other passport to enter. Were they using an American passport; one access we have on statistics is on the number of issuances of travel documentation by the Lebanese Government to those passport holders. There probably are around 10,000 a year who visit in that category.

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leniency here. Let me just ask, if I understand your testimony, the reason the ban stays in place is because we have information that we must consider at least reliable that Hizbollah threatens the lives of Americans in Lebanon.

Mr. McKUNE. Mr. Hamilton, I think that is part of the judgment that the Secretary has to make, yes.

Mr. HAMILTON. I understand. Now what must Hizbollah do to make us change our view?

Mr. McKUNE. There is no question

Mr. HAMILTON. They haven't done anything for years, obviously, against American citizens. What must they do?

Mr. McKUNE. It is a judgment the Secretary must make about whether the passport restriction in Lebanon to be lifted or not lifted would subject Americans in Lebanon to terrorist threats.

Mr. HAMILTON. I understand. I understand that. I am just trying to figure out

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. What we are looking for. I understand it is the Secretary's judgment.

Mr. McKUNE. Yes. What we are looking for

Mr. HAMILTON. In making that judgment, what are you looking at?

Mr. McKUNE. We are looking for a pattern of Hizbollah disengagement from terrorism, in essence.

Mr. HAMILTON. So you would want, then, a statement of some kind or maybe something more than a statement from Hizbollah saying they are not going to engage in terrorism before you lift the terrorist ban, the travel ban?

Mr. McKUNE. We don't put confidence in their statements, sir. We would watch

Mr. HAMILTON. OK. That is something. So what would you have confidence in?

Mr. McKUNE. We would watch their behavior worldwide and their behavior in Lebanon in particular.

Mr. HAMILTON. OK. So you are looking at their worldwide behavior, is that correct?

Mr. McKUNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAMILTON. And you believe today that Americans are in imminent peril if they travel to Lebanon?

Mr. McKUNE. I wouldn't use that phrase, sir. I think that it is a dangerous place, and the reason it is a dangerous place is that Lebanon is a location where Hizbollah and other organizations with a demonstrated history of terrorist attacks against American interests maintain a presence, maintain an operational capability, maintain training exercises

Mr. HAMILTON. We had a Senator

Mr. McKUNE [continuing]. And are hostile to the United States. Mr. HAMILTON. We had a Senator in Lebanon just recently, yes? Mr. McKUNE. Yes, and a poll recently

Mr. HAMILTON. My colleague here to the left was there a couple of months ago. So you don't stop Americans?

Mr. WELCH. We are not able to stop Americans. We are able only-this is not a travel ban. Those words are used to characterize the situation. Our handle on this is a restriction on the use of U.S. passports. That is where we come at it from.

Our judgment, as specified in the travel warnings, is that the situation there is sufficiently dangerous that any American, whether with permission or without it, cannot be considered safe from terrorism when they are in Lebanon.

Chairman GILMAN. I would hope that at some future time we could have a further discussion of this before a further review has taken place.

The gentleman's time has expired.

Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To follow up on the conversation we are having with regard to the travel ban, I would like for you to furnish to me a list of the individuals who send their recommendations forward to the Secretary with regard to whether the travel ban, whatever you want to call it, should remain in place.

Obviously, some of you are making recommendations to the Secretary; and I would like to know who it is. To give your words back to you, we feel it is sufficiently dangerous that Lebanon cannot be considered safe; and I would say that follows up on Washington, DC, right here on Capitol Hill. So I find that a nonstarter.

As a matter of fact, several years ago, when I was invited to go to Lebanon with some other Members of Congress, the State Department came to my office and absolutely persuaded me that, especially as a woman, it was not safe for me to go to Lebanon. I took their word for it, and I didn't go. Every one of my colleagues returned safely, I might add.

I have some questions for you that I would like for you to respond to.

Is there anything that the Lebanese Government has failed to do to satisfy the United States on the security of our citizens? What has Lebanon failed to do that you want done so we can get this problem rectified?

Mr. McKUNE. It is not a question of shortcomings of the behavior of the Government of Lebanon. They have made a lot of progress. The security situation has improved and is continuing to improve, thanks to continuing steps of the Government of Lebanon.

It is the nature of terrorism-I am not saying that the whole of Lebanese environment and society today is terroristic and that any American or anyone there would be in mortal danger of terrorism if they went there. I am not saying that at all. The nature of terrorism often is that a single terrorist calculated attack-which you can't know about or predict-is done for a particular purpose at a particular time; whether to assassinate a political leader, to disrupt the peace process, to make a statement against the United States. and its forces and peacekeepers or whatever. That could happen at any time or it may not happen.

If you look at the history of post-war Lebanon, you do see a general desire of the people, of the government, of the political figures,

to restore a sense of security and get back to normalcy. We appreciate that, and indeed we want to further that, and we are working with the Lebanese Government in that respect.

But look at Hizbollah; Argentina, 1992. Look at the decision of the German court in April of this year with respect to the Mykonos Restaurant attack in 1992. Three of the four convicted people there were members of Lebanese Hizbollah.

They do retain a terrorist capability, they do train people, and it would be irresponsible of us to ignore this.

Ms. DANNER. My next question would be, aside from lifting the ban, what are the options that the Secretary is considering, such as creating a business waiver category of widening the humanitarian considerations? And let's focus a little bit on that business aspect of it.

I would hope that, at some point in time, the Department of Commerce would come to you all and speak to you all about the fact that we really preclude most American businessmen and I use that in the broad sense of the word-from doing work in Leb

anon.

Mr. WELCH. You are right. We do receive letters from American businesses, visits by American businessmen, and importunities from others in the American Government about the effect of our restrictions on travel to Lebanon. I can assure you that this concern has been quite vocally expressed.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. We are not able to parse the recommendation and decision process for you in this hearing. That would, I think, compromise the ability of our boss to make an informed and objective appraisal based on the materials she receives when it is prepared.

So, to some degree, the questions from you and other Members are getting into the mechanics of that process; and if we are trying to answer them in a general way, it is not to be evasive. It is simply to preserve the prerogatives of this decision process.

Ms. DANNER. My last question: Given that the United States mainly relies on local operatives to provide intelligence on Lebanon, how accurate do you think the intelligence we receive is?

Mr. WELCH. Well, I will answer that in a general way since this is a public hearing. We have considerable confidence in our information from our own resources concerning this and other situations.

Ms. DANNER. Let me just close by saying that, gentlemen, I think that if you had to recommend to my constituents in the 6th district of Missouri, 580,000 people, whether or not they should come to Washington, DC, their Nation's capital, you would have to tell them that they were at risk. Wouldn't you?

Mr. WELCH. Well, fortunately

Ms. DANNER. Using the same criteria that you use with regard to Lebanon, you would have to tell my constituents they are at risk based on the fact that a number of them have had robberies, et cetera?

Mr. WELCH. Our jurisdictions begin at our water's edge, not inside it.

Ms. DANNER. Thank you. I think you made my point.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentlelady's time has expired.

Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. I would like to follow up on something Mr. Hamilton said and see if I could get a definition.

The bottom line, as I understand it, is that when Secretary Shultz imposed the travel ban, he used the words, imminent peril. Then, when you were responding, you basically said, it is still a dangerous place in Lebanon.

My question is: Would you still use the words, imminent peril? I believe there are several thousand U.S. citizens living in Lebanon. There are at least 3,000. Some people say there are 30,000.

Do you have any evidence that any of these people have been kidnapped or attacked recently? Again, I would just ask you if you would use the words "imminent peril"?

Mr. McKUNE. I think circumstances have changed. I wouldn't say imminent peril at this time.

Mr. ROYCE. All right. But that was the justification, that was the rationale in imposing the ban, right?

Mr. McKUNE. Well, the circumstances were correct at that time to use

Mr. ROYCE. OK.

Mr. McKUNE [continuing]. That term. They are not the same today.

Mr. ROYCE. Do we know, in terms of Lebanese with American citizenship that are now living in Lebanon-do we have evidence as to recent attacks or kidnappings in this circumstance?

Mr. McKUNE. We have no information that any of them have been attacked.

Mr. ROYCE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce.

Mr. Clement.

Mr. CLEMENT. It is good to have both of you here. This is a rather interesting hearing.

What I wanted to ask is also concerning the U.S. business interests suffering unnecessarily because they are not able to compete with European and Asian companies bidding for lucrative reconstruction contracts. How serious is that?

Mr. WELCH. Well, through a number of arrangements, U.S. businesses are active in Lebanon. We believe that we could do more there. The security concerns are an impediment, and I dare say American business certainly believes that our travel restrictions are also an impediment to their ability to fully expand operations in Lebanon in the way they might like to do.

We would like to do more in this area. We are supportive by the means that we have available to us today of American businesses' efforts to, as you say, get at some of the reconstruction contracts. This is a fertile area for U.S. exports of goods and technology, and I think encouraging that interaction is both in our interest and in Lebanon's interest.

Mr. CLEMENT. But you have to say with the restrictions now that it makes it very difficult for U.S. interests to do business in Lebanon?

Mr. WELCH. I would agree that the travel restrictions are an impediment to the expansion of U.S. business opportunities there,

yes. I think my judgment is derived from what they have told us, that it does concern them.

Mr. CLEMENT. When is the nearest opportunity to lift these bans? When are you going to review it again and make a final determination?

Mr. WELCH. The review process occurs every 6 months. The decision with respect to the passport restriction must be made by the end of July. Otherwise, it lapses.

How it actualizes is kind of a funny arrangement; but, basically, a decision has to be made in the next month.

Mr. CLEMENT. OK. So you could lift the ban next month or earlier?

Mr. WELCH. That is one of the possibilities. It could also, as the Congresswoman said, perhaps be altered in some way.

Mr. CLEMENT. As you know

Mr. WELCH. That is, the travel restriction.

Mr. CLEMENT. As you know, we had that debate yesterday on most-favored-nation status for China. One of the arguments made was, you know, if we have more relations with a country, if we have more economic trade opportunities with countries, both countries benefit, and the people benefit through more prosperity and more respect for one another. Do you agree with that statement? Mr. WELCH, Yes.

Mr. CLEMENT. Therefore, if we did lift the bans, we could do more business and we could have more opportunities for all people to improve their station in life?

Mr. WELCH. Yes, that is correct.

Of course, were there another security incident involving Americans in Lebanon, I think that would also be reversed.

Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clement.

Mr. LaHood.

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, thanks so much for allowing me to sit in on this hearing, for your leadership on Lebanon; and, also, I want to say a word to Mr. Hamilton for the leadership that he has exhibited on Lebanon also.

I have a statement. I wonder if it could be made a part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. LaHood appears in the appendix.]

Mr. LAHOOD. I just want to say that I think, as both of you gentlemen spoke, you stir up so many emotions in people who care deeply about Lebanon, because much of what you say is not believed by the vast majority of people in this room or the vast majority of people that have traveled to Lebanon.

I was in Lebanon 2 years ago at Easter time. I spent 12 days there and I never felt that I was going to be harmed. I traveled all over the country, north to south. I spent a number of days in Beirut. I went to the northern part of the country, where my grandparents came from. I went to the southern part of the country. Never once did I feel that I was in harm's way. I flew into the airport in Beirut.