Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Washington is recognized. Mr. BONKER. Mr. Chairman, I don't have much to add to what was discussed yesterday. This amendment was originally introduced by Mr. Gilman and was passed out of this committee by a vote of 9 to 3. I have modified the language somewhat to make it a little more palatable.

Basically, the idea is to require as part of our international training program a course on human rights that would be taught at all levels. As long as we are going to be involved in training future officers for Third World countries, which is the intent of this program, we ought to make them more aware of human rights standards.

Many of these young officers will go on to become military leaders, and perhaps political leaders of their countries. I think it is important that in this era of human rights initiatives we make this a part of the educational program.

I might also add, Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way in the past few years on this issue. For a long time it was just the United States that was concerned with promoting human rights standards around the world. I just returned from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva, where I met with a number of people from Third World countries who were participating in that forum. Almost all of them now are committed to promoting human rights in their respective countries.

The only two countries which seemed to be opposing human rights initiatives at the Commission were Argentina and Russia. In fact, they made a convenient alliance against many of the issues we were promoting. Surprisingly, Iraq was one of the great supporters of the United States on a variety of resolutions before that Commission.

I think this is a laudable step to take. The committee has already passed favorably on it. I think this language is acceptable, and I ask the committee for its adoption.

Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BONKER. I would be glad to.

Mr. LAGOMARSINO. I have some problems with the amendment, but not very many, and I think basically it is a good idea. As a matter of fact, I think, as I said yesterday, and tried to explain to colleagues who I don't think were listening very carefully, that I think one of the basic purposes and results of the IMET training program period is to give people from other countries an understanding by example, which is a lot better than preaching to them about what our country is all about, but I think it is a little bit ironic that we are going to emphasize the human rights thing, and yet we are going to cut off those countries who are friends of ours, who would benefit the most by that kind of training, but I will support the gentleman's amendment and hope that he will change his mind about my amendment.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Would the gentleman from Washington yield? Mr. BONKER. I would be happy to.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Is this compromise that has been worked out just a marriage of your first amendment with the second amendment that you had in abeyance? Is this my understanding?

Mr. BONKER. If you mean by compromise

Chairman ZABLOCKI. As the gentleman knows, I have had some real concern as to involving the Assistant Secretary of State for Human

Rights not only in the preparation of the curriculum, but at one time the gentleman's amendment also had the Assistant Secretary responsible for the administration of the curriculum, and I don't believe that that should be the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights.

Therefore, I wonder if we couldn't have some representative from the State Department.

Mr. DERWINSKI. I was about to ask that.

Mr. BONKER. Let me respond briefly to your inquiry. A compromise has been worked out in the sense that Mr. Bingham had some questions earlier, and I have discussed them with him, and I would like to yield to him for a moment to explain that, but I have not worked out a compromise with the State Department. I think this is a little more palatable than what we had earlier.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. If the gentleman would yield further, as far as the report, 6 months after the date of enactment of this act, with the President on the campaign trail, I wonder how before November he could bring any kind of report to us, that would be meaningful. Mr. BONKER. I didn't know the President was on the campaign trail. I thought he was campaigning out of the White House.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. He will be, if he is not now.

The gentleman from Washington yields to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think this is a workable pair of provisions. I was concerned that simply requiring the establishment of a course left entirely to the DOD to work out would not be very satisfactory. I think we should include the report requirement because that will give us a chance to look at what is being done and will put some pressure behind it.

As far as the President's involvement goes, obviously, this type of matter doesn't require his personal attention. I think it was wise in the original first paragraph to eliminate the requirement that the program be administered in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of State. That would be a substantial burden, and it is not quite clear what that would entail. To have the program established in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of State seems to me a perfectly practical requirement in the law. A normal caution or discretion on the part of the DOD in this area would, I think, call for that, but I see no harm in requiring it in the statute. I think this is a workable provision. Mr. PEASE. Would the gentleman yield?

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The time of the gentleman has expired. Could we hear from the State Department?

Mr. CUTLER. I am Walter Cutler, of the Bureau of Congressional Relations in the State Department.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Mr. Ambassador, proceed, please.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER CUTLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ZAIRE

Mr. CUTLER. I think we are close on this. We are sympathetic to the concept of strengthening wherever possible human rights elements in our IMET training. Our concern, frankly, is one that relates to the

practicality of it, and I would like to say a few words about that. I think it would be unfortunate for the administration to make a commitment here to carry out something it cannot really do, and not be able to come back to the Congress in all good faith and show where it has been implemented a year or two from now.

So, what we want to do is to work out something that is indeed feasible, and I think we are very close, Mr. Chairman. Basically, we accepted the idea. We have no trouble at all with including some element in present IMET training that relates to human rights, and also we regard the report as perfectly feasible. We have some problem with respect to the wording in the first sentence of the amendment with respect to "the curriculum of all programs." Some of these IMET programs are of very short duration. For example, a small military training team that goes to another country, spends a few days or nerhaps a few weeks teaching mechanics and that sort of thing. They really don't have a curriculum. It is a low-level training program of short duration. and a fairly high percentage of the IMET training is of that nature.

What we would suggest for the committee's consideration is a slight modification which I think would make it more feasible for the administration to carry out the intent of this amendment: we would suggest deletion of "the curriculum of all programs" and instead have simply, "effective October 1981, all educational programs funded under this chapter."

Now, that would make the distinction between educational courses and short-duration technical training. If we had that change, Mr. Chairman, I think we could in all good faith implement the intent of the Congress.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Mr. Ambassador, what you are saying is, if there were a U.S. team going abroad to a country to teach, for example, truck maintenance, or if IMET trainees come to this country for the same purpose for a short period, you don't have a human rights curriculum because it is infeasible to do so.

You also do have a curriculum, I understand, for human rights training for longer courses.

Mr. CUTLER. That is correct. It is in the law as it stands and we do have a program, a fairly extensive one, which does include human rights in the training as it exists now. I think that we would want to cooperate to the extent we can in strengthening this human rights element of the training, Mr. Chairman. It is really a practical matter. So instead of a course within a course, if we could have a "component" or perhaps even a "program" within the educational programs, it would help to overcome the difficulty we face. I would repeat, Mr. Chairman, that what we don't want to do is to undertake something that is not feasible. I think with a slight modification we could go ahead and produce the results which the committee, or at least Mr. Bonker, is seeking.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mrs. FENWICK. I am a little puzzled. Could you tell us what you do now in the way of human rights?

Mr. CUTLER. We have a program whereby all military instructors are given a course on human rights training.

Mrs. FENWICK. Wait. The instructors or the students who come from the foreign countries?

Mr. CUTLER. First the State Department works with the Defense Department, with the military instructors.

Mrs. FENWICK. But I am talking about the students. What do they get?

Mr. CUTLER. I can't tell you in exact detail what they get. It varies from program to program, but it does include an exposure to our human rights concepts.

Mrs. FENWICK. In other words, there is nothing now that requires an instructor in one of our IMET programs to give 1 hour a week or 1 hour every 2 weeks to the students who are here studying under IMET, is that correct?

Mr. CUTLER. There is a requirement that human rights be included in the instruction, but it varies from program to program.

Mrs. FENWICK. Well, as I understand it, what you are trying to avoid is the necessity to bring human rights into the work, for instance, where a little group might go out someplace to teach them how to repair automobiles, that that would not be appropriate. Is that your point?

Mr. CUTLER. Not so much that it wouldn't be appropriate, although it might not be depending upon the situation, but more the impracticality of including a human rights course within a brief training course. What we are searching for, Mrs. Fenwick, is a little flexibility in this, and that is what we were trying to achieve in the wording of the amendment.

Mrs. FENWICK. Well, the trouble is that with flexibility, things sometimes get entirely lost. Now it is the law, and yet you tell us it varies from program to program; that you do give your instructors a certain amount of human rights time, so to speak, but there is no requirement that there should be a certain amount in every other program when they stand before the foreigners who come here for IMET. Mrs. CUTLER. A certain amount. I believe that what you say is correct. A given course for a given duration is not required of all programs because it is impractical. But I would note, Mrs. Fenwick, that in this amendment, the President would be required to submit to the Congress a report setting forth specific measures which will be taken to implement the program described in this amendment. I think that would give us time to work out some of these problems because they are practical in nature. And I think we might come out with an overall program that is quite satisfactory.

Mr. PEASE. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mrs. FENWICK. Yes.

Mr. PEASE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

General Graves in testifying before Chairman Bonkers' subcommittee mentioned that the DOD programs "highlight the ways in which our governmental structure, our judicial system and other aspects of U.S. society and institutions reflect the U.S. commitment to the basic principles of internationally recognized human rights."

He goes on to say "the informational program is designed to provide foreign trainees with a balanced understanding of U.S. society, institutions and goals." That sounds to me a little bit as if its a course in history, directed at how the U.S. functions rather than talking

specifically about international articles and documents related to human rights and how they might apply internationally across the board.

Do you have any information at all as to whether there isn't the latter emphasis as well as the former?

Mr. CUTLER. Congressman Pease, you are correct with respect to an approach to human rights which involves exposing trainees who come to this country, to the maximum extent possible, to the civilian side of our life and to as many elements of that life as possible rather than simply giving them a set course with points A, B, C, and so forth.

We feel any trainee who comes here, and is a recipient of this exposure to our way of life, is bound to absorb, if you will, the principles by which we abide.

Mrs. FENWICK. May I? Would the gentleman yield? Osmosis is not enough. I really think I would like to ask you if there is a difference in the name that you give a simple course in motor mechanics, which is brief, given to a certain group, which has nothing really to do with IMET except that that machine may be an Army truck, as compared to the full course that you give those who will become officers or already are officers in their home country.

Is there a difference in the name you give those two courses?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes; I can't give you the precise nomenclature, but there is a significant difference.

Mrs. Fenwick. Obviously there is a difference in content, but do you call one the full course and one the specialized course? Is there a differentiation that you make of that kind?

Mr. CUTLER. I would have to check for you, Mrs. Fenwick.
Mrs. FENWICK. Would you? Here is someone.

Mr. CUTLER. Perhaps I could give you an example. On one hand, there is a series of courses which might involve almost any aspect of military training, number as many as 50, and be of short duration. And then, on the other hand, you have your more formal educational courses at staff college, for example.

Mrs. FENWICK. At what point does that start? In other words, from 1 to 10 of the 50 are simple mechanics, but any course above 10 should contain some of this education, perhaps?

Mr. CUTLER. I am not sure I could answer your question precisely, but the basic difference we would make is between education-longterm, broader education-on the one hand, and very specific technical training on the other. If I could give you an example, Mrs. Fenwick, in my own experience—

Mrs. FENWICK. But we can't write law on this.

Mr. BONKER. Would the gentlelady yield for a moment?

Mrs. FENWICK. Yes.

Mr. BONKER. I think we can clear this up. There are approximately 2,000 courses provided under IMET at about 150 military installations and schools, and they cover training that falls into nine different categories: Flying operations, communications, electronics, maintenance, logistics, administrative career and so forth.

It is not my purpose as the author of this amendment to encumber DOD on all programs that involve training and education of other