SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC
45–692 CC
1998
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO CHINA

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H. Res. 188, H.R. 967, H.R. 2232, H.R. 2358, H.R. 2386

SEPTEMBER 26, 29, AND 30, 1997

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
PETER BROOKES, Professional Staff Member
PAUL BERKOWITZ, Professional Staff Member
KRISTEN GILLEY, Professional Staff Member
KIMBERLY ROBERTS, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S

September 26, 1997:
Markup of H. Res. 188, urging the executive branch to take action regarding the acquisition by Iran of C–802 cruise missiles; H.R. 967, to prohibit the use of U.S. funds to provide for the participation of certain Chinese officials in international conferences, programs, and activities and to provide that certain Chinese officials shall be ineligible to receive visas and excluded from admission to the United States
September 29, 1997:
Markup of H.R. 2232, to provide for increased international broadcasting activities to China; H.R. 2358, to provide for improved monitoring of human rights violations in the People's Republic of China
September 30, 1997:
H.R. 2386, to implement the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act concerning the stability and security of Taiwan and U.S. cooperation with Taiwan on the development and acquisition of defensive military articles; H.R. 967, to prohibit the use of U.S. funds to provide for the participation of certain Chinese officials in international conferences, programs, and activities and to provide that certain Chinese officials shall be ineligible to receive visas and excluded from admission to the United States

APPENDIX
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    H. Res. 188 reprint
    H.R. 967 reprint
    Amendment to H.R. 967 offered by Mr. Manzullo
    Golden Rule statement submitted by Mr. Manzullo
    Letter of September 16, 1997 to Dr. Ye Xiao Wen from Sam Ericsson, Advocates International
    Amendment to the amendment to H.R. 967 offered by Mr. Smith
    Amendment to H.R. 967 offered by Mr. Campbell
    Amendment to H.R. 967 offered by Mr. Bereuter
    H.R. 2232
    Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2232 offered by Mr. Smith
    Amendment to H.R. 2232 offered by Mr. Kim
    Amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Smith
    Amendment to H.R. 2232 offered by Mr. Royce
    H.R. 2358
    Amendment to H.R. 2358 offered by Mr. Bereuter
    Amendment to H.R. 2358 offered by Mr. Campbell
    H.R. 2386
    Amendment to H.R. 2386 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
    Amendment to H.R. 2386 offered by Mr. Manzullo
    Letter from Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, Department of State
    Letter from William Wright, IV, Rear Admiral, USN, Director, Asian and Pacific Affairs
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

MARKUP OF H. RES. 188 AND H.R. 967

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Gilman, Goodling, Hyde, Bereuter, Smith, Burton, Ros-Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Kim, Chabot, Sanford, Salmon, Houghton, Campbell, Fox, McHugh, Graham, Blunt, Brady, Hamilton, Gejdenson, Ackerman, Martinez, Payne, Menendez, Brown, Danner, Hilliard, Capps, Sherman, Rothman, Clement, and Luther.
    Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] The Committee on International Relations meets today in open session pursuant to notice to consider several measures. These measures will be taken up in the following order: H. Res. 188, urging the executive branch to take action regarding the acquisition by Iran of C–802 cruise missiles; H.R. 967, to prohibit the use of U.S. funds to provide for the participation of certain Chinese officials in international conferences, programs, and activities and to provide that certain officials be ineligible to receive visas and excluded from admission to the United States, H.R. 2232, to provide for increased international broadcasting activities in China, H.R. 2358, to provide for improved monitoring of human rights violations in the People's Republic of China, H.R. 2386, to implement the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act concerning the stability and security of Taiwan and U.S. cooperation with Taiwan on the development and acquisition of defense military articles.
    The first measure we will take up is H. Res. 188, urging the executive branch to take action regarding the acquisition by Iran of C–802 cruise missiles. The Chair lays the measure before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. H. Res. 188, urging the executive branch to take action regarding the acquisition by Iran of C–802 cruise missiles.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. May I be recognized for opening comments?
    Chairman GILMAN. Why don't we first put the measure before us, and then I will be pleased to recognize you.
    Mr. HAMILTON. My comments, Mr. Chairman, relate to all of the bills, not just this specific one, but I will be glad to follow your agenda.
    Chairman GILMAN. I just want to get this measure before us. I'll be pleased to recognize you.
    The clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the resolution.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas the U.S. escort vessel U.S.S. Stark was struck by a cruise missile in the Persian Gulf, causing the death of 37 U.S. sailors.''
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative text of the resolution are considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point.
    [H. Res. 188 appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the Chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, all of us, I think, have problems with Chinese behavior in many areas. But I am frankly very disturbed about the process by which these bills are brought before us, as well as the content of several of the bills. I would like to make two basic points. The first is that the process that has been followed this week, I think, is highly unfortunate. It is not, in my judgment, the way a responsible committee should operate. Let me review a few of the happenings.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    A week ago, we in the Minority were told that the Committee might take up 11 China bills this week. Then early this week, we were told that that seemed less likely. Meanwhile, the Committee kept on its schedule a meeting for 10 a.m. this morning with a foreign dignitary. That certainly encouraged the impression with me and others that the markup would not be held. On Wednesday evening at 6:40 p.m., we were orally told that there would be a markup this morning. We did not get a written notice of this session until Thursday afternoon. So much for following the general rule of 1 week's notice.
    I understand that the Chairman has the power to waive standard rules in unusual circumstances. That is meant to be a narrow exception. What is so unusual is that it requires us to meet less than 48 hours after unofficial notice to consider bills on these very serious issues. Next we were told that there would be two Subcommittee markups on Thursday afternoon, which meant that our knowledge of what precisely would be marked up at today's meeting would be delayed until Thursday afternoon. One subcommittee never met. A second subcommittee met with only one Member present, amended and passed out a bill. That is not deliberate consideration.
    Complicating matters still further, there was talk from Members of the Majority of marking up several other China bills as well as other small bills not related to China. There have not been to my knowledge any hearings on most of these bills and resolutions this week or previously. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion with any senior Administration official, policy official about these bills. The Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia is scheduled to appear before one of our subcommittees next Tuesday. Why can not we wait until after that hearing before proceeding with these bills? The Majority which runs this Committee never officially notified the State Department of today's meeting, nor invited the Department to send representatives to this markup. I am also told by a variety of Republican colleagues, and I do not know the exact purpose of the meeting, that there was a caucus last night of Committee Republicans to discuss these bills, but that the Chairman did not chair the meeting and the chairman of the Asian Subcommittee did not participate in the meeting.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So, Mr. Chairman, we arrive here this morning with very complicated legislation, with untold ramifications to it, no hearings, a process that has included no consultations with Administration officials, and hardly appropriate Subcommittee input. I do not think we as a committee can be proud of that process, and I do not think that is the manner in which a responsible committee should act on a very serious matter.
    The second point I want to make is that we are at an exceedingly delicate moment in U.S.-China relations. All of us, I think, acknowledge that relationship is a very difficult relationship. Yet the U.S.-China relationship is also one of the most important for world peace and stability in the next century. The Administration is now working toward a U.S.-China summit meeting in late October. I think that's the first summit in 8 years. Their hope is to make progress in that relationship on trade, human rights, non-proliferation, and other problems. I would hope that every Member of this Committee would want that summit to be a success. We should be asking, it seems to me, how can we help make it a success, not how we can make it immeasurably more difficult.
    I can guarantee that action by this Committee and by the Congress on the several bills and resolutions before us will make the President's task much more difficult in that summit. I do not intend to oppose every bill before us today. Some have merit. All of them of course deal with meritorious topics that should get the attention of this Committee and of the Congress. But I must say that the timing of this markup and the cumulative impact of these bills is in my judgment harmful to U.S. foreign policy. I do not see why it is in the interest of this Committee to make the task of the President of the United States so much more difficult at a time of enormous fragility and delicacy in the U.S.-China relationship.
    I would respectfully urge the Chairman to adjourn this markup session. Let's start again. Let's do our job carefully, deliberately, like a responsible committee should. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. With regards to the advanced notice provided for this markup, allow me to state that I am fully aware of the importance of adequate advanced notice. We talked with your staff earlier this week to let you know that we were going to be proceeding in this manner.
    As the gentleman knows, we on this side of the aisle have spent many more years in the Minority than the Majority has when they were in office, and many times over those years, I voiced precisely the same complaint that you have just made. Indeed, I still remember the markup of some legislation concerning Somalia approximately 4 years ago, when you as Chairman of the Committee, not as a Ranking Minority Member, in that case we in the Minority didn't receive a copy of the legislation that was marked up until the evening before the markup. These things happen on occasion, primarily due to the Administration and due to leadership on both sides. I was not happy about that. As I recall, at that time you explained you had not been able to provide us with the text sooner because your leadership in the Administration was revising the legislation right up to the last minute.
    In the case of today's markup, we provided notice of this meeting 2 days in advance. The bills we are marking up have in most cases been available for months. As a matter of fact, each one of these bills go back to July of this year and March of this year and September of last year. These are not new measures. They have been lingering in our Committee for a substantial period of time.
    I regret that we did not provide notice further in advance, but just as you were constrained previously by your own leadership, we have similar problems. It certainly is my intention to inform our good friend, distinguished Minority Members as soon as possible of our Committee meetings. We have done that throughout.
    Now let me also say that today we are here to mark up China policy legislation which addresses some of the concerns of our constituents. Many ask, as you have, why now. I think it's reasonable to address that question. We are moving this legislation because this process started last year in June with the overwhelming passage of H. Res. 461, that was introduced by Mr. Cox and by Mr. Solomon, which called for hearings and legislation by cognizant committees on issues of concern to the American people regarding the People's Republic of China. We are now doing that.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This legislation is an effort to desegregate human rights, proliferation, and the advancement of democracy from our annual MFN debate. This targeted legislation is a step in that direction. The American people are deeply concerned about our relationship with China. We all get communications, correspondence, phone calls about it. We are responding to these concerns. The summit is quickly approaching. It will be conducted at the end of October. The Chinese are watching our actions closely. I led a delegation to the Mainland, to the People's Republic just a few weeks ago. We tried to express these very same concerns to the Chinese leadership.
    I think that this is an opportune time to be open and to be frank with the new Chinese leadership about these concerns, and that Congress is concerned about a number of issues of mutual concern. I think it will be very useful to the summit to make these known beforehand. Many of us in the Congress and many of our people feel that the Administration has been soft-peddling issues which we as Americans feel strongly about, such as human rights, democracy, trade, and national security. The legislation before us today expresses a strong sentiment of the American people on these issues.
    I might say too——
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, will you yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. I will in just a moment. We have asked the Administration to express their position on these measures. We asked that the early part of this week. Just this morning, I am handed as we started our meeting, a September 26, Department of State memorandum on their position with regard to the bills. Speaking of getting advance notice.
    Yes, I will be pleased to recognize the gentleman.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that you recognize and acknowledge that notice to the Minority was not sufficient. I do not think that it was. I think I understand some of the problems that you confront, but your statement basically didn't contradict anything I said. I went through very carefully the process that had been followed. I think all of my statements were accurate. At the end of the day here, on about 24 hours official notice and 48 hours unofficial notice, we are taking up legislation without hearings, without having heard in any formal way, and so far as I know, not any informal way, the position of the Administration, a process of no consultation, no Subcommittee action of any consequence, enormously complicated legislation with terrific ramifications on U.S. relations with China. We are doing it in a way that is not responsible as a Committee.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We are not dealing here with some ordinary resolutions that are run-of-the-mill type of things. We are dealing with legislation that goes right to the heart of U.S.-China policy. I think the process here is most unfortunate. The timing is all wrong in these circumstances. I recognize the Chairman has to proceed under his own lights here, but I wanted to let him know and the Members of the Committee know that I just think this is not a responsible process that a competent Committee would engage in.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hamilton had only proceeded about a sentence when I sought recognition, but I am glad that I sought recognition at this point because I would like to mention briefly two subjects. First of all, I ask Members all to consider, as I am sure they will, the consequences of what we do here today, particularly with respect to the upcoming summit. There is no reason why Congress can not express itself on matters of import that relate to Sino-American relations, but I do think we have to take very much due caution in mind when we proceed today and weigh those consequences, and particularly with respect to the upcoming summit.
    Second, I want to talk about procedure as well. I regret to say, but I think it's important to say, that I have received a variety of directions and concerns that this package of legislation be moved, a variety of staff contacts with my staff. I feel that some elements of this package of legislation is very much contrary to our national interest and that other legislation is quite inappropriate for us to move at this particular time. On the other hand, there are some parts of the legislation of which I am fully supportive and will act accordingly and work constructively here today.
    But what troubles me greatly as an elected Member of the Congress, representing 540,000 people just like everybody else here, is that when I took action to try to implement an understanding from the Speaker that the Chairman and I received directly on the Floor together when I expressed concerns that some things I felt I was uncomfortable with moving, the Speaker said to me directly in front of the Chairman, ''Doug, you move and do what you are comfortable with.'' That is exactly what I wanted to hear since there seems to be substantial leadership interest in this package of legislation, to say the least.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Accordingly, I constructed from the four bills that were the primary responsibility of the Asia Pacific Subcommittee, those elements that were verifiable, those elements that I thought were constructive. They constituted the majority of the substantive sections of all four of those bills. I introduced that legislation that evening. I put together a notice of a markup of the Asia Pacific Subcommittee under a generic description since we had no bill number, but we left a space indicating that there would be a bill number assigned shortly by the House.
    My Subcommittee markup notice was changed without consultation and without my knowledge. I did not understand that had happened until 12 noon yesterday. I thought for a period of time during the morning and told some people that in fact there were two notices out there because I understood a change had been made. I had no understanding that that was held back and that another one was substituted which listed four specific bills.
    I think that loyalty and trust is a two-way responsibility. I think we have to work constructively together and I think I was ill treated on this instance. The Chairman has the authority to do this under the rules, although we have no rules officially published for this Committee I find, for the 105th Congress. But it is not an appropriate way to construct, to relate to a Subcommittee chairman. I would work and will work constructively, but I did want the Members of the Asia Pacific Subcommittee to know I felt I had no choice but to be walked over on this instance without knowledge, without notice, to have my markup notice stopped and changed.
    Therefore, I felt I had no option but to cancel the markup yesterday. I regret the fact that the Asia Pacific Subcommittee Members therefore had no opportunity. We would have moved in a constructive fashion full and open debate and the normal rules. We would have sought a full quorum and I would have insisted on a full quorum unless the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Berman, had no objections to proceeding with a smaller number. Thank you for hearing me out.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. I regret that you had been misinformed. There were no changes made on your notice. I want to assure the gentleman that the procedure for sending out meeting notices was completely appropriate. We did nothing to change your notice. I had urged your staff member to indicate though that you would be considering four of the measures as part of your omnibus measure. That was the only suggestion we made. We didn't change your notice, and without any notice to us, we understood that you canceled the markup.
    Mr. BEREUTER. If the Chairman would yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I had a markup for the Asia Pacific Subcommittee notice that was sent to the Committee in the normal procedure. It was changed by four bills being added to it. That is the fact. Thank you.
    Chairman GILMAN. Again, the gentleman is misinformed. We did not change your notice. We asked your staff member to include the four measures that you were going to consider in your omnibus bill. Today we are prepared to move ahead on the legislation. We are now considering H. Res. 188. Mr. Rohrabacher asked for consideration.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would just like to remind the Members that the issues that we are talking about, while of a magnitude are certainly important and we know that, but these issues have been discussed. I think that to attack the Chairman in trying to say that we are trying to push something through the Chairman, and I may vote against some of the things the Chairman wants, and we have our disagreements. But these issues have been thoroughly debated in the House of Representatives. These issues have been thoroughly debated in this Committee. We have spent considerable time on American policy toward China. The lines have been drawn. So I would just respectfully disagree with my two colleagues who are trying to suggest that we cannot now move forward in a timely manner with making some decisions about China.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So again, I am sorry that some people who have some authority and perhaps their toes have been stepped on. I am the chairman of a subcommittee. I will tell you, Mr. Sensenbrenner steps on my toes as well. But all of us are struggling to try to make sure that this works. Mr. Manzullo says I have bigger feet to step on. All right. Anyway, the bottom line is that we are trying to get the business of the House done. There is a meeting coming up, a big summit coming up. The lines have been drawn. Let's get on with making some decisions around here. Thank you very much.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard briefly?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Yesterday, our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights marked up two bills with the full and complete support of Tom Lantos, the Ranking Member. To piggyback on what my friend, Dana Rohrabacher, said a moment ago, H.R. 2358, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen's legislation to enhance by $2.2 million the number of monitors that we have in China: it is absolutely offensive to me, and I think it ought to be to every Member of this Committee, that we have only one person in the People's Republic of China who looks at human rights in that country. Furthermore, that person has other issues also in his portfolio. Yes, other people may look at human rights incidentally, but there is only one officer specifically designated for that. This would enhance that.
    I will never forget on my three human rights trips there, you get talking to this one person and other people have a little bit to say about it, but that is the point man. We need to beef up our surveillance so that we get better, more reliable, more comprehensive information. This should be a no-brainer in terms of this Committee.
    The second piece of legislation has to do with Radio Free Asia. When the State Department reauthorization bill was up, I offered the amendment on the Floor that passed by almost a 3-to-1 margin. Mr. Bereuter was for it. All of us were for it, to hopefully get the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia to a 24-hour broadcast regimen. To me, that seems also to be a no-brainer. Increase information. Get the truth to the people. Pierce that bamboo curtain because, as we all know, the information that they get from their State organs is totally biased. That too should be a no-brainer. The legislation of Mr. Royce was marked up in our Subcommittee yesterday. I offered an amendment to it, but it's still his legislation, that makes it clear that we're tracking what we're doing in the State Department bill. It lowers the amounts, but it's only to accommodate a tentative agreement with the Senate to bring it down.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So this is nothing new. We have had hearings in my Subcommittee on this and the need for it. Again, Mr. Lantos is on board on both of these measures. So at least on the two that we're dealing with here, I think there should be strong support. I yield back.
    Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I have a suggestion. I serve on three subcommittees that deal with international trade. I'm no expert on it, but I have a great interest in it. I also have a great interest in sending the strongest message possible that the egregious actions on the part of the Chinese with regard to religious activity need to be continuously addressed. I would make a suggestion. There are two, possibly three bills here that I do not think are that controversial. H.R. 188 still leaves a tremendous amount of discretion with the President with regard to the invocation of trade sanctions against those nations that are involved in the exporting of the killer missiles. H.R. 2232 provided for increased international broadcasting activities to China. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. H.R. 2358 for improving monitoring of human rights violations in the PRC.
    The other two, H.R. 967 and 2386 deal with the myriad of trade legislation, diplomatic problems and some pretty terse legal interpretation. What I would respectfully suggest because I don't want this Committee, and I'm sure the Chairman doesn't want it, that when this Committee sends a signal to the Chinese Government, this Committee should be together on it, and to show that the U.S. Congress is acting in concert and not in different directions.
    What I would respectfully request is that we would move today on 188, 2232, and 2358, and give us at least a week. I mean I am very much interested in talking to Administration officials and to others who are experts in trade so we can get a long-range view of the ramifications of those two controversial bills. If we could pull those two, proceed with the other three, that's simply a suggestion.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. We thank the gentleman for his suggestions. We are constrained with regard to the limited amount of time left on the Floor. We have been assigned an open window for several hours with regard to our measure on Floor debate. So we will have to be limited by those considerations.
    We will now treat the previous discussion as opening statements and restart our discussion on H. Res. 188. The acquisition by Iran of at least 60 C–802 cruise missiles from China clearly is a destabilizing development. In the arsenal of a rogue regime like Iran, these weapons pose a significant threat to the safety of our own nation in the area, the security of all ships passing through the Straits of Hormuz, and the stability of the entire Persian Gulf region. The Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 requires that our President impose sanctions on any nation that transfers destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons to Iran. Inexplicably, the Clinton Administration determined that 60 nearly supersonic sea-skimming Chinese-made C–802 cruise missiles in the hands of the Iranian revolutionary guard navy are not destabilizing. That is hard to believe.
    Based on that determination, the White House has not levied any sanctions against China as called for in the law which ironically is known as the Gore-McCain Act. I strongly disagree with that decision. We have introduced this bill in response. H. Res. 188 finds that the delivery of C–802 cruise missiles to Iran violates the Gore-McCain Act and urges the Administration to take firm action against those responsible for transferring these dangerous weapons. Iran has threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz; to disrupt international shipping, and to challenge American forces that are active in the Persian Gulf. The acquisition of C–802 cruise missiles by the Iranian navy must be considered a serious threat to stability. The former commander in chief of the U.S. fifth fleet, Admiral Scott Redd, said that the C–802 missiles give Iran a 360-degree threat which can come at you from basically anywhere. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Robert Einhorn told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that these cruise missiles pose new direct threats to deployed U.S. forces. Secretary of Defense William Cohen in June 1997 indicated that the acquisition of these weapons heightens Iran's threat to commerce and to security in the region, and complicates the military operation of U.S. forces in the Gulf. Our colleagues in the Senate have passed a similar resolution by a vote of 96 to zero.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Today, 15,000 American service men and women are stationed in the Persian Gulf region, well within the range of C–802 cruise missiles. We all remember the tragic and deadly attack against the U.S.S. Stark that occurred in the Gulf in May 1987. A single cruise missile slammed into the frigate, killing 37 American sailors. I think we owe it to our troops to minimize to the extent possible the threat they face as they carry out their mission. Prohibiting Iran from acquiring advanced conventional weapons and penalizing those nations that provide the weapons must be a high foreign policy objective for our nation. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 188. We call upon the Administration to take appropriate action.
    Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I wonder if I might ask the Administration to come forward so I could ask a few questions about this pending bill.
    Chairman GILMAN. If the Administration witnesses will identify themselves.
    Mr. KLOSSON. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. My name is Michael Klosson. I am a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs at the Department of State.
    Ms. SHIRK. I am Susan Shirk. I am a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, with primary responsibility for China.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Let me just begin by asking you what your views are on the resolution.
    Mr. KLOSSON. Mr. Hamilton, the sale of missiles to Iran is certainly a matter of grave concern to us. The Department is conscientiously implementing the requirements of the Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act.
    Chairman GILMAN. Speak right into that mike so we can hear you.
    Mr. KLOSSON. Right. The Act assigns responsibility for making these decisions to the executive branch. This is something that we take extraordinarily seriously. I think Ms. Shirk can go into the details on this for you.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. SHIRK. I would like to agree with the Chairman that the problem of cruise missiles to Iran is a top priority foreign policy objective. The Administration agrees with that completely. We are working very hard in the context of the summit to have China resolve this problem. We have explained to China quite forcefully that these cruise missiles directly threaten our forces in the region and the shipping of all countries in the region. In the context of our diplomatic dialog with China, we are attempting and I believe with some success, to help transform China's views of its own interests in the Persian Gulf as it becomes an oil importer.
    At the same time as we pursue this objective assiduously in the lead-up to the summit, also, as my colleague said, we have a process. You have assigned us the responsibility, the State Department the responsibility to make these assessments. We consult with the intelligence community and with the Pentagon and we have this constantly under review.
    Whenever we make the determination that the missiles transferred to Iran by the Chinese are of a destabilizing number and type, we will make the sanctions determination.
    Chairman GILMAN. Secretary Shirk, have there been any transfers to date?
    Ms. SHIRK. Any transfers of cruise missiles?
    Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
    Ms. SHIRK. We certainly believe that there have been transfers of cruise missiles.
    Chairman GILMAN. Do you know how many?
    Ms. SHIRK. I understand that there are a substantial number of missiles that have been transferred. The question is whether or not these transfers are destabilizing in the context of other developments in the region. That's a determination that we look to the Pentagon to make for us.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. What is the criteria for determining the numbers that would be destabilizing?
    Ms. SHIRK. It's not a question of threshold. It is a question of military balance in the region and the ability of other countries to defend against these weapons as well.
    Chairman GILMAN. Are the transfers continuing since this problem was identified? Are they still continuing at the present time while the Administration is still taking a look at the problem?
    Ms. SHIRK. We are still taking a look at the problem, yes, sir. We are at the same time——
    Chairman GILMAN. You are not answering the question. Are the transfers still continuing while you are looking at the problem?
    Ms. SHIRK. I can't tell you whether or not these transfers are continuing at the present time, but certainly we learned from our intelligence reports that there have been cruise missiles transferred by China to Iran. No one denies that there's a problem. The question is whether or not it is destabilizing under the terms of the legislation.
    Chairman GILMAN. That is why I asked you what the criteria are.
    Ms. SHIRK. It's quite complex.
    Chairman GILMAN. For determining when it's destabilizing. We have information that the Chinese also transferred C–801K air launch cruise missiles. Is that correct?
    Ms. SHIRK. I am afraid I can't comment on that, sir. First of all, I am not sure. I am new in this job. I am very cautious because I know a lot of this information is gathered by methods and sources that we can't talk about in open hearings. So I would rather not comment on the specific transfers, but I certainly would not want to disagree with anything that you and your colleagues have said about the nature of the problem. We agree that it is a very serious problem and we are working it very hard.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Madam Secretary, at what level in the State Department is this determination made when they are destabilizing or not destabilizing?
    Ms. SHIRK. The responsibility, I believe, has been delegated to the Under Secretary by the Secretary.
    Chairman GILMAN. Which Under Secretary?
    Ms. SHIRK. Security and arms control. It is delegated from——
    Chairman GILMAN. Who is that Under Secretary?
    Ms. SHIRK. It was Lynn Davis. We are right now in a transition.
    Chairman GILMAN. Am I correct that it is a vacant post right now?
    Ms. SHIRK. There is an acting person. My understanding that this authority——
    Chairman GILMAN. Who is the acting Under Secretary? Is it John Holum?
    Ms. SHIRK. John Holum is not yet in this position, sir.
    Chairman GILMAN. So it's a vacant post and there's no acting Secretary?
    Ms. SHIRK. No. There is an acting individual, but it's a big organization. I am struggling to learn everybody's name. I can't remember the name of that individual.
    Chairman GILMAN. We are struggling to find out when this will become a threat that would be sanctionable. We would like to have that information.
    Ms. SHIRK. Let me assure you, sir, that the process of considering whether or not the time has come, whether or not these transfers are destabilizing this process continues, even though there is a transition in the incumbent of this position. We haven't stopped working on it.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HAMILTON. Would the Chairman yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. Yes. I'll be pleased to yield to the gentleman. Mr. Hamilton has the time.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I reclaim the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the Chairman. I gather you are opposed to the resolution?
    Mr. KLOSSON. Yes.
    Ms. SHIRK. Yes. We are.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Some time ago, I'm not sure just when it was, you made a determination that the transfer of the C–802 missiles to Iran did not violate the Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act.
    Ms. SHIRK. That's right.
    Mr. HAMILTON. When was that made, a few months ago?
    Ms. SHIRK. No.
    Mr. HAMILTON. A year ago?
    Ms. SHIRK. At least a year ago. I am sorry again, I can't give you the exact date.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I think your testimony today is that you are revisiting that decision. Is that correct? You have it under review?
    Ms. SHIRK. That issue is under constant review because we are monitoring transfers.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Let me ask you, if a determination is made that this is a destabilizing act, what are the consequences of that? There are certain mandatory sanctions that kick in, and then there are discretionary sanctions, as I understand it.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. SHIRK. That's right.
    Mr. HAMILTON. All of it is subject to a Presidential waiver.
    Ms. SHIRK. That's right.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Is that correct?
    Ms. SHIRK. That is correct.
    Mr. HAMILTON. But the mandatory sanctions here would, among other things, include our opposition to Chinese borrowing from multinational financial institutions for a year. Correct?
    Ms. SHIRK. That's correct.
    Mr. HAMILTON. And China of course is a very large borrower from the international institutions.
    It would also require in a mandatory way the suspension of U.S. assistance for a year. Now, I'm not aware of assistance to China except I am aware of the fact that you are seeking to provide some assistance for rule of law and democracy purposes. So that would be cut off.
    Ms. SHIRK. Correct.
    Mr. HAMILTON. If a decision were made. What would be the consequences of a decision that the transfer was in fact destabilizing in terms of our relationship with China?
    Ms. SHIRK. We pursue this process quite independently from our foreign policy or diplomatic relationship with China. We will make a determination and implement the sanctions if we believe that the situation warrants it. In other words, this is a decision that will be made on the merits of the case and not on whether or not China will be happy or unhappy with what we decide to do.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Let me just observe to Members of the Committee here that I fully appreciate how all of us feel about the transfer of missiles and the Chairman and others are correct in bringing it to our attention because it's a very serious matter. To be very blunt about it, I don't feel I know enough myself to know whether it's a destabilizing move or not under the terms of law today. But I want to go back to the question of process here.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We at no time that I know of have had any formal consultation with the policymakers here. We have not heard from the Secretary of Defense. We have not heard from the Secretary of State. We have not heard from the national security advisor. What we did was yesterday afternoon, we met for about an hour, maybe a little longer, with a top intelligence official. He very carefully avoided making any judgment with regard to destabilization or with regard to the violation of any law. That is not the business of the intelligence community to make those judgments. He tried as accurately as he could, and I thought did a good job, of telling us where he thought things stood with regard to the transfer of these missiles.
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman would yield.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. We had four, a maximum of five Members present at that meeting.
    Chairman GILMAN. Including myself.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Including you and including me. Some of those Members were in and out during that period of time. We spent about 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes on this problem. So here we are dealing with one of the most serious foreign policy questions in our relationship with China, a relationship with enormous consequences. This Committee, four or five Members of this Committee, have spent 10 to 15 minutes examining it, not with a policymaker, not with the Secretary of State, not with the Defense Secretary, but with an intelligence official. And I'm sure Members have looked at a good many news articles.
    The point I am simply trying to make is that when you are dealing with a matter of this consequence and this seriousness, I do not believe that that kind of a process is adequate. We have had Administration officials here working for months and months and months, I know, trying to determine whether or not these acts are destabilizing. Their judgments may not be correct. Our friends over here on the Republican side may be correct, that what has happened has been destabilizing. I don't know that for sure, but I know how hard they have worked in trying to make that determination. Here we are making the determination on what I consider to be woefully inadequate grounds.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. I just want to note for the gentleman. When we asked the intelligence officer whether these were destabilizing or not, he said that was not his responsibility. Now I am asking the Assistant Secretary whether these are destabilizing, and we don't have a proper response.
    But I do note that there is a waiver provision. If it is a matter of national security, the President has the opportunity to waive it. So I am asking our colleagues to move ahead on the assumption that it is destabilizing, and the President will always have his opportunity to waive it if he finds that it is not a destabilizing influence.
    We will now recess for a vote and return as quickly as the vote is over. Please, I urge my colleagues to return. We have some important legislation.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. I recognize Ms. Danner. Ms. Danner is recognized for 5 minutes. Would you use your mike, please?
    Ms. DANNER. I would like to inquire of the witnesses why they would think that the Senate passed a similar measure 96 to nothing, which means that all of the Democrat Senators voted for it. I mean 96 to nothing is a somewhat unusual number in the Senate.
    Now I notice that there is an adjective, similar. Is 188 different from what was passed in the Senate?
    Mr. KLOSSON. I'm sorry, we can't answer that question. We don't have the Senate text in front of us.
    Ms. DANNER. I see. Do you have an explanation for why the Senate would pass it 96 to nothing? Did the Administration oppose it when it was before the Senate?
    Mr. KLOSSON. I'm sorry, I don't recall that.
    Ms. DANNER. OK. In other words, you can't answer any of my questions. Let me see if I can find someone else that can give me an answer.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman, does anyone on your staff perhaps have an answer to my question as to why it passed 96 to nothing in the Senate, which means that every Democrat voted for it?
    Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentlelady repeat the question? There was some comment behind me.
    Ms. DANNER. This measure, it says a similar non-binding resolution passed the Senate 96 to nothing, which means that every Democrat over there voted for it. I am wondering how it differed, how the Senate version differed from this since it was similar, and if there was no opposition in the Senate, why was there not opposition. Does anyone have an answer to those questions?
    Chairman GILMAN. I don't think any of our staff is familiar, but we are asking them to try to get a copy of the Senate resolution for you. I hope we have it before we get into a vote. We'll pass it onto you.
    Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Is there anyone else seeking recognition? I would like to make a couple of points.
    Yes, Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. I would like to know the timing of this resolution. I would suspect that I would vote for it here today, but I know that the summit is coming up. At that summit, I would hope that there would be announcements that would show that China is moving in our direction on these issues. Perhaps if that were to occur, it would be unnecessary for the full House to adopt this resolution.
    Would we be asked to deal with this on the Floor before or after the summit?
    Chairman GILMAN. The Leadership has asked us to bring our bills out on the Floor preferably next week. We have only some 17 days left of legislative business. If we are going to do it, we have to come in on their timeframe.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Let me just make a couple of points for our Members regarding the resolution. The Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Hamilton, points out that we raised the issue of advanced conventional weapon transfers to Iraq with the intelligence community officials and they had no view, appropriately so.
    Mr. HAMILTON. It should be on Iran.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you for correcting me. And whether the 1992 law would be triggered. But all the Members should know that we have raised this issue with our senior policymakers as well. Two weeks ago, we met in closed session with our top State Department non-proliferation official, Bob Einhorn, and specifically raised the issue of transfers of C–802s and the status of the 1992 law. We also asked Mr. Einhorn whether this would be a key topic of conversation with our Chinese counterparts in the lead-up to the summit, and whether he would be raising this issue with the Chinese in order to obtain assurances that they would stop transferring these destabilizing weapons.
    Let me report that Mr. Einhorn's answers were less than reassuring. The Administration, I believe, needs to know that this is a critical issue for Members of Congress. That is why I believe just like the Senate has done, it's entirely appropriate for the House to express our view on this matter.
    Is there any other Member seeking recognition? Mr. Houghton.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to talk here because I really don't understand a lot of the diplomatic niceties and some of the details here. But I feel uncomfortable here. If we don't want C–802 cruise missiles being sent from China, let's say it. Let's make a statement. Let's put it in law. But to just have it as sort of an indication waving at it, all it is going to do, it's going to infuriate the Chinese, it's going to have no impact on us at all. I just wonder why we are doing this. Thank you.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Houghton. Is there any other Member seeking recognition? Are there any amendments to the measure? If not, if there are no further amendments, the gentleman from California is recognized to offer a motion.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report this resolution, H. Res. 188 to the House with a recommendation that the resolution as amended be agreed to.
    Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from California. Members who are in favor of the motion signify in the usual manner.
    If anyone is opposed say no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, the motion is agreed to.
    Mr. FOX. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to consider if not in this resolution, then maybe in a future one, the acquisition by Pakistan of similar arms and whether or not that wouldn't be appropriate for Committee action in the future.
    Chairman GILMAN. We'll be pleased to take up the bill at a later date. Have you introduced such a measure?
    Mr. FOX. I have not yet.
    Chairman GILMAN. When you introduce it, I'm sure our Committee would be interested in taking it up and having a proper hearing on it.
    Mr. FOX. Thank you very much.
    Chairman GILMAN. We'll now proceed to the next measure, H.R. 967, to prohibit the use of U.S. funds to provide for the participation of certain Chinese officials in international conferences, programs, and activities, and provide that certain Chinese officials would be ineligible to receive visas and excluded from admission to the United States. The Chair lays the measure before the Committee, and the clerk will report the title of the bill.
    Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 967, ''To prohibit the use of U.S. funds to provide for the participation of certain Chinese officials in international conferences, programs, and activities and to provide that certain Chinese officials shall be ineligible to receive visas and excluded from admission to the United States.''
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives''——
    Mr. MANZULLO. I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Could the gentleman withhold? We'll get to that point in just a moment.
    Please proceed.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Findings.''
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill will be considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.
    [H.R. 967 appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Are there any amendments?
    Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment and distribute the amendments.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo, ''Page 10, strike lines 7 through 11 and insert the following: (a) Requirement. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any national of the People's''——
    Mr. MANZULLO. I would ask that the amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
    [The amendment to H.R. 967 appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo is recognized for 5 minutes.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have what I consider to be a minor technical amendment to section 4 of the legislation that I hope you will accept. The bill as it is currently written could ban the entry into the United States of certain high level Chinese Government officials. Thus, H.R. 967 could block important diplomatic exchanges and meetings. Technically, senior government representatives, including the President and Premier or civilian officials of the Government of the People's Republic of China with supervised persons directly involved in religious affairs in China. Technically the Chinese equivalent of our chairman of the joints chief of staff is a military employee of the Government, of the PRC. Thus, H.R. 967 could prevent senior government officials from entering the United States to hold important diplomatic discussions on issues vitally important to Americans and the security of our country.
    My amendment would exempt the head of State, the head of government, government ministers and other senior officials. It also contains a national interest waiver for the President if he sees fit, for example, to allow the staff for the head of the bureau of religious affairs to come to the United States to talk to religious freedom experts.
    Let me relate to you a story that was conveyed to me by a good friend of mine when we were both with the Christian Legal Society. Sam Ericsson is president of Advocates International. This is an organization that promotes religious freedom around the world. He recently had the opportunity to meet Minister Ye, who heads the Bureau of Religious Affairs, when he visited the United States. He spent hours with Minister Ye to explain to him the value of religious liberty from the Golden Rule perspective, which also contained several verses from the New Testament.
    Minister Ye accepted this document, translated it into Chinese and published it. I have a copy of the Golden Rule statement that I would like to distribute to my colleagues and submit for the record.
    [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MANZULLO. A few weeks ago, Sam Ericsson was able to build on this relationship when he visited Minister Ye in Beijing. Sam believes he made progress in advancing the cause of religious freedom during these meetings. Minister Ye promised Sam that he would issue a statement on Bureau of Religious Affairs letterhead declaring the home Bible studies are legal and permissible under the Chinese constitution and Chinese law. This would be a dramatic breakthrough in religious freedom in China.
    I have a copy of Sam's September 16 letter to Minister Ye regarding his promise about home Bible studies that I would like to distribute to my colleagues and submit for the record. I believe that's also being distributed.
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
    [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. MANZULLO. Did Minister Ye respond positively to Sam just to please him? Did Minister Ye mislead Sam in these conversations? That of course is possible. But what if they are a landmark breakthrough in these informal talks that permits more religious freedom in China? Then it would have been worth it.
    The reason I mention this story is that if this bill without my amendment had been law just 2 months ago, Sam would never have met with Minister Ye because he would have never been granted a visa to enter the United States. Sam would have never had the opportunity to present to Minister Ye a perspective he may never have heard before in a common-sense approach to religious liberty.
    My amendment allows us to have it both ways. If Mr. Ye was lying to Sam about home Bible studies, then we should not permit him to enter the United States. If he was telling the truth and goes ahead and publishes a statement on such home meetings, then we should reward this good behavior and allow him to come to America. My amendment would give the President the flexibility to admit certain Chinese Government officials into the United States for the purpose of serving our overall national interest.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Heritage Foundation supports the proposal in principle, noting the recommendation for adopting a similar amendment to the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act. This is simply a matter of common sense and avoids a potentially embarrassing diplomatic snafu. I move that the Committee adopt the amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo. Thank you for your comments.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ranking Minority Member.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Manzullo, I think your amendment certainly improves the bill. I commend you for it. You take care, I think, of a serious defect in the bill. You also put a Presidential waiver in, which I think is helpful.
    Just for the record here, I would like to identify what senior government minister means. I mean is that Cabinet level or do you have anything in mind particularly there?
    Mr. MANZULLO. That's my understanding, yes sir.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Administration about this bill?
    Mr. BEREUTER. [presiding] Certainly. I would have if you hadn't.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Well, go ahead.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Go ahead.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Could we have the Administration's view of the bill, please?
    Mr. KLOSSON. Certainly. We certainly support the cause of advancing religious freedom in China. We think the thrust of the bill is not in that direction, that it's counter productive. Sections 3 and 4 of the bill, in particular, directly contradict our policy of trying to engage with Chinese officials in order to advance that religious cause.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Let me ask my colleague, Susan Shirk, to go into the specifics.
    Ms. SHIRK. The State Department, as my colleague said, certainly does agree that religious persecution is something that we should all be working to eliminate in China. The question is the means, the mechanisms for doing that. We believe that this approach which essentially puts a barrier between leaders and citizens in China and leaders and citizens in the United States, would be highly counter productive. In fact, it would cripple our ability to take advantage of contact with a broad range of officials and citizens who we would have the potential to influence if we have the opportunity to meet with them.
    As Representative Manzullo, the example he describes is exactly the kind of interchange that I think we are all seeking to promote. Even with the exceptions that he gives us in his amendment, it seems to me that this legislation would put a barrier between us and the Chinese people.
    If we refuse to give visas to religious officials from China because they serve in State-approved organizations, then I would expect that the Chinese would also refuse to give visas to our religious officials who are traveling to China to try to educate Chinese about the importance of religious freedom.
    Mr. HAMILTON. May I follow up on that? So your anticipation, then, is that if this bill is passed, leaders like missionaries, the bishops, Billy Graham, would not be able to go to China?
    Ms. SHIRK. I think it is highly likely.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you.
    Mr. BEREUTER. The next person on the list on this side would be Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith is recognized.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, we will soon have a second-degree amendment at the desk. I'll explain it and then ask that it be disseminated as soon as it gets here.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I think what this amendment will do is narrow this amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo so that it has some effectiveness in terms of the general thrust of the legislation.
    Let me just suspend for a brief second while it's being handed out, just so everyone can follow along.
    Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] The clerk will report the amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Smith. ''Page 10, strike lines 7 through 11 and insert the following: (a) Requirement. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any national of the People's Republic of China, except the head of State and the head of government, described in paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 3(a) shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States. (b) Waiver. The President may waive the requirement in subsection (a) with respect to an individual described in such subsection if the President (1) determines that it is vital to the national interest to do so; and (2) provides written notification to the appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 3(c)) containing a justification for the waiver.''
    [The amendment to the amendment appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on this amendment.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment especially deals with the senior government officials and officials, ministers and officials. The idea behind this is that, while the head of State and head of government would obviously be permitted to come here to participate and be involved, the problem is that ''officials'' could be so broadly construed as to mean just about anybody. Anyone who comes here, particularly with the blessing of the government, usually has some capacity that they are operating under and they could be construed to be an official.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The second part, ''in the national interest'', is so broad that it would make the rest of the legislation as meaningless as it could become. So by saying ''vital to the national interest'', we raise the bar a bit so that there has to be a more serious consideration of this on the part of the Administration.
    So I would hope that Mr. Manzullo would accept this as a friendly but necessary amendment. Otherwise, I would ask that the whole amendment be voted down.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. One question for State Department representative. That is, even if someone was excluded by this bill, would they still be allowed to come to New York to participate in U.N. activities? One person has told me that no visa is necessary in order to come to New York City for U.N. activities.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rademaker, can you respond to that inquiry?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was speaking to Mr. Manzullo about his amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. Would you repeat the inquiry, please?
    Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. The question was whether if this bill prevented a Chinese official or functionary from obtaining a visa, could they still come to the United Nations in New York City the same way that Fidel Castro, that none of us is anxious to give a U.S. visa to, has participated in U.N. activities?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. I guess we have a treaty obligation to admit individuals who are coming to meetings at the United Nations. So potentially, there could be a conflict of law situation, but I'm not sure that issue would actually be reached because there are other means by which the President can admit individuals to the United States without them having visas.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Any further comment?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield on that?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Do not they have to be credentialed to the United Nations? I mean not everybody in China can say I'm going to America to the United Nations and just get in here. They have to be credentialed to the United Nations.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. That is correct. They have to be coming to the United Nations for U.N. business.
    Chairman GILMAN. Any other comment?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. But they would have to have U.N. credentials. Not just coming for U.N. business. They would have to be U.N. diplomats. The Minister of Agriculture from some country going to the United Nations without a visa, can not just go to the United Nations.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. Diplomats from foreign countries who are coming as representatives of their country to the United Nations——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. But they would have to have diplomatic passports.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. I was a little disappointed at some of the remarks made by the State Department because they indicated that they, at least I interpreted your comments as indicating that you didn't support the legislation because it would prohibit people like Billy Graham and other religious leaders from going to China. That could be the end result of it. That may happen. But the bigger issue as far as I am concerned is the human rights violations that are going on in China. There are 10 million people in Communist gulags right now, in slave labor camps, 10 million. The problems in Tibet and the problems in these other areas are just legion. Although I would hate to see great leaders, religious leaders like Billy Graham not being able to go to China for very good purposes, I think sending a strong message to the Chinese Government is the very least we can do. We have given them most favored nation trading status. We have given them almost everything under the sun. We keep telling them we don't like their human rights abuses. Yet we just keep on with business as usual. At some point, if we are our brother's keeper and we do care about our fellow man, we really need to send at least some signal to them. I think this resolution is probably the least that we can possibly do.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Mr. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have real concerns about this bill, particularly with the first provision that singles out certain Chinese religious groups in a punitive fashion. I firmly believe that in order to achieve a positive engagement with China, we must encourage programs of cultural exchange. I mean I am on the side of cultural exchange.
    Earlier in this Congress, I worked on an amendment that directs the USIA whenever possible to include individuals who are active in preserving the culture, religion and language of Tibet and existing Tibetan education and cultural exchanges programs so that Americans will have a better understanding of the rich cultural and religious traditions of Tibetan people. I also want to say that I have lectured at Peking University on the subject of religion. So this is a matter of a lot of personal concern to me.
    I want to know, and maybe I should ask the Chairman. How have we identified these groups? What do we know about them? Clearly we have religions here that are not Christian religions, the Chinese Buddhist Association, the Chinese Taoist Association, the Chinese Islamic Association. The Catholic groups that are represented here, some of the Catholic groups that are represented here have refused to register with the State because of their primary allegiances to the Pope in Rome. It's a matter of principle. But on what basis do we single out these groups? How rigorous is the data that we have assembled to make sure that what we are doing here has empirical bases? I mean how do we know that they are enemies of the United States, simply fronts for the Chinese Government?
    I just think, in fact I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed to work in a place where the data is so slim, where we just don't know exactly what we are talking about, but it's on the basis of pretty much hearsay information that has not been authenticated validly, in my judgment, that we are facing a sort of major foreign policy initiative. I don't think we have the basis for it.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But I think the question, Mr. Chairman, is why these groups and not some other groups?
    Chairman GILMAN. In response to Mr. Capps, I am reading from a letter by Ignatius Cardinal Kong Bishop of Shanghai, in which he says, ''The Patriotic Association is placed under the National Congress and is directly supervised by the Religious Bureau, which is a Chinese Government agency. While bona fide Catholic bishops receive their appointment only from the Pope, not from any government, all Patriotic Association bishops are appointed and financed by the government, and is a part of the Communist government machinery. As such, the Patriotic Association bishops must bear considerable responsibility for the repressive religious policy of the Chinese Government.
    ''For the U.S. Government to actively support their visits to this country, while assaults on Roman Catholics and other religions continue unabated, is tantamount to approving of this repressive policy of the Chinese Government to suppress religion and to abuse fundamental human rights.''
    It closes in saying that, ''If the United States is truly concerned about universal human rights, it should not aid and abet such a blatant violation of the universal right of freedom of religion in China or in any other State.''
    I hope that that responds to some of——
    Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield further?
    Mr. CAPPS. I would be pleased to yield.
    Mr. SMITH. Our Subcommittee has had hearings on religious freedom. I am sure John Shattuck, the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Democracy, can verify this as well. But each of these groups is listed. You made mention, Mr. Chairman, of the Catholic Patriotic Association. Their paychecks are signed by the government. They run these so-called religious sects. That is how they keep complete and almost total control of them. That is the issue here. These are State-run organizations. I have met at least three times with the director of the religious affairs department both here in Washington and in Beijing who runs these. He is an absolute avowed atheist who holds religion in contempt. He is the man running it. He is in that position to make sure that China projects the appearance of religious freedom to the world, while not just circumscribing religious freedom, but stamping it out. That's why the Chairman's bill contains these enumerations.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? May I ask Mr. Smith a question?
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. I'll recognize you for one additional minute.
    Mr. CAPPS. I wonder if anybody knows if there is another group, another Buddhist group in China which is separate from the Chinese Buddhist Association? I am particularly sensitive to a U.S. attitude toward religious traditions that are not Western, that are not Christian.
    May I ask the representatives of the State Department?
    Ms. SHIRK. The direct answer to that question is that for several of these religions, there is a dispute between one group of church leaders who cooperate with the government, license their churches with the government as is required by law in China and in some other countries too, and cooperate with them, and another group of church leaders who do not recognize the legitimacy of the government to license the churches.
    There is a major dispute between the Catholic churches and the Protestant churches. In the case of the Buddhists, I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that the Chinese Buddhist Association is the kind of umbrella association for all Buddhist organizations.
    If I may just make the point. China, Communist China was a highly authoritarian country for 40 some odd years. It is in the process of evolving to a much looser kind of system. The forces of market economy and foreign trade are playing a very major role in making that happen. At the present time, it's kind of at a halfway point. So that you have a certain amount of governmental regulation of religion, but you also have a tremendous expansion of religious worship in China. Millions of people are going to churches and Buddhist temples and mosques to worship now.
    At the same time, the organizations which refuse to register and kind of meet underground are viewed as still subversive by the government. That is what we have to be working on. But I think it is a tremendous mistake to demonize the leaders of the organizations that do cooperate with the government as simply being the agents of the Communist Party. These are sincere religious officials. As Mr. Manzullo points out, are quite open to the arguments and influence of religious people in the United States.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. I think it is a tremendous mistake to suggest that religious freedom is moving in a positive direction in the PRC. Is the Deputy Assistant Secretary aware of what Li Peng's decree in 144 and 145 did to religious freedom?
    Ms. SHIRK. Yes. I certainly am. I am not making the argument that there is no religious persecution in China. I would certainly not dream of doing that.
    Mr. SMITH. Are you making the argument that it's getting better?
    Ms. SHIRK. I believe that there are increasing numbers of people in China who are practicing their religion. At the same time, there are also increasing numbers of people who are challenging the government from a religious perspective who are being persecuted. So it's a very complex situation.
    Mr. SMITH. Reclaiming my time. They are challenging the government and paying with the loss of their liberty, and in many cases with severe and extreme persecution. It is wrong to suggest that there is an expansion. There is a contraction. In 144 and 145 and all of the other internal decrees that we may or may not even know about have become an iron fist to be used against religious belief. So to suggest that somehow it is relaxing is to miss by a mile exactly what is exactly going on. I am sure Assistant Secretary Shattuck would back that up. We are talking about it getting significantly worse. That is why Mr. Wolf's legislation, that's why this legislation is important. Finally, I met with Li Peng myself and gave him a list of 150 pastors and bishops who were incarcerated for their beliefs. He said it's all rubbish, it's not true. He used a different word. He completely and totally dismissed it.
    So I take great exception with the suggestion that there are not people dying for their faith right now. Take Buddhists, for example, Frank Wolf just came back from a trip to Tibet and came back with harrowing information about what is going on and the rape of Tibet. To suggest that it is anything other is to put a good face on a dictatorship. So I take great exception to the distinguished lady's statement.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do want to be recognized but not on the Smith amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman. Let me just interpose a moment. There are no more votes on the Floor, but we'll try to move quickly if everyone will stand by, we'll try to move and get through our agenda as rapidly as possible. I'm going to ask our Members to please be brief.
    Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. I join Mr. Smith in concern for religious freedom in China, but I join Mr. Capps in saying that we do not have enough information about the particular organizations that are attacked by this bill. I, for one, am not familiar with the Chinese Taoist Association and whether or not it deserves to be punished in an effort to establish our support for religious freedom in China. Nor am I certain that attacking what many would regard as an unauthentic religion or religious organization is the right way to establish religious freedom.
    I think we are in favor of the religious freedom, that even of those religious organizations that as a matter of their own doctrine have decided to be way too cozy with an oppressive regime. That's probably an erroneous religious belief. My religion would not tell me to be cozy with an oppressive regime, but I'm not sure that we can attack these religious organizations for their, what some of us would consider to be religious errors and say that that is a blow for religious freedom. I think we need to find some other way to show the Chinese Government that we favor religious freedom.
    I am also particularly concerned with the Assistant Secretary's statement that the net effect of this may very well be to prevent American religious figures from visiting China. I am not sure that any of these individuals identified in this bill are likely to come to the United States, but I do know that there are a large number of religious leaders of the United States that would like to visit China and the effect of those visits I think would be positive. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Kim.
    Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mine will be very brief. I have a question to the State Department representative. I understand you have a couple reasons why you oppose this resolution. One is our President really has the authority to suspend or deny an entry of any alien. My first question to you is if ever our President ever suspended entry to this type of Chinese Government officials.
    My second question is, I understand you are afraid the Chinese Government may take a reciprocal action to deny the same visas. Now have you ever received any kind of signal, any indication from the Chinese Government they might do that reciprocal action or you are just saying it? Does that mean that they might do some hostile action to our business people out there already in Beijing? How do you perceive that?
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kim. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have a——
    Chairman GILMAN. For a unanimous consent request?
    Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I asked questions I would like to——
    Chairman GILMAN. I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question?
    Ms. SHIRK. I heard it. The first question is whether or not the President has ever used his authority to disallow a Chinese from visiting the United States. I do not know the answer to that question.
    The second question was why we might think that the Chinese would reciprocate by not granting visas to religious figures from the United States. The Chinese have said that if we impose trade sanctions on them for reasons that they do not believe are legitimate, that they would retaliate with trade sanctions. Other than that, I don't have any exact evidence about what their future behavior would be.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith for a unanimous consent?
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just to respond briefly to Mr. Kim. U.S. Congressmen have been denied visas to the PRC. Many of us have had our visas held up hours before we left to depart there. So they certainly have engaged in that with Members of this body.
    Let me just make a unanimous consent request. I have consulted with Mr. Manzullo on this. He agrees fully. On line 4, strike that line and say ''and Cabinet-level ministers'' pick up with the word described.
    Chairman GILMAN. Unanimous consent. Mr. Smith. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Smith, in the agreement that we have, if you look on page 5, it references paragraph (1). I'm sorry. The amendment, my amendment line 5, it references paragraph (1). Do you see that?
    Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
    Mr. MANZULLO. That has reference to——
    Chairman GILMAN. Section 3(a).
    Mr. MANZULLO. Section 3(a)(1). Section 3(a)(1) simply says that we don't give money, you don't mean when it comes to those cultural exchanges anyway. But it simply says that we don't give them travel expenses. It says nothing about keeping them all. I think that perhaps my amendment is over broad because (2) and (3) are of a different, or section (2) is of a different category than section (1).
    So perhaps Mr. Smith, the amendment should eliminate where it says paragraph (1) and just go onto paragraph (2). Would you agree with that?
    The other thing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Smith for agreeing, but I still have a problem with this entire bill. I mean this is chaos on trying to determine policy with regard to who comes here, under what circumstances, without really having a full hearing on it. I accept 100 percent Mr. Smith's statement as to the religious persecution going on and as to what happened what Mr. Wolf saw in Tibet. The problem that I have here is that this is a very sensitive diplomatic issue. I would like to get some better language. I just think this language is too broad. I just found I made a mistake myself here. I think that that's why it's suggested that this bill needs to have a little bit more time, even 1 day of hearings would do it. I think we're doing a disservice to ourselves.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman would yield. Do you agree to the modified amendment by Mr. Smith?
    Mr. MANZULLO. I'm sorry?
    Chairman GILMAN. Do you agree to the modification?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Yes. I do. I agree with the modification to the amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. You accept that amendment?
    Mr. MANZULLO. I accept that amendment, but I probably will still vote against the bill.
    Chairman GILMAN. The motion is now on the Smith amendment as modified. All in favor signify in the usual manner. Opposed?
    The amendment is carried.
    Now the Manzullo amendment as modified, as amended. All in favor signify in the usual manner. Opposed?
    The amendment is carried.
    Now on the bill.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman GILMAN. Who is asking?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Campbell of California.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Or my senior colleague is asking.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell, if you would withhold it, Mr. Ackerman wanted to be recognized.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the Chairman for his generosity, but perhaps it would have been a little bit more appropriate to recognize me before you voted on the bill.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. If you have some comment, we'll be pleased to accept it.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I do have some comments. One of them is I would like not to be deprived of my right to debate before we vote. I only make a point of it so I don't have to make a point of it the next time.
    I want to raise some concerns about what we have just done. I also want to say that I agree with Mr. Smith. That is, I agree with his goals and the things that he is trying to accomplish. I agree with them in the area of human rights almost all of the time, believe it or not. We have different paths to get there sometimes. But I do want to raise the concern and call to our attention that it is usually with a great deal of fanfare and joy that when somebody from a part of the world that has a philosophy with which we disagree jumps ship, and they seek asylum in the United States, that we are happy to have them because they have converted to a better way of life. That usually occurs because people have the opportunity to see how we and others in the West are approaching different areas of life, such as tolerance for all and freedom of religion. We encourage that to happen, but that cannot happen if others do not see for themselves that our way in many instances is a very decent and humane way of treating peoples and societies.
    By taking these officials, who are even the heads of agencies that perpetrate these atrocities, and they are atrocities I do agree, and I think everybody agrees with Mr. Smith on this and Mr. Manzullo as well, and denying them the opportunity to see first hand what real tolerance and real freedom of religion are all about, does a disservice to our real purpose of being able to spread the way that we think is best without imposing it upon others. There is really no other way to get converts. If you force them to stay in their cocoons, whether it be in China or Russia or the former Soviet Union or Albania or North Korea or anywhere else, they are going to be stuck where you keep them. If you really want them to be able to appreciate our viewpoint, don't just lecture to them from this podium, bring them here, allow them to see. Then we will accomplish our goals. I thank the Chairman for recognizing me.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. I certainly don't want to belabor the debate because everybody wants to get out of here and people have planes to catch. But you know, I don't know how many people have to die or suffer religious persecution or other kinds of persecution before we do something. I mean doesn't anybody remember Tiananmen Square? The whole world saw it on television. I mean these people over there aren't going to change just because they are nice people. They just are not going to do it. The very least that we as a humanitarian nation can do, is send them some signals once in a while. This isn't a major step we're taking here. If they have to send people over here to negotiate and meet with us, we're still going to do it. They are a big power. But we ought to send them some signal, not some weak-kneed oh, we're going to get around to it one of these days. Wait until the guillotine falls and a head is lost and then we'll do something about it. Wait until there's another Tiananmen Square. We have people here that have been to Tibet, that have been to China, and know first hand what is going on. They know. Members of this body. We are sitting here arguing about it. This is the least we can do. We should pass this thing.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
    Mr. Campbell, on your amendment.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell. ''Strike section 1. Strike section 3(a)(1). Renumber section 2 section 1. Renumber section 3 section 2.''
    [The amendment appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to be able to for procedural purposes, divide my amendment. There are two separate issues, striking section 1 and section 3(a)(1).
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me address first section 3(a)(1). This is the focus of commentary we have already had from my colleague and friend from California, Mr. Capps. This deals with the head or political secretary of any of the following Chinese Government-created or approved organizations which are then listed, the Chinese Buddhist Association and so forth, the Taoist Association, the Catholic Patriotic Association. My concern is that the individuals who may be affiliated as head or even political secretary of such an organization may actually be of good will, that I believe this resolution as presently drafted condemns them simply for holding office in such an association.
    The logic behind Mr. Manzullo's amendment which was adopted earlier created a waiver for the President to take into account in particular circumstances when the interests of the United States were vital. This amendment goes beyond that because it strikes the conclusive presumption which is otherwise in this bill. It is a conclusive presumption that if you are the head of this association, you are not acceptable to the United States, with the possible waiver of the President for the vital interests of our country.
    Now what this amendment will preserve is the ability of the President, well actually the automatic exclusion of any military or civilian officials who are directly involved in the persecution or forming, implementing repressive religious policies. In other words, 3(a)(2) remains.
    So this amendment, it seems to me, is a way of preserving something in this bill which I at least could support, drawing special attention to religious persecution and not going too broadly, not overstepping, and assuming facts that may not be accurate in each case where we name organizations and actually condemn those who are heads of the more political affiliates of them.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    When this amendment is disposed of, Mr. Chairman, I'll return pursuant to the unanimous consent which was granted, to my effort regarding section 1. I'll simply anticipate that with this comment. I think we do harm sometimes, we do harm sometimes in this Committee when we make findings and make conclusions that we have not studied. I think this bill does that. There are potential diplomatic repercussions of what we do that have not been elaborated. I, for one, do not possess the personal knowledge of these associations that I would need to before I would be in a position to condemn their heads of automatically. I have not heard the Chinese Government point of view on this. Maybe they are totally without merit. But as a matter of fact, I haven't heard them. Nor do I hear them today, which is understandable. It's a markup. But maybe they have something to tell us before we identify and conclusively presume these associations directors are not worthy to come into our country.
    My concern is that we not put into law, even in the findings provision of a resolution, statements that I for one am not sure of. So if you accept this amendment, if this Committee accepts this amendment and furthermore, later on if we accept my effort to strike the findings, we would still have a very useful statement regarding religious persecution and an enhancement of the authority of the President, indeed, a mandate to the President to exclude those who are military or civilian officials directly involved in such policies or practices. That is as far as I think I can go today.
    So my first motion, Mr. Chairman, is to strike section 3(a)(1). I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman GILMAN. On the motion by Mr. Campbell to strike, anyone want to be recognized?
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the gentleman's amendment in both sections. As a matter of fact, when we tried to schedule a markup, we deleted the whereas sections, you might call them, on all four bills that we considered, primarily within the Asia Pacific Subcommittee when we wrote that new bill. The reason we did that is exactly what the gentleman states. We really have no way of verifying the accuracy, the substance, the completeness of these whereas clauses. Surely they are highly emotional. Sometimes people get carried away. Some are probably entirely accurate. We have no good way to make an assessment about these. When I looked at certain of these four bills and the whereas clauses, I found things that I knew were no longer accurate or had never been accurate.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So I think it's quite appropriate. The bill is an important contribution without the whereas section, section 1. I happen to think that the bill for the author's purposes at least, is still successful with the deletion of the part that is currently about to be voted, section 3(a)(1). I would hope that the authors and supporters of the resolution would understand that what the gentleman is trying to do is not damaging to the expression of intent of the Congress by his amendment. So I would urge support for the gentleman's amendments in both sections.
    Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to my colleague's amendment and support it wholeheartedly. I won't try to repeat what he said so eloquently, but without such an amendment, it would seem to me that the logic of this bill would be that if you are from China, if you come from China and you are Buddhist or Taoist or Moslem, you'll have an awful time getting into the United States. I don't think we want to send that kind of signal.
    Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield on that, please? The plain language of section 3(a)(1) concerns the head or political secretary of any of the following Chinese Government-created or approved organizations. We are not talking about the priests or the rank and file Buddhist nuns or anybody who might be part of these organizations. We are talking about the point person, and the President still retains the ability to waive this. So we're talking about a person who is probably the expert front person. I have met with a number of these myself, and they are very good at what they do in terms of providing political cover for the extreme and horrific excesses of the PRC dictatorship. The President still retains the ability to waive it. So I would hope that the gentleman would take that into consideration.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Blunt.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, if I understood the last change that Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Smith agreed to as they were making that amendment to section 4, in section 4 we already eliminated paragraph (1). So section 4, which talks about entry visas does not now apply with the Manzullo amendment to any of the heads of those organizations. The earlier section still applies and says our government wouldn't pay for their travel. But we no longer exclude them from being able to come to the country. Of course they are, I think, in every case salaried and appointed by the Chinese Government anyway who could afford to pay for their travel. This would prohibit that. But the last change that I believe Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Smith made, and Mr. Campbell may want to clarify that for me if necessary, but I think it eliminated the prohibition that they couldn't come into the country. So now they would be allowed as heads of those organizations to come in. We just simply wouldn't pay their travel to come in. I may be wrong on that.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BLUNT. I would.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman, and he's correct. The Manzullo amendment did, as I recall, it struck paragraph (1) in line 5 on page 10 of section 4. That's useful to observe at this point, and I sure thank my colleague for doing so. It does not, however, moot my amendment. Indeed, it makes, I think, all the more logical to strike all of 3(a)(1) since we are not doing anything regarding the barring of admission. If it is from time to time appropriate to bring one of those individuals over, we should not condemn them just because of the automatic affiliation with an organization, which was the burden of my original point of view.
    But I would certainly accept the gentleman's point that if Mr. Manzullo's amendment is properly understood, we do not have a reference to paragraph (1) any more, and that in the normal cleanup, whatever changes are appropriate to make the Manzullo amendment read correctly, probably wouldn't include striking paragraphs (1) or (2), and simply referring to the only paragraph that remains in section 3(a). If I strike section 3(a)(1), the only one left will be 3(a)(2), and 3(a)(2) then will probably just be numbered 3(a).
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BLUNT. If I could just have a moment of my time back, I would like to suggest again that under the earlier part of the bill, that the only thing we're not doing under this bill for that particular category of people is paying for their travel. They do work for the Chinese Government in all cases. Us not paying for their travel does not seem to me to be an onerous prohibition since the Manzullo amendment now would allow the heads of those various religious groups, even though they are appointed by the Chinese Government to come to America without any question about their visa. I yield back any time I have.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I just had a question first, Mr. Chairman. The amendment before us by Mr. Campbell is the one that was distributed, striking both 1 and 2?
    Chairman GILMAN. That's correct.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield? I asked unanimous consent to consider 3(a)(1) first and then when that vote is done, I'll move striking section 1. So all we have before us is 3(a)(1).
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Some of us I think have been under the impression that this is one amendment.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. That's why I asked unanimous consent to consider them separately. Unanimous consent was granted.
    Chairman GILMAN. That was agreed to.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. So all we have is 3(a)(1) at the moment. Then we'll have——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH. I urge a no vote on the Campbell amendment. I think Mr. Blunt made a very good observation, that if we do strike the amendment that's pending or strike the language in the bill with the amendment that's pending, we will then be saying that we are willing, through USIA or some other U.S. taxpayer-funded program, to pay the way of these people who are again, the front people. My hope is that we would support this. I do thank him for making that crystal clear to everybody, what this amendment is about.
    On the whereases, the Administration certainly can comment on any of these between now and the time we get to the Floor. This certainly has been pending since March 6. I would hope that if there is an inaccuracy—and I don't think there are any inaccuracies in the Chairman's bill—that it be shown. Where are the inaccuracies? I would ask the Deputy Secretary or anyone else who would want to speak to them. These just lay out facts to the best of our knowledge as we know them. There is even more that could have been in here, believe me, but I think the Chairman narrowed it down to a very small section of whereases.
    Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the first part of the Campbell amendment, 3(a)(1). Members in favor signify in the usual manner. Opposed?
    The amendment is carried—the amendment is not agreed to, I'm sorry.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote is requested. Is there a second?
    Mr. HAMILTON. Second.
    Chairman GILMAN. Seconded. All in favor signify in the usual manner. Mr. Hyde—I'm sorry. The clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
    Mr. Goodling.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. HYDE. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
     Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
    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.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Pass.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo passes.
    Mr. Royce.
    Mr. ROYCE. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
    Mr. King.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim.
    Mr. KIM. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes yes.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. CHABOT. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
     Mr. Sanford.
    Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.
    Mr. Salmon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
    Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
    Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. Pass.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox passes.
    Mr. McHugh.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham.
    Mr. GRAHAM. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Blunt.
    Mr. BLUNT. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
    Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
    Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
    Mr. Gejdenson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
    Mr. Faleomavaega.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
    Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
    Mr. Andrews.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.
    Mr. HILLIARD. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
    Mr. Capps.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAPPS. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
    Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
    Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. ROTHMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Clement.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther.
    Mr. LUTHER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
    Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    Chairman GILMAN. We'll first finish the roll, and then we'll get back to Mr. Ballenger. Please call the absentees.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.
    Mr. BALLENGER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
     Mr. King.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
    Mr. McHugh.
    Mr. MCHUGH. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
    Mr. Gejdenson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
    Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes.
    Mr. Andrews.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling is recorded as not voting.
    Mr. GOODLING. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.
    Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other absentees who have not recorded? Anyone seeking to change their vote? If not, the clerk will report the vote.
    Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 14 ayes and 14 nos.
    Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.
    On the remainder of the Campbell amendment, and let me say this to our Members. I know that many of you have air reservations and are concerned about the time. We still have a number of measures. In speaking to the Ranking Minority Member, we are in agreement that we will adjourn after the Campbell amendment and come back on Monday at 5 p.m. and continue our consideration of the measures before us.
    Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The remaining amendment strikes the findings. The purpose has been explained before, but let me take 30 seconds to say the damage we do is not trivial where we state our findings.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell, if I might ask you to withhold. I am asking our Members to have some order. We'll get through the Campbell amendment as quickly as possible. I am trying to convenience all of the Members. We'll welcome your cooperation.
    Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, in that same spirit, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman GILMAN. On the second Campbell amendment. Is anyone seeking recognition? If not, all in favor of the Campbell amendment, second amendment, signify in the usual manner.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Opposed?
    The ayes have it.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith seeks a roll call. Is there a second?
    Mr. BEREUTER. Second.
    Mr. SMITH. Roll call. The clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
    Chairman GILMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
    Mr. Goodling.
    Mr. GOODLING. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.
    Mr. Leach.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. HYDE. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
    Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Burton.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.
    Mr. BALLENGER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes yes.
     Mr. Royce.
    Mr. ROYCE. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
    Mr. King.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim.
    Mr. KIM. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes yes.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. CHABOT. No.
    Chairman GILMAN. I am asking our Members to stand by. We may be able to have a final vote on this. The clerk will continue.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
    Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
    Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
    Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes yes.
     Mr. McHugh.
    Mr. MCHUGH. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. GRAHAM. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Blunt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
    Mr. Gejdenson.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. 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.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
    Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes.
    Mr. Payne.
    Mr. PAYNE. Pass.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne passes.
    Mr. Andrews.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.
    Mr. HILLIARD. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
     Mr. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
    Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. ROTHMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Clement.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther.
    Mr. LUTHER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote. Call the absentees, please.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. SALMON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Blunt.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson.
    [No response.]
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
    Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
    Mr. Andrews.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    Chairman GILMAN. How is Mr. Royce recorded?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce is recorded as voting no.
    Chairman GILMAN. Please report the tally.
    Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 14 ayes and 11 noes.
    Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I know the Chairman is anxious to move ahead. I am getting a little worried because we're having so many roll call votes and so many Members are not here. I must say to you they haven't spoken to me about it, but I do know Members do not like to miss roll call votes in the Committee. I hope we're about at the end of the roll call votes. I really don't think it's fair to——
    Chairman GILMAN. If I might respond. I think we have just one more amendment. Mr. Bereuter said it will be brief. I think there's maybe some agreement between Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Smith. That will be the last vote.
    Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment, distribute the amendment. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter. ''On page 8, line 14 of H.R. 967, strike the phrase '''is directly involved'''
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BEREUTER. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read.
    [The amendment appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter is recognized.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the haste, there are two words that are wrong on the amendment. I would ask unanimous consent that after the word involve, the word ''in'' I-N be inserted. After the word ''directed to'' cross the word ''to'' out and put ''the''.
    This is an amendment we dealt with before. I am concerned about the overreach that could come from the word supervision of persons. I am concerned it could stop all military exchange programs and all the colonels programs that go on at various academic institutions.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, if I might interrupt. Does Mr. Smith agree to the amendment?
    Mr. BEREUTER. Yes. We have done this before.
    Chairman GILMAN. The amendment has been accepted. Can we withhold further discussion?
    Mr. BEREUTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, point of procedure.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Your Honor—I guess I'm still in court. Mr. Chairman, my understanding in the agreement that you have stated was that the last vote would be based upon the Campbell amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo, since we are this close to winding up the measure, I am suggesting we have a vote on the final.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time. The Members of this body were advised from the Chair that the last vote would be on the Campbell amendment. I think based upon that, that it would be improper to proceed to final passage on this bill. All those Members are gone based upon the fact that they stuck around for the Campbell, then plus I think we should have a roll call vote and that they should be voted on at 5 on Monday. That's only a matter of fairness.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. HAMILTON. May I suggest here that you go ahead and dispose of the Bereuter amendment, but that you do postpone the vote until we assemble Friday afternoon. Excuse me, Monday afternoon. I would be willing if others agree, that we just vote at that time rather than to have——
    Chairman GILMAN. All right. We'll proceed in that manner, Mr. Hamilton.
    Ask unanimous consent that there be no further amendments and the vote is now on the Bereuter amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The Bereuter amendment is carried. We'll postpone the remainder of the votes until Monday afternoon at 5 p.m. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m. the Committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
MARKUP OF H.R 967, TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF U.S. FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF CERTAIN CHINESE OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES, PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN CHINESE OFFICIALS SHALL BE INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES; H.R. 2232, TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING ACTIVITIES TO CHINA; H.R. 2358, TO PROVIDE FOR IMPROVED MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:17 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.
    I want to thank Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hamilton for managing two bills on the suspension calendar today. We greatly appreciate that, and many of our Members are up at the United Nations on a briefing and meeting with Secretary of State Albright.
    I think we'll do our best now if we go to the next bill while we're waiting for the Members to assemble. We'll set aside H.R. 967 and go onto H.R. 2232, to provide for increased international broadcasting activities in China, where there seems to be pretty much of a consensus. The Chair lays the measure before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
    Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 2232, a bill to provide for increased international broadcasting activities to China.
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill will be dispensed and the clerk will read the bill for amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress''——
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read, and I'll offer the amendment by the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for Mr. Smith be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [H.R. 2232 appears in the appendix.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2232 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. Section 1. Short Title''——
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as having been read and is open to an amendment at any point.
    [The amendment of Mr. Smith appears in the appendix.
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there any other amendment besides the Smith amendment?
    [No response.]
Mr. Smith is on his way back from the Floor.
    We're going to have the Smith amendment right now. Has the Smith amendment been distributed?
    Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Kim.
    Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman GILMAN. All right, while we're waiting for Mr. Smith, we'll put aside the Smith amendment. Please read the Kim amendment, distribute the Kim amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Amendment offered by Mr. Kim. On page 4, line 9, after the word 'China' insert 'and North Korea.' On page 4, line 16, after the word 'China' insert——''
    Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as read, without objection.
    [The amendment by Mr. Kim appears in the appendix.]
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Kim is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to roll my amendment into Mr. Smith's amendment, together. Since he's not here, let me explain why this amendment is necessary.
    All we're asking is an additional $2 million to extend the broadcasting hours to North Korea from 2 to 3 hours. As you know, North Korea is the most isolated, most alienated nation in the world, perhaps the last true Communist country in the world.
    And I read an article the other day—actually I interviewed with a defector from North Korea, and he told us a very heartbreaking story. There are thousands and thousands of North Koreans gathering together, and they're listening to our broadcast program, risking their lives. If they ever got caught, they could be persecuted on the spot.
    But hundreds and hundreds of them are gathering together listening to the Voice of America. That is their biggest pleasure. That's the only way they can have some kind of contact with the outside world; otherwise, they have no idea what's going on. I mean, the North Korean people are extremely ill-informed about the world around them, and any additional information we can give to them will have a dramatic impact on them.
    I believe that an additional $2 million is certainly worthwhile to spend, and we should really concentrate on North Korea, in addition to China.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kim. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I think the amendment is worthy, and I support it, Mr. Chairman. In general, on the bill itself, I have some reservations about some aspects of it, but overall I agree with the sponsors of the bill that promotion of democracy and human rights is an important element of our foreign policy, and I support it.
    So I commend Mr. Smith. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the other sponsors, for the good intentions of the bill, and I intend to vote in favor of it.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. And the Majority has no objections to Mr. Kim's amendment setting aside $2 million for additional broadcasting to North Korea.
    Are there any other gentlemen or ladies seeking recognition?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN.——all in favor of the Kim amendment signify in the usual——Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Not on the Kim amendment, Mr. Chairman. Pardon me.
    Chairman GILMAN. All in favor of the Kim amendment, signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The Kim amendment is carried.
    Mr. Smith, on the Smith amendment.
    Mr. SMITH. If the gentleman could just dispense for 1 second.
    Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a technical amendment. It takes out some of the error marks. It was requested by Radio Free Asia, and I would just ask that the membership support it. And Mr. Royce, the prime sponsor of the bill, is also in favor of it.
    Chairman GILMAN. Has the clerk read the amendment? The clerk will read the Smith amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2232 offered by Mr. Smith. On page 2, strike subsection 7 and insert——''
    Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered to have been read, and without objection Mr. Smith is recognized for 5 minutes.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mr. Smith appear in the appendix.]
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I think I just explained it, hopefully. It is a technical amendment; it was requested by Radio Free Asia, and in an effort to accommodate their request we are doing this today.
    Chairman GILMAN. Anyone seeking recognition?
    If not, all in favor of the Smith amendment signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The Smith Amendment is carried. Is there another second Smith amendment? Is there a second Smith amendment?
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Just a technical point. I think that Northern Marianas as referred to, the Northern Marianas Islands, should be the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas. I would ask that the clerk make appropriate adjustments.
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the clerk will make the technical correction.
    Mr. Royce.
    Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, as well.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Amendment offered by Mr. Royce. At the end of the bill insert the following new section. Section 5, Utilization of the U.S. international broadcasting services for public service announcements regarding fugitives from U.S. justice. U.S. international broadcasting services, particularly the Voice of America, shall produce and broadcast public service announcements——''
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as read, without objection, and Mr. Royce is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Royce appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Voice of America, in cooperation with the Office of International Affairs at the Justice Department has produced international crime alerts since August 1996 that are being broadcast in Asia and throughout the world. These 30-second crime alerts are broadcast on radio by VOA, providing information about the fugitive, describing the crime involved, and offering information about how to contact the relevant authorities with information.
    This program has the enthusiastic support of the Administration. Attorney General Janet Reno praised the program shortly after its inauguration last year, and VOA is currently moving ahead with plans to expand the program into television. The crime alerts support U.S. policy goals such as combatting drug trafficking, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, smuggling, and child abduction. On the issue of child abduction, let me point out that each year more than 500 American children are illegally taken abroad by a parent.
    Crime alerts have helped provide leads on the location of fugitives, have provided evidence for trials once fugitives are caught, and have prodded sometimes reluctant foreign governments to help in the search, capture, and extradition of known fugitives.
    Although this program currently involves radio and the Internet, and is extending to television, it creates no additional costs beyond the current VOA budget. This program provides a valuable service that Congress should acknowledge, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce. Is there anyone seeking recognition?
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    If not, all in favor of the Royce amendment signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The Royce amendment is carried.
    The bill before us, 2232, as introduced by Mr. Royce, amended by Mr. Smith, provides for increased international broadcasting activities to China, broadcasting to Asia, particularly to China. It's a vital part of the effort to spread and support democracy and freedom, to express ideas—and we've now added Korea to the bill. I wholeheartedly support this measure and to expand broadcast capabilities of Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America through additional funding for personnel, for transmitters, and for other broadcast requirements.
    I want to commend Mr. Royce and Mr. Smith for working on this bill and for expanding a Radio Free Asia. This additional funding that is supported by the Speaker and the President will increase the opportunity for peoples living under communism to hear news and other programming untainted by State news services.
    Is there anyone else seeking to be heard?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I am, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an inquiry, which I'd like to direct to either Mr. Royce or Mr. Smith, or any Member, and perhaps even the Chair, as to the funding.
    I originally looked at the bill and saw that there was an offset in section 5, which created a difficult choice. Migration and Refugee Assistance would be reduced in order that increased funding could be spent for Radio Free Asia. Whatever the proper balance of that comparison would be, at least as I understand it, the new version has no offset. And I stand to be corrected on this, and, so, let me just say if there is, indeed, no offset, I'm troubled.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    One of the things I tried to do when I came back to Congress was not to vote for spending unless there was an offset, even if it was very worthy spending. So I yield to my colleagues, whoever might answer me, as to whether the bill presently has an offset, seeing that the original one is no longer in the bill.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell yields to Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Just very briefly——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to my friend from New Jersey.
    Mr. SMITH.——the numbers in this legislation comport, after the amendment in the nature of a substitute was accepted, with what we're doing in the State Department conference currently with the Senate.
    You might recall that the refugee portion of the budget, as it went out of this Committee and off the Floor, and was passed by the full House, was $704 million. Regrettably, the Administration wanted a lower number. The conferees on the Senate side insisted on a lower number. It went down; it shrank to $650 million, so there was no more money available, frankly, because that's just straightlining from last year for the refugee budget.
    We are, in our category, below what has been allocated by the Budget Committee, so an offset in terms of taking from one program or another is not necessary because we're below our allotted amount.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Reclaiming my time, if I understand it correctly, then, the Conference Committee actually lowered the amount of money for Migratory and Refugee Assistance.
    Mr. SMITH. Against my——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Against your better judgment.
    Mr. SMITH. Yes.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. And so with that having happened, it is out of that shortfall, if you will, that we are able to allocate that.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. You could make that case.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH. We were already below the allotted amount for this category to begin with, but now we're even further below it.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. And I'd like to thank you, Mr. Smith; I appreciate that. I just wanted to yield to my good friend and colleague from California, for whom I have the highest regard. Both the gentleman from New Jersey and from California are known as fiscal conservatives. I'd just like to make sure that my friend and colleague from California will also tell me this is a fiscally conservative thing to do.
    Mr. ROYCE. Yes, I'd like to respond if I could, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield.
    Mr. ROYCE. The bill does not increase the money already authorized to RFA, no more than the Smith amendment, to the State Department authorization, which passed by a vote of 354 to 72. Again, there's no additional money required by this legislation.
    Let me at this time, if I could, Mr. Chairman, thank Chairman Smith for working with me on this legislation, but also for his leadership on Radio Free Asia and international broadcasting in general. I think Chairman Smith's own effort on enhancing Radio Free Asia set the stage for this legislation. In effect, H.R. 2232 builds upon what Mr. Smith, Mr. Lantos, and the other Subcommittee Members have done in Committee, and what many of us supported on the Floor of the House.
    And let me also add that since its first broadcast a year ago, Radio Free Asia has broken the silence in China and throughout much of Asia, and, most importantly, it acts as a surrogate for a free press in the People's Republic of China, providing an invaluable source of uncensored information to the Chinese people. This is something I hope we can all support.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you. And I want to thank Mr. Royce for his leadership. He's been a champion of human rights for a long, long time, and on this issue has been absolutely tenacious in asking that our Committee move quickly on it—the legislation that he introduced. I wish that we could have met the higher marks that were contemplated in that, but this will give us an opportunity to get this legislation to the President, where I'm sure it will be signed. So, I want to thank him for his leadership.
    Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
    Chairman GILMAN. If there are no further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.
    As many as are in favor of the amendment shall say aye.
    As many as are opposed shall say no.
    The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report the bill H.R. 2232 to the House with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, with a recommendation that the bill as amended be passed.
    Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey.
    As many as are in favor of the motion, signify in the usual manner.
    As many as are opposed say no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the chief of staff is authorized to make technical, conforming grammatical changes to the text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to be reported, and without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions under Rule 20 relative to going to conference on this measure in the counterpart in the Senate.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We will now take up H.R. 2358, to provide for improved monitoring of human rights violations in the People's Republic of China. The Chair lays the measure before the Committee.
    The clerk will report the title of the bill.
    Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 2358, a bill to provide for improved monitoring of human rights violations in the People's Republic of China.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America——''
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the text of the bill is considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point.
    [H.R. 2358 appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey to introduce the bill.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate the distinguished chairwoman of the International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for this important bill, for which I am very proud to be a co-sponsor.
    H.R. 2358 addresses the important question of whether the cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the promotion of universally recognized values, and that is, the protection and advancement of fundamental human rights of people around the world.
    Looking at the State Department budget, I see that the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor has 52 employees and a budget of just over $6 million. By way of contrast, the public affairs office is about twice as large, with 115 employees and a budget of over $10 million. Even the protocol office has 62 employees, 10 more employees than the whole Human Rights Bureau. And each of the six regional bureaus has an average of about 1,500 employees.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    These are the bureaus the Human Rights Bureau sometimes has to contend with in ensuring that human rights is accorded its rightful priority against competing concerns, and they have a combined budget of about $1 billion, or about 160 times the budget of the Human Rights Bureau. This gross disparity in resource allocation is not only a poignant signal of the imbalance in our foreign policy priorities, it also has important practical consequences. For instance, Washington officials from the regional bureaus develop their expertise by taking frequently trips to the regions in which they specialize. Officials of the Human Rights Bureau below the rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary almost never have the budget for such trips. It is an unfortunate fact of life that we usually get only what we pay for, and it appears that the American taxpayers are paying more for State Department protocol and public relations than for human rights.
    By adding the very modest $2.2 million in each of the next two Fiscal Years for monitoring human rights violations in the People's Republic of China, this bill will help to redress the terrible imbalance in the current State Department budget. I hope that in future years we will be able to take even more progress on this issue, but today's bill offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is a start, and I hope that Members can support this legislation.
    Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to the bill?
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I don't have an amendment, but I just want to say that I think it's a constructive bill, and I commend the authors of it. It certainly sends a signal to the Chinese that we care deeply about human rights, and that that's a central component of our relationship. So I intend to vote for the resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Just to echo Mr. Hamilton's remarks about the U.S. ongoing concern about monitoring human rights abuses anywhere they occur, this bill will allow us to give the employees, the State Department folks, the diplomats that we have stationed in our consulates, the wherewithal to carefully and closely monitor the human rights abuses and tell us in a timely manner, so that we can help the struggling Chinese people deal with so many problems that they confront with the oppressive regime there.
    Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    Mr. Kim.
    Mr. KIM. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple questions about this.
    This additional $2.2 million we're allocating today, it has not been specified how the money will be spent. I'm not sure exactly where the money is going to be spent.
    Second, I understand the Administration opposes this amendment because they consider this as micro-management, and, again, they have a number of staff in the embassy in Beijing who do this exact same thing.
    I'd like to ask just two questions—the money and then the micro-management issue.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kim.
    Are there any amendments? Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. If I could respond briefly, section 3 of the——
    Chairman GILMAN. If Mr. Bereuter would withhold—Mr. Smith. Did you want to respond?
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Just very briefly to my good friend, Mr. Kim, section 3 makes it very clear that this money is to support personnel to monitor political repression in the PRC. One of the gross deficiencies in our own embassy in Beijing and in our consulates is a lack of personnel dedicated to the monitoring of human rights in that very large country with over a billion people.
    There are several areas where there needs to be enhanced enforcement and monitoring, and by having better data collection on what is actually going on in all areas of human rights violations, whether it be religious repression or in other areas, we will have to have better eyes and ears. That is what this is designed to do.
    The additional $2.2 million can probably fund anywhere from 10 to 20 people who will be dedicated to this important task. And it seems to me, if this were a drug issue that we were fighting, we would be willing to task people, almost like a task force, to look very seriously at this problem. I think it's unfortunate that we just don't have enough personnel directed to it. Any Members of this Committee or the House who have ever gone to China find, in stepping into our embassy, that we are awash with people who are working on Commerce, and that's fine. But we have a deficiency in the area of human rights monitoring.
    Mr. KIM. Would the gentleman yield, just to the point? Saying that $2.2 million will generate an additional 10 to 20 staff members?
    Mr. SMITH. Yes.
    Mr. KIM. Thank you.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I'd like to have it distributed.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter has an amendment at the desk. Please read the amendment and distribute the amendment.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter.
    ''On page 5, strike lines 18 through 23.''
    [The amendment by Mr. Bereuter appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I have no argument with the gentleman from New Jersey who just spoke about the need for, or desirability of, having increased personnel for enforcement and monitoring. But the State Department does take strong exception to the suggestion that only one official in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing is assigned to human rights monitoring in the People's Republic of China. They also argue that it's inaccurate to suggest that the consulates in the PRC do not assign personnel to monitor human rights. I can say directly, to the extent that Hong Kong is now a part of the PRC, has a consulate status, I could confirm that our consulate in Hong Kong does follow the human rights situation and has people assigned to that duty.
    So it's not my intent to quibble with the gentlelady's language. I certainly support the thrust of her resolution. I expect to support it. Certainly many Americans are deeply concerned about the state of human rights in China, and appropriately so, and additional personnel will certainly be helpful to ensuring that we have our facts right when we criticize.
    I don't know if $2.2 million is the right amount or not; it may be based upon different information, based upon what we have in section 5. Since it's an authorization, I don't object to that figure. I don't have a better one. I would simply suggest it does not serve the gentlelady's objective to retain the language the State Department insists is factually inaccurate. Rather than provoke an argument with the Administration, I would say that section 5 of the bill be eliminated.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I'd yield to the gentlelady, if she has any objection to that.
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No, I do not. I do not mind it being eliminated from the bill. I would like to point out, however, that I realize that the State Department response on that section is clear, to the point they say that they do have an official that is assigned to human rights monitoring. Those of us who have looked at it have a different point of view—that that's one of the tasks assigned to that person; it is not the exclusive task. This bill seeks to make the human rights monitoring one of the important tasks of our consulate and of our Embassy, but I have no objection to eliminating it from the bill, as long as we make sure that they understand that that will be their mission—to monitor the human rights abuses in China. I have no objection——
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentlelady accepts the amendment by Mr. Bereuter——
    Mr. BEREUTER. If I can reclaim my time——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I just want to say I thank the gentlelady for that, and in any case, she's right; there deserves to be more resources for this.
    And I yield.
    Chairman GILMAN. Question is on the amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The amendment is carried.
    Any further amendments to this measure?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Who's seeking recognition? Mr. Campbell?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I have an amendment at the desk.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell has an amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment and read the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell.
    ''Strike section 2, renumber section 3 as section 2.''
    [The amendment by Mr. Campbell appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell is recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The debate on Friday included a reference in another bill to the practice of putting findings into bills of this nature. My concern was that, particularly in this context, that we did not have hearings in the Subcommittee; that I cannot personally vouch for many of the findings. That was true in 967, and I made a motion to strike the findings in 967, and it was accepted. I'd like to do the same here, and I emphasize that it is not because I do not believe there is no repression in China, but it's difficult—and sometimes dangerous—to state conclusively as findings what will not have the effect of law anyway.
    Now if we were to strike the findings portion of this bill, we would continue exactly the same effect. We would still be creating a strong office for monitoring political repression. We would be authorizing the expenditure of over $2 million for it.
    What we would not be doing, however, would be what I call potential collateral unintentional harm, by saying things are findings when we—at least I am not able to say that they are so. Let me just take a moment and refer.
    For example, in the first part, pages 1 and 2, we have that Congress concurs in the following conclusions from the U.S. State Department. We then have a series of paragraphs with quotation marks. I do not know, but I assume these quotation marks are from a report of the Department of State, but I don't know the context from which they were taken. I'm not saying that they were intentionally erroneous—not at all. I'm just saying I do not know.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I then note some of the rather strong language in this—that we go on record to say that there is intensified repression; that the authorities have stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of criticism; all public dissent was effectively silenced—I don't know that to be the case.
    Candidly, I don't know what the Government of China has to say. Maybe they have a rebuttal. Maybe it would be unconvincing to us, but it's difficult for me to proceed without having done the research to hear their response. Particularly if we are hoping to engage in an effort to change behavior, to make findings without inviting the government in question to reply seems to me potentially counterproductive.
    We then have the second paragraph, which begins on page 3, and I quote, ''In addition to the State Department, credible, independent human rights organizations have documented——'' Well, they're not listed, so I don't know where to go to find these, whether it is Medecins sans Frontieres, Red Cross, Amnesty International. I do not know where to go to find these.
    Then going through the specifics of what is additionally placed into the findings, we encounter the word ''reportedly'' several times. On page 5, for example, on line 5, we're told that Wei Jingsheng reportedly suffers from severe high blood pressure. And line 15, Chen Longde reportedly has been subject to repeated beatings. Once again, maybe so. I do not say that I know to the contrary. I just say I do not know.
    If, therefore, we would be able to remove the findings, we would have a statement in favor of increased attention to political repression; we would have an authorization to carry through on that commitment to increased monitoring of political repression, but we would not be doing what to me is difficult, and that is, making some rather pointed judgments without having heard the other side. I have not heard the other side, and, therefore, I would like to strike the findings, continuing every other aspect of the bill, which continues the bill as having the force of law.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and, hopefully, the gentleman would even consider withdrawing it.
    We have, and I have a copy of it here, and I would invite the gentleman from California to look at it—a citation for every finding in Ms. Ros-Lehtinen's legislation either to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices issued by the U.S. Department of State or, as is attributed correctly in the legislation, to human rights organizations. The two major organizations cited are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for Asia.
    We go through every aspect of this and I would invite you to look at it. I think it's very dangerous to come to a markup unprepared. I mean, I wish you would have asked me in advance and I would gladly have provided you, Mr. Campbell, with the documentation for each of these. I would invite the executive branch to comment because much of it comes right out of the Country Reports, the State Department's very carefully chronicled statement on human rights abuses in China. And, frankly, as chairman of that Subcommittee, we have heard from John Shattuck on this.
    You know, I sometimes have a problem with the Administration on human rights enforcement, but in chronicling the problems they have done yeoman's work and deserve to be commended for it. We take that language almost verbatim—and where there are quotation marks, it is verbatim—out of the State Department reports.
    Just to strike the whole thing strikes me as overkill at best. I mean, we have proof for every one of these. If the Committee wanted to spend a good 15 or 20, maybe 30, minutes, we could hear where all of this came from. It's right here. This has not been crafted willy nilly. I mean, what is it? What do you think is not accurate? It seems to me the onus is on the gentleman.
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. It is not enough just to say ''We want to hear from the Chinese Government.'' If you want to offer an amendment with their facts or so-called facts—I would question whether or not their rationalizations for their behavior are facts—that's fine. Let's vote that up or down.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. Every finding here has a very specific citation, and most of it, again, is pulled lock, stock, and barrel out of the State Department's report, and so attributed.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.
    I don't for a moment question your sincerity nor your judgment that these are accurate, to the best of your ability to find them, but I am troubled by a process whereby we—at least I; I'll just say I, and then I'll return a question to you, if I may—that I have not heard the response of the Chinese Government.
    Where it did not go through Subcommittee, where I do not have the normal degree of confidence that I would have in a process that has been vetted through the relevant subcommittee of jurisdiction, it is difficult where we are so specific. If you ask, do I approve of an increase of authorization for monitoring, the answer is, yes, I do. But you're asking me to vote for specific findings. It's much more difficult.
    And so I would ask the gentleman and my friend from New Jersey if you might tell me, did you, in hearings—did the relevant subcommittee in hearings—ask the Chinese Government's response to these specific findings, and if so, what was it?
    And I yield back.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Let me just say that I have. I went through the very unusual procedure, when General Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister, the ''Butcher of Beijing'', was in town several months ago, and was given a 19-gun salute and the red carpet treatment. We convened a hearing of the Subcommittee to hear his side of the story, when he made that outrageous statement that nobody died at Tiananmen Square.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. In 1 second. I'll be happy to yield in a second.
    So we invited the General or anybody from the Chinese Embassy. We actually set up a seat and put a nameplate and said, ''We will fill in the blank if they want to come and testify.''
    And let me just say that this legislation has been pending since July 31st of this year. If there was a problem with this, I would have hoped that the distinguished gentleman would come and say, ''I have a problem with this finding'' or ''How do you verify that this is accurate?'' Just to strip it out of the bill, it seems to me there's some burden on the gentleman, to strip it out, to show that it's untrue.
    We have a citation. Maybe the State Department is wrong, but we attribute it to them. Maybe the human rights groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are wrong, but, frankly, their track record has been superlative over the years. They're not foolproof, but we all take it with a sense that they're doing their very best to chronicle what's going on in the world, and particularly when it's a closed society and you have a dictatorship, I should say, running the country.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton——
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to check on what the vote is, but I suspect we're going over there to cast our votes and conclude the session. I wonder if we can go ahead and vote on this bill because there's certainly broad agreement on it.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there any objection——
    Mr. KIM. Would you yield just 1 second? I'd like to make a statement.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Kim—very quickly.
    Mr. KIM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding.
    I want to agree with the gentleman from California. Yes, we support this $2.2 million additional funding which will be used, I'm sure, in a good manner, but is it really necessary, having such harsh language like this? For example, abuses include torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary incommunicado detention. I mean, this is such harsh language in the findings. I'm a little concerned about how the Chinese Government will read this thing, how they're going to react.
    Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. KIM. This seems to me a little too harsh.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. KIM. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. SMITH. The harshness, in all candor, is in the punishments, the torture meted out by the government. If the Country Reports are in error, then let's raise that, but let's not shy away from calling torture ''torture''. It does enhance the legislation, and I would hope that the Campbell amendment would be voted down.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton has called——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield to me?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton has called for——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from California has the time, and he's yielded to me, with your permission, sir.
    Chairman GILMAN. If you would quickly——
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I'll be very brief. Thank you, Mr. Kim.
    I had asked our good friend and colleague from New Jersey if the position of the Chinese Government had been made known in response to the specific findings. If my friend from California would yield back to him, that question still remains; I have not heard an answer. Has the Chinese Government told us their response to this specific——
    Mr. SMITH. The Chinese Government, when the Country Reports Practices were issued—and I will get the exact quote—immediately disavowed it and said it was untrue. That is the typical response of the Chinese Government to any allegation of human rights misbehavior. And the State Department can verify that. The Chinese regime denies that any of this is happening within that country.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton has called for a vote on the Campbell amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The amendment's defeated.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, on that I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman GILMAN. Come on, Tom.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman——
    Chairman GILMAN. All right, is there a second——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, in consideration of the courtesy you've shown to me, I'll withdraw my request for a recorded vote.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
    Are there any further amendments on the measure?
    [No response.]
    If not, all in favor of the measure before us signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The measure is carried.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report the bill H.R. 2358 to the House with a recommendation that the bill be passed.
    Chairman GILMAN. The question's on the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey. As many as are in favor of the motion say aye.
    As many as are opposed say no.
    The ayes appear to have it. Without objection, the chief of staff is authorized to make technical, conforming, grammatical changes to the bill. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions under Rule 20 on any measure considered today or with respect to any companion measure from the Senate.
    We're now going back to the measure that we left remaining for a vote at the end of our discussion on Friday, bill H.R. 967, the bill to prohibit the use of U.S. funds derived from the participation of certain Chinese officials in international conferences.
    All in favor of the measure signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    Mr. HAMILTON. I think we should have a vote on this one.     Chairman GILMAN. A roll call is called. Is there a second? The clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
    Mr. Goodling.
    Mr. GOODLING. Yes.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes yes.
    Mr. Leach.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.
    [No response.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Continue.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
    Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
    Mr. Ballenger.
    Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MANZULLO. Pass.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo passes.
    Mr. Royce.
    Mr. ROYCE. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes. Mr.——
    Chairman GILMAN. If I might interrupt the clerk, after the roll call we will be adjourning for the day, but we'll come back tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock to finish our business on these bills before us.
    Please, the clerk will continue.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim.
    Mr. KIM. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes yes.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
    Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
    Mr. Campbell.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes no.
    Mr. Fox.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.
    Mr. MCHUGH. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
    Mr. Graham.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt.
    Mr. BLUNT. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes yes.
     Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes.
    Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
    Mr. Gejdenson.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
    Mr. Lantos.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. BERMAN. No.
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes no.
    Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
     Mr. Faleomavaega.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
    Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
    Mr. Andrews.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
    Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.
    Ms. DANNER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Hilliard.
    Mr. HILLIARD. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no.
    Mr. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes no.
    Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
     Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
    Mr. Clement.
    Mr. CLEMENT. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes no.
    Mr. Luther.
    Mr. LUTHER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
    Mr. Davis.
    Ms. DAVIS. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
     Mr. King.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.
    [No response.]
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
    Mr. MARTINEZ. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes no.
    Mr. Andrews.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the tally.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chairman, how would you like to vote on this measure?
    Chairman GILMAN. I will change my vote to no.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no. On this vote there were 14 ayes and 17 noes.
    Chairman GILMAN. The motion is not agreed to.
    The Committee now stands in recess. Tomorrow morning we'll reconvene at 10 a.m.
    [Whereupon, at 6 p.m., the Committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m. the next day.]
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

MARKUP ON H.R. 2386, TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT CONCERNING THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF TAIWAN AND U.S. COOPERATION WITH TAIWAN ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION OF DEFENSIVE MILITARY ARTICLES, AND H.R. 967, TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF U.S. FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF CERTAIN CHINESE OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES, PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN CHINESE OFFICIALS SHALL BE INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on the International Relations,
Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] The Committee will come to order. The next measure we'll take up is H.R. 2386, to implement the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act concerning the stability and security of Taiwan and U.S. cooperation with Taiwan on the development and acquisition of defensive military articles. The Chair lays the measure before the committee.
    The clerk will report the title of the bill.
    Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 2386, a bill to implement the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act concerning the stability and security of Taiwan and the United States cooperation with Taiwan on the development and acquisition of defensive military articles.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the text of the bill for amendment.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short title.''
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any time.
    [H.R. 2386 appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to the resolution? Does anyone wish to make any comments with regard to the measure? Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will read the amendment, the clerks will distribute the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. ''Page 7, at the end of Section 7, insert the following new section: Section 7: Sense of the Congress urging the President to make clear to the People's Republic of China the commitment of the American people to security and democracy in Taiwan. It is the sense of the Congress that the Clinton Administration should make clear to the leadership of the People's——''
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read and open for discussion.
    [The amendment appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. I recognize Mr. Rohrabacher for 5 minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the Clinton Administration should make clear to the leadership of the People's Republic of China that the American people have a firm commitment toward the security and democracy of the People of Taiwan, and that the United States fully expects that the resolution of security issues on both sides of the Taiwan Straits to be resolved by a peaceful means.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Since the Communist conquest of China in 1949, the American people have long enjoyed strong ties with the people of Taiwan, Republic of China. Today, the people of Taiwan have triumphed in establishing a stable and secure democracy with free press, free elections, vibrant trade unions, and an open trading practice. Despite repeated threats by the Government of the People's Republic of China to destabilize Taiwan's security, including naval and missile exercises near the coast of Taiwan during that country's recent national elections, the United States has made it clear our firm commitment to Taiwan's security is intact through the Taiwan Relations Act.
    This commitment has maintained the peace for nearly half a century. In maintaining cordial relations with both the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, it is the stated policy of the U.S. Government to acknowledge the view of the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits that there is but one China, yes. However, it is clear that there are two peoples and there are two governments now in terms of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan. But yes, there is one China and we acknowledge that.
    U.S. economic ties with Taiwan continue to grow in importance. Taiwan is our eighth largest trading partner, in contrast to the Communist mainland with which we suffer a $40-billion trade deficit due to the PRC's relatively closed and inaccessible market. To put it in perspective, the 20 million people in the Republic of China on Taiwan buy more from us, from our market than do these billions of people on the mainland of China. That should be kept in perspective and people should understand that.
    During this Congress, the United States has stated its support for a prompt accession to the World Trade Organization by Taiwan. The Clinton Administration has issued statements expressing similar support for Taiwan's inclusion in the world trade body. In late October 1997, the President of the United States is scheduled to meet with Jiang Zemin, the leader of the People's Republic of China in Washington. During the past week, members of the Chinese Government and military have made statements indicating increased efforts to reunite Taiwan with the Communist People's Republic under Communist terms.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    My resolution will help deter Chinese aggression by making a clear expression of the sense of Congress that the Clinton Administration can make it clear to the leadership of the People's Republic of China that the American people have a firm commitment to the security and democracy for the people of Taiwan, the Republic of China, and that the United States fully expects the resolution of security issues on both sides of the Taiwan Straits to be resolved by peaceful means.
    With that, I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Any Member seeking recognition? Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I would like to have the Administration comment on this amendment, if they would, please. Do you have a copy of it there?
    Ms. SHIRK. Yes.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Identify yourself.
    Ms. SHIRK. Hello. I'm Susan Shirk. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs with responsibility for China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mongolia.
    This amendment basically expresses the policy of the United States as articulated in the Taiwan Relations Act. I think it is consistent. I also therefore don't think it's particularly necessary to restate it in another piece of legislation.
    Mr. HAMILTON. But in your view, it's entirely consistent with American policy as it has stood for a good many years?
    Ms. SHIRK. Yes, sir.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman, I'll have some additional questions for the Administration when we get into the general debate, but I'll not ask any further on this amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Any other Member seeking recognition? Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I after hearing Ms. Shirk, have the same question. That is, as to the superfluousness of the resolution of my good friend from California. I just quite frankly don't see why it's necessary if the Taiwan Relations Act already manifests this, as it does. I also think that the executive branch has gone to great lengths to make it clear that we promote democracy and security in Taiwan no later than the sending in of a naval fleet to express our strong support that there be no military activity in that theater.
    So I would yield to my friend just to ask what's the real purpose other than to say again what has already been said? Is it because maybe we haven't said it lately or something?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would yield.
    Mr. HASTINGS. I will yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. The purpose behind this amendment is to speak boldly and to speak clearly to a new leadership from Beijing. We have a new leader coming from the Mainland who is visiting us for the first time. This is the exact moment that we should restate fundamentals. As we move forward with the relationship with this new leadership, restating our fundamentals can do nothing but clear the decks of any ambiguity so that our negotiations and any meetings that we have in the future will be based on the things that we hold to be understood already.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HASTINGS. Reclaiming my time—in understanding the gentleman very clearly, my good friend from California, I merely would have him know that a considerable number of Members of the House of Representatives and the other body have been in China and have had meetings with the new leader you describe, Jiang Zemin, who is coming here. I, for one, have been in three meetings in the past year with him in China. At no time, including with the Speaker of the House, did anyone fail to make it very very clear what our position is with reference to Taiwan. So I am lost to understand the necessity at this time.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would further yield.
    Mr. HASTINGS. I'll yield.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. There have been recent statements by military leaders on the Mainland that go to the opposite direction. In fact, there have been some very aggressive and belligerent statements made by leaders on the Mainland. With that on the record, it would be significant for us to restate our position.
    Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman for his answer. I yield back to the Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. FOX. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the Rohrabacher amendment. I believe it is appropriate that Congress reaffirm, albeit as many times as necessary to urge that the President and we as the Congress support the democracy in Taiwan, and that we will be of a single purpose and resolve that the security of Taiwan be maintained. I think Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment is appropriate and it's timely this year. It will be timely again next year unless or until there's been a resolution between the People's Republic and Taiwan on all issues of mutual concern. So I would ask my colleagues to support this, which is in the interest of not only the United States, but also Taiwan.
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. The sin of superfluousness is not one of our greater sins. The only thing I did want to say is my guess is that the Administration's decision to dispatch the carriers to the Straits of Taiwan spoke about 100 times louder than any expression of the sense of Congress in terms of our commitment to Taiwan's security. Needless to say, on a bipartisan basis, the Administrations over recent years have been strong proponents of Taiwan's turn toward democracy and I think also to the maintenance of that democracy. But I think the amendment should be supported.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the gentleman on his amendment. I do not think it's superfluous. The Congress has made clear its feelings on this subject legislatively. The Speaker made it crystal clear when he was in Beijing and Taiwan. I was pleasantly surprised by their reactions because rather than getting an anti-Taiwan tirade, they simply said we do not intend to attack Taiwan, and we went onto other subjects. I think that's the kind of clear statement, avoiding the ambiguity that some people think we had about our policy. I think it is appropriate for us to urge the President to make it crystal clear that the items, the way we expect a peaceful resolution of security issues to proceed is the policy of the United States, endorsed by both the executive branch and the Congress.
    So to the extent that there is any ambiguity on that part, what we think the President should do, I think the gentleman's amendment addresses that and commendably so. So I support it.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Any other Member seeking recognition?
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Bereuter and congratulate Mr. Rohrabacher for his amendment. We might recall that during the crisis—during the election in Taiwan there was an attempt to intimidate voters there when President Li was standing for election; the official policy for the Administration was ambiguity. That may work sometimes in diplomatic channels, but when you have a potential adversary trying to intimidate what turned out to be a free and fair election, we need to draw some lines. I think this puts us clearly on the side of those who are pro democracy. So I want to thank the gentleman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
    If there are no further Members seeking recognition, the question now is on the Rohrabacher amendment. Members in favor signify in the usual manner. Any opposed say no.
    The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for some clarification.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is Mr. Rademaker back?
    Mr. Rademaker, if I could ask you as counsel about section 3. My understanding of section 3, the applicability of the Taiwan Relations Act would indicate that this is a statement or restatement of the existing relationship of the Taiwan Relations Act with the Joint Communique, that nothing new is being described here in terms of relationship, that this is the status quo.
    I would ask the gentleman if my understanding is correct or if he wishes to enlarge upon my understanding or change it in any fashion.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. RADEMAKER. Mr. Bereuter, I am Stephen Rademaker, chief counsel to the committee. I would agree with your characterization of the effect of section 3 of the bill. Section 3 essentially says, it amends the Taiwan Relations Act to provide that two existing provisions of that act shall supersede any policy declaration to the contrary in a subsequent Joint Communique that was issued in 1982.
    The Taiwan Relations Act was enacted in 1979, but I think it would be the view of the Congress that statutes passed by the Congress can not be superseded by subsequent declarations by the executive branch. So I think the proposed amendment to the Taiwan Relations Act, which essentially says that laws can not be amended or superseded by subsequent policy declarations is a legally unassailable proposition.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Rademaker, thank you very much.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BEREUTER. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. HAMILTON. This is, I think, a very important point. I just want to say that it's my understanding that—I'll have the Administration comment on this—but it's my understanding that the policy of the United States has been that the Taiwan Relations Act takes precedence over the Joint Communique. That's accepted and has been for a long time in both Republican and Democratic Administrations.
    This resolution before us, however, does not use that language. It uses the word ''supersede''. The word supersede I think, could carry the connotation of repeal or nullify. That's a very different position than to say that it takes precedence over.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for engaging this colloquy. My next point was to ask the counsel and perhaps then to have the State Department representatives indicate about the implication for the communique.
    My understanding is the language in this legislation, section 3, would not nullify or abrogate the communique. I wanted to ask first the counsel for his verification of my interpretation.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rademaker.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. I am very reluctant to speak for the Administration. Perhaps in a moment they can speak for themselves. I believe it would be the view of the Congress that as a legal matter, a declaration or a joint communique issued in 1982 could never have superseded a statute that had been enacted 3 years prior to that. So to argue today whether by saying that we intended for the 1979 statute to supersede any subsequent policy declaration is to debate about something that we would not acknowledge could have happened in the first place.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if I might hear from the State Department.
    Chairman GILMAN. The State Department representative, again identify yourself, please.
    Mr. KLOSSON. Michael Klosson. I'm a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs.
    I think it is very clear in our view, that the Taiwan Relations Act as an act of Congress does take legal precedence over the communiques. The concern we have with the word ''supersede'' is the other meanings that it might contain, such as set aside, render useless, void, or replace. So it's very clear that the Taiwan Relations Act takes legal precedence, use of this term supersede in this fashion could possibly lead people to interpret that the communique in some way was being nullified or abrogated.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BEREUTER. I would be pleased to yield to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Let me ask for your judgment about how the Chinese Government would interpret this change of wording.
 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. SHIRK. The three communiques that the People's Republic of China and the United States have concluded since the 1970's form the foundation of a stable relationship between the two countries. The 1982 communique to which this bill refers is the one in which the PRC committed to a fundamental policy for a peaceful solution of the Taiwan Question. Therefore, we think it's a particularly important communique for making sure that the resolution to this very knotty problem be peaceful.
    The Chinese Government would certainly view any implication that the United States is backing away from the foundation of these three communiques as calling into question the whole basis of the relationship. It would be, I would say, very very harmful, sow all sorts of doubt and suspicion in the days leading up to the summit.
    Mr. HAMILTON. May I ask an additional question? I'm not sure who has the time.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Do you think that the Chinese Government would consider this change of language provocative? Highly provocative?
    Ms. SHIRK. I think any suggestion that we no longer support the communiques would be seen as provocative. Yes, sir.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time—I am trying to understand why the existing situation, the status quo reiterated here would be provocative. Is it only the word ''supersede'' that is the difficulty?
    Ms. SHIRK. Yes. We say all the time that the Taiwan Relations Act takes legal precedence over any international agreement like the communique. So the Chinese have no problems with our current position. It's only if we were to go further and use this term supersede, which has some other meanings, suggesting replacing one by the other that would be seen as provocative.
 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BEREUTER. I'll be pleased to yield to the Chairman. I have a potential solution, but I yield to the Chairman first.
    Chairman GILMAN. Just one question of the Deputy Assistant Secretary. Did the 1982 Joint Communique supersede the Taiwan Relations Act?
    Ms. SHIRK. No. It did not.
    Chairman GILMAN. That's still in effect then?
    Ms. SHIRK. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. I yield back.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time—I would ask the Assistant Secretary if we deleted the word ''supersede'' but in fact put the words ''takes legal precedent over'' would there be any difficulty?
    Ms. SHIRK. I think that would be clearer and certainly in that case completely consistent with our current policy.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BEREUTER. I would be pleased to yield. The gentleman from California? Who is seeking time? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman. I yield to him.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. I would just like to offer for consideration the words instead of supersede, ''are considered along with.'' I think that that would be consistent with the concerns that have been raised by the Administration as well as the concerns that the gentleman rightfully raises as well.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman like to seek unanimous consent to do that?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I would seek unanimous consent to substitute the word ''supersede'' with the words ''are considered along with.''
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. On my reservation, it seems Mr. Ackerman's point though may be taking it down to equal status. Equal status, right? To be considered along with.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I think the perception——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Allow me just to finish my point on my reservation. I'll be pleased to yield to you.
    That a better way of doing it would be to say along the lines of our colleague from Nebraska. Take precedence over any contrary provision. Take precedence over any contrary provision, meaning then we use the word legal precedence or precedence in its legal sense, and it would only take precedence over any contrary provision, meaning that the two are considered together.
    The difficulty I would have with the unanimous consent request is that it appears to put them on equal footing. A joint communique is not on, I think, equal footing with the statute of Congress.
    Now I would be pleased to yield to my colleague from New York if he wishes.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman. My concern is that we don't start indicating that at this point in our relationship that we want to stand up and rock the boat in any way and that we have a major sea change in direction. I think everybody has been comfortable with both the communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act in the way that it has been implemented. Both Congress and the Administration have many tools at their disposal. I think that this would basically spook the Chinese to think that we are changing policy at this point. I don't see any major problem that has existed, by the way. This has been delicately assuaged in the past several years since the Taiwan Relations Act was enacted.
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Reclaiming my time, I yield to my colleague from California.
    Mr. BERMAN. I ask the sponsor, well the sponsor of the bill isn't—I ask the gentleman who is reserving a point of order on the amendment has yielded to me.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. It's an objection to unanimous consent request.
    Mr. BERMAN. I mean objection.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman is recognized. He's yielding to you.
    Mr. BERMAN. This is all in the context of a proposal to encourage the study of and perhaps then the delivery to of theater missile defense program. Why are we getting entangled in the question of superseding the Taiwan Relations Act?
    The Taiwan Relations Act provides for defensive weaponry to go to Taiwan. There may be other issues which we can find out from the Administration later about why this is a good or not good idea. But why do we need this language? We certainly didn't need this language to send F–16s to Taiwan, which are certainly less of a defensive capability than a theater missile defense system. So why at this particular time, a few weeks before the summit, are we getting ensnarled in an issue that doesn't really restrict our ability to decide what we want to do and simply has the consequence of making sort of a legal point in the eye? That's I guess the only point I would like to make.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman, are you addressing that to the sponsor of the——
    Mr. BERMAN. I don't know who I am addressing that to.
    [Laughter.]
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. It's Mr. Bereuter's time.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I think I objected or I noted an objection. Why don't, just procedurally, I note an objection to the unanimous consent request and we deal with this in normal amendment form. So I note my objection to the unanimous consent.
    Chairman GILMAN. It's Mr. Bereuter's time. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Then I ask unanimous consent the word ''supersede'' be replaced with the phrase ''takes legal precedent over.''
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there an objection? If there's no objection, the——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Reserving my——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman, on the objection?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Might I ask the Administration their view of the——
    Chairman GILMAN. They already gave their view on the word.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. They did prior to my offering a unanimous consent request, which I would like to hear what their view on——
    Chairman GILMAN. But what is your question, Mr. Ackerman?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. The question is what is their view with ''takes legal precedent over'' as opposed to ''are considered along with.''
    Chairman GILMAN. Secretary.
    Ms. SHIRK. It is consistent with the reality of the situation in which American domestic law takes precedence over this kind of communique signed with another country. However, I have to tell you I don't think it is useful or constructive at this delicate stage in our relations with China to be addressing any kinds of doubts or suggesting that the communique is being reconsidered in any kind of way. Even though this is better than supersedes, frankly from the Administration's perspective, better still would simply be to not include this in the legislation.
 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FOX. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter. It's Bereuter's time.
    Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman seems to be reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell, reserving the right to object?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Fox, I think.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I still do reserve, but I'll yield. I mean I won't yield. Take me after Mr. Fox.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. I was just going to ask, in as much as it is probably well known that a joint communique is of a lesser legal value than a statute passed by the United States, wouldn't it not be appropriate in this case to have ''are considered along with'' language as opposed to our legal precedent? Either it is or it isn't a legal precedent. But what we are trying to make sure is that they are considered along with in recognition of prior agreements. ''Are considered along with'' might satisfy all concerned.
    I would ask the gentleman from Nebraska if he would consider that replacement language.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman. Let me restate——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. My unanimous consent request with a slightly different set of verbiage as suggested by the gentleman from California. Replace the word ''supersede any'' those two words, ''supersede any'' and in place of it put the following phrase, ''takes——''
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, would you indicate the line and the page?
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BEREUTER. On page 5, lines 23 and 24. Replace the word ''supersede any'' with the phrase ''takes precedent over any contrary.''
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there objection? If there is no objection——
    Mr. MANZULLO. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo, on the right to object.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I am trying to figure out what we are trying to do here. You know, the Taiwan Relations Act created domestic authority for conducting unofficial relations with Taiwan. It states that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts, blah blah blah, is of ''grave concern to the United States.'' That's the Taiwan Relations Act.
    Then the communique comes along to the PRC and says, well just a second, you know, we want to help Taiwan, and it's of grave concern, but really our main intent here is to decrease the amount of military weaponry that we're sending to Taiwan. That's the Joint Communique.
    Then later on, notwithstanding any agreements or communiques, we send over the 150 F–16 aircraft. Now we're saying here that in order to send a message to somebody, we should have one of these ambiguous agreements take legal precedence over another ambiguous communique. Then the question is what message does this send to the Taiwanese. Does this mean that the 1954 U.S.-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty is suddenly going to be resurrected and put into the play on it? I mean does that mean that there is going to be a reversal of the explicit language in the 1982 communique?
    I mean I don't know what we are trying to do here. I think somebody should explain are we trying to beef up the Taiwanese defenses? Are we making a promise to Taiwan that we are going to mutually defend them back in 1954? Are we saying to them we're going to diminish what you are trying to do? Then I read later on in the bill we want to give them a sophisticated anti-ballistic weapons, anti-weapons system that we don't even have ourselves. I would love to have that ourselves. We have it with Israel, but we want to give them what we don't already have for ourselves.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield under his reservation?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Under your reservation, I would say to you that I think that the language I have suggested under unanimous consent eliminates a possible area of misunderstanding or ambiguity which exists in section 3 now. I would hope the gentleman could support that.
    However, Mr. Berman and yourself raise the question of why we should have section 3 in the bill at all. I have the same question. I don't want to do anything that's damaging, so I am trying to improve what is there. But a better solution might be just to delete section 3 altogether.
    Mr. MANZULLO. That would be my suggestion. Just get rid of it. Then existing law, whatever it is, stays the way it is and we don't send a message to anybody, either to the PRC or ROC. We're simply not mentioning it and the existing law continues and both those nations understand the existing.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I think that the gentleman's suggestion is very palatable and makes a great deal of sense.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Then I would ask for unanimous consent that we simply strike section 3, if that's in order.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, regular order. May I have a determination on my own unanimous consent request?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. May I first have a determination on my own unanimous consent request?
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there an objection to the unanimous consent——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman, on the objection.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If your suggestion is accepted by unanimous consent, that still allows that, does it not, the ability to strike the entire section if the majority of the Members by unanimous consent——
    Mr. BEREUTER. That is my understanding. As a matter of fact, I would support it.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. I withdraw my objection.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Houghton.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to follow up on what Mr. Berman said earlier. I am not sure who I am addressing this to, but I would like to tell you how I feel about this whole amendment. We're talking about——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Is this under a reservation?
    Chairman GILMAN. Are you reserving your right to object, Mr. Houghton? We're on the reservation, the unanimous consent.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I would yield to Mr. Houghton on the reservation.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. I want to talk about the whole amendment. If you think this is appropriate, I'll do it now. If you want me to wait, I'll do it.
    Chairman GILMAN. We're going to have general debate on the measure after. We're now on the unanimous consent by Mr. Bereuter. All in favor signify—is there any objection to the unanimous consent by Mr. Bereuter? If there's no objection the Bereuter amendment is approved.
 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I would ask for unanimous consent that all of section 3 of this act be stricken.
    Chairman GILMAN. Unanimous consent by Mr. Manzullo to strike section 3. Is there any objection to the proposal by Mr. Manzullo to strike section 3?
    Mr. BURTON. Reserving the right to object. I am not going to take but just a minute.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton on the reservation.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I listen to these debates and sometimes it really bothers me. You know, we use the word that we don't want to provoke or be provocative to China and we don't want to spook China. I can't understand why it's all one sided. They have been selling sophisticated weaponry and technology to Iraq and Iran and everybody else. That's not provocative to us. Yet if we put one word in a document, we're provoking the Chinese Communists who have 10 million people in slave labor camps. What the heck is wrong with us around here? We ought to say what we think. I withdraw my——
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. I reserve the right to——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Houghton on the reservation.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Burton, I would like to say what I believe. I believe this whole thing is wrong. We're talking about legal niceties, considered along with, the legal precedent over, superseded, superseded by any. The Chinese are not going to listen to that. They are going to look at the thrust of this. The Taiwanese know that we're their friends. The Chinese realize that we're trying to have some sort of a rapport with them. This is just dotted with inflammatory abrasive language and I think the whole thing is a mistake. Thank you very much.
 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. We're now on the unanimous consent on the Manzullo proposal to strike section 3. Any objections?
    Mr. FOX. I reserve the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. I thought we just amended section 3 to have the Bereuter amendment, which I think is appropriate.
    Chairman GILMAN. We did. Now Mr. Manzullo wants to strike the entire section 3.
    Mr. FOX. Well, if there was no objection to Bereuter, how would you——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Not speaking for him, but I raised the question with Mr. Bereuter that if there was no objection to his unanimous consent, would he object to striking the entire section as suggested by Mr. Manzullo? I believe Mr. Bereuter said, Chairman Bereuter said that he would be willing to accept that as well. He would support striking this section.
    Mr. FOX. After he had amended it? I want to make sure it was the right form.
    Chairman GILMAN. We're now on the Manzullo, unanimous consent request to strike section 3.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. We're weakening this provision, is it my understanding?
    Chairman GILMAN. We're eliminating section 3 under the Manzullo proposal. Are you objecting?
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I object.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Objection is heard. The Committee is now in recess for the vote. We'll return right after the vote.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Can we have the Members take their seats, please? We have a former Member of the Committee who seeks recognition.
    Mr. Solomon.
    Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look at this crew and it brings back a lot of nostalgia. We miss you. If Bob Michael a number of years ago had not dragged me kicking and screaming over to the Rules Committee, I would still be sitting there next to Mr. Hyde and Mr. Bereuter. It was the committee I dearly loved.
    I won't take but a minute of your time because there are important issues waiting before the Rules Committee, many of those issues concerned each of your Members. But I came here just to talk about a bill that is pending before you. It has to do with Taiwan. I just wanted to refresh all of your memories, particularly those that may not have been here back in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter, who was a good President, but didn't always make the best of decisions. One decision he made was to de-recognize Taiwan, which was the Republic of China by name at that time.
    When that happened, because Taiwan was such a very very important part in the chain of defense against the spread of deadly atheistic communism throughout the world, we in this Congress and in this Committee in particular, which included the very distinguished gentleman Mr. Hamilton and yourself and Henry Hyde, and Doug Bereuter and others, we took the task of writing the Taiwan Relations Act, which is the law of the land. One important provision in the Taiwan Relations Act was that the United States of America would continue to make sure that Taiwan had the weaponry, both qualitative and quantitative to defend itself against outside military aggressive. Primarily that was the People's Republic of China.
 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    That today still stands as the law of the land. There have been a number of communiques, one by former President Reagan, whom I dearly loved and idolized, as you all know, but disagreed with when he entered into communiques with the People's Republic of China. He did so, as did George Bush, and as have others, because of the so-called China card that had to be played in our relationship with the real danger at that time, which was the Soviet Union.
    However, the law of the land is still the Taiwan Relations Act. The amendment, the bill that you have before you, I believe it's Mr. Duncan Hunter's bill, but it is also my bill, would simply say that we live up to our agreement with the law of the land. Regardless of these communiques, which are entered into, the law that stands is the Taiwan Relations Act. I certainly hope that—first I want to commend you for all of the action you have taken on the other bills dealing with China. It is extremely important that we be able to both send a message that we respect human rights, we respect human dignity, and we respect the people that we do business with throughout the world to respect that human rights ability. So I just hope that you will be able to act on this measure before you and live up to the law of the land by enacting that legislation.
    Having said all that, I really do have to get back to my meeting. But if you have any questions, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to have some.
    Chairman GILMAN. I want to thank you, Mr. Solomon, for coming. I know you have been a long-time supporter of the Taiwan Act. We appreciate your comments at this time as we give it further consideration. Thank you for coming.
    Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you so much for your time. I'll be glad to extend the same consideration to all of you should you come before the Rules Committee.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. SOLOMON. There's no quid pro quo there.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Solomon, before you go, I'm pleased to yield to the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Hamilton.
 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SOLOMON. A great American by the way.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many of us have occasion to testify before the Rules Committee. I just want the chairman of the Rules Committee to know on many occasions I have appreciated his very great courtesy to me and his unfailing fairness in those hearings. It's a pleasure to have him back in his old Committee again. We thank you for your statement.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Solomon.
    Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you so much. Keep up the good work, guys.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. We're now on the measure before us, H.R. 2386. Are there any further amendments?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I move to strike the last word. I have an amendment which is being circulated. The amendment——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo, if you'll withhold.
    Amendment by Mr. Manzullo. The clerk will read the amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo, ''page 5 strike lines 19 through 25 and renumber the following sections accordingly.''
    [The amendment appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I fully intend to vote in the affirmative on H.R. 2386. The only message that we want to send to Beijing is that you mess around, you are going to have anti-ballistic missiles parked at your backdoor.
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I think that's what this Committee is trying to do. I agree with that. In fact, I would love to see the whole anti-ballistic missile treaty dissolved. What we're doing is we're offering to give to Taiwan a defensive system that we ourselves can't use because of a dumb treaty that this country entered into that says that if everybody agrees not to shoot the other missiles out of the sky, perhaps it will be for a safer world.
    I am one that believes greatly in defensive measures. What this bill does, it sets up a defensive posture that allows Taiwan to defend itself against oncoming missiles, the same as we entered into the agreement with Israel for the manufacture of the Ural anti-missile missile.
    The reason I am requesting by amendment to strike section 3 is that I think we want this bill to be as clear as possible in sending that agreed-upon message. I know the Chairman is an attorney. I am an attorney. Maybe there are too many lawyers here, but what it is showing is that when there is room for disagreement as to what these words mean, and if you can say the message without using those words, then simply eliminate the words. We can dance all day here around what the word supersede means or take legal precedence over, but what we have got is two laws and three communiques that are standing side by side in which really nobody has any problem with regard to how they interact legally. I don't want to create a problem.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Of course. I would be glad to yield.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I am going to support the gentleman's amendment. I think it's a good one. If you would permit, I would like to ask the Administration a question. May I do that?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Of course.
    Mr. HAMILTON. About your amendment. We have here an amendment which is an amendment to strike the entire section, as the section now stands after a former unanimous consent request was agreed upon, the language as amended by the unanimous consent request says that the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) take precedence over any contrary provision.
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The question I have for you is, between these two, take precedence over any contrary provision, and striking, what is the preference of the Administration?
    Ms. SHIRK. The Administration would prefer that we strike the entire section so that there is no appearance or reality of questioning this formula of the three communiques, plus the Taiwan Relations Act, which has really stood us very well in maintaining stability in the Taiwan Straits for so long.
    Mr. HAMILTON. And you have some reservations apparently, even about the phrase ''any contrary provision''?
    Ms. SHIRK. Yes. Our policy position is that the 1982 Communique and the Taiwan Relations Act are consistent with one another, and that carrying them both out presents no problem to us. Therefore, I am concerned about a statement indicating that there might be anything contrary in the Communique and in the Taiwan Relations Act.
    That suggestion in and of itself could subvert this foundation that we have established. So therefore, I prefer to strike the entire section.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I support his amendment.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. MANZULLO. I would yield to Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Even though I helped perfect the section 3, my attitude is do no harm if you can avoid it. I think the gentleman's amendment to strike the whole section is a better alternative. I encourage my colleagues to support it. Thank you.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Considering the statement of my friend, Mr. Bereuter, I will withdraw my request to make a statement right now.
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Any other Members seeking? Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I just want to speak in support of Mr. Manzullo's amendment. I think it is very very clear. I think he shows very keen insight into the issue, although I did appreciate the chairman of the Rules Committee appearing before us. I just want to state I don't know that we passed the Taiwan Relations Act because atheism is deadly. I have noted people of religious persuasions die as well. The Taiwan Relations Act meant to cure many things, I don't know that it was atheism that we had in mind at the time.
    But certainly we do not do anything disruptive to the Taiwan Relations Act, which as everybody knows does have precedence in law, and it is the view of the Administration and I think most of us here that there is nothing inconsistent between the communiques or the Taiwan Relations Act. I think that the gentleman's amendment is worthy of support.
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there any other Member seeking recognition? If not, the question is now on the amendment by Mr. Manzullo. Members in favor, signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The amendment is carried.
    We now are open for debate on the entire measure. I want to commend the gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter of the National Security Committee for introducing this legislation. I happened to have been an initial cosponsor of the bill. I support it wholeheartedly. I think we all should be concerned by the actions of the Chinese last year when they fired M–9 minimum range ballistic missiles into the international sea and airplanes off the coast of Taiwan protesting the first democratic elections in 5,000 years in Chinese history. They did the same thing in 1995 for similar reasons of intimidation. I believe that that is wrong.
 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In 1996, our Nation had to react by deploying two aircraft carriers to the region, putting our sailors and airmen in harm's way. This sort of missile diplomacy by the Chinese is unacceptable. We should consider providing Taiwan with this sort of defensive, I repeat defensive system, when it's fielded in the Asia Pacific region. The bill does just that.
    Further, I find the bill to be in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, allowing for the sale of defensive military hardware. Theater missile defense would be responsive to the threat and not exceed it. In addition, it would also enhance regional stability by keeping the military option off the table as a means of resolving the Taiwan question. Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support the measure.
    Anyone seeking——
    Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Chairman knows and others, I would have felt more comfortable if the National Security Committee had marked up sections 4, 5, and 6 before us. They chose not to do that. But my understanding, based upon consultation with their staff and DOD is that these sections, despite reservations of the Administration, on a substantive basis are not antithetical to what's now ongoing.
    Let me just say a word or two about that. After the missile shot off the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan asked for the cooperation with the United States on theater missile defense matters in the wake of that crisis. We responded by hosting a Taiwan team to the ballistic missile defense office. Out of that meeting, Taiwan created a special team, the joint air defense evaluation team. DOD has been working with that group and a second seminar should occur in the near future.
    Second, we have sold Taiwan a derivative of the Patriot system. It's called the Pac–2 plus. It's fundamentally what our troops have today in the United States. They have not requested the Pac–3 system, which is still being developed. They assemble the Pac–2 system in Taiwan. We approved the purchase of up to eight units, but Taiwan thus far has only purchased three. They will be operational around 1998.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So I wanted my colleagues to know that there is an ongoing effort between DOD and Taiwan with respect to ballistic missile defense. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question of Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. Bereuter, with respect to your comments directed to sections 4 and 5 and the Administration's position, are you familiar with the letter that has been sent to Mr. Hamilton from the Rear Admiral of the Navy expressing some concerns about this section?
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Davis, I am not. I have not seen that.
    Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide a copy of this for Mr. Bereuter, and see if he has any——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this is a letter that has been sent to our Ranking Member. Perhaps he might have some comments on it, express some concerns about the position, as I read the letter, that Taiwan would have with respect to the imposition of the missile system that's contemplated under the architecture study.
    Chairman GILMAN. While the letter is being read by Mr. Bereuter, is there anyone else seeking recognition?
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I would like to ask the Administration their views on this resolution.
    Ms. SHIRK. As Congressman Bereuter said, the Administration considers this—well, no, he didn't say this. What he said is there is already cooperation underway to provide for Taiwan's defensive needs. We have done that in several ways.
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    First of all, we have helped Taiwan purchase the modified air defense system, which is comparable to the state-of-the-art version of the Patriot Pac–3 system. So what Taiwan has is what the U.S. Army has had in operation in the field only since December 1996.
    Second, there have been preliminary discussions with Taiwan about theater missile defense. But Taiwan has not asked for this. It really gets out ahead of the facts on the ground because we do not yet have the system that is contemplated here. It is premature. So we believe that our current practice of providing for Taiwan's defense with the MADS system and having these kinds of early seminars on TMD is about where we should be.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Would you indicate to us how you think the Chinese Government would react to this?
    Ms. SHIRK. The Chinese Government naturally would not like to see a theater missile defense system in Taiwan. However, our decision about whether or not at a future date to go ahead with such a system will not depend upon whether or not the Chinese like it or don't, but what the legitimate defense needs of Taiwan are.
    Mr. HAMILTON. We are considering today, in the last few days, several bills and resolutions related to China. Put those into some priority for me in terms of which ones will cause the most trouble in the summit coming up.
    Chairman GILMAN. If Mr. Hamilton would yield. I would like to dispose of this measure so that we can get back on a discussion of all the others. But let's take this measure now, if you would. You want to comment on this measure?
    Mr. HAMILTON. Well, I'll make this question specific to this measure. I mean how does it relate here?
    Ms. SHIRK. I think this measure will be viewed as taking China as an enemy, making the presumption that China is already our enemy, and treating it in a hostile manner. I think it will be taken that way by the Chinese. I think they will definitely feel distressed about it and will cause some disruption in our plans for the summit undoubtedly.
 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the last thing we need to do is to give the Chinese Government a false impression of where we are at. The way you make friends is to deal with them openly and honestly. We have a lot of people in this body who disagree on fundamental issues. But we know where we are coming from. We can maintain a certain level of comity and friendship and get business done.
    If we want to have a good relationship with the Mainland China, seeing that it's under a Communist regime, that regime has to know where we are coming from. That is what this legislation is all about. It's not going to be seen as belligerent. It is going to be seen as up front. It will help define a peaceful future between the United States and the people on the mainland of China.
    Chairman GILMAN. Since we're on a second bell, we'll recess, come back here and dispose of this final bill right after the recess.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. If Members would take their seats. We are nearing the end of our consideration of our Chinese bills. We would welcome your cooperation.
    Are there any further amendments to the measure before us? Are there any further amendments to the measure before us? If not, I recognize Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing today with an affirmative vote is expressing to the leadership of the Communist party on Mainland China that the United States has certain prerequisites to good relations with their regime. Those prerequisites have already been set down before. Yes, we have the Taiwan Relations Act and other acts and other actions taken by this body. But as we move forward with a new leadership on the mainland of China, and the first visit, it is important for us to restate the principles and restate the fundamentals so that we can move forward and that there is not ambiguity, and that both sides know where both sides are coming from. That is the way to build better relationships and peace in the world.
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We're talking about in this, in the affirmative, we are voting for affirmative for democracy in Taiwan. We're voting for the affirmative to recognize that Taiwan does have a right to defend itself against any type of armed aggression from the Mainland, and that we would support that, their right to defend themselves and our right to provide those defensive weapons systems. No. 3, that there is an understanding that all issues will be resolved peacefully on the Taiwan Straits.
    These are things that have been agreed upon in the past. By restating these things, we will be looking not to hurt anybody's feelings, not to be insensitive to these strong men on the Mainland, but instead we're just charting out a course for peace. I believe that it will be taken in good faith by the Communist leadership. So I urge a yes vote.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I urge a no vote on the resolution for several reasons. First of all, I think all of us have noticed this bill is logically badly flawed. In the one instance, you have a call for a study of the architecture of establishment and operation of a theater ballistic missile system. You ask for a report from the President on that. Then in the very next section of the bill, we want to move ahead with a sense of the Congress resolution that the transfer be made.
    In other words, you call for a study. Before the study is made, before a report is made we have already made up our mind, we are going to transfer the missile defense system. I just think that kind of logic in a bill makes us look bad. That's No. 1.
    No. 2, I think the bill, the discussion of the ballistic missile defense system is really unnecessary. That is the point made in the Defense Department letter. We have got a very good ongoing program with Taiwan in this area. We are discussing a ballistic missile defense system with them. We have provided, as the Deputy Assistant Secretary said, we have already provided the state-of-the-art defense system for Taiwan. Taiwan is not requesting this. So it's just really unnecessary.
 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    No. 3, I think it is provocative as well. Now this is a terribly sensitive matter in the U.S.-China relationship, the supply of defense equipment and arms to Taiwan. It is extremely sensitive. We are not going to get any benefit if this bill passes. In other words, there is no gain here, but there is a risk. The risk is that it's highly provocative and will stimulate some kind of action by the Chinese.
    So we are going to have political repercussions or at least potential political repercussions from this, and no gain from it, from a system that the Taiwanese are not asking for and indeed, as the Defense Department letter says, are skeptical about because of the resources involved in purchasing it.
    Finally, let me just say that we've got a summit coming up. We are throwing out of this Committee now five bills, four or five bills. I understand there is going to be a re-vote here soon on one of the other bills. All of which have a very strong anti-Chinese flavor to them. Some of them I think are meritorious, and every one of them has some meritorious points. But our objective ought to be at this point to help the President of the United States have a successful summit meeting. Don't put obstacles in his way. Don't make that summit more difficult for the President. Give him some flexibility as he goes into this summit.
    I think the cumulative impact of these bills, and certainly this specific bill, does a number of things. It points us in the direction of cutting off the dialog with China. It points us in the direction of disengagement from China. It points us in the direction of making China the enemy. All of those things I think move us in the wrong direction.
    I strongly urge a no vote on this resolution.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
    The Chair would like to notify Members that we'll be taking up a motion to reconsider the vote on H.R. 967 right after this vote. Then we will wind up our business.
    If there are no further amendments, I would like to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the bill as amended by the Committee. Adopting this amendment will allow us to report a single amendment to the House rather than a series of cut and bite amendments. Is there objection to adopting such an amendment?
 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report the bill H.R. 2386 as amended by the substitute to the House.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey. Members in favor signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Without objection, the chief of staff is authorized to make technical conforming grammatical changes to the bill. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions under rule 20 on any measure considered today or the companion measure.
    I now have a motion to reconsider. The desk clerk will report the motion.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. I would like to know the appropriate time so I don't miss the opportunity to move to table the consideration of the motion. That is a preferential motion. I just ask counsel whether I have to move that before it's read or immediately after it's read, not wishing to get into the thicket of what the proper time for that is.
    Chairman GILMAN. Is counsel prepared to make a—counsel, please advise the Member.
    After it's read, the Member can make the motion to table.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the motion.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman moves to reconsider the vote by which the Committee failed to agree to the motion to report favorably H.R. 967 as amended.
 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Motion is debatable under the 5-minute rule.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his motion.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move a preferential motion. I move to table the reconsideration of this motion.
    Chairman GILMAN. Motion to table is non-debatable. All in favor of the motion signify in the usual manner.
    Those opposed?
    The noes have——
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll call vote.
    Chairman GILMAN. Roll call vote asked for. Is there a second?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Second.
    Chairman GILMAN. Seconded. The clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
    Chairman GILMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
    Mr. Goodling.
    Mr. GOODLING. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.
     Mr. Leach.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. HYDE. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
    Mr. Bereuter.
 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
    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.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    Mr. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
    Mr. Ballenger.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes yes.
    Mr. Royce.
    Mr. ROYCE. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
     Mr. King.
 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. KING. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
    Mr. Kim.
    Mr. KIM. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes yes.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. CHABOT. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
    Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. SALMON. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
    Mr. Houghton.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
    Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
    Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
     Mr. McHugh.
    Mr. MCHUGH. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. GRAHAM. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Blunt.
    Mr. BLUNT. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
    Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
     Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
    Mr. Gejdenson.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.
    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.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
    Mr. Brown.
    Mr. BROWN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Ms. McKinney.
    Ms. MCKINNEY. Pass.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney passes.
     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. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. Aye.
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
    Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
    Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes.
    Mr. Luther.
    Mr. LUTHER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes no.
    Mr. Davis.
    Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the clerk call the absentees?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.
    Mr. BALLENGER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
    Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
     Mr. Andrews.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
    Ms. MCKINNEY. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes no.
    Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.
    [No response.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Is anyone seeking to change their vote? Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Salmon is recorded as voting yes.
    Mr. SALMON. Change it to no.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Kim?
    Mr. KIM. Yes. How am I recorded?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim voted yes.
    Mr. KIM. I vote no.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
    Chairman GILMAN. Anyone else seeking to change their vote? Any other absentees? If not, the clerk will read the tally.
    Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 17 ayes and 20 noes.
    Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is defeated. Motion to table is defeated.
    We'll now vote on the——
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. I would like to be recognized to debate the motion.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we should change the title of this piece of legislation to the ''Ban Billy Graham from China'' legislation. Because while I think there are some good intentions behind the original bill, what will happen is we will end up having the Chinese banning evangelists and others who now have visas from the Chinese Government to go and operate within China to have their own evangelist meetings.
    We also lose the opportunity to have contact with lower-level Chinese officials who frankly when they are confronted with a free and open society can easily figure out which is better. If you are a totalitarian government, then you shouldn't want people to come see what you are doing, and you shouldn't want your people to leave. But if you have what you believe is to be the best in the world, then we ought to go to every length to expose it to those who don't have this kind of democratic system.
 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    You think for 1 minute that a Chinese Government official can come over here and go back to his totalitarian government thinking they have a better operation? What is our goal? Is our goal to keep Chinese men and low-level officials in the dark about how well this government operates? About the freedom and economic opportunity it provides for its citizenship? Even if it would not lead to retaliation and blocking Dr. Graham and others, this would be foolish on the face of it.
    When Nikita Khrushchev came to the United States, it is my understanding he returned with a strong belief that he had seen a Potemkin village, that we had kind of gathered together the best of this country and showed it to the leader of the Soviet Union. But as decade after decade of Soviets came over here and saw that across America we have the bounty of food and opportunity, that most of our citizens lived at a standard that only the rest of the world could envy, it obviously had an impact on their system. To come up with a program that cuts off bringing people to this country I think is a mistake.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is this sort of based on the idea that if we had more S.S. officers coming here that they would have been converted and seen the light?
    Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to reclaim my time to say——
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Because this is the equivalent of what we're doing here.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Clearly if you look at what happened in Germany, the S.S. isn't the place you would start. But it seems to me——
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would be happy to ban S.S. officers.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Fine. I would be happy to join with the gentleman. But in a serious note, if you look at our ability, and I am going to hold my time, in a serious note if you look at how we have undercut virtually every other Communist country on the face of this planet, it is by comparison. It is not by keeping their people in the dark about the freedoms of this country, but it is giving them the opportunity to see it here as it exists and as it operates.
 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    If you are afraid of showing what we have, you ought to vote for this resolution. If you want Dr. Graham to be blocked from going to China, you ought to vote for this resolution. There is no one in this House that has spoken out more often than I have on the outrageous activities of the Chinese Government. But there is nothing less effective than keeping secret what we do here. If you vote for this, you are just going to help the Chinese. You are going to convince more of them by the lack of information that their system may be right. If you bring them over here, as we did with Russians and Czechs and Poles and Hungarians, we may not have ever had the top echelons of those countries or the S.S. equivalents, but the functionaries at the lower levels figured it out.
    When I was in the Soviet Union in 1982, the government functionary that came with me and Congressman Shannon and Congressman Smith, turned to us as we walked through one of the official buildings there, the summer palace of the Czar, and said, ''You know, can I have your card, because if I get out next year, I'm not coming back.'' Because they understood what the West has to offer. A billion two hundred million Chinese need to get as much of that as possible. This is foolishness. It is counter productive.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just let me say in my view, my good friend from Connecticut has made a very naive argument to the Committee. I hope it will be rejected.
    As I think Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out, we would exclude S.S. They would not be convinced by a visit to Washington or to Macy's or to New York——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. No, no. I will not. Or to Rockefeller Center, that somehow they are going to catch the good infection. Persecutors are the only ones that are targeted in this bill. This bill was amended last week against and over my objections and over the objections of Mr. Gilman, the prime sponsor of the bill. But what does it do? Let's get back to the basic guts of this bill. First, it denies U.S. taxpayer funding through the Department of State or USIA for the participation of U.S. supported exchange programs to the persecutors as well as PRC officials from agencies who have done the persecution and the heads of the government-run religious front organizations. We are talking about U.S. subsidization of their visits here. That is all we are talking about.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, it denies U.S. visas to people who actually participated in or directed religious persecution. You know, we keep terrorists out. Now when we do that, do we say oh we might offend the host government? Of course not. If we are going to put a blanket that terrorists will not be allowed onto our shores, we should at least do it to those who persecute.
    Let me make one anecdotal statement.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman yield at the end for 1 second?
    Mr. SMITH. Let me finish. On one of three human rights trips that I took to the People's Republic of China, Bishop Shu from Baoding Province, a Catholic bishop, an underground Catholic bishop, asked that he meet with our delegation. We had misgivings about it but we did it anyway. He said mass to the delegation. He was immediately arrested and now he's languishing in one of the laogai for saying mass for our group. He already spent a dozen years for his religious beliefs in a laogai. He's back in. It's not unlike what happened to Wei Jingsheng and all the others. They just scoop them up and they put them into prisons.
    This says that those who persecute will not be rewarded. They will not come to this country, we'll not give them visas. It is naive beyond my wildest expectation to say that somehow they are going to catch the good infection by just coming to this country. These are the persecutors. These are the ones who know what they are doing, who inflict cattle prods on people, particularly in the genital area. We had in front of our Subcommittee 2 years ago, six survivors of the laogai, including Harry Wu. We had a Catholic nun. We also had a Buddhist missionary, a Buddhist monk. He brought in the cattle prods that they use against prisoners. He couldn't get through our own security outside. We had to go down and usher him through. He gave nauseating details as to what these people do. Now we're going to say we might offend them somehow by denying their entry into this country.
    This is a very modest bill. It has been amended by Mr. Bereuter, by Mr. Campbell. It should be acceptable to everybody. This ought to be unanimous. Let's take a stand against the persecutors and not somehow say, well, there might be some reaction, there might be some distress to use the statement of the distinguished Deputy Secretary in Beijing. Let's send a clear message to the terrorists. That's what these people are. Mr. Rohrabacher hit the nail right on the head. This is like letting the S.S. into this country.
 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. I'll be happy to yield.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. It's much broader than that.
    Mr. SMITH. It's not. Read the bill.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me just say I don't give 1 second of thought to whether or not the Mainland Chinese Government is offended or not. I have never, as the gentleman has I think in almost every instance, voted against MFN, for the Chinese Government, led the fight stopping Chinese MFN much to the dismay of my own Administration. I am not concerned how the Chinese respond to this. I just think it's a tactical error for those of us who believe that we have a better system and that frankly, the nightmare you are going to create in that and the retaliation. The Chinese want isolation.
    Mr. SMITH. Reclaiming my time. They are already cracking down. After the issuance of 144 and 145, there was an absolute assault on the underground Catholic church and the house church movement, which was the largest growing Christian sect in the People's Republic of China. The persecution is growing, it's not diminishing. Denying a visa and refusing to subsidize their trips to the United States where they can engage in disinformation campaigns and put a human face on their terrorism to me is absurd and counter productive.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman further yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I could ask my colleagues to be very mindful of our overall jurisdictional responsibilities and to not undertake a measure that is going to be restrictive of people who spend their entire lives and careers working in this arena.
    Let me make it very clear. Under our tremendous system of government, we obviously, as policymakers and legislators, have the responsibility to check the executive branch of this government. That goes without saying. At the very same time, this particular measure is often, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, entirely. This particular measure is unnecessary. The one thing it fails to recognize, and that is the significant march of people in China.
 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    China is changing, albeit gradually and not at the speed that a lot of us would have it. We would want it to be instantly democratic as we are we say. But to restrict the State Department or USIA or AID to point out the fallacy in this particular measure as offered, it restricts just those agencies with reference to cultural and/or educational exchanges. It does not restrict all agencies of the U.S. Government, and there are other agencies that have exchanges.
    The other thing I would ask my colleague Mr. Smith to recognize is that Chinese are not without creativity and ingenuity. What happens when you identify one specific agency, my goodness, all they have to do is change the name of the agency and then get the visa that you are trying to deny them. That serves no useful purpose. Mr. Gejdenson is absolutely correct. Not only the right Reverend Billy Graham, but countless others in exchange programs are likely to be denied visas in a visa war that could take place between China and the United States. It is totally unnecessary. We will reach them at some point with our openness. We will read them at another point when they understand fully religious tolerance and how we go about it. The more of their people that get an opportunity to see us in operation, the more likely we are. It is not naive. It has worked elsewhere in the world. It will work in China too if we but give it a chance. I ask my colleagues to vote against this measure.
    Chairman GILMAN. My colleagues, we're going to be on a vote. We have fully debated this measure. I am going to limit the Members to 2 minutes so that we can complete our vote in time before we have the next vote on the Floor.
    Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I respect that. I'll try to be very brief. I want to make two points not made yet. First, I think I know how this vote is going to come out. If the bill does go forward, may I ask those who support it to take a look at the administrative nightmare this bill creates.
    We have got a list of individuals here who might be subject to the provisions of the bill. It's broad. It's vague. It's undefined. The State Department is going to be compiling and maintaining lists of officials covered by this bill. It's going to be difficult. It's going to be time consuming. It's going to be costly. It's going to be diverting them from more important functions. Please take a look at the management aspects of this.
 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The second point is one I frequently make before this Committee, but I want to make it again. Here we have a bill where all of us like to take a very tough strong stand against human rights, religious persecution in China. We get all the political credit for being tough on religious persecution in China. Then we slip a little provision in, saying the President may waive it if the national interests of the United States are involved. What do we do by that? We get all the political credit. We toss onto the President of the United States the burden. We are not willing to step forward and exercise our responsibility as a co-equal branch of Government and just condemn the religious persecution and put it into law.
    What we do is take all the political credit for being tough on religious persecution in China, and throw to the President of the United States the burden to make the judgment. That is a default of congressional responsibility. Don't go around talking about Congress being a co-equal branch of Government if you keep doing this over and over again, because you are not acting like a co-equal branch of Government. You are reneging on the constitutional responsibility of this Congress to be a partner in the conduct of American foreign policy.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield real quickly? Would the gentleman yield on that point? Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton, will you yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would, just a note to my friend Mr. Hastings, if someone were to come to me and said we are going to prevent, we are going to pass a law, we're going to——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are going to set a standard that no one involved in torture in South Africa is going to be able to come here under any circumstances. I would have voted for that. We don't want the ghouls of the world coming to the United States thinking that if we subsidized their vacation they are going to have an epiphany and their morals are going to change. No, we want to make a tough stand against the S.S., against all the bad guys, the racists and the torturers of this world. We don't want them coming here. It's not right to have them here. They are not going to change their ways because they see it's better over here. They are not going to quit. The S.S. is not going to rip off their uniform and say I have been wrong all along.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. This position, having these people come here——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Will my friend yield?
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. One moment. Let me just say that this demoralizes the persecuted people of the world to see us paying for the vacations of their torturers.
    The Moslems are being persecuted in East Turkistan. The Dalai Lama and his people are being destroyed in Tibet. Christians are being tortured and brutalized. We don't want their torturers here. We don't want to subsidize their vacations.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. I am going to ask our colleagues to cooperate now and reconsider the vote they failed to agree to, to report favorably H.R. 967.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
    Chairman GILMAN. What is the gentleman's objection?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting patiently to seek recognition. I don't mind my friend Mr. Rohrabacher being allowed to speak for 5 minutes and then for 2 minutes.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman state his objection?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I am objecting to your ending debate. I would like my 2 minutes. You have now limited it from 5 to 2.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes. We would like our colleagues to be able to vote before they go to the Floor.
 Page 151       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like them to vote too, but I would like to debate this.
    Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman set forth his comments?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I just want to comment to my good friend from California to set the record straight. You did allow S.S. officers into this country and you do. They have ripped off their uniforms. There are 3,347 former Waffan S.S. officers living in America, who are receiving pensions for their service to the Nazi regime.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. And you favor that?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. They are here legally right now.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. And you favor that?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. They have been here for probably longer than you have been here, I hate to tell you. Nobody on your side has raised an objection to that. I think you are muddying and confusing the issue.
    The real issue is that this is the greatest democratic society in the world, that in China we have a lot of people suffering under a repressive government, and how do we show them a better way. The real answer is, let us not be fearful to expose our way of life to them, to allow them to come here and to see that indeed their system is far inferior to ours.
    I do not understand why we have the same view of which system is better and so many on your side are afraid, really afraid to allow those people who commit these kinds of acts that we deplore to come here and see that a society can exist free and unfettered, that people can practice freedom of religion and all the other freedoms that we talk about all over the world if we don't show them.
    I mean the demonstration is better than any resolution you are going to get.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
 Page 152       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I move the previous question.     Chairman GILMAN. A motion has been made on the previous question.
    Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Burton, I was recognized for just 1 minute to debate this.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goodling.
    Mr. GOODLING. I move that all debate on this motion end forthwith.
    Chairman GILMAN. All right. The question on the motion. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    Motion is carried.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll call vote.
    The gentleman asked for a minute and he was recognized by the Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman is recognized for a minute, will you withdraw your request for a roll call vote?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be delighted to.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. I just want to point out that analogizing the Chinese Taoist Association, the Chinese Buddhist Association to S.S. officers, ghouls and torturers without any evidence simply because these organizations don't choose to wage war against their government is relatively outrageous. There are many religious organizations that choose to abide by the laws of the government.
    Second, I would point out that it is an insult to the American people if the sole harm this bill is trying to prevent is ''providing political cover''. We are smart enough to recognize the difference between propaganda and fact. That's why we have a first amendment. Let everyone speak and those who are lying will be recognized as liars.
 Page 153       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The question is on a motion to reconsider. Members in favor signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The ayes have it. The motion to reconsider is adopted.
    The question now occurs on the motion of the gentleman from——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I just want one vote on the merits, Mr. Chairman. OK, fine. Then I withdraw.
    Chairman GILMAN. The motion is now on the final, motion to reconsider. The question recurs on the motion the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith ordered the bill reported favorably as amended.
    Members in favor of the motion to report the bill favorably signify in the usual manner.
    Opposed?
    The ayes have it. The motion is——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman GILMAN. Roll call is asked. The clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
    Mr. Goodling.
    Mr. GOODLING. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes yes.
    Mr. Leach.
 Page 154       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. HYDE. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes.
    Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
    Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    Mr. ROS-LEHTINEN. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
     Mr. Ballenger.
    Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
    Mr. Manzullo.
 Page 155       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MANZULLO. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
     Mr. Royce.
    Mr. ROYCE. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.
     Mr. King.
    Mr. KING. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes yes.
    Mr. Kim.
    Mr. KIM. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes yes.
     Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
    Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. SALMON. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
    Mr. Houghton.
    Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
    Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes no.
 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Fox.
    Mr. FOX. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes yes.
    Mr. McHugh.
    Mr. MCHUGH. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes yes.
    Mr. Blunt.
    Mr. BLUNT. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes yes.
    Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes.
    Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
    Mr. Gejdenson.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
    Mr. Lantos.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
    [No response.]
 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
    Mr. Faleomavaega.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
    Mr. MARTINEZ. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes no.
    Mr. Payne.
    Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
    Mr. Andrews.
    Mr. ANDREWS. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes no.
    Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
    Mr. Brown.
    Mr. BROWN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes no.
    Ms. McKinney.
    Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. HASTINGS. No.
 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no.
     Ms. Danner.
    Ms. DANNER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.
    Mr. Hilliard.
    Mr. HILLIARD. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no.
    Mr. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes no.
    Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
    Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. WEXLER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes no.
     Mr. Rothman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement.
    Mr. CLEMENT. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes no.
    Mr. Luther.
    Mr. LUTHER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
    Mr. Davis.
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. DAVIS. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.
    [No response.]
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the tally.
    Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 22 ayes and 18 noes.
    Chairman GILMAN. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the chief of staff is authorized to make technical conforming, grammatical changes to the bill. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions on rule 20 on any measure considered today with respect to any companion measure.
    Chairman GILMAN. The Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

A P P E N D I X

    Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

53 to 56
17 to 23
57 to 64
24 to 30
65 to 66
31 to 39
67 to 68
40 to 46
Kill 47 to 49.
All dyluxes are placed in order and correct page numbers appear at top of page.