19–006 

108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–159 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session Part 2

BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003

JULY 11, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2330] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2330) to sanction the ruling Burmese military junta, to 

strengthen Burma’s democratic forces and support and recognize 

the National League of Democracy as the legitimate representative 

of the Burmese people, and for other purposes, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

The amendment adopted by this committee is identical to the 

text reported by the Committee on International Relations shown 

in their report filed June 17, 2003 (Rept. 108–159, Part 1).

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 2

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 2

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 2

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 2

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 3

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 3

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 6

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 6

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 6

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 6

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 7

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Committee on the Judiciary received a secondary referral of 

H.R. 2330 to consider the immigration provisions in section 6 of the 

2

bill. The purpose of section 6 of H.R. 2330 is to expand the current 

ban prohibiting Burmese leaders from receiving U.S. visas. For the 

purpose and summary of other sections of H.R. 2330, see H. Rept. 

108–159, Part I, filed by the Committee on International Relations, 

which had the primary referral of the bill. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

H.R. 2330 was introduced on June 4, 2003, and referred to the 

Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Financial Services, and the Judiciary, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 

jurisdiction of the committee concerned. The Committee on International Relations reported the bill by voice vote on June 12, 2003, 

and filed its Committee report (H. Rept. 108–159, Part I) on June 

17, 2003. 

The Committees on Ways and Means, Financial Services, and the 

Judiciary were each granted an extension for further consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned ending not later than July 11, 2003. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Burma is ruled by a military junta that seized power by force in 

1988 and currently calls itself the State Peace and Development 

Council (SPDC). Although the National League for Democracy 

(NLD) won the majority of National Assembly seats in a free and 

fair election in 1990, the junta nullified the results and imprisoned 

NLD leaders. The military regime has committed numerous other 

human rights abuses, such as large-scale forced labor and the reported use of rape as a weapon against insurgencies by ethnic minorities. Section 6 of H.R. 2330 would ban current and former leaders of the SPDC from obtaining a U.S. visa or entry into the U.S. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on 

H.R. 2330. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On July 9, 2003, the Committee met in open session and ordered 

favorably reported the bill HR. 2330, with an amendment, by voice 

vote, a quorum being present. The amendment consists of the text 

of the bill as reported by the Committee on International Relations. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there were no 

recorded votes during the committee consideration of H.R. 2330. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activiVerDate Jan 31 2003 05:56 Jul 12, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159P2.XXX HR159P2
3

ties under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because section 6 of this legislation does not 

provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

section 6 of the bill, H.R. 2330, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

JULY 11, 2003. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Annabelle Bartsch. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2330—Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003

Summary: H.R. 2330 would ban all imports from Burma until 

the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the military regime of Burma, has made substantial and measurable progress to 

end violations of human rights, implement a democratic government, and meet its obligations under international counter-narcotics agreements. Under the bill, the President may terminate the 

restrictions upon the request of a democratically elected government in Burma or waive them in the national interest. By reducing 

net imports, and thus reducing federal tax receipts from duties on 

such imports, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2330 would reduce 

federal revenues by $2 million in 2003, by $60 million over the 

2003–2008 period, and by $123 million over the 2003–2013 period, 

net of income and payroll tax offsets. 

The bill also would require the Secretary of Treasury to freeze 

the assets of members of the ruling party of Burma and would require the Secretary of State to deny visas to the same. Based on 

information from those agencies, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 

2330 would not significantly affect federal spending. 

By banning all importers from Burma and freezing certain Burmese funds and assets held by U.S. financial institutions, H.R. 

2330 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Due to the lack of information on the value of lost profits to importers resulting from the ban, 

4

CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate direct cost of the 

mandates would exceed the annual threshold for private-sector 

mandates established in UMRA ($117 million in 2003, adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the first five years the mandates 

would be in effect. 

H.R. 2330 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2330 is shown in the following table. CBO assumes that H.R. 2330 will be enacted by August 1, 2003.

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

CHANGES IN REVENUES 1

Estimated revenues ........ ¥2 ¥11 ¥11 ¥12 ¥12 ¥12 ¥12 ¥12 ¥13 ¥13 ¥13

1 CBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 2330 would have no significant impact on federal spending. 

Basis of estimate 

Revenues 

H.R. 2330 would ban all U.S. imports from Burma until the 

President of the United States has determined that certain conditions outlined in the bill have been met by the SPDC. The President would have the authority to lift or waive the ban imposed by 

H.R. 2330; however, CBO assumes that the President would not exercise this authority before 2013. Based on data from the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on recent U.S. imports from 

Burma, information from several government agencies, and CBO’s 

most recent forecast of total U.S. imports, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2330 would reduce federal revenues by $2 million in 

2003, by $60 million over the 2003–2008 period, and by $123 million over the 2003–2013 period, net of income and payroll tax offsets. 

In recent years, over half of all U.S. imports from Burma have 

been knitted or crocheted clothing and apparel goods. The remaining imports include apparel items not knitted or crocheted, certain 

types of fish and crustaceans, goods made of wood, certain precious 

and semiprecious stones and metals, and woven fabrics and tapestries. In 2001 and 2002, roughly 80 percent of duties collected on 

these imports came from knitted and crocheted articles. 

CBO assumes that a portion of the banned imports would be replaced with imports from other countries, especially in southeast 

Asia, which face similar duty rates, while the remaining portion 

would be displaced by duty-free goods or not replaced at all. Substitution of apparel imports would be partially limited because of existing quotas on imports from other countries. These quotas on 

countries in the World Trade Organization are set to expire at the 

end of 2004. CBO assumes, even if H.R. 2330 is not enacted, that 

Burma’s share of U.S. imports would decrease significantly after 

that date. 

CBO estimates that over the 2003–2013 period, enacting H.R. 

2330 would decrease the dutiable value of U.S. imports by about 

$1 billion. Assuming an average duty rate of about 16 percent, the 

United States would forgo about $160 million in customs duties 

5

over the period. This gross revenue loss would be partially offset 

by higher revenues from income and payroll taxes. 

The President could remove the ban on imports upon the request 

of a democratically elected government in Burma or he could waive 

them if he determines and notifies Congress that to do so is in the 

national interest. Should the ban be lifted, U.S. companies would 

be allowed to resume importation of goods produced, manufactured, 

grown, or assembled in Burma. It is unclear whether or when the 

President would exercise the authority to lift or waive the ban on 

imports from Burma. If such an action were taken during the 

2003–2013 period, then the impact on federal revenues would be 

reduced accordingly. 

Federal spending 

The bill also would require the Secretary of Treasury to freeze 

the assets of members of the ruling party of Burma and would require the Secretary of State to deny visas to the same. Based on 

information from those two agencies, CBO estimates implementing 

H.R. 2330 would not significantly affect spending by those departments. 

The United States provides some assistance to the people of Burma, about $7 million a year in grants to nongovernmental organizations to support HIV/AIDS prevention and democracy programs 

in Burma. The bill would not affect those programs. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: By banning all Burmese 

imports and freezing certain Burmese assets held by U.S. financial 

institutions, H.R. 2330 would impose private-sector mandates as 

defined in UMRA; however, CBO cannot determine the aggregate 

direct cost of the mandates. 

Specifically, the bill would ban all imports from Burma. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission estimates the value of U.S. imports from Burma in 2002 at approximately $360 million. CBO expects that importers would substitute goods from other countries, 

mostly within the region, to compensate for a portion of the trade 

loss with Burma. For the portion of trade loss that is not made up 

through substitution, importers would bear a cost of lost profits. 

Due to a lack of information on the value of lost profits, CBO cannot determine the cost of the mandate. 

In addition, H.R. 2330 would direct the Treasury Department to 

freeze the assets of the Burmese regime held by U.S. financial institutions after the institutions report such holdings to the Office 

of Foreign Assets Control. Based on information from government 

sources indicating that an insignificant amount of assets would be 

affected, if any at all, CBO expects U.S. financial institutions would 

incur minimal costs as a result of the mandate. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

2330 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Previous CBO estimate: On June 19, 2003, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy 

Act of 2003, as reported by the House Committee on International 

Relations on June 17, 2003. The two versions of the bill are identical, as are the two cost estimates. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal revenues: Annabelle Bartsch; Federal costs: Joseph C. Whitehill; impact on state, local, and tribal 

6

governments: Melissa Merrell; impact on the private sector: Paine 

Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: G. Thomas Woodward, Assistant Director 

for Tax Analysis; Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget 

Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Section 6 of H.R. 2330 does not authorize funding. Therefore, 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for section 6 

of this legislation in article I, section 8, of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following section-by-section analysis addresses section 6 of 

the bill on which the Committee on the Judiciary received its referral. 

Sec. 6. Expansion of visa ban 

Section 6(a) authorizes the President to deny visas and entry to 

the former and present leadership of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) or the Union Solidarity Development Association (USDA), the political arm of the SPDC. The President currently has such authority to deny entry to Burma’s regime leaders 

under an October 3, 1996, Presidential proclamation signed by 

President Clinton. That proclamation, as authorized by section 

212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is still in effect and 

is currently being implemented by the Secretary of State pursuant 

to the proclamation. Neither the proclamation nor the Secretary of 

State’s implementation of the proclamation would be undermined 

by section 6(a) of H.R. 2330. Rather section 6(a) would codify that 

proclamation’s policy to ensure that visas for such political leaders 

continue to be barred. 

Section 6(a) also requires the Secretary of State to coordinate on 

a biannual basis with European Union representatives to ensure 

coordination of lists of individuals banned from obtaining a European Union visa because of SPDC or USDA leadership and those 

banned from receiving a U.S. visa for the same reason. Section 6(b) 

requires the Secretary of State to post on the State Department’s 

web site the names of individuals whose entry into the U.S. is 

banned.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

The bill was referred to this committee for consideration of such 

provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction 

of this committee pursuant to clause 1(k) of rule X of the rules of 

the House of Representatives. The changes made to existing law by 

the amendment reported by the Committee on International Relations are shown in the report filed by that committee (H. Rept. 

108–159, Part 1). In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the 

7

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee notes section 

6 of H.R. 2330 makes no changes to existing law. 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the 

bill H.R. 2330, the Burmese and Freedom and Democracy Act of 

2003 for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without the objection, the bill will be considered 

as read, considered as the original text for purposes of amendment 

and open for amendment at any point. 

[H.R. 2330 follows:]

8


Insert graphic folio 15 HR159P2.001
9


Insert graphic folio 16 HR159P2.002
10


Insert graphic folio 17 HR159P2.003
11


Insert graphic folio 18 HR159P2.004
12


Insert graphic folio 19 HR159P2.005
13


Insert graphic folio 20 HR159P2.006
14


Insert graphic folio 21 HR159P2.007
15


Insert graphic folio 22 HR159P2.008
16


Insert graphic folio 23 HR159P2.009
17


Insert graphic folio 24 HR159P2.010
18


Insert graphic folio 25 HR159P2.011
19


Insert graphic folio 26 HR159P2.012
20


Insert graphic folio 27 HR159P2.013
21

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair notes that this bill was 

referred to this committee because of its jurisdiction over immigration provisions at Section 6, and amendments should be limited to 

that section. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Hostettler, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration for 

a brief 5 minutes to explain Section 6, and would ask members to 

be brief because I would like to get this bill out of here while a reporting quorum is present and before we vote. Gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 

2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act is a bipartisan bill 

with the purpose of sanctioning the ruling Burmese military junta 

in recognizing the National League of Democracy as the legitimate 

representative of the Burmese people. This committee has jurisdiction over Section 6 of the bill, as the Chairman stated. 

Section 6 or H.R. 2330 authorizes the President to deny visas 

and entry to the former and present leadership of the State Peace 

and Development Council, or SPDC, formerly known as the State 

Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC, or its political arm, 

the Union Solidarity Development Association, otherwise known as 

USDA. It requires the Secretary of State to coordinate on a biannual basis with European Union representatives to ensure a coordination of lists of individuals banned from obtaining a European 

visa because of SPDC or USDA leadership, and those banned from 

receiving a U.S. visa for the same reason. 

Finally, Section 6 requires the Secretary of State to post on the 

state Department’s website the names of individuals whose entry 

into the U.S. is banned. For decades Burma has been ruled by a 

highly authoritarian repressive military regime that has operated 

through the use of arrests detention and intimidation of political 

opponents. The junta has continued to prevent the parliament 

elected in 1990 from convening. Leaders and former leaders of such 

a regime should not be permitted to enter the United States. 

I ask committee members to support this section of the bill and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentlelady. 

Mr. LOFGREN. For a question. I mean I don’t object to what we’re 

trying to accomplish here—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Should I move to strike the last word? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s reorganized. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I do think, however, that this section is superfluous because the President already has the authority to deny 

visas through his Secretary of State. He doesn’t need additional authority to do that, whereas, you know, it doesn’t look like we’re requiring—perhaps we are requiring the publication of the bad guys’

names on the Secretary’s website——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. But they have the ability to do that 

without a law. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentlewoman yield? I 

agree with what the gentlewoman has said. However, this bill was 

referred to us on a sequential that expires on Friday. I don’t see 

why this Section 6 needs to have any amendments. I don’t see why 

22

it was put in there originally by the Committee on International 

Relations, but because they did put it in there and because visas 

are under our jurisdiction, we have the sequential, and I would just 

suggest that we report this bill out and file a committee report and 

we’ve done our duty. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, I’m not going to vote against 

this, but I do think it would be important in the committee report 

to note that the authority provided to the President and Secretary 

of State under Section 6 exists without this bill. I don’t want to undercut the authority of the President and the Secretary of State to 

make these judgments by presuming or setting a precedent that we 

would need to pass a law, and I would make that recommendation. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman will yield further, the Chair will direct the staff to put that disclaimer within 

the committee report, that we will file in a timely manner. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, opening statements of other members will be included in the record at this point. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN STEVE KING

Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner. Ask anyone what the 

foundation of democracy is and they will tell you the freedom to 

elect your leaders. The people of Burma held elections in 1990 to 

remove The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), however, SPDC refused to transfer power to the National League for 

Democracy (NLD) forcing the people of Burma to live under 13 

more years of a corrupt and oppressive regime. 

The United States should not reward the illegitimate government 

of Burma any longer. We must do all we can to ensure that the 

elected National League for Democracy takes control of Burma to 

ensure that the human rights of the Burmese people are once again 

restored. 

I urge you to vote for this bill. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman. I know the Chairman wants to move 

this bill quickly, and I’m not trying to delay the movement of it. 

I actually want to just call to the attention of the Chairman a provision that really is not under the jurisdiction of our committee, 

but in hopes that the Chairman will advise the committee that has 

jurisdiction over this, that there are some substantial adverse impacts on North Carolina, and I’m sure Mr. Coble will join me in 

this. 

In Section 3 of the bill, talking about items that are grown in 

Burma, 80 percent of the world’s teak is grown in Burma. It is an 

import that the furniture industry in North Carolina finds imperative, and the furniture industry in North Carolina is now in the 

process of, seems to be in the process of following the same downVerDate Jan 31 2003 05:56 Jul 12, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159P2.XXX HR159P2
23

hill slide that the textile and apparel industry in North Carolina 

followed over the last 10 to 20 years, which is to say if you look 

at the amount of furniture purchased in this country that was produced elsewhere in the world. It has grown from under 10 percent 

in 1990 to over 45 percent in 2002, and because North Carolina is 

the—was the furniture manufacturing capital of the world, that 

has had a substantial impact on our economy and on employment 

in North Carolina, and plants are closing. If we take away the ability of furniture manufacturers in North Carolina to use the teak 

wood that is grown in Burma and can’t be really grown effectively 

anywhere else, we are going to have an added devastating impact. 

So I just hope the Chairman will—and this could really be addressed by changing one word in the bill. That word happens not 

to be under our jurisdiction and we can’t do anything about it here, 

but I hope the Chairman will help me and Mr. Coble deliver that 

message to whoever the leadership is so that they might consider 

the impact on—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, I agree 

with the gentleman’s concern, and I certainly would be supportive 

of such an amendment on the floor and also in the Rules Committee in making that amendment an order. 

Mr. WATT. I thank the Chairman and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments to Section 6 

of the bill? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, and I did not hear the complete statement of the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, but I was looking at a provision in the legislation that deals with the listing of those that the 

European Union would deny visas to, and it seems that this language is asking to coordinate with the State Department a list of 

names as well, requires the Secretary of State to post on the State 

Department’s website the names of individuals whose entry into 

the United States is banned. 

I’m trying to determine is there going to be oversight on this list? 

Is this list then to be transferred to the Homeland Security? What 

is the basis of them being banned? What is the ultimate results of 

this gathering of this information? I’m not sure if Mr. Hostettler 

knows about this provision in particular dealing with the visas? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. If the gentlelady will yield? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’ll be happy to yield. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. This is, my understanding, an unprecedented 

but necessary requirement that this part individuals who have 

been a part of this regime be known in a more public fashion as 

to being denied entry into the United States. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So this is just a listing procedure at this time? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I thank the—reclaiming my time, one of 

the issues that comes up when you begin to establish lists, and certainly I believe that there is great question with the leadership in 

Burma and great concern, is the oversight on the list, who’s on the 

list, who’s not on the list, and the utilization of this list in coordiVerDate Jan 31 2003 05:56 Jul 12, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159P2.XXX HR159P2
24

nation with the European Union, not knowing the basis upon 

which they list these individuals, whether they are listing only government officials, whether they are listing activists, whether 

they’re listing academicians. And so I would raise a question about 

this provision and would want to look further on it, and may ultimately have an amendment on this particular point. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. There are no amendments. A reporting quorum is present. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill, H.R. 2330 favorably. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes have it. The motion to report favorably is agreed to. 

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. And all 

members will be given two days as provided by House rules in 

which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental or minority 

views.

Æ