeleine K. Albright,
Department of State, Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Secretary: It has been more than three years since Lori Helene Berenson, an American citizen, was sentenced to life in prison for treason by a secret Peruvian military tribunal. A recent decision by the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights (UNHCR) about Ms. Berenson's case found Peru in violation of international law, while her deteriorating health makes attention to this matter all the more urgent.

On December 3, 1998, UNHCR, through its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, rendered its decision on Ms. Berenson's case in Opinion No. 26/1998. It states, `[t]he deprivation of Lori Berenson's liberty is arbitrary, as it contravenes Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.' Peru voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has both signed and ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further, the Working Group asks the Peruvian government `to adopt measures necessary to remedy the situation, in accordance with the norms and principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.' As of this date, Peru has not adopted any such measures.

During the last three years, Ms. Berenson has developed physical ailments associated with imprisonment at a high altitude and recently spent 115 days in solitary confinement. Although she has been transferred to a lower altitude at the Socabaya prison, Ms. Berenson's health problems continue to develop; she has numbness in both her hands and at night experiences blindness in her right eye.

Many of us have previously called for an open and fair proceeding in a civilian court for Ms. Berenson. We now believe that Ms. Berenson's deteriorating health warrants humanitarian release from prison and urge you to use your authority to secure Ms. Berenson's release before her health further deteriorates.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
James M. Jeffords.

33 COSIGNERS OF A DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER TO SECRETARY-OF-STATE ALBRIGHT

Notes: The letter was sponsored by Senators Jeffords and Moynihan. Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN) agreed to write their own letters.

Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 31, 1999.

President William Jefferson Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC.

[Page: H6055]

Dear President Clinton: For more than three years, Lori Berenson, an American citizen, has been incarcerated in Peru, serving a life sentence after being convicted by a faceless military tribunal for treason. Lori Berenson has always maintained her innocence, but she has been systematically denied due process by Peru. We urge you to do everything within your power to seek justice in her case.

Recently the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, through its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, stated in its official Opinion 26/1998 that Lori Berenson has been deprived of her liberty arbitrarily and that the government of Peru is in violation of two international pacts to which it is signatory--Articles 8, 9, and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Working Group has declared that Peru take all necessary steps to remedy Lori's wrongful incarceration in accordance with the norms and principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Peru has not taken steps to comply with the Commission's ruling and, in fact, recently Lori was kept in solitary confinement for 115 days in Socabayo prison. On March 11, 1999, the New York Times reported that an American delegation visited Lori and found her to be in poor health.

Members of Congress have expressed their concerns about Lori's treatment in letters to Peruvian President Fujimori from 20 U.S. Senators and 87 Representatives in August 1996 and letters to Secretary Albright from 55 Senators and 180 Representatives in December 1997. It is time for stronger action.

Title 22 U.S.C. Section 1732 directs the President to take all necessary steps, short of going to war, to secure the release of an incarcerated American citizen `if it appears to be wrongful.' The finding of the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights is that the Peruvian government's disregard for international norms in Lori Berenson's case is so egregious, relative to impartial judgment, that it has resulted in the wrongful arbitrary deprivation of her liberty.

Lack of leadership and effective action on Lori's case could endanger U.S. citizens not only in Peru, but in many other countries. It sends the unfortunate message that the U.S. will not act when its citizens are wrongfully imprisoned in foreign countries. In addition, lack of strong action in this case would jeopardize the importance of the office of United Nations High Commission on Human Rights and denigrate the cause of justice and human rights throughout the world.

We know that you share our concern for Lori Berenson and the unjust treatment that she has received, and we look forward to working with you to resolve her case.

Sincerely,

176 COSIGNERS OF A DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON

Abercrombie (D-HI), Allen (D-ME), Andrews (D-NJ), Baldacci (D-ME), Baldwin (D-WI), Becerra (D-Ca), Bentsen (D-TX), Berman (D-CA), Blagojevich (D-IL), Blunt (R-MO), Bonior (D-MI), Borski (D-PA), Boucher (D-VA), Boyd (D-FL), Brady (D-PA), Brown, G. (D-CA), Brown, S. (D-OH), Capps (D-CA), Capuano (D-MA),Carson (D-IN), Christian-Christensen (D-VI), Clay (D-MO), Clayton (D-NC), Clement (D-TN), Clyburn (D-SC), Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Costello (D-IL), Crowley (D-NY), Cunningham (R-CA), Danner (D-MO), Davis, D.K. (D-IL), DeFazio (D-OR), DeGette (D-CO), Delahunt (D-MA), DeLauro (D-CT), Deutsch (D-FL), Dicks (D-WA), Dixon (D-CA), Doyle (D-PA), Engel (D-NY), English (R-PA), Eshoo (D-CA), Faleomavaega (D-AS), Farr (D-CA).

Filner (D-CA), Ford, Jr. (D-TN), Franks (R-NJ), Frost (D-TX), Gejdenson (D-CT), Gonzalez (D-TX), Goode, Jr. (D-VA), Granger (R-TX), Greenwood (R-PA), Gutierrez (D-IL), Hall, R. (D-TX), Hall, T. (D-OH), Hastings (D-FL), Hinchey (D-NY), Hoeffel (D-PA), Hoekstra (R-MI), Holden (D-PA), Holt (D-NJ), Horn (R-CA), Inslee (D-WA), Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Jefferson (D-LA), John (D-LA), Johnson, E.B. (D-TX), Johnson, N. (R-CT), Jones (D-OH), Kaptur (D-OH), Kelly (R-NY), Kennedy (D-RI), Kildee (D-MI), Kilpatrick (D-MI), Kind (D-WI), King (R-NY), Kleczka (D-WI), Kuykendall (R-CA), LaFalce (D-NY), Lampson (D-TX), Lantos (D-CA), Larson (D-CT), Lazio (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Lee (D-CA), Levin (D-MI).

Lewis (D-GA), LoBiondo (R-NJ), Lofgren (D-CA), Lowey (D-NY), Luther (D-MN), Maloney, C. (D-NY), Maloney, J. (D-CT), Markey (D-MA), Martinez (D-CA), Matsui (D-CA), McCarthy (D-NY), McGovern (D-MA), McInnis (R-CO), McKinney (D-GA), McNulty (D-NY), Meehan (D-MA), Meek (D-FL), Meeks (D-NY), Millender-McDonald (D-CA), Miller (D-CA), Minge (D-MN), Mink (D-HI), Moakley (D-MA), Morella (R-MD), Murtha (D-PA), Nadler (D-NY), Napolitano (D-CA), Neal (D-MA), Oberstar (D-MN), Obey (D-WI), Olver (D-MA), Ose (R-CA), Owens (D-NY), Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ), Pastor (D-AZ), Payne (D-NJ), Pelosi (D-CA), Peterson (D-MN), Porter (R-IL), Price (D-NC), Pryce (R-OH), Rangel (D-NY), Rodriguez (D-TX).

Rogan (R-CA), Romero-Barcelo (D-PR), Rothman (D-NJ), Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Royce (R-CA), Rush (D-IL), Sabo (D-MN), Sanchez (D-CA), Sanders (I-VT), Sandlin (D-TX), Schakowsky (D-IL), Serrano (D-NY), Shays (R-CT), Sherman (D-CA), Sherwood (R-PA), Shows (D-MS), Slaughter (D-NY), Smith (D-WA), Snyder (D-AR), Spratt, Jr. (D-SC), Stark (D-CA), Strickland (D-OH), Stupak (D-MI), Talent (R-MO), Thompson, B. (D-MS), Thompson, M. (D-CA), Tierney (D-MA), Towns (D-NY), Traficant, Jr. (D-OH), Turner (D-TX), Udall (D-CO), Underwood (D-GU), Upton (R-MI), Velazquez (D-NY), Waters (D-CA), Watt (D-NC), Waxman (D-CA), Weiner (D-NY), Wexler (D-FL), Weygand (D-RI), Whitfield (R-KY), Woolsey (D-CA), Wu (D-OR), Wynn (D-MD).

Notes: The letter was sponsored by Representatives C. Maloney, J. Leach, C. Morella, and M. Waters. Representatives Hooley (D-OR), Menendez (D-NJ), Moore (D-KS), and Vento (D-MN) agreed to sign post-deadline. Representative Frank (D-MA) decided to write his own letter to Secretary Albright.

Statement on Lori Berenson by Noam Chomsky

Lori Berenson has been subjected to a travesty of justice and a grim exercise of state terror. The victim in this case is a young North American woman of remarkable courage and integrity, who has chosen to accept the fate of all too many others in Peru. She is also--and not so indirectly--a victim of Washington's policies, in two respects: because of its support for the Peruvian terror state and the conditions it imposes on its population, and because of its evasiveness in coming to her defense, as it can readily do, with considerable if not decisive influence. Also not so indirectly, she is a victim of all of those--in all honesty, I cannot fail to include myself--who have done far too little to rescue her from the suffering she has endured for her refusal to bend to the will of state terrorist authorities.

Lori Berenson eminently qualifies as a prisoner of conscience. She has rightly received the support of the UN High Commission on Human Rights and Amnesty International. With immense courage and self-sacrifice, she is not only standing up with honor and dignity for her own rights, but for the great number of people of Peru who are suffering severe repression and extreme economic hardship as a consequence of policies that sacrifice much of the population to the greed and power of small sectors of privilege--in Peru itself, and in the deeply unjust and coercive global system that has been constructed to yield such outcomes.

Lori Berenson is not only a wonderful person whose rights are under savage attack, but also an inspiring symbol of the aspirations of countless people throughout the world who seek a measure of the freedom and rights that they deserve, in a world that is more humane and more just, and that we can help create if we are willing to devote to this cause a fraction of the heroism that Lori Berenson has so impressively demonstrated in her honorable and far too lonely struggle.

From the Jewish Week, June 25, 1999

[FROM THE JEWISH WEEK, JUNE 25, 1999]

Statement on Lori Berenson by Rabbi Marcelo Bronstein

On May 26, 1999 Rabbi Marcelo Bronstein, Temple B'nai Jeshurun in New York City, participated in an ecumenical delegation that visited Lori Berenson for one hour in Socabaya Prison in Arequipa, Peru. The delegation also included the Reverend Doctor William J. Nottingham from the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis and Sister Doctor Eileen Storey of Sisters of Charity in New York City.

The Jewish Week interviewed Rabbi Bronstein upon his return to New York City. The newspaper reported the following: `The delegation met with Berenson, 29, in a room with guards outside the open door. She declared her innocence and the difficulties of solitary confinement. They spoke about the future, her faith, and her health.'

The following are the four quotes attributed to Rabbi Bronstein:

`I would like to say that Lori is a person with the right values at the wrong place and the wrong time, values of justice, caring.'

`I didn't find a drop of bitterness or anger, just lots of pain and sorrow.'

`She is thirsty to know what's going on in the world. She feels useless.'

`I am very worried about Lori's spiritual and psychological health.'

There are further press reports from Fujimori where he announced that he would not respect the organization of Americans decision on Lori's appeal regardless of the outcome. For years I have tried to get a fair trial. Hundreds of my colleagues have joined me in appealing for a fair trial. This has been denied.

I went to see Lori. I went to see her in prison in November of 1997. She has permanent laryngitis. Her eyesight is failing. She is suffering. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and I personally support release on humanitarian grounds.

[Page: H6056]

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waters amendment.

The Lori Berenson case illustrates the history of judicial abuse in Peru. A closed military tribunal, a hooded judge, no legal counsel, no right to defend oneself, and a masked man holding a gun to Lori's head throughout the proceeding. But this is a reality experienced by hundreds of Peruvians.

While closed military tribunals have now been abolished in Peru, hundreds of individuals are serving life sentences like Lori Berenson because of the judgments rendered by these tribunals. In addition, even the State Department concludes that it is still impossible to receive a fair trial, to undergo a just process in Peru's current judicial system. So asking for a new trial in Lori's case is very problematic, because it is impossible to get a fair trial in Peru today.

Over the past 2 years, years during which Lori Berenson has been imprisoned, the U.S. has given to Peru over $300 million in economic and military aid. During that same period, the U.S. sent over $23 million in additional military counternarcotics aid. I think we have some leverage with Peru and I think it is time we used it. On behalf of Lori Berenson and all Peruvians who have been victims of human rights abuses by the Peruvian government, military and courts, I urge my colleagues to support the Waters amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the most important part of this amendment calls for the release of an American citizen, Lori Berenson, who was convicted of involvement with terrorist groups after a trial before hooded military judges in which there was no due process whatever. We have asked the Peruvian government to give her a fair civilian trial. President Fujimori himself has publicly refused.

Now it is time to do something about this. If Lori Berenson is not going to get a fair trial, and she is not, then she deserves to be set free. That is what we would do here for people who are tried unfairly, and we have no right letting a foreign government get away with less when Americans are involved.

The Waters amendment is about whether Americans overseas should get fair trials when they are arrested and whether we believe the rule of law and due process are important. They should, and they are. Join me in supporting fairness for our citizens, due process and the rule of law. Vote for the Waters amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

(Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

(Mr. DELAHUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from California's amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the Waters amendment for fairness and justice.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waters amendment and say that this is the right thing to do, it is the fair thing to do, and I think our colleagues know we must do this.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry of whether or not I get the last speaker on this amendment. I think the gentleman from New Jersey has 1 minute left.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has the right to close.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a signatory to the May 31 letter.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waters sense of Congress amendment.

We have heard about the Lori Berenson case, an American citizen unjustly imprisoned in Peru on charges of treason. The first problem is, how can one commit treason against a country of which one is not a citizen?

Furthermore, Lori's trial was completely lacking in due process. She was tried in a military court by a faceless judge. She never received written notice of the charges against her. She had only limited access to an attorney. She was not informed of the evidence against her, nor did she have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. She has been sentenced to life in prison under conditions which are cruel and inhumane.

Our State Department has criticized these military tribunals. The U.N. Human Rights Commission has judged her case to be one of arbitrary detention. In a similar case involving four Chileans, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights called for a new trial, but Peru did not accept that.

Mr. Chairman, the Peruvian government should provide Lori and all others unjustly imprisoned a fair trial with due process. If Lima is unwilling to do so, then Lori should be released and deported.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Just let me make a couple of points. In reading over this amendment again, I have great empathy for it. I have had hearings in my subcommittee about human rights abuses and have gone down to Lima, Peru to meet with President Fujimori to express my own concerns, especially in light of the `Fuji coup' that took place some years back. But again my position comports with that of the administration and the State Department. And the human rights organizations like Amnesty International, are not saying release her, they are saying give her a fair trial. I think that is where our efforts ought to be put. We do not have the capability or the competence or the information--because I have looked at the reams of information--to make a definitive decision as to whether or not she should be freed.

[TIME: 1445]

There are very serious charges of terrorism with a group that has a despicable track record on the use of violence against individuals and innocent people. Whether or not she is a part of it, I do not know, but there are serious allegations. She was given a sham trial, no doubt about it.

I would be willing to ask unanimous consent, if the gentlewoman would change the wording in her amendment from `the release of' Lori Berenson to `a fair trial for' Lori Berenson. We could all support that amendment.

But again, to say we should release somebody?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent if the gentlewoman could accept that kind of change in the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

[Page: H6057]

Ms. WATERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would like for the gentleman from New Jersey to restate his request.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on Line 17, where it says `to secure the release of Lori Berenson,' to strike `the release of' and put `a fair trial for' Lori Berenson, and also on Page 2, Line 6, just so it is internally consistent, `to assist in providing a fair trial for.' And then I hope we would be unanimous, because I do believe it was a sham trial, as I said to the gentlewoman. My subcommittee has looked into it. We think it is awful. Her due process rights were trashed. But if indeed we are talking about a situation where she may have been involved with this, that is something that a fair trial has to adjudicate.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Ms. WATERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, do I need unanimous consent for 1 minute in order to respond to the request that is being made by the gentleman?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Perhaps the gentlewoman from California would care to ask unanimous consent to proceed with debate time for 1 minute on each side.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?

There was no objection.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to be able to comply with the request that the gentleman is making, however when the gentleman asked us who are working so hard for fairness for this young lady to be put back in the hands of Fujimori who has dismantled his government, who has opted out of human rights, the International Human Rights Commission, who in no way is committed to democracy, who is threatening lives, who is intimidating, how then does my colleague expect her to get a fair trial from an unfair dictator?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This is exactly why the attempt has to be at the highest levels of our government, going right to the President of the United States, who needs to make this a major issue--that she be given a fair trial. That goes for all of us. To date, it has not been a major issue.

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, we have asked Fujimori over and over and over again. He has denied us. This is an American young woman that is sitting up there in the Andes who is freezing to death, who is losing her voice, who is getting crippled from arthritis. This is an American child.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. And now he would not respect the organization of American decision on Lori's appeal regardless of the outcome. What does that tell us? They are not going to give her a fair trial. Even if she wins in the OAA, they are saying no.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has expired.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes for this debate, 1 minute on each side.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, again I think it is unfortunate that the gentlewoman from California cannot accept a fair trial language in place of the release of.

I think it will be very wrong, I would say to my colleagues, if all of us went on record saying that this lady, and she may be innocent, we do not know. I believe we have to be honest enough to say that the charges, and I have checked with the human rights groups, they are in doubt as to her innocence, and that is to leading groups.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, one on each side.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?

There was no objection.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time just briefly, and then I will be happy.

As my colleagues know, the charges are that she was planning on blowing up the Peruvian Congress. Now I do not know if that is true or not, but we know how seriously we take those acts of violence that are committed on our own Congress, killing of our two policemen which we so rightfully honored yesterday.

This lady may be completely innocent. What she deserves is a fair trial, not a de facto exoneration by the Congress or the House of Representatives of the United States, and I think we err seriously if we make a decision not knowing, and Members will be walking in that door voting based on a handout in some cases or just a scintilla of knowledge. We need to know the real facts which are voluminous about this case.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think all sides here are genuine in the desire to come to agreement, and might I make this suggestion?

I think the gentlewoman from California is concerned that there is no structure that could guarantee a free trial, and what I would ask is unanimous consent if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) could be given a moment to see if they can work out some agreed upon language that would be based on the principle that if a fair trial could be guaranteed, if Mr. Fujimori were to step down tomorrow, if there was a new election, if there was a free and fair judicial process established, then we would see a fair trial. If we cannot have that, they ought to release her.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has expired.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for another minute on each side.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?

There was no objection.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent if we would pass over this for a moment, go to the next amendment, give these two folks, who I think are both intent on achieving justice, an opportunity to sit down and see if they can work something out. They may not be able to. Then we would come back and conclude and add this to the voting list in the regular order.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Connecticut makes a very helpful suggestion. I would hope that the gentlewoman from California would agree to that, and that would require us proceeding out of order.

A unanimous consent would be proposed to let the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) proceed while we discuss, and hopefully we can come to language that will send the message to the Peruvian government, to Fujimori, that we are united, that she has been denied her due process rights, and I mean we all want justice. I do not know if exoneration, release is justice. It may be; I do not know. I have looked at the case. If I were a jury, I would want to know a lot more.

So I would hope that we can do what the gentleman from Connecticut has suggested.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Would the gentlewoman from California be willing to withdraw her amendment momentarily in order to accommodate the suggestion made by the ranking member?

[Page: H6058]

Ms. WATERS. Following the 1 minute of the 2 minutes which were granted for the extension of the debate, I would be willing to do that. But for the 1 minute that is still left in this debate I would respectfully like to take that at this time, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is recognized.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, Lori Berenson has been in prison for 3 1/2 years. She was tried by a military tribunal that was hooded. She did not receive any justice. Does not the time served count for anything? Or are we to believe that Fujimori, who has said to us by way of communication in a letter and otherwise to everybody who has attempted diplomatic relations with him that he will not release her, are we to believe that this man is capable of giving her a fair trial? Do we not care that she may die up in the Andes, a young woman who is an idealistic journalist who thinks she is working for the rights, human rights, of individuals? Does she deserve to be treated this way?

My colleague has admitted that he does not know if she is innocent or not, but how can he be comfortable not being sure that she is guilty of a crime, that she continues to serve even beyond this 3 1/2 years?

She has said she is not a terrorist, she does not belong to that terrorist organization, and the international human rights committees are not demanding a fair trial of Fujimori. They are demanding her release.

This statement, this amendment that I have, is an amendment that asks the State Department to use all of its diplomatic relations for the release of her. That does not dictate how that is done, but it simply says that the Congress of the United States is interested in them being about the business of showing some care and concern about an American citizen who has been imprisoned unfairly and unjustly over in Peru by a dictator.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I have just been informed by the Parliamentarian that we would have to go to the full House. So what I would suggest at this stage is that the gentlewoman and gentleman sit down and work it out. If they cannot work it out, we go right to the vote in the appropriate order. If they can work it out, we would include the new language in the en bloc amendment at the end.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend we could move to rise, and it will take all of 30 seconds to do it in the full House and then go right back.

Mr. GEJDENSON. We achieve the same goal, and I think my colleagues could sit down. Either way we get the same result.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am not sure if the gentlewoman is willing.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to table this amendment with the understanding that it would be untabled at the appropriate time.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. In Committee of the Whole the motion to table is not in order.

All time is expired.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of working this out, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kingston) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

MAKING IN ORDER CONSIDERATION OF WATERS AMENDMENT NO. 31 AFTER BILBRAY AMENDMENT NO. 33 DURING FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF H.R. 2415, AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999 (House of Representatives - July 21, 1999)

[Page: H6058]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order and to proceed directly to the Bilbray amendment when we return to the Committee of the Whole House and then, after that point, to return to the amendment from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent to return to the Waters amendment to be reoffered after the Bilbray amendment in Committee of the Whole?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2415.

[TIME: 1458]

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) had been withdrawn.

[Snip]

AMENDMENT NO. 31 OFFERED BY MS. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. Waters: Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:

SEC. 703. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY IN PERU AND THE RELEASE OF LORI BERENSON, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IMPRISONED IN PERU. It is the sense of the Congress that--

(1) the United States should increase its support to democracy and human rights activists in Peru, providing assistance with the same intensity and decisiveness with which it supported the pro-democracy movements in Eastern Europe during the Cold War;

(2) the United States should complete the review of the Department of State investigation of threats to press freedom and judicial independence in Peru and publish the findings;

(3) the United States should use all available diplomatic efforts to secure the release of Lori Berenson, an American citizen who was accused of being a terrorist, denied the opportunity to defend herself of the charges, allowed no witnesses to speak in her defense, allowed no time to privately consult with her lawyer, and declared guilty by a hooded judge in a military court; and

(4) in deciding whether to provide economic and other forms of assistance to Peru, the United States should take into consideration the willingness of Peru to assist in [the release of] Lori Berenson.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my colleagues know, I offered an amendment that would instruct the State Department to use all diplomatic efforts for the release of Lori Berenson. Again, I reiterate that Lori Berenson is a young woman who hails from New York. She is a journalist. She comes from a fine family. She went to Peru to work on human rights issues. She has been jailed by Fujimori. She has been placed high in the Andes in a room, in a prison where the temperature never gets above 40. Her health is failing her. She has been accused of being a terrorist, and she has been sentenced to life in prison.

We have done everything in our power to try and persuade President Fujimori to give her a fair trial. The trial that she received was certainly not fair. It was a trial by a military tribunal. They were hooded. She did not have a chance to offer a defense. She did not have a chance to offer any evidence. She did not have a chance to do anything that would ensure that she could have a fair trial. And so, she has been in prison now for 3 years and 8 months. She has been in prison for 3 years and 8 months with Americans trying to go down there to visit her.

The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has been there. We are working with her parents. Mr. Chairman, 176 Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have joined in a campaign for her release, Democrats and Republicans. We are outraged that we would allow Fujimori to do this to a young American woman.

There is no reason that we should allow Fujimori, who has basically dismantled his government, who has taken over and appointed all of his judges, who really literally has shut down the media, we should not allow him to continue to imprison this young lady. She has said she is not a terrorist, she was not involved in any terrorist activities; and the human rights groups throughout this Nation have asked for a fair trial. He has refused a fair trial.

Now the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is saying that he would like to see her get a fair trial.

[Page: H6062]

[TIME: 1530]

We have some compromise language. Our language would concede to his concerns about a fair trial, even though we do not think she can get one. We would amend our language to say that she should have a fair trial according to international standards, within a year, and failing that, that she should be released.

Now, everything is fair about this. Number one, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) said he wanted to see a fair trial. Despite the fact that we do not think she can get one, we are conceding to him that we will ask one more time, by way of this formal procedure that we are involved with here in the Congress on the floor of the House, to ask for a fair trial, but we want it according to international standards.

We want to make sure that we are on the same track and we have the same definition for what is fair. Failing that, and only failing that, for example, if they say, no, we will not give her a fair trial, if they say, no, wait 10 more years, if they say we do not know what is meant by a fair trial, if they do not do it, if they do not actually carry out, rather, a fair trial, then we are asking for her release.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what could be any fairer than that. We do not believe, again, that she can get a fair trial; but we are going to go along, and we are going to ask for it. We do not think it should hang out there forever, with them saying 5, 10 years from now we are trying to give her a fair trial.

So we have asked for a fair trial according to international standards within 1 year and, failing that, and only failing that, she should be released.

I would say to the Members of this House that I think that we can at least do this for this American, for a young woman who has not been proven guilty of anything; for a young woman who may be idealistic, but she does not deserve to have her life taken away from her.

Her parents are people who live up in the district of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). They travel throughout this country. They knock on the doors of the Members of Congress. They are begging us to please, to please, understand what is going on.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to repeat my request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). We were unable to work it out in that short time we had together.

I wanted to put, in lieu of `the release of' Lori Berenson, `a fair trial pursuant to international standards.' Regrettably, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) wanted to add the words, `or release,' or, as she just pointed out, 1 year later there would be a release.

I can say this having raised this issue myself before, with all my force. I have been concerned about it, like many Members on both sides of the aisle. But the issue here is one of fair trial and not of judging the evidence, because there is a lot of evidence, pro and con. Regrettably, in a sense of the Congress, which is a very serious matter, we should not go on record calling for the release of someone about whose innocence we are not persuaded one way or the other when the allegation is of a very, very serious terrorism charge.

The MRTA, with which Ms. Berenson has been identified--and I think this should be underscored--is exceedingly violent. It was responsible, as I said earlier in the debate, among other acts of terrorism, for the seizure of the Japanese ambassador's residence in Peru.

Remember, I say to my colleagues, day in and day out, as we watched CNN and we watched the news clips of those ambassadors and support personnel and everyone else who were caught behind those closed doors. Those hostages lived in agony for 5 months. To be associated with that group is a serious charge.

Although we cannot effectuate it, we must at least use the moral suasion of Congress to emphasize that there needs to be a fair trial, pursuant to international standards. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) goes far beyond what we should be recommending in this situation.

I would also point out that I have raised this issue. I take a back seat to no one regarding human rights violations that occur in Peru, or anywhere else in the world. My Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights has had something on the order of 100 hearings since I have been chairman. We have had fact-finding missions, including one to Peru, to raise issues of human rights.

I believe in due process rights. I believe that she deserves them. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) knows, our embassy was trying, our personnel were trying, to get her to serve out her sentence here in the United States in what, hopefully, would be a more pleasant situation or circumstance, relatively speaking.

So I really reluctantly rise in opposition to this.

Mr. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) articulate where we differ? We have agreed that there should be a fair trial. We agree on that.

Where do we differ? We have said that if they do not give her a fair trial within a year, then that would be what would trigger release. We do not say release without a fair trial. Now, where do we differ?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, the word `release' should not appear in this document, in this Sense of the Congress, because we should not be coming down on the side of releasing someone who has been accused of a very, very serious offense in cooperation with a terrorist organization that has a despicable record in Peru. But, again, we must demand that the charges against her be properly adjudicated.

Let me remind Members that there were Americans who were held hostage in the Japanese ambassador's residence by this very group. I would urge a no vote on this, and I say that with reluctance. This is not a properly constructed amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

[Page: H6063]

RECORDED VOTE

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by a 5-minute vote on the Bilbray amendment.

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

Roll No. 326

[Roll No. 326]

AYES--189


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

NOES--234


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

ANSWERED `PRESENT'--5


Barrett (WI)
Hill (IN)
Reyes
Snyder
Wilson

NOT VOTING--5


Chenoweth
Kennedy
McDermott
Peterson (PA)
Towns

[TIME: 1544]

Messrs. SHOWS, WELDON of Florida, BENTSEN and WISE and Mrs. BONO changed their vote from `aye' to `no.'

Mrs. KELLY, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. ENGLISH and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from `no' to `aye.'

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.