[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-626 WASHINGTON : 2000
______
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 air-
launched 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 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 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 communist 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.
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 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 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 pay-in-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.
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 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?
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 American 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.]
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.
[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.
[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 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. 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.
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 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 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.
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?
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----
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.
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.
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.]
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.
[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 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.]
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 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.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 13, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7626.091