Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will just tell you, I agree with the gentleman's assessment that the situation there is terrible. What I am not able to conclude is how these two individuals disappeared, or what they were involved in doing.

Now, there are lots of allegations. As a Member of Congress, I am hesitant to bring out every allegation until there is a lot more evidence about these two individuals, but I have not seen evidence

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. That is fair.

Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. That, as bad as this government is, and I agree with that, that the government has done that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I also am hesitant to just gratuitously attack American Ambassadors, and so I have those two basic problems with this bill.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, let me make another point.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will be happy to do that after I make my point, Doug.

Let us not give the benefit of doubt to some communist dictatorship in Laos while holding back the benefit of the doubt to two American citizens. The fact is, two American citizens have disappeared. They are not second-class citizens. They happen to have been born in another country, but they are not second-class citizens. They deserve every protection and every benefit of the doubt. Their government should move forward-assuming not that they are guilty of something, but assuming that they have not done something. We must not predicate our action on Laotians or other people who are going back into those areas that they may be doing something illegal. They have ties to their homeland.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing an amendment that hasn't even been introduced yet. I would like the privilege of offering it before we discuss it.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman's point is well taken, but I would be happy to yield to my good friend, Mr. Bereuter, because I know he has some points he needs to make.

Mr. BEREUTER. I will avoid discussing the amendment that may be offered-but hopefully won't. I would say to the gentleman I agree with his assessment of the Laotian government, as Mr. Gejdenson did.

The important point, it seems to me, is that we should not, and do not, rely on the Laotian government and what they tell us, but we do, I think, have to give the benefit of the doubt when our own Foreign Service personnel, intelligence agencies and the FBI give us tentative reports at this point.

I yield back and thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just say for the record, I have been misled, and I have been given information that was not complete information by people in various embassies throughout the world. I cannot assume any longer that when I got to the Philippines they really couldn't help arrange that trip to the Spratlys, that their plane really was broken down, and I had to get a flight on a C-130 from the Philippine Air Force instead. I am sorry. I think that, frankly, I would rather assume the best about my LaotianAmerican citizens who disappear, rather than just assume that there is some question, murky question, being risen someplace, which they don't want to go into detail, by some embassy personnel somewhere.

No one is justifying any threat of violence against any person who works for the U.S. Government, any one of our Ambassadors. We will condemn that over and over again. Clearly, Mr. Radanovich and everyone else if anyone, I don't care if they are LaotianAmericans or whatever, threatens violence against an American diplomat anywhere, we are going to come down hard on them. But in this specific case, let's not assume the worst about two American citizens until that is absolutely proven.

They disappeared. Their families and their community and their friends are crying out for help from their government. They are getting what? They are getting a lot of, well, maybe this and maybe that.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir, I certainly will.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman.

The point I tried to make is that we don't know the facts. We deserve to have the facts before we act. That is the only point.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. With that, listen, let me just say, Doug Bereuter is a sincere person, and Mr. Gejdenson obviously is a sincere person, and we are trying to do our best. In this particular case, I think we have got to be strong and forceful, just like we were when talking about Pakistan a few moments ago. In this case, it is even worse because the lives of two American citizens are just being taken for granted.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Does any other Member seek recognition?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer an amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich has an amendment at the

desk.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. BEREUTER. I am just reserving a point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is entitled to reserve his point of order.

The clerk will report the amendment and distribute it.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order as well. Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Ms. BLOOMER. Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Radanovich. Add the following to the preamble: Whereas two United States citizens, Mr. Houa Ly, a resident of Appleton, Wisconsin, and Mr. Michael Vang, a resident of Fresno, California

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My perfecting amendment adds important information from a bill that Mr. Green of Wisconsin and I introduced last month, a bill that enjoyed ten original cosponsors, including you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Smith of this Committee. I believe that my amendment is a fair compromise and retains much of the original language of H.R. 169, while strengthening it significantly.

I believe it is imperative that this bill address the case of two American citizens abducted in Laos last spring, a constituent of mine, Mr. Michel Vang of Fresno, California, and a constituent of Mr. Green's, Mr. Houa Ly of Appleton, Wisconsin.

These two Hmong-American citizens were traveling along the border between Laos and Thailand in April of this year when they were seized by Lao Government authorities. Mr. Vang and Mr. Ly have not been heard from since.

Now, normally when American citizens are abducted by another country, the State Department would condemn the action, warn the country of possible sanctions or even launch an independent investigation. However, our State Department's only and best response has been to coordinate an investigation in cooperation with Lao authorities.

This cooperative approach was not meant to yield real results. Ironically, our State Department is working hard on Capitol Hill to garner support for normalized trade relations for Laos.

My amendment to H.R. 169 keeps much needed pressure on both the Lao Government and the State Department to provide us with the truth. In my mind, NTR for Lao's should not be considered until this case is resolved, although NTR is not a part of this bill and their human rights record has been seriously addressed.

My amendment to H.R. 169 emphasizes our dissatisfaction with the State Department's flawed investigative process. Our resolution calls on the Lao authorities to release all information about Mr. Vang and Mr. Ly immediately and discuss the serious consequences of acts of aggressions against American citizens.

I believe that we would be remiss to take up a bill regarding human rights abuses in Laos and neglect to address the case of two American citizens abducted by Lao authorities. Again. I am sympathetic to the issue regarding Ambassador Chamberlain, but I would say that as the investigation is ongoing, the families who are also American citizens back here have no word at all about the fate of their husbands, whether they have been killed and, if so, by whom, which ought to be resolved immediately.

We are talking about American citizens, and the families who are American citizens in this country have a right to know.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I withdraw my point of order.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman withdraws his point of order. Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like some clarification, and I will admit to you I am not wearing my glasses, but let's look on what is titled as page 4, you have numeral 2 there, and then you have one line slashed through it. Then you have 3. If that is not numeral 2 because of the slash, then the numbers are misordered.

Then as one goes to the bottom of the handwritten section on that page, do we skip from the "and" at the bottom of page 4 to the "amend" on page 5?

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I may, regarding the top of page 4 where it originally read as section 3 is called section 2.

Ms. DANNER. Yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. That paragraph is intact. I am sorry for the line crossing it out. It is misleading.

The only part that is not included in that section are the words, "and the Department of State."

Ms. DANNER. OK.

Mr. RADANOVICH. As to the second question, you read it correctly. Ms. DANNER. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Danner.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the State Department be allowed to address some questions here?

Chairman GILMAN. Is there someone from the State Department here? Would you please take this chair? Please identify yourself. Ms. JACOBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Please identify yourself.

Ms. JACOBS. My name is Susan Jacobs and I am a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in Legislative Affairs at the Department of State.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

Ms. Jacobs, first of all, the amendment, as you have noted, has been changed from the original text of H.Res. 332. I don't know if you have been able to follow it or if you have it in front of you.

Ms. JACOBS. I have the perfecting amendment in front of me. Mr. BEREUTER. If I could, I think the gentleman from California's-I think I have it—but on page 4, for example, the gentleman in subparagraphs 3 and 4, which would remain in his amendment, urges the Lao Government to return Messrs. Vang and Ly or their remains to U.S. authorities and their families in America at once. That is assuming they would have them, those remains or those missing persons.

The gentleman also warns, number 4, the Lao Government of the serious consequences, including sanctions, of any unjustified arrest, abduction, imprisonment, disappearance or other acts of aggression against U.S. citizens.

Now, it seems to me that while we do not appropriately jump to the conclusion that they have been abducted or that they have been killed, we don't know, these two paragraphs would not appear to be damaging to a resolution we might pass.

Ms. Jacobs, would you care to comment on those two specific subparagraphs?

Ms. JACOBS. I would agree with your assessment, sir. We feel terrible that we don't know what has happened to these two men. We are making every effort that we can. Ambassador Chamberlain, who left post in-I believe it was the end of May-did call in the FBI because she didn't want to rely totally on the Laotian Government.

So I think that to characterize her and to condemn her is incredibly unfair.

Mr. BEREUTER. So, Ms. Jacobs, then on page 3, the two following whereas clauses that are there, make specific reference to failures of the U.S. Government and negative assessment about Ambassador Chamberlain, as I would read it. Does the State Department accept those or reject those?

Ms. JACOBS. I totally reject those. I think that she did exactly what she could do, and especially by calling in the FBI, she went beyond what an ambassador would normally do.

Mr. BEREUTER. She indicated to me she thought this was such a grave matter and so serious that she did not have the capacity within her embassy or any attached groups to investigate it fully. So my understanding, from the cable traffic and from the chronology that resulted from it, is she immediately called in for outside assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; perhaps intelligence agencies as well. Is that your understanding?

Ms. JACOBS. That is absolutely correct, sir. Most embassies do not have separate investigative abilities, and she did absolutely the right thing by calling in the FBI and relying on other agencies to assist in the investigation.

Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. I will be happy to yield, to the Chairman first and then to Mr. Ackerman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Ms. Jacobs, you say this resolution condemns the Ambassador, and yet I am reading the paragraph on page 3, "Whereas the chief response to this incident by the Department of State and U.S. Ambassador to Laos Wendy Chamberlain has been to undertake an investigation in cooperation with the regime in Laos-a regime involved with the disappearance of Messrs. Ly and Vang." I don't see any condemnation of Ambassador Chamberlain.

Ms. JACOBS. I think with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think it jumps to a conclusion. We don't know how these men disappeared yet, and it doesn't go far enough in saying that she did call in the FBI. She did not rely on the Laotian Government.

Chairman GILMAN. But the paragraph says she did undertake an investigation in cooperation with the regime. She undertook an investigation; is that a fact?

Ms. JACOBS. But it begins the characterization by saying that was her chief response.

Her chief response was to call in the FBI and to seek their assist

ance.