U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–626 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

H.J. RES. 464; H. RES. 449; H.R. 4251; H. CON.

RES. 304; H.R. 4022; H.R. 3680; H. CON.

RES. 295; AND H.R. 3879

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 13, 2000

Serial No. 106–156

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

MARILYN C. OWEN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Markup of H. Res. 464, expressing the sense of Congress on international

recognition of Israel’s Magen David Adom Society and its symbol, the

Red Shield of David ............................................................................................. 1

Markup of H. Res. 449, congratulating the people of Senegal on the success

of the multi-party electoral process .................................................................... 3

Markup of H.R. 4251, the Congressional Oversight of Nuclear Transfers to

North Korea Act of 2000 ...................................................................................... 4

Markup of H. Con. Res. 304, expressing the strong opposition of Congress

to the continued egregious violations of human rights and the lack of

progress toward the establishment of democracy and the rule of law in

Belarus and calling President Alexander Lukashenka to engage in negotiations with the representatives of the opposition and to restore the constitutional rights of the Belarusian people ................................................................ 6

Markup of H.R. 4022, regarding the sale and transfer of Moskit anti-ship

missiles by the Russian Federation .................................................................... 9

Markup of H.R. 3680, to amend the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1998 with respect to the adjustment of composite theoretical

performance levels of high performance computers ......................................... 24, 30

Markup of H. Con. Res. 295, relating to continuing human rights violations

and political oppression in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 25 years

after the fall of South Vietnam to Communist forces ....................................... 29

Markup of H.R. 3879, to support the Government of the Republic of Sierra

Leone in its peace-building efforts, and for other purposes .............................. 34

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman’s statement concerning:

H. Res. 464 ........................................................................................................ 40

H. Res. 449 ........................................................................................................ 41

H.R. 4251 ........................................................................................................... 42

H. Con. Res. 304 ............................................................................................... 43

Representative Christopher H. Smith’s statement concerning H. Con. Res.

304 ......................................................................................................................... 45

Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman’s statement concerning H.R. 4022 .................... 47

Representative Dana Rohrabacher’s statement concerning H.R. 4022 ............... 49

Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman’s statement concerning H.R. 3680 .................... 51

Representative Donald A. Manzullo’s statement concerning H.R. 3680 ............. 52

Representative Joseph Crowley’s statement concerning H.R. 3680 .................... 53

Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman’s statement concerning H. Con. Res. 295 ......... 54

Representative Christopher H. Smith’s statement concerning H. Con. Res.

295 ......................................................................................................................... 55

Representative Ed Royce’s statement concerning H. Con. Res. 295 .................... 59

Representative Dana Rohrabacher’s statement concerning H. Con. Res. 295 .... 60

Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman’s statement concerning H.R. 3879 .................... 61

Bills and amendments:

H. Res. 464 ............................................................................................................... 62

H. Res. 449 ............................................................................................................... 65

H.R. 4251 .................................................................................................................. 69

H. Con. Res. 304 ...................................................................................................... 76

Page

IV

H.R. 4022 .................................................................................................................. 84

Amendment to H.R. 4022 offered by Mr. Gejdenson ..................................... 89

Amendment to the Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson, offered by

Mr. Bereuter .................................................................................................. 90

H.R. 3680 .................................................................................................................. 91

Two Amendments to H.R. 3680, offered by Mr. Gilman, en bloc ................. 93

H. Con. Res. 295 ...................................................................................................... 95

H. Con. Res. 295, as amended by the Subcommittee on Asia and the

Pacific ............................................................................................................. 100

H.R. 3879 .................................................................................................................. 105

H.R. 3879, as amended by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific ........ 118

Amendment to H.R. 3879 offered by Mr. Campbell ...................................... 130

(1)

H. J. RES. 464: H. RES. 449; H.R. 4251; H. CON.

RES. 304; H.R. 4022; H.R. 3680; H. CON. RES.

295; AND H.R. 3879

THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room

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

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. The Committee on International Relations meets today to mark up 11 measures, and time is of the essence. In the interest of time, we will not

read their titles. Members have the agenda before them.

Before we begin, I would like to recognize the gentleman from

Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, our Ranking Democrat, if he has any

remarks at this time. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening

remarks, only to say that if we are pressed for time, as I understand it, we have to recess because of some meetings, and then we

are going to be out of session, my understanding is, around 5:30.

I was wondering if there would be any objection to taking up the

computer bill, which I think there is agreement on, early in the

process, since many of the other bills are more matters of commendation or have a far more difficult prospect in the legislative

agenda. So if there are no objections, I would hope maybe we could

take up that bill because it does have such an important impact

on our economy and technology.

Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield, we will be

pleased to try to accommodate the gentleman, but we will start in

the regular order. We will see how it goes along, and if needs be,

we will take the computer bill at an early time.

H. RES. 464, CONCERNING ISRAEL’S MAGEN DAVID ADOM SOCIETY

We will now consider H. Res. 464, expressing the sense of Congress on the international recognition of Israel’s Magen David

Adom Society. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. H. Res. 464, a resolution expressing the sense of

Congress on international recognition of Israel’s Magen David

Adom Society and its symbol, the Red Shield of David.

2

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution has been referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which

has waived its consideration of the resolution. Without objection,

the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the resolution in that order for amendment. The clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas, Israel’s Magen David Adom Society

has——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

Since I am the prime sponsor, I will recognize myself for a few minutes to introduce it to the Committee.

We are bringing before the Committee today H. Res. 464, expressing the sense of Congress on international recognition of

Israel’s Magen David Adom Society and its symbol, the Red Shield

of David, which I introduced along with our Ranking Member, Mr.

Gejdenson. This measure reaffirms our support for justice and inclusiveness in the International Red Cross movement. Resolution

464 lends our support to the efforts of the Magen David Society

and strongly encourages its acceptance as a full member in the

international governing body of the ICRC.

This, the Magen David Society, is one of the few Red Cross

groups that has been kept out of the International Red Cross, nor

is its symbol allowed, and we are, by this resolution, asking for its

admission. We affirmed its support in 1987, and we requested that

they be admitted as full members. We recently met with the International President of the Red Cross, Mr. Gejdenson and I met with

him, urging this be accomplished, and we urge adoption of this

measure.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that one

of my most stunning moments, I think, was sitting there with you

this week when the International Red Cross said yes, they were finally about to at least attempt to include the Magen David Adom

into the International Red Cross. For almost 20 years, my entire

time in Congress, I have sent them an annual letter saying, ‘‘Why

do you have the Red Cross and the Red Crescent in the Red Cross

and say they are not religious symbols, and why do you say the

Magen David Adom is a religious symbol?’’ I got back the same letter for almost 20 years.

This year, lo and behold, they are going to try and do what is

right. I applaud them. I know the Administration has a proposal

they would like to proceed with, which is a reinterpretation or a

rational interpretation of the original language. Obviously I support the Administration’s approach, but I am very appreciative of

what the International Red Cross has done, and I certainly hope

they will be successful. It has been, I think, one of the few dark

marks against a tremendous international agency.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized for offering a motion.

3

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the Suspension Calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska.

All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. All those opposed, say no.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed

to. Further proceedings on this matter are postponed.

H. RES. 449, RELATING TO SENEGAL

We will now move to consider H. Res. 449, relating to the recent

elections in Senegal. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. H. Res. 449, congratulating the people of Senegal

on the success of the multi-party electoral process.

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on Asia, reported without amendment on April 12th.

Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative

language of the resolution in that order for amendment. The clerk

will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas, the Republic of Senegal held——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.

I now recognize—I see the sponsor, Mr. Payne, is not here. Mr.

Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriate response.

It is impressive when you see democratic institutions developing,

and the winners taking office, and those who are defeated in honorable contests stepping down. It is a good resolution and it ought

to pass.

Chairman GILMAN. I support the resolution introduced by Mr.

Payne. In a region afflicted by military coups, authoritarian leaders, and one-party states, Senegal has been a model of a stable and

pluralist society. The people of Senegal voted for a change in leadership and the president stepped down. It sounds simple, something that we in a 224-year-old republic take for granted, but it is

anything but the norm in many parts of the world, and in that region in particular.

I thank the Subcommittee on Africa for calling our attention to

this matter. We urge passage of House Resolution 449. Are there

any other Members seeking recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If not, 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 resolution on the Suspension Calendar.

4

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

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. All those opposed, say no.

[No response.]

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

Further proceedings on this measure are now postponed.

H.R. 4251, CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF NUCLEAR TRANSFERS TO

NORTH KOREA

We will now consider H.R. 4251, relating to congressional oversight of nuclear transfers to North Korea. The Chair lays the bill

before the Committee.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 4251, a bill to amend the North Korea

Threat Reduction Act of 1999 to enhance congressional oversight of

nuclear transfers to North Korea, and for other purposes.

Chairman GILMAN. This bill was referred to the Committee, and

also to the Committee on Rules, in each case for the consideration

of matters within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with,

and the clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read and is open to amendment at any point. This bill

is in the jurisdiction of the full Committee. I introduced this bill,

and recognize myself to introduce it to the Committee.

I am pleased that Congressman Ed Markey, our distinguished

colleague from Massachusetts, has again joined me to offer bipartisan legislation designed to ensure that any transfers of U.S. nuclear equipment or technology to North Korea pursuant to the

agreed framework of 1994 are carefully reviewed and are fully supported by the U.S. Congress before they take place. Along with

other distinguished cosponsors, including Mr. Bereuter and our

former colleague on the Committee, Mr. Kucinich, we introduced

H.R. 4228, the Congressional Oversight of Nuclear Transfers to

North Korea Act of 2000, earlier this week, but our proposal is not

a new one.

For all practical purposes, this bill was passed by the House previously. On July 21st of last year, Mr. Markey and I offered an

amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requiring

the President to certify to Congress that North Korea has fulfilled

all of its obligations under the agreed framework before any nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and North

Korea can enter into effect. Without such a nuclear cooperation

agreement, key nuclear components cannot be transferred to North

Korea from our Nation as contemplated in the agreed framework.

The Gilman-Markey amendment further required that Congress

enact a joint resolution concurring in the President’s certification

before such a nuclear cooperation agreement can enter into effect.

5

Our amendment was approved by a wide margin with strong

support on both sides of the aisle. We later negotiated with the Administration over our amendment. In the conference committee on

the Foreign Relations Act, we reached agreement with the Administration over the language of a certification, but the Administration resisted our idea that Congress should have any role in evaluating North Korea’s compliance with the agreed framework by

means of a requirement that Congress enact a joint resolution concurring in the President’s certification.

Our certification requirement was enacted into law late last year

as the North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 2000. This measure,

H.R. 4251, amends the North Korea Threat Reduction Act to require that Congress concur in any certification submitted by the

President pursuant to that Act before any nuclear cooperation

agreement between our Nation and North Korea can enter into effect.

To ensure that the Congress will carefully review such certification, our bill includes expedited procedures for consideration in

both the House and Senate of a joint resolution concurring in the

President’s certification. This feature addresses one of the principal

concerns expressed by Mr. Gejdenson and others during the debate

on the Gilman-Markey amendment last summer. We have worked

with Mr. Gejdenson’s staff in developing the language now before

the Committee, and we hope it once again receives strong bipartisan support.

Are there any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I know that some Members on

my side still have considerable reservations on this issue, and I

think we all have to move very cautiously. This is a time that, as

I understand it, the first very high level summit between the North

and the South. We have made some incredible progress under the

present Administration, ending some of the most egregious and

dangerous activities of the North Korean Government, and I think

that as we move forward, we want to make sure that nothing we

do would undermine that progress.

I know the Administration still has a considerable amount of

heartburn about this proposal. We believe the goals, without question, are completely laudable, and we all support a process that

thoroughly examines North Korea’s activity in the area of nuclear,

chemical and biological weapons. We hope that the language that

we have written will create a truly expedited procedure, so that at

the appropriate time we are not simply bogged down in a legislative quagmire and undermine what has been steadily increasing

progress on the Korean Peninsula.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to tell

the gentleman that I am very cautious about us proceeding in appropriate fashion, too, and to not create obstacles that are inappropriate. This legislation, we could assure our colleagues, does not

cross the line. It is in fact necessary for us to have this kind of assurance by the certification from the President, and we do have an

opportunity for expedited procedure as a part of the legislation.

6

I thank my colleague for his expression of concern and want to

reassure my colleagues that I, as the chairman of the geographic

authorizing Subcommittee, think this is appropriate legislation. I

thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Is any other Member requesting recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If not, 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 on the Suspension

Calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Those opposed, say no.

[No response.]

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

Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to make

motions under Rule XXII with respect to a conference on this bill

or a counterpart from the Senate. Further proceedings on the

measure are now postponed.

H. CON. RES. 304, ON BELARUS

We will now consider H. Con. Res. 304 relating to the situation

in Belarus. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. H. Con. Res. 304, a resolution expressing the condemnation of the continued egregious violations of human rights in

the Republic of Belarus, the lack of progress toward the establishment of democracy and the rule of law in Belarus, calling on President Alexander Lukashenka’s regime to engage in negotiations

with the representatives of the opposition and to restore the constitutional rights of the Belarusian people, and calling on the Russian Federation to respect the sovereignty of Belarus.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative language of the resolution will be read in that order for

amendment. The clerk will read.

Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas, the United States has a vital interest

in——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

This resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the full Committee.

I recognize the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, to introduce it to the Committee. Mr.

Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for support on this resolution, as I do the 108 cosponsors that we have at

this point, and I can assure you if there is a situation in the world

where I could easily get 435 cosponsors, had we the time, I would

7

have those 435 cosponsors. But in just a few moments yesterday

on the floor I was able to get 108 cosponsors, and it is the broad

recognition here in the United States and globally that of all the

former Soviet Union, now Independent States, it appears that

Belarus is heading in the worst direction.

The President, Mr. Lukashenka, has gone to extraconstitutional

activities, attempts to intimidate the press and nongovernmental

organizations. People who try to peacefully demonstrate are arrested and intimidated. Sadly, the people of Belarus suffered so

much during World War II; much of the conflict of World War II

between Russia and Nazi Germany occurred there in Eastern Europe, in Belarus. The people of my own father’s home town in

Parfianova, in Minsk and all of Belarus, suffered greatly, and it is

really an outrage they continue to suffer today. These are valiant

people who have gone through much pain, who have seen their

pensions disappear in economic upheaval. We want them to know

there is solidarity here in the United States and globally for truly

democratic reforms, the development of civil society and economic

benefit.

I would far prefer to be here today to talk about what we could

do together to build a better life for those valiant people, rather

than to be here today with a resolution that points out the egregious acts by its present leaders. Mr. Chairman, I know we will

have unanimous support for this resolution. I won’t take up any

more of my colleagues’ time. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

This resolution is extremely important for the people of Belarus,

for their liberty and freedom. I thank our Ranking Member, Mr.

Gejdenson, for introducing this new version of the resolution that

he had originally introduced in November.

Today Mr. Gejdenson has placed before us a measure that calls

it like it really is in Belarus, pointing out quite simply that the regime in Belarus of President Alexander Lukashenka is unconstitutional and illegitimate. It is a regime that uses the very worst of

Soviet-style tactics to repress the political opposition and democratic government, denying the people of Belarus their rights. It is,

in short, nothing less than a dictatorship, pure and simple.

I have been pleased to join the Ranking Member in sponsoring

this resolution because it points to some very troubling facts with

regard to the foreign policy of Belarus’ neighbor, Russia. First, as

this measure notes, the Government of Russia has been pursuing

reunification with Belarus. Such a reunification is inappropriate.

The President of Belarus and the parliament is an illegitimate one,

and no such negotiations should be conducted with it, or much less

agreements ratified with it. Any such unification that results in

Russia extending its military nuclear forces to cover Belarus would

be a violation of Belarus’ status as a non-nuclear state under the

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The second important point raised by this resolution regarding

Russia is the fact that Russia has been providing considerable financial support, billions of dollars, as a matter of fact, to the dictatorship in Belarus.

There are in fact some issues that regrettably are not raised in

this measure, including the mysterious incident in September 1995

8

in which a Belarusian helicopter gunship shot down an American

hot air balloon involved in an international race, killing two American civilians, and Lukashenka’s eviction of our American ambassador from his official residence, in violation of international diplomatic conventions. Finally, reports that the illegitimate government in Belarus may be engaged in proliferation of advanced military technology to other such regimes around the world.

This comprehensive resolution does not go into those issues, but

as I said, it does indeed do a great service for the repressed people

of Belarus simply by stating the obvious: The Government of

Belarus is a dictatorship, and the Government of Russia must

cease its financial support for that regime, respect the sovereignty

of Belarus, and join in sincerely working for the cause of true democracy in that suffering Nation. I fully support the passage of the

resolution and urge its adoption.

Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition? Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for yielding. I

would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Gejdenson and Chairman

Gilman, for their leadership in constructing this new resolution

condemning violations of human rights and erosion of democracy in

Belarus, and calling upon the Lukashenka regime to restore the

constitutional rights of the Belarusian people, and on the Russian

Federation to respect the sovereignty of Belarus. I appreciate very

much your willingness to accept the language which I had sought

to be included in the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, last month I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing which addressed many of the issues highlighted in the resolution, which featured key leaders of Belarus’ opposition and two

leading State Department officials as well as the person in the

OSCE parliamentary assembly who is attempting to forge a dialogue between the Belarusian authorities and the opposition.

We also heard from Speaker Sharsetsky, who is really a speaker

in exile. He has literally had his parliament stolen from him, and

expressed grave concern over his colleagues and the lives and livelihoods of his colleagues and the safety of the family members of

those colleagues who are really now a parliament in exile.

This hearing, Mr. Chairman, was a followup to our April 1999

hearing on Belarus. In the last few years I and my colleagues on

the Helsinki Commission have made numerous direct and indirect

intercessions, including through the OSCE, to draw attention to

the deplorable situation in Belarus and to encourage the establishment of democracy. I thank you for this resolution, and yield back

the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Are any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding, and I

want to commend the sponsors of this resolution. I think that it is

important that our Committee, representing the focus and the expertise of international relations in the House of Representatives,

speak out relative to the activities regarding the status of the leadership in Belarus. Clearly this is a circumstance that cannot be tolerated silently. As you look at what is occurring in the variety of

9

experiments taking place in governance across the former Soviet

states, Belarus stands out as not just a glaring disappointment but

indeed a tragedy for the people there.

I think that it is difficult to know, as Members of this Committee, how best to respond to a circumstance of this nature, but

clearly I think that a resolution advancing the expression that is

contained in this resolution is an important and appropriate step

to take at this point in time. I simply watch with some anxiety the

prospects of further close linkages between Russia and Belarus

under this new leadership in Russia. We certainly know that the

leadership in Belarus has failed its people dramatically, and I

think that it is an important period of time in evaluating what will

emerge in terms of a Russia-Belarus access, if any.

Hopefully this will have a salutary effect in expressing the will

of this body, and I commend the sponsors for it, and that would be

all I would care to say at this time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy.

Are any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend

the Ranking Member for bringing up this resolution. I am happy

to cosponsor it with him.

We cannot ignore the human rights violations in Belarus. At the

beginning of its independence it became a non-nuclear state, and

we should commend them for that, but since then the trampling of

human rights, the treatment of political dissidents, the restriction

on information, and the unfairness of elections is all reason for this

Congress to make its views very plain, and that is why I support

this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Are any other Members seeking recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If not, 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 resolution on the Suspension Calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. As many as are opposed, say no.

[No response.]

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

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

H.R. 4022, MOSKIT MISSILES

We will now take up H.R. 4022, regarding the sale of Moskit

anti-ship missiles by the Russian Federation. The Chair lays the

bill before the Committee.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 4022, a bill regarding the sale and transfer

of Moskit anti-ship missiles by the Russian Federation.

10

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

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

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

assembled——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

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

is in the jurisdiction of the full Committee. I now recognize the

gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, the sponsor of the

bill, to introduce it to the Committee. The gentleman is recognized

for 5 minutes. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

thank you for expediting the process on H.R. 4022, the Russian

Anti-Missile Proliferation Act of 2000.

Later this month the Russian Government is scheduled to transfer the first shipment of SS–N–22 Moskit, or also known as ‘‘Sunburn’’ anti-ship missiles, to the People’s Republic of China. These

supersonic missiles, which carry a nuclear-capable warhead, were

developed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to destroy American aircraft carriers and their support ships, especially

those with advanced Aegis battle systems.

Traveling at twice the speed of sound and at a distance of up to

65 miles, the missile’s 500-pound high explosive warhead could debilitate an aircraft carrier. Worse, a battery of eight nuclear-tipped

Moskits, or ‘‘Sunburns’’ as they are called, fired from China’s newly

acquired Russian 956E destroyers, could obliterate an entire aircraft carrier battle group, killing thousands of American marines

and sailors aboard those ships.

The Sunburn’s nuclear warhead has a payload of 200 kilotons,

which is more than 10 times the destructive power of the atomic

bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. These missiles can also be

launched from land-based mobile platforms or from the air.

During the last month, newspapers closely tied to the governments of Russia and China have written reports on the transfer of

these ships and these missiles to China, stating that these missiles

now give China the ability to defeat or to fight the U.S. Pacific

Fleet to a standstill. A second 956E destroyer is scheduled to be

transferred to China later this year, with at least two more on

order. This would give Beijing a combined battery of 32 Sunburn,

or otherwise called Moskit missiles, effectively turning the balance

of power in the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea.

More disturbing, the Russians have given Beijing license to

produce 200 advanced S–27 jet fighters which can carry the airlaunched version of the Sunburn missile, which has a range of

more than 100 miles. Guided by the long-range radar of AWACS

aircraft that the Chinese are currently purchasing from Israel, the

Chinese will be able to attack American aircraft carrier groups in

the open seas and far from their own coastline.

Equally disturbing, in this morning’s paper you will see a report

that the Chinese communists are assisting Libya in Libya’s ballistic missile development program. In an article in the People’s

Liberation Army magazine published this week, in a blatant threat

to use force against democratic Taiwan, China threatens to defeat

11

the United States militarily through its strategic partnership with

Russia.

Mr. Chairman, the writing is on the wall. Their intention is

clear. This article threatens continued proliferation of nuclear missiles to North Korea and other rogue states that are enemies of the

United States of America.

H.R. 4022 will prohibit the rescheduling or forgiveness of any

outstanding bilateral debt of Russia by the United States until

Russia permanently ends its sale and transfer of Moskit or Sunburn anti-ship missiles to countries that would endanger United

States security. In addition, the legislation requires that the President issue reports on Russia’s transfer activities of the Sunburn

missiles 30 days after the bill is enacted, for every 6 months thereafter.

This legislation will not, I repeat, will not stop economic assistance to Russia or prevent economic or trade activity between the

United States and Russia. It does not, I repeat, not cutoff funding

from the Nunn-Lugar or other programs involved in promoting political or economic reform in Russia. In fact, it gives Russia the

choice of whether to move forward, if it prefers, in selling these nuclear capable missiles to a potential enemy of the United States,

or——

Mr. BEREUTER [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has expired. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent for an additional

minute?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, that will be the order.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Or whether or not it instead would prefer bilateral debt rescheduling or forgiveness, and the choice is theirs. In

other words, if they are going to continue sending missiles that

threaten the lives of thousands, if not millions of Americans in the

long run, we shouldn’t be rescheduling their debt. They are making

that choice.

But if we don’t, if we keep giving them the options, and we reschedule their debt even in the face of this hostile activity, we are

fools. This is what this legislation is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to support this legislation

without adding any sort of Presidential waiver. The Commander in

Chief is accountable for the lives of our troops. We are setting the

policy for Congress in a way that says we shall not do this which

endangers American soldiers and sailors; we shall not reschedule

the debt of Russia if they continue in this line. The President

doesn’t need a waiver. We need to set the policy. The lives of thousands of our brave men and women in uniform who are out in the

Asia and Pacific theater are at stake, and I urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote on

this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER [presiding]. Is there discussion? The Chair recognizes Mr. Gilman, the Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, thank you. I regret I had to be out in

the anteroom for a meeting, and may have to return there in a moment.

I would like to state my strong support for the measure that is

before us today, H.R. 4022, which addresses a significant problem

12

we face in our relations with Russia, and I would like to point out

to my colleagues that as a member of the so-called Paris Club of

creditor nations, our Nation has been very generous in rescheduling the debt owed to us and other governments by the Russian

Government. We have rescheduled that debt on four different

dates: 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1999.

In hearings on Russia that this Committee held 3 years ago, I

took the opportunity to note that those reschedulings had been an

invisible but substantial form of direct aid to the Russian Government. Those reschedulings conceded hundreds of millions of dollars

that it would otherwise have had to pay in recent years, instead

deferring those payments over many years, at some cost to our Nation and other governments.

But what has that generous approach earned our Nation? First,

Russia defaulted on its debts to the so-called London Club of commercial creditors. In other words, it just stopped paying its bank

loans. Then Russia defaulted on its debt to our Nation and other

Paris Club members. What did Russia insist on after defaulting on

its debts, after all of the generous reschedulings of the last decade?

It insisted on outright forgiveness.

After months of refusing to pay its commercial debts, Russia told

London Club creditors to simply write off over $10 billion in its

commercial debt. In addition, after telling the Paris Club of official

creditors that it wouldn’t be making billions of dollars in payments

due last year and this year, Russia is now insisting that they, too,

write off one-third of the $42 billion it owes them, another $14 billion.

Mr. Chairman, could we have order, please?

Mr. BEREUTER. The Committee will be in order.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My colleagues, permit me to read you a quote from a New York

Times report of February 13th with regard to what Russia is doing:

The fact that Russia’s debt needs to be restructured at all is something of a puzzle. Russia, according to key economic indicators, should have the money to meet

its debt payments. Most of the country’s revenues come from the export of natural

resources, especially oil, the price of which is nearing an unprecedented $30 a barrel. The Russian Government should therefore be reaping high taxes from the profits of Russian oil companies. In fact, the Russian state has a huge trade surplus.

We have to ask, then, why isn’t Russia paying what it owes? And

what is being done to stand up to this kind of an obvious shakedown? In August of last year the Paris Club responded with

strength and vigor to the Russian refusal to pay its debts. What

did they do? By rescheduling them yet again. Sadly, it has been reported that our Nation and the other Paris Club members are actually talking with Russia at this time about granting it the billions

of dollars more in debt forgiveness that Russia wants.

We have to ask ourselves just what is going on here. How can

the Russian Government have the money to fight a vicious war in

Chechnya? How can it find hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain an espionage facility just 90 miles from our shores? How can

it deploy new strategic weapons, and yet it is too broke to pay what

it owes foreign investors and creditors, private and official?

Mr. Rohrabacher’s bill before us today really deals with two important factors: First, the Russian Government is selling to comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:03 Nov 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67626.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
13

munist China the very advanced technologies, such as the Moskit

anti-ship missile, that may 1 day be used to attack American sailors deployed in defense of democracy in Taiwan. Second, at the

very time that they are doing that, Russian officials insist that

they get billions of dollars in debt rescheduling and forgiveness.

I say the time has come to end this situation, which not only

makes no sense but is highly antithetical to American interests,

and for that reason I strongly support Mr. Rohrabacher’s bill and

urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, as well as

the maker of the motion. I don’t know if you were in the room at

the time that the gentleman from California raised the concern

about Israeli technology also being used on this particular ship and

the threat that that might pose. Is your strong——

Mr. BEREUTER. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

Chair asks unanimous consent that the gentleman have an additional minute. Without objection.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is the support for this measure in any way indicative that a uniform application of this approach of putting an economic squeeze on countries that are supplying weaponry or technology to China for use on this ship, such as Russia or Israel might

be doing, is going to be applied uniformly to other countries?

Chairman GILMAN. If I might regain my time from the gentleman, the issue with regard to Israeli supply of this kind of technology to China is something that is being handled right now by

the Administration, in discussions between Israel and our own defense people, and I think will be resolved probably in the next few

days. Also, Israel is not asking any debt forgiveness from our country or other countries.

Mr. ACKERMAN. But we do have an economic relationship. Would

it not be possible for that——

Mr. BEREUTER. The time of the gentleman has again expired.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional

minute.

Mr. BEREUTER. Is there objection?

[No response.]

Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, 1 additional minute.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would it not be appropriate for our same Administration, in which we have confidence in their negotiations with

Israel, to allow them to approach the former Soviet Union, Russia,

to ask them if they might cooperate?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield that answer to

the author of the——

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just say this resolution is concerned

about the Sunburn or Moskit missile. Yes, we are also concerned

that there is an AWACS system, that we developed with our technology, going to a potential hostile power through Israel. That is

of concern, but that is not the focus of this bill. This bill is aimed

totally at Russia and the transfer of a missile that can kill hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. sailors. It is not AWACS.

Mr. BEREUTER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

14

Is there further discussion?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson.

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

desk.

Mr. BEREUTER. The clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson: Page 4,

line 4, strike ‘‘notwithstanding’’ and insert ‘‘(a) prohibition notwithstanding.’’ Page 4, line 8, strike ‘‘permanently.’’ Page 4, after line

11, insert the following: ‘‘(b) Waiver. The President may waive the

application of subsection (a) if the President determines and certifies to the Committee on International Relations of the House of

Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the

Senate that such waiver is important to the national security interests of the United States.’’

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on behalf of his amendment.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a rather direct amendment. It deals with two issues. One

is, it just simply strikes the word ‘‘permanently’’ because, frankly,

we couldn’t get a definition of what that meant. We want the President, as does the author of the bill, to end the Soviet transfer of

these systems to the Chinese. We are as concerned about it as he

is.

We would hope that the gentleman from California in the future

would not prevent Russian companies like the satellite launching

companies, that seem to have the best record on nontransfer of

technology, from being restricted, because we are in this quandary.

We have spent, since the end of World War II, trillions of dollars

trying to contain the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union finally crumbled of its own weight in competition with the free world. At this

point we have a country that has never had a modern democratic

free market system. It went from the feudalism of the czars to the

Soviet system, and now it has staggered toward democracy.

Our colleagues here have sometimes been helpful and sometimes

we have been hurtful. But it is clear to everyone, and I believe everyone in this chamber, that it is not in America’s best interest to

see Russia spin out of control, to see the nationalists, the communists and other extremists take over that country.

So while I join the gentleman in his goal of preventing Russia

from proliferating, it seems also clear that we have a stake in seeing Russia survive. Indeed it is a difficult balance, and frankly it

is not a balance that can be brought about with 535 negotiators.

You cannot have 535 Members of Congress, House and Senate, negotiating with Mr. Putin. You cannot have us at every discussion.

So while I agree with the gentleman’s guidance, I think it is irresponsible not to have a national security waiver. That we give the

President leverage through this legislation, I agree, and I agree it

is terribly important.

You know, on the debt rescheduling issue, there are a couple of

sides to that coin. On one hand, obviously it would be further damaging to the fledgling free market in Russia to have them fail to

15

repay their debt. On the other hand, it doesn’t do much good for

the creditors.

So this balance of rescheduling debt is not simply a gift to the

country that has the debt; it is also an attempt to regain the maximum amount for those who have lent the debt. In using that leverage, what we try to do is move Russia, a country that has never

been free, that has never had a free market, toward a system of

laws and business operation that will give its people a better life

and, hopefully, sustain democracy.

I come from a family that fled the Soviet Union. I am particularly sensitive to the horrors of Stalin’s atrocities, and the dangers

that Soviet nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry presented to

the world. We have an opportunity to improve that 50-year conflict,

and we are in the process of doing so.

I would hope that, even with his reservations, the gentleman

from California would accept this amendment. This amendment

will either be accepted here, or it will happen in conference, or this

legislation will very likely not go into effect. So it seems to me if

we want to do more than just make speeches here, we ought to put

the gentleman’s tough language forward, get broad-based support

for the bill out of this Committee, but also do it in a responsible

manner, and that is to give a Presidential waiver so that the President does have that ability to negotiate on these issues.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from California is entitled to be heard at this

point. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in strong opposition to this proposed

amendment. Mr. Gejdenson finished his remarks by saying that we

want to do more than just give speeches here. Apparently that is

what Mr. Gejdenson believes, that this is our total responsibility,

just to give speeches. The fact is, we should be doing more than

just talking to one another. We should be trying to set policy when

it is of vast importance, when it is of vital importance to the security of the United States of America.

Now, the President of the United States already has leverage

that he can exercise to try to prevent the transfer of these deadly

technologies by Russia to enemies of the United States. We wish

Russia well, but we do not wish Russia well in its activities, in its

transfer of technology that could end up killing tens of thousands

of Americans in military uniform who are out there in the front

lines trying to defend our interests in the Pacific.

The choice is up to Mr. Putin. Now, he can choose to be our

friend and we can reschedule his debt, or he can move to transfer

these deadly weapons to potential enemies of the United States, to

people who claim that they will use these weapons against the

United States in order to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

No, Mr. Gejdenson, we should be doing more than just giving

speeches. We should be setting policy. This amendment is a killer

amendment. This amendment says leave the decision to the President of the United States and Congress is going to butt out. Well,

that is not what we should be about when we see the interests of

the United States not being taken care of.

There has already been a transfer, due to the inaction of this Administration, a transfer of the naval platforms on which these

16

deadly missiles will be based. Now, in a last-ditch effort, we need

to stop the transfer of those missiles. Once these missiles are in the

hands of the Chinese, our Seventh Fleet is in great jeopardy, and

if something happens, the blood of those sailors will be on our

hands if we pass the buck to the President of the United States.

Let’s do more than just give speeches in here. Let’s set policy,

and let’s look out for the interests of our people. So I would urge

my colleagues to oppose this killer amendment. This makes a

mockery of the power of this body, of our Committee, to be involved

in the foreign policy of the United States of America. So I would

ask you, urge you, to vote against this killer amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, is recognized

for 5 minutes.

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the sponsor

of the legislation, because clearly this is a missile that is of concern

and we don’t want proliferation of this type of thing throughout the

world, particularly places that might ultimately use it against us.

On the other hand, I do think that this is the kind of bill that

presents something that needs to be considered in the totality of

its context. Missiles aren’t the only threat to global security. Economics plays a big part as well, and that is where we have to look

at the remedy pursued by the bill and carefully evaluate whether

we have enough information to make a judgment this morning on

the consequences of restricting this government from further renegotiation of Russian debt.

The result of that would be to essentially force Russia into a payin-full or default position. It would undoubtedly trigger other members of the Paris Club to do the same thing relative to their debt,

and inevitably Russia would be in a default position because we all

know they don’t have the money to pay. Now, that would undoubtedly deeply impact the people of Russia in ways that we may or

may not be comfortable with.

I am convinced, however, that the impact wouldn’t even stop

there. The last time Russia got into debt trouble, it I think fell perhaps with greatest impact on the people of Brazil, because shortly

thereafter Brazil had a currency flight problem as well. The entire

international investment community gets very, very nervous, not

just with the country at issue but with other emerging countries,

other emerging economies across the globe.

So if this Committee would advance legislation which would ultimately force Russia into default, we might be impacting these

emerging economies recovering in Asia. We might be absolutely

dooming the government in Brazil, in light of currency flight. We

certainly do not know the full economic dimensions about the instability that we could cause by causing a flight of currency all across

the world.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMEROY. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There has been testimony in front of this

Committee that Russia at this time is flush with cash because of

the increase in the price of oil, and if there was ever a time for us

to take a stand to prevent them from transferring weapons that

could be used to kill thousands of Americans, now is the time.

17

I can understand the gentleman’s reluctance to push Russia over

the edge at a moment of crisis. This is not a moment of crisis for

Russia. But we should at times like this be setting the standard,

so they know that we are not going to reschedule their debt when

they are in a crisis, if they are going to do things that put Americans by the tens of thousands of us at risk.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman makes

a good point, and I think the legislation makes an important point.

I just don’t think it ought to be passed in its original form, because

I think that most of us have a strong sense that if you match Russia’s assets, including their current cash, against their existing liabilities, you would have a mismatched situation and they would

be in default. Because I don’t think that you are going to have

other members of the Paris Club, other creditor nations to Russia,

exercising forbearance if we are not going to forbear ourselves.

In fact, I have just been given information that shows that Russia has a $426 billion debt against $15 billion of assets. So whether

or not that is indeed the situation, there is certainly a dimension

to this that I think needs to be very fully explored. There is a global economic consequence potentially presented by the legislation.

Now, what we could do is one of two things: Pass the amendment

which allows the Administration to draw upon their expertise and,

if required, give a waiver; or, it would seem to me, hold this legislation in abeyance while we proceed with a series of hearings to

evaluate whether or not the legislation addressing an absolutely legitimate national security concern would, on the other hand, generate further instability across the global economies that would at

least present maybe as significant a national security issue.

So, for that reason, while I respect the intention behind the legislation, I would urge us strenuously to support the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN [presiding]. The gentleman has consumed his

time.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can understand why the gentleman from California has offered

his resolution. It is an important one, and he points out a real concern that our country should have.

However, I am going to speak in behalf of the Gejdenson amendment and hope that we adopt it and then pass the resolution. Later

today, we may get to legislation which the Administration opposes,

and they oppose it, unfortunately, like the Executive Branch usually opposes legislation because they don’t want Congress to actually be involved in foreign policy. This Committee needs to reassert

itself and be engaged in foreign policy.

Even if this amendment is adopted, as I believe it should be, and

the resolution is passed, it does send an important message to the

Administration that they need to heed. But I will almost always,

under any circumstances, provide a waiver to the President on a

matter of this importance.

We have heard some rhetoric today which brings another issue

to bear, and that is related to an expected sale of an AWACS-type

aircraft by Israel to Russia. If you look at the Washington Post editorial today, you will understand that in their judgment, and in

18

mine as well, it is one more result of a failure in China policy on

the part of this Administration.

I do believe if we look back at one of the larger blunders of the

late 20th century, we are going to have to conclude that was the

way the West, particularly the United States, handled its aid program to Russia and to the other republics of the former Soviet

Union. We have bungled it badly, and, of course, they have taken

every inappropriate advantage of the way we have handled it.

But I would say that in this situation the matter is of such import that the President really must have this waiver. He really deserves to have this waiver as the head of our Executive Branch.

Having said that, I will again reiterate that I hope the Administration will act in a fashion that is really consistent with what the

gentleman from California intends.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. But I do not want to precipitate a problem here

by refusing to give the President a waiver.

I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska.

I have a problem, though, with the language that says the waiver

is simply important to the national security interest. That strikes

me as about the lowest possible standard. My recollection is, when

we have done waivers before, it has been a much higher standard,

such as ‘‘compelled’’ the interests of the United States that the national security requires. Boy, it is easy to meet ‘‘important to.’’ I

mean, frankly, my colleague from California is right about that:

This is too big a waiver.

I yield back.

Mr. BEREUTER. Well, the gentleman is right.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut to see

if he might want to change that language. It may be inadvertent.

Mr. GEJDENSON. This is actually a higher standard. I could have

counsel explain. There are several different standards, and the lowest is simply ‘‘in the national interest.’’ Then this is the next stage,

which is, ‘‘in the national security interest.’’ And then the third

stage is ‘‘important to the national security.’’ So that is the tradition of the chamber, and——

Mr. CAMPBELL. Do we have an advisory opinion from the College

of Cardinals on this?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think we have had enough debate over religious issues in the House Chamber. We ought to stick to foreign

policy here.

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would

move that the amendment be amended and insert, before the word

‘‘important,’’ ‘‘vital’’——

Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman accept the amendment?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER [continuing]. ‘‘Vital to the national interests,’’ in

substitute for the word ‘‘important.’’

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is agreed

to. Any further? Who else seeks recognition? Mr. Sherman?

19

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I can see why my colleague from California

would object to this amendment, in that it substantially weakens

his resolution. I don’t think that we should always give the Administration a waiver, because if we are really going to be involved in

foreign policy, we have to say what we mean and mean what we

say, and actually influence outcomes rather than merely influence

reports that are filed with us explaining why they are going to do

what they are going to do anyway.

On the other hand, at this point I am not prepared to vote for

a resolution as strong as that suggested by Mr. Rohrabacher, because it is focused on one weapons system. We have not involved

the Armed Services or National Security Committee in telling us,

is this the most important weapons system?

I don’t know, and we have not had hearings on whether this system can be obtained by the Chinese from other sources, such as the

French or the British, and whether they would be willing to sell;

whether there are other missile systems capable of posing an equal

threat to the ships of the Seventh Fleet; whether Chinese domestic

technology is almost at the same level; whether the Russians and

Chinese could evade this resolution by transferring technology

rather than transferring missiles; how we would even know that

technology had been transferred.

I am not at all sure that I would not vote for a very strong resolution, but only if we were able to answer an awful lot of questions

that——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield so I could answer

some of those questions?

Mr. SHERMAN. I don’t know if we have that kind of time to devote to this. I would be happy, but I doubt that all of the questions

that I have can be answered in the scope of a mark-up.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, how about the ones you just brought

up?

Mr. SHERMAN. I have got a few more, but go ahead with the ones

I brought up.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Floyd Spence is the Chairman of the National Security Committee. Floyd Spence is a cosponsor of this bill.

The Russians are the only ones who manufacture this type of technology. The communist Chinese are incapable of manufacturing

this type of technology; that is why they are purchasing it from

Russia. Those are to answer your first three questions.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Members seek——

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I mean it is

good to get those shorthand answers from a gentleman that I respect, and yet that doesn’t quite substitute for the kind of in-depth

information that we should have before we adopt a resolution of

the strength that was originally——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is the gentleman aware that the delivery of

these missiles will happen within 30 days unless this Congress

acts? Do people understand that we are right now giving the communist Chinese the signal and the Russians the signal to move forward with a transfer of these deadly missiles?

If this amendment passes, we are sending a signal to the Russians to transfer missiles that will put tens of thousands of AmerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:03 Nov 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67626.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
20

ican sailors in jeopardy. That is what this vote on this amendment

means.

Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time, if we are under that kind of

time restraint, maybe we ought to agree to the substitute version

that Mr. Gejdenson has presented to us, because I agree with his

analysis. A resolution of the strength put forward by the gentleman

from California is unlikely to become law in this country within the

next 30 days. It may not even get out of this Committee before

then. Given that kind of time restraint, I think the most we can

do is send a strong signal and hope that the Administration can

delay or prevent this transfer.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would agree a strong signal is something

we should send. Thank you very much.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and move the previous question.

Chairman GILMAN [presiding]. Are any other Members seeking

recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If not, the question is now on the Gejdenson

amendment. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?

[A chorus of noes.]

Chairman GILMAN. The noes have it.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman GILMAN. Is there a sufficient second?

[A show of hands.]

Chairman GILMAN. A sufficient number. The clerk will call the

roll.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

Chairman GILMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.

Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.

Mr. Gallegly.

Mr. GALLEGLY. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes no.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

[No response.]

21

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.

Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.

Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes no.

Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes no.

Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.

Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich votes no.

Mr. Cooksey.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes no.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.

Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.

Mr. Martinez.

22

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.

Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.

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.

Mr. WEXLER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes.

Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.

Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.

Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.

Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes.

Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Aye.

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. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.

Mr. Leach.

23

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

Mr. KING. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.

Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.

Mr. Houghton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.

Mr. Menendez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the tally.

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

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez is recorded as not having voted.

Mr. MENENDEZ. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other Member who has not been recorded?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 20 ayes and 16 noes.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is agreed to.

The question was not on final passage.

I will ask unanimous consent that the Committee be 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 obVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:03 Nov 29, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67626.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
24

jection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is deemed

read, the previous question is ordered on the amendment, and the

amendment is adopted.

Mr. BEREUTER. I move that the Committee report the bill to the

House with a recommendation that the bill, as amended, be passed.

But I had assumed that we wanted it on the Suspension Calendar

and that the maker of the resolution wanted it on the Suspension

Calendar, as well.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, please be brief.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. Mr. Chairman, what we are saying then

is by going to the Suspension Calendar, it cannot be amended on

the floor. I do not want this to go to the floor in an unamended

fashion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Very well, then. I leave the motion as it is.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion by Mr. Bereuter. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The motion is carried, a quorum being

present. Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized

to make motions under Rule XXII with respect to a conference on

this bill or a counterpart from the Senate.

The Committee stands in recess. When we return, we will consider H.R. 3680. Please come back as quickly as possible.

[Recess.]

H.R. 3680, CONTROLS ON HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

We will now consider H.R. 3680, relating to notice periods for

high performance computers. The Chair lays the bill before the

Committee.

[The bill appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 3680, a bill to amend the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 with respect to the adjustment of composite theoretical performance levels of high-performance computers.

Chairman GILMAN. The bill was referred to the Committee, and

in addition the Committee on Armed Services, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

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

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Adjustment of composite theoretical performance

levels of high performance computers. Section 1211(d) of the National Defense——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

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

was referred to the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy

and Trade, was reported by voice vote and without amendment.

25

Without objection, I will now recognize Ms. Zoe Lofgren from

California, a proponent of the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just

like to express my appreciation for the support we received on this

important measure from the Committee.

This will prevent the problem that we face as the updating of our

export rules has not been able to keep pace with the rapid change

in technology, which at one point last year resulted in the anomaly

of a Sony Play Station, a children’s toy, falling within the proscription for exports. We need to have the changes be put into play rapidly.

There are many Members who believe that we need to revamp

the entire system. That is probably true, but beyond the scope of

this bill. This is simply to allow the changes that we agree on to

happen in a rapid fashion. There are two friendly amendments that

will be offered, that I agree with. As Mr. Dreier could not be here,

he asked me to give greetings and best wishes to all the Committee, as he is the other primary sponsor of the bill.

I yield back my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren, for coming before

our Committee.

I intend to offer some perfecting technical amendments that

would shorten the title and clarify the date of applicability of any

new regulations submitted by the Administration before the enactment of this legislation. This bill, which passed the House last

year, would simply shorten the review period for these high performance computers from 120 to 30 days.

It was reported out of the International Economic Policy and

Trade Subcommittee by a voice vote last week, on April 6th, and

enjoys broad bipartisan support. I would like to thank Chairwoman

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Robert Menendez for

their leadership in moving this important measure forward.

Currently, the National Defense Authorization Act requires a 6-

month waiting period before the Administration can update our export control thresholds for supercomputers. When the bill went into

effect in 1998, it targeted computers that operated above 2,000 million theoretical operations per second, MTOPS, but many of today’s

personal computers now operate in the 4,000 MTOPS range. While

the Administration raised the supercomputer threshold levels in

February, a mandatory 6-month waiting period no longer makes

sense for these products, which now have a 3-month life cycle.

I know many of our colleagues would like to include other related

issues in the bill, but I would urge them to join in moving it to the

floor as quickly as possible. Keeping it free of amendments is the

best way and only way to ensure it will be enacted this year.

I now turn to Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I can remember when we had this fight on the

floor several years ago, and we lost, and I am glad that we are here

now, several years late, undoing what we never should have done.

I think the Chairman said it well. We have said it before: We were

tying products up in months of regulatory red tape, when the shelf

life of the product wasn’t that long, was going to be 180 days or

less. We are looking at toys, as the gentlelady indicated, that have

operational capabilities that would be snared by regulation and law

26

that is designed to prevent our enemies from accessing military

and critical technologies.

The lesson here is very clear. Modern technology is moving at a

speed unheard of in the history of man, and what history has

taught us is, those who take advantage of technology and move on

are the ones that succeed. We are not capable of shrouding this

technology and hiding it from the rest of the world. Within short

periods of time from when we develop this technology, other countries make it, and once it is globally available, the only thing you

do is determine who will have the resources to develop the next

generation of technology.

Keeping America safe is keeping our technological advantage.

Keeping our technological advantage is dependent on the resources,

the profit of sales happening in an expedited manner. Keeping our

enemies from having dangerous technology depends on focusing our

resources on choke point technologies. We should have done this

long ago. I am happy we are doing it today.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo.

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3680. As an early cosponsor, I am pleased to see the

Committee take quick action on this much-needed legislation.

It was 3 years ago that Congress imposed this requirement

which forces computer companies to wait 6 months for the completion of a congressional review to see if an advanced but widely

available computer can be exported. In an environment where computer product life cycles are now 3 months, this 6-month requirement does not reflect technological reality; it doesn’t today, and it

didn’t 3 years ago.

I hate to say I told you so, but I predicted this outcome in 1997.

Only 88 Members of Congress had the foresight and courage to

stand against emotionalism by opposing the original amendment

that is corrected by today’s bill. I am pleased to point out that

many of those brave 88 Members sit on this Committee, including

you, Mr. Chairman.

I ask the Committee’s support for this narrow, rifle shot bill so

we can correct the most egregious export control problem that we

have. If we want to keep high tech manufacturers here in this

country and allow them to remain robust and healthy, then I would

ask all Members to support H.R. 3680. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first commend the gentlelady from California for her efforts in this regard, and really in due deference to

her, I have not offered amendments that I think are important to

expand the scope of what we need to do. So I intend to support the

legislation.

But let me just say that the 180-day congressional notification

period for increasing the MTOPS level for export sales has handicapped the American computer industry and made it impossible for

the U.S. Government to respond quickly to the latest advances in

computer processing technology. Last summer, for example, new

personal computers introduced by Apple and IBM surpassed the

27

MTOPS level for exports for Tier 3 countries like Israel and Egypt,

and it wasn’t until after the 180-day notification period ended in

January that these computers were allowed to be sold without a license.

Later this year, Intel is expected to introduce the Itanium chip—

and I have a little copy of what it would look like, one of these

would allow a computer that uses four of these chips to operate at

nearly 23,000 MTOPS, a level that exceeds current policy for export sales to Tier 2 and Tier 3 countries. In a computer industry

where the average shelf life of a computer is incredibly short, a 6-

month delay in sales is a very long time, particularly when overseas competitors are nipping at the heels of American companies.

So, for these reasons, I am strongly supporting this legislation.

However, I am disappointed that we are only addressing the

MTOPS notification period. This legislation does not address other

problems like the 120-day notification period for moving countries

between tiers, and burdensome post-shipment verification requirements.

More importantly, while the bill fixes one problem, it is ultimately not a substitute for reauthorizing the Export Administration Act and updating our Cold-War-era export control policies. I

believe that American industry deserves laws that are responsive

to today’s global economy, not laws that were created over two decades ago to respond to Cold War era threats.

No one in Congress is advocating for changes that would undermine our national security, but rather for policy changes that

would ensure our national security while also streamlining our export control laws to focus on those countries and those exports that

are of greatest concern to our Nation. It is our obligation to address

this issue. I think that the Congress, for a long time not having

spoken on this issue, has abdicated its role and its authority to the

Executive Branch, and I think that that is a mistake on behalf of

the Congress.

To ensure that our laws reflect what is in the best interests of

our Nation, we should consider comprehensive legislation, namely

the Export Administration Act, to reform our export control laws.

For now, I am happy to support the legislation that is before us,

and I look forward to having an even broader set of legislation that

can clearly keep our competitiveness globally.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the Chairman. I am generally supportive

of this bill, but I would simply raise a point of concern. That is,

as much as it is about amending congressional review as opposed

to abandoning congressional review, I think moving from 6 months

to 30 days in some cases could be awkward.

In the case of an extended recess, which from time to time does

happen around this place, we could well be gone for longer than 30

days, and I would just make a point that I don’t think we want to

abandon congressional review, we want to amend it. I would ask

that you work with the Administration in looking at some kind of

compromise feature in the event that Congress is adjourned for

more than 30 days.

28

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD. Yes, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman raises a good point, and I will

contact the Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration to ensure that no notifications are sent to Congress during any

recess period. I will ensure that the Committee exercises full and

comprehensive oversight over these reporting and notification problems.

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I join

with the Chairman to make sure that this is addressed, and I think

the gentleman raised a very interesting point.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Gejdenson.

I have an amendment at the desk which I ask be considered en

bloc.

[The amendments appear in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman: Amend the

title so as to read ‘‘A bill to modify the congressional review’’——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.

This amendment provides that any proposal by the Administration putting forward new supercomputer performance levels after

January 1 of this year, and before the date of enactment of this

measure, would only become effective upon its enactment or 30

days after submission, whichever is later. It also provides a new

title to the bill, clarifying that it provides for the modification of

the congressional review period with respect to the adjustment of

composite theoretical performance levels of high performance computers.

I understand the amendment enjoys bipartisan support. I defer

to Mr. Gejdenson for any comments he may have. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I support the amendment and applaud the

Chairman’s efforts to improve the bill.

Chairman GILMAN. I would ask immediate consideration of the

amendment by the Committee. All in favor, signify in the usual

manner.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. Carried.

Is anyone else seeking recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If not, I ask unanimous consent that we set

this bill aside temporarily. We don’t have a quorum.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think we have got some folks in back.

Chairman GILMAN. All right. We will pause just a moment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Because H. Con. Res. 295 is an anniversary date

related bill, I wonder if we could take up that resolution while we

are waiting for a quorum?

29

H. CON. RES. 295, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN VIETNAM

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, we will proceed with H.

Con. Res. 295, and as soon as we have a quorum, we will go on

to the vote.

The clerk will read the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. H. Con. Res. 295, a concurrent resolution relating

to continuing human rights violations and political oppression in

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 25 years after the fall of South

Vietnam to Communist forces.

Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which

waived its consideration of the matter, and the Subcommittee on

Asia and the Pacific, which reported it with an amendment in the

nature of a substitute. Without objection, the subcommittee-recommended language will be treated as original text for the purpose

of amendment. The clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee recommendation, in that order.

Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas April 30, 2000 marks the——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Subcommittee recommendation is considered as having been read and is open to

amendment at any point. I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this resolution was introduced by

the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, to express concern about continuing human rights violations and political repression in the socialist Republic of Vietnam. It was discussed in the

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. It was unanimously approved with an amendment. I yield my time to the introducer of

the resolution, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

would like to thank you and thank the Subcommittee Chairman,

Mr. Bereuter, for assisting me in pushing this resolution through

the process.

April 30th is the anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the end

of the Vietnam War, and it is important for us to commemorate

this time with a call for democracy and human rights and freedom

in Vietnam, let the people of Vietnam know that, at this important

anniversary, we have not backed away from the idea that they too

have a right to their own human rights. We also in this resolution

commend the Vietnamese American community in the United

States of America, and I would ask my fellow colleagues to support

the resolution. It is not controversial.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I commend the

gentleman from California for introducing this timely resolution on

Vietnam. I want to thank the Chairman of the Asia and Pacific

Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, for expediting the measure in Subcommittee, and I ask that the remainder of my statement be made

part of the record, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Any further——

30

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I want to commend

the gentleman on his work. Vietnam has not had the kind of political, human rights and other liberalization we think it should have.

It has clearly had some improvements in opening up its economy,

but it is long overdue that they respect their own citizens’ human

rights and make a commitment to developing a free and civil society.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for a motion.

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

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the question is on the motion by Mr. Bereuter. All those in favor, signify in the usual manner.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?

[No response.]

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

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

RESUMPTION OF CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3680

We will now go back to H.R. 3680. So that the Committee may

report the bill we have under consideration with a single amendment, the Chair will make a unanimous consent request that, without objection, the 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 is ordered on the amendment, and the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Bereuter.

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

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

amended, be passed.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Those opposed, say no.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The ayes have it.

In order to establish a quorum, a roll call vote is in order. The

clerk will call the roll.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

Chairman GILMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.

Mr. Goodling.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.

31

Mr. Smith.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. I’m going to ask our Members to stand by so

that we can take up Sierra Leone quickly, right after this. Thank

you.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.

Mr. Manzullo.

Mr. MANZULLO. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes yes.

Mr. Royce.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.

Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.

Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.

Mr. Houghton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.

Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Radanovich votes yes.

Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes yes.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Aye.

32

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.

Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes.

Mr. Ackerman.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes.

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.

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.

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.

Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes.

Mr. Hilliard.

Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.

Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.

Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.

Mr. Delahunt.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.

[No response.]

33

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes.

Mr. Hoeffel.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call 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. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.

Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.

Mr. KING. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes yes.

Mr. Houghton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.

Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt.

34

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meek.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 31 ayes and zero noes.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman?

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

Who is seeking recognition?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I would ask unanimous consent that a statement on

the Vietnamese resolution be made a part of the record. I was in

the next room speaking with——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. SMITH. If I could just say very briefly, I was in Vietnam on

a factfinding trip with staff, Joseph Rees, and with Peter Hickey,

last December, and we raised a number of important human rights

issues in Vietnam, including the continued crackdown on religious

believers, whether it be the Catholic Church. We met with Archbishop Man; we met with Dr. Que, who is one of the leading dissidents, who is under virtual house arrest. He is followed, his

phone is tapped.

It is very important that we reiterate in the strongest possible

way our concern that human rights have deteriorated in Vietnam.

There is a situation where Radio Free Asia is being jammed by the

Vietnamese government. They also have a 2-child-per-couple policy,

and not so long ago one of the employees who worked for the U.S.

orderly departure program, who was hired through the Vietnamese

Government agency, was fired when she had an unauthorized

child, so coercion is alive and well in population control in Vietnam.

I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Chair or his designee

is authorized to make motions under Rule XXII with respect to a

conference on this bill or a counterpart from the Senate.

Who is seeking recognition?

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. I ask unanimous consent to have my remarks on

this bill included in the record, and also on H. Res. 464, the first

bill, and H.R. 3680.

[The statement of Mr. Crowley on H.R. 3680 appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, all Members will have

time to add their remarks.

H.R. 3879, SIERRA LEONE

We now take up H.R. 3879, relative to assistance to Sierra

Leone. The bill was referred by the Speaker to the Committee on

International Relations, also the Committee on the Judiciary, in

35

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 bill appears in the appendix.]

The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 3879, a bill to support the Government of the

Republic of Sierra Leone in its peace-building efforts, and for other

purposes.

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

is dispensed with. The clerk will read the enacting clause.

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read. This bill was referred the Subcommittees on Africa, and International Operations and Human Rights, and International Economic Policy and Trade. The latter two Subcommittees

have waived further consideration of the measure. The Subcommittee on Africa considered the bill yesterday and recommended its passage, as amended by an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Without objection, the Committee will consider the Subcommittee’s amendment in the nature of a substitute as original text for

the purpose of amendment. The clerk will read the Subcommittee’s

amendment for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. To support the Government of Sierra Leone in its

peace-building efforts, and for other purposes——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Subcommittee’s

amendment is considered as having been read. I now recognize the

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from—

who is seeking recognition? Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the State Department, the Administration, if

they are supportive of the legislation. Would you come up and identify yourself, if you are?

Mr. GUEST. Yes, my name is Michael Guest. I am Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the Department of State, and thank you very much for asking our views of

this legislation. Mr. Chairman, we very strongly support this bill

and the goals that it reflects.

Mr. BEREUTER. I would say to the representative of the State Department, this is an authorization of funds, and it is the Legislative

Branch, the House of Representatives, taking a position in support

of authorization, which seems to be inconsistent with the views of

the Administration. They don’t seem to want us to do any authorizing here.

Mr. GUEST. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, these are additional funds that are authorized for Sierra Leone, and these are not

an earmark from previously budgeted funds from the State Department which, as you know, are very, very tight.

Mr. BEREUTER. But this is an authorization bill, and surely you

don’t want this Committee doing any authorization, do you?

[Laughter.]

36

Thank you. This has been a rhetorical question for you. I am

building the case for the lack of consistency in administration policy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say we appreciate you bringing up this very important resolution, and in trying

to conserve time, I just would ask that we support this legislation.

It goes to help demobilization, demilitarization and reintegration,

and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and goes to try to

build democracy. We think that it is very important that we move

into Sierra Leone before there is continued degradation, and so I

just urge support of this resolution.

Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman, and I support the

measure introduced by our Ranking Member, Mr. Gejdenson, and

fully considered by the Subcommittee. I would like to express

strong confidence Sierra Leone will enjoy a peaceful, democratic future, but I cannot have that confidence.

I fear that the significant problems and the lack of cooperation

the U.N. peacekeepers in Sierra Leone have experienced since the

outset of their deployment will continue, and I fear the Revolutionary United Front, which has waged a war of terror and atrocity

against its own citizens, has not changed in its ultimate objective,

and that is complete dominance of Sierra Leone. Nevertheless, I

support the measure on the basis that we must make every effort

and even make some changes where the future of so many innocent, suffering people is concerned.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk

which I hope will be agreeable to all——

[The amendment appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, maybe I can explain the amendment. I brought it down to the desk about 5 minutes ago, and they

may not have replicated it. If I can take the time to explain it now,

I can actually try a unanimous consent.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized on the amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is simply this: I think we should be spending

more money on the demobilization/demilitarization and not target

for political parties. So we have $10 million for demobilization and

$3 million for electoral assistance. They are nowhere near elections

in Sierra Leone.

I would like to see the $3 million moved into that first category

for demobilization, where the need is immediate. It will bring that

up to $13 million, and take the $3 million away from efforts at assisting political parties. I base that on the fact of timing in Sierra

Leone, what they need, and also a skepticism as to effectiveness in

training political parties, as opposed to my optimism in getting demobilization underway.

Mr. Chairman, I came to the mark-up yesterday in Subcommittee. Regrettably, it had already gaveled down by the time

37

I came. But in brief discussions, I am hopeful that this would be

acceptable to the Ranking Member. At risk that he will say no, I

still yield to my good friend, Mr. Payne.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, I can concur with the gentleman from California. I think that the immediate situation right now will call for

as much as we can do in the whole question of demobilization and

reintegration and those things. What we would hopefully have in

our next year, as we move closer to the elections, is no less than

$3 million and up to a higher number put in for elections. So I accept the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell, do you have a copy of your

text of your amendment?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do, and if you suspend for 2 minutes, go back

to the business, I will have it in that time. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Any other? Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to resist the

Ranking Member on our side, his decision here, and Mr. Campbell

on this. I am concerned that we don’t early enough in the process

often make commitments to building political parties. They don’t

occur in a vacuum, especially where there is very little tradition of

democratic institutions and party-building. So I would hope that we

would quickly come back and provide some funds to make sure that

the building blocks of democracy are established, so we are not just

constantly coming back and picking up the ravages of civil war and

people who ignore democratic procedure.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell: Page 5,

lines 17 through 25, strike——

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read. The question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. Campbell. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Those opposed, say no.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is agreed to.

Are there any further amendments? Any Members seeking recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If not, Mr. Bereuter is recognized.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek

consideration of the pending bill on the Suspension Calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the motion is agreed to.

Without objection, the Chair or his designee is authorized to make

motions under Rule XXII with respect to a conference on this bill

or a counterpart from the Senate.

I would like to notify our Members that our Committee will meet

again in mark-up session during the week of May 2nd, right after

the recess, to consider items we did not have time for on this agenda and any additional items that may come before the Committee.

The Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(39)

A P P E N D I X

APRIL 13, 2000

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

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130