SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
74–409PDF
2001
PROTECTION OF DOMESTIC DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OCCUPIED FACILITIES;
CONGRATULATING ALEJANDRO TOLEDO ON HIS ELECTION
TO THE PRESIDENCY OF PERU, ETC.;
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRC SHOULD CEASE ITS
PERSECUTION OF FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS;
TERRORIST KIDNAPPERS IN ECUADOR AND SUPPORTING EFFORTS BY THE U.S. TO COMBAT SUCH TERRORISM;
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 2001;
VIETNAM HUMAN RIGHTS ACT;
CORAL REEF AND COASTAL MARINE
CONSERVATION ACT OF 2001
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2541, H. Res. 181, H. Con. Res. 188,
H. Con. Res. 89, H.R. 2581, H.R. 2368,
and H.R. 2272
AUGUST 1, 2001
Serial No. 107–41
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
JIM DAVIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
ADOLFO FRANCO, Counsel
MARILYN C. OWEN, Staff Associate
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
C O N T E N T S
MARKUP OF H.R. 2541, H. RES. 181, H. CON. RES. 188
AND H. CON. RES. 89
Text of H.R. 2541, To enhance the authorities of special agents and provide limited authorities to uniformed officers responsible for the protection of domestic Department of State occupied facilities
Text of H. Res. 181, Congratulating President-elect Alejandro Toledo on his election to the Presidency of Peru, congratulating the people of Peru for the return of democracy to Peru, and expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Peru on June 23, 2001
Text of H. Con. Res. 188, Expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners
Text of H. Con. Res. 89, Mourning the death of Ron Sander at the hands of terrorist kidnappers in Ecuador and welcoming the release from captivity of Arnie Alford, Steve Derry, Jason Weber, and David Bradley, and supporting efforts by the United States to combat such terrorism
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MARKUP OF H.R. 2581
Text of H.R. 2581, Export Administration Act of 2001
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared statement regarding H.R. 2581
The Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Letter submitted to Mr. Lantos from Paul V. Kelley, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, dated August 1, 2001
Amendment #6, offered by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos
Amendments #15 and #21, offered by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos
Amendment #21 as modified, offered by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos
Amendment #5, offered by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos
Amendment #7, offered by Mr. Hyde
Amendment Title VII—Exports of Satellites, offered by the Honorable Howard Berman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Amendment #24, offered by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos
En bloc amendments offered by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos
MARKUP OF H.R. 2368 AND H.R. 2272
Text of H.R. 2368, Viet Nam Human Rights Act
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2368, offered by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Prepared statement regarding H.R. 2368
Text of H.R. 2272, Coral Reef and Coastal Marine Conservation Act of 2001
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2272, offered by Mr. Hyde
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Prepared statement regarding H.R. 2272
APPENDIX
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Prepared statement regarding H. Con. Res. 188
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith: Prepared statement regarding H.R. 2368
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida: Prepared statement regarding H. Con. Res. 188
The Honorable Cass Ballenger, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina: Prepared statement regarding H. Res. 181
The Honorable Cass Ballenger: Prepared statement regarding H. Con. Res. 89
PROTECTION OF DOMESTIC DEPARTMENT OF STATE OCCUPIED FACILITIES; CONGRATULATING ALEJANDRO TOLEDO ON HIS ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY OF PERU, ETC.; THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRC SHOULD CEASE ITS PERSECUTION OF FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS; TERRORIST KIDNAPPERS IN ECUADOR AND SUPPORTING EFFORTS BY THE U.S. TO COMBAT SUCH TERRORISM; EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 2001; VIETNAM HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; CORAL REEF AND COASTAL MARINE CONSERVATION ACT OF 2001
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:25 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry Hyde, (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman HYDE. Committee will come to order. I would like to inform the Members it is the Chair's intention to complete consideration of H.R. 2581, the Export Administration Act of 2001; H.R. 2368, the Vietnam Human Rights Act; and H.R. 2272, and the Coral Reef and Coastal Marine Conservation Act of 2001 as soon as possible. We had hoped to do these today, but realistically, that is not going to be possible, so we will do the best we can.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am informed there is no controversy nor amendments to the other four bills that are on our agenda. Accordingly, without objection the Chair wishes to seek consideration of the following bills on the suspension calendar:
H.R. 2541, to enhance the authorities of special agents of the Department of State;
H. Res. 181, congratulating President-Elect Alejandro Toledo on his election to the presidency of Peru and expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Peru on June 23, 2001;
H. Con. Res. 188, expressing the sense of Congress that the government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners; and
H. Con. Res. 89, mourning the death of Ron Sander at the hands of terrorist kidnappers in Ecuador and supporting efforts by the United States to combat such terrorism.
[The text of H.R. 2541, H. Res. 181, H. Con. Res. 188, and H. Con. Res. 89 follows:]
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered and any Member who wishes to do so will be permitted to insert statements on any of these bills into the record.
It is the Chair's intention to recess the Committee at noon and return at 2 p.m. to continue the markup and go as far as we can, but I just thought I would announce that so you could make appropriate scheduling.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill H.R. 2581, the Export Administration Act of 2001, for purposes of markup. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the Chair yields himself 5 minutes for purposes of presenting a statement with regard to the consideration of this bill.
[The bill, H.R. 2581, follows:]
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The Chair would like to clearly indicate he intends to follow regular order and recognize Members to offer and debate amendments and, when desired, to yield to other Members. Members will not be recognized for the purpose of yielding to anyone other than a Member. This is a markup, not a hearing, and therefore the Committee will not be receiving testimony, but engaging in debate.
The comprehensive reform legislation before us this morning revises and amends the Export Administration Act, which expired in 1994 but was reauthorized for a 1-year period through August 21 of this year.
My colleagues will recall this Committee reported out a 3-month stop-gap extender through November 20, a measure which cleared the House on July 30 and is now awaiting Senate action.
The bill before us this morning is identical to S. 149, which the Administration supports with one exception. It includes two sections amending the North Korean Threat Reduction Act of 1999, which passed the House by a vote of 374 to six.
These provisions are intended to ensure that Congress will be fully involved in the decision our nation may have to make in several years to either approve or delay the transfer to North Korea of key components for the two light-water reactors that are being built in North Korea pursuant to the 1994 Agreed Framework with that country.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While I strongly support these North Korea provisions, I do have substantive concerns with H.R. 2581 and, together with the Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, we will offer a series of amendments which will address many of my concerns relating to the role of our Secretaries of State and Defense in the export licensing and list making process and the overly permissive standards currently in the bill governing the export of sensitive products and technologies.
This is an important bill, as important as any bill this Committee will consider this year. Through this legislation the Congress delegates to the executive branch its expressed constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce to control exports for national security and foreign policy purposes.
While I do not support H.R. 2581 in its current form, I do believe it is important that the Committee discharge its responsibilities for consideration of this legislation, primarily in order that our export controls should have a firm statutory basis. That is why we are marking up this measure today and why I have agreed to use H.R. 2581 as the base text.
There are more than 35 amendments which have been filed thus far, so I would ask for your patience, your persistence, your cooperation and continued attendance as we continue them. I am pleased to yield to the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Lantos.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hyde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 2581
The Committee will move to the consideration of the the Export Administration Act of 2001, H . R. 2581, a measure introduced by Mr. Gilman.
The Chair would like to clearly indicate that he intends to follow regular order and recognize Members to offer and debate amendments, and when desired to yield to other Members. Members will not be recognized for the purpose of yielding to anyone other than another Member. This is a mark up and not a hearing and, therefore, the committee will not be receiving testimony, but engaging in debate.
The comprehensive reform legislation before us this morning revises and amends the Export Administration Act, the EAA, which expired in 1994 but was reauthorized for a one-year period through August 21 of this year.
My colleagues will recall that this Committee reported out a three month stop-gap extender through November 20, a measure which cleared the House on July 30 and is now awaiting Senate action.
The bill before us is identical to S. 149, which the Administration supports with one exception. It includes two sections amending the North Korean Threat Reduction Act of 1999, which passed the House by a vote of 374 to six.
These provisions are intended to ensure that Congress will be fully involved in the decision our nation may have to make in several years to either approve or delay the transfer to North Korea of key components for the two light-water reactors that are being built in North Korea pursuant to the 1994 Agreed Framework with that country.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While I strongly support these North Korea provisions, I do have substantive concerns with H.R. 2581 and, together with the Ranking Member Mr. Lantos, I will offer a series of amendments which will address many of my concerns relating to the role of our Secretaries of State and Defense in the export licensing and list making process and the overly permissive standards currently in the bill governing the export of sensitive products and technologies.
I do believe, however, it is important to move this legislation forward in a timely fashion and that our export controls should have a firm statutory basis. That is why we are marking up this measure today and why I have agreed to use this measure as the base text.
There are more than 35 amendments which have been filed thus far, and I would ask for your patience, cooperation and continued attendance as we consider them.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to commend you for scheduling today's markup of the Export Administration Act.
Mr. Chairman, you have worked tirelessly on a bipartisan basis to improve the legislation before our Committee today, and I hope that by the end of today's markup we will have a bill that we can all support enthusiastically.
I am very pleased to state for the record that bipartisanship is alive and well in the House International Relations Committee, and I recommend the procedure to many of our colleagues on some other Committees.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If the United States is going to work effectively with our friends and allies to stop dual technology from getting into the wrong hands, we must have a predictable, reasonable export control framework here at home. American efforts to toughen multilateral controls have repeatedly been undermined by our failure to reauthorize the Export Administration Act.
We are here today, Mr. Chairman, to begin the process of crafting a new American system to control sensitive dual use exports. As we vote on a series of amendments today, we will be weighing the proper balance between promoting American exports and the need to protect our national security.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, we can do both and, as you indicated, I look forward to a package of joint Hyde-Lantos amendments to accomplish that goal. These amendments make some modest changes in the bill to ensure that the President of the United States will have the flexibility and the authority to control exports for important national security reasons.
These amendments, Mr. Chairman, also ensure that items which could contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction do not go to foreign entities that are involved in such programs. Our amendments also establish that items should not be exported if they would undermine regional stability or the security of NATO or our major non-NATO allies.
These amendments also ensure that, if necessary, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense will be able to express effectively their objections to items being removed from the national security control list.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the appropriate time in today's markup, Mr. Chairman, I plan to offer a series of three amendments to further improve the legislation.
The first amendment will prohibit the export of torture equipment. The second amendment would give the Administration the authority to ban the export of pesticides which are banned for use in the United States. The third amendment will prohibit human experimentation by U.S. drug manufacturers overseas unless the FDA has approved such human testing here in the United States for a particular drug.
I urge my colleagues to support all these amendments to ensure that we pass an improved bill, and I thank you for the time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to have sponsored this measure. H.R. 2581 provides authority for the control of exports. We must remain vigilant about the export of high technology products. Dual use products which have been both commercial and military in application can be put to dangerous use by countries that are seeking to implement their military aggression. Products that can be used to make fertilizers can be used as part of a chemical or biological weapons program. Certain imaging equipment that can be used in hospitals can be used for nuclear weapons programs. Saddam Hussein and others have shown themselves to be masters of manipulation when it comes to dual use items.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time, it is extremely important that we put in place a reasonable system of export controls that does not impede the legitimate needs of our commercial sector as we seek to safeguard our national security.
At a minimum, the review process should be carried out as expeditiously as possible. That has not been the case in the past. Nonetheless, we must err on the side of caution when it comes to export controls.
In addition to a strong national export control system, the highest of priorities should be placed on obtaining an international consensus in favor of strong export control regimes. A strong U.S. export control regime can only do so much if other nations are exporting the same products and services that our nation has foregone.
The Senate version of this bill, S. 149, has been reported favorably out of Committee by the Senate and is still awaiting floor consideration.
I commend Chairman Hyde for taking a strong leadership role on this issue. He has taken on a challenging issue and has kept in mind our overarching goal of promoting our national interests.
Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you and the Ranking Member for the way you have handled this issue procedurally, even if we differ over policy.
Since 1999, this Committee has held five hearings on the EAA and the Senate has held nine hearings in the Banking Committee alone, so clearly some efficient deliberation has occurred and the time to act is now. However, I believe that the amendments to be offered are neither minor nor technical and, if adopted, they will ultimately ensure that there will be no Export Administration Act.
We come to this debate with two different generational views, one rooted in the Cold War era and the other recognizing the global realities of the 21st century. As I have stated before, I believe the bill reported by the Senate Banking Committee, S. 149, protects Americans by controlling exports while promoting America's economic prosperity by updating the export control process, and that is why 2 weeks ago I introduced the Senate bill as H.R. 2557, along with Messrs. Houghton, Flake and Blumenauer of the Committee.
In a letter from March of this year to then-Chairman Phil Gramm of the Senate Banking Committee, Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, who is known for her conservative views on national security, said the following, and I quote,
''The Administration has carefully reviewed the current version of S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001, which provides authority for controlling exports of dual use goods and technologies. As a result of its review, the Administration has proposed a number of changes. The Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Commerce and I agree that these changes will strengthen the President's national security and foreign policy authorities to control dual use exports in a balanced manner which will permit U.S. companies to compete more effectively in the global marketplace. With these changes, S. 149 represents a positive step toward the reform of the U.S. export control systems supported by the President. If the Committee incorporates these changes into S. 149, the Administration will support the bill.''
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, every single one of those changes were incorporated and the Administration does indeed support the Senate bill.
Secretaries Powell, Rumsfeld, and Evans agree and many of our nation's top national security experts agree with its approach. The President also has publicly urged Congress to enact this important legislation.
This legislation is important not only to America's competitiveness but also to our continued military dominance. Dr. Donald Hicks, former Reagan Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and Chairman of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security, pointed out in testimony this year that unlike during the Cold War, the Department of Defense today relies on the private sector to maintain its military edge.
He went on to state that
''If high tech's exports are restricted in any significant manner, it could well have a stifling effect on the U.S. military's rate of advancement.''
I don't believe that anyone on this Committee wants that end result.
In 1999, the Cox Committee made several key recommendations on export controls. First and foremost, the Committee recommended reauthorizing the Export Administration Act. It also made suggestions relating to export licensing, multilateral negotiations, criminal and civil penalties and sanctions for multilateral regime violations. Titles 2, 4 and 5 of S. 149 incorporate these recommendations as well.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also in 1999, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission made its recommendation regarding export controls. Again, the commission's top recommendation was reauthorization of the Export Administration Act. The commission also made recommendations regarding national security export controls, export licensing procedures and multilateral efforts. Those recommendations were incorporated into titles 2, 4 and 5 of S. 149.
Perhaps most importantly, the bill would provide the President with unprecedented authority to impose controls for reasons of national security, terrorism, proliferation or international obligations, notwithstanding an export's foreign availability or mass market status. The enhanced control and set-aside authorities in title 2, along with the terrorism and international obligation authorities in title 3, give the President the power and flexibility that he needs to protect U.S. interests in today's rapidly changing world.
So, Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues if you favor sensibly updating a severely outmoded export control process, if you favor giving the President all the authority and flexibility he needs to control sensitive dual use exports but also facilitating the process for our exporters, if you favor punishing violators in a meaningful way, both in criminal and civil court, if you favor maintaining the United States' military technological edge throughout the world, if you favor all of these concepts and you want to protect Americans and boost the economy, you should support our bill as introduced, which I will offer as a substitute at the end of the markup process and oppose any weakening amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Will you yield for a minute, Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my good friend for yielding and want to commend him for a well though out, well reasoned and powerful statement.
I would merely like to make a couple of observations.
Chairman Hyde and I, and I do not presume to speak for him, but in this case I think he will not object, Chairman Hyde and I are not interested in killing the Export Administration Act. Our purpose is to improve the Export Administration Act.
Secondly, with respect to your generational comment, let me suggest with all due respect that fresh thinking is not a generational issue. I was noticing with great interest when President Bush visited our troops in Kosovo the other day he made the very appropriate statement that we came in together with our European allies and we will leave together.
That was not his position during the campaign, while some of us of an older generation than the President have maintained throughout that since we went in together we as NATO allies should come out together. And I hope that my friend from New Jersey will also see the wisdom of the amendments that Chairman Hyde and I will propose as time moves on.
I also think it is important to realize that while during the Cold War the Export Administration Act issue was a relatively simple one and there was total unanimity in the Congress as to what we do because the Soviet Union was such an overwhelming threat, Export Administration Act crafting becomes more complex as the international atmosphere became more complex. Just because the Soviet Union collapsed, it does not mean that threats to U.S. national security have collapsed.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
From North Korea to Iran, to Iraq, to lots of other places, there are severe threats, and we need to craft a more sophisticated, more complex bill which is responsive to the threats today.
I want to thank my friend for yielding.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, while I remain committed to a constitutionally limited government, I do believe that there is both authority and reason to maintain certain export restrictions. As I have written, the reason that the Congress is given authority to declare war, levy taxes and regulate commerce all in the same section of our Constitution can be understood if one realizes that the founding fathers recognized the close relationship between these specific policy activities.
My problem, however, with the Export Administration Act is that it undertakes what is a proper Federal function in the most inappropriate ways. From authorizing and hiring more Federal agents to work abroad and to conduct investigations which could curtail civil liberties to overriding state laws and temporarily suspending rights without due process, this bill would authorize activities with which I am greatly concerned. Moreover, the bill grants far too much latitude to the executive branch to write administrative law and to waiver provisions of the legislation.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress should jealously guard its prerogatives, rather than carelessly surrendering them to the President and Administration officials. It is exactly this type of surrender that sets the stage for the types of scandals we have had relative to technology transfers in recent years and encourages corporate influence in this area.
The mere fact that there has been a change in Administration should not persuade us to write bad laws. Legislation outlasts Administrations. As such, we ought to realize that it is particularly important to instill procedural safeguards when wise and honest men are in office.
When we surrender these safeguards, we will have no line of defense when less scrupulous individuals once again gain power. History tells us that we can never put complete trust in future leaders to be more diligent than we ourselves are prepared to be.
Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, I plan to vote against this bill. Thank you very much.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think this bill is an important step forward, first, in that it provides for greater speed in dealing with decisions. There are reasons to allow an export, there are reasons to prohibit an export, but there is never a reason to have undue delay in making that decision.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, the bill eliminates the MTOPS standard or at least does not require the Administration to use the MTOPS standard in determining which computer hardware should be exported. This should not be interpreted as a requirement that the Administration ignore or automatically allow the export of super computers even to the most rogue states. This bill simply gives the Administration more discretion in determining what computers get exported, and there is language that somehow we are going to control the export of software so we do not have to worry about hardware.
Keep in mind the software is the easiest thing to smuggle out of this country, that software is easier for rogue states to develop than hardware, and that even though there have been tremendous technical advances and that which was restricted 15 years ago is in a computer store on the street today, does not mean that super computers should be exported to rogue states.
Finally, the distinguished Ranking Member brought up the issue of our togetherness with the Europeans when it comes to going into Kosovo, and when it comes to coming out of Kosovo. Togetherness must mean more than working together with the Europeans when they want us to. Togetherness must mean that Europe join with the United States in preventing dangerous regimes from getting technology. It is time for this Committee to take the lead in tying our efforts on behalf of Europe in Kosovo and in other places to European behavior that affects our military and national security in other parts of the world.
We cannot defend Europe for the Europeans while they make it impossible for us to achieve our objectives on other continents. Certainly preventing rogue regimes, particularly North Korea and Iran, from obtaining technology is at the top of our list when it comes to our own national security.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would identify with the comments that have been offered by my colleague, Mr. Menendez. I would offer a slightly different perspective. I hope that this hearing today and the attention that you, Mr. Chairman, and our Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, have helped focus on this important area is a step toward our marking the evolution of our thinking and our technique in dealing with these threats.
I must confess that the more I look at this information, as I listen to people, as I think about the consequences, I am agnostic at best about how effective the current regulations have been in terms of protecting American national security.
Indeed, I think there is evidence that is coming forward that it can in fact have the opposite effect, encouraging other countries to build their own capacity, having less engagement with Americans and, indeed, I fear that it has the potential of undercutting our own ability to generate the development of new technology in the future.
I fear that if we are not careful we will have the danger of having the best of both worlds, where we are burdened down with a cumbersome, expensive process that is of little effect and that helps our business competitors and, frankly, foreign countries that have less sympathy with our objectives. It lulls us into a false sense of complacency while it wastes time and energy that could be better directed toward approaches to the protection of our national security that would be more effective.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate what I think Mr. Menendez said in terms of the generational aspect. It is not chronology at all, but in terms of the rapid advancement of new generations of technology. I think all of us are befuddled, regardless of our perception, for instance, on the Microsoft case, just what sort of a remedy is there, and by the time the cumbersome mechanisms of government are intervening, technology and events march past us.
Well, I think that is likely to be the case as we are dealing with the technological aspects that we are talking about here today. I am, I guess, as frustrated as any older American as I watch the 23-year-old whiz kids in my office explain to me how to use the equipment on my desk, but I fear that we are thinking in terms that is more suited, perhaps, to some of us of a different technological generation, whatever our chronological age might be, and I hope that this legislation and our discussion of it is a move toward cleaner, simpler legislation and that we can embrace a new generation of protections that are more in tune with things that will be effective at home and abroad.
I look forward to the discussion today, but I hope we can think in terms of where we want to end up in 10 years rather than something that is going to be frozen and actually be a handicap for us. I appreciate your courtesy.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman.
Are there any other opening statements?
Mr. Smith?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would remind Mr. Smith, if I may, in the context of generational responses to technological development that one of my heroines, Queen Victoria, once objected to the development of the submarine. She thought it was a very un-British way to fight.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly also would object to some of the younger Members of this Committee suggesting that you and I are not among the young generation.
Let me just say as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research on the Science Committee, we require the publishing of all of the basic research that we do where there are government funds involved, and so to pretend that we are withholding some of this information gives us maybe a false sense of security. It also ignores the rapid spread of knowledge of information technology that has evolved and is going to move ahead much more rapidly in terms of the technology that is available to any parts of the world that have a computer and the ability to get on the Internet.
I would also suggest that Congress is relinquishing some of its authority under the Constitution as we allow the Administration to make the determinations that our forefathers who wrote our Constitution thought that the United States Congress should make. So as long as the Administration under auspices of national security continues to decide what should be limited and what should be unlimited, Congress is not taking the kind of responsibility that it should. So, personally, I am also against allowing the Administration to extend this act, even though Congress does not act.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I will yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Export Administration Act is of very vital interest to my constituents in California and certainly to the rest of the nation, California being the premier exporting state in the nation and, of course, home of the high tech industry and countless small businesses that do international trade and new entrepreneurs that are consistently coming up with new and innovative ideas.
They do understand full well that their prosperity and our nation's prosperity will depend in great measure on their ability to trade globally. Without this international trade, we would not be in the enviable position we find ourselves in.
Our job, of course, is to ensure they continue to compete favorably in the international marketplace and to strike the appropriate balance in this legislation between our economic interests and our security interests.
I do believe we can deal effectively with both issues. Of course, my main concern as I review the various proposed amendments, worthy as they are, is what impact they may have on our final objective, and that is crafting a new and urgently needed Export Administration Act that is responsive to a technology driven marketplace and the realities of a politically unstable and often volatile world.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we continue to add various issues to the basic test, we risk making passage of the Export Administration Act less likely, harming our working families, our businesses, our communities and ultimately giving our global competitors a very decisive edge.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Flake, the gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The bill before us today does not just extend the current existing export control regime, it improves it and I think that we need to think about any amendments that we make to it very carefully.
This is a product, as Senator Enzi said, that virtually everyone who is remotely interested in dual use export controls, the President, the National Security Advisor, Secretaries of State, Defense and Commerce, support the bill that was passed out of the Senate Banking Committee. I think any changes that we make should be weighed heavily and made sparingly.
Despite strong endorsements to the bill by the President and national security experts, we are attempting wholesale changes to the bill in the form of amendments, some of which are being presented as technical in nature. The majority of these amendments, we need to point out, are far from technical. Some go as far as to alter the very definition of export. In some instances, they allow guesswork and subjectivity and gridlock to our export licensing system and they significantly alter the purposes for which we control exports in this country.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I urge my colleagues to carefully review these amendments one by one before we make changes to this bill.
Finally, I want to mention that there are many who claim that this bill is the darling of industry lobbyists. The fact is this bill is far tougher on industry than the current law is. It establishes new criminal law and civil penalties for export control violations, and these go significantly farther than the slap on the wrist the current violators face.
I just want us all to focus very carefully on these amendments one by one and make sure that we are not undoing the careful negotiations that have been going on for a couple of years.
And with that I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. If there are no further opening statements——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman? On your left here.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez. Yes?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I heard you in your opening statement describe what regular order will be and I want to make sure I understand what you described as regular order.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Am I to understand that unlike the history of the Committee for the 9 years I have served on it that under my time I cannot ask the Administration to state its views on an amendment?
Chairman HYDE. That is correct.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Is that to be the regular order of the Committee in all markups or is it only in this markup?
Chairman HYDE. We will take them one at a time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. So I assume that answer means in this markup that is going to be——
Chairman HYDE. At least in this markup, right. And we will consider it in others, but I want this to be a markup, not a hearing and I do not think it is helpful to expedition to be having testimony from the audience.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise for all of our colleagues and certainly on my behalf my concern that this has not been the history of the Committee and the reason——
Chairman HYDE. It is a new generation, Mr. Menendez.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, we have another generational difference, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Moving right ahead.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, we have another generational difference. And, as Mr. Blumenauer said, my comments were not meant, of course, chronologically, for I have the deepest of respect for my elders, however, I am very seriously concerned——
Chairman HYDE. Well, Mr. Menendez——
Mr. MENENDEZ [continuing]. And I would just note to the Ranking Member as well that in essence—I am not looking for testimony. I just would like a simple yes or no, does the Administration support or oppose, and I think that would be helpful to the Members of the Committee.
Chairman HYDE. Does the Administration support or oppose what?
Mr. MENENDEZ. On any given amendment——
Chairman HYDE. Whatever we are talking about?
Mr. MENENDEZ [continuing]. That may rise to the level——
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. I suggest you just run down there and find someone from the Administration and they will whisper in your ear, but I am advised by the Parliamentarian that it is not regular order to engage in discussions with people in attendance who are not Members. Regular order is what we will be following.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to remind the Committee of that in the future.
Chairman HYDE. Well, we welcome your——
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Yes, Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. If I may for just one moment and in the spirit of comity to our friend from New Jersey, I ask unanimous consent to place in the record the letter you and I received from the Administration indicating the Administration's support for the bill without amendments, so we will know clearly what the Administration's position is.
Chairman HYDE. Yes. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Hon. TOM LANTOS,
Committee on International Relations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. LANTOS: I am writing to express the importance President Bush and the Administration place on moving expeditiously to pass new legislation providing a firm and modern basis for controlling exports of dual-use commodities and for implementing foreign policy controls when needed.
As the President has personally stated, we strongly support S. 149 as reported by the Senate Banking Committee. We urge you and the other members of the International Relations Committee to report favorably a bill containing the provisions of S. 149 expeditiously, and without amendment.
In particular, we oppose the provisions in §702 and 703 of H.R. 2581. These provisions would seriously impinge on the President's authorities under the Constitution to conduct foreign policy. In his June 6 statement concerning policy with respect to North Korea President Bush made clear the importance of ''improved implementation of the Agreed Framework relating to North Korea's nuclear activities.'' These provisions would call into question our ability to meet U.S. commitments under the Agreed Framework. Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act provides the Congress with the ability to consider carefully, and if it deems necessary, to disapprove, any nuclear cooperation agreement. Sections 702 and 703 of H.R. 2581 would raise the bar unnecessarily.
I ask for your support in working together to have the International Relations Committee report quickly, favorably, and without amendment a bill with the provisions of S. 149.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sincerely,
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. Accordingly, we will suspend consideration of the present measure and turn to consideration of two other bills.
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee report favorably on the bills H.R. 2368, Vietnam Human Rights Act, and H.R. 2272, Coral Reef and Coastal Marine Conservation Act of 2001——
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman reserves the right to object.
Let me finish. The Coastal Marine Conservation Act of 2001 with the amendments in the nature of a substitute which are at the desk and which all Members have before them deemed to be adopted.
[The text of the bills, H.R. 2368 and H.R. 2272, and amendments, follow:]
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073101.AAB
073101.AAC
073101.AAD
073101.AAE
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073101.AAF
073101.AAG
073101.AAH
073101.AAI
073101.AAJ
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073101.AAK
073101.AAL
073101.AAM
073101.AAN
073101.AAO
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073101.AAP
073101.AAQ
073101.AAR
073101.AAS
073101.AAT
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073001.AAB
073001.AAC
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073001.AAD
073001.AAE
073001.AAF
073001.AAG
073001.AAH
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073001.AAI
073001.AAJ
073001.AAK
073001.AAL
073001.AAM
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073001.AAN
073001.AAO
073001.AAP
073001.AAQ
073001.AAR
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
073001.AAS
073001.AAT
073001.AAU
073001.AAV
073001.AAW
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statements of Chairman Hyde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
H.R. 2368
I strongly support H.R. 2368, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act, and I want to thank and congratulate Representative Chris Smith, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and the other co-sponsors of this comprehensive human rights legislation.
In September, the House is likely to approve the U.S.-Viet Nam Bilateral Trade Agreement. We are all hopeful that free trade will improve the lives of the Vietnamese people and that it will eventually create irresistible domestic pressure for human rights and democracy in Vietnam. In the meantime, however, the Vietnamese government remains one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. Religious persecution—especially of Buddhists and of evangelical Protestants—has taken a turn for the worst during the last year, and since February the government has been engaged in a brutal crackdown against members of the Montagnard ethnic minority groups who participated in peaceful demonstrations seeking the return of their traditional lands.
I think it is important, therefore, that in expanding trade relations we avoid sending a message of approval or complacency about Hanoi's human rights record. This bill makes clear that progress toward freedom and democracy will continue to be a central theme of United States foreign policy toward Vietnam. It uses forms of leverage other than trade sanctions to promote this objective—such as conditions on nonhumanitarian foreign assistance, guarantees that U.S. educational and cultural exchange programs will be open to people who share our values, and serious efforts to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I urge the Committee to report this important legislation to the House with a favorable recommendation.
H.R. 2272
I am pleased that the Committee is marking up H.R. 2272, the Coral Reef and Coastal Marine Conservation Act of 2001, a bill introduced by our colleague, Mr. Kirk of Illinois, and cosponsored by the distinguished Chairman Emeritus of our Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York, Vice Chairman Chris Smith of New Jersey, and Mr. Faleomavaega of American Samoa .
H.R. 2272 authorizes $10 million for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2005, to build on the environmental and conservation programs of the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative and the Tropical Forest Conservation Act that was recently marked up by the Committee, passed by the Congress, and soon to be enacted into law by the President.
In simple terms, the Coral Reef and Coastal Marine Conservation Act helps to protect the world's dwindling coral reefs through debt-for-nature swaps, buy backs, or debt restructuring. This successful program, which is modeled on former President Bush's innovative Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, is another creative example of how we can address developing country debt while helping to protect our planet's environment.
The Act gives the President the authority to reduce certain forms of debt owed to the United States in exchange for the deposit by eligible developing countries of local currencies in a Coral Reef facility to preserve, restore, and maintain coral reefs throughout the developing world. These funds are used by qualified non-governmental organizations working to preserve the world's most endangered coral reefs.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This program is overseen by a board of directors in the United States that is comprised of U.S. public and private officials, and reports on progress made to implement the program are provided annually to the Congress. I am especially pleased that key U.S. Government agencies, including the State and Treasury Departments, as well as the Inter-American Foundation, are Members of the Enterprise for the Americas Board and charged with the oversight of these programs.
I commend Mr. Kirk for his leadership and dedication in promoting conservation efforts in the developing world.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, any Member may insert his or her remarks into the record on these two measures and the Chair recognizes Mr. Bereuter on his reservation.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will not delay the Chairman's intention to proceed with the disposition of these two items of legislation in this matter, but I did want to express a concern with respect to two provisions in H.R. 2368: Section 201(b)(2)(C) which relates to something categorized as non-humanitarian assistance, the Export-Import Bank of 1945, and section 202 which relates to multilateral development institutions and the International Monetary Fund. These provisions are within the jurisdiction of the House Financial Services Committee, and I would expect that we will take these up in a referral to the Committee. I have consulted with Chairman Oxley about that and he agrees.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am particularly concerned and would object in a rhetorical sense to the Export-Import Bank being included because the Export-Import Bank is not assistance to Vietnam. This is a denial of American firms the opportunity to compete for imports that Vietnamese would intend to make and the restrictions therefore are only on American businesses. Many of those transactions do not involve a subsidy, but are simply loan guarantees, and so I think it should not be included.
I can understand the arguments potentially on the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which is covered in an earlier section and which is within the jurisdiction of this Committee. But, I wanted to note my concerns about these two specific provisions and with that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
Chairman HYDE. Did Mr. Blumenauer wish to reserve?
He withdraws his wish to reserve.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will just identify myself with the comments from our colleague, Mr. Bereuter.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
I have an amendment at the desk, number 6.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde. Page 17, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 18, line 14 and insert the following.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the Chair recognizes himself to explain the amendment.
This amendment provides—I will wait until it is distributed.
[The amendment referred to follows:]
74409a1.eps
74409a2.eps
Chairman HYDE. This amendment provides the President with broadened authority to control items on the national security control list. It specifically ensures that he can set aside mandatory decontrol provisions in the bill pertaining to foreign availability and incorporated parts and components, sections 204 and/or 211, when he determines that the item could constitute a threat to the national security of the United States, replacing a more restrictive standard of what constitutes a significant threat.
This amendment further provides the President with the ability to place any item on this list and, if necessary, control its use through the licensing process. It leaves the discretion to the President to make a determination as to what constitutes a threat to our security and what items should be controlled pursuant to that threat.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With the escalation of terrorists and proliferation-related threats facing the United States, this amendment is needed to ensure that the President has the authorities he needs to place items of concern on the national security control list and to control their export notwithstanding other decontrol mandates in the bill, including an item's foreign availability and incorporation of parts and components subject to export control.
It is based on the premise that the Congress should not on the one hand be providing a wholesale delegation of its constitutional authority to regulate commerce and establish an export control system and on the other try to proscribe exactly how the President should maintain the integrity of that system in the face of unforeseen or undetermined external threats. In short, the President should not need a Geiger counter to be able to detect threats to our national security and to keep our export system in good repair.
This amendment is not intended to put undue obstacles in the face of our nation's exporters or otherwise thwart the process of the Secretary's review of all items on this control list. Rather, it intended to ensure that when compelling circumstances warrant, the President can ensure that adequate controls are in place to review an license any item which could constitute a threat to our national security.
Its adoption will ensure that we do not hamstring or otherwise limit his ability to make this determination. It maintains the non-delegation provision to ensure that this authority remains in the hands of the chief executive who will exercise it with care and discretion and it preserves the requirement in the bill that any determinations made by the President will also be promptly reported to the International Relations Committee and to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a worthy amendment raising the standards by which potential export items are going to be evaluated. And when items can be used for weapons of mass destruction programs, we should insist on these kind of higher standards as set forth in the Hyde amendment.
This amendment would give more specific guidance to our agency so that they will adhere to the highest of standards when making judgments about dual use items that could end up in weapons programs.
I thank the Chairman for this amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to identify myself with your statement on this amendment.
This is one of our key amendments which I believe the Committee must adopt. This bill gives the President of the United States authority to impose enhanced controls on exports that pose a threat to the United States. It allows him to set aside Department of Commerce decisions to decontrol an item.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The existing text of the bill requires that the threat must be determined to be significant before the President may use his authority. As we all know, sometimes the bureaucracy gets hung up for months on the definition of the word significant. The President of the United States ought to have the flexibility to control an item that could threaten our national security without waiting for a bureaucratic determination whether or not the threat meets the significant threshold.
The Secretary of Commerce is not elected by the American people. Some might argue that the President was also not elected, but that is another issue.
Chairman HYDE. Strike that from the record. [Laughter.]
Mr. LANTOS. I believe the President of the United States should be able to add items to the national security control list independently of whether or not any of his cabinet Secretaries agree.
I urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Is there further discussion?
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as a preface to this amendment and much of the debate that will take place, I just want to read two paragraphs from the letter Mr. Lantos entered into the record, in which on behalf of the Administration it says
''I am writing to express the importance President Bush and the Administration place on moving expeditiously to pass new legislation providing a firm and modern basis for controlling exports of dual use commodities and for implementing foreign policy controls when needed. As the President has personally stated, we strongly support,''
this is from the State Department,
''S. 149 as reported by the Senate Banking Committee. We urge you and other Members of the International Relations Committee to report favorably a bill containing the provisions of S. 149 expeditiously and without amendment.''
This amendment is not insignificant. This amendment lowers the threshold for a presidential determination from a significant threat to a threat. The Bush Administration has not requested this change, so they believe the President has adequate authority to make a decision to control whatever is deemed necessary.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It appears in terms of the amendment to expand the scope of enhanced controls to the entire act, rather than only title 2. This effectively eviscerates Title 3, Foreign Policy Disciplines and Accountability Requirements.
In addition, title 3, foreign policy controls, unlike enhanced controls, are not item specific, but rather end user or country specific. And, in addition, it allows the President, rather than the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Defense, to include items to put on the national security control list.
Now, I have heard the comments of the proponents saying we should not hamstring the President, we should provide flexibility and have specific guidance, but this in essence is all action that seemingly tries to benefit the President but is something that the President has said he does not want and does not need. And it is the beginning of a long list of amendments that really condition this legislation in a way in which it will undermine the balance that has been struck. To in essence expand the scope of enhanced controls to the entire act, rather than only title 2, is a rather major, major, substantive amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much. I appreciate my friend yielding.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we are really debating is whether it is the Secretary of Commerce or the President of the United States who is the ultimate official who should make determinations concerning threats to national security.
Now, I do not think one American in a thousand would argue that the Secretary of Commerce should be the ultimate authority. The President is the ultimate authority and Mr. Hyde's and my amendment merely places that authority where it belongs, in the hands of the President of the United States.
I want to thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's view, but in fact the President does have the authority to determine what is a significant threat and believes that he has the authority overall under the legislation as it was passed in the Senate to control whatever is deemed necessary. The expansion of that to other titles that were not meant to be included under enhanced control is far more than the President has asked for, far more than he seeks and, lastly, I think undermines the essence of an Export Administration Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. If I still have time, I would be happy to yield.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. May I ask for a clarification, Mr. Chairman?
It appears that the scope is enhanced for the entire bill and not just section 2. Section 2, as we know, deals with national security threats, other sections deal with——
Chairman HYDE. The entire bill, it applies.
Mr. FLAKE. So Mr. Menendez is correct, then, that it will expand the scope significantly, reducing to threat, not just significant threat, for issues that are not even a national security threat, but just foreign policy issues.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes. I will yield. Yes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I am trying to understand—that was what I was going to ask someone as well. While it substitutes title for act, act for title, it seems like a distinction without a difference. The only thing this affects is the national security control list. So what I was going to ask Mr. Menendez was where is this mention about foreign policy controls? Where does this have effect on any other aspect of export controls other than the national security control list, which is a list that is the basis for the Secretary of Commerce's national security export controls?
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So whether it says title or act, I do not understand what authority is affected. I understand the different standard, significant threat to threat, could to would, and perhaps counsel to the Committee or someone could just—I think it is important to find out whether we are talking about something real or not here because it looks to me at first blush like it does not change anything, changing title to act.
Chairman HYDE. Well, it applies to the national security control list. That is about the fifth line, the sixth line.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, but that was in the particular title.
Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, those are contained in title 2 and you said that this does expand it beyond title 2. Is there a contradiction there?
Chairman HYDE. Well, it confines its expansion to those items on the national security control list. That is what it says specifically, lines 5 and 6.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield further?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. But the only national security control list is in title 2, so expanding it to the entire act adds nothing more than was in the Senate bill.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. That is correct.
Mr. ACKERMAN. So we could, by unanimous consent, change your amendment to go from act back to title and have no impact on what you were intending.
Mr. FLAKE. But foreign policy controls, unlike enhanced controls, are not item specific.
Mr. ACKERMAN. And foreign policy controls are not national security control list items. They are separately controlled items to end users or to countries that have nothing to do with the national security control list.
Chairman HYDE. We can clarify this very quickly.
I ask unanimous consent that the word ''act'' in line 3 be changed to title.
Without objection, so ordered.
Is there any further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Hyde.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All those in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[Chorus of nayes.]
Chairman HYDE. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it and the amendment——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, on that I request a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman requests a recorded vote and Ms. Bloomer will read the roster.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes yes. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes. Mr. King?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Pitts?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. Yes.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes yes. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes yes. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes no. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes yes. Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Pass.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes. Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks?
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MEEKS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Nay.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes no. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berkley votes yes. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Aye.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes yes. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Watson votes yes. Mr. Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Sherman votes yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Aye.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes yes.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am sorry. Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there are 29 ayes and five noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lantos for purposes of an amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could I just have a point of personal privilege for one moment?
We have a long session here today and I would just like to ask as a favor to those of us who are trying to get a job done. We understand where there are honest disagreements, but unless it really is important to call for a vote, and I personally do not believe the last vote was necessary to call for a vote, I would hope that our Members let us move forward and get the job done as quickly as possible.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When there are honest disagreements and we have a contention, sure, let us fight it out and let us call for votes but if it is not going to be a contentious issue, let us get on with the business.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the Lantos amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Lantos. Page 42, insert the following after line 7, (4) to control the export of test articles intended for clinical investigation.
Mr. LANTOS. I ask that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
74409b.eps
74409c.eps
74409d.eps
74409e.eps
74409f.eps
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
74409g.eps
74409h.eps
74409i.eps
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I offer my en bloc amendment out of concern that the United States and other western nations are directly contributing to human suffering overseas in the widespread violation of internationally recognized human rights by exporting specific torture products and experimental medicine for human experimentation.
I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you have joined me as a co-sponsor of this en bloc amendment.
The first part of my en bloc amendment would write into law a standard that should be an axiom of U.S. human rights foreign policy. The United States, while it seeks to improve respect for the basic human rights of persons throughout the globe, ought not to sell torture implements that make it easier for them to inflict pain and suffering on their helpless victims.
In the right hands, crime control equipment can protect the innocent. In the wrong hands, it is used on the innocent.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
No United States exporter should ever want to sell its products to a government or government-supported groups that will use these products to torture citizens overseas. U.S. exporters do not have the resources to know the totality of the human rights practices of their prospective customers. It is up to our government to ensure that American products do not go to abusive governments.
My amendment will ensure that there is a presumption of denial of legitimate but easily abused crime control equipment to nations that torture. My amendment will not interfere with the legitimate trade in crime control items to responsible countries.
The amendment also prohibits the outright export of certain types of equipment that is especially susceptible to abuse, such as torture implements, saps and blackjacks, steel lengths jacketed in flexible leather or leather wands intended to deliver blunt force impacts. They may be billed as self-defense instruments, but in reality they are most effective against unarmed, immobilized persons.
Thumb cuffs, sometimes with serrated edges, are abominable devices.
The export of electroshock discharge weapons from stun wands to hand-held self-defense ''zappers'' is also troubling, since they can be easily used as torture devices. Electroshock stun belts worn around the waist and delivering a shock by remote control are especially difficult to justify as self-defense devices.
I urge my colleagues to support this common sense addition to the Export Administration Act.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second part of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, would stop a very disturbing practice of some American pharmaceutical companies, namely, the use of human beings in poor countries as guinea pigs in experimental drug tests.
I would first like to make clear that I am not opposed to U.S. drug companies testing overseas, but I believe these tests must be conducted under standards no less rigorous than if these tests were conducted in the United States. Human life in any underdeveloped country is as valuable as human life in California or New York.
Mr. Chairman, as the pace and scope of clinical trials for biomedical and behavioral research have increased here at home, the number of experiments conducted overseas, particularly in poor countries, has also expanded dramatically.
More often than not, human participants in clinical trials overseas are poor, illiterate and uninformed. Poverty in these countries provides an opportunity for unethical researchers to disregard the protection of the rights and welfare of poor individuals to hurry their test results and rush drugs to market.
Two weeks ago, the Administration suspended all federally funded research at Johns Hopkins University because one human participant died. In the third world, death during experiments is too often an accepted casualty of science or, in some cases, outright negligence.
Last December, Mr. Chairman, The Washington Post published a shocking six-part investigation on the use of poor and illiterate people in the developing world as human guinea pigs for experimental medication. Instead of submitting experimental drugs for approval on human subjects here in the United States, companies are increasingly going overseas to conduct these dangerous experiments to save money and to avoid having to inform people of risks.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Nigeria, for instance, children in a meningitis experiment were given a drug unapproved by the FDA for experimentation on humans in this country. Eleven children died, and I wish that Chief Executive Officers of those companies who did this would have to look into the eyes of the mothers whose children are no longer with us.
In Argentina, a father of three died after emergency surgery failed to close a hole in his heart. It turns out that the problem with his heart could be directly traced to the experimental medication given to him by doctors. His signature had been forged on the consent form.
In my native city of Budapest, two psychiatric patients were pressured for weeks on end to agree to participate in an experimental drug test. They eventually submitted to the human experimentation without any knowledge of the risks of the medicine they were taking.
In many places, the only way to get medical treatment in many institutions is to agree to take experimental drugs. One Swiss company known to violate the rights of patients, including that of informed consent, has performed 161 human drug trials for some of the world's best known pharmaceutical companies.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that the United States Government do all it can to help protect human beings in poor countries who are vulnerable to unethical biomedical and behavioral researchers.
This amendment, the Lantos-Hyde amendment, will provide one important safeguard by requiring pharmaceutical companies wishing to export experimental drugs intended for clinical research overseas to have successfully passed the research protocols here in the United States required for human experimentation.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The amendment will also require that more information be provided to Congress on these exports used in human experimentation.
Our amendment will help ensure that overseas research conducted by American companies meets the same high ethical standards for patients we enforce in this country for ourselves. We would not want our spouses, our children, or our grandchildren to be subjected to experimental drugs without their informed consent. Husbands, wives, kids, grandkids in the developing world should not get any less protection.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the Hyde-Lantos amendment number 21 and the Hyde-Lantos amendment number 15.
Amendment number 21 requires export licensing for crime control detention instruments so that they do not go to countries and organizations that use torture. This amendment is needed to make more certain that crime control and detention devices will not be exported to any nation that repeatedly engages in acts of torture. We do not want our products to be used for such atrocious purposes and I urge our colleagues to support that amendment.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to the Hyde-Lantos amendment number 15 on testing articles, the amendment, as Mr. Lantos noted, regulates the export of test articles that are intended for clinical investigations involving human subjects so as to foster public health safety. This amendment will ensure that any test articles for clinical investigations will be permitted for export only if they meet adequate safety standards.
This amendment will help us to maintain our high testing standards for our exports. We want our foreign trading partners to enjoy the same high standards as our nation does.
I thank the Chairman for yielding.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Lee is next.
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to acknowledge my support and thank Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde for offering this amendment. I just have one question with regard to this. As it is carried out, if in fact, for instance, a pharmaceutical did not meet the test and proceeded anyway to export either drugs or the clinical trial procedures, what type of——
Mr. LANTOS. They would be in violation of law.
Ms. LEE. They would be in violation. So the current law that would impose whatever penalties there are in place would be applied.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. That is correct. My colleague is correct.
Ms. LEE. Thank you very much.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I commend both of you for these fine amendments, but I do have a question on amendment number 21 with regard to the exemption where it says ''except as provided in subsection (c), subsection (a) shall not apply to exports to countries that are NATO or major non-NATO allies.''
I am wondering whether or not Turkey is then exempted. Turkey certainly has a very serious problem with the pervasive use of torture in its prisons. I personally have held a number of hearings on that. I have gone to ANKARA and raised the issue myself. I am not precisely sure whether or not some of these items—I think electroshock and some of those other items—I do not know if American companies have actually sold these. I know we are not asking the State Department or the Administration, but they may be able to shed some light on that.
Also, what is the definition of a non-NATO ally? I mean, are there countries there that might also have a problem with torture in their prisons?
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Questions, as always, are excellent. Non-NATO ally would, for instance, be Australia, which has testing procedures and standards fully comparable to our own.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I was speaking to the torture implements, amendment number 21.
Mr. LANTOS. If a country—let us assume that a NATO country is found to engage systematically in torture under the provisions of the act, it would not be qualified to have such items exported to it.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. So the exemption would not apply to them?
Mr. LANTOS. So the exemption would not apply. My friend is correct.
Chairman HYDE. Any further discussion?
The gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. You know, who could argue with Mr. Lantos' propositions?
Mr. LANTOS. I am glad to hear that.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. With all due respect, I guess I will. The reality is that all of the things that Mr. Lantos seeks to do are desirous except that this is not the venue and, secondly, the way he seeks to do it is incredibly broad.
First of all, for my colleagues who may not follow this particular line of inquiry in terms of what we are doing here today, the whole purpose of an Export Administration Act follows along two basic purposes: national security and foreign policy. Section 201 of the bill defines national security purposes to be to restrict the exports that would contribute to the military potential of countries so as to prove detrimental to the national security of the United States, to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, and to deter acts of international terrorism.
And then section 301(b) defines foreign policy purposes to be to promote the foreign policy objectives of the United States, to promote international peace, stability, and respect for fundamental human rights and to deter and punish acts of international terrorism.
Now, if you look under the provisions of the amendment as it relates to what would seemingly be something that one would clearly want to accept, preventing export of instruments of torture, it effectively would prohibit what may be legitimate exports for legitimate uses. Although it purports to provide exceptions for legitimate exports, the exceptions definition would virtually be impossible to meet.
For example, an export may go forward only if the end user, the entity receiving it, has not engaged in torture, the instruments have legitimate law enforcement purposes and the instruments cannot be used to inflict torture. Yet that definition renders the exception meaningless since few items from common household goods to sports equipment could not be used to inflict torture. Therefore, this is so broad that even the good intentions mean we are going to capture this in such a way that in essence we are really going to have an act bogged down in the ability of America to compete abroad without the real purposes of national security, which is the purpose of an Export Administration Act, and even in the promotion of legitimate foreign policy principles.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And you are going to include a whole new area in the area of pharmaceuticals that has absolutely nothing to do with national security issues. All of these circumstances that Mr. Lantos descried are in a civilian context, not having to do with either national security or even in terms of a rogue regime or a regime that enforces torture. All of those examples were in democratic governments, for the most part. So this is locking the Export Administration Act into a whole new field that is not intended.
My colleagues, what we seek to do in this act, what has been the history of this act and its predecessors, is to think of this as an iceberg and that tip of the iceberg is what America uniquely can control and has, and that we should control at any cost in our national interests. The rest of that iceberg is available out there in the world, where any other country is going to be able to sell, that should not be controlled. We should not put American businesses at a disadvantage and at the same time, I will argue later at another opportunity in terms of our defense capabilities, undermine our defense capabilities in this global environment.
So I understand all of the great things Mr. Lantos wants to do, but what in essence this is an attempt to do is to broaden in such a way, including things that never historically have been meant to be included in the Export Administration Act, and to define it in such a broad way that you could not possibly export any of these items because any of those instruments could be used to inflict torture. Any of those instruments. Believe me, even my golf club could be used to inflict torture and it has on more than one occasion on myself.
So the bottom line is that it is overly broad and, again, well intentioned——
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Will my friend yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. The gentleman has had far more time than I have, but I would be happy to—since my red light is on, I do not know if I have any more time, but if the Chair permits me, I would be happy to.
Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate my friend yielding.
There are three observations I would like to make. The first one concerns your comment, Mr. Menendez, that national security and foreign policy are the only subjects we deal with. I know I do not need to remind you that human rights have become, certainly since the Carter Administration with the establishment of a whole office of human rights, the creation of the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, and the publication of an almost 2000-page human rights report indicating human rights conditions in every country of the world, a very legitimate concern of foreign policy of this country. So when we are dealing with human rights matters, we are dealing with U.S. foreign policy.
Secondly, while I suspect your golf club under certain circumstances can be viewed as an instrument of torture, I think it is a frivolous aspect of your comment to confuse those items with the enormously painful physical torture inflicted on large numbers of men, women and children in countries——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time——
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. If you will allow me to finish the sentence——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I am not going to allow the gentleman as I gave him the courtesy of yielding to him to then undermine and basically, more importantly, categorize differently what I am saying.
When you in fact say that instruments cannot be used to inflict torture in that broad context, you have a wide range of issues, not the ones that you mention, which we would all agree on, but a wide range of items that could be exported that all could fall into that category. So while listing some that we would universally agree to, you have by the insertion of that clause created an enormous catch-all which I was humorously trying to give an example of. The reality is that you have so many items that would fall under that, that you would render the ability to export relatively impossible under that section and that is what is objectionable.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair yields himself 5 minutes and yields to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I thank my friend. We will have a vote on this in a minute or 2, and those who choose to legalize torture instruments to regimes which systematically torture their citizens will be free to vote against the amendment; also those who feel that medical experimentation without proper safeguards is fully appropriate when it is carried out on individuals in third world countries who are illiterate, ignorant and have no idea what is happening. I think the Committee will wish to express its view that if we insist on criteria for medical experimentation in this country as we introduce new drugs, those same criteria should be used abroad, and I want to thank the Chair.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. My concern also, Mr. Chairman, is the possible unintended broadness of these particular two amendments. Does this mean that our companies can't sell pharmaceutical products to another country that approves the use of a particular drug in that country, if the FDA has not approved the drug in this country? Is the only way to make that sale is for the pharmaceutical company to move to that other country to produce that product?
Does this mean that items such as——
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield for an answer?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Let me finish the rest of my question.
Does it mean that items that could be used for torture, maybe it is cattle probes, maybe it is something else, are going to have to go through this rigorous bureaucratic hurdles of licensing to accommodate the language of the law? I am just looking at the language here, where it says you shall identify, you shall prove in the licensing and you shall specify the intended purpose the product is going to be used.
I am just a little bit concerned, Mr. Lantos, that this might end up being much broader and a larger bureaucratic harassment of exporters than you intend. Certainly I would yield and I relinquish back the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Houghton, who has been patiently waiting while the Chair has glossed over him so many times.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a very simple question: Why is this needed at all? I mean, the President has the right to do what we are saying. Why do we have to superimpose another, more refined law?
Mr. LANTOS. Because current legislation does not deal with the issue, Mr. Houghton.
To answer my other friend's question, the pharmaceutical exports relate only for experimentation purposes. If we are not allowed to use these for experimental purposes, for research purposes here, we should not use them in Nigeria.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. But even if that country has approved that particular drug for use in that country?
Mr. LANTOS. Well, the whole issue is that many countries, particularly in the underdeveloped world, as my friend knows, I presume, as well as I do, have non-existent or minimal criteria. That is why we have exempted countries like Switzerland or Holland or the United Kingdom, which have comparable FDA type organizations where the criteria are acceptable and we waive the legislation, insofar as countries are concerned, which test drugs responsibly. Nigeria does not do it. Many of the underdeveloped countries do not do it. So to get a stamp of approval from the Nigerian FDA does not give much comfort to the mother whose child will die as a result of using that medication.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the gentleman from New York yield?
Mr. Houghton, I believe you have the time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Houghton does have the time.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, I will, but let me just say something before I yield because, if I understand it, under current foreign policy definition, the President is able to decide that imposing controls on pharmaceutical products promotes the foreign policy objectives of the United States without having to amend the law itself.
So having said that, I would——
Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman——
Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I wanted to make two points. The one he just made, that under the act right now the President would have the power to make that decision if he believed that in the foreign policy interests of the United States, including for human rights purposes, that this would be something that he in fact would want to invoke the power to stop from export.
Secondly, in the pharmaceutical context, we are now telling democracies abroad what they can and cannot do. I have often heard many of my colleagues here suggest that in fact our interventionism abroad, denying those to do that which they seek to do under the views of what they believe is in the best interests of their systems, countries democratically elected, that they in fact will not be able to achieve the values of protocols that will be developed in their countries that can have lifesaving, life-enhancing drugs that ultimately will improve the lives of their citizens.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So this is a unique twist on a set of circumstances that the President has the power to control in the first place and, secondly, that we are now beginning—we will tell those countries, including democracies, what they can and cannot do in the interests of their citizens.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Doug Bereuter. We will take whichever one of you wishes to go first.
Mr. BEREUTER. We will share the time.
Chairman HYDE. All right.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith and I have been laboring over the language here. I have two questions. I know Mr. Smith shares one of those questions, if I could address it to Mr. Lantos.
With respect to the amendment that deals with crime control equipment——
Chairman HYDE. If the gentleman would withhold, we have a vote. There are going to be three votes, I am informed. The Chair will recess until 2 p.m. The reason for the long lunch hour is there are intervening functions that must be attended, but we will be back at 2 o'clock and if the gentleman would withhold and renew his motion.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Committee stands in recess until 2 p.m.
[Recess.]
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. When the Committee recessed, we were marking up the bill, H.R. 2581, the Export Administration Act of 2001. Pending were amendments 15 and 21, which were offered en bloc by Mr. Lantos, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the Hyde-Lantos amendment number 21 be modified by the text that I have at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the text.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, just reserving the right to object. I have not seen the language, so I do not know what it says.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman reserves the right to object. Do we have any help in distributing these? Highly paid and technical staff, please distribute the papers. The clerk will report the modification.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Lantos: Page 57, strike line one and all that follows——
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The amendment referred to follows:]
080101.AAB
080101.AAC
080101.AAD
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the Chair recognizes Mr. Lantos for 5 minutes in support thereof.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I believe the modifications in this amendment address the concerns that were raised in our morning session. The changes would do two things. First, they would require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a list of equipment that is designated as especially susceptible to abuse for torture and make that list available to the public. I want to assure Members that the Administration is not going to put golf clubs and baseball bats on the list of torture devices.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, my modification would ensure that the prohibition on such specific items as leg irons, saps, black jacks, and electroshock stun belts, and thumb cuffs would be prohibited to any country, including NATO and non-NATO allies.
I would like to clarify a couple of other points. This Hyde-Lantos amendment is not introducing a new subject into the legislation or even current law. Section 311 in the current Export Administration Act already stipulates that crime-control equipment must be licensed. This amendment would also not prevent the export of legitimate crime-control equipment, from police helmets and shields to fingerprinting equipment. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. I would say that by the rearrangement of the gentleman's amendment and specifically what he has done in the new subsection E, it answers this Member's concern. I cannot speak for Mr. Smith, but we seem to have the same concern, so I assume it would be satisfactory to him, too. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I do not know what the parliamentary procedure is. Is it in order to amend an amendment?
Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would like to amend this amendment to exclude lines 19, 20, and 21 because I do not see any need—if we are going to have a ban on this type of equipment that is used for torture, et cetera, I do not see any reason we should be excluding our allies. Why are we saying we can ship this sort of stuff to our allies?
Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. This was a point that we made, and if you see the way that it is reconstituted, if you look at lines 23 on page two, it excludes subsection D above. So in other words, none of these items—leg irons, saps, black jacks, and so on—can be exported to anyone, and that is the concern that Mr. Smith and I had. But I think the gentleman, by the words on line 23 at page two, has solved that problem.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay.
Mr. LANTOS. If the gentleman will yield.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Why don't we just eliminate those three lines, then? If we are not making the exceptions, why don't we just eliminate those three lines to make it clear that we are not saying that if you are a friend of the United States, you get all of these torture devices, but if you are not a friend of the United States, well, then we cannot export it?
Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield again?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure.
Mr. BEREUTER. I think the reason, and the gentleman from California can pursue this if he wishes, but the provisions on lines 1 through 18 apply in general to crime-control equipment, and we make exceptions for those for NATO and major non-NATO allies. And then they created a new category of those things that are susceptible to use or specifically designed for use of torture. We are saying they should not be exported at all, and the gentleman, therefore, has moved them to subsection E.
But the other provisions related to crime-control equipment are found on the part that reads from line 1 through line 18, and so we would have to have an exception for those just for our NATO allies and major non-NATO allies for crime-control equipment generally. But the items that could be used for torture are specifically in a different section now.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. My reading of lines 9, 10, 11, and 12 suggests that that is not correct. I would move that lines 19, 20, and 21 be extracted from this amendment. That is my amendment.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. We are happy to accept your clarification. We are in full accord with what you are saying and what our friend from Nebraska explains. We are all on the same wavelength.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. But 19, 20, and 21 will be excluded from the amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. The current law has an exception for general licensing for NATO members and major non-NATO allies, and this preserves that general exception. We are fully in accord with you that no items of torture may be exported to any country, NATO or non-NATO.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Correct. So thus eliminating 19, 20, and 21 will——
Mr. LANTOS. No, because that refers to a general exception. We have a blanket prohibition on torture items, but we have an exception for NATO and major non-NATO countries, for instance, on fingerprinting equipment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Which is current law.
Mr. LANTOS. Which is current law.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Subsection A is crime-control-detection instruments, and equipment shall not be approved for export. And you are saying that subsection A does not deal with torture equipment.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. That is correct.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Where is the section, then, that deals with the export——
Mr. LANTOS. Absolute prohibition?
Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. With the export of torture equipment?
Mr. LANTOS. Section E.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Section E. And you are saying that there is no——
Mr. LANTOS [continuing]. Exception there.
Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. There is no exception there?
Mr. LANTOS. That is correct.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. That is fine with me. I withdraw my amendment.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Blumenauer, was it you? I am sorry. Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have just got to say here that I do not, again, know why we are micromanaging this. We have proper safeguards. The people who are in business are not unpatriotic. They want to be able to have the freedom not only with this, but I see the pattern in some of these amendments that is going to put a lock and a hobble on the ability to export perfectly normal products, and I just wonder why we are getting into this detail. It seems sort of under the guise of preventing exports of torture it effectively would prohibit many legitimate exports for legitimate purposes.
Mr. LANTOS. Will my friend yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Absolutely.
Mr. LANTOS. We have no intention to micromanage. It is a significant statement by the Congress of the United States that it does not wish torture equipment exported. This is not micromanagement. This is a functional policy declaration which does not exist today, and I would think that my dear friend from New York would enthusiastically support it.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We now do not have this provision. I am not questioning the patriotism of exporters, but I think there are some exporters who are ready to make a buck under any circumstances, and I do not want them to export from the United States equipment used for torture.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I want to piggy-back on his comment. While it may not be the intention to micromanage, in fact, that is what is being done because the gentleman from California who has offered the amendment to his original amendment said in his statement in offering it that, in fact, in defense that this is not opening up a new field under the Export Administration Act, that this is already included under the act. That is the point I tried to make earlier, that, in fact, the wherewithal of the President of the United States, whether in terms of national security or in pursuit of foreign policy, including human rights, could, in fact, stop such exportation from taking place.
So, in fact, what we are doing is what the gentleman from New York is trying to cause alarm for all of us to consider, which is that, in fact, we are micromanaging this in a way that makes it so cumbersome that the good intentions it is meant for will ultimately undermine a series of legitimate exports that should not be controlled and should have the flow of commerce. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Well, if I have any time remaining, I guess what I am getting at is this, and we have talked about this before, that everything in business is timing. Everything is an element of confidence. And if you assume the blackest purposes on the part of people in the industry, then obviously you have to have this sort of super-sleuth approach to this. Basically our laws are such that they cover these things. But when you get into saps and leg irons and black jacks and things like that, I really think you are going beyond what we want to try to do.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Will my good friend yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Mr. LANTOS. It seems we are damned if we do, and we are damned if we do not. If we do not specify this torture equipment, then the critics will say it is too general; everything can be subsumed under torture equipment. When we accommodate the criticism and specifically designate these items of torture, then we are accused of micromanaging it.
We will have to resolve it with a vote. Those who wish to see any American company export torture items will vote no on my amendment, and those who do not want to see American companies, if any, exporting torture items will vote yes. I mean, we either are too general or we micromanage. So the thing to do is to remain silent at a time when torture equipment is being exported? Not everybody has the business ethics that my good friend, Amo Houghton has in such tremendous abundance.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Well, I guess the only comment I have is I would rather not be painted into a position of either voting for or against, and if I vote against, it means I am for the export of torture equipment. I do not feel that way.
Mr. LANTOS. I know you do not.
Mr. HOUGHTON. But there is a certain sort of a general approach and discipline which business must be given on their own rather than getting into every single detail. And I say this, and then I will be quiet because my time is up, because I just see that thread through all of these amendments. It just bothers me.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Well, if my friend will yield, all laws are directed at people who are not acting in an ethical fashion. We do not need laws against murder when it comes to Amo Houghton. We do need laws against murder for some people, and we do need this provision vis-a-vis businesses that would otherwise export torture equipment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Mr. Houghton and Mr. Menendez and others who worry about the reach here. Let me just bring up one example.
We are not just talking about the exporters of leg irons or thumb screws. I have no brief for any thumb screw manufacturers. I do not think there are any in my district. What I worry about, though, is we talk about components produced. We talk about the technologies used.
Now, I am not an engineer, but it seems to me that machine tools that can be used to make leg irons can also be used to make piston rings. And what risk do you run when you talk about the end user being a country is, for example, a U.S. subsidiary in Zimbabwe, where they may be torturing people there, may be producing piston rings with machine tools that could be used to make leg irons? The reach here is substantial, and we do not have to bring up examples of golf clubs or baseball bats being used for torture because the reach, when you talk about technology and components, is so broad and so deep, that I think there are legitimate concerns here.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the gentleman from Arizona yield?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I will.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I just want to say that I have immense respect and admiration for Mr. Lantos and his advocacy, and I understand what he is doing here. And I certainly will not call a vote on this amendment because I do not think that any Member should be put in that context.
However, what I do want to take this opportunity is to show our colleagues on the Committee the pattern of where we are headed. We are going to have amendments that will not put Members in the difficult nature of torture or psychotherapy, pharmaceuticals, and other things. They will go to the crux as to whether—it is very honest to say I disagree with the mass-market availability and foreign availabilities of any given product, and that is a legitimate, functional difference.
This unfortunately is a set of circumstances in which there is a broad overreach, not really ever in the historical nature of the act already by the author's own words, already taken care of under the underlying act. So when we get past this, then we are going to come to the real issues as to whether we really want to have an ability to export or whether we, in fact, want to hamper ourselves, lift back on the 20th century, and understand that we are going to further narrow our defense capabilities. And I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman?
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa.
Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I just want to point out one more flaw in this amendment. I know it is well intentioned, but in reviewing it, I see where clearly pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, and others intend to be nonlethal law enforcement, clearly operating under the color of law but designed to inflict pain for the intended purpose of limiting the lethal use that might otherwise occur, without a doubt would fall under any reasonable interpretation. I am not sure that a 45-caliber automatic would not equally fall under this. I have no question that this is overly broad and in its current form cannot go forward. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. FLAKE. Just to finish with my time, let me just say, I think that the point that Mr. Houghton made and made effectively is that this is a problem that we have throughout these amendments. We are just getting into areas that the export-control regime has never gotten into before, that are going so broad, and that is why the Administration is opposing it, is opposing these amendments. I hope that we can stay closer to the Senate version.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to say I strongly support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a good one. When it comes to torture, whether we talk about micromanaging or macromanaging or any kind of managing, frankly, I do not think we can do enough.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think some of us may not fully appreciate how torture is on the rise, especially in repressive regimes. With trade becoming increasingly divorced from anything whatsoever to do with human rights, it seems to me, we have done this time and time again—China, PNTR, all of these issues. If we cannot narrowly single out an area—and to the gentleman who just spoke, his comments about ''overly broad,'' the language says, after it names some specific items like electroshock stun belts, thumb cuffs, and items specifically designed as implements of torture—it makes it very clear these are items that are designed to torture. The language then provides, ''as determined by the Secretary,'' so it gives some flexibility to the Secretary.
Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH [continuing]. In a second. The Secretary would determine what would be included, and what would be precluded. The clear intent is to include obviously (by name) those things that are mentioned in the amendment, but I think this language is very clear. Let me also say to my friends, we have had hearings on torture. There are 400,000 people in the United States who have been victims of torture overseas who walk our streets, the walking wounded.
In other countries the number far exceeds that number, particularly in a lot of Warsaw Pact countries, and particularly in a place like China, where if you are arrested, you can take it to the bank you are going to be tortured. If you are Falun Gong, Catholic, Protestant, Uighurs, Buddhists, or if you are a petty criminal, you will make your confession under the duress of torture. It seems to me that this kind of export control, which very clearly stipulates those types of instruments——
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH. I will be happy to yield.
Chairman HYDE. Not only does it stipulate these types of instruments, but it is confined—it says, ''if the government of such country or any group supported by or acting on behalf of such government has repeatedly engaged in acts of torture.'' So it is not every government. We are not talking about Great Britain. We are talking about countries that have repeatedly engaged in acts of torture. So you have a proscription on the type of torture weapon and the type of country we are talking about.
Now, if you want to vote to sell those things, if you think all businessmen are great and on the square, I do not know who is selling the dope around here, but there are people who are not necessarily members of the Rotary in good standing in the world of commerce. But be that as it may, this is a good amendment. It talks about the countries that repeatedly, not occasionally or sporadically, repeatedly engage in acts of torture. So thank you for yielding, and you have some more time if you want.
Mr. ISSA. Thank you for yielding. I might point out specifically on leg irons, leg irons are required when a dangerous criminal, such as a murderer such as Timothy McVeigh, comes into a Federal court. We are talking about at least one named item that is used every day in probably every state, certainly in my state of California, for prisoners when being transported.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we are describing a torture means which we use, which the gentleman from Arizona sees his famous sheriff every day using on these folks. So I think we have to be very careful because we have gone well intended down a road where we are describing ourselves as a human-rights offender by describing that.
Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to yield to the Chairman. You are absolutely right. I have seen prisoners at National Airport with leg irons on and glad they had them on because I was sitting next to them. But you must combine that with a country that repeatedly engages in acts of torture. I am not so comfortable about that. And the gentleman ought to not to be either. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman would yield, I will be very brief. I am inclined to support the amendment, but I just have one question. The gentleman from California raised the issue about a 45 caliber. We do not want to get into the whole gun issue, but is anybody suggesting that a gun necessarily could be considered as a category that would be included here?
Mr. LANTOS. Guns are in no way involved in this legislation.
Mr. CHABOT. That is what I would have assumed. I just wanted to make sure.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. That is correct.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Lantos-Hyde amendments numbers 15 and 21 en bloc, as modified. All of those in favor say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[A chorus of noes.]
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman shall be acceded to. The gentlelady will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes. Mr. King?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes no. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Pitts?
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PITTS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes yes. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes no. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes no. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes no. Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos?
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes. Mr. Menendez?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes. Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes yes. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes. Mr. Blumenauer?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley?
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley votes yes. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes yes. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Watson votes yes. Mr. Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Yes.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Cooksey?
Mr. COOKSEY. Please record me as a ''no'' vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye, please. I would vote aye.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach votes aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman?
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I just ask how I am recorded.
Chairman HYDE. Melodically.
Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you—how I am recorded?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo voted no.
Mr. TANCREDO. I wish to be recorded as voting aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted?
Ms. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Davis.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. DAVIS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 25 ayes and 8 noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendments are agreed to. Are there further amendments? What is the next amendment? Amendment number 5. The clerk will report amendment number 5, authored by Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos. Page 17, strike lines 13 through 17 and insert the following——
[The amendment referred to follows:]
74409j.eps
74409k.eps
74409l.eps
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the Chair grants himself 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This amendment includes language that is virtually identical to that contained in the bill providing for the codification of the Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative, EPCI, or catch-all standard providing for controls to be imposed based on the end use and end user for the export of any item that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them. Controls may be imposed, notwithstanding any other provision of the act, providing the President with the widest possible flexibility and discretion in their implementation.
The amendment directs the President to strengthen multilateral cooperation among all countries with similar EPCI standards to identify more effectively end users of concern. It also instructs the Secretary to establish and maintain a list of items to be controlled on a data base listing end users of concern, which could be used by exporters to screen prospective end users.
The amendment further employs for a presumption of denial for the export of any item under certain circumstances. Specifically, it provides for the resumption of denial if the end user designated to receive such item is involved in a program or activity developing weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them and is in a country that is not a member of a regime controlling such weapons or the means to deliver them unless the Secretary, together with the Secretaries of State and Defense, determine that the export would not make a material contribution to the program or activity.
The amendment similarly provides for a presumption of denial for the export of any item which would make, in the determination of the Secretary with the concurrence of Secretaries of State and Defense, a contribution to the military capabilities of a country that would undermine regional stability or otherwise adversely affect the national security of the U.S., a NATO ally, or a major non-NATO ally.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Adoption of this amendment would improve the ability of our export-control system to meet the security and proliferation challenges it faces in the decades to come by establishing a clear standard designed to protect U.S. national interests. First, it provides the statutory basis for the Administration to keep its Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative, EPCI, in place against the export of any item for a program or activity of an end use or user that is directly involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them.
Second, it calls on the President to improve multilateral control efforts to identify suspect end users and to harmonize the standards and policies for other comparable proliferation regime systems being put in place by many of our trading partners. And third, it also directs the Administration to increase the transparency of the EPCI and to establish and maintain a list of items being controlled on a data base, including end users of concern.
Finally, the amendment provides for a presumption of denial for the export of an item to end users involved in a program or activity designed to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them unless the Secretary, along with Secretaries of State and Defense, determines that the item would not make a material contribution to this program or activity.
It further stipulates, there should be a presumption of denial for the export of an item to an end user if it would make a contribution to the military capabilities of a country so as to undermine regional stability or to damage U.S. national security or that of a NATO ally or a major non-NATO ally.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The adoption of this amendment will ensure that our export-control policy is built on a solid framework targeting items being procured by suspect end users determined to engage in the development of weapons of mass destruction or military capabilities designed to damage U.S. interests or those of our closest allies. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is one of our key amendments which has my unequivocal support. Our amendment deals with the issue of exports to end users who are involved in destabilizing activities.
The amendment changes the bill in two ways. First, it ensures that the President will cooperate with other countries in identifying potentially dangerous buyers of American dual-use products, and it requires the President to create a data base of such buyers. This will improve multilateral controls and foster transparency for exporters and does not represent a substantive change.
The amendment also establishes in general a denial of an export to a buyer who is involved in programs developing weapons of mass destruction or related missile programs if the export could make a material contribution to those programs. The same guidance applies if the export would undermine regional stability of undermine the United States, our NATO allies, or our major non-NATO allies.
This amendment is similar to current practice and does not create a complete prohibition. It merely says that such items generally should not be exported. If we are serious about stemming proliferation and ensuring regional stability, we should adopt this amendment, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I vigorously oppose this amendment, and now that we have gotten past the torture, we can now look at the crux of what this bill is really all about. And in that regard I think that I would ask my colleagues to seriously think which avenue do you want to pursue.
Do you want to pursue an avenue that balances the great national-security interests that we have along with the commercial interests that we have in a world in which, to think that the United States is the sole possessor of a wide variety of technology and products and by hording it and keeping it away from the rest of the world, we can be superior? If you believe that is the case, then you can vote with Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde on these amendments. However, the reality of the world is that it is much different.
One of the experts in this field, who was a former member of the Reagan Administration, said the following:
''In other words, much of the technology the United States is most anticipating leveraging to maintain military dominance, information-related technology developed largely in the commercial sector, is that which DOD is least capable of denying its potential competitors.''
And he went also on to say,
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''During most of the Cold War, the United States enjoyed a near monopoly on the development of and access to advanced military technology and could to a larger degree deny other nations access to such technology in order to maintain a wide military capability gap between itself and its potential adversaries. No longer. It is now likely that a majority of militarily useful technology will eventually be available commercially outside the United States as a result of many factors, all of which are direct manifestations of the globalization phenomenon.''
That, my friends, is the reality that we face today, and those are the words of Donald Hicks, Under Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration.
Now, in addition to what an entity uses this for at the end, as end user controls, the amendment would include a presumption of denial, authorized for the first time in law. That is a term of art. In the law when there is a presumption that goes against you, you must overcome the presumption. So there is, you know, a strike before you ever get up to bat.
So there is a presumption of denial for certain exports. Instead of allowing flexibility on a case-by-case basis, the amendment requires a denial of exports for a series of reasons. The amendment requires concurrence of the Secretaries of Commerce, of State, of Defense, and this greatly expands the Secretary of State's role in national-security-control matters.
The Export Administration Act of 1979 that we have been operating under never gave, at the height of the Cold War, the Secretary of State concurrence even for matters relating to foreign-policy controls. The Administration did not believe they needed this additional grant of authority for either the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense and, therefore, did not request the authority.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I urge my colleagues to look at page two of the amendment that is before you and look at the language under [a] and continue to go through it. In addition to what I have just described, it says:
''In addition to the concurrence of the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State and in consultation with the intelligence agencies and the head of any other department or agency of the United States that the Secretary considers appropriate, determines that such export would not make a material contribution. . . .''
By the way, what is a ''material contribution,'' as defined here, to such program or activity? This is huge, and in essence, it is clearly an action to undermine the very basis of having a modern-day Export Administration Act that balances national security along with commercial interests, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ride on that concept for a moment. You know, it has been my experience over the years, because I spent so much of my time in business, that when you get too many people in the Administration, particularly those three key agencies, and particularly the Department of Defense, that their job is really to protect us under all circumstances. Nothing goes out of this country. And what happens, then, is that something which is a perfectly normal technological evolution that could be sold, could be used to develop markets, is stifled. I have had this happen to me personally over and over and over again.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, look, I was in the military, and I understand the importance of military security, but when you get so many different bureaucratic groups here, their responsibility is to their boss, and their boss will try to absolutely make sure every detail, minute detail, of the security of the United States is upheld. However, when you are in business, your boss is your customer, and what you are trying to do is to reach out.
So the motivations are entirely different here. And so you have security on one hand, and you have economic opportunity on the other, and I am afraid economic opportunity under these conditions is going to be the worst for wear.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. If I could just follow up on that, because I am struck by what you are talking about in terms of the structure and who is responsible and how people are going to err on the side of caution.
We have just finished a discussion that I had great difficulty tracking in the context of the Export Control Act because leg irons are going to be available around the world, and somehow we are going to have American bureaucrats who are now going to be dealing with that. It is something that is not going to stop torture. This is taking it to two levels higher, I guess, in terms of abstraction, where we have greater complexity, we have more opportunities for more areas of the bureaucracy to be erring on the side of caution, not wanting to be identified with something that could potentially harm the United States, taking the most restrictive definition, while the rest of the world marches on. And men and women who are trying to engage in perfectly legitimate business practices are going to wait for us to work this through, and in the meantime things that will make a difference to the security of this country and changing things that would really make a difference, whether it is human rights or nonproliferation, are going to get short shrift.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If I understand the gentleman correctly, I really appreciate his talking about the dynamic that we are throwing onto the bureaucracy, what is going to happen politically and practically, and I strongly identify with the gentleman's comments, and I appreciate them.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you very much.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Berman for 5 minutes.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, what I want to do with this law, over and above my amendments to this law, is I want to see a mechanism which maintains the primacy of the Secretary of Commerce in the export-licensing decisions which gives the President a pretty unfettered right to override anybody if he thinks that national security would be negatively impacted.
I think that was taken care of by the Chairman and Ranking Member's earlier amendment—that provides a forcing mechanism when you are dealing with mass marketing. Items in the mass market are items which are available for foreign sources in the same quality and the same quantity that provides a mechanism by which American exporters can force the bureaucracy in a timely manner to confront that question and decontrol items for which the purpose of the control may be noble, but the logic of the control is only to hurt American exporters who are not keeping anything out of the hands of anybody else.
So in that framework I look at this amendment, and I, in the context of all of the conversations, try to hear the argument of my friend from New Jersey. And there sure are a lot of people involved in this amendment.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But the one argument that I do not understand, and I want to make sure I am reading it right, nothing goes on this list unless the Secretary of Commerce wants it to go on this list as to that end user. In other words, this is not giving Defense or the area desk officer for the CIA or somebody in the munitions-licensing arm of the State Department a chance to veto, to put something on the list. All it gives them is a chance to veto something the Secretary of Commerce decides to put on this list so that the presumption of denial applies to no items as a result of this amendment that the Secretary of Commerce has not decided, in the context of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, that there is a significant risk that that item in the hands of that end user will contribute to that kind of proliferation.
In other words, while it looks quickly like this gets a whole bunch of people involved, this still leaves it in the hands of the Secretary of Commerce. He triggers this process so that nothing fundamentally is changed except—what we really have said is—where something is determined by the Secretary to be a substantial risk in the hands of that end user to proliferate weapons of mass destruction or missiles, there is a presumption of denial.
The bureaucracy should know that is implementing this system that in those situations they should start out planning to deny that license unless it is either insignificant or somebody else has decided not to do it. In other words, the fear that, I think, I share with Mr. Menendez about giving Defense veto is not true in this amendment because Defense only vetoes what the Secretary of Commerce could put on.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HOUGHTON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. Sure.
Mr. HOUGHTON. You know, from a legal standpoint, I must assume that that is right, but from a practical standpoint, it has not worked out that way. In many cases you get burned. There is something which is a little tender. You pull in the Secretary of Defense. You pull in the Secretary of State in order to buttress your case because you do not want to be out there all by yourself, and I have seen that happen.
Mr. BERMAN. Who is ''you''? Who is ''you''?
Mr. HOUGHTON. ''You'' is the Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. BERMAN. Well, if the Secretary of Commerce wants to deny a license because it contributes significantly to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in that end user, more power to him. But he is the triggering mechanism. I thought for the argument we were worried the Secretary of Defense gets to get involved in this. If the Secretary of State gets involved, he consults him, but in the end he gets to make the decision.
That was what I thought the purpose of the Senate bill and the gentleman's position has been: Keep the Secretary of Commerce the primary operator here. Do not incorporate a veto of his decisions by somebody else. In the end, the legal thing is the most important thing because that is where the power is. If he wants to bring in the Secretary of Defense, we do not need a law to do that.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. Sure.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would point out to the gentleman that if you are on the list, but you can never export, then the consequence of being on the list is not as great as one would seem. You have a mechanism here in which there must be concurrence by Commerce, Defense, and State, and consultation and a wide variety of others in which there are no definitions that control the parameters of the times when that is fully invoked, when it begins, when it ends. And so it seems to me that the gentleman's desire, which I share, as you enunciated, is still complicated by this amendment in an unnecessary way.
Mr. BERMAN. If I could just reclaim my time, though, I do not think it requires their concurrence. If the Secretary of Commerce says, I do not think boots, you know, shoes to the Iranian nuclear weapons program is an item that should be on the control list because that is not going to have a substantial—forgetting the fact that we have an embargo on Iran—but the shoes to whoever the potential bad end user is should not be on that list, the Secretary of Defense can, you know, toot his horn all he wants; it is not on the list. There is no presumption of denial. The Secretary of Commerce can grant that license. That is my point.
It does not require concurrence. It requires concurrence before you can put them on the list. In other words, to put them on the list requires concurrence, not to keep them off the list. So I do not think it is such a big deal in that sense.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
This is a very good amendment, in my judgment, and I would like, rather than talk about it, to read it. ''Not withstanding any other provision of this act, controls may be imposed based on the end use or end user on the export of any item—.'' What do you mean, ''any item,'' what? ''—that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them.''
That is not a pencil. That is not a Nintendo game. We are talking about the mushroom cloud. ''Weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them.'' That is a matter of ultimate seriousness.
Now, what about these things? This amendment says there shall be a presumption of denial. Now, a presumption is not final. It is rebuttable, but there shall be a presumption of denial for export of an item if the Secretary——
Mr. BERMAN. An item on the list he has already decided.
Chairman HYDE. Correct. If the Secretary, meaning the Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State—this is not going to be done in any halfway manner—determines there is a significant risk that the end user designated to receive such an item is involved in a program having to do with weapons of mass destruction.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now that is what this does. Yes, I suppose it is awkward for some exporters to worry about, but I worry about weapons of mass destruction. And I think part of our job—forgive me, I am not preaching to anybody—part of our job is not only to see that commerce flows merrily along, but we take care to provide for the common defense.
I would like to remind those Members who have been around for a few years on this Committee that back in 1996 we last passed an EAA authorization that contained virtually the same language that we are talking about here, only a little tougher.
''General prohibition;'' this is from page 132 of the print on the Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1995. ''Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the export of commodities or technology shall be prohibited—'' we did not just get on a list and have a presumption of denial; they shall be prohibited—that is what we did in '95 ''—if the ultimate consignee—'' that is a euphemism for end user ''—is a program or activity, et cetera, testing or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.''
Now, we are talking about serious stuff. We are not talking about rifles or gatling guns; we are talking about weapons of mass destruction, and we are trying to have some reasonable control that requires three Secretaries to concur. And to me, this is de minimis protection of our country, so, I think, it is a good amendment, and does anyone else want to talk?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the amendment number 5. All of those in favor say aye.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[A chorus of noes.]
Mr. LANTOS. On that, Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE. A rollcall shall be called.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
[No response.]
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes yes. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Aye.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
Mr. BURR. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes yes. Mr. Cooksey?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo?
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes yes. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes yes. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes no. Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes yes. Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes no. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes. Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler?
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes yes. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley?
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes no. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley votes yes. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Napolitano votes yes. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Yes.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Watson votes yes. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Lee?
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee has not voted.
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. I vote aye.
Chairman HYDE. How is Mr. Meeks recorded?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks has not voted. He passed.
Mr. MEEKS. I vote aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman? You should be recorded aye. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The Chairman Emeritus?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman HYDE. How do you vote, Mr. Gilman?
Mr. GILMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. All have voted who wish. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 30 ayes and 7 noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to. The Committee will stand in recess until 4 p.m. There are two votes on the floor. We will be back at four.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Recess]
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will be in order.
I have an amendment at the desk, number seven. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde. Page 18, insert the following after line 14.
[The amendment referred to follows:]
74409m.eps
74409n.eps
Chairman HYDE. Without objection further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. It is in the process of being disseminated. The Chair grants himself 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
This amendment provides for a presumption of denial for items on the National Security Control List under certain circumstances. This would require a presumption of denial for the export of any item on the National Security Control List requiring a license to any country so long as there is a significant risk that the item would contribute to the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons capabilities of that country or the means to deliver such weapons, or contribute to the military capabilities of such countries undermining regional stability, or be likely to be used by or diverted to an unauthorized destination, or adversely affect U.S. national security interests.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This amendment provides clear policy guidance to the Secretary in the licensing process where key U.S. national interests are at stake. It is designed to be used sparingly and only in those circumstances where proliferation and national security risks pose a threat to the U.S. or its allies.
Now S. 149 as presently drafted contains numerous policy prescriptions and objectives that the Secretary must take into account in the export control process, incorporating list making and license review. But it fails to give the Secretary clear and consistent direction on how these objectives should be put into practice in deciding whether or not a license should be granted for any item on the National Security Control List.
The adoption of this amendment would ensure that when an item from the control list requires a license the Secretary pay very careful attention to the issues of regional stability and national security threats, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The presumption of denial for any such license would come into play only when a determination is made that the export of an item would pose a significant risk to vital U.S. interests.
The amendment clearly spells out those interests and concerns which are at the heart of our national security and defense policy.
Its adoption by the Committee would help ensure that export controls play a supporting role as well when and where appropriate. It is important to keep in mind what this amendment is not intended to do and what it is intended to do.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is not a blanket policy of denial. It is not an excuse to say no to all license applications. And it is not a prescription for a return to the gridlock in our export licensing system.
It is intended to be the basis for a very restrictive policy for those key items already requiring a license, and then only when the export of these items poses a significant risk to the national security interests of the U.S. and its allies.
The amendment is designed to help build an export control system that can lead to security and competitive challenges of the 21st Century.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman. I strongly support the amendment and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I read this amendment, Items 1, 2, 3, 4 are each basis for which the presumption, any finding of one would attach a presumption of denial. Is that correct?
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BERMAN. If that is correct, then if super computers are on the National Security Control List, which I am sure they are, or a variety of other items and technologies that are on the National Security Control List, and they are going to a trustworthy end user in Great Britain, and to be used in a nuclear or a missile program being developed by Great Britain, a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there would be a presumption of denial for that item. That seems like we are going too far.
So if my reading is correct, I would not support this amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Does the gentleman from California have the time?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. Would you yield?
Mr. BERMAN. Sure.
Mr. BEREUTER. Are you saying that as you read it, all four points have to apply?
Mr. BERMAN. No. Any one of the four have to apply.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, would you accept an amendment with an exception for countries or end users that were subject to a multilateral export control regime? Analogous to what we just did in amendment number 5.
Do you understand——
Mr. BERMAN. I do, but I am concerned because it depends on the items we are talking about and which multilateral control regime we are talking about. I do not think I'd want to send the precursor of some chemical weapon to a country that was not a member of——
Chairman HYDE. In other words, if the gentleman would yield, we will pull this amendment and we will work on it some more with the gentleman. I think we are on the same track. I view the objection you have made as a significant omission in the integrity of what we are doing, so we will pull that.
I withdraw the amendment.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. BERMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Berman.
Insert the following after title VI and redesignate the succeeding——
[The amendment referred to follows:]
080101b.AAB
080101b.AAC
080101b.AAD
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
080101b.AAE
080101b.AAF
080101b.AAG
080101b.AAH
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of Mr. Berman's amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support thereof.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Basically this amendment restores jurisdiction to the Commerce Department over the licensing of one specific item, commercial—not military—commercial communications—not other satellites—and takes it back from the State Department.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several years ago in all the concern, and much of it quite understandable and some of it appropriate, when we went over in the Cox Committee report, Congress, among other things, transferred jurisdiction over commercial communication satellites from the Commerce Department to the State Department.
At the time it seemed like the right thing to do, but in retrospect I think we over-reacted. I am offering this amendment with Mr. Rohrbacher, whose name for some reason is not on this amendment. But this is a collaborative effort of the two of us. And I just want to point that out.
But in any event, to go back to my point, in retrospect, I think we over-reacted. We took this step before fully considering all of the consequences. The result has not been what we expected or desired.
Since the transferring of jurisdiction it has become clear the State Department, while well intentioned, simply is not the right agency to license commercial satellites.
State's Office of Defense Trade Controls, which is the old Office of Munitions, is in the business of licensing munitions, tanks, fighter airplanes, fire arms. They do a good job of protecting our national security but they are not set up to license dual-use items like communication satellites that are used for commercial purposes.
A GAO report on export licensing processing times makes the point. State takes an average of 91 days to reach a final decision. Commercial satellites are included in this. For commercial satellites it is usually much, much longer, and this does not include the additional time for congressional notification.
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are the only country in the world that treats commercial communication satellites as munitions. This puts U.S. satellite manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage and has contributed to the decline in U.S. satellite exports.
Our market share has plummeted, since we made this change, from 75 percent to 45 percent this past year.
I am not saying export controls and the transfer are the only reasons. We have had the Asian fiscal crisis, we have had exchange rate problems. There has been a consolidation in the European satellite industry. But everyone there, and objective people from outside, all agree it has had a significant impact in that massive reduction in market share.
Hong Kong based satellite operator Asia Sat recently decided to purchase a European made satellite simply because of U.S. export controls.
In addition, at least one European satellite maker has instructed their engineers to reduce the use of U.S. components and their design to avoid potential export-related problems.
The purpose of our amendment is to turn the situation around, level the playing field with our international competitors, while maintaining strong national security protection. It returns jurisdiction over commercial communication satellites and their components to Congress. We establish a reasonable timeframe for the consideration of export license applications.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To ensure that our national security is protected, we mandate that Commerce refer all license applications for satellites and related components to Departments of State and Defense. For overseas launches, the head of the CIA must be consulted. The review must be completed within 30 days. If they disagree (Commerce, State and Justice) about whether to give a license, it kicks it upstairs via interagency dispute resolution.
In effect what we are saying is the primary jurisdiction goes to Commerce, tight time limits, and if State or Defense disagrees with a decision to grant a license they can veto it unless the President overturns that disagreement.
So we think we have extraordinary protections in here. We include all the requirements for around-the-clock Defense Department monitoring, technology, and encryption technology control plans.
In other words, when that satellite is placed on the launchers in the designated countries, there is monitoring. We require State Department licenses. This was a big part of the problem that the Cox Committee reported. We require State Department licenses for launch failure investigations to make sure that unauthorized technology transfers and intelligence can re-review, have an opportunity verify the legitimacy of end users. And for launches in China, the amendment requires an additional State Department license to cover the exchange of any technical data. Before being issued, any such license must be notified to Congress.
This is in addition to the existing Tiananmen Square sanctions enacted by Congress back in 1990 which require a presidential waiver for any launch of an American satellite in China.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One final point and then I will close.
When we transferred jurisdiction to State it was in the name of U.S. security. As we watch out market share in commercial satellites plummet, I would argue we are undermining our national security. Our military relies on satellites to maintain battlefield superiority. Without a healthy competitive, innovative domestic satellite industry, our ability to field the world's most advanced military-related satellites will suffer.
During the debate on export controls for encryption technology we often heard the argument that if the bad guys are going to use encryption, we are better off if they are using technology made by the United States. We do not need to go into that any further.
But these are several important reasons why it is a disastrous national security consequence for us to lose our commercial satellite capability for military reasons as well as for the commercial industrial base economic arguments.
I yield back the lack of time I have.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If there are others who are going to be speaking on this issue I would prefer to reserve my time and speak a little bit later.
Chairman HYDE. Very well. Then the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman I will be brief.
I think it is a carefully crafted amendment and I want to commend Mr. Berman on that, and I fully support it.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to have a substitute amendment ready, but we simply could not get it together in time.
We changed the law to move the primary responsibility to the State Department for a reason. The reason was that the Commerce Department had a conflict of interest, and that they were sloppy and not giving proper consideration to the national security of this country. That is what the result of the Cox Committee effort concluded.
I was a member of that committee. You may remember our recommendations came out of that nine person committee unanimously. And here we are proposing to send it right back to Commerce where they will have a conflict of interest.
I think there are some features in the two gentlemen's amendments that are worthy, but I do not agree—I forcefully, adamantly disagree—with moving it back to the Commerce Department.
Now if there are problems in State, those problems need to be corrected. But I would say this. I think it is an overstatement to suggest that there has been a significant impact on market share because of its move to State. The reason there was a significant impact is entirely unrelated to that move to State.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So while I can read the handwriting on the wall, I tell you this is a very poor amendment and it is the wrong step for us to take. Poor amendment in one respect, and that is the move to the Commerce Department.
Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BERMAN. I am unclear what conflict of interest does the Commerce Department have in licensing this dual-use item that they do not have in licensing any other dual-use item?
Mr. BEREUTER. They have a conflict in dual-use items.
Mr. BERMAN. Oh, well. We have a lot of industries. Let us take out all of it. Why just the commercial satellite industry? I do not understand. What is their conflict? Because we want to promote exports?
We are giving Defense and State a veto in this bill. They can stop any license that may be issued. Well, I am arguing now. I am not questioning. I am sorry.
Chairman HYDE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. I yield myself 5 minutes.
I like to remind Members of the key conclusion reached by the bipartisan Cox/Dicks Committee regarding missile and space technology exports to China. That conclusion was that the PRC illegally obtained U.S. missile and space technology that has improved the PRC's military and intelligence capability.
More specifically, the Cox Committee found that U.S. satellite manufacturers deliberately acted without the legally required license and violated U.S. export control laws by giving information, advice, and assistance that improved the reliability of Chinese rockets used to launch satellites, which is also useful for the design and improved reliability of future PRC ballistic missiles.
As my colleagues will recall, these concerns were not limited solely about technology transfers to China. This Committee and the Congress, for that matter, have been quite concerned about such transfers to Russia. In fact with the strong support of Congressman Berman we successfully enacted the Iran Non-Proliferation Act.
Because of these concerns, as my colleagues will recall, the Congress adopted significant revisions in U.S. law regarding the export of commercial communication satellites, including transferring licensing jurisdiction to the State Department as well as putting into place mandatory monitoring and verification procedures.
The purpose of this amendment is to reverse the course once again by transferring licensing jurisdiction back to the Commerce Department for said satellites. I think this is wrong for several reasons.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In my view, licensing review for exports of militarily sensitive technology to countries of proliferation concern such as China and Russia should be guided by those agencies which pursuant to U.S. law and practice give an overriding priority to national security considerations. In particular, I believe it is essential that the State Department continue to issue licenses governing defense services provided by U.S. nationals as they interact with foreign nationals with respect to the integration of the satellite with the launch vehicle, which is sometimes called the form, fit and function discussions. These discussions regarding integration are at the heart of what we are trying to control, including the technical interchange meetings related to the mating of the satellite to the launch vehicle.
It is critical that the State Department continue to regulate these defense services, not the Commerce Department, as this amendment intends. First, because simply put, Commerce does not and cannot regulate such services. The Commerce Department does not have the authority to regulate defense services or technical assistance agreements which govern such activities. That is the responsibility of the Secretary of State pursuant to the authorities of the Arms Export Control Act.
Now this amendment does require a license for defense services, but only for exports of satellites for launch in or by nationals of the PRC. I believe this amendment should cover the interaction between U.S. and foreign nationals regarding the integration of U.S. satellites or foreign satellites incorporating U.S. technology for exports involving Russia and Ukraine as well.
I believe this is particularly critical with regard to Russia, because it is important to retain leverage on the issue of missile proliferation from Russia to Iran and elsewhere. Our launch ''agreement'' with the Russians has now lapsed. Our government needs appropriate louvers to get the attention of the Russians.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additionally, I do not believe it is wise to place the responsibility of enforcing violations by U.S. satellite manufacturers with the Commerce Department, an agency which to the best of my knowledge has never taken any action against U.S. satellite firms which have assisted the PRC and other countries in violations of U.S. export laws.
Contrast this with the State Department, which has successfully settled several cases which not only have brought millions of dollars into the U.S. Treasury, but more importantly helped hopefully to provide a deterrent to such U.S. firms from violating our export laws.
Finally, I believe this amendment is misguided in its timing. I believe we send exactly the wrong message to the Administration in approving this amendment today at the precise time that the Justice Department is considering its decision on whether to undertake criminal proceedings against certain U.S. satellite manufacturers for violations of U.S. export control laws.
For these reasons I urge Members of the Committee to reject this amendment.
Is there further discussion? Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I move to strike the last line.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAHUNT. I listened attentively to the Chairman's remarks, and I just want to address several questions to the proponent of the amendment, Mr. Berman, and pose to him first, why was not the Ukraine and Russia included in the amendment? And secondly, Mr. Berman made reference to both the Department of State and the Department of Defense having veto power in the issuance of any permit.
From those remarks I would presume that the same monitoring scrutiny that is invested by those agencies now, by those departments, would also be invested if the permit, the issuance of the permit were transferred to the Department of Commerce.
I would yield to the gentleman for a response.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
On the first question, Russia and Ukraine. There are only four countries in addition to the United States that have commercial launch capabilities. While in emotional moments I might like to require the kind of special licensing that Chairman Hyde suggests for France, they are our NATO ally and that would probably not be appropriate.
China, as the Chairman concedes, we require all of this.
Russia and Ukraine, with regard to them, the only launch services they provide are in the context of joint ventures with American companies. Boeing is partnered with the Ukraine in sea launch while Lockheed/Martin has a business arrangement with Russia. Those joint ventures already require a license for the launch services they provide.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In other words, the interactions among Americans and Russians on the one hand and Ukrainians and Americans on the other, for a whole range of technical matters, are approved on an annual basis by the State Department right now. That is not impacted by this amendment.
Requiring another license which adds nothing for these joint ventures is overkill, it's part of the problem that gives a tremendous competitive advantage to Arian, the French launch provider. Over our joint venture launch capabilities in Russia and in Ukraine, the proliferation argument is exactly the opposite. I know where the Chairman is coming from and he knows where I'm coming from on nuclear and missile proliferation to Iran. We want to do anything we can to stop it.
We have Russian entities here involved with us who are the cleanest of the clean, and I invite you to check all the sources that we cannot describe here in this particular area. These are guys who have thrown out the proliferators and disassociated themselves from the subsidiaries. The Proton joint venture has been cleaned. To punish it and the Russians who work at it by in a sense creating new mechanisms which will keep commercial satellite owners from using their launches is just the wrong way to go. You want to reward the people who have done it right, and these folks have done it right.
Again, Defense and State have a veto under our amendment, and I find it very funny to argue that because the Justice Department is now considering whether to—I don't know the story of this but I heard the Chairman talk about it—to indict somebody for launches and conduct that took place when the licensing was still at State. That was before we changed it to Commerce and before Cox changed it back to State.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In other words, those launches by Hughes and Lorale took place while the State Department had jurisdiction. The State Department gave the licenses. The State Department gave the approvals; and the Chinese launches went boom, and bad things happened.
We then changed it to Commerce after that. If anything, I do not think it has to do with what the Justice Department is deciding to do about those launches, and the conduct that is in question took place while the licensing was still at State, before it changed to Commerce, before we then took it back to State. Let us get it back to Commerce where it should be with State and Defense having a very direct role, a right to veto.
Thank you for your question, Mr. Delahunt.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.
I am a supporter of Mr. Berman's amendment. In fact the amendment has been called the Rohrabacher/Berman or Berman/Rohrabacher amendment, depending on which side of the aisle you are talking to people.
Let me just start off by saying that I am very pleased that people remember the Cox Report because the Cox Report was based on information that I provided to the Republican leadership after a 6-month investigation on my own. It took me many months to get the Republican leadership to pay attention to the basic facts that were later proven by the Cox Report. So I do not think I have to sit back and apologize to anybody about whether or not I am adamant enough about transfer of these types of technologies to communist China.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What my reading of that disaster, and it was a disaster because it has now made millions of Americans vulnerable, is that it was not the jurisdiction of the State Department or the jurisdiction of the Commerce Department. It was the jurisdiction of the Clinton Administration that was the problem. We have had an Administration dedicated to treating communist China as a strategic partner. We heard it here in hearing after hearing, and what happened as a result? There was a betrayal of America's interests by some of our biggest and most powerful corporate leaders, and a betrayal of our country's long-term national security interests. But it had nothing to do with whether it was the State Department or the Commerce Department.
What we have found now that we have transferred the licensing power to the State Department is that it has had one big effect. The big effect that it has had is that those satellite sales to friendly countries, those satellite sales to NATO allies, those high technology sales to countries that are friends of the United States have suffered as a result. Not just a little bit, but dramatically suffered because State Department's mindset is always let us not do this. Show me why we have to do this.
When you are talking about keeping America ahead of the pack and being able to out-compete its economic adversaries, in the years ahead that attitude will destroy us and that has something to do with the national security. If we destroy the commercial satellite industry in this country we will not be able to build our military satellites, so there is a big relationship here to the viability of that satellite industry.
Sure, we should have national security concerns, and as I just stated, I do not have to apologize to anybody about this issue. I am one who spent a lot of his personal time and effort researching and investigating it.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we need to do is set up a system in which trade with countries that are friendly to the United States, or do not pose a threat to the United States, is relatively free while other trade with countries that pose a threat to the United States is relatively controlled, if not forbidden.
That is what Howard (Berman) and I have come up with. It took a lot of negotiation between our offices to come up with a formula.
The CIA will be providing information directly to the State Department and the Defense Department. They are in the loop on this. And the Defense Department and State Department have a veto power on whether or not these transactions will go through.
Now they can veto it. The only restriction there is that they have got to make up their mind within 90 days. Thirty? What is the total?
Mr. BERMAN. After it has been referred to them they have 30 days, and then if they veto, 60 days for the dispute resolution mechanism.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, so you have 90 days to make up your mind before that deal can go through. And I do not believe that that requirement is in some way going to open up the doors to bring this to a situation where national security has been compromised. In fact, what it does is draw attention to the fact that these agencies have to be effective and efficient in doing their job in order to make sure that our country's national security is protected. Otherwise what we are going to do is condemn a significant industry in the United States. We are talking about tens of thousands of high tech workers in California alone who are destined to lose their jobs if we handcuff their industry in dealing with friendly countries.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Right now those industries in dealing with friendly countries find themselves waiting for 6 months, 8 months, 9 months, a year on a piece of equipment that would go to Belgium. Now give me a break. We should have a relatively free trade situation on high technology with Belgium. And if we continue to treat our high tech corporations this way we will lose our edge and America's national security will be in jeopardy because of that.
The most important thing right now is that we stay ahead of the Chinese and our potential adversaries.
By the way, it would not bother me one bit if the State Department or the Defense Department decided to veto all of the satellite trades with China. I do not care about that. I want any type of transactions with communist China to be looked at with a magnifying glass. But I do not want that same type of negativity to destroy our satellite industry with friendly countries.
One last note. I am the Chairman of the Space Aeronautics Subcommittee. I know these rocket issues. And just to let you know about Russia and about Ukraine, we actually learn more from the Russians from their space technology than they do from us, I can tell you that right now. We can be very grateful for the cooperation we have had in our dealings there.
They have done some things that are wrong and we are trying to put pressure on them so they do not spend their time and energy providing technology to countries like Iran. The best way to make sure they do not do that is to engage them, and engage their scientists in working with us, not put up roadblocks in front of them, so their scientists will be working with us rather than the Iranians.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That is what the purpose of this legislation is, facilitating trade with friendly countries, making it more difficult with other countries by making sure that the State Department and the Defense Department have a veto power.
With that I would ask for the support of my colleagues for the Howard/Berman/Rohrabacher amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I see that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs is sitting in the audience, and I would like him to come forward, and I would ask whether or not the State Department is in fact supportive of this amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is not recognized for that purpose. We made a statement earlier in the markup that there would be discussion among the Members, but not among the audience.
Mr. MENENDEZ. So is the Chair saying that it is not regular order during the markup to ask the State Department witness or any other Administration witness to say whether or not they are for or against an amendment?
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. That is correct.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I want to thank the Chair for helping me create a record.
Chairman HYDE. Very good. I am terrorized by the fact that you are creating a record. [Laughter.]
The question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed nay.
[Nays heard from the Committee]
Chairman HYDE. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The Chair has an amendment at the desk number 24.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 69, strike line 24 and all that follows through——
[The amendment referred to follows:]
74409o1.eps
74409o2.eps
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
This amendment provides that in any case where the Secretary receives a written request for the classification of an item on the control list, he shall promptly notify the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the head of any other appropriate agency of the request.
It also specifies that if an objection is raised by the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State regarding the Secretary's determination of the request within the 14-day time period provided in the bill, then the disagreement shall be resolved through the interagency dispute process with all disagreements to be resolved within a 60 day period.
The amendment strikes a number of the existing dispute resolution provisions in the bill relating to the basis on which any votes may be taken in the interagency process and the type and rank of the officials who can participate in this process.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In place of this micromanaged approach, the amendment directs the President to establish additional levels for review and appeal if agreement on any matter, including a classification request, cannot be reached among the Secretaries of Commerce, State, Defense, and other relevant agencies. This amendment ensures that all key agencies, including State and Defense, play a role in the consideration of classification requests for items on the control list, a key activity in the export control process.
Classification decisions can be very technical and time consuming, frequently requiring experienced personnel from a number of agencies including the Departments of State and Defense whose views should be taken into account in the final determination.
Experience has shown that the Commerce Department has made some incorrect classification decisions in the past regarding satellites, night vision goggles and machine tools. The amendment provides for the orderly resolution of any interagency dispute that might arise in the consideration of these classification requests, many of which will continue to be handled in routine fashion within the prescribed 14 day period. But the amendment specifies that all other such disputes should be decided within a 60 day period.
The amendment also modifies the dispute resolution process outlined in the bill giving the President additional flexibility to determine how all interagency disputes should be resolved while maintaining the overall 90 day limit for the final resolution of such disputes.
Is there any further discussion?
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would vastly change and create an interagency nightmare. It would require that the Secretary of Commerce also notify the Secretary of State. It also would require any disagreements among the agencies to be resolved through the interagency dispute resolution process. Finally, it would significantly alter the bill's carefully drafted interagency dispute resolution process, dropping several paragraphs and leaving only a vague instruction to the President on levels of review.
I think the amendment not only misunderstands the commodity classification process, but threatens to derail the real intent of this bill.
Commodity classification is a critical but technical exercise that involves determining the capabilities and parameters of an item and assigning it a classification accordingly. This exercise is carried out by the technical experts at Commerce and Defense.
No one at State is involved, nor has State indicated that it wants to become involved.
Second, this technical exercise does not involve policy decisions. It literally involves figuring out whether, for example, a widget has two holes or three holes. Such decisions should not be referred to the interagency process, which is properly focused on policy questions.
Finally, classification requests now are handled under administrative guidelines issued by the NSC to improve interagency cooperation and transparency. The Administration has indicated that it intends to use an executive order outlining in detail how commodity classifications will be handled.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Toward that end, the Administration specifically asks Congress to refrain from legislating in this area. Thus this section neither codifies current procedure nor restricts the Administration's ability to change them. Any attempt to do so is to try to disrail the ultimate intention of the bill.
I think it also requires—which is not within the budget, if you are going to do this—it requires all types of expertise that State does not have in this context. Therefore I hope that it is going to be accompanied by the appropriate resources for State to be able to engage in this meaningful way.
So it is, again, another effort to further put this in an intricate web in which paralysis by analysis will take place involving a series of agencies, ultimately in which nothing will ever get exported and we will be left dismally behind at the end of the day.
Chairman HYDE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. My time has expired. The Chair has the power to grant me extra time. I would be happy to yield.
Chairman HYDE. Well yes, I would anticipate that you would yield to me out of extra time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Surely.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. But if we want to formalize it, does the gentleman request extra time?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I am just trying to follow regular order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Very well.
Then I will not ask the gentleman to yield any time. I will yield to Mr. Flake, who I am sure will have a contribution to our discussion.
Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. A very brief one. I would just make some of the same points.
This is authority given to the State Department that they have not requested, and the Defense Department as well.
It would add 90 days to a process that currently takes an average 2 weeks. So again, this is another example of where we are simply stringing the process out, and I would submit unnecessarily since the State Department and the Administration certainly have not requested it.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the amendment, and I yield the balance of my time to the Chair.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman.
This amendment is rather a simple one. It requires expanded notification of a request for a classification, an item on the control list, and it requires notification to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State by the Secretary of Commerce and the head of any other department that the Secretary of Commerce considers appropriate. I do not see that that is a horrendous burden. I see that it is broadening the range of people who have information, might have information and expertise.
Moreover, there is a time limit of 14 days within which the Secretary must make the determination regarding proper classification. If an objection is raised by State or Defense, the disagreement goes to the interagency resolution process and shall be resolved within 60 days.
So this is setting time limits, it expedites the transactions that they are dealing with, but it just requires a few more people to sit at the table if they can make a contribution.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The expertise that Commerce might not have, State might have. The expertise that State does not have, Defense might have. Broadening the range of people who should be notified, simply notified of the request for a classification change seems to me to be de minimus and useful and helpful.
Is there any further discussion?
A question occurs on the amendment offered by myself.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Opposed nay?
[Chorus of nays]
It is the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The ayes do have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Now we have Mr. Houghton, who is recognized.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, we have gone through a few of these amendments and it is clear the way this thing is going. I regret it, because I think it is not in the best interest of the country, but that is my own personal feeling.
However at the same time, recognizing the importance of saving time, that I would like to submit that we have an en bloc amendment which would gather up all the other individual amendments and then we can have an up or down vote on it.
I think we are going down the same road and touching the same sign posts and touching the same trees, and basically it is an issue of philosophy. You want to get in and micromanage and decide all the details which I happen to think, as a former businessman, is going to do tremendous damage to the commercial interests of this country, or do you want to do it another way?
So in the hopes of trying to speed up the process, there is a description of an en bloc amendment on your desk, two pages. I will not go through all the details of it. Maybe somebody would like to do that for me. But I would submit that.
Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Chairman HYDE. I think the gentleman has an interesting and a very practical idea. We have a description of these amendments, there are 35 of them. We have a one or two sentence, sometimes three sentence description of them. And if the Members will take a few moments and go through them to see if they have any serious objection, we can, by unanimous consent, adopt these amendments, leaving the more controversial ones for further debate, and individual attention.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Does the gentleman intend to add number seven to the revised list?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Chairman HYDE. Very well.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Houghton has an excellent suggestion. I strongly support it.
Chairman HYDE. I am glad to hear that. That is helpful.
Everybody take a good look at the description of the en bloc.
[Pause]
Chairman HYDE. If we do agree on this, I am informed by staff we have no further amendments other than Mr. Menendez, I believe, who has a substitute, or a few substitutes. But we are almost done if we can——
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman? Parliamentary inquiry?
Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I assume that at some point there will be a request for unanimous consent to proceed this way.
Chairman HYDE. If there is agreement, yes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I want to facilitate the Committee's work but would ask the Chair whether, since you are including so many amendments, some of them of which are very significant in the en bloc, whether you will liberalize somewhat your 5 minute rule.
Chairman HYDE. Liberalize it—you mean taking time to speak on an issue?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Chairman HYDE. Surely. If anybody needs additional time I am perfectly willing to grant it.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. I think this is a good suggestion. If there are not any real problems with this—Mr. Flake?
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Houghton is my hero. This is great. I have to go along with this.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. That was a very timely interjection. [Laughter.]
There seemed to be a lull in the momentum that we are trying to build up here.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. May we have about two more minutes?
Chairman HYDE. You surely may.
[Pause]
Chairman HYDE. Would you let me know when you are ready Mr. Bereuter?
[Pause]
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Very well.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Is there any objection to considering these en bloc?
[No response]
Chairman HYDE. All right. I now ask for unanimous consent that the 35 items plus number seven as revised be considered en bloc, and voted on, adopted en bloc.
[The amendments referred to follow:]
74409p.eps
74409q.eps
74409r.eps
74409s.eps
74409t1.eps
74409t2.eps
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
74409u.eps
74409v.eps
74409w.eps
74409x.eps
74409y.eps
74409z.eps
74409aa.eps
74409ab.eps
74409ac.eps
74409ad.eps
74409ae.eps
74409af.eps
74409ag.eps
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
74409ah.eps
74409ai.eps
74409aj.eps
74409ak.eps
74409al.eps
74409am.eps
74409an.eps
74409ao.eps
07301j2.AAC
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
07301j2.AAD
07301j2.AAE
07301j2.AAF
07301j2.AAG
07301j2.AAH
74409ap.eps
Chairman HYDE. All those in favor say aye?
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman HYDE. Proposed nay?
[No audible response]
Chairman HYDE. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. The ayes have it and the amendments are adopted en bloc.
Are there any further amendments?
[No audible response]
Mr. MENENDEZ. Are there any other amendments at this point that the Chair is offering, Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. There are none.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I'd like a last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, we have had a long day and I think the bill the Committee sends forward at this point is a bill that will not see, I really do not think, the light of day in terms of an Export Administration Act. It is a bill that is so overwhelmingly weighed in a defense-oriented proposition that it strangulates the commercial enterprises that the United States clearly should undertake, could undertake, and ultimately would do so not only in the interest of the commercial sector of the United States but also in the context of the defense interests of the United States.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Increasingly as a country we have turned, in our defense establishment, to the acquisition of goods from across the world. And we are driven by quantum leaps in telecommunications and computer efficiency and effectiveness. That information, revolution is knocking down physical barriers, wearing national boundaries, and creating cross-border communities of all types.
Clearly, indeed yesterday's U.S. defense industry is, with few exceptions, reconstituting itself into a global, more commercially oriented industry.
Even the National Science Foundation reports that over 80 percent of high technology exports, many of them dual-use, originate from outside the United States. Moreover, high technology commercial exports dwarf armed exports in magnitude.
Accordingly, future U.S. military technological advantage will derive less from advanced component and subsystem technology developed by the U.S. defense sector, than from the military functionality generated by superior, though not necessarily U.S. based, defense sector systems integration skills.
The point being that ultimately what we are doing in this bill as it is constituted is widening the gap between the military capability, between—actually I should say we narrow the gap between the military capability that the United States has and its potential adversaries. We do not widen it. We have not controlled at the end of the day that which is not available in the mass market. We have not controlled just that tip of the iceberg that I have alluded to before that is uniquely in America's control and expertise. And, in fact, I think we have created some very, very difficult problems for ourselves.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I certainly recognize that those who wish to err, but err seriously on the side of the security equation of this legislation will vote for it, but they will do so, in my belief, to the detriment of America's computer industry. They will do so to the detriment of America's electronic industry. They will do so to the detriment of America's pharmaceutical industry. They will do so to the detriment of a wide range of high tech information related industries that in fact are where we are at the cutting edge, and to do so, I think, is not realize the realities of the globalization we are in. Ultimately it is not a bill, as it leaves this Committee, that I think can in any way be sustained, nor will it become the law.
Therefore, I think that we have marginalized ourselves as a Committee. But I appreciate the Chairman's time and look forward to the final vote.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman, and I simply want to say how much I disagree with the gentleman from New Jersey, although I have every high respect for his dedication and acumen. I just think he is wrong. I think the changes we have made are minor, but important. I do not think they will inhibit the free flow of commerce. I think they have indicated that national defense and security are not an orphan when it comes to legislation, and I think we have got a good product here.
In any event, the Chair will entertain a motion that the bill be reported favorably to the House.
Mr. MENENDEZ. So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 2581 favorably as amended.
All in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Opposed nay?
[Chorus of nays]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, on that I ask a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE. A recorded vote has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Yes.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen?
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Mr. McHugh?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey?
Mr. COOKSEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes no.
Mr. Tangnedo?
[No response]
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Smith?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor?
Mr. CANTOR. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes yes.
Mr. Flake?
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes no.
Mr. Kerns?
Mr. KERNS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes yes.
Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Davis votes yes.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. McKinney?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Mr. Engel?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.
Mr. Blumenauer?
[No response]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley votes yes.
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Ms. Napolitano votes yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff?
[No response]
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Watson.
Ms. WATSON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Watson votes yes.
Mr. Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, am I recorded?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman has not voted.
Mr. GILMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, am I recorded?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher has not voted.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr has not voted.
Mr. BURR. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh has not voted.
Mr. MCHUGH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes no.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 26 ayes and 7 noes.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The motion is agreed to. Without objection the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House Rule 22.
Without objection——
Mr. Engel, I'm sorry. When we so could have used your vote.
I am told by the Parliamentarian that once the vote is announced a Member may not be recorded. I am so sorry. Why do you not indicate, if you have a statement that had you been here——
[Mr. Engel nodded in the affirmative.]
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. That will appear in the record.(see footnote 1)
Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes.
Without objection, the resolution will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
The Committee stands adjourned with the thanks of the Chair.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
H. CON. RES. 188
I am pleased to offer my strong support for this resolution, which calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to do no more than what it is already obliged to do by international law, by its own constitution, and by the rules of common decency and civility: to stop its persecution of people who have committed no crime except to hold personal beliefs and engage in nonviolent practices—in this case breathing exercises—to which the government for some reason objects. We keep hearing about how China is ''opening up,'' but apparently the Beijing regime still feels it has the right to tell people not just how to think, but also how to breathe.
The facts about the current crackdown on Falun Gong practitioners are egregious, even by PRC standards. Tens of thousands of these people have been tortured in labor camps, prisons, and mental hospitals, and literally hundreds of thousands forced to attend brainwashing classes. The number of Falun Gong practitioners who are known to have died from torture in China has now risen to 253. Practitioners who are women have been singled out for rape and for forced abortion. The victims of these atrocities have included a number of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, as well as hundreds of thousands of China's own citizens.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This resolution is the very least we can do to let the Government of China know that these brutal practices must end. I urge a unanimous favorable vote on this resolution.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Chairman, as the principal sponsor of the Viet Nam Human Rights Act I would like to offer a brief explanation of the provisions of the Act. I also have an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which I hereby move be adopted by the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, as relations between the United States and Viet Nam approach full ''normalization'', the government in Hanoi is unfortunately getting worse, not better, in the way it treats those of its own citizens 'who share our values. During the last few months Hanoi has arrested a prominent leader of the Unified Buddhist Church, a Catholic priest who gave written testimony to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and any number of evangelical Protestant ministers and believers. Since February the government has also waged a brutal crackdown against members of the Montagnard ethnic minority groups who participated in peaceful demonstrations asking for religious freedom and for return of their confiscated lands. So as we move toward 100 per cent ''normalization'' with the Bilateral Trade Agreement, we also need to make very clear—to the Hanoi regime and also to its victims—that expansion of trade relations does not mean we approve of the government's egregious record of violating the human rights of the people of Viet Nam, or that we do not care.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Viet Nam Human Rights Act contains a number of provisions designed to ensure that the promotion of freedom and democracy will be a central element in U.S. policy toward Viet Nam:
First, the bill tells the truth about human rights in Viet Nam. It contains an honest and detailed assessment of violations by the Government of Viet Nam of the rights to freedom of expression, association, and religion, and the rights of workers, as well as persecution of ethnic minorities including the Montagnards and of persons associated with the U.S. prior to 1975.
The bill then links future increases in non-humanitarian foreign aid to Hanoi to progress on human rights. It does not affect existing aid, or any kind of humanitarian aid, and it does not limit assistance that is provided through nongovernmental organizations rather than through the government. But it does require that the government make ''substantial progress'' toward the release of political and religious prisoners, an end to religious persecution, respect for the rights of ethnic minorities, and elimination of trafficking in human beings before getting any further increases in government-to-government, nonhumanitarian U.S. assistance.
The bill is also designed to ensure that the U.S. government use other tools at its disposal to promote freedom and democracy in Viet Nam. The Act authorizes assistance to nongovernmental organizations committed to promoting freedom and democracy in Viet Nam. It promotes more vigorous efforts to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia by the government of Viet Nam. It will require the State Department to take steps to ensure that U.S. cultural and exchange programs are open to people who share our values, not just to Vietnamese government and Communist Party officials and persons close to such officials. And it also requires the Department to make sure that we have made every reasonable effort to locate and assist people who were eligible for U.S. refugee programs but were denied access to these programs. Most of these people have been persecuted because they fought on our side during the war or were associated with the United States in some other way.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, my Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute addresses concerns that were expressed by Mr. Lantos, the Ranking Democratic Member, and other members who were concerned that the bill as introduced might go too far. The amendment eliminates the executive-legislative commission in Title I of the bill, and substitutes a simpler mechanism—an annual determination by the President of whether the government of Viet Nam has met the four human rights benchmarks set forth in the bill. It also modifies these benchmarks to make them fully attainable—the amendment requires only ''substantial progress'' instead of full compliance with each benchmark. Finally, it provides that the restrictions on U.S. nonhumanitarian assistance will apply only to increases in such assistance—not to any assistance that we are already providing. So the bill as amended is a reasonable, moderate attempt to make sure that we use every reasonable means at our disposal to make sure that the benefits of ''normalization'' extend not only to the government, but to ordinary people in Viet Nam, especially those who share our commitment to freedom and democracy.
I respectfully request adoption of the amendment and of the bill as amended.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
In the last two years, there has been a systematic escalation of horrific attacks launched by Chinese authorities against Falun Gong practitioners.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recently, the deplorable actions by the Chinese authorities have included the brutal torture of Falun Gong women at a labor camp, resulting in the death of 15 innocent victims.
When the family of one of these victims saw her body, the area around the eyes was black and blue. There were still finger marks on her face from being slapped.
There were strangulation and rope marks on her neck. The shoulder blades and back were heavily bruised, and the arms fractured.
On June 201h of this year, we received the horrifying news that local police had burned a Falun Gong practitioner to death and dragged two others through the streets at such a high speed that their bodies were virtually mutilated.
Since the crackdown officially began on July 21, 1999, many Falun Gong followers have been suspended or expelled from school, demoted or dismissed from their employment, held in prison or sent to labor camps and psychiatric hospitals—all because they chose to live by the strength of their convictions and refused to renounce their beliefs.
Thus, as a human being and a refugee of another Communist regime who oppresses its people and uses the same methods to implement its policy of intolerance, I was compelled to act.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, I had to find the means to challenge such heinous actions by Chinese officials—actions which defy all moral standards.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I had to use the tools available to the Congress to help ensure an end to the two year reign of terror launched against the Falun Gong—a group whose only crime is the desire to practice their beliefs free of coercion and intimidation.
For this purpose, I filed H.Con.Res. 188 which is supported by 59 of our colleagues in the House.
This resolution calls on the Chinese leadership to cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.
It further directs the agencies of the U.S. Government to use every appropriate public and private forum to press the Chinese authorities to release all Falun Gong religious prisoners, and to immediately cease the use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment against the Falun Gong and other prisoners of conscience.
It coincides with the goals stated in P.L. 106–286 signed into law on October 10, 2000 which authorized PNTR status to China but underscored U.S. criticism of the Chinese authorities' violations of religious freedoms and other human rights.
This resolution sends a message that the U.S. Congress will remain vigilant about the PRC's policies and actions regarding the fundamental rights of its citizens as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among others.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And my dear colleagues, the Chinese authorities are listening. Since filing this resolution, my offices have been flooded with telephone calls from Chinese embassy officials trying to squelch this debate and influence me withhold action on this measure.
However, if the U.S. Congress does not give voice to those who are persecuted and defend the rights of all to be free and to practice their beliefs free of intimidation and coercion, who will stand up for therm?
It has been said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing.
Therefore, I call on my colleagues in this Committee to render their support to the Falun Gong and other victims of oppression in China and vote for H.Con.Res. 188.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CASS BALLENGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
H. RES. 181
Mr. Chairman:
Today, we have before the Committee H. Res. 181, congratulating the president-elect of Peru, Alejandro Toledo, and congratulating the people of Peru for the return of democracy and expressing sympathy for the victims of the recent earthquake that struck Peru.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is fitting that this resolution enjoys extensive, bipartisan support. The Peruvian people stood firm and reversed the manipulation of democracy that occurred in their country. Here in the United States Congress, key Republicans and Democrats took a principled stand together in support of the Peruvian people.
Peru inaugurated its new president last Friday. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues join me in support of this timely resolution.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CASS BALLENGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
H. CON. RES. 89
Mr. Chairman: The Committee will now consider H. Con. Res. 89.
On October 12, 2000, ten men—including five Americans—were abducted from an Ecuadorean oil field. On January 31, 2001, Ron Sander of Sunrise Beach, Missouri, was brutally murdered by his captors. The hostages spent 141 days in captivity and endured malnutrition, isolation, and physical and mental abuse.
On June 23, 2001, Colombian National Police General Jose Leonardo Gallego's anti-kidnaping unit—working with U.S. authorities—arrested 59 people, including eight men accused of abducting the ten oil workers in Ecuador. We thank General Gallego for his good work in bringing these criminals to justice.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Please join me in supporting this resolution expressing condolences to the family of Ron Sander and welcoming the released American captives back home.
(Footnote 1 return)
No statement for the record was received from Mr. Engel.