Middle Eastern destination. In fact, the standard policy has been to support the UN Secretary General's efforts and nothing more. I have also strongly supported the Secretary General's efforts on Cyprus, but recent events have demonstrated that the United Nations is the most effective in resolving conflicts when it is accompanied by an aggressive U.S. policy. Now my very good friend from New York, Mr. Solarz, in arguing against the ratio last week suggested that the ratio had failed to bring about a settlement on Cyprus, so therefore it should be eliminated. In all due respect to my good friend, if we were to accept that flawed logic, I would think that he would endorse repealing economic sanctions against South Africa because they have failed to facilitate the dismantling of apartheid. But that will not happen. In fact, I imagine that the gentleman could make a compelling case for increasing sanctions. Mr. Chairman, Turkey occupies Cyprus with U.S. supplied arms, but our allies have been far more outspoken in criticizing that occupation. In fact Ankara's withdrawal from Cyprus is one of the criteria for gaining membership in the European Community. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kostmayer, characterized himself as a friend of Turkey in last week's debate. Let me assure him that I am a friend of Turkey as well. I have voted for well over $6 billion in military and economic assistance for Turkey since 1978. I have voted for that assistance to enable Turkey to fulfill its NATO obligations and to bolster its defense capabilities. I also voted for those funds in the hope that Turkey would allow NATO allies to inspect MIG aircraft which land on Turkey's soil. I did not vote for U.S. foreign aid to be used to occupy Cyprus or to fund a 28,000 man army on the Aegean pointed towards Greece. This is a bipartisan amendment which has been signed into law by previous Presidents, and I respectfully urge its adoption. Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask to give Ms. Snowe an opportunity to comment on this. Chairman FASCELL. Ms. Snowe. Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I certainly support the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Michigan once again. For ten years now, the United States has provided military aid to Greece and Turkey and it has been earmarked to reflect seven-ten ratio, in response to Turkey's ongoing occupation of northern Cyprus. This policy was not imposed by Congress out of the blue. The seven-ten ratio has reflected a broad consensus in Congress that the United States should not have unilaterally lifted the arms embargo imposed against Turkey when it invaded Cyprus in 1974. Rather Congress has repeatedly determined that the renewed U.S. military assistance to Turkey should reflect the American people's ongoing concern over the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, and Turkey's refusal to fulfill its responsibilities to facilitate Cypriot reunification. The opponents of the seven-ten ratio seem to portray this issue in isolation as an unfair condition imposed upon bilateral U.S.Turkish relations and as an impediment to Turkish military modernization. They argue that Turkey is no threat to Greece or Cyprus, but is gravely threatened by hostile neighbors on its northern and eastern borders. We all know that Turkish security policy and more specifically U.S. military aid to both Turkey and Greece are inextricably connected to the broader issues of the civil conflict on Cyprus, the Greek-Turkish tensions in the Aegean, and peace and stability throughout the eastern Mediterranean. One cannot address the issue of U.S. military assistance to Greece and Turkey in narrow terms that do not account for the terrible stalemate that has divided Cyprus for fifteen years. Cyprus' bitter division is a direct result of the Turkish military occupation, which has in turn contributed to serious human rights violations against Cypriot citizens. Apparently the opponents of this amendment have decided that the fate of a small island and the human rights of its inhabitants under foreign military occupation are no longer sufficiently important to merit U.S. concern. I assure you that allowing the seven-ten ratio to lapse will be interpreted throughout the region as an indication that America has grown weary of the Cyprus issue and will no longer maintain its longstanding policy on the subject. I would also like to point out that no Greek Cypriot citizen or Greek would subscribe to the view that Turkey is not a threat to their country, at the very time when thousands of Turkish troops are occupying one-third of Cyprus for the sixteenth consecutive year. My colleagues, it is very appropriate and more importantly it is right to maintain America's symbolic focus on the issue of Turkish occupation of Cyprus by the use of the seven-ten ratio, which is our country's only remaining leverage with Turkey on this issue. The European Parliament in Strasbourg adopted a resolution in May 1988 that explicitly linked future relations between Turkey and the European Community to the withdrawal of Turkish forces on Cyprus. And I feel that it is no less important for the United States Congress to take a stand on this issue. If there has been little progress in settling the Cyprus conflict during the last ten years that the ratio has been in effect, that is more a reflection on Turkey's obstinate refusal to withdraw its troops than on the merit of the aid ratio itself. In fact for years the Cypriot government has taken the position that troops must be withdrawn before they would negotiate a settlement. But in a major act of statesmanship, the new president of Cyprus has agreed to a troop withdrawal within the context of the settlement, and yet we have had no response from the Turkish government. I would like to point out further that the seven-ten ratio does not in any way prevent U.S. assistance to the modernization of Turkish armed forces. In fact $5 billion of U.S. military assistance has been provided to Turkey over the last ten years, to the extent that Turkey is now one of the largest military debtors to the United States, in arrears of about a quarter of a billion dollars to the United States alone. Finally, I understand the wisdom of this committee and more specifically the task force recommendations to eliminate earmarks. I think that that is a principle that we should all support. But I would also note that this year's bill contains substantial earmarking of funds for both countries and programs in every section. They provide ceilings for five countries. For the economic support fund, 75 percent of those funds have been earmarked. For development assistance, 10 percent of those funds have been earmarked. For foreign military sales, 68 percent have been earmarked. And for international organizations, 75 percent of the funds have been earmarked, in addition to which there have been other ceilings placed in this legislation. So obviously earmarking has taken place considerably in this legislation. The fact is that it is probably a little bit less than the earmarkings in the 1987 foreign aid authorization bill. The earmark for Greece and Turkey proposed by the gentleman from Michigan is not the largest nor the most burdensome in this legislation. I believe that it has substantial political and strategic merit to be maintained this year. More importantly I might add, the United States should not be viewed as subjugating the issues of human rights. We should continue to demonstrate a strong regard for the human rights of people in other countries. That is what this country has stood for, and it is a principle on which we should never relent and that we should continue to pursue always. Mr. WOLPE. Would the gentlewoman yield? Ms. SNOWE. Yes, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. WOLPE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to associate myself fully with her remarks and to support the amendment that has been offered by my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Broomfield, and by Mr. Yatron. When the compromise was established following the lifting of the embargo of arms to Turkey, there was nothing magical about the ten to seven ratio, and we understood that at the time. But to change that ratio at this point when the Cyprus issue is unresolved in my judgment would send the worse possible signal. There is, in fact, progress in the negotiations we are told, and I want to see that progress continue to be sustained. To alter the ratio at this point would relax the pressure on that negotiating process. I also happen to think that to do so that it could well have ramifications on the political process within Greece itself and could end up impacting upon all of our negotiations with Greece. I think that it would be very counterproductive, and I certainly hope that this committee will see fit to adopt the amendment offered by Mr. Broomfield. Chairman FASCELL. We have a series of votes on the Floor. There will be three of them. That will take 45 minutes. Mr. Broomfield and I are due at the Rules Committee at 3:30 p.m. on FSX which will be on the Floor next week. I am also informed that the Speaker is addressing the House at 4:00 p.m. We will adjourn today and reconvene tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. The pending business will be the Broomfield-Yatron-Gilman-Snowe-Feighan et al. amendment. [Whereupon, the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 1, 1989.] FOREIGN ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990-91 THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1989 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met in open markup session, at 10:17 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman) presiding. TITLE VIII BROOMFIELD AMENDMENT-EARMARKING/RATIO FOR GREECE AND TURKEY Chairman FASCELL. The committee will come to order. When the committee last met, we had under consideration the Broomfield amendment to Title VIII. And we had on the list of those wishing to speak Mr. Levine and Mr. Feighan. Mr. Levine. Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mostly have some questions that I would like to direct to either to staff or counsel-whoever you suggest-with regard to some interpretations both of what is before us and what was before us the last time. There was a similar amendment that Mr. Broomfield offered that was defeated by a 14 to 14 vote. The first question that I have, Mr. Chairman, and I can direct this to Mr. Broomfield, concerns my understanding that the last vote was on including the seven-ten ratio in statutory language. That statutory language is not part of this amendment if my understanding is correct. We are simply in this legislation earmarking the $500 million and the $350 million. Is that correct and is that change an accurate understanding, Mr. Broomfield? Mr. BROOMFIELD. The only thing that we modify in this particular amendment is the credit terms. Otherwise it is identical to the amendment offered previously. Mr. LEVINE. Well, in the last one you had language that codified the seven-ten ratio. Is that in this language as well? Mr. BROOMFIELD. That was never offered. Mr. LEVINE. That was never offered, okay. So no such language codifying the seven-ten ratio is a part of this amendment? Mr. BROOMFIELD. That is right. Mr. LEVINE. Secondly, were these numbers earmarked in the past? Mr. BROOMFIELD. Yes, they have been. 21-595 0 - 89 - 9 Mr. LEVINE. So essentially what you are proposing here, in terms of the earmark, is consistent with what this Congress has done in the recent past? Mr. BROOMFIELD. That is exactly right. Mr. LEVINE. Now I have one other area. I was concerned about what looks to me like an asymmetry in the language, and I would offer a friendly amendment or suggestion if this could be made symmetrical. The language before me says that $350 million shall be available only for Greece which I take it is traditional earmark language. But then it says not more than $500 million shall be available for Turkey. It looks like a minimum for Greece and a maximum for Turkey. I would respectfully suggest that the language be the same in terms of the earmark, so that $350 million should be available only for Greece and $500 shall be available only for Turkey. Would there be any objection to clarifying that? Mr. BROOMFIELD. Well, Mel, this is the same language that we have had in the past. It was in the appropriations bill for a number of years. It is identical to the provision in the last authorization bill reported by this committee and passed by the House. And yes, I would be opposed to altering it. I think that it is very clear what we are intending to do here. And I would hope that we would have a vote up or down on the language of the amendment. Mr. FEIGHAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. LEVINE. Yes, I would be happy to yield. Mr. FEIGHAN. I sympathize actually with what the gentleman from California is attempting to accomplish, but I am concerned that with the change that he proposes we would be indicating our interest in a seven-ten ratio but not necessarily requiring it. If we said only $500 million it would still allow for a disparity based on other funds that would be available. And in view of the fact that this is the language that was used in prior years. Mr. LEVINE. This is word for word the same language that was used in prior years, is that correct? Mr. BROOMFIELD. Yes. Chairman FASCELL. Mr. Gilman. Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to revisit this amendment at a time when a good number of our members will be available to vote on the measure. I am pleased to support the cosponsors, the distinguished ranking minority member, Mr. Broomfield, Mr. Yatron, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Feighan who have all expressed their comments with regard to it. As our distinguished colleague, Mr. Yatron, so eloquently pointed out, when our task force report was first released, I expressed support for the maintenance of several key earmarks, Israel, Egypt, Greece and Turkey. I did so because I firmly believe that these monetary allotments are so important to regional stability and bilateral diplomatic relations that they should not be altered in any manner. With that in mind, the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East did earmark aid for Israel, Egypt and Jordan. That was done for sound political and sound policy reasons. Just as important, Mr. Chairman, as those earmarks are to the Middle East stability, |