SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
45–802 CC
1998
CONSIDERATION OF MISCELLANEOUS BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1129, H. RES. 245, H. CON. RES. 130, H. CON. RES. 121
OCTOBER 9, 1997
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff and Counsel
JOHN WALKER ROBERTS, Senior Professional Staff
MARK KIRK, Counsel
LESTER MUNSON, Professional Staff
KIMBERLY ROBERTS, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
Markup of H.R. 1129, Microcredit for Self Reliance Act; H. Res. 245, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in suppport of a free and fair referendum on self-determination for the people of Western Sahara; H. Con. Res. 130, concurrent resolution concerning the situation in Kenya; H. Con. Res. 121, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation of missile technology from Russia to Iran
APPENDIX
H.R. 1129
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1129 offered by Mr. Gilman
H. Res. 245
Amendment to H. Res. 245 offered by Mr. Menendez of New Jersey
H. Con. Res. 130
H. Con. Res. 121
Amendment to H. Con. Res. 121 offered by Mr. Campbell
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statements:
The Honorable Jay Kim, a Representative in Congress from California, on H.R. 1129
The Honorable Bob Clement, a Representative in Congress from Tennessee, on H.R. 1129
The Honorable Amo Houghton, a Representative in Congress from New York, on H.R. 1129
The Honorable Tony Hall, a Representative in Congress from Ohio, on H.R. 1129
The Honorable Alcee Hastings, a Representative in Congress from Florida, on H. Con. Res. 130
The Honorable Robert Menendez, a Representative in Congress from New Jersey, on H. Con. Res. 130
Additional material submitted for the record:
Letter from Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, Department of State
MARKUP OF H.R. 1129, H. RES. 245, H. CON. RES. 130, AND H. CON. RES. 121
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] The Committee on International Relations meets today in open session pursuant to notice to consider several measures. Those measures will be taken up in the following order: H.R. 1129, the Microcredit for Self Reliance Act, H. Res. 245, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of a free and fair referendum on self-determination for the people of Western Sahara, H. Con. Res. 130, concurrent resolution concerning the situation in Kenya, H. Con. Res. 121, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation of missile technology from Russia to Iran. Since most of these are non-controversial, I would hope that we could move through rather rapidly.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first measure we will take up is H.R. 1129, the Microcredit for Self Reliance Act. The Chair lays the measure before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 1129, a bill ''to establish a program to provide assistance for programs of credit and other assistance for microenterprises in developing countries and for other purposes.''
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short title.''——
Chairman GILMAN. The measure will be considered as read.
[H.R. 1129 appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gilman. ''Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1. Short title.''——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as having been read. It is the original text for the purposes of amendment and is open to amendment at any point.
[The amendment in the nature of a substitute appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I will speak briefly to introduce the substitute. My colleagues, this bill was introduced last March by the distinguished Member of our Committee, Mr. Houghton, along with Mr. Hall who is here with us today. The bill is an impressive work that has gained over 90 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I want to commend Mr. Houghton and Mr. Hall for their work on this issue. They have become the best allies of Mr. Gejdenson and me in our work to promote microenterprise development.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the years, many of us have learned of Dr. Yunus's Grameen Bank and the 98 percent repayment rate that his bank has posted for loans to the poorest of the poor who have never had access to any credit. Microenterprise lending has now spread throughout the world, helping people lift themselves out of poverty. This example has now hit home, where microcredit activities are lifting Americans out of poverty in Boston, New York, and Los Angeles.
I want to especially commend the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for her work and holding hearings on this issue. I have never met a more enthusiastic group than Miami's Results network volunteers. I hope that Ms. Ros-Lehtinen will give them my best regards.
Two years ago, Sam Gejdenson and I joined together to move the Microenterprise Act. After weeks of negotiations, we finally hammered out a deal acceptable to the Administration, Congress, and outside groups, including Results and the Microenterprise Coalition. That bill passed the House with flying colors, but was held in the Senate by one Senator that linked the bill to extraneous issues. Today Mr. Gejdenson and I will try once again.
After we hear from Mr. Hamilton, from Mr. Gejdenson, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and the bill's original sponsors, I will offer a chairman's substitute that will address the Administration's concerns with the original text. In sum, the substitute will delete the earmarks contained in the bill, and will insert the body of the Microenterprise Act that still enjoys the support of the Administration and Senator Helms. While I am certain that Mr. Gejdenson and I want AID to spend more money on microenterprise, we recognize at this late date that we are going to have to work with the Administration to get a bill ''hotlined'' in the Senate and signed by the President. I was encouraged to welcome the First Lady to our Committee this last summer to rededicate ourselves to AID's microenterprise initiative. At this point, we want to work with the President. Next year we'll turn up the pressure.
To summarize the substitute before us, the bill does a number of things: It sets microenterprise activities as one of the most important parts of our development assistance programs. It rewrites a long defunct section of the Foreign Assistance Act to govern microenterprise credits. These credits should focus on the poor, and especially on women.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It adds a section to the Foreign Assistance Act that governs microenterprise grants. It clearly states that one-half of the credit assistance should be provided in loans of $300 or less, and requires AID to report back to us on how they are reaching the poorest of the poor. Finally, it commends other leading microfinance organizations like the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the U.N. Development Program for taking a multilateral lead in the microcredit world.
Earlier this year we came together at the Microcredit Summit, the first summit ever organized by an NGO. We dedicated ourselves to providing credit to half the world's poor in the next decade. AID's funding for microcredit is currently falling short of that goal. I hope that this bill will help re-energize their efforts and ours to foster this program.
Mr. Hamilton, do you have any remarks?
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly join you in support of the bill. I commend Mr. Houghton and Mr. Hall for the work that they have done on it. I know you have done a lot on it, Mr. Chairman. I know Mr. Gejdenson has as well.
I think that the microenterprise programs have been very effective programs. They have proven to be a major and important part of our foreign assistance programs. They try to improve the lives of the very poorest citizens of the world. I think they have had good, tangible results. I am pleased to see the Congress go on record in support of it. It's a worthy purpose and I urge the adoption of the bill.
I yield to Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I just commend Mr. Hamilton and the Chairman for their efforts, particularly Mr. Houghton and my good friend Mr. Hall, who have led on so many different issues that really have compassion as their test. It is a great privilege to serve with them.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Houghton.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be very brief. I appreciate the good words that have been said about this. The basic concept is known. It is understood. I think it's agreed upon. This is a program, microcredit, which works. It's an extraordinary effort on the part of those people who have money to be able to lend to those people who don't have money. The return is very great.
I had hoped that we would be able to have a little different amount of money and earmarking, but evidently that's not possible this year. But I want to thank you and Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Gejdenson, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and particularly Tony Hall for being able to put this thing together.
One of the key elements of the bill I would just like to mention, Mr. Chairman, is the provision on poverty lending that instructs USAID, to the best of its ability, to ensure that half of all the microcredit resources go toward loans of $300 or less to the poorest of the poor. This is very, very important.
So we are going to be monitoring this and I would hope that it would be a great success. The person who probably has been identified most with this and has been a great believer in microcredit, so much so that here he is today on the eve of a trip to North Korea and taking the time to be with us. So I would like to turn the chief co-sponsor of H.R. 1129 over to Mr. Tony Hall.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, we'll ask Mr. Hall if he would like to make a few comments. We want to commend Mr. Hall for his continual efforts on hunger and microenterprise, having been the former chairman of the Select Committee on Hunger, Mr. Hall.
Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Houghton for being the primary sponsor of this and I'm pleased to join with him, and certainly with you, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Gejdenson, who have been leaders in microcredit for many many years. It is a pleasure to be here and have this piece of legislation before your Committee.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have seen microcredit work in many parts of the world. There are a tremendous number of stories all of you have probably heard. I remember a man who was a shoe repairman in the Dominican Republic. We made a loan of $50 to him. He was a regular cobbler. Now he exports to all the Caribbean nations thousands of baby shoes every year. He has got something like 200 people that work for him, all started from a $50 loan so he could buy a few supplies.
So microcredit works. It works all over the world in many countries, certainly in the poorest of the poor. Obviously it's so important that we are starting to bring it to the United States. We could use it even more here.
The bill itself, there are some very good things in it. There are some important gains for microcredit programs, especially language on poverty lending. There is a strict monitoring program to ensure——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hall, would you put the microphone just a little closer to you? Thank you very much.
Mr. HALL. There is a strict monitoring program to ensure that microcredit funding really targets the poorest of the poor. However, I just want to say, and I have something for the record if I could have it included, that the bill like what Mr. Houghton said, it does not as far as I am concerned go far enough. It does not have an earmark for microcredit programs. It does not have language authorizing increased funding levels.
I am very concerned about the future of development assistance in foreign aid in the Congress. I was hoping that we would get to the bottom this year, but we're even going much further than what we should. I know it's not the problem of this Committee, it's just the problem with Congress overall relative to foreign aid. This bill is not everything that we want obviously, but it's not a half a loaf, it's about a third of a loaf, but we'll take the third of a loaf and hopefully we can pass the legislation and put Congress firmly on record as it has always been in being for microcredit.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Thank you for being present this morning.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hall, I worked with you in the past on the Hunger Caucus. I know what great work you have done. I sure support strongly what you and Mr. Houghton are doing with microcredit as a cosponsor and someone who believes that this truly works.
In our Subcommittee hearing on this issue held this past July, my colleagues were very accepting and positive in their discussions of the Houghton-Hall bill. Ironically, however, USAID assistance for microcredit for Fiscal Year 1998 is $20 million less than it was in Fiscal Year 1994. This, despite the effectiveness of microcredit programs with loan repayments of over 90 percent. It seems that the logical step would be to increase rather than decrease our earmarks for microcredit.
Furthermore, I am afraid that a mere recommendation rather than a legislative designation that half of the funding of USAID be secured to those at the very bottom of the economic ladder, previously mandated through loans of under $300 will not be sufficient to reach those with the greatest need.
Having said that, I will support the compromise bill, noting that it is a beginning. More needs to be done to expand and protect effective microcredit funding. This is a start. With that, I look forward to working with my colleagues in microenterprise initiatives as we work to creatively find ways to assist those with the greatest need.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clement.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend Mr. Houghton, Mr. Hall, yourself, Mr. Gejdenson, all the Members have been active, certainly the late Bill Emerson was a big supporter of microenterprise as well. Small amounts of credit can have a tremendous impact on the proper programs.
I recall that I think probably about 1984 I invited the Foundation of International Community Assistance (FINCA), to come to the Hill for the first time and explain what they were doing in the Central Andean Republics. Perhaps you were there, Mr. Hall. I know a number of our colleagues were from the Select Committee on Hunger. I was just amazed at the repayment rate and the amount of enterprise that was created with a relatively small amount of money by FINCA, with at that time, no government assistance whatsoever.
So I think what we are moving here, despite some things we would like to improve, is again a step forward. I am proud of the work that all of you have done on this effort.
Mr. MANZULLO. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I appreciate very much the effort of the Grameen Bank, FINCA and others.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MANZULLO. I would join in. I think this enterprise has two unique features. The first is the joint and several liability of five people who get loans under this program, each one is responsible for the other one's repayment. Maybe we could do something like that in the United States on some of the bad loans that we have been having here domestically. But I think that is absolutely a fantastic way of getting people to realize not only how to use this money wisely, but to be good stewards of capitalism.
The second thing is, as I understand it, Mr. Hall, what this bill does is this simply authorizes the program within the Department of State to use the funds that are there. It's no new separate request for appropriation. Is that correct?
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman is responding positively to your inquiry.
Reclaiming my time. I tried to be a cosponsor. That's fallen through the cracks. I would appreciate it if I could be added as a cosponsor. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's name will be added as cosponsor.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that I was not here to listen to your statements. I appreciate the words that you shared with us, especially highlighting the work of the Miami group, Results, that has been such a leader in the Florida area and throughout the southeast in trying to let everyone know that microenterprise is a local issue as well, and can be very beneficial to communities.
In our Miami areas where there are pockets of poverty throughout, they have been very successful in helping ladies start their nail businesses and people start small hardware stores right from their homes. They are very small mom and pop shops, but they turn lives around. As Mr. Bereuter said, their repayment rate abroad or locally is just phenomenal. So we congratulate them. I thank you for letting the Committee and the visitors know about the work of Results of Miami in microenterprise. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Mr. Kim.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also rise in support of this badly needed resolution. Before I ask one question, I would like to ask unanimous consent that I have my written statement which will be ready in the next couple of days, be included as part of the official record.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kim appears in the appendix.]
Mr. KIM. Thank you. My question is this $120 million, will it be used for some designated countries? If that is the case, who will designate them or is it just wide open, up to the Administration? I am a little concerned about that.
Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield. The money will be designated by the AID director.
Mr. KIM. I see. So USAID will designate the countries?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes. That's correct.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kim. If there is no further comments, are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Are there any further amendments?
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. As many as are in favor of the motion say aye.
As many as are opposed say no.
The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted.
The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to move this bill as amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on a motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many in favor of the motion signify in the usual manner.
As many as opposed say no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions under Rule 20 of the bill or a companion bill from the Senate. Further proceedings on the motion are now postponed.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We now move to H. Res. 245 on Western Sahara. This measure relates to the Western Sahara. The measure was marked up and favorably acted on as amended by the Subcommittee on Africa yesterday. The Chair lays a resolution before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. House Resolution 245, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of a free and fair referendum on self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Subcommittee on Africa will be considered as original text for the purposes of amendment.
The clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee amendment for amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker''——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative text to the Subcommittee amendment are considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.
[H. Res. 245 appears in the appendix.]
The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, whose Committee acted on this measure.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This resolution was introduced by myself and is cosponsored by several Members of this Committee, including Mr. Payne and Mr. Smith, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Hilliard.
This resolution expresses the support of the House of Representatives for the so far successful negotiations between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, who have made the tough decision to peacefully work out their differences on the conduct of a referendum on self-determination for Western Sahara.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The negotiations have been guided by former Secretary of State James Baker, now serving as the special envoy of the U.N. Secretary General for Western Sahara. Secretary Baker's diplomacy has broken a 6-year stalemate on the referendum negotiations. While no date has been set for balloting, we appear to be closer to a free and fair referendum than at any time in the last two decades. This conflict which has often seemed intractable hasn't received the attention it deserves. That is now changing with Secretary Baker's engagement, as well as with the attention the Congress is now paying to the issue.
Years of fighting between Morocco and the Polisario Front and Mauritania has claimed thousands and thousands of lives. It has created hundreds of thousands of refugees. The equitable ending of this conflict is important to the United States. Morocco is a longstanding American ally, and continued turmoil in the region is contrary to U.S. interests.
The breakthrough achieved by Secretary Baker is important. That is why we need to take proper notice of it. It is time to show all parties that the United States is watching and cares. I urge my colleagues to support this balanced resolution as a sign of congressional support for the significant advance——
Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. I will yield.
Chairman GILMAN. I would like to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa, for introducing the resolution and for his leadership on this issue.
At my request, Mr. Royce removed language from the resolution in the Subcommittee markup that might be subject to misinterpretation. The purpose of this resolution is to highlight the very important efforts of former Secretary of State James Baker in advancing a peaceful solution to the question of Western Sahara. By removing the language that he did, Mr. Royce allows this resolution to move forward in a consensus manner. I have worked with both sides of the Western Sahara question on the matter. They both find the compromise agreeable.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Committee and indeed the Congress should not advance issues that the two parties in question find divisive. We can support their efforts to work together and find a negotiated settlement by working together ourselves. Under Mr. Royce's leadership, the Subcommittee on Africa has done this. I urge our Members through the Full Committee to follow suit and endorse their efforts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, are amendments appropriate at this time? Or are you just seeking statements?
Chairman GILMAN. Amendments are appropriate.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment and distribute the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. ''After the clause 'expressing the sense of the House' ''——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read. I would like to speak to the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, where I serve as a Ranking Member for bringing up the resolution. The resolution I thought was a very good resolution on the agreed-upon referendum in the Western Sahara, a resolution which I cosponsored and supported yesterday with reservations. I was disappointed, however, that the Subcommittee stripped from the resolution three—there were several others—but three very important and factual clauses.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think we can all agree that for too long, the situation in the Western Sahara has been left unresolved. It has caused tension in the region and within the African continent. I think we can also agree that the reason the referendum has taken so long to come to fruition is due to political considerations rather than legal ones.
So what my amendment seeks to do is to put in the preamble section of the resolution, some of the paragraphs that in fact were omitted by the Committee, but originally were part of the resolution. Just to give the Members a sense of what we are trying to put back, one is that 22 years after the International Court of Justice declared that ''there is no establishment of any legal ties of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco.'' That's one of the things we are saying, a question of fact. The International Court of Justice in its opinion of October 16, 1975, made such a declaration. So I think it's important to list it.
Also, talking about the 1991 cease-fire accord between the parties, called for a referendum by the legitimate people of Western Sahara. Again, a matter of fact.
Last, that the referendum that was originally scheduled for January 1992 has been repeatedly postponed because of the disagreement over voter eligibility.
Now I know that some of my colleagues find a problem with this, but I am amazed, particularly those who have been advocates of recognizing history. That history is important and is never to be forgotten. The reason that I think that these specific paragraphs should be included is because we recognize in doing so why we are here today in terms of the process, what has happened in the past, we become cognizant and we let the parties know that we are cognizant that we have known what has taken place, and that we don't expect the parties on all sides to move back from the latest agreement.
So after waiting for such a long time, I don't think that it is either provocative or unreasonable to include a few factual clauses in the only resolution that this Congress will likely consider on this matter explaining the history of the region, and the reason that the referendum was postponed for so long. If we cannot take note of the International Court of Justice's opinion, if we cannot take note of cease-fire accords that have existed, and if we cannot take note that the referendum has consistently been postponed because of disagreement over voter eligibility, we therefore undermine an essence to our message to the parties. Yes, we are supportive of the process. Yes, we want to congratulate Mr. Baker. Yes, we want all parties to move forward. Yes, we appreciate the willingness and the flexibility of all parties. But we need to have an underlying statement of some of those facts.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I am pleased that the referendum impasse has been broken. We owe a good deal of gratitude to former Secretary Baker and to both sides for their good-faith efforts to come to the agreement. I urge my colleagues to join me in adopting the amendment and including these factual statements that go to sending a message to all parties that we understand what's happened, and we look forward to them successfully concluding what they have agreed upon.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me make my observations on this if I could. When we drafted this resolution, we included these three clauses that provided a useful background to the Western Sahara dispute; as Mr. Menendez stated, basically recognizing history. I was asked by several Members to delete these clauses, not because they are untrue, but because they were felt to be provocative. We agreed to do so because we felt the greater good was in moving the resolution at a critical time for the peace process.
Several months ago, this Committee considered my amendment to a measure introduced by Mr. Payne on Western Sahara. I felt then and I believe now that there is an overreaction by some to any language describing this situation. I believe such an attitude is contrary to U.S. foreign policy. I understand the sensitivity to Morocco. Morocco is a longstanding ally of the United States. But this resolution acknowledges that relationship. That Morocco and the Polisario have now agreed to go forward with a fair and free and transparent referendum on self-determination for Western Sahara is a very positive development. The resolution even with the three clauses noted, recognizes this fact.
So I will support Mr. Menendez's amendment. But in any event, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution whether or not the amendment by Mr. Menendez is adopted.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I rise in opposition I think along with the Chairman to this amendment, and say that if you want to go back to the records, Mr. Menendez is incredibly eloquent but as always, when we make our arguments we are selective in the facts we bring forward. So you can go back to the International Court of the Hague in 1975 and read the facts and the documents brought to the attention of the court. So the existence at the moment of Spanish colonization, of judicial ties, of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and certain tribes living in the Western Sahara.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think my question is, do we want to gratuitously kind of take a swipe at the Moroccans, who have been tremendous allies of the United States, been supportive of the Middle East peace process, who have been a real ally to the United States, while gratuitously insulting them in this language?
It seems to me that our goal here, pressing forward to get the two parties to work together is not going to make them more likely to work together if they feel that the individual who is facilitating the discussions is already biased against them by a resolution from his own Congress. So I would hope that the Committee would sustain what had happened in Subcommittee, reject the addition of the Menendez language, and continue with a resolution that properly expresses our support for a non-violent continuation of a process to hopefully resolve this.
But I don't think we are going to be very helpful taking one of our closest friends and supporters in all the Middle East process, in North Africa, and gratuitously kind of taking a side here. I think that there are lots of issues. It is very complex, and that we ought to stick to the basic resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. I also rise against this amendment. I tend to agree with almost everything Mr. Menendez says, but I do have to disagree with this amendment. In doing so, I am rising in favor of the compromise that was worked out in the Subcommittee.
Yes, it is true that Mr. Menendez puts forward a number of facts here. But they are all anti-Morocco facts. Rather than include some anti-Morocco facts and some pro-Morocco facts, I believe we should stick with the resolution as emerged as a compromise in the Subcommittee. Among the facts, and I join with Gejdenson in these, is the fact that the Spanish colonized and seized a number of coastal areas that had previously been controlled by Morocco. Most of these areas, virtually all of them have been returned. Now we have this one area referred to in the past as Spanish Sahara, that may very well also have been a part of traditional Morocco, seized by the Spaniards last century, and now decolonized this century.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With Morocco being such an important ally of the United States, for us to identify those facts that are opposed to Morocco, while admitting the facts that are in favor of Morocco makes this resolution which as it came out of Subcommittee is very balanced, make it unbalanced. That is why I oppose the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me first of all commend Mr. Royce, the Chairman, and Mr. Menendez, Ranking Member, and all of the others who have joined on this resolution. I originally introduced this 4 or 5 years ago and there was very little interest in it, and so I commend the new leadership of the Committee and overall chair for having this issue come to where it is today.
I think that we certainly have to commend Secretary Baker for the outstanding job he did with the Polisario Front, and Morocco and Mauritania for finally coming together to try to decide the future of this disputed issue. As you know, the referendum was originally scheduled in 1992. I believe that the United Nations under Kofi Annan finally said let's try to bring this thing to a resolution.
I think that the fact that we now may have a level playing field, that all sides would have access to media, that press and international observers have been worked out, really leads us to the right conclusion.
Let me say this. I listened to this flawed argument that because Morocco is a friend of ours and a supporter, we should therefore not say anything, we should have revisionist history. I think many of us get annoyed when we hear about people trying to change history. It would be like us saying that Great Britain is right for what it does in Northern Ireland, when just about everyone here on this Committee has supported the minority in Northern Ireland. We don't have any problem knocking Great Britain on their behavior with the RUC and other people that have treated the minority in Northern Ireland wrong. We have no problem with talking about——
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman yield at the end of his statement?
Mr. PAYNE. I'll finish in a second. Cyprus, with Turkey. Fought with us in Korea. They are allies of ours. We criticize them for illegally occupying Cyprus. A major point to be that Morocco is a longtime friend. I know they went into Zaire to support Mobutu years ago under the direction of the United States. I didn't think that that was right, but our Government did. So I don't understand why the argument is that we have a friend and we should therefore not say anything that may bruise them.
I strongly support the Menendez amendment. I think it's only right. I think that it should be carried through. I would urge its passage.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Will my friend yield for one moment?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes. I'll be glad to yield.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I guess what I would equate this to is if we had just sent former Senator Mitchell to England and Ireland and Northern Ireland to try to come up with a solution, and in that resolution, rather than simply supporting the efforts at finding a peace in Northern Ireland, we started off with three paragraphs that either condemned one side or the other. That while we all have our personal beliefs on the solution in Northern Ireland, we are not passing resolution while an American is over there trying to negotiate saying and it's the British who did this wrong, and the British never had a right to do this, and the British never had a right to that. Instead, what we say is this is a terrible crisis. We ought to fix this crisis. We support Senator Mitchell for doing his job.
I would say that the gentleman can not find a resolution at a time when an American has been sent to a place like England where we have taken such a swipe at one of the two parties, diminishing their ability to get their job done.
Mr. PAYNE. I will yield to my colleague from New Jersey, but if you come to the hearing this afternoon, you will hear me say exactly that. I am going to criticize and slam England for their behavior in Northern Ireland because it has been wrong.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'll yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my colleague. I appreciate his comments.
Just very briefly, I think there is a miscategorization of the three statements. This is not gratuitously insulting the Moroccans. It is not anti-Moroccan. Look at the last two paragraphs. All we are saying is that there was a referendum called for. What we are talking about is a desire to proceed with a referendum as a result of the cease-fire accords. We recognize the difficulty that in fact that has been postponed because of disagreement over voter eligibility. We don't cast blame as to who the issue of voter eligibility has become.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman——
Mr. MENENDEZ. I'll be happy to in a moment. But first, with reference to the original comments about legal ties, what we said is that legal ties that arose to territorial sovereignty were not established as per the determination of the International Court of Justice.
The second simply suggests that such statements of fact, which in fact do not place blame on one side or the other, is to miscategorize the effort that is being made here. It is not anti-Moroccan.
Chairman GILMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. ROYCE. Congressman Royce, Mr. Chairman, if I could——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. I would make a point here, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Payne brought up the question of revisionism. It is going a long way in terms of turning a blind eye to a fact when a request is made to strike this as a fact. ''Whereas the referendum originally scheduled for January 1992 has been repeatedly postponed because of disagreement over voter eligibility.''
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to that fact simply because a country has been a good ally? Yes, they have been a good ally. But this has nothing to do with anything except the factual circumstances of the case. They continue to put off an election. If we go so far and are so timid as to suppress the very facts involved, then I don't understand the purpose for putting out a resolution.
So after listening to the debate, I have to say one more time, I support Mr. Menendez's amendment. What it does is simply lay the groundwork in terms of the historical facts here.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes. I certainly will yield.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. Would you read that first paragraph? The focus of this section that was struck, and I think it makes sense just to stick to it, I can read it. ''Whereas the International Court of Justice, in its opinion of October 16, 1975, declared that there is no establishment of any legal ties of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco.'' Now that's one statement, but there are others. It kind of prejudices the whole thing against Morocco. Why?
I mean if you want Baker to do his job, give Baker a chance to do his job and don't——
Mr. PAYNE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. It's the gentleman's time.
Mr. PAYNE. What is wrong with stating the facts? How does that prejudice one group? The International Court of Justice in 1975 said what it said. Now what is so offensive to——
Mr. GEJDENSON. Well, if you want to put all of it in there, I guess we could, if the gentleman would yield again, we could put all the statements in from the International Court of Justice, which also said the facts and documents brought to the attention of the court show the existence at the moment of Spanish colonization, of judicial ties of allegiance, jurisdictional ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and certain tribes living in the Western Sahara.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So apparently the Court of Justice said both things. But we are selectively taking out the one thing that makes it look like the Moroccans are dead wrong. Frankly——
Mr. PAYNE. Put in the record the whole International Court of Justice then if you want to, but I don't see where this is wrong.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Put the whole International Court of Justice in the record is fine with me.
Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman GILMAN. It's Mr. Royce's time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Royce, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. I will yield to Mr. Hyde, yes.
Mr. HYDE. I just want to simply say the purpose of the resolution is to recognize some amity, some comity that a referendum is going to be held, and James Baker deserves some credit. Period.
The real question is, does the Menendez amendment add or detract from moving forward and solving this long festering problem. I suggest it isn't helpful. I suggest that Morocco is going to say don't do us any favors with your resolutions. This frustrates the real purpose of the whole resolution, which is to say hurray, they are going to finally have a referendum, and Mr. Baker, thanks for your good work.
But if you are going to go back into history, and I am not denying history occurred, but history depends on who is writing it. Why not recite the long cordial relationships the United States has had with Morocco during World War II, during the energy crisis? I mean let's have an encyclopedia here. The purpose of the resolution is to say progress is made. They are going to have a referendum, and we congratulate Baker for his good work. But this rips scabs off wounds that I just don't think are helpful. I would rather not have a resolution than reopen and irritate Morocco, which is an essential party to the referendum. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. I'll yield to the gentleman, yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Time has expired.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the Chairman. I just wanted to agree with Mr. Hyde. I really don't know what the historical fact is here with regard to this court action. I do know that Morocco is aggrieved by it. Their perception is that it is inaccurate. I think Mr. Hyde's comment about the future is exactly the right point.
This dispute has been festering for a long long time, I think almost as long as I have been on this Committee I have heard about it. We want to focus on the future. I think former Secretary of State Baker is to be highly commended for taking this task on. He is a very skillful diplomat. If it can be resolved, he will be able to resolve it.
Let's not handicap him in any way. Let's give him a resolution of full support without the perceived antagonism of Morocco, right or wrong, and I don't try to make that judgment. Let's just make a plain statement of support for former Secretary of State Baker's mission. Tell him we applaud what he is doing. We want to be fully supportive of every effort to resolve this longstanding conflict.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. Call the previous question on the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. That's not in order at this time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition? Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment because I think it always——
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACKERMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Why is Mr. Manzullo's motion not in order?
Chairman GILMAN. A motion on a previous question is not in order while we're in the Committee in the whole.
Who was seeking recognition?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Further parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman GILMAN. Further inquiry. What is the inquiry?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Could you tell me when we voted to go into the Committee of the whole?
Chairman GILMAN. We are in the Committee of the whole discussing on a 5-minute rule, discussing the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we——
Chairman GILMAN. Does the gentleman have some concern about what we are doing right now?
Mr. ACKERMAN. The Chairman is concerned about the rights of one of the Members, albeit on the minority side.
Chairman GILMAN. I think Mr. Manzullo has not asked for a review of the Chair's decision at this point.
Mr. ACKERMAN. He made a motion.
Chairman GILMAN. The Chair ruled it's not in order.
Mr. Andrews.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we enhance the credibility of our resolution by straight-forward rendition of the facts. I think that's what this amendment does.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would yield to its author for further comment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my colleague for yielding and for his support. Just very briefly to hopefully bring it to a conclusion.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Menendez is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. The fact of the matter is, is I appreciate Mr. Hyde's comment and Mr. Hamilton's. Yes, it is about amity, and yes, it's about comity. And yes, it's about saying hurrah. But it is also about saying that we recognize that there are certain fundamental issues here that have not let this go forth.
Our resolution will not guarantee that in fact it will go forward. I think we are better guaranteed that the final referendum will take place if in fact we recognize those things that have been obstacles to its successful conclusion. To turn a blind eye to it simply because a country is perceived to be aggrieved by it, I will recall those comments when we consider other resolutions which I am sure we will hear forceful arguments for that we don't, shouldn't be concerned about those countries being aggrieved because we need to have certain language in the resolution. I have several countries that I could mention here that in fact I know my colleagues might remember when they have argued that we should not be aggrieved by what that country would say because we need to stand for what we believe as the Congress of the American people.
Last, let me just say that as it relates to the first paragraph that my dear friend Mr. Gejdenson continues to hang his hat on, I would be happy to put the whole thing in. But the reason we don't put all of the history, as others have suggested, is because some of it is relevant and some is irrelevant. What is relevant is we want to see this referendum take place. What have been the obstacles to those referendums? Let us acknowledge that there have been obstacles that we hope will be surpassed by both sides to this issue. Therefore, it is appropriate to include it.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank my colleague for yielding time. I urge again the adoption.
Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS. I'm sorry. Someone asked me to yield to them?
Chairman GILMAN. It's your time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Sherman. I would yield to my friend from California.
Mr. SHERMAN. I would point out that we should not revise history for the benefit of a country that has been an American ally. But we do owe it to our allies and to history to state history fairly and completely. This amendment simply doesn't do that. To set forth an anti-Morocco fact about ''legal ties of territorial sovereignty'' without including all of the historical and cultural ties between Morocco and the former Spanish Sahara is to slant history, which is as bad as revising it.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
It's the gentleman's time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. As we are about to vote, the language that is being sought to support will hinder, not advance the efforts of Secretary Baker in finding a peaceful negotiated settlement on the Western Sahara issue. I join with Mr. Hyde in noting that the language directly relates to issues of the highest sensitivity likely to be misinterpreted by the parties involved and will defeat the central purpose of the resolution which is to support Mr. Baker's efforts. Accordingly, I urge a no vote on the amendment.
Are there any additional Members seeking recognition? If not, the Chair will put the question on the amendment. As many as are in favor signify in the usual manner.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As many as are opposed, signify by saying no.
The noes appear to have it.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote, please.
Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote is requested. Is there a second on a recorded vote?
Mr. ROYCE. Second.
Chairman GILMAN. A roll call is demanded. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Ballenger.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim.
Mr. KIM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Sanford.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SANFORD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes no.
Mr. Salmon.
Mr. SALMON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes no.
Mr. Fox.
Mr. FOX. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
Mr. Lantos.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Mr. Andrews.
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes yes.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes no.
Ms. McKinney.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no.
Ms. Danner.
Ms. DANNER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.
Mr. Hilliard.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes no.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Wexler.
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes no.
Mr. Rothman.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes no.
Mr. Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes no.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham.
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
Mr. Lantos.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.
[No response.]
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
The clerk will read Mr. McHugh's name.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh is not recorded.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 7 ayes and 30 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition? Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I move that the Committee do now rise.
Chairman GILMAN. What reason? We still have several amendments to consider. Is there some reason that the gentleman is seeking to rise at this time?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. The Chair declared we were in the Committee of the whole to discuss and vote on that amendment. If the Committee is to pass it and send it to the floor, I believe we have to vote on it in the Full Committee, the Full Committee rather than the Committee as a whole.
Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield. The rules of our Committee when proceeding under the 5-minute rule parallel the rules governing consideration of legislation in the Committee of the whole. The previous question was not in order at that time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. What is the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. ACKERMAN. The Committee of the whole that the Chair declared that we were in will have to at some point rise and vote on these amendments. Will it not? Inasmuch as the Chair has declared we are in the Committee of the whole.
Chairman GILMAN. In response to the gentleman's inquiry, I was speaking about the rules and how they apply to our Committee following the rules of the House.
Mr. ACKERMAN. But my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is does not this Committee at one point have to rise so that the Committee——
Chairman GILMAN. There is no necessity for the Committee to rise at this time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. If the Committee never rises, if the Committee of the whole never rises, then this Committee can not vote on the resolution.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lantos be permitted to vote on the amendment just voted upon.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection. Without objection, Mr. Lantos' name will be called.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gilman. I am across the hall in the Burton Committee hearings. That is why I am absent. I am voting no.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking? Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Would it be permissible then if any other Members come, maybe Mr. Hilliard, could we open it up again at that time? Just a point of order. I have been late a couple times myself.
Chairman GILMAN. We in the past have not permitted opening it up after a roll call has been submitted.
Mr. PAYNE. OK.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's motion is not in order at this time. We are now on a roll call. We will recess.
Before we recess on a roll call, if there are no further amendments on the Subcommittee amendment as amended, the gentleman from Nebraska is recognized to offer a motion. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, are you ready for the motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of this measure in a suspension calendar.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion signify in the usual manner.
As many as are opposed, signify no.
The ayes appear to have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. What is the gentleman's inquiry?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I am rather confused. I don't know if we are in the Committee of the whole or if we are in the Committee. The Chair declared we were in the Committee of the whole. Did the Committee on the whole or did the Committee just send this to the floor on suspension?
Chairman GILMAN. I am going to ask the counsel to respond to the gentleman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I really appreciate that.
Mr. WEINBERG. If I may, I inadvertently used the phrase which the Chairman repeated, which was that the Committee was in the Committee of the whole. What I meant to say was that the Committee operates as in the Committee of the whole in the Committee on the 5-minute rule. I would advise the Chairman if motions were made that motions to rise and motions for the previous question are not in order. There are motions similar that are in order, but the motion to rise and the motion to—as far as I know. I did not consult the parliamentarian on the motion to rise, but the motion for the previous question I am certain is not in order.
Mr. ACKERMAN. If the gentleman would yield.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. We accept that apology. I was only trying to protect Mr. Manzullo's right to make an appropriate motion at the appropriate time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. We have a great deal on our agenda.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I know, Mr. Chairman. But Members should not be denied their rights in the Committee because somebody made a mistake, whether he is the counsel or not.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, very briefly. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. BEREUTER. I do that only to make a suggestion to the Chairman. In light of the fact that we have been cultivating a very positive relationship with the parliament of Morocco, in fact, the Chairman led a bipartisan delegation to meet with them, in light of the fact that the United States has sponsored them as observers in the North Atlantic Assembly, I would suggest that the Chairman and the Ranking Member consider, perhaps the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, a letter to the Moroccan embassy expressing the importance of this resolution, and simply cordially conveying it to them. That's a suggestion. I just yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's request will be taken under consideration. We thank the gentleman.
We'll go vote and come back. We have only two more measures and we'll move as rapidly as possible. I'll urge our colleagues to return as quickly as possible.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Recess.]
Chairman GILMAN. The next measure we'll take up is H. Con. Res. 130 relating to Kenya. The measure was marked up and favorably acted upon as amended by the Subcommittee on Africa on October 1. The Chair lays the measure before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. H. Con. Res. 130, ''Concurrent resolution concerning the situation in Kenya.''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Subcommittee on Africa will be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment. The clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee amendment for amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas on July 7, a large and violent confrontation occurred in Kenya when police stormed Nairobi's All-Saints Cathedral''——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative text in the Subcommittee amendment are considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point. The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, to introduce the resolution.
[H. Con. Res. 130 appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Royce, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When Mr. Hastings introduced this resolution last July, it was timely and much needed, given the violence that pro-democracy demonstrators suffered at the hands of the Kenyan police. Since that time and after the Africa Subcommittee held a Kenya hearing, Mr. Hastings updated this resolution so that it is relevant for the situation existing today. I strongly support the resolution which the Africa Subcommittee marked up last week.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite the current efforts in the Kenyan Parliament to put in place legal reforms to the electoral process, there are serious doubts about the Government's willingness to honor its commitments. Last July, President Moi promised to allow opposition political party meetings without permits. Since then, even opposition events with permits have been disrupted. The reform is supposed to allow for political parties to be registered, but the Safina party still has not been registered 2 years after applying for approval.
In short, the Kenyan Government has shown little commitment to democratic reforms. This is why the resolution is so important. The U.S. Government must be on record as strongly encouraging genuine reform. This resolution is balanced and it will be noted in Kenya. Kenya is too important to East Africa and the continent for the United States to stand by without supporting true reform. If we don't stand firm on this issue, a bad election could produce chaos in what has been an island of stability in East Africa.
So I would just like to commend the work of the authors of this resolution. As in the previous resolution, which was focused on self-determination and on democracy, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for moving this. I appreciate Mr. Royce for doing so. More importantly, I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member for their expeditious handling of this particular resolution, and you as well, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank the staff of the Africa Subcommittee for the work that they have put forward, including staff members of mine, Ms. Falvey and Ms. Jacobs.
Mr. Chairman, because of recent changes in Kenya, I am offering this amendment today to prod Kenyan President Moi, the ruling party, the opposition leaders and the protestors to cease all violence and pursue the constitutional and legal reforms necessary to bring Kenya from a colonial outpost to a multiparty democracy.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We wish for Kenya that which has served the United States and other democracies so well, the unhindered registering of political parties and voters, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and transparent political and legislative procedures. We urge all parties in this amendment to cease violent opposition. We call on the President and the legislature to quickly and efficiently enact meaningful constitutional, legal and electoral reforms by passing the proposal package which has recently been agreed to by the ruling party and the opposition leaders.
Mr. Chairman, if I can get unanimous consent to include my full statement in the record, then I will at this time only ask that at the appropriate time, I be permitted unanimous consent to make technical corrections in the measure as offered.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Anyone else seeking recognition?
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Hastings. I commend him on his leadership. I have a statement for the record. I ask unanimous consent it be included in its entirety.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the statement is admitted.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Menendez appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I would like to thank Mr. Hastings for introducing the resolution, directing the Committee's attention to the situation in Kenya. I thank Mr. Royce for his prompt consideration of the measure.
As we all know, Kenya is expecting to have elections early next year, and there has already been a high level of violence in Kenya in a run-up to the election. It is important that the Congress express solidarity with those in Kenya who advocate democratic reforms and respect for human rights and civil rights. This resolution is an appropriate method to do that. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Hastings, do you have some——
Mr. HASTINGS. One technical correction, Mr. Chairman, with your permission. It has to do with the language in the fourth paragraph. Just change it to Kenya coastal province.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection. The technical amendments are agreed to.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Any other additional Members seeking recognition? If not, if there are no further amendments, the gentleman from Nebraska—without objection, the Subcommittee amendment is agreed to. If there are no further amendments, the gentleman from Nebraska is recognized to offer a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. Hastings if he would add me as a cosponsor. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of this measure as amended on a suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
The question now is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
We now move to H. Con. Res. 121. The Chair lays the measure before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. H. Con. Res. 121. A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation of missile technology from Russia to Iran.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the clerk will read the preamble and operative text of the resolution for amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Whereas there is substantial evidence that missile technology and technical advice have been provided from Russia to Iran in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime.''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point. The Chair will recognize himself to introduce the resolution. I am pleased that we have the sponsor of the resolution with us, Congresswoman Harman.
[H. Con. Res. 121 appears in the appendix.]
H. Con. Res. 121 expresses the sense of the Congress regarding Russia's transfer of missile technology to Iran. One of the most important strategic objectives of our non-proliferation policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining and/or improving its ability to produce and deploy weapons of mass destruction. We know from experience that they are able and willing to use chemical weapons. We know from our intelligence community their reference to develop their own nuclear weapons capability. But most critical, particularly in the short term, is the prospect of Iran obtaining a long-range ballistic missile capability. Russia has already provided Iran with critical know-how and technological support. The question facing us now is whether these activities can be halted in a timely manner. Time is short. We have but a few months to prevent the Iranians from achieving a quantum leap in their missile program.
As I noted in the letter sent just yesterday to the Vice President, an incremental approach will not suffice. We can not jaw bone this to death at periodic Russian-American summits. A part-time ambassador will not solve the problem. A distracted Vice President intent in having successful meetings with his counterpart will lead the Russians to believe that we are only paying lip service to the critically important issue.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If reports of missile technology exports from Russia to Iran prove to be accurate, they would almost certainly violate Russia's international obligation as an adherent to the Missile Technology Control Regime referred to as MTCR. It's also hard to believe that such transfers would not trigger U.S. sanction laws. In this instance, there is no substitute for forceful and immediate action, including the imposition of sanctions on those entities engaged in missile cooperation with Iran. Yet to date, we see virtually no action from the Administration. In fact, we understand from certain officials that the Administration would prefer to address this by way of the diplomatic route. Of course they would. They usually do. But those officials had better read the law. The law requires the imposition of sanctions. It does allow the President to waive such sanctions, but it does not allow the matter to be shunted aside while the issue is being talked to death.
The resolution before us says all the right things. It is the first salvo. This is our heads up to both the Russians and frankly speaking, to our own Administration. But I also want to put the Administration on notice that our Committee plans to consider further legislation on this issue shortly, after we return from the recess. We plan to hear from the Administration, both the intelligence community and the policymakers, and then proceed to mark up on a bill that we intend to introduce after the recess. Hopefully we will have a large bipartisan vote in favor of that bill.
Meanwhile, I urge our Members to support the resolution that's before us today.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I recognize, of course, the popularity of this kind of a resolution. I do want to say that, so far as I am concerned, I did not know about the resolution until yesterday afternoon. I regret we have not had more time to look at it. I understand the Administration had comparable problems. They were scurrying around the White House this morning trying to understand the resolution and to put together a response to it.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a letter, I'm not sure how widely it's been circulated, just indicating that the Administration has concerns about the factual accuracy of parts of the preamble. I am going to ask the Administration about that in just a moment. The letter then says, given the complexity of the issues, they ask us to defer action. I have talked with the Chairman about it. I understand he doesn't want to do that.
But let me simply observe that I think this is an important resolution. I think Congresswoman Harman deserves much credit for putting the resolution together and bringing it to the attention of the Congress and the appropriate committees. This is a very real problem.
The one procedural matter that worries me the most is that there has been a lot of diplomatic activity with respect to this particular issue in the last few days, few weeks. The Vice President I know has been directly involved in it. So far as I know, this Committee has not consulted with him. I really do not know whose fault that is. Maybe it's nobody's fault. But the fact of the matter is, we're moving ahead on a resolution of considerable import and consequence without having had the opportunity, Members of the Committee, to visit with those who have been most directly involved in the Administration on this question in the last few days. I don't think that's the best way for the Committee to proceed.
Having said all that, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is ask the Administration a few questions if they would come forward, please.
Chairman GILMAN. Please identify yourself.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, if you would like to hear from Congresswoman Harman first, that's entirely appropriate. She's the chief sponsor of the resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. Congresswoman Harman.
Mr. HAMILTON. I'll defer my questions until later.
Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member for his comments as well. In your opening remarks, you made many of the points I would choose to make so I don't need to repeat them. I commend you for your statement.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would just note for this Committee that about 100 Members of the House on a bipartisan basis have cosponsored this resolution, including the chairman of this Committee and many Members, the chairman and ranking Member of the National Security Committee, the chairman of the Rules Committee and others. In the Senate, an identical resolution was introduced by Senator Jon Kyl. There are at least 30 Senators cosponsoring that resolution. So I think that does show extensive support.
Senator Kyl and I think it is critical for Congress to act now and to press the Administration to seek an immediate and definitive halt to Russia's assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program. I would note for you that the press has reported widely on the extent of cooperation between Russian entities and Iran. The whereas clauses in this resolution are based on published press reports. They can be made available to Committee Members if you would like to have them. But those press reports cite Israeli intelligence sources, Pentagon officials, and Pentagon officials referring to U.S. intelligence sources. They document specific firms and specific examples of proliferation. Those are the examples that are used in this resolution. So they are based on published reports, not on classified information.
Significantly, even as President Yeltsin denied only a few weeks ago that cooperation with Iran was occurring, the Russian Federal Security Service admitted last week that it had ''thwarted'' an attempt by Iran to procure ballistic missile technology from the NPO Trud earlier in the year. The Administration has been engaged, as Mr. Hamilton just said, at the highest levels for months now, trying to deal with this situation. I commend them for that effort. However, there have been no visible results. Indeed, reports of Russian missile technology transfers to Iran continue and some are asserting that they are increasing.
In addition to that, and very troubling, is the assertion that the methods of transfer have been hardened to prevent detection. So we may in fact be in a situation where proliferation is getting worse, not better, while diplomatic efforts are underway.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to Israeli intelligence estimates reported in the Washington Times, Iran may field long-range ballistic missiles in as little as 3 years. These missiles, which are versions of the North Korean Nodong missile, known as the Shahab–3 and Shahab–4, would have ranges respectively of 800 and 1,200 miles. This is enough to target U.S. forces in the region, to target Israel, and to target U.S. allies in Europe. This is not just about Israeli security, though I am very concerned about it and I am sure this Committee is, but Turkish security, other NATO allies and even ironically Russian security, because these missiles have a long enough range to hit Russia, which may be the source of much of the technology in them.
By voting to report out this concurrent resolution, this Committee will send a powerful message to the Administration and to Russia that the Congress wants results. The President has the tools to enforce compliance. He needs to use them. So I would urge the Committee to support this concurrent resolution and to seek its consideration promptly on the consent calendar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Harman. Is there anyone else seeking recognition?
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. May I go ahead with the questions to the Administration, please? Could I ask the appropriate Administration officials to come forward and identify themselves?
Mr. KLOSSON. My name is Michael Klosson. I am a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in Legislative Affairs at the State Department. I have with me Mr. Jim Timbie, who is a senior advisor to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and international Security Affairs. Mr. Timbie has been working with Ambassador Wisner on this matter.
Mr. HAMILTON. It's my information that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday deferred action on this resolution because of their concerns. Is that correct?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KLOSSON. That's correct.
Mr. HAMILTON. Some of the concerns that you will raise here. Now, our laws require, and the Administration has procedures which I think have been exercised in other cases to apply sanctions to arms export and MTCR violations. Does this resolution preempt those processes and judgments in your view?
Mr. TIMBIE. Yes, sir. The intent appears to be to predetermine the outcome of the process that we have for making judgments about sanctions. We have a process for reviewing information that we have about technology transfers and comparing it to the elements that are established by law for triggering sanctions. We read the draft resolution as intending to preempt that process for comparing the evidence to the requirements of the law.
Mr. HAMILTON. Now, the resolution of course speaks in terms of violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. It's my understanding that the Administration in their various conversations and dialogs have sought more than just compliance with the MTCR. Is it not seeking to block any substantive assistance to these rogue states on these programs?
Mr. TIMBIE. We are seeking to end all assistance to Iran's missile program. That includes goods and services that are covered by MTCR and those that are not. We don't want to see anything transferred to Iran where the end user is the Iranian missile program.
Mr. HAMILTON. So in some respects, this resolution lowers the threshold from the standards you tried to apply?
Mr. TIMBIE. It's less sweeping. We are raising this with Russia, not as an MTCR implementation question, but as a denial of this material to Iran.
Mr. HAMILTON. Are there any assertions in the resolution that you think are inaccurate?
Mr. TIMBIE. One of the paragraphs talks about specific items that have been transferred to Iran. We believe those are factually incorrect. In a closed session, in a different sort of format where we could talk about classified information, we could talk about what the right situation is.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. I am sure the attitude of the sponsor of the resolution, indeed I have spoken to her about it and she is welcome to comment on this, is she wants her resolution to be factually accurate. I don't have any doubt about that. That may be an important thing as this resolution moves along.
Let me ask you, the resolution has a judgment that Iran has received all the needed technology to deploy a long-range missile. That's a very important issue of course. Can you comment on that, or does that get into intelligence matters?
Mr. TIMBIE. Let me just say simply that is not our judgment. We see substantial benefit to cutting off contact between Russia and Iran.
Mr. HAMILTON. The resolution does not prejudge the Russian response. It says that if the Russian response is inadequate, then sanctions should be imposed. But what is the view of the Administration with regard to the Russian response at this time? Is it an inadequate response?
Mr. TIMBIE. We think it is too early to make such a judgment. We are working intensively with the Russians to cut off transfers to the Iranian missile program. We think it's too early. We have established this process and we think it's too early to make judgments about the Russian response.
Mr. HAMILTON. Do you have a position on this resolution at this time, the Administration?
Mr. KLOSSON. Mr. Hamilton, we were just asked for our official views late last night on the resolution as such. We started the process over night and this morning. At this stage we have expressed concerns, which Mr. Timbie has put forward, but there has not been time to have an official Administration-wide cleared position on this resolution.
Mr. HAMILTON. Are you asking the Committee to defer action?
Mr. KLOSSON. We thought that since we have identified a number of concerns, that it might be useful over the next couple days or weeks to work with the Committee staff and see if we can reach some understandings on the resolution. I know the Committee is interested in meeting with Ambassador Wisner. We have tried on a number of occasions to work that out. Right now, we are trying to set up a meeting with the Committee and Ambassador Wisner, and representatives of the intelligence community either on the 21st of October or the 23rd. We think that would also be useful for the Committee to hear directly from him as part of formulating this resolution.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. Let me urge you, let me also urge the Chairman and the sponsor of the resolution to encourage those meetings to take place. As a matter of fact, my personal view on it is that we ought to hear directly from the Vice President on this resolution. I have not spoken to him about it. I don't know what he would say. But he is the one that's been the focal point of our diplomatic activity on this most recently.
So I would urge the Administration, I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the sponsor of the resolution no matter what happens in the next few minutes here, that we have the opportunity before the resolution comes to the House floor, to hear directly from the Vice President with regard to his judgment about the missile transfers.
Representative Harman has raised a very serious question here. Everybody in this institution is quite uneasy about developments in Iran and what is happening there, and the possibility of transfer of sensitive information by Russia to Iran. She is quite right and so is the Chairman in trying to push this forward to our attention.
I think I heard the Chairman say that we have not had adequate information on this. I certainly would agree with that. I don't know where this stands at the moment. Therefore, I would urge such a meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me the opportunity.
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAMILTON. Yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Our Committee has been asking for Ambassador Wisner to brief our Committee for a 4-week period of time. We have yet to have any briefing. I would hope we would be pleased to work with Administration, but I think it would be appropriate to arrange an early briefing.
In the meantime, I urge that we move ahead with this legislation. It won't be on the floor for a while. We would like to be able to get to some more factual background.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have had an intelligence briefing on Iranian missile buildup. That's been very distressing to us; the expediency in which Iran is moving forward to its missile production, and missiles that could reach into Europe and reach the United States. I would hope that you would expedite any briefing that we could arrange for our Committee. We still have an open invitation to Mr. Wisner to come before us.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
Chairman GILMAN. I would be pleased to yield.
Mr. HAMILTON. I really don't dispute what you have said. I understand you have made a request to Mr. Wisner and he's not been able to come. If you recall my remarks on that a few minutes ago, I phrased it very carefully. I think it's unfortunate that that contact hasn't occurred. But let me just say again, Mr. Wisner is a special envoy. The man who has done the work on this, who has been directly involved with Russia has been the Vice President. This is as serious a foreign policy matter as we deal with in this Congress. We ought to hear directly not just from the intelligence community. We ought to hear from the top policymakers about this critical problem before we act.
I am not asking, Mr. Chairman, that you not move forward at this point. I think I fully understand the view of the Committee on it. I just think before we bring it to floor, perhaps we could have that kind of a session and look at it.
Chairman GILMAN. I'll be pleased to work with our Ranking Member to see if we can arrange such a meeting.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask questions of the Administration too. Again, in brief if possible.
What is the process and what is the time table for reaching conclusions as to whether or not missile technology or other kinds of important test equipment which is identified in the resolution has been or is being transferred?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TIMBIE. We are examining whether sanctions against particular entities in Russia are justified. The point we are at now is assembling the information and comparing it to the requirements established by law. The answer to your question is we are assembling the information that we have that bears on that question.
Mr. BEREUTER. Has there been a statement of fact prepared upon the transfer of missile technology?
Mr. TIMBIE. We are not to that point yet.
Mr. BEREUTER. Has the Missile Technology Advisory Committee met?
Mr. TIMBIE. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. BEREUTER. Isn't that an essential step?
Mr. TIMBIE. Wait a second. I am told that Committee has met.
Mr. BEREUTER. Has met?
Mr. TIMBIE. Has met.
Mr. BEREUTER. And what have they found?
Mr. TIMBIE. They have not reached a finding on this question. This Committee meets periodically and it has addressed this question, but has not reached a finding.
Mr. BEREUTER. Has there been a meeting at the intermediary level or at the principals level at this point?
Chairman GILMAN. Could we ask the State Department person or Defense to come to the table so that Mr. Bereuter may inquire directly? Please identify yourself.
Ms. FRANK. Yes, sir. I am Robin Frank. I am an attorney at the Department of State.
Chairman GILMAN. And are you familiar with the task force that's been meeting on the missile situation?
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. FRANK. As an attorney, I participate in various of the meetings of this task force.
Chairman GILMAN. Would you put the mike a little closer, please?
Ms. FRANK. I apologize, sir. Yes.
Chairman GILMAN. And you do participate in the task force.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. The letter from the President dated October 9, says, ''We are examining now whether sanctions against some specified entities would be justified.'' What evidence do you seek? How is that process going forward? What is the process for examining such evidence to determine whether or not sanctions on some specified or specific entity should be invoked?
Ms. FRANK. The Committee you are referring to, the NTAC, meets on an ongoing basis to review a variety of intelligence, not only on Russia-Iran transfers but on transfers across the board.
As you are aware, Mr. Bereuter, the way the process works is the information is gathered first. When it reaches a certain level, we begin a comparison of the available information to the requirements of the various sanctions laws.
Mr. BEREUTER. The Committee meets though on a variety of issues. This Committee deserves to know if there has been any focus on Iran, a transfer of technology to Iran specifically.
Ms. FRANK. I can assure you that in the regular meetings of the Committee that Russia-Iran transfers come up.
Mr. BEREUTER. Do you think it's possible you will never be able to reach a definitive judgment on whether or not missile technology is being transferred to Iran? Do you think it is possible that you will not be able to reach a definitive judgment?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. FRANK. If I could confer with my colleagues for a moment. I think at this point, it would be speculative to try to——
Chairman GILMAN. Again, would you bring the mike a little closer to you, please? Thank you.
Mr. BEREUTER. You did not answer yes. You said it would be speculative. It's impossible for you I would judge, to make a statement that you will have definitive evidence at any time that missile technology is being transferred? That's quite possible.
In the meantime, you are asking this Committee to sit here and not express its view on this subject. We may never have definitive evidence until missile technology is in place and operative in Iran. Isn't that possible?
Ms. FRANK. Excuse me, sir. We'll be with you in a moment.
Chairman GILMAN. Do one of your other colleagues wish to answer that directly?
Mr. BEREUTER. I would love to hear from the policy experts there.
Chairman GILMAN. Could someone respond to Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. It is a reasonable question for a Member of an oversight committee to ask you and you can answer yes or no.
Mr. TIMBIE. If I understand the question correctly——
Chairman GILMAN. Would you again identify yourself for the stenographer?
Mr. TIMBIE. My name is Jim Timbie. I am from the State Department.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TIMBIE. We have a process to compare information that we have with the requirements of law and make sanctions judgments. We have started that process. We will see it through to a conclusion. Judgments will be made.
Mr. BEREUTER. Again, is it possible that you will never have definitive evidence sufficient to say that missile technology is being transferred to Iran until, in fact, missile technology is in place in Iran? Is that possible?
Mr. TIMBIE. That is a possible outcome.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much.
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I would be pleased to yield.
Chairman GILMAN. How long has this task force been looking at the information, the intelligence on the missile transfers to Iran?
Mr. TIMBIE. The intelligence community has been focusing on this question for more than a year.
Chairman GILMAN. I'm sorry, I was interrupted. How long a time?
Mr. TIMBIE. The intelligence community has been looking into this question for more than a year.
Chairman GILMAN. For more than a year?
Mr. TIMBIE. More than a year.
Chairman GILMAN. How frequently does your task force meet?
Ms. FRANK. Basically every 2 weeks, sir.
Chairman GILMAN. And how long has the task force been looking at this information?
Ms. FRANK. I have only been with the task force since April, and certainly since then. I can't give you an answer——
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Have they been looking at it since April?
Ms. FRANK. Yes.
Chairman GILMAN. And every 2 weeks since April. Have you made any definitive decisions with regard to the missile transfer?
Ms. FRANK. No, sir.
Chairman GILMAN. How much longer do you think it will take to get us an answer?
Ms. FRANK. I am not in a position to give you an answer.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is in a position to give us an answer? The other two gentlemen? How long will it take for you to provide information to the Congress with regard to this very critical issue of missile buildup by Iran?
Mr. TIMBIE. The process is one of collecting information, comparing it to standards that are established by law. We can't really say how long it is going to take.
Mr. HAMILTON. Would the Chairman yield?
Chairman GILMAN. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HAMILTON. I think we have before us several very able and competent people who are really being asked questions that are a little above them in terms of policy. It just seems to me to emphasize the necessity of this Committee having to hear from the top policymakers on this question. These people here are very good. They are very able, they are very competent. But they are dealing with it at a very technical level and they are not able to answer broader policy questions.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter's time has expired.
Mr. BEREUTER. I ask unanimous consent that I might have one additional minute.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Yes. Without objection.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, my colleagues.
I think until you show us evidence, I mean the Administration, that the evidence is being gathered as to make a judgment whether or not sanctions should legitimately be imposed under the legislation, whether you are willing to make that political judgment in the Administration, you are going to continue to have legislation responsibly attempted to be moved through this Congress.
I haven't been on the Intelligence Committee for about 3 years. I don't have information about this. But I will speculate, I think with good cause that missile technology is being sent to Iran and that eventually if we don't act, we will have a ballistic missile technology in place in Iran. Perhaps we'll have it even if we do intervene, but we ought to do everything we possibly can to keep that from happening, including imposition of sanctions.
If they fall on certain entities that are important to the space program, the cooperative arrangement between Russia and the United States, so be it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to associate myself with a lot of what has been said, particularly Mr. Bereuter's last comments. As I understand the Ranking Member, he is not asking that action be held up today. He is saying that between now and the floor action that we have this high level briefing that I think we simply have to have.
I also want to make one other comment before I ask a few questions. That is, Ambassador Wisner is a superb diplomat who has been charged with specific responsibilities here. I happen to have talked to him on something else about 2 weeks ago. He had just come back from Russia. I certainly believe and would certainly hope that the inability to get him here to have this briefing or to have the briefing with the Vice President is not based on any reluctance to do that.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I just want to say to the Administration that there is a tendency here, which I saw in the previous Administration that George Bush headed, and I saw it before that with Ronald Reagan's Administration, to talk about standards and evidence as a mask to avoid confronting some very tough decisions with serious geopolitical consequences. I understand that discussion and that concern.
But what Mr. Bereuter said, I believe to be true. The notion of Russian missile technology in violation of the standards set by the Missile Technology Control Regime by a party, Russia, which has committed to adhere to that regime in a forum that compels either the imposition of sanctions on the entities that were responsible for those transfers or a waiver under the standards allowed in the law of that, should be moved on.
I could not understand what you were saying with response to Mr. Hamilton's question regarding there is something different about the law. All this resolution is saying as to the Missile Technology Control Regime is the law is the law. If you find a violation, you have got to impose sanctions. And we are expressing the desire that you impose the sanctions and not waive the sanctions. It is a sense of Congress resolution.
So I guess I wanted to just pass on my feeling that at some point, as Mr. Bereuter said, the chips have to fall where they may on some of these issues.
The issue of this is not a bill to cut off foreign aid to Russia. This is a sense of Congress expressing a very strong congressional feeling on the seriousness of this issue. If the Administration's belief, and I sure hope you are right, that this missile technology does not yet make Iran capable of producing and developing missiles of the range provided in the regime, then we can fix that with a word here in the resolution, in the whereas clause, which simply says, where these technologies, if they continue to be transferred, will surely give Iran the capability to deploy a missile of sufficient range.
If you are talking about a minor thing to deal with with that issue, we can deal with it. If there is something in the whereas clause that—I know that Ms. Harman would not have put this in her resolution if it were not reported over and over again from reliable sources, but if the word reportedly makes people more comfortable rather than the total assertion of it as fact, that's something we could fix too.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I think we need to know what are the realistic fixes you would like to see in this resolution as well as I think we need to have this briefing that Mr. Hamilton talked about. I think we should pass this resolution out.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, in the hopes——
Chairman GILMAN. Before Mr. Campbell goes, it's the Chair's intention to try to dispose of this before the vote on the floor.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thanks. I would like that too. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, in the hopes of disposing quickly, I was going to and will propose an amendment to strike the third clause. Here is why. I am hopeful that the author of the bill can agree, in which case it can be done by unanimous consent. But if not, I would ask for a vote. I would prefer not to.
The whole reason is simply this. Take a look at the way the resolution is structured. The first says the President should demand the Government of Russia to stop these transfers. Fine, I agree. Second, if the Russian response is inadequate, then the United States ought to impose sanctions. Sure, because that section has got the conditional ''if''. But the third says that the threshold under current law allowing for the waiver of a prohibition ought to be raised without any conditional requirement. At the very least, that should have been if the Russian response were inadequate.
If the Russian response were adequate, then raising the threshold does not seem to be appropriate. But then further, the threshold under current law allowing the waiver of the prohibition is ''if furnishing such assistance is important to the national interest.'' That is the present waiver. Candidly, I would like to have some hearings on how the Freedom Support Act is going before we put ourselves on record as wanting to amend the Freedom Support Act.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Every other part of this resolution works. It is right. But (3) just doesn't fit. My request is that the——
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Harman, do you want to——
Mr. CAMPBELL. If Ms. Harman, to whom I now yield might be willing to agree.
Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Campbell did raise this with me this morning. It was our intention to put a phrase in there that tracks the House-passed version of the Fiscal Year 1998 foreign aid bill and the Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations bill, foreign aid bill, and also to refer to language in the Freedom Support Act, which Mr. Campbell just said, which based on more recent actions by the House would seem to provide a loophole to effective action under this resolution.
So we did put that in deliberately. I appreciate Mr. Campbell's view. I would prefer not to delete this, but it is obviously up to the Committee what action it wants to take.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. Amendment is requested by Mr. Campbell. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell. ''Page 2, strike lines 15–17''——
Mr. CAMPBELL. Unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Consent to waive the reading of the amendment.
[The amendment appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell is recognized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. In the interest of time, you have all heard my point. We have got a good clause (1), a good clause (2). Clause (3) is substantive law. We are putting ourselves on record to change the Freedom Support Act. The threshold under current law is that the President can waive it ''when important to the national interest.'' It is broader than any finding here. Indeed, the way this resolution reads, if the Russians come right back and say you are right, we'll stop it, this resolution still says that we support changing the current law. It's a mistake and I urge your support.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. With regard to the Campbell amendment, I would like to try to work out the proposal that the gentleman is suggesting, but at this time I would urge the Committee to oppose the amendment.
Any further comments?
All in favor of the amendment signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
The amendment is not carried.
Mr. Sherman wanted to be recognized.
Mr. SHERMAN. Just very briefly.
Ms. Harman, the first whereas clause states that these missile technologies and technical advice have been provided from Russia, which implies that it's the Russia Government providing this technology. Would you be adverse to an amendment that says from entities in Russia? Would that delay the final adoption of this concurrent resolution?
Chairman GILMAN. Very quickly.
Ms. HARMAN. We chose this language deliberately to be vague because there is a nice question about whether it is non-governmental entities or some kind of government-sanctioned proliferation and so forth. Just putting the word ''Russia'' seemed to make the point that the Russian Government needs to act to shut down the proliferation from any source. That is how our resolution is directed. That is why the language was used.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly. I did have the chance on Saturday to talk with the Vice President for about 15 minutes on this subject. Mr. Hamilton is right. There is a lot more knowledge for us to gain from more specific testimony about what the Administration is doing to put pressure on Russians.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would further add by way of suggestion to Representative Harman, if you now have the opportunity to go back and check the sources of these publications you relied upon for these factual statements, we should be able to reconcile them from an accuracy standpoint.
Chairman GILMAN. If there are no further requests for amendments or discussion, the gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of this measure as amended on the suspension calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
As many as are opposed?
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on the measure are postponed.
This disposes of our agenda for today. I thank everyone for being here.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."