Similar incredible statements were directed at the late Marshall Tito a month earlier during a White House visit.

This double standard (or at times lack of a standard at all) is exemplified in the exhibit attached to my statement indicating some of our country's votes in the IFI's on development loans.

At page 155 of the House Appropriations Subcommittee's report on the multilateral banks, the following statement fully describes the erratic application of human rights policy by the previous administration:

“In addition to not maintaining any human rights violator listing, neither the Department of State nor the Christopher Group has developed a standard of human rights behavior and there are no guidelines for gauging acceptable human rights conditions. Further, there is no criteria by which can be judged the extent a project meets basic human needs so as to outweigh the unacceptable human rights record of a country."

Should political considerations enter into our human rights policies? Well, they always have and this ought to embarrass our sermonizers, who preach in Spanish or Portuguese but not in Arabic!

Does anyone contend that treatment of women, or even of criminals, in Saudi Arabia measures up to the lofty standards so stridently advocated by the previous Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights?

It has been accurately stated that when America develops a car that runs on bananas and not gasoline, we will crack down hard on human rights in the OPEC countries and be far more tolerant of abuses in Central and South America.

And as we mount the pulpit to lecture our hemispheric allies, let us remember that we have tolerated for years human rights abuses in our own country. I don't think we will ever correct the physical degredation and, yes, torture that goes on routinely in our Nation's prisons until we face up to what is going on and get enough people to care.

The Chicago Tribune last Sunday carried the story of a Joliet, Ill., State prisoner who hung himself in his cell because of repeated sexual assaults on him by other prisoners. He left a note saying the Disiples street gang had the key to his cell and this was known and tolerated by the guards. The prison assault records are there for anyone to study who gives a damn. This is nothing new, but it ought to at least give some pause as we lecture our selected targets.

Human rights are of vital importance. They are to be protected and enhanced wherever we, as a nation, can do so. Sometimes we must shout our outrage at their violation, and sometimes, through example and quiet diplomacy we can accomplish a great deal. We need a State Department that understands this and can implement this policy. I am convinced Dr. Lefever is well qualified to do just that.

Note: During 1980, no loans were considered for Vietnam. Cambodia (Kampuchea). The United States opposed 2 loans to Yemen (PDR) during 1980.

Note: During 1980. no loans were considered for Vietnam, Cambodia (Kampuchea). The United States opposed 2 loans to Yemen (Peoples' Democratic Republic) during 1980.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congressman Hyde, very much.
Congressman Bonker?

STATEMENT OF HON. DON BONKER. A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM WASHINGTON

Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to appear before your committee today on such an important matter.

I do so with great reluctance because as many have expressed, I feel that the President should have an opportunity to appoint persons of his preference to occupy these important positions. Dr. Lefever does have a distinguished career in Christian ethics and certainly

deserves an opportunity to be considered for a high level cabinet position.

But I am concerned about the orientation of our human rights policy under his leadership, and with that concern I appear this morning. Mr. Chairman, I am chairman of a subcommittee on the House side that is the only one with specific jurisdiction over human rights issues, and over the past few years we have attempted to take a broad and objective approach to the implementation of our human rights policy. Thus, we have had hearings on and have passed resolutions on the Baltic States, on dissidents in the U.S.S.R., on Eastern Europe, on Communist countries in Asia as well as Latin America and South Africa.

The subcommittee has also taken a functional approach. Last year we conducted hearings on the problem of disappearances and highlighted not only the phenomenon that exists in Argentina, but also the oldest example, Raul Wallenberg of Sweden. This year we will be conducting hearings on the human rights violation of religion, the free practice of religion.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is a real misperception about our past human rights policy, and that misperception is that the former administration, through its public enunciations, had in effect originated our human rights policy. The fact is that it was the Congress, your committee and our committee, and in fact the full support, bipartisan support of both Houses that has really laid the groundwork for our human rights policy today. It was the Congress that established the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, and it was the Congress that required the State Department, through that Office, to submit to both the Senate and the House reports, annual reports on human rights conditions in all the countries of the world.

It was the Congress, with bipartisan support, that has acted to cut off bilateral assistance to various countries that have engaged in a gross and consistent pattern of human rights violations. One can scan the record over the past few years and see that we have either reduced or terminated military or economic assistance to such countries as Argentina and Chile and South Africa.

Congress has also taken action on Cuba, Uganda, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Zaire.

This Congress, over the course of the past two sessions, has developed not only a solid foundation for our human rights policy, but a fairly consistent and objective application of our human rights policies. Furthermore, it was the Congress through efforts of Congressman Harkin and others that instructed our representatives to various lending institutions to consider human rights conditions before we voted on loans or grants to recipient countries.

My concern is that whoever occupies this position will faithfully apply both the letter and the spirit of U.S. law. To do less is to not only ignore a bipartisan mandate of this Congress, but I think it is to distort the very issue of human rights itself.

My second concern is the Assistant Secretary's role with respect to our participation in various human rights forums. We are a major participant not only in the Helsinki Accords, which is ongoing as

you know, Mr. Chairman, but also the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

I have had the opportunity to attend the past two sessions of that Commission, and it is with sadness that I must report to this committee that our delegation this year was less than enthusiastic in supporting our human rights policy. In fact, upon consultation with European delegates who have shared our commitment in recent years, they were somewhat dismayed and disappointed, not only with our lack of commitment, but the sense of actual reversal of our previous position on important human rights measures.

It was the U.S. delegation at the 36th session, mostly following actions by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that set up the working group to investigate the problem of disappearances. One of the major issues before the U.N. Commission this year was the renewal of the working group to continue its investigation of the problem of disappearances.

In the past the United States had been an enthusiastic supporter. This year it lacked not only the enthusiasm, but there seemed to be confusion as to what our instructions were. It seemed that not only had the U.S. backed off its support for the working group to continue its investigations, but the instructions were to actually side with Argentina, which everyone knew is the primary villain in this problem of disappearances.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that whoever occupies this position would be queried as to his participation, and his leadership concerning these various issues at international forums.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is extremely important that we try to maintain some objectivity with respect to our human rights policy. We have heard comments this morning, as I am sure you are going to throughout the day, about the human rights policy having a double standard, of not working in some instances, maybe representing a slap in the face of our friends in various countries. And you will hear arguments on the other side. But the fact of the matter is that our human rights policy is compatible with America's tradition, with our heritage, with our civil liberties, with a sense of dignity that all human beings should enjoy.

Now, I know these are laudatory statements and everybody can agree with that. But if the human rights policy is to have any integ rity, if it is going to have any meaning, then it has to be applied evenhandedly and objectively. If we don't do that, then I am afraid that the human rights policy will be a dismal failure, regardless of how we attempt to apply it and to what countries.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the nominee for this position appeared before my subcommittee on the subject of human rights and U.S. policies. This was on July 12, 1979. Mr. Lefever testified before the subcommittee that:

The United States should remove from the statute books all clauses that establish a human rights standard or condition that must be met by another sovereign government before our Government transacts business with it.

Now, in the colloquy that followed-and this is from the committee report, and I am certain that your staff has a copy of it-on page 291. Mr. Lefever said, and I quote:

And I have made the radical recommendation that we remove this from the statute books.

I said, "Remove what from the statute books?"

Mr. LEFEVER. "Remove the human rights condition from the statute books." Mr. BONKER. "All that is, is a report. Congress has asked the administration to bear with a report that would give us an idea of human rights conditions in recipient countries. You want to remove that from the statutes?"

Mr. LEFEVER. "What I want to remove is what already is in the Foreign Aid Act which says that aid shall be given in order to further human rights in other countries. I quoted it in my earlier testimony.”

Mr. Chairman, this report that both committees receive each year becomes the basis of information upon which we must make important foreign policy decisions. If that report isn't accurate and current and objective, then it is meaningless for us.

Now, I have discussed this with Mr. Lefever on a previous occasion, and I accept his statement that he would want to strike his comments before my committee on this particular matter. But I think it is extremely important that whoever occupies this position-and I hope that your committee will query Mr. Lefever if he has another opportunity to testify-to make sure that this report is made consistent with the request of Congress that we have information on which we can make our decisions. The report should not be turned over to a private foundation like Amnesty International or Freedom. House, nor should it be prepared and discussed in secret. For our committee, it has been probably the most valuable document we use throughout the year in considering our foreign policy statutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here. [Congressman Bonker's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DON BONKER

I appear today in opposition to the nomination of Ernest Lefever as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. I do this with some hesitation since every President should have the right to appoint the individuals he wants to serve in his administration. But, after much study, and, as the Chairman of the only subcommittee of the House that has oversight jurisdiction for human rights, I must respectfully ask the Senate to reject Mr. Lefever's nomination.

I make my request based on several factors.

First, the person who is to occupy the Office of Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs must not only be the guardian of the laws, but must also be an advocate for making sure that the intent of the laws are fulfilled. During the past seven years, the Congress very explicitly made military and economic assistance subject to human rights performance. To assist itself, the Congress has required the preparation of annual human rights reports on recipients of aid and on all other nations. This underlines the historical concern of the Congress and the American people for basic, universal human rights as defined in international human rights agreements.

On July 12, 1979, Mr. Lefever testified before my subcommittee that the "United States should remove from the statute books all clauses that establish a human rights standard or condition that must be met by another sovereign government before our government transacts business with it. . . ." Although Mr. Lefever now states that he regrets making that statement, we must ask ourselves what kind of an advocate he will make once confirmed. What are we to believe are his real beliefs?

It should be recognized that Congress, not any specific administration, originally insisted on making human rights standards an element of U.S. foreign policy. It was also due to Congressional initiatives that human rights provisions were passed into law. It is now up to the Congress to protect the implementation of these laws.

Second, the person who occupies the Office of Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs must possess a unique sensitivity and understanding of the human rights laws. By taking the lead on human rights, Congress felt that the American people wished to affirm their commitment to human rights, their desire to help improve the condition of human rights around the