Mr. Chairman, June 13, 2000, is a date that will go down in history. On this day, as we know, the heads of state of North Korea and South Korea, two countries technically engaged in a state of war for the last 50 years, met to reconcile their differences. This is, in my opinion, a great accomplishment. Peace between these two countries would end one of the longest and most violent altercations in history. This strife has cost billions of dollars and hundreds and thousands of lives; and not just Korean lives, but the lives of Americans and every other nation that was involved in the military battles of that region. The United States has 10,218 soldiers listed as missing or prisoners of war due to the Korean conflict and, to their credit, families last week received closure with reference to 4 of those individuals. It is time that the fighting and violence officially end and for peace to blos som. Mr. Chairman, these are but some of the reasons that I introduced this resolution, along with you, Ranking Member Mr. Lantos, and my good friend from Florida, Mr. Wexler. As a result of the Korean summit, we hope for many changes both in Korea and world politics. First, we eagerly anticipate a resolution regarding the possible unification between the two countries. Second, we expect a full accounting by North Korea of all of the missing United States soldiers from the conflict. Third, we hope to secure from North Korea a full moratorium on the testing of long-range missiles and an immediate freeze in North Korea's nuclear program and a suspension of its ballistic program. It is our strong hope that the Korean summit will act as a gateway to the peace process. I have a further statement, but I would ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in the record, and conclude by saying this resolution was introduced to commend a step forward in the way of this accomplishment at their summit. The summit was not merely a meeting between two heads of state, but a portal to future peace agreements. The summit will hopefully not only inspire countless peace agreements but will help bring the thousands of our soldiers missing in the Korean homeland home. South Korea and North Korea's meeting will hopefully become a model for other countries to settle their differences. I thank you again, Mr. Chair man. Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. Without objection, your entire statement will be made part of the record. [The information referred appears in the appendix.] Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to turn to the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Lantos. Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me first commend my dear friend, Congressman Hastings, for crafting an excellent resolution which I strongly support. There is, of course, a serious omission in this resolution, which is an omission by design, because had this omission not been part of the resolution, the resolution would never see the light of day and would certainly never pass on the Floor of the House of Representatives. This major development, the first in half a century between North Korea and South Korea, came about, to a very large extent, because of the wise and farsighted and intelligent policy of this Administration. I want to pay tribute to the President and the Vice President and Secretary Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and particularly former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who devoted countless days and countless visits to this project both in North and South Korea. This development is a history-making development, and I think it is important for us to at least in this meeting pay tribute to the wise and farsighted foreign policy of this administration which made this resolution possible and which made this meeting between the chiefs of the two Koreas possible. I think it is important to bear in mind, particularly since we are just about an hour past the adjournment of the peace negotiations in the Middle East, that while, for the moment, those negotiations did not succeed, there again the commitment and dedication of the President and his administration to bringing about a peaceful resolution of the longstanding conflict have been very much in evidence. I don't think we can overemphasize the importance both of the President's commitment at Camp David to bringing about a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and the contribution of his administration and him personally to bringing about this historic beginning movement to creating the conditions for a peaceful resolution of the conflict on the Korean peninsula, and I again want to commend my friend. Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, the Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Mr. ROYCE. I wanted to thank you for moving ahead with this resolution and to commend its author, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and that is because Mr. Hastings has spent a considerable amount of time on the difficult issue of the Korean peninsula. There were some positive developments that came out of this historic summit, including, on a very basic level, the North's recognition that South Korea exists. The odd fiction of Pyongyang denying the reality of the Republic of Korea has been shattered permanently. I am encouraged by the progress made on family visits. The Red Cross has been working on starting this process which is a Kim Dae-Jung priority and which is recognized in this resolution. This is a real accomplishment, the first reunions in 15 years, and it would be good to regularize their visits. While being hopeful about this summit, we need to be realistic. Kim Jong-Il's North Korea is a regime, after all, which feeds its military at the expense of its people and denies them fundamental human rights. It also still cultivates a cult of personality for Kim Jong-Il. It has made little fundamental political or economic change, and it maintains a deadly million-man army. Faced with this, we need to be vigilant for now, and that means maintaining the strong U.S. Republic of Korea defense relationship and a strong deterrent. Mr. Chairman, this January I had the privilege of leading a parliamentary exchange group to Seoul, of which you were a part of. We are now looking to have the South Korea parliamentarians visit Congress early next year. I would hope that Members of this Subcommittee would participate in these discussions, and I want to thank you for the close attention this Subcommittee has paid to our policy toward the Korean peninsula and to the developments there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Royce and Mr. Lantos, for your statements. I do join you in hoping that our Subcommittee may, on a bipartisan basis, be active in meeting with the members of the National Assembly. I assume that the meeting will be in Washington? Mr. ROYCE. That is correct. Mr. BEREUTER. We will make sure that we get advance notice to assist you in your efforts as chairman of that revived interparliamentary exchange with the National Assembly. I am not quite as sanguine about the Administration's policy with respect to the Korean peninsula as Mr. Lantos. However, I am enthusiastically in agreement about the outstanding contributions that Secretary Perry has made in his efforts to find out whether the North Koreans are willing to take a different track and to bring some bipartisan consensus on what the U.S. policy should be with respect to the Korean peninsula. He deserves, as does Wendy Sherman, commendations for what he has done, and even though he may well be officially completed, I know that he continues his efforts. I would point out that encouraging the summit meeting in North Korea and South Korea is entirely consistent with U.S. foreign policy from one Administration to the other. Indeed, long before issues such as the DPRK's nuclear and ballistic missile programs became a widespread matter of concern, the U.S. was calling for direct talks between North Korea and South Korea. The North had resisted that. The North has always tried to insert itself between the Republic of Korea and the United States by insisting that it would engage in direct talks only with the United States, thereby passing or bypassing the ROK and driving a wedge between ourselves and our ally on the peninsula. U.S. policy has always been that we would not allow Pyongyang to marginalize the South and that the North must talk directly with its neighbors. While the recent meeting was important and historic, we should be cautious that we not oversell the summit, and the gentleman from Florida's resolution does not pass that margin. If North Korea is, in fact, sincere in its peaceful overtures, that certainly would be a dramatic positive development, and I do appreciate the careful way that Mr. Hastings has drafted the resolution. However, I think it would be premature to assume that the DPRK has irrevocably reformed its behavior. It would be naive to believe that a few gestures constitute a revision and a change from 50 years of violent confrontational behavior and terrorism. In reality, if you stop to think about it, the North really gave up nothing while receiving huge financial benefits-some current and some potential-from the South. Kim Dae-Jung went to Pyongyang and promised to open the spigots of foreign assistance, although at the North's insistence they are calling it "economic cooperation." That is, the South gives and the North cooperatively agrees to ac cept commend the author of the resolution for including language that highlights the continuing problems and concerns that we have with the DPRK. I think we should be under no illusions; dealing with the North will continue to be difficult. Indeed, the day after the conclusion of the summit, North Korean radio broadcasts were noting the 50th anniversary of the, “unprovoked U.S. Invasion of North Korea." At the very least, the recent repetition of such a package of blatant lies requires us to be very cautious when approaching this pariah state. Does the gentleman from North Dakota wish to be recognized? Mr. BEREUTER. The resolution is open for amendment. Mr. BEREUTER. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be accepted as read. Mr. BEREUTER. The amendment will be considered as read, printed in the record, and open for amendment. [The information referred appears in the appendix.] Mr. BEREUTER. I ask the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings, to explain his amendment. Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment reflects a number of minor concerns raised by the State Department, as well as some critical concerns raised by you, Mr. Chairman, along with some very helpful additions brought to my attention by another Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Ackerman. The corrections are as follows. In the first "whereas" clause, the term "President" has been changed to reflect Kim Jong-Il's correct title, which is Chairman of the National Defense Commission. A similar change is made in the first Resolved clause, page 2, line 2, changing the term "Presidents" to "heads of state.". The second whereas" clause has been changed to reflect that this was the first meeting of the two heads of state, not the first official meeting of any kind between the two Koreas. In the fifth "whereas" clause, the resolution as initially drafted might give the impression that the government's withholding of food from the population was directly relating to the covert nuclear program. While both issues are of serious concern, and while there may be indirect linkage, the linkage is not necessarily direct. In the third "resolved" clause at page 2, line 8, while we hope a change of attitude on the part of North Korea has taken place, we will need to see much more evidence before we give them the benefit of the doubt. The seventh "resolved" clause is expanded to include the full range of concerns regarding the North Korean missile activities. The final "whereas" clause, the amendment recognizes that while North Korea already has agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons program, considerable uncertainty remains regarding whether that government is actually honoring that commitment. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the amendment in the nature of a substitute is acceptable to the Committee, and I thank you for your recommendations, and your staff and mine, for their tireless efforts in crafting this amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I so offer. Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Hastings and thank you for incorporating some of the recommendations of the State Department, this Members and Mr. Ackerman. Are there Members who wish to be heard on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in favor will say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. Are there further amendments to the resolution? Seeing none, the question occurs, then, on agreeing to the resolution. As many in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no. Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask that Members be permitted 5 days to revise and extend. Mr. BEREUTER. The amendment is agreed to and, without objection, the gentleman's request is granted. Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical, grammatical, and conforming changes to the text just agreed to. Contrary to what I read from my text and consistent with the notice, there is no second resolution. The Subcommittee stands adjourned. Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Whereupon, at 2:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] |