SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
50–914 CC
1998
H. CON. RES. 292, H.R. 4283, H. RES. 415, H.R. 3743, H. RES. 362, AND H. RES. 475
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 22, 1998
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
LOIS CAPPS, California
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff and Counsel
ALLISON K. KIERNAN, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
APPENDIX
H. Con. Res. 292
H.R. 4283
H. Res. 415
H.R. 3743
Amendment to H.R. 3743 offered by Mr. Menendez of New Jersey
H. Res. 362
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 362 offered by Mr. Hamilton of Indiana
H. Res. 475
Statement on H. Con. Res. 292 offered by Mr. Menendez
MARKUP OF H. CON. RES. 292, H.R. 4283, H. RES. 415, H.R. 3743, H. RES. 362, AND H. RES. 475
WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Mr. BEREUTER. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.
The chairman is involved in a floor statement on normal trade relations issue on the floor. The Committee on International Relations resumes its hearing that began yesterday to mark up several items of legislation. We will continue to move expeditiously if we can as we did yesterday. I think all of the Members have been quite cooperative as we have moved forward.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Hamilton, do you have any opening remarks?
Mr. HAMILTON. No.
Mr. BEREUTER. In that case, we will now consider H. Con. Res. 292 expressing the sense of the House relative to the situation in Eritrea and Ethiopia. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H. Con. Res. 292. Resolution calling for an end to the recent conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and for other purposes.''
Mr. BEREUTER. This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on Africa, marked up, and reported with an amendment. Without objection, the language recommended by the Subcommittee on Africa which is before the Members will be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee recommendation. It is so ordered.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas the 1991 ouster of the Mengistu dictatorship led to relative peace and stability in Eritrea and Ethiopia;''——
Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the Subcommittee recommendation is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H. Con. Res. 292 appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. I understand the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, recommends that I call upon Mr. Campbell. I do that at this time.
The gentleman is recognized to explain the resolution.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I express in absentia my thanks to Congressman Royce, the Subcommittee chairman.
We are all very saddened at what has happened in the Eritrea and Ethiopian conflict after a period of separation that was unique in recent African history for not leading to war. The two countries did indeed commence aggressive actions, let me say, between the two, were commenced May 6, 1998.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What this resolution does is to put the U.S. concern on notice to the two countries, to commend the Administration for what it has done so far in brokering a moratorium on air raids. That's quite an accomplishment. And to encourage the Administration to continue.
I wish we could do more, but at the very least this resolution gives clear statements that we know, we observe, we care, and we wish to see the conflict ended. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would only note that the Administration has informed me that they have read the text and are supportive of the text of this resolution.
I would yield to my co-author of the resolution, Mr. Payne, if it is convenient to do so.
Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman yields to Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me first of all commend Mr. Gilman and Ranking Member Hamilton, Mr. Royce, and Mr. Menendez. Let me thank my colleague from California, Mr. Campbell, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings, for their input on this resolution. It is very timely.
Although a cessation of hostilities is presently the mood on the ground, the situation is still at best tenuous. I am very concerned about the situation in the Horn. I believe this is a pointless conflict, in my opinion.
With the U.N. announcement last week that 2.6 million people in Southern Sudan are in imminent danger of starvation, I think it is imperative that we resolve the situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea permanently. I was pleased to hear that President Clinton announced that he would buy $250 million worth of wheat from American farmers and in turn the surplus will go to the Sudan, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. With that said, I am anxious to see a resolve to the present impasse. I believe the facts surrounding May 6 are at best sketchy. We still don't know exactly what happened. I know that respect for one's sovereignty and maintaining territorial integrity are very serious foreign policy objectives, however, border disputes are bigger issues for more serious underlying problems in many instances.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a world where border disputes are not that common but rarely result on full escalation of hostilities resulting in war, I can not understand why a full escalation of war occurred, especially between these two friends. I can not condone the killings of innocent people and women and children, whether it is in Asmara or Mekele or Botome or Masawa. They are fighting for a few square miles of barren mountain and where the disputed area is very rocky and arid.
I would like to urge both Prime Minister Meles and President Isaias, both of whom are good friends of mine, and I have spoken to often, to halt full air strikes, to pull back their ground forces, and create a lasting solution for peace and stability in the region. I can not condone the minor Ethiopian migration in other parts of the border, nor can I condone the takeover of Botome by the Eritreans. A simultaneously full demarkation of the border is in order. I am pleased by the swift and quick and decisive action in the region taken by the United States, President Clinton, and Assistant Secretary Susan Rice, in coming up with the U.S.-Rwanda Accord.
I would like to conclude by saying that both countries fought against the Mengistu regime, have common interests, and are very important in the region. The Eritreans and Ethiopians are brothers. It is sad and most embarrassing for this to have happened. Lives have been lost and damage has been done. But we must move forward. The United States should continue to actively promote a political settlement.
I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much.
Mr. BEREUTER. Does the gentleman have any further comments on his time?
Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank Mr. Campbell and Mr. Payne and the other sponsors of this resolution. It puts the Congress on record as saying to both sides to renounce force and to reach a political settlement. That is exactly what we ought to be saying. I commend them and I strongly support the resolution.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Does the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, have a statement as Subcommittee chairman?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. If so, I recognize him.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When troops from Eritrea and Ethiopia began their fighting on May 6, it really took us by surprise. It took the world by surprise. The leaders of these two nations not only were friends, but were seen as new African leaders who were working in concert to end the era of dictators that had held back African progress.
The border between Ethiopia and Eritrea was never mutually agreed upon. But so long as the Presidents of these two countries were friendly, it did not seem to matter. Now we are faced with a border war. The Eritrean Government wants binding arbitration to decide on the border with Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Government doesn't want to go further with talks until the Eritreans withdraw from the disputed territory. The two governments have allowed the Americans, the Rwandans, the Kenyans, Ugandans, and the Organization of African Unity to engage in talks to resolve the crisis, but to no avail. No matter who the mediator is, both sides will have to cooperate in any plan to resolve this crisis. This bill calls on the two governments to do just that.
I support this resolution. I commend the work on this issue by the resolution's authors, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Payne, Mr. Chabot, and Mr. Hastings.
Beyond the current crisis, I call upon the U.S. Government to work with African nations to devise a mechanism to settle territorial disputes short of armed conflict. The Eritrea-Ethiopian border conflict is not the only dispute over land in Africa. If we don't devise a workable strategy to settle such disputes peacefully, it will not be the only war we will see on the continent. I now look forward to any further comment from the resolution's authors who have spent time and effort on this issue and in this region. Thank you.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
Chairman Gilman indicates that his views are that the current armed conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia is a great tragedy. These are two nations that many of us saw as the leading lights of Africa. Both nations have shown a commitment to economic reform and respect for human rights and democracy. He recognizes that the Committee has met with both Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia and President Isaias of Eritrea. Both these men are impressive leaders who have had a positive vision for taking their nations into the 21st century.
Chairman Gilman indicates that it is time to show the courage to end this senseless conflict. We need to convey that message to them. It is their responsibility to find a workable lasting solution. If they fail, history will judge them harshly. This is a senseless war. As the Chairman indicates, both nations and both leaders should be ashamed. The people of Ethiopia and Eritrea deserve better. They deserve peace.
So I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Campbell, and other sponsors of this resolution, as does Chairman Gilman, for bringing this matter before the Committee.
Are there other Members seeking recognition or seeking to offer amendments? Seeing none, if not, the question is on agreeing to the Subcommittee recommendation. As many as are in favor of the amendment say aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The amendment is agreed to.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Campbell, is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended on the suspension calendar.
Mr. BEREUTER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from California. As many as are in favor will say aye.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As many as are opposed will say no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and the motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on the measure are postponed.
We will now consider H.R. 4283 to support sustainable and broad-based agricultural and rural development in sub-Saharan Africa and for other purposes. This bill was introduced yesterday and referred to the Committee and the Committee on Agriculture, but is based on a bill that has been before the Committee for some time, H.R. 3636.
The Chair lays before the Committee the bill. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H.R. 4283, a bill to support sustainable and broad-based agricultural and rural development in sub-Saharan Africa and for other purposes.''
Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled''——
Mr. BEREUTER. Without objection, the bill is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H.R. 4283 appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. I will recognize myself to introduce the bill. First of all, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman, for expeditiously holding this markup today on the Africa Seeds of Hope Act and for his cosponsorship of this legislation. I also would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California, chairman of the Africa Subcommittee for his assistance and encouragement on the process.
On April 1, the Ranking Member of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Hamilton, and I introduced the legislation. It focused on improving agricultural efficiency in Africa. That legislation, H.R. 3636, the Africa Seeds of Hope Act, quickly garnered 85 bipartisan cosponsors and the support of 100 national organizations and an additional 100 state and international organizations led by Bread for the World.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today we are marking up a successor and substantially similar bill, H.R. 4283, with the same name, the Africa Seeds of Hope Act. The major difference between the original bill and the bill we are marking up today is that CBO now estimates a $76 million cost for the Bill Emerson Humanitarian International Food Security Trust because of some changes we have made to the worldwide food assistance portion of the bill. This is down from an original cost estimate of approximately $450 million. That relates to the suspension calendar requirements, among other things.
In addition, we have incorporated some minor improvements in title I that were incorporated by the Senate in the companion bill introduced by Senators DeWine and Sarbanes. A recent article in the Washington Post entitled ''Africa's Agricultural Rebirth'' quoted a vice minister of agriculture from Ethiopia as saying, ''We can not detach economic development from food self-sufficiency.'' That simple statement is the essence of the Africa Seeds of Hope Act.
Unfortunately, there are some on Capitol Hill who believe trade liberalization alone can remedy all of Africa's woes, or at least that seems to be their position. And equally wrong hitted I might say are those views in the non-governmental organization community that believe that trade liberalization will only hurt Africa's poor. We have some people in the Congress who have that same view.
The Africa Seeds of Hope Act bridges these disparate and unnecessarily conflicting ideologies with a reconciling view. That view is that liberalized trade plus targeted foreign assistance toward Africa's small farmers can best help sub-Saharan Africa prosper.
Several months ago, the House of Representatives passed, with this Member's enthusiastic support, the Africa Trade Growth and Opportunities Act, and took the very important step toward greater trade with a continent in desperate need of private sector-led economic growth. By focusing on sustainable development, research, real finance and food security, our legislation is directly aimed at helping the 76 percent of the sub-Saharan African people who are small farmers. Improving the efficiency of these farmers is crucial to ensuring that our overall trade strategy is successful.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a long-time supporter of the aid to Africa through the Development Fund for Africa, and you may remember Mr. Wolpe and Mr. Hamilton, Members on our side of the aisle were very much involved in that, and other mechanisms, I believe this legislation in conjunction with our new trade initiatives, help coordinate and focus Americans' resources on both trade and aid in Africa. If trade is to prosper in sub-Saharan Africa, we need to better direct our scarce aid resources so that they stimulate private sector investment or help ease the suffering in those places either overlooked by the private sector or suffering from disasters.
Our legislation attempts to refine our assistance programs for sub-Saharan Africa and ensure that agriculture and rural development are not neglected. For example, we believe that the microenterprise program and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation are two excellent tools to help remedy rural finance and investment shortcomings. Moreover, we believe our international agricultural research programs can be better coordinated with our domestic agriculture research to benefit farmers in Africa as well as the United States. I see direct evidence of that in my own state.
Our food assistance programs need to be refocused on long-term development assistance and not be evaluated on the basis of short-term or immediate results that are often anathema to their original purpose.
Let me repeat that for cost and jurisdictional reasons, and to incorporate the Senate's improvements to the underlying legislation, we are marking up today a newly introduced bill, H.R. 4283, which includes the Senate's changes. Our version also incorporates additional changes proposed by the USDA and a cap on the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. That will bring the overall cost of this legislation down to $76 million over 4 years.
This legislation establishes a Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust in honor of the late congressman from Missouri. He of course was a leader, along with our colleague Mickey Leyland, to support U.S. food assistance programs. This legislation authorizes $76 million so that the USDA has one more tool to fight malnutrition and food insecurity overseas. This humanitarian trust enables the USDA to purchase commodities when prices are low and to store them for times when prices are high. These results have been good in the past, we have had trials. Results under this arrangement would be that our food assistance dollars will go further. I only wish this excellent tool was available right now to deal with the famine in Sudan and Indonesia. I urge Members to support the Africa Seeds of Hope Act.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased now to yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Chairman Gilman for bringing H.R. 4283 before the Committee. I particularly want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, for his extraordinary leadership on this bill and his willingness to work cooperatively with the minority and also the various voluntary groups. I am deeply grateful to him for his role.
As he has said, we have before the Committee today a new version. The major change in this new version relates to the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act, which I will mention in just a moment. I think this bill has over 60 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. We have had very strong input and good leadership from several private voluntary groups. I am very much appreciative of their efforts.
This bill seeks to promote sustainable agricultural development and food security in Africa. It does that in four ways. First, it promotes long-term economic development by strengthening agricultural and rural markets. It requires the development of a microenterprise strategy for Africa, and provides support for producer-owned marketing associations. It directs our Department of Agriculture to ensure that international and U.S. agricultural research is coordinated to respond to the needs of the African farmer and supports their self reliance.
Second, the bill maximizes the efficiency of current aid programs. Rather than seeking more aid, it bolsters the existing Africa Food Security Initiative and directs U.S. agencies to target their resources and programs to those who need it most, women, children, and the poor.
Third, the bill requires that U.S. aid programs be developed and conducted in consultation with the African people and with non-governmental organizations that have expertise in addressing the needs of the poor, small-scale farmers, and rural workers.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fourth, the bill improves the current food security commodity reserve by establishing the Bill Emerson Trust. This increases the U.S. Government's ability in the long term to hold agricultural commodities and assets and to respond to urgent humanitarian crises. The problem with the reserve today is the manner in which it is replenished. When the reserve releases commodities today, the Commodity Credit Corporation, which administers the reserve, is reimbursed for the value of commodities from P.L. 480 food assistance program funds, but these funds can not be used to replenish the reserve. This bill sets up a new trust that can be replenished. It limits the replenishment authority to $20 million for the Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003. That allows the Department of Agriculture to purchase commodities on the market when prices are low, such as this year. But it will stay within reasonable budgetary constraints.
The benefits of this change, I think, are, first, that the trust now sets up an orderly way to respond to humanitarian crises without disrupting markets. Second, the trust can be operated in a business-like manner because commodities can be purchased in advance at reasonable prices.
This is a good bill. It is an important bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
This Africa Seeds of Hope legislation was first introduced as H.R. 3636 by our vice chairman, Mr. Bereuter and our Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Hamilton. Because of the extensive changes made to the bill, we have reintroduced it just last night. I was pleased to become an original cosponsor of the new measure. Nothing could underscore the need for this legislation better than the recent news from Sudan. I don't know if many of you have been able to hear of our colleague Mr. Hall's recent visit to the famine-stricken area there. He has provided detailed accounts of the suffering there and the tragedy of what happens when an African agricultural system breaks down, leaving millions hungry.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Earlier this year, we considered the Africa trade bill. That bill set forth a new path for Africa based on private sector growth and exports to make certain there be jobs for the growing population. The measure before us should be seen as a companion to the trade bill, recalling that many people in Africa still need the basics, especially food, to be able to survive. The bill highlights the importance of the agricultural sector in Africa and the need to keep that sector as a priority in our development and our other assistance programs.
This bill basically accomplishes three objectives. First, it calls on AID and other Government agencies to keep the development of the African agricultural sector uppermost in our efforts to ensure people do not go without food. We back the Africa Food Security Initiative and we call attention to the role of microenterprise programs.
Second, we continue to emphasize non-emergency food assistance programs. I was concerned earlier this year when I heard from Cardinal O'Connor that AID may end these programs to support programs where people can move from assistance to their own food supplies. In general, I support that goal, but the policy can not be taken to its extremes. We heard that Mother Theresa's programs in India may be cut off due to this policy as well as other institutions serving the elderly, the sick, and the mentally incapacitated. Congress will not allow such institutions to be fully cut off.
I was pleased that AID made the commitment in writing on June 22 to be able to continue those programs. For the moment, the key groups are waiting for AID to implement those commitments. If AID does implement their letter to this Committee, and I expect that they will, then I will work with Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Hamilton to modify that section of the bill before consideration on the House floor.
Finally, this bill strengthens the food security commodity reserve, making it more flexible and replenishing its stocks. Members should note that CBO scored the original Seeds of Hope bill at a cost of over $500 million. Under the reforms made in H.R. 4283 before us, CBO will score the measure at a cost of $76 million over 5 years. This bill is a strongly bipartisan measure that will help Africa and the American farmer. I strongly support its passage.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska as well as the Ranking Member and the chairman of the Committee for their work on this legislation. I fully agree with its goal of promoting agricultural development in Africa. I do want to raise a few questions though and I would welcome responses from any of my colleagues.
Agricultural development should be a priority in Africa. The findings in this bill mention that the World Bank and AID funding for agriculture has decreased over the last several years. On the face of it, that appears problematic. But there are other development aid priorities, including promoting democracy, population, market reform, and environmental protection. The legislation seems to give little sense of how these other efforts will fare with a greater emphasis on agriculture.
There is also the issue of which African countries this aid will be focused on. For many years we have assisted African countries with agricultural development. Yet we saw a drop in agricultural production and economic decline through most of Africa throughout the 1970's and 1980's. In these circumstances, it is fair to say our aid efforts contributed little or lasting economic development. African economies stagnated for many reasons, but one reason that most everyone agrees on is that these countries had bad economic policies in place. In agriculture, these countries did not permit farmers the opportunity to market their product as they saw fit. They taxed them heavily on what they did produce. They denied farmers land tenure. These policies killed incentives and agricultural production plummeted during those years.
Fortunately, progress in reforming these policies has been made. In Uganda, for example, farmers today are air freighting roses and fresh fish to Europe. This would not be happening in Uganda though if Uganda was not one of the most aggressive economic reformers in Africa. What concerns me here is that without the right policy climate, our development aid efforts can have little positive effect. This is recognized by AID, whose policy is to focus aid on reforming countries.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I wonder if this legislation would not be strengthened with language to reinforce this point, that the agricultural aid efforts it encourages should be focused on those African countries committed to fostering the economic climate where agricultural and overall economic development has the best chance. Now I won't be offering an amendment, but I would ask the authors to further consider this issue as they move forward.
Another question I have concerns the possible negative effect of food aid on developing local markets in non-crisis situations. In some cases we have seen well-intentioned efforts to aid have the negative effect of damaging local markets by knocking down prices and killing production incentives among African farmers. I understand this issue is larger than the legislation we're considering today as it concerns P.L. 480, that program, but I thought it would be worth raising this concern given that the International Relations Committee, to my understanding, has not held hearings on our food aid programs in Africa or elsewhere.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to raise those issues.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce. I would like to respond that those priorities you mentioned are key. The issue is our concern that agriculture was falling off the table. The key is that agriculture remain on the development priority list with a focus on private sector growth, especially for small farmers.
I'll yield to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, for further comment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his comments, which are certainly appropriate and an accurate reflection of some of the difficulties we have seen in international or for that matter, American assistance to Africa.
We do not offer advice on a country-specific basis of course or even by description of the policies of a country. But if you look at section 103 of course, we are suggesting four purposes there. They are aimed at supporting producer-owned cooperatives and marketing associations, trying to strengthen the capacity of individual farmers. That is the opposite of doing things which are hurting them in the process of helping them with food assistance. You can't just dump a lot of food into a country without devastating the prices in many cases; that is usually the case. Of course the third focus is to increase their productivity and income and to support small businesses in sub-Saharan Africa. Those are the overall directions of sustainable agricultural and rural development that are part of this.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you take a look at the findings on page 6, for example, you find that the overall funding for agricultural development worldwide in the Agency for International Development's budget has fallen from 36 percent of the total budget in 1988 to only 15 percent in 1997. We do have many other important options. Child survival has been a very important issue before this Committee, which had strong support. In fact, I think that what we are doing here is very complementary to assisting women and families who need to feed their children to focus on child survival in that respect.
I would say to the gentleman though, I do think we need an overall reexamination of our development programs, both American and international, for Africa, and that this ought to be a priority of the Committee. The leadership I would think would come from the Africa Subcommittee that you chair. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
I am pleased to interrupt the proceedings to acknowledge that we have a very prominent figure who has joined our Committee and who used to sit here as the Ranking Minority Member for some 18 years and served on this Committee for 30 years. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Broomfield, we welcome you.
[Applause.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to join you in welcoming Bill Broomfield. Bill, so many of these Members are so new they don't remember your service as well as I do. I have been around here long enough to remember it very well indeed.
I want the Members of the Committee to know that Bill Broomfield was just a marvelous Member of this institution and a superb Member of this Committee. He served, I think, Bill, I am correct, the entire time in the minority. But throughout that period of time, working with both Republican and Democratic Administrations, he was always focused on what the American national interest was, and always tried to be constructive.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Bill, I am just delighted to see you back here. You have set for all of us a marvelous example.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Is any other Member seeking recognition?
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter and the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, for their efforts on this particular piece of legislation. I want to commend them for working together to craft a package that I think the Committee can support.
As a Member of the Africa Subcommittee, I am very happy to support this bill that will hopefully lead to a reduction in food emergencies in Africa and will also encourage agricultural development, long-term economic growth and self-reliance on that very important continent.
I urge my colleagues to support the Seeds of Hope bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to, if possible, engage the gentleman from Nebraska in a colloquy that might help me understand the bill a little better along some of the same questions that the distinguished Subcommittee chairman raised.
So here is my concern. I think I know the answers to them. The gentleman, my colleague, the Subcommittee chairman, pointed out that maybe food aid may not be No. 1, maybe population assistance, for example, or democracy assistance. It is my understanding that all food aid in Africa can be monetized. From my travel there, I understand that that is largely the practice. Where food would not be the most important need, it could be monetized, and thus, the country destined to have the food could use what is essentially Food for Peace dollars for some of these other purposes. If I am wrong about that, then I think the Subcommittee chairman has a good point, but I think I am right.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Then I have one other question, but I would yield to the gentleman on that one if I am right.
Mr. BEREUTER. I believe the gentleman is right. For example, it could be monetized to provide price support to sustain local agricultural producers, just as one example of what the monetized returns could be used for.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you for responding. It is my understanding that given that, the Food for Peace program becomes something very different than it used to be. It certainly is a way to buy surplus commodities from American farmers, but the result does not have to be that if food shows up in the African country, it could actually be money for these other purposes.
And another point was the way this has been scored by, is it GAO? CBO, I'm sorry. I have been trying to read this and it seems to me that the scoring is a little bit more, it partakes a little bit more of the arcane aspects of scoring than usual. That essentially what this says is if we are going to have at least $20 million in the P.L. 480 program, and we always do, that we are going to stake out $20 million for each of the next 4 years, present value at $76 million.
So in a realistic sense, and again, I am saying this, if I am wrong I know the gentleman from Nebraska will correct me. In a realistic sense, there is no marginal cost because we would be spending the $20 million minimum in the Food for Peace program anyway. But that CBO scores it as a $76 million cost because instead of committing it every year in an appropriation, we are saying at least $20 million for each of the next 4 years has to go for Africa.
If I am right about that, then my fiscal conservative concerns are very much assuaged. But if I am wrong about it, I know the gentleman from Nebraska will honestly tell me so. I yield to him.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman's understanding is correct. We have to repay the CCC. It would be repaid, for example, $76 million over this 5-year span. Instead, we are putting the $76 million into the trust. So it is an outlay either way. We are just redirecting the outlay.
Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman would just, to conclude this, allow me to make one last point. I follow that. And so in a sense we are not actually committed every year to doing it again. CBO looks at this bill and says now we are, it has to be scored. But if in reality we are spending at least $20 million every year out of this fund in a dollars and cents way, it isn't any expenditure beyond what we would normally do. Is that correct?
Mr. BEREUTER. That is my understanding. That is correct.
Mr. CAMPBELL. With that assurance, I am pleased to support the bill and would ask the author at the right moment to add me as a cosponsor. If the author had heard that, I would be grateful for that accommodation.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Are there any other Members seeking recognition or seeking to offer any amendments? If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say two things first, if I may. That is, the emergency assistance to Africa or any other part of the world is not monetized. The majority of the P.L. 480 program is monetized, but the emergency kind is not, I am informed. That's right.
Second, I would just like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana for his support and assistance and counsel, and especially for the assistance of Dan Martz, Mark Kirk, and Maria Pica, for their assistance to us.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report the bill H.R. 4283 to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Those opposed signify by saying no.
A quorum being present, the Chair rules that the ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the chief of staff is authorized to make technical, grammatical, and conforming amendments. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions under rule 20 of the rules of the House related to a conference on this bill or a companion measure from the Senate.
We now turn to H. Res. 415 relating to independent radio broadcasting in Africa. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H. Res. 415, to promote independent radio broadcasting in Africa.''
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was referred to the Subcommittees on International Operations and Human Rights and on the Subcommittee on Africa and considered by the Subcommittee on Africa and reported without amendment on June 24th. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the resolution, in that order, for amendment. The clerk will read.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas Africa's numerous ethnic groups, with an estimated 2,000 languages and dialects, have long been isolated from each other;''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read. It is open to amendment at any point.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[H. Res. 415 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa, for 5 minutes to introduce the resolution.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many African nations are in the midst of an effort to reform their political and economic systems, to encourage a feeling of nationhood among their citizens, and provide basic information needed to conduct the normal business of state. Poverty, illiteracy, and a lack of effective alternative media have made radio the No. 1 communications medium for African nations in that effort.
However, the free access of African citizens to information by radio is endangered. All too many African Governments control the only national radio station and limit the ability of independent broadcast operations to provide an alternative voice. In order to hold onto this power, some African Governments have gone to great lengths to prevent competition for the nation's airwaves. License requests have been delayed or denied. Independent station officials and journalists have been harassed or jailed. Stations have been closed. In more extreme cases, journalists have been killed. Fifty three independent journalists were killed in the 1990's.
Governments such as the former Hutu-dominated regime in Rwanda have used their monopoly of radio to preach hatred. In 1994, hate radio facilitated a genocidal massacre unmatched in modern African history. There are reports that hate radio is again being used in Africa's Great Lake region.
It is in the interests of the U.S. Government's Africa policy that free access to independent radio be promoted on the continent. House Resolution 415 promotes this enhanced access by encouraging the U.S. Government to take all necessary steps to encourage effective independent broadcasting in Africa. This resolution encourages a refocusing of U.S. policy that does not require new spending. It urges agencies such as the U.S. Information Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development to prepare and implement policies within existing budgets, consistent with the purpose of the resolution.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have discussed this approach with the Administration, which supports our resolution and is in the midst of reassessing current policy on broadcasting in Africa. I would like to thank Mr. Menendez, Mr. Smith, Mr. Berman, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Hilliard for their support of independent broadcasting in Africa. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be a cosponsor with Mr. Royce on what I think is an incredibly important topic for Africa. In the past few years, in such places as Rwanda and Liberia, we have witnessed some of the detrimental effects of radio broadcasting in Africa when used by one party or one side to a conflict as a tool to control information or to generate conflict and violence. In sub-Saharan Africa, where much of the population is still illiterate and where televisions are scarce, the oral tradition remains strong. Radio is the primary source of information for many people. The need for unbiased radio programming is therefore tremendous.
As African nations increasingly turn toward democracy, the United States and the international community need to promote independent radio programming early on as a necessary component for democratic development. Radio can be a resource for the African people, not just to disperse the daily news and weather, but to convey lessons about agriculture, the environment, health, and democracy. Radio can be an educational tool for people in their daily lives and a crucial resource in times of crisis. The high listenership of radio makes it a good resource for informing people during a time of crisis. We should encourage and support African-led radio initiatives and assist in the training of African radio technicians and journalists.
I again want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee for his resolution. I too urge its adoption.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank Mr. Royce for the hard work that he has done not only on this project, but Ed has worked hard and long to ensure communications freedom throughout the world. His championship of Radio Free Asia, for example, ensured the fact that Radio Free Asia exists today.
We are going into an election in Cambodia this weekend. I can't tell you what an important role Radio Free Asia is playing in trying to bolster the democratic cause in that country which has suffered so much over these last two decades. I don't believe that Radio Free Asia would be in place if it wasn't for Mr. Royce.
I think we have to pay that same attention to the despotism in Africa. Ed has taken on his assignment as the chairman of the African Subcommittee with more commitment and serious thought than anyone I have seen in recent years. This resolution and trying to use radio as a tool for freedom and progress in the African continent, has made me proud to be a neighbor of his in California and proud to sit with him here in this body and support this resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Is any other Member seeking recognition or seeking to offer any amendment? If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor signify in the usual manner by saying aye.
Those opposed, indicate by saying no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will now turn to H.R. 3743, a measure to withhold voluntary proportional assistance for programs and projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I now lay the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H.R. 3743, to withhold voluntary proportional assistance for programs and projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency relating to the development and completion of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran, and for other purposes.''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,''——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H.R. 3743 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights but has not been acted upon. I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, to introduce the bill. I recognize Mr. Menendez for 5 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for having placed this bill on today's agenda. First, let me say that I recognize the importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency and its role in ensuring the safety of nuclear sites around the world. In recent months, we have witnessed their struggle to carry out inspections in Iraq. This bill, however, will not affect the IAEA's safeguards program. The bill does not seek to withhold any funds from the IAEA safeguards program in Iran or elsewhere. The only funds affected by this bill are voluntary, not assessed contributions to the IAEA's technical assistance and cooperation fund for Iran.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prior to 1994, U.S. law required the withholding of proportional IAEA voluntary funds from all countries on our list of terrorist states. Despite the change in law, the Administration continued to withhold these funds for 2 more years until 1996. What this bill does is require that the Administration reinstate proportional withholding of IAEA voluntary funds from Iran. It also requires the Secretary of State to undertake a comprehensive review of all IAEA programs and projects in other states that sponsor international terrorism to determine if the IAEA is sponsoring any other projects that conflict with U.S. nuclear non-proliferation and safety goals.
As it is, since the IAEA's inception, more than $52 million for the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund has gone to countries on the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism. The United States is the largest supporter of the IAEA. We provide it with more than 25 percent of its annual budget. In the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund, we contribute about 32 percent or $16 million annually in voluntary funds. It is from these funds that the IAEA intends to provide $1.5 million for the development of the Bushehr power plant between 1997 and 1999.
Now the Clinton Administration has publicly stated its opposition to Iran's development of nuclear reactors and its concern about the development of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. In Senate testimony last year, Deputy Assistant Secretary Bob Einhorn explained, and I quote, ''In our views, this is a large reactor project. It will involve hundreds of Russians being in Iran, hundreds of Iranians or more being in Moscow being trained. This large-scale kind of project can provide a commercial cover for a number of activities that we would not like to see, perhaps much more sensitive activities than pursuing this power reactor project. It also will inevitably provide additional training and expertise in the nuclear field for Iranian technicians. In our view, given Iran's intention to acquire nuclear weapons, we do not want to see them move up the nuclear learning curve at all. We believe this project would contribute to them moving up that curve.''
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Given Iran's historic support for terrorism, coupled with the fact that Iran boasts immense oil and natural gas reserves, and given the seismic activity near Bushehr, we must question Tehran's motives for constructing expensive nuclear reactors. Moreover, the development of the nuclear reactors has been an economic nightmare for Iranians. Clearly, Iran does not need additional energy sources, nor is nuclear energy an economic choice for Iran.
So finally, what do we need to ask? We need to ask one basic question. Does it make sense for the United States and U.S. taxpayers to provide any kind of support for the construction of nuclear reactors that we clearly and justifiably oppose? This bill seeks to protect U.S. taxpayers from assisting countries like Iran that sponsor international terrorism, denounce the United States, and seek to develop weapons of mass destruction that may be used against us and our allies. It is ludicrous for the United States to support even indirectly a plant that would pose a threat to the United States and to stability in the Middle East.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is technical in nature. At the appropriate time, I wish to offer it. I thank the Chair.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman may offer his amendment at this time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would offer my amendment at this time. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. Page 2, beginning on line 19, strike''——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as read, without objection.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The amendment to H.R. 3743 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman may explain his amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a number of technical corrections, all of which I have made at the Administration's behest. In addition to technical corrections, I amend section 4 of the bill to clarify that the Administration is not required to oppose programs and projects of the IAEA that provide for the discontinuation, dismantling, or safety inspection of nuclear facilities or related materials, or for inspections and similar activities designed to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by Iran pursuant to its activities at Bushehr.
I think that the amendment, in addition to being technical, clearly takes care of some of the concerns that the Administration has. I would urge its adoption.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Is any Member seeking recognition on the amendment?
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct some questions to the Administration on this bill.
Chairman GILMAN. Will the Administration witness please identify himself?
Mr. KLOSSON. My name is Michael Klosson. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary in legislative affairs at the State Department.
Chairman GILMAN. And you are joined at the table by?
Mr. KESSLER. Chris Kessler from the Bureau of Political Military Affairs.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Hamilton.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. Gentlemen, I understand that the Administration opposes the bill. Is that correct?
Mr. KLOSSON. That is correct, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Can you tell us why?
Mr. KLOSSON. We certainly oppose completion of the Bushehr reactor project and the Administration has been working very hard at very high levels to try to accomplish that. We don't think this piece of legislation is the way to get at that problem. We object to the bill requiring us to withhold a portion of our contribution. We feel that this, the approach that is laid out in this legislation would be counter-productive.
Mr. HAMILTON. Let me ask you this. Do you see any benefits to the bill? All of us want to stop weapons proliferation in Iran. Do you see this bill as having a positive impact in stopping that weapons proliferation?
Mr. KLOSSON. Our judgment is that it would not end the Bushehr project.
Mr. HAMILTON. And that is a civilian nuclear project.
Mr. KLOSSON. Correct.
Mr. HAMILTON. So as you look at the bill, you do not identify any benefits that flow to American policy as a result of the enactment of this bill. Is that correct?
Mr. KLOSSON. That is correct.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now what about the risks of the bill. Can you identify for me what the risks may be in this bill? You have already said you don't think it is going to stop the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Will it make Iran's nuclear power program less safe if the IAEA gives in to the United States here?
Mr. KLOSSON. Let me have my colleague who works the IAEA issues address that.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KESSLER. Thank you. Yes, sir. We believe that it has that potential.
Mr. HAMILTON. Does it make it more difficult for the United States to convince others to contribute to the IAEA Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund?
Mr. KESSLER. For us to withhold a part of our voluntary contribution that's based on an agreement struck on the overall program could have that effect. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAMILTON. Will it make it more difficult for the United States to get information about Iran from the IAEA?
Mr. KESSLER. We believe it would.
Mr. HAMILTON. Will it make it more difficult for the United States to convince developing countries of the merits of IAEA safeguards when we are trying to block technical safety and regulatory assistance?
Mr. KESSLER. Our concern here is that Iran has been relatively open with the new safeguards procedures that the IAEA has adopted since the Gulf War in 1991. It could lead Iraq to judge that that course is not the best course for them and to become less cooperative.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now, obviously, this is a popular bill and a popular proposal and all of us recognize that it will pass easily in this Committee and in the House. I must say that I myself am considerably torn on it. I think at the moment my attitude is that I'll not oppose the bill, but I do have serious doubts about it, as some of my questions reflect. I reserve my position with regard to action on the floor.
I guess where I come down in all of this is that it is a bill which is carefully drafted, but I don't see much benefit coming from the bill. I see a lot of downside to the bill that potentially could be difficult.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do you want to make any further comment about the bill?
Mr. KESSLER. Sir, I would say only that we strongly support and I think that our record is clear on that, the objective that the authors of the bill have articulated with respect to stopping the Bushehr reactor in Iran. It is simply our judgment that this bill will not make a contribution in that direction and will have some ancillary downsides.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now the IAEA, quite apart from Iran, is a very important institution in the world. Is it not?
Mr. KESSLER. Yes.
Mr. HAMILTON. It does a lot of very good work so far as we are aware, I think Mr. Menendez said this, in terms of setting up nuclear safeguards and trying to assure that nuclear programs are kept on a peaceful basis for power production and not for military purposes.
Will this bill be seen in the IAEA as undercutting its program?
Mr. KESSLER. It will be seen as imposing political considerations into what are supposed to be technical decisions with respect to projects, for example, with respect to nuclear safety training for those individuals who are going to become regulators of a reactor. The IAEA is not teaching how to build a reactor.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for letting me have a little additional time. Let me just close with this observation. I think the purpose that, as I understand it, Mr. Menendez and others have put forward this bill, and I understand it has broad support, is an altogether worthy one. We all share exactly the same goals with regard to Iran. We want to stop the terrorism. We want to stop the weapons of mass destruction. We want to stop their opposition to the Middle East peace process. They are doing a lot of things we don't like. It is not at all clear to me, however, that this bill does anything more than kind of make us feel good that we are doing something. I don't see clearly the benefit of the bill. I do see some considerable risks.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Having said that, it is not my intention to oppose the bill. I hope we can continue to work with its author to try to improve it, because its purpose is worthy. I will let it go at that. Thank you very much.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I would like to ask a couple of questions of our Administration representatives here myself. You say that the Administration strongly supports the objective of this legislation? Is that what I heard you say?
Mr. KLOSSON. We want to block completion of the Bushehr reactor.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me ask this. Is the Administration aware of the relationship between the Communist Chinese regime and the Iranians in terms of the training of Iranians and the supplying of Iranians with nuclear materials and training for nuclear plants like this?
Mr. KESSLER. Yes, sir. As I believe Deputy Assistant Secretary Einhorn has testified, that has been a matter of discussion with Iran. Iran has agreed to terminate its nuclear cooperation, or excuse me, China has agreed to terminate its nuclear cooperation with Iran.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Was this something that was agreed upon and the President talked to the Chinese leadership on the recent visit to China about this?
Mr. KESSLER. The President has discussed non-proliferation issues with the Chinese. I can not answer as to whether he discussed specifically.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. So we don't know whether or not the President brought up this sort of unseemly issue about the Chinese helping a terrorist nation develop its nuclear capacity on its trip to China.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KESSLER. Sir, what was discussed between the United States and China at pretty senior levels was China's nuclear cooperation with Iran. China agreed some months ago to terminate all nuclear cooperation with Iran, save for two specific projects that they were going to complete. We looked at those two projects and determined that they were not of significant non-proliferation concern. At the conclusion of those two projects, they concluded all nuclear cooperation with Iran.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I guess the $64,000 question is not whether they have agreed to it, but whether in the last few months do you have any evidence that they are reneging on that agreement?
Mr. KESSLER. We do not believe they are doing anything that indicates they are reneging.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. You don't have any intelligence reports that the Chinese are continuing their relationship with Iran in these areas?
Mr. KESSLER. I am not in the position to answer that question here.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I didn't think you were.
Well the fact that you state very clearly that the Administration feels that this bill will be counter-productive, and considering the track record of the Administration, I will have to support this bill 100 percent. Thank you very much.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Any other? Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank Congressman Bob Menendez for his leadership on this very important issue. I want to also acknowledge the presence of Jane and Bobby Menendez, and tell Bobby that his father makes us all very proud in New Jersey.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, helping Iran develop nuclear technology is like training a known assassin how to use an AK–47 assault rifle and then expect him only to use it for defensive purposes. In my view, the only reason that Iran, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, is developing nuclear power technology is to advance its offensive missile program. To think that Iran is developing nuclear technology for civilian power is naive and dangerous to America.
Iran has shown progress in the development of their Shahad missile technology that we can not ignore. The Shahad 3 will reportedly have a range of between 1,300 and 1,500 kilometers and be capable of carrying a 750 to 1,000 kilogram warhead. According to published reports by the Federation of American Scientists, on December 15, 1997, satellite reconnaissance detected signs that Iran has already tested the Shahad 3 engine. The CIA predicts that the first test flight of the Shahad 3 will occur sometime in the year 1998.
What is more is that according to Israeli intelligence reports, Russia is helping Iran develop technology that will put the Shahad missiles in downtown Jerusalem within a very short period of time. If Iran combines their nuclear technology with the latest Shahad missile technology, the threat to the region and to the citizens of the United States would be unthinkable. The irony is that we are having American taxpayer dollars fund an Iranian missile program that would jeopardize our own people in the Middle East and our allies there, as well as potentially threaten the people on our own shores.
If we can not use our financial leverage to support our own citizens, our own troops, and our own allies around the world, then I don't believe we should be involved in groups like the International Atomic Energy Agency. We should act today and not worry about sending the wrong message. I think in fact we are sending the right message, that the American Congress has its eye on the ball. That the American Congress is not fooled by some moderate rhetoric by some leaders in Iran when they continue the development of these weapons of mass destruction.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For these reasons, I urge adoption of H.R. 3743. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Any other Member seeking recognition? If not, on the amendment——
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. I'm sorry. Mr. Wexler.
Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I would just like to state that I support this bill, would like to associate myself with the remarks by Mr. Rothman of New Jersey. I would urge others to do the same. I would simply like to state in the context of the last several weeks where our Nation has undergone an examination and a debate with respect to whether or not private American companies have transferred technology to China, our ally, our ally that even with all its problems I don't think anybody suggests is directly involved in state-sponsored terrorism, while we are engaging in a debate with respect to whether or not American private companies have transferred technology to China which may have advanced their ability with respect to nuclear or missile technology, here we are not even debating whether or not private companies, but American tax dollars, should or should not be a part of a group of money that would be available to a nation that is identified without any controversy as a nation that supports international terrorism.
The purpose of the bill is self-evident. That is, to remove our monies from being available to advance Iran's nuclear program. It seems to me even more self-evident is the converse. Without this bill, American money will in fact be available to Iran. When compared to the Chinese situation, if my understanding is correct, with respect to the transfer of civilian technology to China, there were extraordinary safeguards. Our own Department of Defense was in charge of the custody of the technology. Our own Department of Defense apparently was involved in each step of the way. Here, in this instance apparently, there would be little or no ability for the American Department of Defense or any other legitimate monitoring agency to make certain that once the capability was in fact obtained by Iran that it not be transferred for other uses.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So it seems to me in the context of our current debate with China, where maybe honest genuine people can have differing opinions, with respect to Iran, it would almost be a fallacy of a debate not to have what little precaution we can have in terms of our money not being available for Iran to advance their nuclear program.
That's why, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time and I support the bill.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wexler.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask unanimous consent to just follow up on a few brief questions to the Administration.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Ranking Member's concern. As he knows, I have a great deal of respect for his considered judgment on issues. As a trial lawyer, I also very much appreciate the line of questioning and the preparation of the witness.
Let me just very briefly, however, ask the Administration a question. You responded ''yes'' to Mr. Hamilton's question about whether or not this bill would increase the risks. So, I assume that your response means that from 1994, prior to 1994, up to that period of time, and then subsequently when the Administration on its own, after the law expired, still continued to withhold funds, that it was unsafe in those decisions. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. KESSLER. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. My answer was that if the IAEA were not to provide safety training to Iran and Iran has a nuclear power reactor, there is the possibility that they would not be able to operate it as safely.
Mr. MENENDEZ. With all due respect, you didn't say that. You said simply ''yes'' to the question. The question was, ''Would we be less safe?'' Isn't it a fact that safety issues are taken through our normal contributions, and not our voluntary contributions to the IAEA program?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KESSLER. All safety assistance from the IAEA to member states is funded through the voluntary contribution.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Through our contributions to the IAEA program.
Mr. KESSLER. Ours and other countries.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Ours and other countries. So under our normal contributions to the IAEA, we would provide for safeguard programs. Would we not?
Mr. KESSLER. Yes, sir. We provide for safeguard programs and we provide funding for the whole staff of the IAEA.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Prior to 1996, we in fact held proportional contributions that did not make it less safe for all countries. Is that true?
Mr. KESSLER. Sir——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Is it true, or are you saying the Administration was wrong prior to 1996?
Mr. KESSLER. We withheld funds at that time. The IAEA continued to provide that training. If the IAEA were not to provide that training, there is the potential that the reactor would be operated less safely.
Mr. MENENDEZ. You say that a message would be sent undermining the IAEA and inhibiting the convincing of other countries. We provide 32 percent of all of the technical cooperation funds, over $16 million a year, or about a third of that whole budget. You are saying that a minor deduction from the proportional assistance to send a clear message, that the United States is going to prevent Iran from ''moving up the nuclear learning curve'' would undermine the IAEA?
When you provide technical cooperation, are you not assisting in the nuclear learning curve?
Mr. KESSLER. Sir, the training is in nuclear safety and in quality assurance. The issue with respect to the learning curve that is of great concern to us is in the basic possession of operation of a power reactor. We have strongly opposed that. We have recently been able to get both China and Ukraine to end their cooperation.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. Last question. Aren't you providing operational training assistance as well in terms of this technical assistance? Yes or no? Just tell me yes or no.
Mr. KESSLER. The training is with respect to safety regulation.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Are you providing any operational training assistance, yes or no? Is that program providing any operational training assistance?
Mr. KESSLER. To the extent that knowing how to operate a reactor safely has an operational component, then the answer would be yes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Then the answer is yes. We are providing operational assistance. That is not within the context of what Assistant Secretary Einhorn said he wanted us to do. I urge my colleagues to adopt the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
Is any other Member seeking recognition on the amendment? If not, the question is now on the amendment. As many as are in favor signify in the usual manner by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
I am pleased to support this measure amending current law to ensure that our Nation does not provide funding for the completion of nuclear power reactors in Iran. The Iranians have dedicated significant resources to completing at least three nuclear power plants by the year 2015 and are now working with Russian assistance to complete the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Our Nation is opposed to completion of the reactors at the Bushehr facility because the transfer of civilian nuclear technology and training could help to advance Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Between 1995 and 1999, it is anticipated the International Atomic Energy Agency will have provided over $1.5 million for the Iranian nuclear power program through its Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund. Our Nation provides annual voluntary contributions to this fund totaling $16 million in 1996. This bill does not halt our voluntary contribution to IAEA, but it does require that none of our monies may be used to fund IAEA programs in projects in Iran.
This is exactly, I think, the right policy. Our Nation should not voluntarily provide funding which would help Iran complete nuclear power reactors that could assist them in developing their nuclear weapons program, which could pose a threat to our Nation and to our allies.
The bill also establishes two reporting requirements. One will provide the Congress with a comprehensive report on the IAEA assistance to Iran. The second requirement directs our Secretary of State to review IAEA programs and ensure that they are consistent with U.S. nuclear non-proliferation and safety goals. Based on that review, the Secretary shall direct the U.S. representative to IAEA to oppose establishing any programs that would not be consistent with U.S. policy.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Are there any other Members seeking recognition? The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending bill on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion signify in the usual manner by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on the measure are postponed.
We will now turn to H. Res. 362, commending the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Cuba. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H. Res. 362. Resolution commending the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Cuba.''
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and reported with an amendment. Without objection, the language recommended by the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere which is before the Members will be considered as the original text for the purpose of amendment. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee recommendation.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas Pope John Paul II recently completed a 5-day first-ever Papal visit to Cuba to speak directly to the Cuban people; Whereas the Pope led the Cuban people in celebration throughout the island, including''——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the Subcommittee amendment is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H. Res. 362 appears in the appendix.]
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Six months ago, His Holiness Pope John II undertook a historic pilgrimage to Cuba. His primary mission was to reassure the faithful of this island nation that the open profession of their faith and the active practice of their religious beliefs was an important right that they as Catholics should not be afraid to exercise.
While there, the Pope took a number of opportunities to highlight the important role of the church in Cuban society, and also to point out some of the failures of the Cuban regime to permit the free expression of views and the unwillingness of the regime to permit the faithful to practice their religion.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The issue of Cuba is never easy around here. But I introduced this resolution because I did not feel such a historic event and the consequences of such a visit should go unrecognized. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to consider this bill today, but in some ways it is unfortunate that the Committee had to wait almost 7 months after the visit to give the Pope the recognition he deserved for his visit and for his strong political words to the Cuban dictatorship.
The bill before us today is a compromise effort which received unanimous support in our Subcommittee. For that, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida, my good friend, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for their cooperation.
In just a few moments, an amendment will be offered by the other original sponsor of the bill, the Ranking Member, Mr. Hamilton, which is again a product of compromise. While I would have hoped that this bill could have been adopted without further politicalization of this issue, I understand the interests of those who wish to speak on the bill and who may still have reservations about its need. However, when all is said and done, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill to give the Pope the recognition he deserves for his visit to Cuba and to send a message to the Cuban regime that the Pope's message about truth, freedom, and religious expression should be honored. I urge the adoption of the bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. 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. Hamilton. Strike the preamble and insert the following: Whereas Pope''——
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be considered as read.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee for bringing this forward. We have in my amendment a compromise. It has been worked on very hard. We have had excellent cooperation from Mr. Menendez and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I think it is fair to say that the compromise is not the way any one of us would have drafted it. Each of us has language in it that we think is very important and strongly support. We have language in it that causes us some concern. But there has been a process here that I think has worked. It is a genuine compromise.
I will speak to the resolution from my point of view. I am sure that others will speak to it from their point of view. I pushed for the resolution because I believe that the Pope's visit to Cuba was very important. From my point of view, his remarks there were right on the mark in all respects. They were profound, they were balanced, they were constructive, they were realistic.
His criticisms of the Castro regime were frank and sharp. There can be no mistake in his message in support of human rights and democracy. The Pope demonstrated a new and more effective way, I think, to push for change in Cuba. He did not hesitate to criticize the way we have chosen to deal with Cuba. He pointed out, I believe, that our embargo of Cuba hurts the Cuban people, crowds out room for independent actors in Cuba. It gives the Castro Government an excuse to exercise arbitrary power the Pope found unacceptable.
Rather than isolate the Cuban people, he spoke directly with them. In so doing, I think he carved out a role for a more independent and a more powerful church. I believe that the Cuban people are more hopeful for change in the aftermath of his visit. I know there have been disappointments, some of which I share, as a result of that visit, but we are taking the right step today to highlight his trip and his message of hope.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The compromise substitute reflects the importance, I believe, of the Pope's visit. The two whereas clauses that this amendment adds to the resolution recognize the Pope's frank criticism of the Cuban Government, that the Cuban Government is isolating its own people, gravely limiting Cubans' freedoms and basic human rights. This isolation is unnecessary. It is counter productive. It stands in stark contrast to trends throughout the hemisphere.
These two whereas clauses also make clear that the Pope was critical of U.S. policy toward Cuba and he has challenged us to consider the costs of that policy. The policy that we have undertaken for more than 30 years unnecessarily isolates the Cuban people who are made to bear the brunt of our opposition to the Castro regime. That isolation is counter-productive to our shared goal, all of us agree, of bringing freedom for the Cuban people.
Finally, the compromise adds a resolved clause simply congratulating the Pope for his visit and for his message of hope to the Cuban people. The Pope was right to do what he did and to say what he said. He spoke directly to the Cuban people. He engaged them, as he did the people of Eastern Europe. He is not trying to isolate them or coerce them. On his return, he said that the purpose of his trip was to promote the same changes in Cuba as took place after his trip to his native Poland. Thus, I think the trip of the Pope was remarkable and admirable. We should not only commend him for it, but we should be wise and follow his example. I urge the adoption of the substitute.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hamilton, for your patience as we worked out the language on this resolution which appears to be a simple resolution, but I know from firsthand experience that the word of the U.S. Congress to oppressed people, wherever they may be, in this case the island of Cuba, carries a lot of weight. It does have a lot of significance to them, as it does to the oppressive regime which dictates its policy on a day-in and day-out basis.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Six months after the Pope's visit, we look at the situation in Cuba and we sadly conclude that nothing has changed. As recently as yesterday, Fidel Castro expelled the few foreign journalists that are allowed to operate on the island from the coverage of the first day's session of the National Assembly, which is kind of ludicrous because it's not a truly elected body since there's only one party that is allowed to operate in Cuba, that's the Communist Party, and the people are hand-picked and selected by Castro himself. But even that kind of opening he doesn't allow.
I have here a two-page list of all of the dissidents and religious activists who have been jailed and harassed in Cuba since the Pope's visit. So unfortunately it's a list that continues to grow, but we thank Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gilman for their patience in working this language through. I thank Mr. Menendez as well for his leadership on this effort.
Thank you very much, Mr. Gilman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, I would ask that my entire statement be entered into the record.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
[The statement of Mr. Menendez appears in the appendix.]
Mr. MENENDEZ. I want to make two points beyond thanking Mr. Hamilton for his willingness to work with myself and the Chairman and the gentlelady from Florida on the language.
But I take great objection to the categorization of this issue as politicized. You know that for those of us who hold deeply held principled views, a charge of politicalization is not taken lightly.
I don't appreciate it because those of us who hold these views hold them not because of politics, but because of a principled view that the policy that we seek to enforce is in fact the one that can bring freedom and democracy to the people of Cuba.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I share Mr. Hamilton's same goals and desires. We differ as to how we accomplish. I share the view that the Pope's visit was a good thing. But I want our colleagues to recognize, however, that while his visit was successful in opening a window of opportunity for the Catholic church, as we sit here today that window is slowly closing. The absence of world attention from Cuba since the Pope's visit is largely responsible for allowing the window to close. Even the Pope has expressed concern and frustration that the initial opening for the church provided by his visit is quickly receding.
Since January, the Cuban Government has continued to block church access to mass media, limit public masses, and deny permits for masses, expel American priests, specifically Reverend Patrick Sullivan, and force others to flee under harassment. It has continued to deny autonomy to Caritas, the church's humanitarian relief agency, restrict visas for clergy to enter and preach in Cuba, and severely limit the ability of Cuban Protestants to worship in Cuba.
Last, although political prisoners were released at the Pope's petition, once the Pope left what happened? The same number of political prisoners that were released by the Pope's petition were subsequently arrested, and 110 new political prisoners languish in Castro's jail. That is not the type of opening that we were hoping for. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to.
Mr. HAMILTON. I just want to commend the gentleman's statement. I think it is absolutely correct that we have had disappointments since the Pope's visit. We in the United States and the international community must continue to keep our eye on what happens there and push for the kind of direction that the gentleman has indicated in his statement. I concur with it.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez, and I thank Mr. Hamilton.
Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on the amendment? If not, the question is on the Hamilton amendment. As many as are in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed, say no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
With regard to the measure, I would like to note that His Holiness Pope John Paul II quoted from the New Testament in Havana, communicating this message. ''The spirit of the Lord has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.''
Although Cuba's dictator, Mr. Castro, cynically sought to manipulate the Pope's visit to perpetuate himself in power, I believe that the Pontiff's messages about hope and truth were not lost on the Cuban people. The most telling moment of the Pope's visit occurred at the beginning of his public mass at Havana. The Pope greeted Cuban Cardinal Jome Ortega, the cardinals and the bishops and the priests and assembled faithful to repeated applause from a crowd that filled the Jose Marti Plaza. The Pope then respectfully greeted Fidel Castro, apart from the tiny sound of polite applause drifting from the stage over the loud speakers, a sprawling crowd of ordinary Cubans stood in spontaneous purposeful silence and no one applauded.
Sadly, the Catholic church and other Cuban religious leaders and the laity continue to face intransigence and repression from the Cuban regime, its state security apparatus. Church officials have publicly criticized the Cuban Government for doing little since the Pope's visit to resolve issues that the Catholic church considers essential. Despite requests from the Pope, Fidel Castro continues to block church access to mass media, limits visas for church workers, and has even expelled priests, including an American, Reverend Patrick Sullivan.
Moreover, Castro still refuses to allow autonomy to Caritas, the church humanitarian relief agency. While the ordinary Cubans who heard the Pope were clearly touched by his message, the Castro regime remains unmoved. Today we have before the Committee a resolution commending the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Cuba introduced by our colleague, Mr. Gallegly, who chairs our Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. Our Ranking Member, Mr. Hamilton, has been a strong supporter of the resolution. I am pleased to be able to honor his request to mark it here in the Committee. Mr. Hamilton has introduced an amendment to the resolution and we thank the gentleman from Indiana for his efforts to secure consensus on his amendment.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are there any other Members seeking recognition? If there are no other Members seeking recognition, the question is on agreeing to the Subcommittee recommendation as amended. As many as are in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter. As many as are in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Any opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We have one more measure to consider. I thank our colleagues for being patient. This is H. Res. 475 relative to the importance of the recent microcredit summit. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''H. Res. 475. Resolution recognizing the importance of achieving the goal of the 1997 Microcredit Summit to provide access to microcredit to 100 million of the world's poorest families.''
Chairman GILMAN. This resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full Committee. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the resolution, in that order, for amendment. The clerk will read.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas 1,300,000,000 people, which is nearly one-fifth of the population of the world, live in poverty; Whereas microcredit programs enable''——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[H. Res. 475 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I will now recognize myself briefly to speak to the amendment. Then I'll yield to Mr. Luther.
This amendment is on the issue of microcredit. I have been a strong supporter of the Microcredit Summit. In my years of service, I have never heard of a non-governmental organization convening a summit, a meeting of the heads of state to support their cause. Results did just that. I was proud of their accomplishment. We should all commend Sam Daley Harris and Joanne Carter for their work on this measure.
The goal of the summit was clear to provide at least half of the world's poor, especially women, with access to microcredit loans. These loans have been so successful at the Grammen Bank and around the world where repayment rates average over 97 percent. I'll note that Brian Atwood and the First Lady were both at our summit, supported its goals.
When the House considers the foreign operations bill in the fall, I intend to offer a soft earmark of $160 million for microenterprise activities to help us meet the goal of the summit. I hope the Members of our Committee will be supportive.
Regarding the measure before us, I commend the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Luther, for preparing this resolution which I strongly support. Mr. Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing this resolution before the Committee today. As many of you know, the 1997 Microcredit Summit took place last February, a year ago February in Washington, and brought together nearly 3,000 people from 137 nations. Support for microcredit lending runs very deep in Congress and many on this Committee such as Mr. Houghton, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Hamilton, have been leaders in protecting these programs within the budget. However, it is clear that Congress must do more because investment in these programs has actually been declining in recent years.
This resolution simply calls on Congress to recognize the importance of achieving the goal of the 1997 Microcredit Summit. I urge its adoption. I thank the Chair for bringing this measure before the Committee. I thank the Chair for his comments.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Luther.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say a word of appreciation to Mr. Luther. I think this is a very worthy resolution. Beyond that, I think his interest in the microenterprise program that he and Mr. Fox and others have shown here is terribly important.
Microcredit is certainly among our most successful foreign aid programs. It has played a key role in alleviating the plight of the poorest people in the world. I strongly support the resolution and I commend the gentleman from Minnesota for his initiative.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend Mr. Luther for his leadership in this area. I have had a number of times when folks, supporters of microcredit from my district have met with me in Cincinnati. I remember seeing a program on ''60 Minutes'' years ago. It was the first time I had been introduced to the Grammen Bank in Bangladesh. I saw firsthand when I was in Uganda last summer a program which was directly benefiting people there, particularly women. Sometimes a very little bit of capital into the right hands can go a long way in really improving people's lives. So I again commend Mr. Luther for bringing this forward. I look forward to supporting it.
I yield back the balance.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
Are any other Members seeking recognition? If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor signify by saying aye.
As many as are opposed, say no.
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Further proceeding on this measure is postponed. The Committee stands——
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. May I raise just one question? I had written to you about the life of the Deutch Commission. I favor the extension of that commission's work. Could you tell me where that stands at the moment? You can respond later if you want. I'm not pressing you for an answer now.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton, we have received your letter. We are reviewing it. We are going to try to get back to you as quickly as possible on our further proceeding on that.
Mr. HAMILTON. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. If there is no further business, the Committee now stands adjourned.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being patient.
[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC