[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
TO APPLY COUNTERINSURGENCY TACTICS UNDER A COORDINATED AND TARGETED
STRATEGY TO COMBAT THE TERRORIST INSURGENCY IN MEXICO WAGED BY
TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND TO
WITHHOLD TWENTY PERCENT OF UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES (OAS) FOR EVERY
PERMANENT COUNCIL MEETING THAT TAKES PLACE WHERE ARTICLE 20 OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN CHARTER IS NOT INVOKED WITH REGARD TO VENEZUELA'S RECENT
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 3401 and H.R. 2542
__________
DECEMBER 15, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-115
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-103 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New YorkAs
of October 5, 2011 deg.
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
CONNIE MACK, Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DAVID RIVERA, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARKUP OF
H.R. 3401, To apply counterinsurgency tactics under a coordinated
and targeted strategy to combat the terrorist insurgency in
Mexico waged by transnational criminal organizations, and for
other purposes................................................. 2
H.R. 2542, To withhold twenty percent of United States assessed
and voluntary contributions to the Organization of American
States (OAS) for every permanent council meeting that takes
place where Article 20 of the Inter-American Charter is not
invoked with regard to Venezuela's recent constitutional
reforms, and for other purposes................................ 22
Amendment to H.R. 2542 offered by the Honorable David Rivera, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida......... 33
APPENDIX
Markup notice.................................................... 40
Markup minutes................................................... 41
The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western
Hemisphere:
Prepared statement on H.R. 3401................................ 43
Prepared statement on H.R. 2542................................ 45
TO APPLY COUNTERINSURGENCY TACTICS UNDER A COORDINATED AND TARGETED
STRATEGY TO COMBAT THE TERRORIST INSURGENCY IN MEXICO WAGED BY
TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND TO
WITHHOLD TWENTY PERCENT OF UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES (OAS) FOR EVERY
PERMANENT COUNCIL MEETING THAT TAKES PLACE WHERE ARTICLE 20 OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN CHARTER IS NOT INVOKED WITH REGARD TO VENEZUELA'S RECENT
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Connie Mack
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Mack. The subcommittee will come to order. We meet
today to mark up two bills. Without objection, all members are
able to insert remarks on today's measures into the record,
should they choose to do so.
Pursuant to notice, for purposes of a markup, I call up
H.R. 3401, the Enhanced Border Security Act.
Mr. Gately. H.R. 3401, to apply counterinsurgency tactics
under a coordinated and targeted strategy to combat the
terrorist insurgency in Mexico----
[H.R. 3401 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mack. Without objection, the bill is considered as read
and is open for amendment at any point. Before turning to the
ranking member, I recognize myself briefly for opening remarks.
The Enhanced Border Security Act draws our attention to a
serious problem that requires immediate action. I have held two
hearings in this subcommittee on the topic of Mexico and have
yet to see an increase in U.S. agency coordination or a
substantial shift in approach. I drafted this legislation to
ensure that action is taken to secure our border, stop
transnational criminal activity in the United States, and
secure the role of the state in Mexico.
A terrorist insurgency is being waged along our southern
border--the operations across Mexico and Central America--as
well as in over 1,000 U.S. cities. Many of the 40,000 people
killed since 2006 have died brutal, public deaths. The term
``terrorist insurgency'' may be strong, but it is based upon
unchallenged facts.
President Calderon identified recent activities perpetrated
by drug traffickers--the Zetas--as ``an act of terrorism.''
Last week he outlined insurgent tactics taking place in Mexico
stating, ``Crime now also constitutes an open threat to
democracy. The glaring interference of criminals in the
electoral process is a new and worrying development.''
The U.S. State Department has also publicly verified that
terrorists and insurgent tactics are being employed in Mexico.
Drug traffickers and criminal organizations have combined
efforts to work across borders, unravel government structures,
and make large profits from diverse, illegal activity. The
near-term result: Schools, media, and candidates all controlled
by criminal organizations. In other words: Total anarchy.
Let me reiterate. These transnational criminal
organizations are engaged in a protracted use of irregular
warfare and extreme violence to influence public opinion and to
undermine government control in order to increase their own
control. This is a terrorist insurgency.
Meanwhile, the State Department is leading the charge of
U.S.-Mexico security policy through the Merida Initiative, and
they are failing. Merida has not and will not be able to
address the pending terror we face. Mexican transnational
criminal organizations have evolved to reflect traditional
insurgence in the way that they, one, rely on external support
and cross-border sanctuaries; two, require access to money to
feed their ability to operate; and, three, control the hearts
and minds in their territory.
Therefore, we need a strategy that uses appropriate
counterinsurgency tactics. First, secure the border through
personnel, technology, and infrastructure. Second, stop
criminal access to U.S. financial institutions. And, third,
work with Mexico through integrated, counterinsurgency tactics
to undermine the control of these criminal organizations.
This is exactly what H.R. 3401 is calling for. Recent
reports show success in integrating military counterinsurgency
tactics with limited resources to bolster local law enforcement
and curb drug-related criminal activities within a dangerous
U.S. city.
H.R. 3401, the Enhanced Border Security Act, is forcing the
State Department to incorporate lessons learned and the
expertise of all appropriate U.S. agencies to construct a
strategy based on relevant counterinsurgency tactics to counter
these illegal groups in Mexico, at the U.S. border, and within
the United States.
I urge all of my colleagues to work with me in taking the
first steps toward developing a strategy that can succeed
through the passage of the Enhanced Border Security Act.
I am now pleased to recognize the ranking member to speak
on the measure.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
that I agree with you that Mexicans are terrorized. If I were
living in a place where gun battles were leaving scores of
people dead, and previously safe streets were now hideouts for
thugs and criminals, I would feel a sense of terror, too.
I know you honestly care about the people in Mexico and are
frustrated by how long it takes to stop the violence. So am I.
But I must respectfully disagree, because there is a difference
between acts which can cause terror and terrorist acts. And I
think this is not simply a semantic distinction, and let me
tell you why: Because if we get the cause of a disease wrong,
our treatment will be wrong as well.
Terrorism, by definition, occurs when someone uses violence
to achieve a political goal. The narco criminals in Mexico have
no political names. They are brutal outlaws who want money, but
they don't want to throw out the government and take over. Nor
do they hate the United States. Like many other terrorists, in
a twisted sort of way, they probably like us. We buy their
drugs and supply their weapons.
So when the bill say there is a terrorist insurgency in
Mexico, I have to respectfully disagree. Even though the bill
redefines these terms to fit its counterinsurgency strategy,
the plain meaning of the words can't be changed. We can say an
apple is an orange, but it is still an apple. And we can say
what is happening in Mexico is terrorism, but it is still narco
crime--brutal, horrible, and murderous, I agree, but still
cartel-driven narco crime.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that the sad situation in
Mexico has gone on too long and that the Mexican people, not to
mention U.S. citizens in the border states, deserve to live
their lives in peace. Plan Colombia was in place for a decade
until its success started taking hold, and we have only started
winding it down now.
But we on this subcommittee--and you know this--in a
bipartisan fashion have worked hard to promote the Merida
Initiative. We have completed the period where the program
delivered big dollar hardware, and we are now moving to what is
called Merida 2.0, where we will focus more on training support
for the judiciary and accountability.
While the violence is still abundant in Mexico, the program
is moving forward. It is not that we can't learn lessons from
Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, or elsewhere, especially how to
better integrate intelligence to speed up response times and
how to improve accountability for human rights abuses.
But I fear that this bill does something even more
unfortunate. The Merida Initiative was built on a foundation of
cooperation. It came from a bilateral process where the
strategy and tactics were jointly created by Mexico and the
United States. And something more important, even more
important, came from the Merida Initiative.
The distrust and prickliness which once pervaded the
relationship between the U.S. and Mexico has been replaced by
trust and cooperation. Obviously, it is a very good thing, and
we have even seen this cooperation flow into other areas,
including at the United Nations where Mexico and the United
States have been working together more closely than ever
before.
So, Mr. Chairman, I feel this bill returns to the era where
Congress dictates policy and expects Mexico to tow the line. I
don't think it will be successful with that kind of attitude. I
don't think it works that way. If we think that we need to
switch to a counterinsurgency strategy, I think what we should
do instead is roll up our sleeves, because it is going to take
a lot of work to convince our partners in Mexico and at the
State Department.
Now, I have consulted with the Mexicans about this, and
they feel as I do. Now, obviously, we can do what we want. We
don't have to consult. But I think it is important to consult
with a country like Mexico, because obviously what we are
doing, what you want to see, what I want to see, what we all
want to see on this committee is we want to see an end to the
narco violence.
We want to see more cooperation between the U.S. and
Mexico, and we are not going to get if we try to ram it down
their throats. We are only going to get it if we sit down
together and figure out what the best strategy is.
So I just don't think that this is the right direction. I
think we need to work with our friends and allies, not force
them. Let us convince our partners, not dictate. It is a worthy
debate. And I know, Mr. Chairman, because you and I have
discussed many, many things, your heart is certainly in the
right place. But I respectfully disagree with the direction.
So I thank you, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Mack. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Engel,
who we have got a great working relationship, and I appreciate
your comments.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for introducing this legislation. I am proud to be an original
co-sponsor, because it really tells the situation like it is.
This bill is not designed to hurt Mexico, but rather help
Mexico. I believe that the drug cartels are acting within the
Federal definition of ``terrorism,'' which basically says ``to
intimidate a civilian population or government by extortion,
kidnapping, or assassination.''
That is precisely--precisely what the drug cartels do. They
extort. They extorted teachers, a school, for money just last
month. They decapitate people on a daily basis. They burn
people alive. They throw people in acid baths. If that is not
intimidation, if that is not terrorizing a civilian population,
I don't know what is.
And just recently we had Mexico's President Calderon saying
in the headlines that the drug gangs threaten democracy. And in
his words, not mine, he says that crime this--``These drug
cartels represent a threat to the viability of the Mexican
state and national democracy.'' That is a threat to the state.
That is coercion and intimidation of a government, against a
government.
And in Mr. Calderon's words he says, ``The glaring
interference of criminals in the electoral process is a new and
worrying development. No political party should remain silent
about it. It is a threat that affects everyone, and we must
all, without hesitation, move to stop it.'' A threat to the
electoral process. No political party should remain silent.
This is a threat to the state. It is a threat to the
Mexican state. It is a threat to the civilian population in
Mexico. And this bill, Mr. Chairman, which you have introduced
and I strongly support, I think goes right to the heart of the
problem.
And since 2005, we know that 50,000 people--50,000 Mexican
people--have been killed brutally at the hands of these drug
cartels. More than the American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan
combined. And yet we are going to sit back and say that this
is--these are just businessmen operating with mergers and
acquisitions. They are just driven by profit.
They are driven by profit, but they are also driven by evil
and they terrorize the Mexican people, and they terrorize the
state of Mexico. They are a direct threat, as Mr. Calderon
said, to the democracy and the electoral process in Mexico. I
don't think we can stand back blindly and not call it what it
is.
So, again, thank you for this bill--calling, defining the
acts of the drug cartels precisely what they are, acts of
terrorism. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman, and I would now like to
recognize the gentlelady Ms. Schmidt for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Ranking Member, for this attention to this very important
issue. And it is an issue of national security.
As has been stated, the drug trafficking organization is
out of control. Savage assaults, robberies, kidnappings, in
addition to brutal and sadistic murders are occurring almost on
a daily basis. According to the Mexican Government's own
statistics, more than 34,500 murders have occurred in Mexico in
the 4-year span between 2007 and 2010.
Grupo Reforma, a Mexican media outlet, reported that 6,500
killings took place in Mexico in 2009 as a direct result of
criminal drug activity. In 2010, they did a whole lot better
with 11,500 killings occurring in Mexico as a direct result of
drug trafficking activity.
According to Grupo Reforma, the number of drug trafficking
murders that has occurred in Mexico between January 11 of this
year and August 11 is over 8,600. As we can see, the trend
continues to go up. Why has this occurred? I think it is
because the question lies not in just the proliferation of the
DTOs, but also in the TCOs or transnational criminal
organizations.
Our effort so far to combat this has been through the
Merida Initiative. Over $1.5 billion in equipment and training
for Mexico and Central America has gone to date, and yet I
don't think it is working.
The problem with the administration's new proposal, the
Beyond Merida, is that it fails to recognize that today's drug
cartels, being transnational criminal organizations, whose
crimes now not only include robbery and kidnapping but human
trafficking, money laundering, and murder. And as a result, the
administration's new proposal, while containing some laudable
objections, is incomplete and missing the important component
of counterinsurgency strategy.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts to address this
missing component. H.R. 3401, the Enhanced Border Security Act,
if passed, would strengthen our border with Mexico and target
Mexican TCOs doing business and committing crime within the
United States. It would provide the counterinsurgency strategy
currently missing in our efforts to combat these Mexico TCOs,
and I am very proud to support this legislation.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Mack. I thank the gentlelady. And hearing no
amendments, the question now occurs on adoption of the bill.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mack. Yes, sir.
Mr. Engel. I am wondering if I could just make another
brief statement about this bill. Let me move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Mack. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to quote
from Bill Brownfield, whom we all have tremendous respect for,
because what I see this bill doing, it essentially tears up the
Merida Initiative and kind of moves in a different direction.
And I am still of the belief that the Merida Initiative is the
best way to continue to move forward.
So I just want to just very briefly quote Secretary
Brownfield, who is the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of National
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. And he said, very
briefly, ``There is no doubt in my mind, ladies and gentlemen,
that the United States is better and safer today thanks to our
support for the Merida Initiative.''
And then he went on to say at our hearing, ``Mr. Chairman,
the Merida Initiative was not engraved in stone. It is a living
strategy that is modified, adjusted, and corrected, as
circumstances change on the ground and we learn lessons.'' Some
of those lessons came from the United States Congress and came
from some members in this chamber.
And then he went on to say, ``Mr. Chairman, there were two
lessons we did not have to learn, because we already knew them.
The first is that Merida is a cooperative agreement between the
U.S. and Mexico, with the Government of Mexico in charge of all
activities within their territory. If we do not work together
with the Mexican Government, then we accomplish little for
either the American or the Mexican people.''
I just wanted to mention it, because I really do believe
that we can achieve what you want to achieve and what I want to
achieve and what we all here want to achieve, all of us,
working within the Merida Initiative. And I don't believe that
this bill is necessary.
And then, finally, I want to just say, in terms of
procedure, we don't have a quorum here. But I won't----
Mr. Mack. We do have a quorum.
Mr. Engel. Okay. But I was going to say, but I won't
object. But I don't have to object, because members are here.
Okay.
Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman. And let me just also note
that Mexico also says that Merida is not enough, that it is too
slow and not effective.
Hearing no amendments, the question now occurs on the
adoption of the bill. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill is
agreed to. And without objection, the motion to reconsider is
laid on the table. Without objection, the bill will be reported
favorably to the full committee, and the staff is directed to
make any technical and conforming changes.
I now call up H.R. 2542, to hold the Organization of
American States, the OAS, accountable.
[H.R. 2542 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mack. I recognize myself for opening remarks. I want to
first make this clear from the start: H.R. 2542 does not defund
the OAS. H.R. 2542 requires only that the OAS uphold its
international commitments in order to receive U.S. taxpayer
dollars. Under this legislation, every time the OAS has an
opportunity to uphold freedom and democracy by enforcing its
democratic charter, and decides not to, the U.S. will save
approximately $11 million. If no action is taken to address
individual member states' gross noncompliance with the OAS
democratic charter, the United States will have saved $57
million by the end of 2012.
Like many of my colleagues, I prefer to have a functional
and effective organization that upholds its commitments to
democracy throughout our important region. However, the OAS has
proven unable or unwilling to do so. The OAS should not
continue to receive increased funding each year when it
continuously fails to do its job.
A meeting was held yesterday at the OAS to discuss this
specific issue--the fact that there is a clause in the
democratic charter, Article 20, designated to hold nations
accountable for their anti-democratic actions. The consensus
within the OAS is that Article 20 is not functioning. Prior to
yesterday's meeting, the consensus was also that there was no
need to amend the democratic charter.
This is why H.R. 2542 is necessary. The OAS is unable to
take concrete actions to fix its flaws without outside
pressure. Within the past year, the OAS has failed to stand
with the people of Venezuela and Nicaragua, while 2 years ago
it was hypocritically punishing Honduras, within days of that
country's decision to stand on the side of freedom.
Yesterday in Venezuela, Chavez again displayed his control
of the judiciary system, forcing a judge to remain under arrest
for another 2 years just because the judge dared defy him in a
routine ruing. And there is absolutely no excuse for a
statement by Secretary General Insulza supporting the
Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega's shame election as a ``step
forward--step toward--step forward for democracy.''
While the OAS later withdrew the statement, the harm was
already done. I shudder to think how much harm the OAS can
cause during the Venezuela elections next year. The American
taxpayer should not be expected to contribute almost 60 percent
of the budget for an organization that works against the
interests and fundamental principles of freedom and democracy.
This legislation is necessary to force needed changes
within the Organization of American States. If the OAS finds
that it is unable to make itself effective, there remains no
reason for its continued existence.
I am now pleased to recognize the ranking member for him to
speak on this measure. Mr. Engel is recognized.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me first state
the obvious, that you and I both know we agree on so many
things. We both want to see more pressure brought on Hugo
Chavez's authoritarian government. We both want to expand
freedom in the hemisphere. We both want to expand prosperity in
the Americas. And we both want to fight the narco criminals'
brutality. It is bringing devastation from the southern U.S.
and Mexico all the way down through Central America and the
Caribbean and into the Andean region.
But we both know that there will come a day when another
tragedy will strike somewhere in the Americas. There will be
another hurricane like the ones which have periodically
devastated Central America or another earthquake like the one
which struck Haiti. When that happens, I think we would both
expect the OAS's Permanent Council to meet. Under this bill, if
the Permanent Council meets to discuss how to deal with the
tragedy in Haiti, but does not take up how Venezuela is
violating the Inter-American Democratic Charter, we will
withhold 20 percent of our contributions to the OAS.
And if we take this a step further, after 9/11 the OAS
Permanent Council met to condemn the terrorist attacks on the
United States after 9/11 and passed a resolution to call upon
governments to ``use all necessary and available means to
pursue, capture, and punish those responsible for these
attacks.''
Mr. Chairman, I know you don't possibly mean this, but if
the bill became law and the OAS Permanent Council condemned the
attacks of 9/11 without calling for democracy in Venezuela, we
would have to withhold 20 percent of their funding. So if we
were ever attacked again, as we were on 9/11, and the OAS
Permanent Council met to show that the hemisphere stands with
the United States, but they didn't condemn Venezuela, we would
have to withhold their funds. And that certainly doesn't make
any sense to me.
I continue to believe that the OAS, with all its problems,
with all its flaws, is the best thing we have going, best thing
we have to ensure democracy in the western hemisphere, best
thing we have to ensure that the United States has a voice in
the western hemisphere within an international organization.
If we don't have the OAS, if the OAS were to go away
tomorrow, what would we replace it with? Unisur, where the
United States is really not a participant? Or this new group
which excludes both the United States and Canada? I just think
that punishing the OAS, hurting the OAS, is like cutting off
our nose to spite our face. I don't think that it makes any
sense whatsoever.
The things that we think need to be strengthened at the OAS
we should work with other countries to strengthen it. And I am
the last one to make excuses for some of the things that have
happened in the OAS. I think that there has been a coddling for
too long of Chavez and some of the other governments that you
know and I know, and we agree, are not the wave of the future
but quite the opposite for the hemisphere.
But I think, you know, the State Department Authorization
Act, which the full committee took up 5 months ago, cut funding
for OAS, cut it out. And I think that that was a very foolish
thing to do. I think it is a counterproductive thing to do, and
I think it is a thing that hurts U.S. interests. I think it
hurts the interests, frankly, of the entire hemisphere.
But I think especially it hurts U.S. interests, because we
have influence at the OAS, and we have the ability to try to
get other governments to see it our way or to agree with us. I
think if you defund it, if you blow it up--and I understand
that this language doesn't specifically do that, but it is in
line with what we did as a full committee 5 months ago during
the State Department authorization. It is hostile to the OAS.
I don't have the hostility to the OAS. I think the OAS has
been a very useful body, has been a positive body. They have
made mistakes, and I disagree with it, and we should call them
out when we disagree. But I think it serves the best interests
of the entire western hemisphere and the best interests of the
United States.
And so I just don't think doing something like this is
productive. I think it is counterproductive, and I think the
examples I gave in terms of if they have a resolution that has
nothing to do with Venezuela, and they don't take up how
Venezuela is violating the Inter-American Democratic Charter,
we would have to withhold 20 percent of our contributions to
the OAS.
I think that is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer, and
I respectfully have to oppose this bill.
Thank you.
Mr. Mack. Again, I thank the gentleman, and now would like
to recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I
support this bill, because it stands up to the dictatorship of
Hugo Chavez and stands with freedom and democracy in Venezuela.
This bill would withhold 20 percent of the United States'
contributions to the OAS if they don't start implementing
Article 20 of the Inter-American Charter to encourage democracy
in Venezuela.
Article 20 states that when an OAS member is acting in an
anti-democratic way, the Secretary General may request the
immediate assembly of the Permanent Council to enact diplomatic
measures. That is what must be done, at the very least, in the
case of Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez has nationalized private industry, restricted
freedoms of the press, neutralized the independence of the
judicial branch. He has blocked political opponents by accusing
them of crimes or putting them in jail. His government aids and
abets the terrorist organization FARC, and in yesterday's
Washington Times it reported that Venezuelan diplomats in
Mexico have been working with Iranian officials to launch a
cyber attack against the United States.
If this isn't the definition of an anti-democratic regime,
I don't know what is. And if this isn't the time for the OAS to
act, I don't know when that time would be. We are on the side
of right here, and we must act now to ensure that democracy
isn't further stifled here in our hemisphere.
So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
send a message to these anti-democratic regimes that they will
not be coddled by the OAS.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Mack. And I thank the gentleman, and now I would like
to recognize the gentlelady Ms. Schmidt for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing
up this very important issue. You know, Article 3 of the OAS
democratic charter outlines respect for fundamental freedoms,
including independent branches of government, and Chavez has
violated this. Chavez's laws last year to restrict the
legislature and efforts to control the judicial system are
clear violations of the charter.
Former Assistant Secretary of State Venezuela and Secretary
General Miguel Insulza has recognized Venezuela's violation of
the OAS democratic charter. Even President Obama said that
Chavez ``is subverting the will of the Venezuelan people.''
The State Department has requested almost $60 million for
OAS for Fiscal Year '12--an organization that will not even
discuss its own members' violations of the charter. Sometimes
you have to speak with a loud voice and say, ``Enough is
enough.''
Sixty million dollars for a broken, ineffective
organization I believe is wasting our precious taxpayer
dollars, and it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I am
going to vote yes on this very important initiative.
Mr. Mack. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak on
this?
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Mack. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to make a
point that I made before. I think all members would agree that
the OAS is not a perfect institution. Neither are we. But,
frankly, the OAS is much better than the alternatives.
I find it very hard to understand that precisely when Hugo
Chavez--and you know and I know I am no fan of Hugo Chavez, and
you and I feel the same way about him. But I find it hard to
understand that precisely when Chavez is setting up an
alternative organization in the Americas called the CELAC,
which excludes the United States but includes Cuba, we are
considering a bill to undercut the OAS, where the U.S. is a
member and has influence and where Cuba is excluded.
Even more, this bill would withhold funding for all parts
of the OAS, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
which recently ruled against Chavez that opposition leader
Leopoldo Lopez must be permitted to run for President, and the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which has criticized
Chavez almost as much as we have.
As I said, the OAS is not perfect, but I agree with former
Ambassador Jaime Daremblum, a recent Republican witness at a
full committee hearing, that we need a strengthen, reformed
OAS, not an undermined, weakened one.
In fact, contrary to what we see today, opposition to
gutting the OAS is by bipartisan, and other leading Republicans
have spoken out against destroying the OAS, too.
Ambassador Bill Middendorf, a member of the Board of
Trustees of the Heritage Foundation and the International
Republican Institute said, and I am quoting him, ``I think it
would be a tragedy if we just announced that we are getting rid
of the OAS. I think there would be a lot of room for mischief
from foreign countries, particularly China, which has already
bought up everything down there anyway.''
It is funny that he mentions China, because President Hu
Jintao just sent a message to Chavez congratulating him on the
founding of the CELAC. And we are further reminded by Ray
Walser, a Heritage Foundation expert, who has testified in this
committee many times that ``putting a dagger through the heart
of the OAS'' is exactly what Hugo Chavez wants. According to
Walser, that is why Chavez is pushing the CELAC as an
alternative to the OAS, because it will be ``a permanent
platform for anti-Americanism.''
So if you are following this, I believe we are actually
doing Chavez's bidding today. Chavez wants the OAS killed, and
we are here to do it for him. So let me just say you know who
else says no, that we shouldn't be doing this? The Venezuelan
opposition to Chavez.
In a recent letter to this committee, Venezuela's United
Democratic Opposition wrote, ``Venezuela's democracy is in
peril. In such a difficult context, the OAS is a key
international organization. The cause of freedom and
hemispheric security requires, more than ever, appropriate
funding and support to the OAS from the United States and all
its member states.''
So the Venezuelan opposition, which wants to topple Chavez,
says that we are doing the wrong thing here. So, Mr. Chairman,
I agree that the OAS should speak out more when democracy is
imperiled, especially in Venezuela. I agree with you. But let
us not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us not hand
Chavez a victory by undercutting the OAS.
Rather, let us work to improve the OAS by coordinating more
closely with countries in the region and improving our
diplomacy, but not by destroying the OAS simply because it is
imperfect; not trying to starve it of funds because we don't
like some of the things that are happening.
So again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for letting me speak
again, but I am going to vote no on this bill. And I yield
back.
Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman. Are there any amendments
to this measure? The gentleman from Miami, Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Mr. Mack. The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. Gately. Amendment to H.R. 2542 offered by Mr. Rivera of
Florida. In Section 1----
[The amendment offered by Mr. Rivera follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mack. Without objection, the amendment is considered as
read. I am pleased to recognize Mr. Rivera to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And first of
all, I wanted to say I very strongly support your efforts with
this bill. And I actually believe the bill will strengthen the
OAS and it will send the right message that the OAS member
states and the OAS in general needs to adhere to its charter,
or otherwise face consequences, and that U.S. funds are not
unlimited.
And they should know that we believe money needs to be
spent wisely. Our duty is to the American taxpayer, first and
foremost, not necessarily to any other country that may not
like our discipline or our attempts to find fiscal discipline.
So this should be a wakeup call to the OAS, and particularly
those countries that are part of the issue of not adhering to
the charter, such as Venezuela.
This amendment will add Nicaragua to that list of
countries, because Nicaragua recently has taken some very
undemocratic actions. Its recent elections are a pure example
of taking undemocratic actions. They have been violating their
own constitution. Even in the implementation of those
elections, there were many election violations and
irregularities found in Nicaragua.
So this amendment will add Nicaragua to the bill, with
Venezuela, and make sure that the OAS charter is adhered to.
And, if not, with the case of Nicaragua, along with Venezuela,
OAS would lose the funding. So that is the amendment, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mack. And I thank the gentleman from Miami.
Unless there are other members who wish to strike the last
word and speak briefly----
Mr. Engel. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mack. Yes, the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I move to strike the last word. Thank
you. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida is correct. The
elections in Nicaragua were severely flawed. There was fraud in
the balloting, and election observers were not permitted to do
their job. However, here is where I disagree with the
gentleman. I believe that the OAS did do its job as observers
in Nicaragua and did it reasonably well.
Prior to our recent hearing on Nicaragua, the head of the
OAS election observer mission, Dante Caputo, briefed members
about its observer mission in Nicaragua. He reported that there
was substantial interference in the work of the OAS observers
on the part of local voting board officials. In the OAS case,
such interference even hindered a plan to conduct a quick count
and perform other statistical analysis of the voting data.
Mr. Caputo was clear about these violations by the
Nicaraguan Government. He pulled no punches in describing how
his observers were blocked from carrying out their roles.
Because they were unable to carry and fulfill their duties and
observe the election, the OAS told the world they would not
certify the election in Nicaragua, essentially confirming the
fraud which took place.
As the gentleman from Florida may know, the Government of
Nicaragua then attacked the OAS for holding that their election
was poorly run and marked by election law violations.
So, Mr. Chairman, I understand, and frankly agree with the
gentleman from Florida--by the way, from Florida by way of New
York, he used to be my constituent--that it might be good for
the OAS Permanent Council to meet on this matter. I agree with
the gentleman from Florida it would be good for the OAS
Permanent Council to meet on this matter.
But I think the world was informed by the OAS of the
problems in this election, of the troubles in this election.
The OAS was unwilling to certify the election, and that sent a
clear signal about the fraud in the Nicaraguan election. But
yet if we pass this bill, as amended by Mr. Rivera's amendment,
we would withhold funding from the OAS election observer teams,
the very ones which were critical of the Nicaraguan elections.
So it really doesn't make much sense to me. I don't
understand why we are doing this. I think that it was very
clear, by what the OAS people said, that the elections in
Nicaragua were fraudulent and flawed, and they said it. So I
don't know why we are trying to hurt them. I don't understand
it.
So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Mack. And I thank the gentleman. Does anyone else
wish--seek time?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mack. Yes, sir. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Smith. I thank the chair. Let me just say briefly that
I will be voting for the chairman's bill and for the amendment
offered by my good friend Mr. Rivera. It is a conditional yes.
I mean, the hope is that the OAS will finally, at long last,
step up to its responsibilities to ensure democracy.
You know, the Chavez dictatorship is enabled, perhaps
unwittingly, because there are people within the OAS who care
deeply about democracy and freedom and human rights But when
there is no strong statement, when there is no invocation, as
there ought to be, as Condoleezza Rice tried to do just a few
years ago when she was Secretary of State, that kind of
passivity, that kind of indifference enables dictatorship.
And for the people of Venezuela who suffer under the
cruelty of Chavez, when his money is used to purchase votes
throughout all of the Americas, especially as elections come
around, and his money is dropped in one place after another to
enable other dictatorships to move forward, we have a very
serious problem here.
So I think the chairman--you know, we all know it is not
likely that this legislation, at least right now, will become
law, given the White House's view and given the difficulty of
mustering 60 votes in the U.S. Senate for anything. I think
this is a very important message center, and I applaud the
chairman for being so tenacious in combating the dictatorship
of Hugo Chavez and the other members of this committee. I know
Eliot Engel cares deeply about it, but has a difference as to
the modality that ought to be followed.
And I think including Nicaragua--I will never forget back
in the early 1980s visiting with Commandante Daniel Ortega, who
was violating human rights with such impunity. Four of us went
down and met with him. Three of us who drank the water he gave
us got sick, parenthetically. Who knows if it was because of
that. The one who didn't drink it did not get sick. But what he
has done, his legacy of human rights violations, and then, you
know, his most recent--which the Rivera amendment speaks to as
to why he wants that included.
So it is a conditional yes. You know, I think the OAS can
serve a very valuable purpose, but it has to step up to the
plate. It can't sit idly by. It can't be indifferent to what
Chavez is doing.
And, again, I think the chairman Connie Mack has said in
this legislation, very clearly, it is a conditional--you know,
we want them to be functional. We don't want them to go the way
of the United Nations, where dictatorships routinely flaunt the
process and enable the worst violators of human rights.
And in this case, after Fidel Castro, it has to be Hugo
Chavez who does terrible things to his own people. He is a
cancer. He is a cancer on the people of Venezuela. He hurts
people. He destroys people, he destroys institutions, and then
he spreads, you know, that cancer throughout all of the
Americas.
The OAS can be a bulwark against that cancer. It has failed
to do so. Hopefully, your message that you send with this
legislation will enable them to find a stronger voice against
this dictatorship.
I yield to Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you so much. Just a quick comment, and I
very much appreciate the comments by my friend Mr. Engel. My
amendment tries not so much to speak to the OAS's observer
missions to Nicaragua, which I am sure they did a very good
job, but my amendment speaks to the content and the substance
of the bill, which is the lack of adherence to Article 3 of the
OAS and with respect to the organization's actions or lack of
action vis-a-vis Nicaragua and the recent elections as it
pertains to Article 3, not so much the observer mission during
the election.
And I yield back.
Mr. Mack. Anyone else seek time?
[No response.]
The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr.
Rivera. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Hearing no other amendments, the question now occurs on
adopting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill, as
amended, is agreed to. And without objection, the motion to
reconsider is laid on the table.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, can we have a rollcall vote on
that, please?
Mr. Mack. A rollcall vote having been requested, the clerk
will call the roll.
Mr. Gately. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. Yes.
Mr. Gately. Mr. Mack votes aye.
Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
Mr. Gately. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. Aye.
Mr. Gately. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Mr. Gately. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Gately. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Mr. Gately. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. No.
Mr. Gately. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Sires.
[No response.]
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Mr. Mack. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Gately. Yes.
Mr. Mack. The clerk will report the vote.
Mr. Gately. We have six ayes and one no.
Mr. Mack. The ayes have it, and the question is agreed to.
Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to
the full committee in the form of a single amendment in the
nature of a substitute, incorporating the amendment adopted
here today. And the staff is directed to make any technical and
conforming changes.
That concludes our business. And without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 o'clock p.m., the subcommittee was
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\astatt
(\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\astatt
)[)\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
