    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   H. CON. RES. 251, H.R. 4118, AND H.R. 4249

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                            INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 4, 2000

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-161

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/
                      international--relations

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    67-826                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                                     ______

                      COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

                     BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
    WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania    SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
    JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa                 TOM LANTOS, California
    HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska              GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                      Samoa
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina       ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois         CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
    EDWARD R. ROYCE, California          ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
    PETER T. KING, New York              PAT DANNER, Missouri
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     BRAD SHERMAN, California
        Carolina                         ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
    AMO HOUGHTON, New York               JIM DAVIS, Florida
    TOM CAMPBELL, California             EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         BARBARA LEE, California
    PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio                JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    GEORGE RADANOVICH, California        JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
    JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
    THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
                        Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
              Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
         Hillel Weinberg, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
                         Jill N. Quinn, Staff Associate

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Markup of H. Con. Res. 251, a resolution commending the Republic
      of Croatia for the conduct of its parliamentary and
      presidential elections.........................................     1
    Markup of H.R. 4118, The Russian-American Trust and Cooperation
      Act of 2000. A bill to prohibit the rescheduling or forgiveness
      of any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the United States by
      the Government of the Russian Federation until the President
      certifies to the Congress......................................     5
    Markup of H.R. 4249, The Cross-Border Cooperation and
      Environmental Safety in Northern Europe Act of 2000. A bill to
      foster cross-border cooperation and environmental cleanup in
      Northern Europe................................................    27

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statements:

    The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of New York and Chairman, Committee on
      International Relations, statements on H. Con. Res. 251, H.R.
      4118, and H.R. 4249........................................32, 34, 40
    The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Florida, statement on H.R. 4118..............    43

    Bills and amendments:

    Text of H. Con. Res. 251.........................................    46
        Amendment to H. Con. Res. 251 offered by Mr. Radanovich......    49
    Text of H.R. 4118................................................    50
        Amendment to H.R. 4118 offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
          (withdrawn)................................................    56
        Amendment to H.R. 4118 offered by Mr. Gejdenson (withdrawn)..    58
        Amendment to H.R. 4118 offered by Mr. Gejdenson (adopted)....    59
    Text of H.R. 4249................................................    61
        Amendment (en bloc) to H.R. 4249 offered by Mr. Gejdenson
          (approved).................................................    72
    Vote tally on motion to adjourn..................................    74

                   H. CON. RES. 251, H.R. 4118, AND H.R. 4249

                                  ----------

                                  MAY 4, 2000

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on International Relations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m. in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A.
    Gilman, (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Chairman Gilman. The Committee on International Relations
    meets today in open session to consider three items of
    business.
        In the interest of time, I will save my opening remarks for
    the specific items, but will extend an opportunity to our
    colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut, to make any remarks
    he might desire at this time. Mr. Gejdenson, do you have an
    opening statement?
        Mr. Gejdenson. No.
        Chairman Gilman. The first matter to be considered is H.
    Con. Res. 251 relating to Croatia. The resolution is before the
    Committee. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

                       CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 251

        Ms. Rush. House Concurrent Resolution 251, a concurrent
    resolution commending the Republic of Croatia for the conduct
    of its parliamentary and Presidential elections.
        Mr. Gilman. Without objection, the preamble operative
    language resolution be read in that order for amendment the
    clerk will read.
        Ms. Rush. Whereas, the fourth Croatian parliamentary
    elections held on January 3, 2000, marked Croatia's progress
    toward meeting its commitment----
        Mr. Gilman. Without objection, the resolution will be
    deemed as having been read and is open to amendment at any
    point. The resolution is under the jurisdiction of the full
    Committee, and I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Radanovich, who sponsored the resolution, to introduce the
    resolution to us.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    bringing this bill to markup.
        I also want to offer an amendment to my own bill at this
    time, which is actually perfecting language. This language
    takes into consideration some minor concerns the Chairman had
    expressed, and I believe the resolution is stronger for it. I
    will proceed to explain this bill, including this perfecting
    language.
        On February 15 of this year, I introduced H. Con. Res. 251
    commending the Republic of Croatia for the successful conduct
    of its parliamentary and Presidential elections. The free and
    fair elections in Croatia and the peaceful and orderly transfer
    of power from the old to the new government is an example of
    democracy to the people of other nations in the region and a
    major contribution to the democratic development of
    southeastern Europe.
        President Mesic has pledged to bring this country into the
    European Union in 5 years, and even if this is an ambitious
    goal he is to be commended. President Mesic has promised, and
    has in fact undertaken some concrete steps, to end interference
    in Bosnia, to welcome returning Serb refugees, and to cooperate
    with the International Court in pursuing alleged Croat war
    criminals. He has also promised further privatization and media
    reform.
        Although President Mesic and his new government face many
    difficulties, I am very optimistic that Croatia is on a new
    path, and I am hopeful that we will do our utmost to encourage
    them on this correct path.
        My resolution also calls for United States support and
    facilitation of Croatia's goals for membership in the NATO's
    Partnership for Peace program and its accession into the World
    Trade Organization. I firmly believe that by supporting
    Croatia's membership in the PFP and its accession to WTO we
    will not only be making a sound investment in the future and in
    the stability of southeast Europe, but we will also be sending
    a clear message to other countries in the region of the
    benefits that come from choosing a democratic path.
        Croatia was a tremendous ally to us last year during the
    Kosovo conflict, and as far as I am concerned they have more
    than demonstrated their loyalty to the United States. In my
    opinion, their membership in the Partnership for Peace program
    has already been earned and is long overdue. There is no
    question that we need a trustworthy ally in southeast Europe
    where we have spent an exorbitant amount of money and time.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for bringing this important
    resolution before the Committee today, and I urge my colleagues
    to vote favorably. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Radanovich, we welcome you to offer
    your amendment at this time.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. I offer the amendment as a
    perfecting amendment.
        Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Rush. Amendment offered by Mr. Radanovich. Page 2, line
    10, after privatization reform insert----
        Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as having been
    read. Mr. Radanovich is recognized for introduction of his
    amendment.
        Mr. Radanovich. This is basically perfecting language, Mr.
    Chairman, and I believe it takes into account the minor
    concerns that you had expressed, and I believe the resolution
    is stronger for it.
        Chairman Gilman. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor
    of the amendment signify in the usual manner.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Chairman Gilman. The amendment is carried.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to take
    this time to commend the gentleman for his amendment and the
    initial legislation that he offered here. I think it is
    appropriate. We are all very enthused about the change in
    direction in Croatia.
        I would just mention that the last meeting of the Standing
    Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, we, seeing the
    change in course in Croatia, have taken similar steps now to
    bring Croatia into associate member status, so this is
    certainly entirely consistent with it, and I thank the
    gentleman for his initiative.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
        Are any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me join my colleagues
    in expressing support for this resolution. Mr. Radanovich has
    taken the lead and done so in an area where in the former
    Yugoslavian Republic we are often here to review failures and
    continued frustration in a sense that we are not making
    progress sometimes, even though we may be involved in a
    righteous and worthy cause.
        When you take a look at the participation in the election,
    when you look at the commitments made by the candidates, it
    really is clear that we have an important step forward here in
    the Balkans.
        It is an indication that the flexibility that the
    Administration has had is productive at times, and clearly what
    we want to do is work with the Administration to try to develop
    the same kind of success elsewhere in the former Yugoslavian
    Republic, so I commend the gentleman for his efforts and hope
    that we would continue to work to try to bring a democratic
    institution, civil society and economic reform to the other
    areas that were once part of Yugoslavia.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
        Are any other Members seeking recognition? If not, I would
    like to note that the resolution as amended by its sponsor, Mr.
    Radanovich, is timely and appropriate, and I commend the
    gentleman for introducing this measure.
        People of Croatia has suffered through several years of
    warfare and destruction, ethnic strife, economic stagnation. As
    the resolution points out, the elections held recently for the
    Croatian parliament and presidency were indeed conducted in a
    free, fair and democratic manner by all accounts that we have
    received.
        Just as important, however, is the fact that those
    elections brought to power a government that appears intent on
    moving Croatia forward in all respects. Accordingly, we agree
    that it would be worthwhile for us to show our support for that
    new government in the form of this resolution.
        The new Croatian government will face challenges in opening
    up its economy and in finding ways to insure that its support
    for ethnic Croats in leaving Bosnia does not lead Croatia to
    undermine the sovereignty of that state. It will face serious
    challenges in other areas as well.
        The amended resolution, if approved by our Committee, will
    make it clear that success in meeting these challenges should
    be met by American and European support for Croatia's full
    entry into the European and transatlantic community of nations,
    including entry into NATO's Partnership for Peace program.
        Now is the time for Croatia to build its new democratic
    future, and I think the resolution points to that fact. I
    congratulate and it does congratulate the Croatian people for
    so clearly choosing the path of democracy in its recent
    elections.
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Judge Hastings.
        Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Chairman, with your permission I would like to know the
    Administration's position with reference to this matter, if it
    is at all possible.
        Chairman Gilman. Will a member of the Administration come
    up to the mike and identify yourself?
        Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Guess. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    opportunity to appear before the Committee today. My name is
    Michael----
        Chairman Gilman. Would you press your button?
        Mr. Guess. Let me try this again.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Mr. Guess. My name is Michael Guess. I am Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for the Bureau of Legislative Affairs in the State
    Department. Thank you again for the opportunity to come today
    before you.
        Chairman Gilman. Please proceed.
        Mr. Guess. Mr. Chairman, we very strongly support this
    resolution. We very much appreciate Congressman Radanovich's
    interest in Croatia. We also very much appreciate the support
    of both the Majority and the Minority in our partnership in
    trying to insure that Croatia continues to proceed along the
    democratic path and toward greater economic reform.
        We agree entirely with the sentiments that this resolution
    expresses, including regarding the progress that has been made
    by the new democratic and reform minded government of Croatia.
    We fully support Croatia's membership in the World Trade
    Organization. We are working to help develop a NATO consensus
    in support of Croatia's membership in the Partnership of Peace,
    and we hope that that effort will bear fruit in the coming
    months.
        We also agree very strongly that Croatia should continue
    and increase its work on refugee return, economic reform, media
    reform and cooperation with the international tribunal.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
        Judge Hastings.
        Mr. Hastings. Thank you.
        Chairman Gilman. Any other Member seeking recognition? If
    not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized
    now for a motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be
    requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as
    amended on a suspension counter.
        Chairman Gilman. The question is now the motion. The
    gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, as being here. All those
    in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Chairman Gilman. All those opposed signify by saying no.
        [No response.]
        Chairman Gilman. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
    Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
        We will now consider H.R. 4118 relative to the Lourdes
    facility in Cuba and refinancing Russian debt. The Chair lies a
    bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of
    the bill.

                           CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4118

        Ms. Rush. H.R. 4118, a bill to prohibit the rescheduling or
    forgiveness of any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the
    United States by the government of the Russian Federation until
    the President certifies to the Congress that the government of
    the Russian Federation has ceased all its operations at,
    removed all personnel from and permanently closed the
    intelligence facility at Lourdes, Cuba.
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
    the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
    amendment.
        Ms. Rush. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
    Representative of the United States of America in Congress
    assembled, Section 1, Short Title. This act may be cited----
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
    as having been read and is open for amendment of any part. The
    bill is under the jurisdiction of the full Committee.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-
    Lehtinen, the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    International Economic Policy and Trade, for 5 minutes to
    introduce her bill.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        While many of our Committee colleagues are already
    cosponsors of this legislation and are knowledgeable on its
    purpose, I would like to offer a brief overview about what the
    bill does.
        The threat posed by Russia's facility at Lourdes is not
    new. The Freedom Support Act of 1992 clearly underscored the
    dangers to United States national security as it required the
    United States Government to reduce certain foreign assistance
    to Russia proportional to the amount that the Russian
    government provides to Lourdes.
        Ensuing legislation reiterated this position. However, due
    at first to concerns about the new Russian democracy and market
    economy and later due to considerations relating to United
    States/Russian relations, this requirement has never been
    enforced. Eight years of talks, 8 years of providing the
    Russian Federation with billions of dollars in United States
    aid of one sort or another, 8 years of rescheduling the Russian
    debt at different intervals, and Lourdes remains a serious
    problem.
        On May 5, 1998, in unclassified letters to Members of this
    Committee, Secretary of Defense Cohen stated, ``I remain
    concerned with the signals intelligence facility at Lourdes,''
    and, ``the use of Cuba as a base for intelligence activities
    directed against the United States.'' In fact, evidence
    suggests that there has been an increase, not a reduction, of
    the threat posed by the Lourdes facility.
        Coinciding with the February 7, 1996, order by then Russian
    President Yeltsin demanding that the Russian intelligence
    community increase its gathering of United States and other
    western economic and trade secrets, multiple open sources
    confirmed that the Russian Federation began a multi-billion
    dollar upgrade and expansion of the Lourdes facility, which
    included, according to open sources and public statements by
    former United States officials, by Russian and Cuban defectors,
    the addition of satellite dishes, voice recognition facilities,
    more sophisticated computers for intercepting specific
    telephone numbers, faxes and computer data and the means by
    which to engage in cyber warfare against the United States.
        In fact, some believe that the ongoing sophisticated and
    organized cyber attacks the Pentagon military computer systems
    were subjected to in early 1999 came from a country routing
    through Russian computer addresses. These attacks have been
    occurring since 1998 and are believed to stem from the Lourdes
    facility. Other public sources and reports refer to the jamming
    of U.S. FAA transmissions as an example of how Lourdes has used
    cyber warfare, which directly threatens the lives of Americans.
        On November 5, 1998, a Moscow publication reported that the
    Lourdes espionage facility provides between 60 and 70 percent
    of all intelligence data about the United States, including
    highly sensitive military information about our armed forces.
    Such a penetration of closely guarded American military
    planning jeopardizes the lives of thousands of our men and
    women in uniform.
        Some may dismiss the latter contention on the assumption
    that Russia, as an ally, would not compromise United States
    security in that fashion. However, I ask them to look at
    Russia's recent actions against Kosovo, Iraq, its reported arms
    transfers to China and Iran, its multiple penetration of the
    State Department.
        I would further underscore the detailed information
    provided by Russian defectors and former Cuban intelligence
    officers confirming that the Russian Federation shares the data
    on the United States derived from Lourdes with the Castro
    regime and shares or sells the information to North Korea, to
    Iraq, to China and Iran, as well as individual groups which are
    hostile to the United States.
        The use of Lourdes, however, according to academic studies
    and news reports, is not limited to secret U.S. military
    operations. Its targets include the interception of sensitive
    diplomatic, commercial and economic traffic and private U.S.
    telecommunications.
        Informed public sources state that economic traffic
    intercepted includes Federal Reserve deliberations, planned
    U.S. mergers and acquisitions, competitive bidding processes,
    data which could be used to bankroll Russian global operations
    to the detriment of American equity.
        The disdain for U.S. security extends into the private
    realm as revealed by the director of the Defense Intelligence
    Agency in August, 1996, who stated that Lourdes is being used
    to collect personal information about U.S. citizens in the
    private and government sectors. This means that one of our
    constituents could be a target, yet what are we doing to
    protect them?
        By asking the American people to look the other way on the
    $1.9 billion in outstanding loan guarantees under the Commodity
    Credit Corporation of USDA; by asking our constituents to
    forgive or reschedule the $602 million in unleased debt to the
    United States; by asking the United States taxpayer, who
    already contributes greatly to Russia's growth and development
    through foreign aid programs; to disregard the $2.17 billion in
    outstanding X/M bank loans and guarantees, the $11.3 billion in
    insurance and the----
        Chairman Gilman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Please
    wind up your statement.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The $22.9 million of claims in recovery, we are asking the
    American taxpayer to absorb the cost of Russia's espionage
    activity. Essentially we are asking them to indirectly
    subsidize Russia's spy operations.
        By rescheduling or forgiving Russia's debt to the United
    States, we are freeing up funds for Russia to pay the Castro
    regime $200 million to $300 million a year for the continued
    operations of Lourdes. Not having to worry about paying its
    debt to the United States, the Russian government is then able
    to focus its resources on expanding and upgrading its operation
    at Lourdes so that it can better target and undermine United
    States national security, foreign policy objectives and
    political and economic stability. This cannot and must not
    continue.
        The bill before us, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4118, affords us the
    necessary leverage to correct this situation. It holds the
    Russian government accountable for its actions. Trust must be
    earned. When the United States Government treats the Russian
    Federation as an ally and wishes to build upon existing
    relations, it expects the Russians to act in accordance. The
    Russian response to United States assistance and cooperation in
    the form of debt forgiveness has been to spy on and threaten
    the American people through its operation at Lourdes.
        How can we go back to our district and look at our
    constituents, the good men and women who elect us because they
    trust that we will do the right thing by them and their
    children? How can we look into their eyes and----
        Chairman Gilman. The gentlelady's time has expired. I
    understand the gentlelady has an amendment.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Will you submit your amendment at this
    time?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I do, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
    at the desk.
        Chairman Gilman. The clerk will report, and the clerk will
    distribute the amendment.
        Ms. Rush. Amendment offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Page 4,
    line 21, strike notwithstanding and insert----
        Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as having been
    read. Without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for
    submission of the amendment.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        In response to concerns about the need to afford the
    President discretion over this matter and the implementation of
    this bill, I am amending my bill to allow for a national
    security waiver. However, it asks that the President notify the
    Congress 10 days before suspending the provisions of this bill
    and certify to this Committee and to the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee that the national security interests and
    foreign policy priorities are furthered by such a waiver.
        It affords the opportunity to the President to submit
    portions of the certification in classified form if necessary.
    The waiver is limited to debt rescheduling because allowing a
    waiver for the forgiveness of debt would make this bill non-
    existent and would nullify any congressional oversight over
    this issue.
        Last, due to the nature of debt rescheduling, the fact that
    rescheduling is multi-year, a waiver could provide the Russian
    Federation with multiple years of latitude without any United
    States leverage on the subject of Lourdes.
        For this reason, I have included language in this amendment
    requiring periodic reports on United States national interests
    being furthered by the waiver on Russia's compliance with arms
    limitations and nonproliferation agreements and the status of
    Russian operations at Lourdes.
        This is a fair balance, a comprehensive amendment that I
    hope our colleagues support, and I would like to remind our
    colleagues that just this week Secretary Albright stated during
    an unusual town hall meeting for State Department employees,
    that ``If you are not professional about security, you are a
    failure. Forget that the Cold War ended. Our nation still has
    enemies.''
        Our secrets still need protecting, and the time to act is
    now to protect our secrets, our security, the American people.
    I hope that we can get our colleagues to vote for the bill and
    to support this waiver amendment, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the
    amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gilman. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Rush. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson. Page 5, line
    9, strike----
        Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as having been
    read. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized for the amendment.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, there may be some confusion.
    It might be mine. It might be somebody else's. My amendment
    starts on page 1, strike lines 11 through 18 and make such
    conforming changes as may be necessary, and on page 2 strike
    lines 12 through 19.
        Chairman Gilman. The amendment is in error that the clerk
    read? Is that correct? Did you read the correct amendment?
        The clerk will distribute the amendment. Will you please
    give the clerk a copy of the amendment?
        Ms. Rush. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson. On page 1,
    strike lines 11 through----
        Chairman Gilman. The amendment is considered as having been
    read without objection. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized on his
    amendment.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There are a number of issues here that, frankly, might be
    best discussed in a closed session, but for the discussion that
    we can have in open session I think the underlying issues here
    are very complicated. America's listening posts around the
    world are many, and I think it would be against America's
    national interest if attempts to close our listening posts
    became the battleground between Russia and the United States.
        I would argue, without giving away anything that is
    classified, that we are far more successful at gathering
    information, it is far more important to our worldwide
    operations and that exposing listening posts globally and
    having a public relations battle could endanger America's
    national security.
        So first of all, I think that the issue itself is very
    complicated. There are many people who argued during the Cold
    War that, frankly, listening to each other, the major powers to
    each other's activities, provided some confidence that there
    were no surprise attacks lurking, that it actually helped allay
    fears and prevented what may have or might have turned out to
    be a disastrous confrontation.
        I will discuss the entire bill at greater length later, but
    what is clear is that the gentlelady from Florida really
    provides no waiver at all because the waiver then proceeds to
    add conditions that really give the executive no waiver, so if
    you read the gentlelady's amendment you will find that it does
    not achieve the goal, and I will read Section C here. Such
    waiver will result in tangible steps taken by the government of
    the Russian Federation to cease its espionage activities at the
    intelligence facility at Lourdes, Cuba.
        So, for instance, say we had the situation where the
    President of the United States felt and the intelligence
    committees of the Congress agreed that it is in our interest to
    have this facility operational. You know, in these kinds of
    situations sometimes they get some disinformation as well, so
    that it gives you an opportunity to be listened to. You may be
    able to send messages that you want to send.
        There are lots of reasons why the United States might want
    to keep this facility open, and so even if the President of the
    Untied States and the intelligence people and the Secretary of
    Defense all decided at the end of the day that this facility
    was important to keep open for national security reasons, the
    gentlelady's amendment precludes that action by the President
    of the United States.
        What I simply do in the amendment that I have offered here
    is strike B and C for a start. If you want to focus on this, it
    seems to me, and we have done this with Democratic and
    Republican Presidents alike, is that Congress tells them what
    they think needs to happen somewhere, and then we give the
    President a waiver if the President of the United States has a
    significant national security interest, a national security
    interest waiver.
        The gentlelady's amendment provides no such waiver because
    in the amendment it restates the condition in Section C, lines
    15 through 18, that basically say even if the President of the
    United States finds it is in our national security interest not
    to get into this battle of closing listening positions, even if
    the President of the United States thinks it may be in our
    interest to keep this listening position open, he still cannot
    reschedule debt.
        Now, if you go from there, the rescheduling of debt may not
    be a favor to the Russians. It is often the lender that wants
    to reschedule the debt because the lender wants to get repaid.
    Some of this debt actually goes back to lend/lease. I think
    about $600 million is owed to us from the old Soviet Union from
    World War II when we were jointly fighting the Nazis in Europe.
        If the United States Government decides that having Russia
    not collapse economically is in our economic interest, if the
    United States decides it is in our economic interest to
    reschedule this debt and increase the likelihood that it will
    get repaid irrespective of our interest under this legislation,
    the President would have to prevent the rescheduling of debt.
        Well, let's think about what happens in a Russia that goes
    into complete economic collapse. We all spent a lot of time
    here worrying about Russian scientists going to work for the
    Iranians and the Iraqis. We worry about Russian scientists
    going to work for the North Koreans. There are a lot of agendas
    before this country on national security.
        I understand the gentlelady's focus on what happens at this
    one facility in Cuba, but let me tell you something. The Soviet
    arsenal is a far more dangerous threat to America, a Russia out
    of control. In legislation which I hope we will be able to get
    to today, I have legislation to deal with an immense problem in
    Russia of rusting and rotting submarines, some of them still
    with weapons systems in place.
        Under the lady's legislation, if we need to reschedule some
    debt so we can address these issues that could create a nuclear
    cloud over northern Europe, we would not be able to do that
    rescheduling unless the President shuts down this listening
    facility, which the President may decide with his national
    security people it is in our best interest to keep open.
        So it seems to me if you want to achieve what the
    gentlelady wants to achieve, which is to put pressure on the
    Russians to close this facility, and again, you know, I think
    we ought to spend a little more time with the Intelligence
    Committee discussing this issue. At least you ought to give the
    President of the United States the ability to say wait a
    minute, maybe we want to keep it open.
        Two, maybe even if we want it closed it is more important
    to us to make sure the Russians do not disintegrate, that
    Afghanis and Pakistanis and all these countries that are on the
    terrorism list do not have access to all this nuclear
    technology coming out of Russia.
        Let's focus on what is important to us. I forget. Is it
    6,000 or 9,000 weapons that the Russians still have? What is
    important to the United States is keep the Russians stable
    enough so they are not aiming those weapons back at the United
    States.
        To come up here with a resolution that does not give the
    President of the United States a real national security waiver
    seems to me to be outrageous, and I would hope that the
    Administration would be given an opportunity to come forward
    and express themselves.
        But it seems to me that, you now, when you look at your
    responsibilities as a Member of Congress, we have regional
    concerns. We have global concerns. There can be no greater
    concern for the United States at this stage than these global
    concerns.
        We spent hours in this Committee worried about if the North
    Koreans developed one nuclear missile. I mean, what do we do if
    there is one missile coming toward California? Some people here
    less friendly to California might not be concerned about that,
    but----
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Gejdenson. If I could have unanimous consent for 2
    additional minutes?
        Chairman Gilman. Without objection.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There is nothing more important to America's national
    security than what happens inside of Russia, and if it means
    rescheduling $600 million worth of debt that we gave them when
    they were fighting the Nazis to make sure there is some
    stability there so we can deal with rotting submarines and
    other issues in Russia, I think we have got the responsibility,
    if we want to be responsible legislators, if the President says
    he needs a national security waiver, we ought to give him that
    waiver.
        So I would hope that my colleagues could support my
    amendment and then support the gentlelady's amendment, which I
    have some trouble with, but I would be willing to accept it if
    we give the President of the United States a real waiver, not
    what is in this, which is really no waiver at all.
        Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gejdenson. I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Bereuter. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        I understand the nature of the gentleman's argument in his
    amendment, but is it possible that the gentleman, instead of
    striking the second part, page 2, lines 12 and 19, can still
    provide for some kind of report to the Congress?
        I would not think you would necessarily find but if you are
    successful with the first half in deleting B and C that you
    would find a report objectionable. I wonder if there is some
    accommodation?
        Mr. Gejdenson. I would be happy to work something out on
    the second part with the gentleman or the gentlelady.
        Mr. Bereuter. The gentlelady.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I would just say that I think every 90 days
    is a little bit often. I mean, I think one of the dangers for
    this Committee and all committees in Congress is we demand more
    paper and reports than anybody actually looks at.
        I mean, if you went to every 6 months to report, you know,
    that is not bad. Every 90 days, it seems to me--you know, I am
    not sure what we are achieving with every 90 days.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I am going to make a summary, a short statement, and then I
    will recognize the gentlelady. I regret that I am going to have
    to go on to another meeting. I am going to ask Mr. Goodling to
    chair the meeting.
        I want to commend our colleague, the gentlelady from
    Florida, for her measure and my very strong support for it. I
    will ask that my first statement be made part of the record. I
    do oppose the gentleman's amendment. I support the gentlelady's
    amendment.
        The Russian government is indeed providing large sums of
    money to the Castro regime in Cuba for the use of its facility
    in Lourdes. This bill points out that our own Defense
    Department has estimated that Russia gives the Cuban government
    oil and other commodities valued at between $100 million and
    $300 million annually for the use of the Lourdes facility.
        At a time when the Russian government is seeking outright
    forgiveness of much of its debt to our nation and to other
    governments around the world, when the Russian government is
    leaning on our nation to provide it with hundreds of millions
    of dollars from the sale of donated American food to pay
    Russian merchants and when Russia is leaning on us to help
    finance its arms reductions under START-1, while it spends
    hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a duty war in Chechnya,
    I think it is unacceptable that the Russian government
    continues to provide financial support to the Castro regime
    with subsidies such as this.
        As this bill makes clear, we ought to tell the Russian
    government that there will be no rescheduling or forgiveness of
    its bilateral debt to our nation until it closes that facility.
    The fact is that the Russian government has benefited and
    benefited greatly from the debt relief we and the other members
    of the Paris Club and creditors who have already provided.
        My colleagues, there is more to be concerned about with
    regard to the Russian facility at Lourdes than just Russia's
    willingness to pay Castro what it will not pay to its
    creditors. Secretary of Defense William Cohen has publicly
    stated that our Defense Department is concerned about this,
    ``The use of Cuba as a base for intelligence activities
    directed at the United States.''
        A Russian intelligence defector has stated publicly that
    the significance of the Lourdes facility has grown since former
    Russian President Yeltsin secretly ordered Russian agencies to
    step up the theft of American economic and trade secrets in
    1996.
        When questioned in a public hearing about the Yelstin order
    to step up such commercial espionage, FBI Director Lou Freeh
    said that the expertise of Russian intelligence operations
    presents, ``A very formidable, very ominous threat to our
    economy.''
        Once again I commend the gentlelady from Florida for
    working hard on this issue, and I urge the Members of our
    Committee to join in insisting that this kind of financial
    support provided to Fidel Castro by the Russian government come
    to a cessation, and I urge the Members of this Committee to
    join in insisting that our government act on the publicly
    stated concerns of our own officials by addressing the threat
    to our security that it poses.
        I urge the adoption of this measure, and I recognize the
    gentlelady from Florida.
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn as it
    pertains to H.R. 4118.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman is not recognized at this
    time, and I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlelady
    from Florida.
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
    inquiry?
        Chairman Gilman. What is the gentleman's inquiry?
        Mr. Hastings. Is it not that a motion to adjourn is germane
    at any time when offered by a Member?
        Chairman Gilman. At this point the question is not germane,
    and I yield the balance of my time to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's agreement--
    --
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman? A parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ackerman. Could you explain for this Member, who
    believes he has an understanding of parliamentary procedure,
    why a motion to adjourn is not in order at this time?
        Chairman Gilman. I am going to yield to our counsel.
        Mr. Weinberg. I would advise the Chairman that when a
    Member is recognized and has 5 minutes under the 5-minute rule,
    the Member cannot be interrupted for the purpose of receiving a
    motion to adjourn or, frankly, any other motion.
        Mr. Ackerman. Is that the ruling of the Chair?
        Chairman Gilman. That is the ruling of the Chair.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Would the gentleman yield for one moment?
        Chairman Gilman. I would be pleased to yield to the
    gentleman.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you. So my understanding is that the
    gentleman from Florida's motion would be in order at the
    conclusion of the Chairman's time, which he is now yielding to
    the gentlelady from Florida.
        Chairman Gilman. That is correct.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I will withdraw my motion.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gilman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the
    amendment before us, Mr. Gejdenson's amendment, says that the
    President can waive, but he does not have to give us any
    detailed reasons why. He is striking the part that says that
    the President shall offer an explanation, prepare and transmit
    to the Committee on International Relations and the Committee
    on Foreign Relations a report that contains a description.
        My amendment says that the President can waive. We do not
    take that right from the President. The amendment allows a
    waiver, but it says that the President must explain why. I do
    not think that that is too much to ask. All we are doing is
    highlighting two critical national security priorities, which
    the gentleman's amendment would eliminate. And that is
    multilateral and bilateral nonproliferation and arms limitation
    agreements.
        Can anyone argue that Russian compliance with the arms
    limitation and nonproliferation agreement is not a priority for
    this Committee, for the Foreign Relations Committee, for the
    Untied States Congress and indeed for the entire nation? The
    reports merely ask for the President to keep Congress updated
    on national security developments. I think it is part of our
    right and our responsibility as elected officials to always
    have U.S. national security in mind.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Are we to simply allow a waiver of this
    bill and to reschedule debt and not care about what happens in
    the interim? We have been talking about this for 8 years and
    have nothing to show for it but a supposed compliance of the
    Russians.
        In fact, I asked Secretary Albright in February in this
    Committee if she had raised the issue with the new Russian
    president, and I have yet to receive a response from the
    Secretary about that. I do not know if the President would even
    comply with our periodic reports.
        What are we doing to pressure Russia in order to comply
    with this? This is not foreign aid, and I would like to----
        Mr. Gejdenson. Will the gentlelady----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Remind my colleagues of
    this. It is debt that they owe to the United States.
        I will be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you. I would say, you know, several
    things here. I do not have a problem with the report. I just
    think we are not productive in having that report every 90
    days.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We can make it 180. It is every whatever
    number of days we can come up with, and 180 is another number
    that we can----
        Mr. Gejdenson. If the bill----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. After the transmission of
    the written certification. It is not every 90 days.
        Mr. Gejdenson. If the gentlelady will accept 180 days, I do
    not mind burying us with a little more paper. I would ask----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I would be glad to go with 180 if the
    gentleman would like.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I would like unanimous----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. But remember that your amendment is
    wiping out the reporting language altogether, so if you----
        Mr. Gejdenson. No.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Would like to amend your
    amendment and put in the reports again, lines 12 through 19,
    and----
        Mr. Gejdenson. The gentlelady is saying that I have no
    amendment at that stage, so I guess what I am saying is this.
    How long has Lourdes been there? When did it start?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. It has not been as updated now as----
        Mr. Gejdenson. Right, but we have had----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The facility, the state-of-the-art
    technology that is in place now in Lourdes has just had a
    multi-mullion dollar operation and an update just recently of
    sophisticated technology.
        It has not existed in this stage, Mr. Gejdenson, no. You
    cannot compare the Lourdes of today with the Lourdes even of 10
    years ago.
        Mr. Gejdenson. And you cannot----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. It has actually doubled in size. It is
    state-of-the-art technology. You cannot compare it even to what
    it was 10 years ago. Those have been in open reports. I am not
    saying anything that has taken place in our classified
    briefings.
        The open reports have proven that this technology has
    improved substantially in the years that we have been winking
    and nodding at Russia and thinking that they are cooperating
    with us.
        Mr. Gejdenson. If I could say to the gentlelady, I would be
    happy to try to work something out with the gentlelady, but to
    say that the President has no waiver, which is what her bill
    does in its present form, is something I can't support.
        I am very happy to drop--if the lady is interested in
    supporting my amendment, I am very happy to change it to 180
    days, and that, it seems to me, is not so burdensome that as
    annoyed as State may be it is something they ought to be able
    to do, but I do think the President has to have a waiver.
        We have had Presidents now for as long as this facility has
    been there. We have not thought this was such an issue of
    national security that they have gone out of their way to deal
    with it. If the gentlelady's position is----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield?
        Mr. Gejdenson. The technology has been probably to the
    level of the existing technology at that time. Everybody----
        Mr. Goodling [presiding]. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield?
        Mr. Gejdenson. Yes. It is the gentlelady's time.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If I could yield back the time? Also, if
    we could discuss lines 11 through 14? I think that you would
    agree that that helps us to understand the nature of the
    waiver.
        I would have no difficulty in eliminating 15 through 18,
    but I believe that your amendment, if we were to keep lines 11
    through 14, which is the essence of the underlying amendment
    that is before us, that is something that we really need
    because the waiver is getting at the multilateral and bilateral
    nonproliferation and arms limitation. I would not like to have
    that eliminated. Then we could go back to keeping the report
    and reporting language in my amendment.
        If I could yield my time to Mr. Menendez of New Jersey?
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Menendez.
        Mr. Menendez. I thank the gentlelady. Am I to understand
    that you would accept as a----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Who are you addressing, Mr. Menendez?
        Mr. Menendez. Excuse me?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Who are you addressing?
        Mr. Menendez. I am addressing you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Am I
    to understand? I was going to offer an amendment in the nature
    of a substitute to Mr. Gejdenson, and maybe we could all agree
    here, that would do two things.
        That would give the President a national interest waiver,
    which you have as A, and that is lower than a national security
    waiver. Second, keep in B, take out C, which is the tangible
    steps, and, last, amend your 90 days to 180 days. Are those
    amendments that you would accept?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I would be agreeable to that. Not
    enthusiastically, but I would agree to that because of the
    concerns that Mr. Gejdenson has, and I think that is the kind
    of amendment that Mr. Gejdenson would be able to support
    because it gets to the waiver that he wishes for the President
    to make.
        It gets to the reporting language that we would like, and
    it continues with the multilateral and nonproliferation
    language which is at the heart of the national security
    concerns for the U.S. residents.
        Mr. Menendez. If you would continue to yield, can I ask Mr.
    Gejdenson if that is something that he can accept that would
    meet his concerns about the President's flexibility, which
    clearly seems to me that at that point, with that struck out,
    he has all of the flexibility necessary and is less onerous on
    the State Department, but still meets I think our mutual goals
    of insuring that the Russians, as we continue to spend an
    enormous amount of money on their behalf, and they seem to
    spend hundreds of millions of dollars not only in payments to
    Castro for the spy station, but several hundred million more
    building him a second location; that we would ultimately give
    them the message, but give the President the flexibility.
        I would hope the gentleman could accept that.
        Mr. Gejdenson. If the gentlelady will yield?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. I will be glad to, Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I would say the gentleman from New Jersey
    again in a Solomon like effort may have been able to bridge our
    differences here.
        The only thing that I would say here is that the issue in
    lines 12 through 14, so that we are not misinterpreting each
    other, is at the moment the Russians would argue that we are
    about to violate our agreements with them with the star wars
    efforts, so there is always some debate, and I want to make
    sure the language gives the President, even if there is a
    debate about any of those provisions, the President gets his
    national security waiver.
        These are the points we ought to focus on that obviously we
    want them to fulfill their responsibility in nonproliferation
    and----
        Mr. Menendez. If the gentleman would yield one moment? This
    is not even a national security waiver, which would be a much
    higher standard.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I understand that.
        Mr. Menendez. This is a national interest waiver.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I understand that, but I want to make sure
    we are not miscommunicating here that we find ourselves in a
    position that we want to give the President that national
    interest waiver if he thinks that it is in the national
    interest to do that even if there may be some debate over some
    of these provisions.
        I mean, I think that is the only issue. If that is
    acceptable to the gentleman, I think we should have the staff
    just draft up the language, and then I would not have a problem
    with that.
        Mr. Menendez. Well, it is the gentlelady's amendment, but
    certainly my understanding of it would go toward that
    direction, and I think that we would meet our mutual goals in
    that regard.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Just to make sure that we can summarize
    it in the correct way, we would continue to keep lines 11
    through 14, and we would eliminate 15 through 18, and we would
    have the periodic reports 180 instead of 90, but we would have
    the periodic reports.
        Mr. Gejdenson. My understanding is just again, for
    instance, right now there is a debate whether the Russians are
    in compliance on the Conventional Forces in Europe as a result
    of the fight they had in Chechnya. Now, I would assume as they
    move toward that resolution they will get in compliance, but
    again it was the gentleman's interpretation, the lady's
    interpretation, that if the President finds it in the national
    interest he can waive the implementation.
        Mr. Goodling. The gentlelady's time has ended 8 minutes and
    43 seconds ago, and I would suggest----
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodling [continuing]. That I recognize Mr. Hastings
    while you people put together whatever this amendment is trying
    to be, and then----
        Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodling [continuing]. We can vote on that.
        Mr. Hastings.
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface my
    motion with just a very brief statement. As a Member of the
    Select Committee on Intelligence and, as a matter of fact, the
    only Member of the House to sit on the Intelligence Committee
    and the International Relations Committee, I am compelled to
    express serious reservations with the forum that we are
    choosing to discuss a matter that all Members ought have an
    opportunity to be very conversant about.
        I do not in any way impugn the awesomeness of the problem
    that has been brought to us by my dear friend and colleague
    from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, but I do believe that it is
    inappropriate for us in light of the potential for serious
    national security concerns to go forward.
        There are several Members that would like to be heard on
    this. I would prefer that we do that in a closed forum toward
    that end----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hastings [continuing]. As it pertains to this
    particular measure. Not the entire mark up, but as it pertains
    to H.R. 4118. I move that we adjourn and take this matter up in
    a closed forum.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodling. You have to move to adjourn the entire
    meeting. You cannot adjourn a portion of the meeting.
        Mr. Hastings. So moved.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hastings. I will yield.
        Mr. Gejdenson. So it is my understanding that you have now
    moved to adjourn? Simply to adjourn?
        Mr. Hastings. Simply to adjourn since I cannot move as it
    pertains to the specific----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Hastings.
        Mr. Hastings [continuing]. Matter that I seek to have
    adjourned.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. May I speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Hastings. No.
        Mr. Goodling. By unanimous consent, you can speak on the
    motion. Would you wish to ask unanimous consent?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I wish to ask for unanimous consent to
    speak on the motion.
        Mr. Goodling. Is there any objection? If not, the
    gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If I could just refer to the----
        Mr. Hastings. I object, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodling. Then the question is on the motion to
    adjourn. All in favor give your consent by saying aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Mr. Goodling. Those opposed, no.
        [Chorus of noes.]
        Mr. Goodling. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
    it.
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded for.
        Mr. Goodling. Roll call is requested. Are there a
    sufficient show of hands for a roll call?
        [A show of hands.]
        Mr. Goodling. Now we have sufficient. The clerk will call
    the role.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gilman.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Goodling.
        Mr. Goodling. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Goodling votes no.
        Mr. Leach.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Hyde.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Bereuter.
        Mr. Bereuter. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gallegly.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Rush. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
        Mr. Ballenger.
        Mr. Ballenger. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Royce.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. King.
        Mr. King. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. King votes no.
        Mr. Chabot.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Sanford.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Salmon.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Houghton.
        Mr. Houghton. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Houghton votes no.
        Mr. Campbell.
        Mr. Campbell. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Campbell votes no.
        Mr. McHugh.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Brady.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Burr.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gillmor.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Radanovich.
        Mr. Radanovich. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Radanovich votes no.
        Mr. Cooksey. Mr. Cooksey.
        Mr. Cooksey. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Cooksey votes no.
        Mr. Tancredo.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Votes aye.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
        Mr. Lantos.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Berman votes yes.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Yes.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
        Mr. Martinez.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Menendez.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Brown.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Ms. McKinney.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Hastings.
        Mr. Hastings. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
        Ms. Danner.
        Ms. Danner. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Ms. Danner votes yes.
        Mr. Hilliard.
        Mr. Hilliard. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
        Mr. Sherman.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Wexler.
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Sherman votes no.
        Mr. Wexler.
        Mr. Wexler. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
        Mr. Rothman.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Davis votes no.
        Mr. Pomeroy.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.
        Mr. Delahunt.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Meeks votes yes.
        Ms. Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Ms. Lee votes yes.
        Mr. Crowley.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Hoeffel.
        Mr. Hoeffel. Aye.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gejdenson voted yes.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to change my vote
    to no.
        Mr. Menendez. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
        Mr. Menendez did not vote.
        Mr. Menendez. I vote no.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Menendez votes no.
        Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Rothman is not recorded.
        Mr. Rothman. I vote no.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Rothman votes no.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Ackerman changes his vote to no.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Faleomavaega is recorded as yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I vote no.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Faleomavaega changes to no.
        Mr. Gilman.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Leach.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Hyde.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
    the roll call be revoked.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Burton.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gallegly.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Manzullo.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Royce.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Chabot.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Sanford.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Salmon.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. McHugh.
        Mr. McHugh. No.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. McHugh votes no.
        Mr. Brady.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Burr.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Gillmor.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Tancredo.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Lantos.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Martinez.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Brown.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Delahunt.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Crowley.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. The clerk will report the tally.
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Payne did not vote.
        Mr. Payne. Yes.
        Ms. Rush. Mr. Payne votes yes.
        The vote total is 10 ayes to 19 noes.
        Mr. Goodling. The motion is not agreed.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I believe
    that we have a compromise amendment worked out. I am glad Mr.
    Hastings did that motion. It gave us the time to work out an
    amendment.
        I just would like to tell our colleagues in reference to
    what my Florida colleague had said about why we were discussing
    this in an open forum and not in a closed session of the House
    Intelligence Committee. I would like to point out that all of
    the issues being discussed here are within the jurisdiction of
    the International Relations Committee.
        United States/Russia policy, Russian support for the Castro
    regime, debt forgiveness and rescheduling. All of those are in
    our purview, and all of the information that we have
    discussed----
        Mr. Goodling. Do you have an amendment?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Has in fact been used as an
    open force, and I have an amendment at the desk. I have an
    amendment at the desk. While the clerk reads it, I would like
    to tell the Members that in fact briefings have been heard on
    this for many----
        Mr. Goodling. Would the gentlelady suspend until we see an
    amendment?
        First of all, Mr. Gejdenson would have to withdraw----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gejdenson is going to withdraw his
    amendment.
        Mr. Goodling. He would have to do that first,----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Mr. Goodling [continuing]. Then we have to distribute your
    new amendment and then you will debate that.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I will explain what it does while they
    are getting that.
        Mr. Goodling. First of all, I have to have Mr. Gejdenson
    remove his amendment. Would you like to do that?
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you. I now ask unanimous consent to
    withdraw my amendment, and I would like to particularly at this
    moment thank all my colleagues, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Menendez and
    the gentlelady from Florida, for the efforts to find
    compromise.
        Mr. Goodling. Is there any objection to the withdrawal of
    the Gejdenson amendment?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. I would now ask----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I am observing my right to
    object just to say that I am sorry that Ms. Ros-Lehtinen has
    had to compromise on her very fine original proposal and has
    been forced into a position to take a weaker----
        Mr. Goodling. I am now asking the gentlelady from Florida
    to withdraw her amendment.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I am, and I will yield to Mr. Gejdenson.
        Mr. Goodling. I am asking you to withdraw your amendment.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I am withdrawing my amendment, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Goodling. You are asking unanimous consent?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I would like unanimous consent to
    withdraw my amendment..
        Mr. Goodling. Is there an objection?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. The gentlelady's amendment is withdrawn.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I have a parliamentary inquiry just to get
    where we are, and that is my----
        Mr. Goodling. You may state your parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gejdenson. It is my understanding that the new
    amendment is the old amendment that I had modified, which I
    would think would still go to the gentlelady's original
    amendment offered here today. Is that not correct?
        If the gentlelady withdraws her amendment, I have to amend
    the original document. No? She is not withdrawing----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I am not withdrawing the underlying
    amendment.
        Mr. Gejdenson. OK. So it is the second way? Fine.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. My underlying amendment is still there.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I would offer this amendment, if the staff
    is ready to distribute the amendment, or am I the only one with
    a copy of it? Copies are being made as we speak.
        Mr. Goodling. Copies are being made, and we can distribute
    them.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I will ask unanimous consent to explain the
    amendment while they are doing that.
        Mr. Goodling. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes to
    explain the----
        Mr. Menendez. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Mr. Goodling. Who is----
        Mr. Menendez. It is Mr. Menendez.
        Mr. Goodling. Mr. Menendez.
        Mr. Menendez. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is
    this because we are all trying to get to the same goal. I
    believe the gentlelady still must maintain her amendment.
        Mr. Goodling. She has her original amendment.
        Mr. Menendez. It is still pending?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Mr. Menendez. Then thank you very much.
        Mr. Gejdenson. What this amendment would do is achieve the
    goals that we have discussed by in line 12 inserting after is
    substantially, striking lines 15 through 18, and changes on
    page 2, line 13, from 90 to 180 days.
        Mr. Goodling. Is that what the gentlelady understands?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Correct.
        Mr. Goodling. Is that what Mr. Menendez understands?
        Mr. Menendez. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodling. Then I suppose we probably do not have to
    wait for the distribution of the amendment.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If we could read the amendment in the
    bill, Mr. Chairman, as amended that would be great.
        Mr. Goodling. The professor wishes to see it, so we will
    hold until we receive the amendment.
        Mr. Gejdenson. You know, with this new system we could
    actually show the amendment on the screen.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman, I gave him the Spanish
    translation of it, and he is OK with it now.
        Mr. Goodling. We have decided that the gentlelady will
    merely offer this amendment the three of you have agreed to,
    and that will make things much more----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We can keep Mr. Gejdenson's name on it.
    There is no pride of ownership.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I do not care whose name is on it. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Good. Do not put mine on it.
        Mr. Goodling. The amendment appears on the screen.
    Hopefully you can read it as it moves.
        The vote now occurs on the amendment to the original. All
    those in favor give your consent by saying aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Mr. Goodling. Just a minute. They want to see the second
    part. We sure are getting our money's worth for this great
    invention.
        The motion now is on the----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Excuse me. Is there a debate on this
    motion?
        Mr. Goodling. On the amendment to the motion as offered as
    by the young lady from Florida.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Is there a debate on this motion? Is there
    a debate on this particular motion?
        Mr. Goodling. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, it will take very much less time
    than that. I oppose the motion and just say that we noticed
    what we have put into this amendment unfortunately again, Ms.
    Ros-Lehtinen tried to give us something that was substantial,
    something that was real policy, and now we have before us an
    amendment that puts weasel words into this law.
        Substantial compliance? Give me a break. Whenever we put
    words into this, what we are doing is just defeating the
    purpose of legislation in the first place, lying to our
    constituents that we are serious about a problem because we put
    words in that make the bill meaningless or unenforceable, which
    is what we just saw on the screen.
        Substantial compliance instead of compliance? Who is going
    to determine that? I am sorry we have had to weaken this, Mr.
    Ros-Lehtinen. Your original proposal was much better.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodling. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you. The gentleman from California is
    prone toward exaggeration, and I am sure that----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Substantial exaggeration.
        Mr. Gejdenson. I think it is probably substantial, and
    significant as well.
        I think it is a mistake to imply that somehow Members'
    language here is inclined to lie to the American people. I
    think, frankly, the discussion here was very clear to make sure
    the American people understood that we were looking for
    substantial because in these areas there are constant
    disagreements.
        While the gentleman has a right to express his differences
    with that approach, I would say that, you know, it is not
    helpful for the gentleman to imply that we are lying to the
    American people, and I am sure the gentleman does not mean to.
    Maybe he does, but I think he does not mean to do that.
        I think we had a different goal. We have come to an
    agreement, and the gentleman may have a different view.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gejdenson. I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I apologize if you were taking that as a
    specific to this situation, quite a critique on my part. I was
    critiquing the Congress as a whole, which puts weasel words
    into legislation and makes that legislation meaningless quite
    often, which I find is a method of lying to constituents.
    However, I was not referring to anyone in this body today in
    this specific situation.
        Mr. Goodling. The vote occurs on the amendment offered by
    the gentlelady from Florida.
        Mr. Menendez. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodling. Mr. Menendez.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very
    brief.
        I want to commend the gentlelady for negotiating an
    agreement that can produce bipartisanship, which I believe is a
    much stronger message to the Russians, that we are concerned
    about what they are doing in terms of spending hundreds of
    millions of dollars on spying on the United States, while at
    the same time spending an additional several hundred million
    dollars on creating a new spy station for the Castro regime,
    and at the same time sending the Russians a message that we are
    very concerned about what they are doing with nuclear and
    multilateral and bilateral nonproliferation and arms limitation
    agreements.
        I do not believe, though your original offer might have
    been considered stronger, that this is by any stretch of the
    imagination weak to the extent that we are sending the Russians
    a very clear message.
        I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
    would join the Ranking Democratic voting for his amendment and
    then ultimately the bill so that we could send that strong a
    message, which I think would be very clear, direct and very
    powerful.
        Mr. Goodling. The vote occurs on the amendment offered by
    the gentlelady from Florida. All in favor give your consent by
    saying aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Mr. Goodling. Those opposed, no?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
    it. The ayes have it.
        Are there any other amendments?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. If there are no other amendments, the
    Committee may report the bill we have under consideration with
    a single amendment. The chair will make a unanimous consent
    request. Without objection, this Committee is deemed to have
    before it an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
    of the text of the bill as amended to this point.
        Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute is deemed read. The previous question was ordered on
    the amendment, and the amendment is adopted.
        If there are no further amendments, without objection the
    previous question is ordered. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
    Bereuter, is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I object. I reserve the
    right to object. Is there no debate now on the final product of
    what we have?
        Mr. Goodling. I believe that we have had sufficient debate.
    It is not customary to have debate once we have gotten to this
    point.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I am reserving my right to object. I
    believe that it is customary to have a debate on what the final
    bill has turned out before we actually vote on it.
        Mr. Goodling. Well, unfortunately, if we read carefully we
    have the final version that appeared on this very expensive
    screen.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I will, if I could, explain
    my reservation?
        Mr. Goodling. The gentleman has 30 seconds to explain his
    reservation.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Let me just say that we have
    heard what I consider to be some very absurd arguments today in
    this body, and especially absurd to have heard the proclamation
    that it is to our benefit to have a large Russian spy base so
    close to our shores and that we should basically look at that
    as a possible benefit.
        Let me just say that either the Cold War is over or it is
    not over. If the Russians keep spending hundreds of millions of
    dollars on weapons systems or intelligence systems like they
    are and what we are discussing today that we should not be
    restructuring their debts. We should be not treating them as if
    they are friends and as if the Cold War is over.
        With that said, I just wanted to make sure I put that on
    the record.
        Mr. Hastings. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I only have 30 seconds. I would be happy
    to yield.
        Mr. Hastings. I would merely put to the gentleman are you
    mindful that there is a potential for serious backlash against
    our intelligence community by virtue of legislation of this
    kind?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. That is true, and it is true with any time
    we take a stand on anything it is potentially there is a
    backlash.
        In this particular case, restructuring the debt with a
    country that is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
    weapons systems or intelligence systems aimed at the United
    States is worthy of that stand, and so I withdraw my objection,
    and you may proceed.
        Mr. Goodling. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
    report the bill to the House with a recommendation that the
    bill as amended do pass.
        Mr. Goodling. The question is on the motion by the
    gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Mr. Goodling. Those opposed say no.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. The ayes have it, the quorum being present.
    The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the Chair or his
    designee is authorized to make motions under Rule 22 with
    respect to a conference on this bill or a counterpart from the
    Senate.
        We are now ready for consideration of H.R. 4249, the Cross
    Border Cooperation and Environmental Safety in Northern Europe
    Act of 2000. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The
    clerk will report the title of the bill.

                           CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4249

        Ms. Rush. H.R. 4249, a bill to foster cross border
    cooperation and environmental clean up in northern Europe.
        Mr. Goodling. Without objection, the first reading of the
    bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
    amendment.
        Ms. Rush. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
    Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
    assembled----
        Mr. Goodling. Without objection, the bill is considered as
    having been read and is open to amendment at any point. The
    bill will be----
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
        Mr. Goodling. No one wants to speak on it first?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska.
    No. He was going to offer it. Go ahead and speak on it.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    speak on the bill.
        One of the reasons I did not want to adjourn is I think
    this bill is exceedingly important and, as it is about to be
    amended, an entirely appropriate product. As my colleagues will
    know, it authorizes assistance from a variety of sources and
    gives the reasons. I certainly do support the initiative before
    us and projects under that initiative in areas such as civil
    society, law enforcement, and public health.
        I think the bill also appropriately highlights the
    enormously dangerous problems of Russian nuclear waste in the
    area of Momansk and northeast Russia. There is an urgent need
    to address this very real potential environmental problem and
    to clean up this for all of us. I want to thank the gentleman
    from Connecticut for offering this legislation.
        The bill points out in Subsection 15 of Section 2 that it
    apparently has not yet been possible for the Russians to
    resolve the remaining differences over liability, taxation,
    assistance, privileges and immunity for foreign contractors and
    audit rights in regard to cleaning up this waste, the bill also
    concludes that such agreements are vital to continued
    provisions of assistance.
        Before the gentleman and I talked, I had some concerns
    about an amendment he will offer that the United States
    appropriately should expect those agreements are made before we
    offer assistance. We should expect that they are made, and that
    those differences resolved, before the European Union is urged
    to provide assistance.
        The gentleman is about to recommend that through his
    amendment and I think it is an outstanding and important
    effort. We may come to find that this is one of the more
    important bills that this Congress considers. We hope that is
    not the case. We hope there is not an environmental catastrophe
    in between, but the Russians have to get on with it, while we
    have to realize this is an international problem.
        I thank the gentleman for his initiative, and I yield back.
        Mr. Goodling. Before I recognize the gentleman from
    Connecticut, I want to have some unfinished business finished.
        The Chief of Staff is authorized by unanimous consent to
    make technical, grammatical and conforming amendments to H.R.
    4118. Is there an objection?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. If not, so ordered.
        I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from
    Connecticut, the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, Mr.
    Gejdenson, for 5 minutes to introduce the bill.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
    do that. There is a slide presentation to take advantage of our
    new facility, and I apologize for its length in advance. My
    staff was a little eager to use the new technology.
        Many people I think believed that the rotting submarine
    force of the Soviet Union would just disappear at the end of
    the Cold War. This legislation seeks to address the problem
    through an important framework called the Northern European
    Initiative.
        We can first take a look at the Nunn-Lugar program. It has
    already facilitated the destruction of 164 submarine missile
    launches, 46 submarine launch ballistic missiles and 12
    strategic submarines. The risk remains with over 150 decaying
    submarines.
        If you have seen some of the recent discussions in the
    press, in September, 1998, a Russian sailor hijacked a
    submarine. He died while trying to set fire to the torpedoes
    and to detonate them. In January 1999, a sailor tried to sell
    nuclear submarine reactor parts, and I think that created one
    explosion.
        If you look at February 1999, a shipyard employee tries to
    sell radioactive material to North Korean agents, again
    creating a very dangerous situation. In January of 2000, a
    sailor almost caused a meltdown while stealing submarine
    components.
        If you look at this next graph, it gives you a sense of
    where the immediate effect would be, but obviously with the
    winds it could really travel around the world, affecting almost
    everybody in the Northern Hemisphere and maybe eventually
    below.
        We are very happy to see the Members being impressed by the
    very simple graphics on the board, and my sense is that silicon
    graphics will be here shortly to help us out and try to make it
    more interesting in the future. Again, there are almost 150
    non-ballistic missiles, conventional submarines awaiting
    destruction. Thirty-five of these conventional submarines are
    waiting dismantlement.
        What we have here is a piece of legislation that would help
    coordinate with the Europeans and press on the Russians to deal
    with the liability issues so we can deal with this nuclear
    threat. It also provides for a United States and Lithuania
    training programs and entrepreneurship from the countries in
    the region, the Baltic Lakes/Sea partnership program, and a
    number of other things to help develop the democratic
    institutions and civil societies of the region.
        Clearly, the most important part, as Mr. Bereuter pointed
    out, is the threat of these rotting nuclear submarines. To that
    end, when it is appropriate I have an amendment that Mr.
    Bereuter actually helped draft.
        Mr. Goodling. I would ask unanimous consent to insert
    Chairman Gilman's message in the record. So ordered.
        Is there anyone that wants to say something before this is
    moved into legislation?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. If not, I recognize Mr. Gejdenson for an
    amendment.
        Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    move these en bloc. I think most Members already have the two
    pieces of paper. The first is technical in nature. The second
    clarifies what may have created some confusion in language that
    Mr. Bereuter included.
        I would yield to Mr. Bereuter to explain his language.
        Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much for your cooperation with
    the differences still remaining, the problems that are
    identified in your legislation in Subsection 15 of Section 2.
        As I mentioned, I think it is important that we expect that
    our aid and those aid programs from the European Union that we
    are endorsing and encouraging be brought into impact after the
    Russians solve these differences that are identified in
    Subsection 15.
        The gentleman's amendment does that, and I appreciate the
    effort. I urge the amendment's adoption, as well as the other
    adoption and urge that we do this en bloc.
        Mr. Goodling. The vote occurs on the amendment to the
    Gejdenson legislation. All in favor give your consent by saying
    aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Mr. Goodling. Opposed, no?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
    it.
        Are there any other amendments?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. If there are no other amendments, the
    gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a
    motion.
        Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be
    requested to seek consideration of the pending bill as amended
    on the suspension counter.
        Mr. Goodling. The question is on the motion of the
    gentleman from Nebraska. Those in favor of the motion say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Mr. Goodling. Those opposed, no?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Goodling. The ayes have it. A quorum being present, the
    motion is agreed to. Without objection, the Chair or his
    designee is authorized to make motions under Rule 22 with
    respect to a conference on this bill or a counterpart from the
    Senate. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
        The Committee will now adjourn.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  May 4, 2000

    =======================================================================

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7826.043