U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–826 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

H. CON. RES. 251, H.R. 4118, AND H.R. 4249

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 4, 2000

Serial No. 106–161

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel

JILL N. QUINN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Markup of H. Con. Res. 251, a resolution commending the Republic of Croatia

for the conduct of its parliamentary and presidential elections ....................... 1

Markup of H.R. 4118, The Russian-American Trust and Cooperation Act

of 2000. A bill to prohibit the rescheduling or forgiveness of any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the United States by the Government

of the Russian Federation until the President certifies to the Congress ........ 5

Markup of H.R. 4249, The Cross-Border Cooperation and Environmental Safety in Northern Europe Act of 2000. A bill to foster cross-border cooperation

and environmental cleanup in Northern Europe .............................................. 27

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the

State of New York and Chairman, Committee on International Relations,

statements on H. Con. Res. 251, H.R. 4118, and H.R. 4249....................... 32, 34, 40

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Florida, statement on H.R. 4118 .......................................................... 43

Bills and amendments:

Text of H. Con. Res. 251 ......................................................................................... 46

Amendment to H. Con. Res. 251 offered by Mr. Radanovich ....................... 49

Text of H.R. 4118 ..................................................................................................... 50

Amendment to H.R. 4118 offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (withdrawn) .......... 56

Amendment to H.R. 4118 offered by Mr. Gejdenson (withdrawn) ............... 58

Amendment to H.R. 4118 offered by Mr. Gejdenson (adopted) .................... 59

Text of H.R. 4249 ..................................................................................................... 61

Amendment (en bloc) to H.R. 4249 offered by Mr. Gejdenson (approved) ... 72

Vote tally on motion to adjourn .............................................................................. 74

(1)

H. CON. RES. 251, H.R. 4118, AND H.R. 4249

MAY 4, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m. in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee on International Relations

meets today in open session to consider three items of business.

In the interest of time, I will save my opening remarks for the

specific items, but will extend an opportunity to our colleague, the

gentleman from Connecticut, to make any remarks he might desire

at this time. Mr. Gejdenson, do you have an opening statement?

Mr. GEJDENSON. No.

Chairman GILMAN. The first matter to be considered is H. Con.

Res. 251 relating to Croatia. The resolution is before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 251

Ms. RUSH. House Concurrent Resolution 251, a concurrent resolution commending the Republic of Croatia for the conduct of its

parliamentary and Presidential elections.

Mr. GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble operative language

resolution be read in that order for amendment the clerk will read.

Ms. RUSH. Whereas, the fourth Croatian parliamentary elections

held on January 3, 2000, marked Croatia’s progress toward meeting its commitment——

Mr. GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution will be deemed as

having been read and is open to amendment at any point. The resolution is under the jurisdiction of the full Committee, and I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich, who sponsored the resolution, to introduce the resolution to us.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

bringing this bill to markup.

I also want to offer an amendment to my own bill at this time,

which is actually perfecting language. This language takes into

consideration some minor concerns the Chairman had expressed,

and I believe the resolution is stronger for it. I will proceed to explain this bill, including this perfecting language.

On February 15 of this year, I introduced H. Con. Res. 251 commending the Republic of Croatia for the successful conduct of its

parliamentary and Presidential elections. The free and fair elections in Croatia and the peaceful and orderly transfer of power

2

from the old to the new government is an example of democracy

to the people of other nations in the region and a major contribution to the democratic development of southeastern Europe.

President Mesic has pledged to bring this country into the European Union in 5 years, and even if this is an ambitious goal he is

to be commended. President Mesic has promised, and has in fact

undertaken some concrete steps, to end interference in Bosnia, to

welcome returning Serb refugees, and to cooperate with the International Court in pursuing alleged Croat war criminals. He has

also promised further privatization and media reform.

Although President Mesic and his new government face many

difficulties, I am very optimistic that Croatia is on a new path, and

I am hopeful that we will do our utmost to encourage them on this

correct path.

My resolution also calls for United States support and facilitation

of Croatia’s goals for membership in the NATO’s Partnership for

Peace program and its accession into the World Trade Organization. I firmly believe that by supporting Croatia’s membership in

the PFP and its accession to WTO we will not only be making a

sound investment in the future and in the stability of southeast

Europe, but we will also be sending a clear message to other countries in the region of the benefits that come from choosing a democratic path.

Croatia was a tremendous ally to us last year during the Kosovo

conflict, and as far as I am concerned they have more than demonstrated their loyalty to the United States. In my opinion, their

membership in the Partnership for Peace program has already

been earned and is long overdue. There is no question that we need

a trustworthy ally in southeast Europe where we have spent an exorbitant amount of money and time.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for bringing this important resolution before the Committee today, and I urge my colleagues to

vote favorably. Thank you, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich, we welcome you to offer

your amendment at this time.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. I offer the amendment as a perfecting amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Radanovich. Page 2, line

10, after privatization reform insert——

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read. Mr. Radanovich is recognized for introduction of his amendment.

Mr. RADANOVICH. This is basically perfecting language, Mr.

Chairman, and I believe it takes into account the minor concerns

that you had expressed, and I believe the resolution is stronger for

it.

Chairman GILMAN. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor

of the amendment signify in the usual manner.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is carried.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

3

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to take

this time to commend the gentleman for his amendment and the

initial legislation that he offered here. I think it is appropriate. We

are all very enthused about the change in direction in Croatia.

I would just mention that the last meeting of the Standing Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, we, seeing the

change in course in Croatia, have taken similar steps now to bring

Croatia into associate member status, so this is certainly entirely

consistent with it, and I thank the gentleman for his initiative.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Are any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me join my colleagues

in expressing support for this resolution. Mr. Radanovich has taken

the lead and done so in an area where in the former Yugoslavian

Republic we are often here to review failures and continued frustration in a sense that we are not making progress sometimes,

even though we may be involved in a righteous and worthy cause.

When you take a look at the participation in the election, when

you look at the commitments made by the candidates, it really is

clear that we have an important step forward here in the Balkans.

It is an indication that the flexibility that the Administration has

had is productive at times, and clearly what we want to do is work

with the Administration to try to develop the same kind of success

elsewhere in the former Yugoslavian Republic, so I commend the

gentleman for his efforts and hope that we would continue to work

to try to bring a democratic institution, civil society and economic

reform to the other areas that were once part of Yugoslavia.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Are any other Members seeking recognition? If not, I would like

to note that the resolution as amended by its sponsor, Mr. Radanovich, is timely and appropriate, and I commend the gentleman for

introducing this measure.

People of Croatia has suffered through several years of warfare

and destruction, ethnic strife, economic stagnation. As the resolution points out, the elections held recently for the Croatian parliament and presidency were indeed conducted in a free, fair and

democratic manner by all accounts that we have received.

Just as important, however, is the fact that those elections

brought to power a government that appears intent on moving Croatia forward in all respects. Accordingly, we agree that it would be

worthwhile for us to show our support for that new government in

the form of this resolution.

The new Croatian government will face challenges in opening up

its economy and in finding ways to insure that its support for ethnic Croats in leaving Bosnia does not lead Croatia to undermine

the sovereignty of that state. It will face serious challenges in other

areas as well.

The amended resolution, if approved by our Committee, will

make it clear that success in meeting these challenges should be

met by American and European support for Croatia’s full entry into

the European and transatlantic community of nations, including

entry into NATO’s Partnership for Peace program.

Now is the time for Croatia to build its new democratic future,

and I think the resolution points to that fact. I congratulate and

4

it does congratulate the Croatian people for so clearly choosing the

path of democracy in its recent elections.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Judge Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to know the Administration’s position with reference to this matter, if it is at all possible.

Chairman GILMAN. Will a member of the Administration come up

to the mike and identify yourself?

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUESS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today. My name is

Michael——

Chairman GILMAN. Would you press your button?

Mr. GUESS. Let me try this again.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. GUESS. My name is Michael Guess. I am Deputy Assistant

Secretary for the Bureau of Legislative Affairs in the State Department. Thank you again for the opportunity to come today before

you.

Chairman GILMAN. Please proceed.

Mr. GUESS. Mr. Chairman, we very strongly support this resolution. We very much appreciate Congressman Radanovich’s interest

in Croatia. We also very much appreciate the support of both the

Majority and the Minority in our partnership in trying to insure

that Croatia continues to proceed along the democratic path and toward greater economic reform.

We agree entirely with the sentiments that this resolution expresses, including regarding the progress that has been made by

the new democratic and reform minded government of Croatia. We

fully support Croatia’s membership in the World Trade Organization. We are working to help develop a NATO consensus in support

of Croatia’s membership in the Partnership of Peace, and we hope

that that effort will bear fruit in the coming months.

We also agree very strongly that Croatia should continue and increase its work on refugee return, economic reform, media reform

and cooperation with the international tribunal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Judge Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Member seeking recognition? If

not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized now

for a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended

on a suspension counter.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now the motion. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, as being here. All those in

favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. All those opposed signify by saying no.

[No response.]

5

Chairman GILMAN. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

We will now consider H.R. 4118 relative to the Lourdes facility

in Cuba and refinancing Russian debt. The Chair lies a bill before

the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4118

Ms. RUSH. H.R. 4118, a bill to prohibit the rescheduling or forgiveness of any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the United

States by the government of the Russian Federation until the

President certifies to the Congress that the government of the Russian Federation has ceased all its operations at, removed all personnel from and permanently closed the intelligence facility at

Lourdes, Cuba.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representative of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1, Short Title. This act may be cited——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open for amendment of any part. The bill

is under the jurisdiction of the full Committee.

I now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen,

the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on International

Economic Policy and Trade, for 5 minutes to introduce her bill.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

While many of our Committee colleagues are already cosponsors

of this legislation and are knowledgeable on its purpose, I would

like to offer a brief overview about what the bill does.

The threat posed by Russia’s facility at Lourdes is not new. The

Freedom Support Act of 1992 clearly underscored the dangers to

United States national security as it required the United States

Government to reduce certain foreign assistance to Russia proportional to the amount that the Russian government provides to

Lourdes.

Ensuing legislation reiterated this position. However, due at first

to concerns about the new Russian democracy and market economy

and later due to considerations relating to United States/Russian

relations, this requirement has never been enforced. Eight years of

talks, 8 years of providing the Russian Federation with billions of

dollars in United States aid of one sort or another, 8 years of rescheduling the Russian debt at different intervals, and Lourdes remains a serious problem.

On May 5, 1998, in unclassified letters to Members of this Committee, Secretary of Defense Cohen stated, ‘‘I remain concerned

with the signals intelligence facility at Lourdes,’’ and, ‘‘the use of

Cuba as a base for intelligence activities directed against the

United States.’’ In fact, evidence suggests that there has been an

increase, not a reduction, of the threat posed by the Lourdes facility.

Coinciding with the February 7, 1996, order by then Russian

President Yeltsin demanding that the Russian intelligence community increase its gathering of United States and other western economic and trade secrets, multiple open sources confirmed that the

6

Russian Federation began a multi-billion dollar upgrade and expansion of the Lourdes facility, which included, according to open

sources and public statements by former United States officials, by

Russian and Cuban defectors, the addition of satellite dishes, voice

recognition facilities, more sophisticated computers for intercepting

specific telephone numbers, faxes and computer data and the

means by which to engage in cyber warfare against the United

States.

In fact, some believe that the ongoing sophisticated and organized cyber attacks the Pentagon military computer systems were

subjected to in early 1999 came from a country routing through

Russian computer addresses. These attacks have been occurring

since 1998 and are believed to stem from the Lourdes facility.

Other public sources and reports refer to the jamming of U.S. FAA

transmissions as an example of how Lourdes has used cyber warfare, which directly threatens the lives of Americans.

On November 5, 1998, a Moscow publication reported that the

Lourdes espionage facility provides between 60 and 70 percent of

all intelligence data about the United States, including highly sensitive military information about our armed forces. Such a penetration of closely guarded American military planning jeopardizes the

lives of thousands of our men and women in uniform.

Some may dismiss the latter contention on the assumption that

Russia, as an ally, would not compromise United States security in

that fashion. However, I ask them to look at Russia’s recent actions

against Kosovo, Iraq, its reported arms transfers to China and

Iran, its multiple penetration of the State Department.

I would further underscore the detailed information provided by

Russian defectors and former Cuban intelligence officers confirming

that the Russian Federation shares the data on the United States

derived from Lourdes with the Castro regime and shares or sells

the information to North Korea, to Iraq, to China and Iran, as well

as individual groups which are hostile to the United States.

The use of Lourdes, however, according to academic studies and

news reports, is not limited to secret U.S. military operations. Its

targets include the interception of sensitive diplomatic, commercial

and economic traffic and private U.S. telecommunications.

Informed public sources state that economic traffic intercepted

includes Federal Reserve deliberations, planned U.S. mergers and

acquisitions, competitive bidding processes, data which could be

used to bankroll Russian global operations to the detriment of

American equity.

The disdain for U.S. security extends into the private realm as

revealed by the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in August, 1996, who stated that Lourdes is being used to collect personal information about U.S. citizens in the private and government sectors. This means that one of our constituents could be a

target, yet what are we doing to protect them?

By asking the American people to look the other way on the $1.9

billion in outstanding loan guarantees under the Commodity Credit

Corporation of USDA; by asking our constituents to forgive or reschedule the $602 million in unleased debt to the United States;

by asking the United States taxpayer, who already contributes

greatly to Russia’s growth and development through foreign aid

7

programs; to disregard the $2.17 billion in outstanding X/M bank

loans and guarantees, the $11.3 billion in insurance and the——

Chairman GILMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Please

wind up your statement.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The $22.9 million of claims in recovery, we are asking the American taxpayer to absorb the cost of Russia’s espionage activity. Essentially we are asking them to indirectly subsidize Russia’s spy

operations.

By rescheduling or forgiving Russia’s debt to the United States, we are freeing up funds for Russia to pay the Castro regime $200

million to $300 million a year for the continued operations of

Lourdes. Not having to worry about paying its debt to the United

States, the Russian government is then able to focus its resources

on expanding and upgrading its operation at Lourdes so that it can

better target and undermine United States national security, foreign policy objectives and political and economic stability. This cannot and must not continue.

The bill before us, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4118, affords us the necessary leverage to correct this situation. It holds the Russian government accountable for its actions. Trust must be earned. When

the United States Government treats the Russian Federation as an

ally and wishes to build upon existing relations, it expects the Russians to act in accordance. The Russian response to United States

assistance and cooperation in the form of debt forgiveness has been

to spy on and threaten the American people through its operation

at Lourdes.

How can we go back to our district and look at our constituents,

the good men and women who elect us because they trust that we

will do the right thing by them and their children? How can we

look into their eyes and——

Chairman GILMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. I understand the gentlelady has an amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Will you submit your amendment at this

time?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I do, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment

at the desk.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report, and the clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Page 4, line

21, strike notwithstanding and insert——

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read. Without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for submission

of the amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

In response to concerns about the need to afford the President

discretion over this matter and the implementation of this bill, I

am amending my bill to allow for a national security waiver. However, it asks that the President notify the Congress 10 days before

suspending the provisions of this bill and certify to this Committee

and to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the national

security interests and foreign policy priorities are furthered by such

a waiver.

8

It affords the opportunity to the President to submit portions of

the certification in classified form if necessary. The waiver is limited to debt rescheduling because allowing a waiver for the forgiveness of debt would make this bill non-existent and would nullify

any congressional oversight over this issue.

Last, due to the nature of debt rescheduling, the fact that rescheduling is multi-year, a waiver could provide the Russian Federation with multiple years of latitude without any United States

leverage on the subject of Lourdes.

For this reason, I have included language in this amendment requiring periodic reports on United States national interests being

furthered by the waiver on Russia’s compliance with arms limitations and nonproliferation agreements and the status of Russian

operations at Lourdes.

This is a fair balance, a comprehensive amendment that I hope

our colleagues support, and I would like to remind our colleagues

that just this week Secretary Albright stated during an unusual

town hall meeting for State Department employees, that ‘‘If you are

not professional about security, you are a failure. Forget that the

Cold War ended. Our nation still has enemies.’’

Our secrets still need protecting, and the time to act is now to

protect our secrets, our security, the American people. I hope that

we can get our colleagues to vote for the bill and to support this

waiver amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the

amendment at the desk.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The

clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson. Page 5, line 9,

strike——

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized for the amendment.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, there may be some confusion. It

might be mine. It might be somebody else’s. My amendment starts

on page 1, strike lines 11 through 18 and make such conforming

changes as may be necessary, and on page 2 strike lines 12

through 19.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is in error that the clerk

read? Is that correct? Did you read the correct amendment?

The clerk will distribute the amendment. Will you please give

the clerk a copy of the amendment?

Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson. On page 1,

strike lines 11 through——

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read without objection. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized on his amendment.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are a number of issues here that, frankly, might be best

discussed in a closed session, but for the discussion that we can

have in open session I think the underlying issues here are very

complicated. America’s listening posts around the world are many,

and I think it would be against America’s national interest if atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:04 Nov 28, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67826.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
9

tempts to close our listening posts became the battleground between Russia and the United States.

I would argue, without giving away anything that is classified,

that we are far more successful at gathering information, it is far

more important to our worldwide operations and that exposing listening posts globally and having a public relations battle could endanger America’s national security.

So first of all, I think that the issue itself is very complicated.

There are many people who argued during the Cold War that,

frankly, listening to each other, the major powers to each other’s

activities, provided some confidence that there were no surprise attacks lurking, that it actually helped allay fears and prevented

what may have or might have turned out to be a disastrous confrontation.

I will discuss the entire bill at greater length later, but what is

clear is that the gentlelady from Florida really provides no waiver

at all because the waiver then proceeds to add conditions that really give the executive no waiver, so if you read the gentlelady’s

amendment you will find that it does not achieve the goal, and I

will read Section C here. Such waiver will result in tangible steps

taken by the government of the Russian Federation to cease its espionage activities at the intelligence facility at Lourdes, Cuba.

So, for instance, say we had the situation where the President

of the United States felt and the intelligence committees of the

Congress agreed that it is in our interest to have this facility operational. You know, in these kinds of situations sometimes they get

some disinformation as well, so that it gives you an opportunity to

be listened to. You may be able to send messages that you want

to send.

There are lots of reasons why the United States might want to

keep this facility open, and so even if the President of the Untied

States and the intelligence people and the Secretary of Defense all

decided at the end of the day that this facility was important to

keep open for national security reasons, the gentlelady’s amendment precludes that action by the President of the United States.

What I simply do in the amendment that I have offered here is

strike B and C for a start. If you want to focus on this, it seems

to me, and we have done this with Democratic and Republican

Presidents alike, is that Congress tells them what they think needs

to happen somewhere, and then we give the President a waiver if

the President of the United States has a significant national security interest, a national security interest waiver.

The gentlelady’s amendment provides no such waiver because in

the amendment it restates the condition in Section C, lines 15

through 18, that basically say even if the President of the United

States finds it is in our national security interest not to get into

this battle of closing listening positions, even if the President of the

United States thinks it may be in our interest to keep this listening

position open, he still cannot reschedule debt.

Now, if you go from there, the rescheduling of debt may not be

a favor to the Russians. It is often the lender that wants to reschedule the debt because the lender wants to get repaid. Some of

this debt actually goes back to lend/lease. I think about $600 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:04 Nov 28, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67826.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
10

lion is owed to us from the old Soviet Union from World War II

when we were jointly fighting the Nazis in Europe.

If the United States Government decides that having Russia not

collapse economically is in our economic interest, if the United

States decides it is in our economic interest to reschedule this debt

and increase the likelihood that it will get repaid irrespective of

our interest under this legislation, the President would have to prevent the rescheduling of debt.

Well, let’s think about what happens in a Russia that goes into

complete economic collapse. We all spent a lot of time here worrying about Russian scientists going to work for the Iranians and

the Iraqis. We worry about Russian scientists going to work for the

North Koreans. There are a lot of agendas before this country on

national security.

I understand the gentlelady’s focus on what happens at this one

facility in Cuba, but let me tell you something. The Soviet arsenal

is a far more dangerous threat to America, a Russia out of control.

In legislation which I hope we will be able to get to today, I have

legislation to deal with an immense problem in Russia of rusting

and rotting submarines, some of them still with weapons systems

in place.

Under the lady’s legislation, if we need to reschedule some debt

so we can address these issues that could create a nuclear cloud

over northern Europe, we would not be able to do that rescheduling

unless the President shuts down this listening facility, which the

President may decide with his national security people it is in our

best interest to keep open.

So it seems to me if you want to achieve what the gentlelady

wants to achieve, which is to put pressure on the Russians to close

this facility, and again, you know, I think we ought to spend a little

more time with the Intelligence Committee discussing this issue.

At least you ought to give the President of the United States the

ability to say wait a minute, maybe we want to keep it open.

Two, maybe even if we want it closed it is more important to us

to make sure the Russians do not disintegrate, that Afghanis and

Pakistanis and all these countries that are on the terrorism list do

not have access to all this nuclear technology coming out of Russia.

Let’s focus on what is important to us. I forget. Is it 6,000 or

9,000 weapons that the Russians still have? What is important to

the United States is keep the Russians stable enough so they are

not aiming those weapons back at the United States.

To come up here with a resolution that does not give the President of the United States a real national security waiver seems to

me to be outrageous, and I would hope that the Administration

would be given an opportunity to come forward and express themselves.

But it seems to me that, you now, when you look at your responsibilities as a Member of Congress, we have regional concerns. We

have global concerns. There can be no greater concern for the

United States at this stage than these global concerns.

We spent hours in this Committee worried about if the North Koreans developed one nuclear missile. I mean, what do we do if

there is one missile coming toward California? Some people here

11

less friendly to California might not be concerned about that,

but——

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If I could have unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes?

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is nothing more important to America’s national security

than what happens inside of Russia, and if it means rescheduling

$600 million worth of debt that we gave them when they were

fighting the Nazis to make sure there is some stability there so we

can deal with rotting submarines and other issues in Russia, I

think we have got the responsibility, if we want to be responsible

legislators, if the President says he needs a national security waiver, we ought to give him that waiver.

So I would hope that my colleagues could support my amendment and then support the gentlelady’s amendment, which I have

some trouble with, but I would be willing to accept it if we give the

President of the United States a real waiver, not what is in this,

which is really no waiver at all.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I understand the nature of the gentleman’s argument in his

amendment, but is it possible that the gentleman, instead of striking the second part, page 2, lines 12 and 19, can still provide for

some kind of report to the Congress?

I would not think you would necessarily find but if you are successful with the first half in deleting B and C that you would find

a report objectionable. I wonder if there is some accommodation?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to work something out on the

second part with the gentleman or the gentlelady.

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentlelady.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would just say that I think every 90 days is

a little bit often. I mean, I think one of the dangers for this Committee and all committees in Congress is we demand more paper

and reports than anybody actually looks at.

I mean, if you went to every 6 months to report, you know, that

is not bad. Every 90 days, it seems to me—you know, I am not sure

what we are achieving with every 90 days.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

I am going to make a summary, a short statement, and then I

will recognize the gentlelady. I regret that I am going to have to

go on to another meeting. I am going to ask Mr. Goodling to chair

the meeting.

I want to commend our colleague, the gentlelady from Florida,

for her measure and my very strong support for it. I will ask that

my first statement be made part of the record. I do oppose the gentleman’s amendment. I support the gentlelady’s amendment.

The Russian government is indeed providing large sums of

money to the Castro regime in Cuba for the use of its facility in

Lourdes. This bill points out that our own Defense Department has

12

estimated that Russia gives the Cuban government oil and other

commodities valued at between $100 million and $300 million annually for the use of the Lourdes facility.

At a time when the Russian government is seeking outright forgiveness of much of its debt to our nation and to other governments

around the world, when the Russian government is leaning on our

nation to provide it with hundreds of millions of dollars from the

sale of donated American food to pay Russian merchants and when

Russia is leaning on us to help finance its arms reductions under

START–1, while it spends hundreds of millions of dollars to fund

a duty war in Chechnya, I think it is unacceptable that the Russian government continues to provide financial support to the Castro regime with subsidies such as this.

As this bill makes clear, we ought to tell the Russian government

that there will be no rescheduling or forgiveness of its bilateral

debt to our nation until it closes that facility. The fact is that the

Russian government has benefited and benefited greatly from the

debt relief we and the other members of the Paris Club and creditors who have already provided.

My colleagues, there is more to be concerned about with regard

to the Russian facility at Lourdes than just Russia’s willingness to

pay Castro what it will not pay to its creditors. Secretary of Defense William Cohen has publicly stated that our Defense Department is concerned about this, ‘‘The use of Cuba as a base for intelligence activities directed at the United States.’’

A Russian intelligence defector has stated publicly that the significance of the Lourdes facility has grown since former Russian

President Yeltsin secretly ordered Russian agencies to step up the

theft of American economic and trade secrets in 1996.

When questioned in a public hearing about the Yelstin order to

step up such commercial espionage, FBI Director Lou Freeh said

that the expertise of Russian intelligence operations presents, ‘‘A

very formidable, very ominous threat to our economy.’’

Once again I commend the gentlelady from Florida for working

hard on this issue, and I urge the Members of our Committee to

join in insisting that this kind of financial support provided to

Fidel Castro by the Russian government come to a cessation, and

I urge the Members of this Committee to join in insisting that our

government act on the publicly stated concerns of our own officials

by addressing the threat to our security that it poses.

I urge the adoption of this measure, and I recognize the

gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn as it pertains

to H.R. 4118.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is not recognized at this time,

and I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary

inquiry?

Chairman GILMAN. What is the gentleman’s inquiry?

Mr. HASTINGS. Is it not that a motion to adjourn is germane at

any time when offered by a Member?

Chairman GILMAN. At this point the question is not germane,

and I yield the balance of my time to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

13

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentlelady is recognized.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman’s

agreement——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman? A parliamentary inquiry, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary

inquiry.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Could you explain for this Member, who believes

he has an understanding of parliamentary procedure, why a motion

to adjourn is not in order at this time?

Chairman GILMAN. I am going to yield to our counsel.

Mr. WEINBERG. I would advise the Chairman that when a Member is recognized and has 5 minutes under the 5-minute rule, the

Member cannot be interrupted for the purpose of receiving a motion to adjourn or, frankly, any other motion.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is that the ruling of the Chair?

Chairman GILMAN. That is the ruling of the Chair.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield for one moment?

Chairman GILMAN. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. So my understanding is that the

gentleman from Florida’s motion would be in order at the conclusion of the Chairman’s time, which he is now yielding to the

gentlelady from Florida.

Chairman GILMAN. That is correct.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will withdraw my motion.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentlelady is recognized.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the amendment before us, Mr. Gejdenson’s amendment, says that the President can waive, but he does not have to give us any detailed reasons why. He is striking the part that says that the President shall

offer an explanation, prepare and transmit to the Committee on

International Relations and the Committee on Foreign Relations a

report that contains a description.

My amendment says that the President can waive. We do not

take that right from the President. The amendment allows a waiver, but it says that the President must explain why. I do not think

that that is too much to ask. All we are doing is highlighting two

critical national security priorities, which the gentleman’s amendment would eliminate. And that is multilateral and bilateral nonproliferation and arms limitation agreements.

Can anyone argue that Russian compliance with the arms limitation and nonproliferation agreement is not a priority for this Committee, for the Foreign Relations Committee, for the Untied States

Congress and indeed for the entire nation? The reports merely ask

for the President to keep Congress updated on national security developments. I think it is part of our right and our responsibility as

elected officials to always have U.S. national security in mind.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentlelady yield?

14

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Are we to simply allow a waiver of this bill

and to reschedule debt and not care about what happens in the interim? We have been talking about this for 8 years and have nothing to show for it but a supposed compliance of the Russians.

In fact, I asked Secretary Albright in February in this Committee

if she had raised the issue with the new Russian president, and I

have yet to receive a response from the Secretary about that. I do

not know if the President would even comply with our periodic reports.

What are we doing to pressure Russia in order to comply with

this? This is not foreign aid, and I would like to——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentlelady——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Remind my colleagues of this. It

is debt that they owe to the United States.

I will be pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. I would say, you know, several

things here. I do not have a problem with the report. I just think

we are not productive in having that report every 90 days.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We can make it 180. It is every whatever

number of days we can come up with, and 180 is another number

that we can——

Mr. GEJDENSON. If the bill——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. After the transmission of the

written certification. It is not every 90 days.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentlelady will accept 180 days, I do not

mind burying us with a little more paper. I would ask——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would be glad to go with 180 if the gentleman would like.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would like unanimous——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. But remember that your amendment is wiping out the reporting language altogether, so if you——

Mr. GEJDENSON. No.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Would like to amend your

amendment and put in the reports again, lines 12 through 19,

and——

Mr. GEJDENSON. The gentlelady is saying that I have no amendment at that stage, so I guess what I am saying is this. How long

has Lourdes been there? When did it start?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It has not been as updated now as——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Right, but we have had——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. The facility, the state-of-the-art technology

that is in place now in Lourdes has just had a multi-mullion dollar

operation and an update just recently of sophisticated technology.

It has not existed in this stage, Mr. Gejdenson, no. You cannot

compare the Lourdes of today with the Lourdes even of 10 years

ago.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And you cannot——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It has actually doubled in size. It is state-ofthe-art technology. You cannot compare it even to what it was 10

years ago. Those have been in open reports. I am not saying anything that has taken place in our classified briefings.

The open reports have proven that this technology has improved

substantially in the years that we have been winking and nodding

at Russia and thinking that they are cooperating with us.

15

Mr. GEJDENSON. If I could say to the gentlelady, I would be

happy to try to work something out with the gentlelady, but to say

that the President has no waiver, which is what her bill does in

its present form, is something I can’t support.

I am very happy to drop—if the lady is interested in supporting

my amendment, I am very happy to change it to 180 days, and

that, it seems to me, is not so burdensome that as annoyed as

State may be it is something they ought to be able to do, but I do

think the President has to have a waiver.

We have had Presidents now for as long as this facility has been

there. We have not thought this was such an issue of national security that they have gone out of their way to deal with it. If the

gentlelady’s position is——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. The technology has been probably to the level

of the existing technology at that time. Everybody——

Mr. GOODLING [presiding]. Would the gentlelady yield?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes. It is the gentlelady’s time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If I could yield back the time? Also, if we

could discuss lines 11 through 14? I think that you would agree

that that helps us to understand the nature of the waiver.

I would have no difficulty in eliminating 15 through 18, but I believe that your amendment, if we were to keep lines 11 through 14,

which is the essence of the underlying amendment that is before

us, that is something that we really need because the waiver is getting at the multilateral and bilateral nonproliferation and arms

limitation. I would not like to have that eliminated. Then we could

go back to keeping the report and reporting language in my amendment.

If I could yield my time to Mr. Menendez of New Jersey?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentlelady. Am I to understand that

you would accept as a——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Who are you addressing, Mr. Menendez?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Excuse me?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Who are you addressing?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am addressing you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Am I to

understand? I was going to offer an amendment in the nature of

a substitute to Mr. Gejdenson, and maybe we could all agree here,

that would do two things.

That would give the President a national interest waiver, which

you have as A, and that is lower than a national security waiver.

Second, keep in B, take out C, which is the tangible steps, and,

last, amend your 90 days to 180 days. Are those amendments that

you would accept?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would be agreeable to that. Not enthusiastically, but I would agree to that because of the concerns that

Mr. Gejdenson has, and I think that is the kind of amendment that

Mr. Gejdenson would be able to support because it gets to the waiver that he wishes for the President to make.

16

It gets to the reporting language that we would like, and it continues with the multilateral and nonproliferation language which is

at the heart of the national security concerns for the U.S. residents.

Mr. MENENDEZ. If you would continue to yield, can I ask Mr.

Gejdenson if that is something that he can accept that would meet

his concerns about the President’s flexibility, which clearly seems

to me that at that point, with that struck out, he has all of the

flexibility necessary and is less onerous on the State Department,

but still meets I think our mutual goals of insuring that the Russians, as we continue to spend an enormous amount of money on

their behalf, and they seem to spend hundreds of millions of dollars

not only in payments to Castro for the spy station, but several hundred million more building him a second location; that we would

ultimately give them the message, but give the President the flexibility.

I would hope the gentleman could accept that.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentlelady will yield?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. I will be glad to, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would say the gentleman from New Jersey

again in a Solomon like effort may have been able to bridge our differences here.

The only thing that I would say here is that the issue in lines

12 through 14, so that we are not misinterpreting each other, is at

the moment the Russians would argue that we are about to violate

our agreements with them with the star wars efforts, so there is

always some debate, and I want to make sure the language gives

the President, even if there is a debate about any of those provisions, the President gets his national security waiver.

These are the points we ought to focus on that obviously we want

them to fulfill their responsibility in nonproliferation and——

Mr. MENENDEZ. If the gentleman would yield one moment? This

is not even a national security waiver, which would be a much

higher standard.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I understand that.

Mr. MENENDEZ. This is a national interest waiver.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I understand that, but I want to make sure we

are not miscommunicating here that we find ourselves in a position

that we want to give the President that national interest waiver if

he thinks that it is in the national interest to do that even if there

may be some debate over some of these provisions.

I mean, I think that is the only issue. If that is acceptable to the

gentleman, I think we should have the staff just draft up the language, and then I would not have a problem with that.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, it is the gentlelady’s amendment, but certainly my understanding of it would go toward that direction, and

I think that we would meet our mutual goals in that regard.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Just to make sure that we can summarize it

in the correct way, we would continue to keep lines 11 through 14,

and we would eliminate 15 through 18, and we would have the

periodic reports 180 instead of 90, but we would have the periodic

reports.

Mr. GEJDENSON. My understanding is just again, for instance,

right now there is a debate whether the Russians are in compliance

on the Conventional Forces in Europe as a result of the fight they

17

had in Chechnya. Now, I would assume as they move toward that

resolution they will get in compliance, but again it was the gentleman’s interpretation, the lady’s interpretation, that if the President

finds it in the national interest he can waive the implementation.

Mr. GOODLING. The gentlelady’s time has ended 8 minutes and

43 seconds ago, and I would suggest——

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. That I recognize Mr. Hastings while

you people put together whatever this amendment is trying to be,

and then——

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. We can vote on that.

Mr. Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface my motion

with just a very brief statement. As a Member of the Select Committee on Intelligence and, as a matter of fact, the only Member

of the House to sit on the Intelligence Committee and the International Relations Committee, I am compelled to express serious

reservations with the forum that we are choosing to discuss a matter that all Members ought have an opportunity to be very conversant about.

I do not in any way impugn the awesomeness of the problem that

has been brought to us by my dear friend and colleague from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, but I do believe that it is inappropriate for

us in light of the potential for serious national security concerns to

go forward.

There are several Members that would like to be heard on this.

I would prefer that we do that in a closed forum toward that

end——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS [continuing]. As it pertains to this particular

measure. Not the entire mark up, but as it pertains to H.R. 4118.

I move that we adjourn and take this matter up in a closed forum.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLING. You have to move to adjourn the entire meeting.

You cannot adjourn a portion of the meeting.

Mr. HASTINGS. So moved.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS. I will yield.

Mr. GEJDENSON. So it is my understanding that you have now

moved to adjourn? Simply to adjourn?

Mr. HASTINGS. Simply to adjourn since I cannot move as it pertains to the specific——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS [continuing]. Matter that I seek to have adjourned.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. May I speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HASTINGS. No.

Mr. GOODLING. By unanimous consent, you can speak on the motion. Would you wish to ask unanimous consent?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I wish to ask for unanimous consent to speak

on the motion.

Mr. GOODLING. Is there any objection? If not, the gentlelady is

recognized.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If I could just refer to the——

18

Mr. HASTINGS. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLING. Then the question is on the motion to adjourn.

All in favor give your consent by saying aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Mr. GOODLING. Those opposed, no.

[Chorus of noes.]

Mr. GOODLING. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded for.

Mr. GOODLING. Roll call is requested. Are there a sufficient show

of hands for a roll call?

[A show of hands.]

Mr. GOODLING. Now we have sufficient. The clerk will call the

role.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gilman.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Goodling.

Mr. GOODLING. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Goodling votes no.

Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter votes no.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith votes no.

Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.

Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes no.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. King.

Mr. KING. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no.

Mr. Chabot.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

19

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton votes no.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Campbell votes no.

Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brady.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Radanovich votes no.

Mr. Cooksey. Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cooksey votes no.

Mr. Tancredo.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Votes aye.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.

Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.

Mr. Martinez.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Aye.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hastings votes yes.

Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Aye.

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Danner votes yes.

Mr. Hilliard.

Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.

20

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.

Mr. Sherman.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler.

Mr. SHERMAN. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes no.

Mr. Wexler.

Mr. WEXLER. Aye.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes yes.

Mr. Rothman.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Davis votes no.

Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Aye.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.

Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Aye.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes yes.

Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Aye.

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.

Mr. Crowley.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Aye.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gejdenson voted yes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to change my vote

to no.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.

Mr. Menendez did not vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I vote no.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes no.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rothman is not recorded.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I vote no.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rothman votes no.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman changes his vote to no.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega is recorded as yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I vote no.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega changes to no.

Mr. Gilman.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

21

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hyde.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the

roll call be revoked.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh votes no.

Mr. Brady.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Martinez.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley.

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. The clerk will report the tally.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne did not vote.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes yes.

The vote total is 10 ayes to 19 noes.

Mr. GOODLING. The motion is not agreed.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I believe that

we have a compromise amendment worked out. I am glad Mr.

Hastings did that motion. It gave us the time to work out an

amendment.

I just would like to tell our colleagues in reference to what my

Florida colleague had said about why we were discussing this in an

open forum and not in a closed session of the House Intelligence

22

Committee. I would like to point out that all of the issues being

discussed here are within the jurisdiction of the International Relations Committee.

United States/Russia policy, Russian support for the Castro regime, debt forgiveness and rescheduling. All of those are in our

purview, and all of the information that we have discussed——

Mr. GOODLING. Do you have an amendment?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Has in fact been used as an

open force, and I have an amendment at the desk. I have an

amendment at the desk. While the clerk reads it, I would like to

tell the Members that in fact briefings have been heard on this for

many——

Mr. GOODLING. Would the gentlelady suspend until we see an

amendment?

First of all, Mr. Gejdenson would have to withdraw——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Gejdenson is going to withdraw his

amendment.

Mr. GOODLING. He would have to do that first,——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.

Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. Then we have to distribute your new

amendment and then you will debate that.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I will explain what it does while they are

getting that.

Mr. GOODLING. First of all, I have to have Mr. Gejdenson remove

his amendment. Would you like to do that?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. I now ask unanimous consent to

withdraw my amendment, and I would like to particularly at this

moment thank all my colleagues, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Menendez and

the gentlelady from Florida, for the efforts to find compromise.

Mr. GOODLING. Is there any objection to the withdrawal of the

Gejdenson amendment?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. I would now ask——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am observing my right to

object just to say that I am sorry that Ms. Ros-Lehtinen has had

to compromise on her very fine original proposal and has been

forced into a position to take a weaker——

Mr. GOODLING. I am now asking the gentlelady from Florida to

withdraw her amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am, and I will yield to Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GOODLING. I am asking you to withdraw your amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am withdrawing my amendment, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. GOODLING. You are asking unanimous consent?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would like unanimous consent to withdraw

my amendment..

Mr. GOODLING. Is there an objection?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. The gentlelady’s amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I have a parliamentary inquiry just to get

where we are, and that is my——

Mr. GOODLING. You may state your parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GEJDENSON. It is my understanding that the new amendment is the old amendment that I had modified, which I would

23

think would still go to the gentlelady’s original amendment offered

here today. Is that not correct?

If the gentlelady withdraws her amendment, I have to amend the

original document. No? She is not withdrawing——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am not withdrawing the underlying amendment.

Mr. GEJDENSON. OK. So it is the second way? Fine.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. My underlying amendment is still there.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would offer this amendment, if the staff is

ready to distribute the amendment, or am I the only one with a

copy of it? Copies are being made as we speak.

Mr. GOODLING. Copies are being made, and we can distribute

them.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will ask unanimous consent to explain the

amendment while they are doing that.

Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain the——

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary

inquiry.

Mr. GOODLING. Who is——

Mr. MENENDEZ. It is Mr. Menendez.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this

because we are all trying to get to the same goal. I believe the

gentlelady still must maintain her amendment.

Mr. GOODLING. She has her original amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. It is still pending?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Then thank you very much.

Mr. GEJDENSON. What this amendment would do is achieve the

goals that we have discussed by in line 12 inserting after is substantially, striking lines 15 through 18, and changes on page 2, line

13, from 90 to 180 days.

Mr. GOODLING. Is that what the gentlelady understands?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Correct.

Mr. GOODLING. Is that what Mr. Menendez understands?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLING. Then I suppose we probably do not have to wait

for the distribution of the amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If we could read the amendment in the bill,

Mr. Chairman, as amended that would be great.

Mr. GOODLING. The professor wishes to see it, so we will hold

until we receive the amendment.

Mr. GEJDENSON. You know, with this new system we could actually show the amendment on the screen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I gave him the Spanish

translation of it, and he is OK with it now.

Mr. GOODLING. We have decided that the gentlelady will merely

offer this amendment the three of you have agreed to, and that will

make things much more——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We can keep Mr. Gejdenson’s name on it.

There is no pride of ownership.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I do not care whose name is on it. Thank you.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Good. Do not put mine on it.

24

Mr. GOODLING. The amendment appears on the screen. Hopefully

you can read it as it moves.

The vote now occurs on the amendment to the original. All those

in favor give your consent by saying aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Mr. GOODLING. Just a minute. They want to see the second part.

We sure are getting our money’s worth for this great invention.

The motion now is on the——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Excuse me. Is there a debate on this motion?

Mr. GOODLING. On the amendment to the motion as offered as

by the young lady from Florida.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is there a debate on this motion? Is there a

debate on this particular motion?

Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it will take very much less time than

that. I oppose the motion and just say that we noticed what we

have put into this amendment unfortunately again, Ms. RosLehtinen tried to give us something that was substantial, something that was real policy, and now we have before us an amendment that puts weasel words into this law.

Substantial compliance? Give me a break. Whenever we put

words into this, what we are doing is just defeating the purpose of

legislation in the first place, lying to our constituents that we are

serious about a problem because we put words in that make the

bill meaningless or unenforceable, which is what we just saw on

the screen.

Substantial compliance instead of compliance? Who is going to

determine that? I am sorry we have had to weaken this, Mr. RosLehtinen. Your original proposal was much better.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. The gentleman from California is

prone toward exaggeration, and I am sure that——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Substantial exaggeration.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think it is probably substantial, and significant as well.

I think it is a mistake to imply that somehow Members’ language

here is inclined to lie to the American people. I think, frankly, the

discussion here was very clear to make sure the American people

understood that we were looking for substantial because in these

areas there are constant disagreements.

While the gentleman has a right to express his differences with

that approach, I would say that, you know, it is not helpful for the

gentleman to imply that we are lying to the American people, and

I am sure the gentleman does not mean to. Maybe he does, but I

think he does not mean to do that.

I think we had a different goal. We have come to an agreement,

and the gentleman may have a different view.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I apologize if you were taking that as a specific to this situation, quite a critique on my part. I was critiquing

the Congress as a whole, which puts weasel words into legislation

and makes that legislation meaningless quite often, which I find is

25

a method of lying to constituents. However, I was not referring to

anyone in this body today in this specific situation.

Mr. GOODLING. The vote occurs on the amendment offered by the

gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.

I want to commend the gentlelady for negotiating an agreement

that can produce bipartisanship, which I believe is a much stronger

message to the Russians, that we are concerned about what they

are doing in terms of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on

spying on the United States, while at the same time spending an

additional several hundred million dollars on creating a new spy

station for the Castro regime, and at the same time sending the

Russians a message that we are very concerned about what they

are doing with nuclear and multilateral and bilateral nonproliferation and arms limitation agreements.

I do not believe, though your original offer might have been considered stronger, that this is by any stretch of the imagination

weak to the extent that we are sending the Russians a very clear

message.

I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would

join the Ranking Democratic voting for his amendment and then

ultimately the bill so that we could send that strong a message,

which I think would be very clear, direct and very powerful.

Mr. GOODLING. The vote occurs on the amendment offered by the

gentlelady from Florida. All in favor give your consent by saying

aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Mr. GOODLING. Those opposed, no?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The

ayes have it.

Are there any other amendments?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. If there are no other amendments, the Committee

may report the bill we have under consideration with a single

amendment. The chair will make a unanimous consent request.

Without objection, this Committee is deemed to have before it an

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of

the bill as amended to this point.

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute

is deemed read. The previous question was ordered on the amendment, and the amendment is adopted.

If there are no further amendments, without objection the previous question is ordered. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I object. I reserve the right to

object. Is there no debate now on the final product of what we

have?

Mr. GOODLING. I believe that we have had sufficient debate. It

is not customary to have debate once we have gotten to this point.

26

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am reserving my right to object. I believe

that it is customary to have a debate on what the final bill has

turned out before we actually vote on it.

Mr. GOODLING. Well, unfortunately, if we read carefully we have

the final version that appeared on this very expensive screen.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I will, if I could, explain my

reservation?

Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman has 30 seconds to explain his reservation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Let me just say that we have heard

what I consider to be some very absurd arguments today in this

body, and especially absurd to have heard the proclamation that it

is to our benefit to have a large Russian spy base so close to our

shores and that we should basically look at that as a possible benefit.

Let me just say that either the Cold War is over or it is not over.

If the Russians keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars on

weapons systems or intelligence systems like they are and what we

are discussing today that we should not be restructuring their

debts. We should be not treating them as if they are friends and

as if the Cold War is over.

With that said, I just wanted to make sure I put that on the

record.

Mr. HASTINGS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I only have 30 seconds. I would be happy to

yield.

Mr. HASTINGS. I would merely put to the gentleman are you

mindful that there is a potential for serious backlash against our

intelligence community by virtue of legislation of this kind?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is true, and it is true with any time we

take a stand on anything it is potentially there is a backlash.

In this particular case, restructuring the debt with a country

that is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on weapons systems or intelligence systems aimed at the United States is worthy

of that stand, and so I withdraw my objection, and you may proceed.

Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report

the bill to the House with a recommendation that the bill as

amended do pass.

Mr. GOODLING. The question is on the motion by the gentleman

from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion say aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Mr. GOODLING. Those opposed say no.

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. The ayes have it, the quorum being present. The

motion is agreed to. Without objection, the Chair or his designee

is authorized to make motions under Rule 22 with respect to a conference on this bill or a counterpart from the Senate.

We are now ready for consideration of H.R. 4249, the Cross Border Cooperation and Environmental Safety in Northern Europe Act

of 2000. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk

will report the title of the bill.

27

CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4249

Ms. RUSH. H.R. 4249, a bill to foster cross border cooperation and

environmental clean up in northern Europe.

Mr. GOODLING. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is

dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. RUSH. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress

assembled——

Mr. GOODLING. Without objection, the bill is considered as having

been read and is open to amendment at any point. The bill will

be——

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.

Mr. GOODLING. No one wants to speak on it first?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska.

No. He was going to offer it. Go ahead and speak on it.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak

on the bill.

One of the reasons I did not want to adjourn is I think this bill

is exceedingly important and, as it is about to be amended, an entirely appropriate product. As my colleagues will know, it authorizes assistance from a variety of sources and gives the reasons. I

certainly do support the initiative before us and projects under that

initiative in areas such as civil society, law enforcement, and public

health.

I think the bill also appropriately highlights the enormously dangerous problems of Russian nuclear waste in the area of Momansk

and northeast Russia. There is an urgent need to address this very

real potential environmental problem and to clean up this for all

of us. I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for offering

this legislation.

The bill points out in Subsection 15 of Section 2 that it apparently has not yet been possible for the Russians to resolve the remaining differences over liability, taxation, assistance, privileges

and immunity for foreign contractors and audit rights in regard to

cleaning up this waste, the bill also concludes that such agreements are vital to continued provisions of assistance.

Before the gentleman and I talked, I had some concerns about

an amendment he will offer that the United States appropriately

should expect those agreements are made before we offer assistance. We should expect that they are made, and that those differences resolved, before the European Union is urged to provide

assistance.

The gentleman is about to recommend that through his amendment and I think it is an outstanding and important effort. We

may come to find that this is one of the more important bills that

this Congress considers. We hope that is not the case. We hope

there is not an environmental catastrophe in between, but the Russians have to get on with it, while we have to realize this is an

international problem.

I thank the gentleman for his initiative, and I yield back.

Mr. GOODLING. Before I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, I want to have some unfinished business finished.

28

The Chief of Staff is authorized by unanimous consent to make

technical, grammatical and conforming amendments to H.R. 4118.

Is there an objection?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. If not, so ordered.

I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut,

the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, Mr. Gejdenson,

for 5 minutes to introduce the bill.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to

do that. There is a slide presentation to take advantage of our new

facility, and I apologize for its length in advance. My staff was a

little eager to use the new technology.

Many people I think believed that the rotting submarine force of

the Soviet Union would just disappear at the end of the Cold War.

This legislation seeks to address the problem through an important

framework called the Northern European Initiative.

We can first take a look at the Nunn-Lugar program. It has already facilitated the destruction of 164 submarine missile launches,

46 submarine launch ballistic missiles and 12 strategic submarines. The risk remains with over 150 decaying submarines.

If you have seen some of the recent discussions in the press, in

September, 1998, a Russian sailor hijacked a submarine. He died

while trying to set fire to the torpedoes and to detonate them. In

January 1999, a sailor tried to sell nuclear submarine reactor

parts, and I think that created one explosion.

If you look at February 1999, a shipyard employee tries to sell

radioactive material to North Korean agents, again creating a very

dangerous situation. In January of 2000, a sailor almost caused a

meltdown while stealing submarine components.

If you look at this next graph, it gives you a sense of where the

immediate effect would be, but obviously with the winds it could

really travel around the world, affecting almost everybody in the

Northern Hemisphere and maybe eventually below.

We are very happy to see the Members being impressed by the

very simple graphics on the board, and my sense is that silicon

graphics will be here shortly to help us out and try to make it more

interesting in the future. Again, there are almost 150 non-ballistic

missiles, conventional submarines awaiting destruction. Thirty-five

of these conventional submarines are waiting dismantlement.

What we have here is a piece of legislation that would help coordinate with the Europeans and press on the Russians to deal

with the liability issues so we can deal with this nuclear threat. It

also provides for a United States and Lithuania training programs

and entrepreneurship from the countries in the region, the Baltic

Lakes/Sea partnership program, and a number of other things to

help develop the democratic institutions and civil societies of the

region.

Clearly, the most important part, as Mr. Bereuter pointed out, is

the threat of these rotting nuclear submarines. To that end, when

it is appropriate I have an amendment that Mr. Bereuter actually

helped draft.

Mr. GOODLING. I would ask unanimous consent to insert Chairman Gilman’s message in the record. So ordered.

29

Is there anyone that wants to say something before this is moved

into legislation?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. If not, I recognize Mr. Gejdenson for an amendment.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move

these en bloc. I think most Members already have the two pieces

of paper. The first is technical in nature. The second clarifies what

may have created some confusion in language that Mr. Bereuter included.

I would yield to Mr. Bereuter to explain his language.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much for your cooperation with

the differences still remaining, the problems that are identified in

your legislation in Subsection 15 of Section 2.

As I mentioned, I think it is important that we expect that our

aid and those aid programs from the European Union that we are

endorsing and encouraging be brought into impact after the Russians solve these differences that are identified in Subsection 15.

The gentleman’s amendment does that, and I appreciate the effort. I urge the amendment’s adoption, as well as the other adoption and urge that we do this en bloc.

Mr. GOODLING. The vote occurs on the amendment to the Gejdenson legislation. All in favor give your consent by saying aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Mr. GOODLING. Opposed, no?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

Are there any other amendments?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. If there are no other amendments, the gentleman

from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending bill as amended on the

suspension counter.

Mr. GOODLING. The question is on the motion of the gentleman

from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion say aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Mr. GOODLING. Those opposed, no?

[No response.]

Mr. GOODLING. The ayes have it. A quorum being present, the

motion is agreed to. Without objection, the Chair or his designee

is authorized to make motions under Rule 22 with respect to a conference on this bill or a counterpart from the Senate. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

The Committee will now adjourn.

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

(31)

A P P E N D I X

MAY 4, 2000

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74