U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64–063 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

MARKUP OF H.R. 1883, THE IRAN NONPROLIFERATION ACT OF 1999; AND H.R. 2367, THE

TORTURE VICTIM RELIEF REAUTHORIZATION

ACT OF 1999

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1999

Serial No. 106–94

Printed for the use of the Committee on 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

WITNESSES

Page

Markup of H.R. 2367, The Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of

1999 ....................................................................................................................... 1

Markup of H.R. 1883, The Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999 ............................. 4

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Hon. Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from New York, concerning H.R. 1883 ................................................................................................ 75

Bills and amendments:

H.R. 2367 .................................................................................................................. 22

Admendment to H.R. 2367, offered by Rep. Smith ............................................... 27

H.R. 1883 .................................................................................................................. 28

Admendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1883, offered by Rep.

Gilman and Rep. Gejdenson ................................................................................ 40

Admendment to the Gilman/Gejdenson amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Rep. Brady ............................................................................. 81

Additional material submitted for the record:

Letter sent to Assistant Secretary Karl Inderfurth, Department of State,

dated August 25, 1998, submitted by Rep. Rohrabacher .................................. 54

Letter sent to Assistant Secretary Karl Inderfurth, Department of State,

dated August 3, 1999, submitted by Rep. Rohrabacher .................................... 56

Requested State Department documents relating to Afghanistan, submitted

by Rep. Rohrabacher ............................................................................................ 57

Letter from Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Barbara

Larkin, stating the Administrations views on H.R. 1883, submitted by

Rep Gilman ........................................................................................................... 82

(1)

MARKUP OF H.R. 1883, THE IRAN NONPROLIFERATION ACT; AND H.R. 2367, THE

TORTURE VICTIMS RELIEF REAUTHORIZATION ACT

Thursday, September 9, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 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 pursuant to notice to take up two bills,

the Iran Nonproliferation Act and the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2367. We will first be considering the torture

victims bill.

The Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999, H.R.

2367, was referred by the Speaker to the Committee on International Relations and also to the Committee on Commerce, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 2367, a bill to reauthorize a comprehensive

program of support for victims of torture.

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

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

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short title. This act may be cited as the Torture

Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read. It is open to amendment at any point.

I will now recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

I want to commend Chairman Smith and the Ranking Minority

Member, Ms. McKinney, of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for crafting this timely initiative which

addresses a critical area of our efforts to combat human rights

abuses, treatment of those individuals who have suffered the effects of torture at the hands of governments as a means of destroying dissent and opposition.

2

The resolution rightly recognizes the importance of treating victims of torture in order to combat the long-term, devastating effects

that torture has on the physical and psychological well-being of

those who have undergone this pernicious form of abuse. Torture

is an extremely effective method to suppress political dissent. For

those governments which lack the legitimacy of democratic institutions to justify their power, torture can provide a bulwark against

popular opposition. This measure authorizes funding at the level of $10 million per

year for the next three years for treatment centers in our Nation

and overseas. It also authorizes our State Department to contribute

$5 million in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and also in 2003, to

the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture.

Political leaders of undemocratic societies still find torture useful, because its aims are the destruction of the personality. It attempts to rob those individuals who would actively involve themselves in opposition, to suppress their self-confidence and other

characteristics that produce leadership.

I quote from the speech by Dr. Inge Genefke, who is a founder

of the International Treaty Movement, and I quote, ‘‘Sophisticated

torture methods today can destroy the personality and the self-respect of human beings. Many victims are treated and threatened

with having to do or say things against their ideology or religious

convictions for the purpose of attacking fundamental parts of the

identity, such as self-respect and self-esteem. Torturers today are

capable to create conditions which effectively break down the victim’s personality and identity and their ability to live a full life

later with and amongst other human beings.’’

Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to join in approving this legislation.

I now recognize the sponsor of this legislation, the distinguished

Chairman of our Subcommittee on International Operations, Mr.

Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

for scheduling the markup of this legislation this morning.

Mr. Chairman, on June 29th, the Subcommittee on International

Operations and Human Rights conducted a hearing on U.S. policy

toward victims of torture. The testimony presented there emphasized the continuing, compelling need for this legislation. Those

who suffered the unspeakable cruelty of torture at the hands of

despotic governments bear physical, emotional and psychological

scars for the rest of their lives. For many, if not most, the ordeal

of torture does not end when they are released from a gulog, laogai

or prison. These walking wounded need professional help and rehabilitation.

The United States law regarding torture victims took a giant

step forward on October 30th, 1998 with the enactment of Public

Law 105-320, the Torture Victims Relief Act. I am proud to have

been the principal sponsor of that act, which was cosponsored by

many of our colleagues on this Committee. It authorized $12.5 million over two years for assistance to torture victim treatment centers both here in the United States and around the world. It also

authorized a U.S. contribution in the amount of $3 million per year

to the United Nations Volunteer Fund for Torture Victims. Finally,

3

it required that foreign service officers be given specialized training

in the identification of torture and its long-term effects, techniques

for interviewing torture victims and related subjects.

To continue the good work begun by that law, I, along with

Chairman Gilman, Ms. McKinney, and Mr. Lantos, recently introduced H.R. 2367, the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act.

This bill will extend and increase the authorization of last year’s

act through fiscal year 2003. For each of the three fiscal years it

covers, the reauthorization act authorizes $10 million for domestic

treatment centers.

The Center for Victims of Torture estimates that there are as

many 400,000 victims of foreign governmental torture here in the

United States. At present, there are only 14 domestic treatment

centers, which are able to serve only a small fraction of the torture

population in the U.S. Because many of their clients do not have

health insurance, the centers must bear most of the costs of treatment. Our hope is that the money authorized by H.R. 2367 will

support these existing efforts and perhaps even enable the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement to establish much-needed new centers.

The bill also authorizes $10 million per year for international

treatment centers. According to the International Rehabilitation

Council for Torture Victims, the IRCT, the leading international

government organization engaged in treating victims of torture,

$33 million is needed in 1999 alone for international rehabilitation

efforts. Currently, there are about 175 torture victim treatment

centers around the world.

The bill also authorizes $5 million per year for U.S. contribution

to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. I am

pleased to note that the Administration greatly increased the U.S.

contribution to the fund this year to $3 million, the full level authorized by the Torture Victims Relief Act. We should continue this

trend and even expand our commitment to this worthwhile multilateral effort.

Finally, the bill requires the State Department to report on its

effort to provide specialized training to foreign service officers as

mandated by the Torture Victims Relief Act. It is important that

our personnel who deal with torture victims be able to identify evidence of torture and its long-term effects, and learn techniques for

interviewing torture victims who may still be suffering trauma

from their experiences.

At our recent Subcommittee hearing, it became apparent that the

State Department has not implemented any such training. This reporting requirement will serve as a wake-up call to prompt the Department to fill its statutory obligations.

I am very happy that this legislation is before us. At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I do have a technical amendment at

the desk.

Chairman GILMAN. Are you asking for the amendment to be submitted?

Mr. SMITH. I would ask that the amendment be considered.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. The amendment offered by Mr. Smith, page 2, line

5, strike——

4

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

amendment be considered as read.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment will be considered as read.

The clerk will distribute the amendment.

The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief; it was prepared

with the assistance of Mr. Gejdenson and his staff. The amendment

does two things, first it conforms the language of the authorization

for assistance to international torture centers in this bill to the corresponding language of the Torture Victims Relief Act as enacted

into law last year.

Second, it renumbers the section to the Foreign Assistance Act

created by last year’s legislation. Congress inadvertently created

two sections with the same section number, and this amendment,

a technical amendment, will fix that problem. I am grateful to

David Abramowitz, of the Democratic staff, for bringing our attention to this—the need for this amendment. I do urge its adoption.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. The gentleman has offered the

amendment. Are there any Members seeking recognition on the

amendment?

If no one seeks recognition, the question is now on the amendment. All those in favor, signify in the usual manner.

Opposed?

The amendment is carried.

We will now proceed to consider the measure further.

Are there any Members seeking recognition on the measure before us? If there is no one seeking recognition, I recognize Mr. Bereuter for a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chair may be requested to seek consideration of the pending bill on the suspension

calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion by the

gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion, signify in

the usual manner.

Those opposed, say no.

The ayes have it; the motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this matter are now postponed.

Chairman GILMAN. We will now proceed to the other measure before this Committee, H.R. 1883, relating to Iran. This bill was referred by the Speaker to our Committee on International Relations

and also to the Committee on Science; in each case, for consideration of such provisions which fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned.

The bill was introduced by myself, by Mr. Gejdenson, by Mr. Sensenbrenner, and by Mr. Berman. The Chair lays the bill before the

Committee and the clerk will report the title.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 1883, a bill to provide for the application of

measures to foreign persons who transfer to Iran certain goods,

services, or technology, and for other purposes.

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

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

5

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short title. This act may be cited as the Iran——

Chairman GILMAN. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk on behalf of myself and Mr. Gejdenson. The

clerk will report the amendment, which is on the desks of the

Members.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman and Mr.

Gejdenson. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1. Short title. This act may be cited as the Iran

Nonproliferation Act of 1999.

Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as having been

read, and that it be open to amendment at any point. Without objection, it is so ordered.

I will now recognize myself to speak briefly to the amendment

in the nature of a substitute.

Today we are marking up the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999,

which Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Berman and I introduced on May 20th

of this year. This legislation has 220 cosponsors. We feel we must

be on the right track.

The purpose of our legislation is to reverse the very dangerous

situation we are confronting today in which firms in Russia, in

China, in North Korea and elsewhere are transferring to Iran

goods, services, and technology that will assist in the development

of weapons of mass destruction, and missiles capable of delivering

such weapons. In the hands of a rogue state like Iran these weapons pose a clear and present danger, not only to our friends and

allies in the region, but also to the tens of thousands of our military personnel in the Persian Gulf and in adjacent areas.

The proliferation of these technologies to Iran has been going on

for a number of years, and to its credit, the Administration has

been working to try to stop it. But all available evidence indicates

that, to date, those efforts have failed. The proliferation today is as

bad as it has ever been.

The purpose of our legislation is to give the Administration some

new tools to address the problem, giving the countries that are

transferring these items to Iran powerful new reasons to stop proliferating, and giving Congress greater insight into what is happening.

A summary of our legislation is now before the Members, so I

will not belabor the details of what it does. Mr. Gejdenson and I

have laid before the Committee the amendment in the nature of a

substitute that is now before us. It contains a number of changes

to the bill that we have agreed to make. Some of these changes

were made at the request of the Administration, and others at the

request of Mr. Gejdenson and other Members.

Most of them are technical in nature, dealing with such matters

as timeliness for submission of reports to Congress and refinements

of some of the definitions. A few are more substantive. For instance, in section 5, we have added two additional grounds upon

which the President can decide to exempt a foreign person from application of measures provided in the bill.

6

There are instances in which a transfer made by the foreign person was consistent with the procedures and with an international

nonproliferation regime in instances in which a foreign person has

been adequately punished by the government with primary jurisdiction over the person.

Overall, I believe that the changes in this bipartisan amendment

offered by myself and Mr. Gejdenson improve the bill, and I will

urge its adoption.

I now turn to one of the original cosponsors of the measure, Mr.

Gejdenson, and ask for his comments.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. I want to commend the staffs and

the Members for working together to come up with language to try

and deal with some of the complexities in this issue. There are obviously some remaining questions of control and the proper responses. I think anyone watching the situation in Russia today has

to be concerned about the stability of a country that still possesses

6,000- to 9,000 warheads, that has the capabilities in a number of

technologies that provide for weapons of mass destruction.

As much as we try to assist the Russians in developing a civil

society and developing the ability to govern themselves in a democratic manner, we need to make sure that the Russian Government

continues its basic responsibilities, like nonproliferation; and I commend the Chairman and both staffs for the work we have done in

trying to narrow some of the differences in trying to achieve the

goal of limiting the proliferation of technology out of Russia.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Who else seeks recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If there is another Member who wants to

speak on this, I will be happy——

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, I move to strike the last word.

I support the substitute. I support the base bill. Secretary Indyk,

when he was here recently, testified that Iran’s clandestine efforts

to procure nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continues despite Iran’s adherence to relevant international nonproliferation

conventions. In addition to their work in the nuclear, chemical, and

biological weapons arena, we are all aware of their testing and development of intermediate range ballistic missiles, and missiles

which ultimately might be longer than that, and the threat that

that poses.

It seems to me we need, and have an obligation, to do everything

we can to impede Iran’s ability to develop these weapons, and that

applies without regard to what one’s view is about what our political and diplomatic approach to Iran might be. We can pursue negotiations. We can pursue openings. We can seek to develop closer

ties with the Khatami regime, and at the same time, I think we

have an obligation to our own people and to our allies to do everything we can to impede their ability to develop weapons of mass

destruction and the means to deliver them.

This is an important piece of legislation seeking to do just that.

While the legislation applies generically across the board, there has

been specific focus on the issue of proliferation by entities in Russia

to Iran. For anyone who has any doubts about this issue, I would

7

urge them to obtain the classified briefings on the subject and get

a sense of what we know of what is actually happening.

There are some who might think that this is just a form of Russia-bashing. I would disagree. One can decide that the primary

issue in U.S. foreign policy is to do everything we can to ensure the

successful transition of Russia to democracy. Some think we should

be doing far more than we are even doing in the context of threat

reduction by virtue of working with them to safeguard enriched

plutonium, to destroy weapons, warheads, to employ these scientists, to do things which show them that we have no intentions

against them and their sovereignty and their security.

At the same time, I think we have—not just a right, but an obligation to tell them something which is clearly in our national security interests and in their national security interests. As their leadership has acknowledged over and over again, we have—we cannot

sit around and just go forward working with them while they are

allowing this kind of technology, key critical components for these

kinds of systems, to proliferate to Iran. I think many experts in the

field of U.S.-Russian relationships—people, in fact, who are critical

that we haven’t done enough in terms of Russia—would not argue

with the point that in an area where the Russian Government has

control, we have a right and an obligation to expect that the Russian Government will do every single thing it can to stop that proliferation.

So I want to commend the Chairman and the Ranking Member

for joining together on this legislation. I also want to thank the

Chairman for putting the bill over until after the recess. There

were certain representations made by then-Russian Prime Minister

Stepashin regarding things that were going to be done, and both

the Chairman and, in the end, the Republican leadership, agreed

to put the bill over. Of course, we now have a new Prime Minister,

so it is unclear what the value of those representations are, but at

this point I think we should move ahead with the legislation.

There is one issue that is of some concern, and that is to question

the extent to which we are asking the Space Agency in Russia to

control more than they can, and to have impacts on that which

they cannot control. But if I were to err, at this particular point

in the legislative process, on the side of underestimating their ability to control versus overestimating, I choose to overestimate.

This legislation may in fact do that. We have plenty of time to

take a look at that. So I would urge the adoption of the substitute

and the bill, and its passage.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

commend you and the other Members involved with this piece of

legislation for demonstrating that the Congress, and the House,

and this Committee, certainly have a role to play in foreign policy,

and in oversight of American foreign policy, and especially in this

vital region—or shall I say ‘‘volatile region,’’ instead of ‘‘vital region,’’ because they are both vital and volatile.

But taking note of the importance that we have placed on Iran—

and let me note at this moment that we have not paid that same

attention to what has been going on in Afghanistan right next door,

8

and that efforts by this Committee to obtain documents from the

Administration concerning our policy in Afghanistan have been met

with contempt, and with stonewalling, and with obfuscation.

I would like to place in the record a letter that I sent to Assistant

Secretary Karl Inderfurth about the request of documents concerning our policy in Afghanistan that was made over a year ago.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would also place in the record the documents that finally arrived after a year. These are the documents—

so the other Members of my Committee who remember me making

noise about this issue—these are the documents about Afghanistan, they are about one-sixteenth of an inch thick, and most of

them are newspaper clippings responding to our oversight responsibilities. Responding to requests for information that were made

by this Committee in this volatile region in such a manner is contempt of this Committee and contempt of our role to oversee American foreign policy.

Tomorrow, supposedly, some more documents will be made available to this Committee, and to myself, and I hope that there is

much more substance to them than what has been presented.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the documents will be

made a part of the record.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So I support this measure on Iran. I would

again alert my fellow Members of this Committee that what is

going on in Afghanistan is as important to America’s national security as is what is going on in Iran, because we have a terrorist base

camp where all of the world’s heroin is being produced right next

door to Iran, and our Administration has thwarted our attempts to

get the documentation of what our policy is toward that rogue regime, the Taliban regime.

I am contending again, and will close my remarks with the contention that this Administration has a covert policy of supporting

the Taliban, which is one of the worst human rights abusers toward women. It is an abomination, and the response to our requests for information has been an insult.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As someone who has consistently supported and will continue to

support disarmament and peace initiatives throughout the world,

I believe that this legislation will certainly move us one step toward nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle

East. I am a cosponsor of this legislation because I strongly believe

that we must take any and all actions to stop the spread of these

weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and elsewhere in

the world.

I just returned from Israel with several of my colleagues, and let

me just say to you that I know, and I think all of us know, that

the security concerns in the entire region are very, very real; but

also the prospects for peace are very, very real. So this bill moves

us, I believe, toward both peace and security, not only in the region, but in the entire world.

9

So I thank Chairman Gilman and our Ranking Member, Mr.

Gejdenson, for working out an agreement on this so we can move

it forward. I certainly support the substitute and hope we do move

toward passage of this today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we can have comments from the Administration on this? I am particularly interested in their reaction.

Chairman GILMAN. Is someone from the Administration prepared

to comment? Please identify yourself.

Ms. COOKS. I am Shirley Cooks, Deputy Assistant Secretary of

State for Legislative Affairs. With your permission, Mr. Chairman,

I would like to ask Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation

Controls John Barker to respond to those questions.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Barker—thank you, Ms. Cooks.

Mr. Barker, please identify yourself.

Mr. BARKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Controls in the Nonproliferation Bureau of the State Department. We

appreciate the opportunity to comment on this bill.

A number of you have made some very good statements about

your proper oversight role here, about the fact that we as the

United States Government have the right and obligation to expect

Russia and other countries to do everything they can to prevent the

spread of weapons of mass destruction, and an acknowledgment

that the Administration is working hard to try to prevent that proliferation, particularly to Iran.

You have noted that there are some new tools that you will provide for us through this legislation, in the form of sanctions and

other types of incentives and disincentives for countries such as

Russia and China, to prevent that type of proliferation.

Mr. Chairman, I think we all share the same goals, we all want

to make sure that the proliferation problem is brought under control. None of us are satisfied that that is the current state right

now. What our concern is, however, with this bill, is that it will be

counterproductive in what we are trying to accomplish.

Let us talk first about the resources that would be necessary,

from the Administration’s standpoint, to respond to this bill. You

have set up a plan that would require us either to impose sanctions

or transfers based on credible information, or to provide reports to

Congress as to why we have not provided those sanctions and implemented those sanctions.

We work very hard, sir, to try to respond to your oversight requirements and your oversight obligations. We come up and try to

brief you. We appear for hearings. We send you a number of congressional reports every year—many reports, several hundred

pages long each in some cases. We have given you a list of the reports and we plan to follow through on those obligations.

We want to make sure that we put our resources toward fighting

proliferation rather than writing reports. That is one of the problems that we will have with this bill. We are certainly at your disposal to send you all of the reports that you need, but we ask that

10

you look carefully at whether it is worthwhile to put all of our resources toward writing reports versus trying to stop, trying to

interdict, trying to work with other countries to ensure that the

proliferation problem does not go forward.

Although, of course, the bill is global in scope, its intended targets are primarily the Russian entities in Iran. We have plenty of

authority for dealing with the Russian entities now, and Russia is

starting to take some steps in the right direction. None of us are

saying that we are satisfied with that. None of us believe that Russia has full control over the proliferation problem, but we have

seen that Russia is starting to take some steps.

They have recently enacted some new, strong, export control legislation, that export control legislation enacted in part because of

some assistance that we provided through our export control work

with them. They have adopted a game plan in order to ensure that

there will be a cutoff of this type of proliferation to Iran; and they

are working hard and equipping their entities with internal compliance programs designed to stop proliferation. We are working hard

with the Russians to give them the training that they need in order

to carry that out.

Mr. Chairman, none of us believe that Russia is where it needs

to be, and indeed other countries are where they need to be, in

terms of stopping proliferation to Iran. There is no higher priority

this Administration places then on ensuring that there is a cutoff

of that type of assistance.

The problem here is we will eliminate the incentive for the countries to work with us. We have made some progress with Russia;

we have a long way to go. But if we set up a regime where sanctions are mandatory, or we have to spend most of our time trying

to justify why sanctions have not been imposed, we will be providing Russia with an incentive not to cooperate with us, not to

work with us, and not to attempt to follow through on some of the

obligations that we all believe are necessary.

Mr. BEREUTER. [Presiding.] The gentleman will suspend. The

Chair asks unanimous consent that the gentleman have two additional minutes so that the Representative may continue. Mr.

Houghton.

Mr. BARKER. Thank you very much, sir.

Overall, we believe that you have exactly the right goals. We

need to get a better handle on nonproliferation, both in terms of

Russia and other countries. None of us believe that Russia has

taken all of the steps that it needs to take, but I think we can all

share the view that in order to get Russia to move forward we are

going to have to work with them cooperatively. We are going to

have to use the tools at our disposal and, indeed, use the sanction

laws and discretionary determinations which we already have within the executive branch.

We have already imposed some sanctions against Russian entities. Those sanctions have had an effect. Many times I traveled to

Russia and have had to deal with interlocutors on the other side

of the table who are quite unhappy with the fact that we have

taken those decisions. But I feel very comfortable in defending

those, because those entities do not deserve to have business with

11

the United States if they are providing proliferation-related items

to Iran.

In general, we have seen through a number of congressional determinations, such as the Cox Committee, the importance of supporting multilateral regimes and ensuring that our export controls

are enforced worldwide.

Another problem that we have identified in this bill, and we have

sent this to you in writing, is the fact that this bill would work at

undermining our multilateral regimes. We might, in some instances, have to report on transfers by other countries——

Mr. HOUGHTON. Could I just interrupt a minute? I am sorry.

Because we are running out of time, could you just give me a

one-word answer: Does the State Department support this bill?

Mr. BARKER. We strongly oppose it, sir.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman wish

to yield to Mr. Berman?

Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes. Fine.

Mr. BERMAN. If I could just ask the Administration——

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the gentleman will have one

additional minute. Mr. Houghton yields to Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Recognizing that the Administration has made a

priority, particularly in the last couple of years, year and a half,

of pushing the Russians to stop their entities from proliferating,

and recognizing that the Russian Government has made some wonderful representations and taken some modest steps to do something about that, is there any doubt that, notwithstanding your efforts and the Russian steps, there have been proliferating activities

from Russian entities in the last year and a half?

Mr. BARKER. There is no doubt that without our work the proliferation problem would have been worse. But there is no doubt

that the proliferation problem continues.

Mr. BERMAN. Okay.

The other thing—my second question—that is not really a question, it is just these reports can be classified if the Administration

chooses to make them classified. The mere fact of reporting transfers of items on a chemical weapons list or on a nuclear suppliers

list or on a missile technology control list, the Congress of the

United States should not be the basis for undermining international proliferation regimes. We are one government.

So that part of the argument, I just don’t—it doesn’t have any

weight with me. The notion that simply the Administration reporting what has been transmitted by the country that might be a

member of the regime that is on a list of items that are of special

concern in the area of nuclear, chemical, biological, or missile proliferation, that that item is reported to the Congress somehow undermines the regime, to me doesn’t hold a lot of water.

Mr. BEREUTER. We will return to regular order. You will undoubtedly have a chance to address this in a minute. The time of

the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, is recognized for five

minutes.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I support the legislation, but I would like to direct my remarks

to a much broader issue; that is, Russian-U.S. relations. Earlier

12

this week, I had a very lengthy and very substantive meeting in

Moscow with the Foreign Minister of Russia, and I addressed the

student body of the Russian Diplomatic Institute, a very impressive

group of young men and women, all of them speaking impeccable

English, and extremely well informed.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have a very serious problem in dealing with U.S.-Russian relations on a piecemeal basis. I believe that

proliferation with respect to Iran continues, and I think the legislation deals with it appropriately. But what I think is more important than even that issue is a growing deterioration of our relations

with Russia, stemming in large measure from their dramatic

change in the international arena.

My first visit to Russia was in 1956. I have been going back with

great frequency over the intervening decades, and I don’t think we

are sufficiently sensitive to the fact that one of the great, one of

the two great superpowers of this world just a few years ago is now

a bankrupt, destitute society facing enormous internal pressures

and attempting to make its way in an entirely new world.

I think one of the horrendous mistakes of the Bush Administration was to assume that the collapse of the Soviet Union would

bring about smoothly the emergence of a democratic society and a

market economy. This incredible naivete, our failure to lubricate

the process appropriately, is at the bottom of many of our current

problems.

My feeling is that what we have today in Russia is a degree of

anti-Americanism widespread throughout all strata of society, even

among the most educated and knowledgeable people. When I spoke

at the university training diplomats on Monday—could I have

order, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BEREUTER. The Committee will be in order, Members, staff,

and audience.

Mr. LANTOS. It took me a great deal of time to attempt to convince my audience that our engagement in Kosovo was not motivated by a desire to humiliate Russia, that our investigation of corruption and money laundering and capital flight is not motivated

by a desire to attack Russia. I think, in connection with this piece

of legislation, it is extremely important we underscore that what

we are interested in is stopping proliferation and not again

humiliating, and attacking, and harassing Moscow.

I would like to request Chairman Gilman, at the earliest possible

time, to hold a major public hearing on U.S.-Russian relations. This

is still the only other nation on the face of this planet with a vast

stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Russia will again emerge

as a major power on this planet, if not in five years, in fifteen

years, and I think it is extremely important that our relations get

back on track.

This piece of legislation—which I believe is needed, and I support

it—can’t help but continue to exacerbate their persistent misunderstanding of our motivation. I think it is absolutely critical that this

Committee, in an open and major hearing, deal with the full spectrum of our relations with Russia.

Many things have gone right in Russia. Fifteen years ago, none

of us would have expected free elections, which will be coming for

the Duma and the presidency; free press; every Russian having a

13

passport; American business still functioning very visibly throughout Russia. I think it is important not to focus on momentary difficulties, however serious they are, and to put U.S.-Russian relations in their proper historic perspective.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Your request will be relayed to Chairman Gilman by this Member. I would say all of us

that attended the Russian-American seminar by the Aspen Institute probably came away with the same attitude and concerns that

the gentleman has expressed.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman, is recognized.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the GilmanGejdenson substitute. I think this is a useful tool for this Nation

to enforce our longstanding policy against nuclear proliferation all

around the world, but also specifically with regard to Iran, an as

yet declared—self-declared enemy of the United States and our allies throughout the region.

It also is an effective and useful tool in reiterating our continued

attention to this problem, notwithstanding the great many wishful

thoughts many of us and others have about progress in the region.

But wishful thinking expressed without our expressed reservations

about the status quo can mislead our enemies and those who would

do us and our allies harm. That is why I am supporting this effort;

it is full of sound provisions that deal with a subject that should

concern not only this Committee, but all Americans.

Imagine if the United States of America, the greatest power on

the Earth, did nothing to stem the flow of dangerous weapons technology to the Republic of Iran; imagine if the United States of

America, the greatest power on Earth, were to support the free

flow of dangerous weapons technology by our inaction or omission,

notwithstanding the efforts presently being undertaken; imagine if

the United States of America were to allow Iran, a country which

has pledged to destroy our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel,

and pledged to undermine America’s interests throughout the region, were to allow Iran to secure the means by which it could destroy our allies and our vital national interests.

I can’t imagine these things occurring, that is why I am grateful

to our Chairman, Mr. Gilman, and our Ranking Member, Mr.

Gejdenson, for putting forth this substitute amendment. We have

few more important priorities as an International Relations Committee than to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction

to terrorists supporting nations like Iran.

Hopefully, Iran and Russia will join the fold of peace-loving

democratic nations, and we will do all that we reasonably can to

support those efforts. But in the meantime, as long as Iran remains

a self-declared enemy of the United States of America, bent on nuclear proliferation and the creation of weapons of mass destruction

aimed at not only our allies in the region, but our allies in Europe,

with aspirations to attain the capability of attacking the continental United States with weapons of mass destruction, we need

to stay on guard, focused as a nation, and to remind the world that

we are on guard and focused in our attention to those who would

do us harm and do our allies harm.

14

I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman-Gejdenson substitute.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Rothman.

The Chair would advise of its intention to hear from another

Democratic Member, Mr. Crowley; then we will move to the Brady

amendment. We have a quorum here. Then it is my expectation we

will be able to move to final passage.

The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief. I have

a statement that I will ask unanimous consent, in deference to

time, to be read into the record. Just let me add, I think the issue

of nuclear proliferation, in and of itself, is a very scary thought for

every American, with the possibility of nuclear proliferation by

rogue nations being at the top of the list.

I would agree with one statement; I think this will be a useful

tool. I am sympathetic to the remarks of the State Department and

the Administration; unfortunately, I don’t agree. I think the American people are looking for action, not only on the part of the State

Department and the Administration, but also by Congress. I think

that these are reasonable tools that you will hopefully find helpful.

So I will be supporting this measure. I thank the Chairman for

introducing it.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Crowley.

[The statement of Mr. Crowley appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady, is recognized first for a statement, and then to offer his amendment.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

America has a huge stake in Russia’s successful transition to a

peaceful and open democracy, and no one has made a bigger commitment to Russia over the years than America. But this reminds

me of a statement P.T. Barnum once made, which is, ‘‘There is a

sucker born every minute.’’ While he may have created the statement, Russia certainly has embraced it.

Each year Russia sets up a tent and America is first in line, with

billions of dollars, to see a show on democracy, on free enterprise,

on peace. However, each year the stage is empty, while behind the

tent Russia continues to arm America’s and its allies’ most hateful

and deadliest enemy.

Now, fool us once, shame on them; fool us twice, shame on us;

and the fifth or sixth time, well, that is a reflection on our own

competency.

The real tragedy today is that dollars that we are using, American tax dollars that we hope to be used for democracy, are really

used to harm and destabilize democracy among our allies. Dollars

we hope to go to free enterprise are used to destabilize the progress

that is made around the world, and the dollars that are used for

peace that could be used for our veterans or to build our own—rebuild our own military defenses are used, in effect, to start to lay

the foundation for Cold War and threats against America’s security.

There are new and deadly threats to America’s security, and we

must not be the one funding those threats, directly or indirectly.

But I support this bill, Mr. Chairman. When the time is approVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:55 May 19, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64063.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
15

priate, I have an amendment that I think clearly lays to rest one

of the objections that has been raised.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Chairman GILMAN. [Presiding.] Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. It is my intention, as I announced, to be able to

offer his amendment at this point, if that is okay with Chairman

Gilman. The gentleman still has the time.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to—there is an amendment at the desk.

[The information appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Would the clerk distribute the amendment?

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Brady: On page 11,

after line 13, insert the following new subsection, (f) Service module exception, (1)——

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. BRADY. As a supporter of this bill, and as a Member of the

Science Committee and from a region, Houston, that has a big

stake in NASA and the International Space Station, I took a hard

look at one of the key sections in this bill dealing with the current

space station. What I feel strongly about is that this bill is not

anti-space station.

The bill does nothing to prevent all current space station agreements and payments from being carried out. Furthermore, it

doesn’t remove Russia as a part in the program, it doesn’t affect

the existing partnership, and it only applies to additional payments

made above and beyond the existing agreement. In fact, the only

way this bill can affect the space station is if the Russians are proliferating to Iran.

If Russia is clean, as we hope them to be, then the U.S. can continue to send payments. This amendment lays to rest any valid objections to this bill as those who—as it relates to the space station.

Mr. Chairman, objection has been raised, ‘‘what if?’’, what if after

all of the testing of the service module provided by Russia, when

we get it into orbit, problems occur, what then? This amendment

is a common-sense response to that—it basically recognizes the

service module built by Russia is critical to the space station, it is

the living quarters for our astronauts, it is hanging in low Earth

orbit, and test as well as you can, there is nothing like putting

something in orbit to find out what might go wrong.

What this amendment says is that in extraordinary circumstances and in areas of life support, environmental control, orbital maintenance functions, where there is a flaw that we cannot

fix ourselves or there is not an alternative means, that we can contract with the Russian Space Agency or its subcontractors, as long

as they are clean as well.

To make sure that this isn’t open-ended, this section and this

amendment ends—ceases to be effective after a U.S. propulsion

module is in place on the station. I think this removes any ‘‘what

if’’ concerns about the space station. It provides us flexibility in a

timely response if something critical goes wrong; and because this

entire bill deals with protecting America’s interests first, I believe

this amendment does this.

16

It passed the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 19-to-3,

backed by supporters of the old base bill like myself. At this point,

I would conclude my remarks.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brady.

Let me note that this is an amendment to the Gilman-Gejdenson

amendment, and that it has been worked out with the Science

Committee. The Science Committee has no objection, nor do we

have any objection to the amendment.

Does anyone else seek recognition? Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am the Chairman of the

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee that oversees this project,

and I would like to commend Mr. Brady for his responsible amendment and his efforts to make sure that what we do will not interfere with this multibillion dollar program that we have that is

under way; and that the efforts that we are trying to make to prevent this proliferation with Iran are aimed at further future activities, rather than activities that will—that are currently under way

with Russia and the space station.

So I would like to commend him and support his amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. If there are no further comments, the question is now on the Brady amendment. All those in favor, signify in

the usual manner.

Opposed?

The ayes appear to have it.

The amendment is agreed to.

If there are no further amendments, without objection, the previous question is ordered on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized. But

before he comments, let me just make note, give notice to our colleagues, that Doug and Louise Bereuter are now grandparents.

Their first grandchild is a boy, Ethan, 7 pounds and 2 ounces, born

August 12th. They are very proud of being new grandparents. Congratulations.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. We will now recognize Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that the Committee report the bill as amended to the

House with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. All those in favor, say aye.

Those opposed, say no.

The ayes have it.

We will take a roll call on the measure. Please signify in the

usual manner.

The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

Chairman GILMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes aye.

Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

17

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.

Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.

Mr. Ballenger.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.

Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.

Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.

Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.

Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.

Mr. Campbell.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.

Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes.

Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

Mr. GILLMOR. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor votes yes.

Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes.

18

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich votes yes.

Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes yes.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.

Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.

Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes.

Mr. Hilliard.

Mr. HILLIARD. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.

Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.

Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Yes.

19

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.

Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes.

Mr. Hoeffel.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.

Mr. GOODLING. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes yes.

Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there are 33 ayes and zero noes.

20

Chairman GILMAN. The motion is agreed to. Mr. Bereuter requests a right to submit views. I would like to inform the Members

that this bill will be considered next week, and we will be submitting our report as quickly as possible.

Without objection, the Chair’s designee is authorized to make

motions under Rule XX with respect to a conference on the bill or

a counterpart from the Senate. Without objection, the Chief of Staff

is authorized to make technical, conforming and grammatical

changes to the measure adopted by the Committee.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to announce to Members of the Committee that the

Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee will hold a hearing on East

Timor, and as a result of that hearing and the events that are occurring, Mr. Lantos and I hope to draft a bipartisan resolution

which Members may want to consider tomorrow. I just wanted to

advise that we are doing this.

The hearing is at 2 o’clock today. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. If there is no further business.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, in the interest of equal time, I would like

to announce that our colleague, Joe Crowley, and his wife, Casey,

have become new parents of Joseph Cullen. He will be called

Cullen, which is the name under which he is registered to vote.

Chairman GILMAN. We join in congratulating him.

Mr. CROWLEY. It wasn’t easy.

Chairman GILMAN. If there is no further business, the meeting

stands adjourned. Thank you, gentleman and ladies.

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(21)

A P P E N D I X

SEPTEMBER 9, 1999

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

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

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83