I just wanted to assure Members who voted aye on the second part of the previous amendment that it is not my intention to try to move it to the suspension calendar. Those who want to have another day on the debate on this legislation will have that opportunity before the Rules Committee and then, perhaps, on the floor. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Anyone else seeking recognition. If not. Yes. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. I was listening carefully to my colleague from California, and if in fact the arguments would be framed as he frames them, he should get a unanimous vote. But he frames the argument in a totally misleading fashion. No one on this Committee is interested in the transferring to China or to anybody technology that will enable that country to use nuclear weapons against millions of Americans. Framing the argument in this context doesn't allow a rational consideration.

If I may mention, Mr. Chairman, that one of the most creative aspects of our unraveling of the Soviet empire was the policy of differentiating the various components of the Soviet empire. One of the great achievements of former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger was to attempt to underscore that while all of these countries were called Communist satellites of the Soviet Union, there were profound differences between Rumania and Hungary and the Czech Republic and Poland. And when we became sophisticated enough to propose differentiated policies toward different circumstances, we made some headway.

Now this is not a perfect analogy because Macau is not a different country, and Hong Kong is not a different country. But it is obvious, I take it, for all of us who have been to these regions and have studied these regions that there are enormous differences in the policy pursuit today in Hong Kong and on the mainland even though ultimate political authority rests in Beijing. And what we have voted on, as Mr. Bereuter indicated a minute ago, what we voted on just now was exactly the same notion. I think the Administration is entitled to explore the possibility by regulation to have differential policies.

The Administration is entitled to explore the possibility of a country as vast as China, where there are powerful local constituencies, there are powerful local political leaders, to explore some differential policies. That is all we are talking about. And I think if it defrays the issue in a realistic fashion, we can engage in a realistic and sensible and substantive argument.

But I for one resent the notion that those who propose to vote for Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment are people who protect us from having millions of Americans killed by nuclear weapons while the rest of us are in favor of doing so.

That is not an adult way of framing an argument. And I would really make a plea to all of us that when we have a controversial issue, and this is a controversial issue, and there are many aspects of our China policy I stand with Mr. Rohrabacher because we have agreed on the human rights issues, and lots of other issues. I think it's important that we frame within a realistic context. Within that context, I think the Administration, which is as opposed to killing millions of Americans by Chinese nuclear weapons as is Mr. Rohr

abacher, should have the opportunity of exploring sets of regulations.

I yield the time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. I generally trust the Administration not to sell to any country what should not be sold. And yet it seems fairly obvious that for national security purposes, Macau is part of China now and will certainly be part of China by the end of this year. Before this, I think, has much of an effect, I think we could argue that there are various provinces of China that are more independent of Beijing than Macau is, at least for national security purposes, not necessarily for economic systems purposes.

And I simply can't imagine any leader in Macau after December of this year refusing to cooperate with the Peoples Liberation Army on a matter of Chinese national security. And if that means providing some U.S. technology for military purposes, I can't see a leader of Macau saying no. Macau is not a satellite of China, Macau is part of China.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. I yield my time to Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. I have a list here, put together by the GAO, of 50 technologies that are permitted to be exported to Hong Kong. And Macau as well? This is just Hong Kong. Fifty technologies that we can export to Hong Kong that we cannot export to Communist China. And they are all weapons-related. They are things that have dual uses, and some of them are just single military uses. Is there some reason that we want to permit these 50 military technologies to be transferred to the Communist Chinese?

Why is it that we want to differentiate between Hong Kong and Communist China, now that Communist China will come to dominate Hong Kong? We know that. We know what's going to be happening. And in Macau, we know that the agreement that has been made is the Communist Chinese will dominate all foreign policy and military issues in Macau.

What we are doing, is setting up a system in which these types of weapons technologies can get into the hands of the Communist Chinese. Now I will have to admit that when I speak about things and I carry things to-some people might say an extreme conclusion-sometimes, unfortunately, those extreme conclusions happen. Sometimes these terrible things do happen. And in fact, I was shocked a year and a half ago when I stumbled across aerospace workers in my area who were talking about projects that they were involved in that were the upgrading of Communist Chinese rockets. And I was shocked by that.

And certainly I know that nobody on that side of the aisle, and I don't even believe people in the Administration, although I don't have faith in the Administration to watch out for our interests, I don't think that they intentionally want to see technologies that

could be used to kill millions of Americans. Obviously, that is not the case.

But it is up to us to be diligent so these things don't happen even if there isn't an intent. But I will tell you this. There are some American corporations, I have no doubt, there are American corporations that for profit will sell things to foreign countries that put American lives in jeopardy.

You know, I'm not talking about the Administration, I'm not talking about anybody on the other side of the aisle. There are some companies that will do this. We have right here a list of 50 technologies that could end up in Communist hands unless we change the rules so that our relationship with Macau and Hong Kong now is different than what it was. They should be placed under the same restrictions now that they are going to be under Communist China's control.

This is reasonable and it's rational. It is a little bit different, my amendment is a little bit different, Mr. Lantos, than the last vote in that it also includes the student exchange and one other part of the amendment. So I would ask my colleagues to join me. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any further Members seeking recognition on the Rohrabacher amendments? Does the gentleman want to divide the measure?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. Yes I do.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has requested division on the measure. All in favor of the first Rohrabacher amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute in placing, by regulation of the Commerce Department, Macau on the same administrative category as the People's Republic of China for export control purposes. All in favor signify in the usual manner. All opposed. The ayes have it.

On the amendment by nature of a substitute regarding the selection and exchange-program participants, including participation in a National Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute. All in favor of the amendment signify in the usual manner.

[The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Rohrabacher to H.R. 825 (the second part) appears in the appendix.]

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

If not, the question is on the adoption of the Subcommittee amendment in nature of a substitute as amended.

All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no.

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee report the pending bill to the House with a recommendation that the bill as amended does pass.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska.

All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

All those opposed, say no.

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that the chief of staff be permitted to make technical, grammatical, and conforming amendments, and I ask unanimous consent the Chairman be permitted to make motions under Rule 22 relating to a conference on the bill or any other companion measure from the Senate.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Indonesia bill be moved one place down in line since I have a vote in the Banking Committee.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, we will move to the Indonesian room. I would be pleased to move the Indonesian bill down the line.

The next item is H.R. 973, Security Assistance Act of 1999. The Chair lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 973, a bill "to modify authorities with respect to provision of security assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act, and for other purposes." Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading will be dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled. Section I, short title"

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as having been read. It is open to amendment at any point. I recognize myself briefly to explain the measure.

[H.R. 973 appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. This bill modifies authorities with respect to the provision of security assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act.

I understand that the Department of State and the Department of Defense support this bill. Many of the provisions have been requested by the Administration. Specifically, these provisions address the transfer of excess defense articles and amendments to our foreign military sales program, including additional notification requirements for arms sales, new reporting requirements for offset agreements associated with arms transfers, and ensuring DOD charges foreign customers for the administrative costs of processing leases.

This bill also modifies authorities to provide for the stockpiling of defense articles in foreign nations. I would also highlight two provisions regarding annual military assistance reports and publications of arms sales certifications. They will bring greater transparency to our arms transfer process.

This measure also extends, for one fiscal year, the waiver authority exempting India and Pakistan from certain sanctions imposed pursuant to their nuclear tests last year. Extending this waiver recognizes the small but important steps each of these nations has taken to move forward on the non-proliferation agenda as well as the improved bilateral ties between those countries.

And finally, let me note that this bill contains compromise language worked out between our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Gejdenson, and Congresswoman McKinney on the issue of a code of conduct governing arms sales.

Are there any amendments or Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of the bill, and I want to thank you and your staff, particularly, Mr. Walker Roberts, for the assistance you all have given me in advancing a measure which is now included in your mark.

Specifically, the bill makes permanent legislation passed last year, the Agriculture Export Relief Act. When we first took action in it in the House, you might remember an initiative advanced by Congressman Nethercutt and myself to continue the application of ag export credit programs, even while the Arms Export Control Act got triggered.

Specifically, the Arms Export Control Act exempts humanitarian assistance or food or other agriculture commodities. However, it does require the termination of all U.S. Government credit and credit guarantee and other financial assistance programs.

Now the U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that those ag commodity exports that were backstopped or made possible by ag credit programs ultimately would be frozen by triggering of the Arms Export Control Act. We waived that provision in the Agriculture Export Relief Act of last year, although it is set to terminate this year.

This makes it permanent, and I think it is absolutely consistent with the initial intention of the act, and that is that these sanctions should not stop food exports damaging unilaterally our farmers and having little other effect.

So Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank you for including it in your act. I think it's a very important enhancement of the existing statute.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy. Any other Members seeking recognition?

Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would, I am supporting this amendment, and I would like to commend Ms. McKinney, who, of course, has an amendment that is part of this that talks about the transfer of weapons technology to dictators.

A few years ago, Cynthia and I thought that we were on opposite ends of the political spectrum and probably wouldn't be cooperating on so many issues. And when Cindy McKinney offered this amendment a couple of years ago, I think she was fairly surprised when I came onboard.

But in fact, what the McKinney amendment does is provide a moral statement to the world that the United States is not going to be the arsenal for dictatorship, that we are the arsenal of democracy. Yes, and in fact, we should be hesitant just to convince even our Democratic friends to spend all of their money on weapons as well. But at least we shouldn't be providing weapons to dictators who often use these weapons to repress their own people.