Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
105th Congress                                            Rept. 105-309
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________


 
    PROHIBITION OF UNITED STATES FUNDS TO CERTAIN CHINESE OFFICIALS

                                _______
                                

                October 6, 1997.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


 Mr. Gilman, from the Committee on International Relations, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 967]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on International Relations, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 967) to prohibit the use of United 
States funds to provide for the participation of certain 
Chinese officials in international conferences, programs, and 
activities and to provide that certain Chinese officials shall 
be ineligible to receive visas and excluded from admission to 
the United States, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended 
do pass.
    The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line 
numbers of the introduced bill) are as follows:
    Page 1, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 15 
on page 6.
    Page 6, line 16, strike ``SEC. 2.'' and insert ``SECTION 
1.''.line 3 and all that follows through line 15 on page 6.
    Page 7, line 9, strike ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 2.''.
    Page 8, line 14, strike ``is directly involved in'' and 
insert ``carried out or directed the carrying out of ''.
    Page 8, line 15, strike ``or who was responsible for the 
supervision of persons directly involved in such policies or 
practices''.
    Page 10, line 7, strike ``SEC. 4.'' and insert ``SEC. 3.''.
    Page 10, line 9, strike lines 10 through 14, and insert the 
following:

    (a) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, any national of the People's Republic of China described 
in section 2(a)(2) (except the head of state, the head of 
government, and cabinet level ministers) shall be ineligible to 
receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the 
United States.
    (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the requirement in 
subsection (a) with respect to an individual described in such 
subsection if the President--
          (1) determines that it is vital to the national 
        interest to do so; and
          (2) provides written notification to the appropriate 
        congressional committees (as defined in section 2(c)) 
        containing a justification for the waiver.

    Page 10, line 15, strike ``SEC. 5.'' and insert ``SEC. 
4.''.
    Page 10, line 16, strike ``3 and 4'' and insert ``2 and 
3''.

                         Background and Purpose

    H.R. 967 prohibits the use of United States funds to 
provide for the participation of certain Chinese officials in 
international conferences, programs, and activities and to 
provide that certain Chinese officials shall be ineligible to 
receive visas and excluded from admission to the United States.
    Despite public assurances by the Government of the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) that it would abide by the principles 
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and despite the 
United Nations Charter requirement that all members promote 
respect for and observance of basic human rights, including 
freedom of religion, the Chinese Government continues to place 
severe restrictions on religious expression and practice. It 
has been reported that at an internal Central Communist Party 
meeting in 1994, President Jiang Zemin asserted that religion 
is one of the biggest threats to Communist Party rule in China 
and Tibet. On January 31, 1994, Premier Li Peng signed decrees 
number 144 and 145 which restrict worship, religious education, 
distribution of Bibles and other religious literature, and 
contact with foreign coreligionists.
    The Chinese Government has created official religious 
organizations that control all religious worship, activity, and 
association in China and Tibet and supplant the independent 
authority of the Roman Catholic Church, independent Protestant 
churches, and independent Buddhist, Taoist, and Islamic 
associations. In July 1995, Ye Xiaowen, a rigid communist, 
hostile to religion, was appointed to head the Bureau of 
Religious Affairs, a Chinese Government agency controlled by 
the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist 
Party. The Bureau of Religious Affairs has administrative 
control over all religious worship and activity in China and 
Tibet through a system of granting or denying rights through an 
official registration system. Those who fail to or are not 
allowed to register are subject to punitive measures.
    In the past year, the Chinese Government has expressed 
great concern over the spread of Christianity and particularly 
over the rapid growth of Christian religious institutions other 
than those controlled by the Chinese Government, including the 
Roman Catholic Church and the evangelical Christian ``house 
churches''. Soon after the establishment of the People's 
Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese Government imprisoned 
Christians who refused to relinquish their faith to become 
servants of communism, charging them as ``counter-
revolutionaries'' and sentencing them to 20 years or more in 
``reeducation through labor'' camps.
    Hundreds of Chinese Protestants and Catholics are among 
those now imprisoned, detained, or continuously harassed 
because of their religious beliefs or activities. The prisons 
and labor camps which hold these religious prisoners are run by 
the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice of 
the Chinese Government. Although some negotiations have taken 
place, the Chinese Government refuses to permit the appointment 
by the Vatican of Catholic bishops and the ordination of 
priests not approved by the Government and insists on 
appointing its own ``Catholic bishops.'' Similar problems are 
facing the Tibetan people.
    It has always been the right and the role of the Dalai Lama 
to recognize the successor to the Panchen Lama. On May 14, 
1995, His Holiness the Dalai Lama announced recognition of a 
six-year-old boy, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, as the Eleventh Panchen 
Lama, according to Tibetan tradition. Chinese authorities 
announced publicly in June 1996 that they are holding Gedhun 
Choekyi Nyima and his family. Chadrel Rinpoche, abbot of 
Tashilhunpo Monastery and head of the original search committee 
for the Eleventh Panchen Lama, and his assistant, Champa Chung, 
were seized and detained by Chinese authorities in May of 1995. 
Chinese Government authorities subsequently detained other 
Tibetan Buddhists in connection with the selection of the 
Eleventh Panchen Lama, including Gyatrol Rinpoche, Shepa 
Kelsang, Lhakpa Tsering, and Ringkar Ngawang.
    The Chinese Government convened a conference in Beijing 
where Tibetan monks were coerced to select a rival candidate to 
the child recognized by the Dalai Lama as the Eleventh Panchen 
Lama. On November 29, 1995, officials of the Chinese Government 
orchestrated an elaborate ceremony designating a six-year-old 
boy selected by the Chinese Government as the Eleventh Panchen 
Lama. On December 8, 1995, a Government-sponsored ceremony was 
held in Shigatze, Tibet, where the boy selected by the 
Government was enthroned as the Eleventh Panchen Lama. The 
Chinese Government is infringing on a purely Tibetan religious 
matter--in blatant violation of the fundamental human rights of 
the Tibetan people.
    Currently, there is no system in place that ensures that 
United States government travel funds or visas are not provided 
to Chinese government officials who repress religion. It is 
currently possible for a Chinese official who tortures a 
Christian or imprisons a Muslim for illegally distributing 
religious material to receive a United States visa or a United 
States Information Agency travel grant.
    H.R. 967 would ensure that this not be the case for most 
Chinese government officials who engage in such offensive 
actions. The Committee is not convinced that any benefits (to 
the United States government or the people being repressed by 
these officials) arising out of short-term visits by such 
officials to the United States outweighs the important 
symbolism of generally denying them access to this country.
    During the consideration of this bill an amendment was 
adopted providing that the President could, in certain 
circumstances, waive the restrictions on issuance of visas and 
entry into the United States of certain PRC officials who would 
otherwise be barred. The bill, after the amendment was adopted, 
was criticized on the grounds that it allowed Congress to take 
a popular position on a sensitive issue by passing legislation 
and then giving the President the responsibility for providing 
or not providing a waiver.
    The Committee observes that there is ample precedent for 
the provision of such waivers so as to afford the 
Administration needed flexibility, and that the Administration 
frequently requests such waiver authority. During the 103d 
Congress, for example, when the current Minority was in the 
majority, the Committee approved several provisions permitting 
the President to waive certain provisions. In H.R. 5030 as 
reported by the Committee, the President was provided a waiver 
of certain restrictions related to narcotics-related economic 
assistance. In
    H.R. 2333 (103d Congress), as reported, section 111 
provided waivers for the end strengths of the foreign service, 
and section 116 provided for a waiver of anti-discrimination 
provisions. Finally, the Committee notes that during 
consideration of H.R. 1486 earlier this Congress, Minority 
members of the Committee, led by the Ranking Minority Member 
(and the Chairman) voted 13-3 in favor of a Hyde amendment 
providing the President the right to waive a provision relating 
to assistance to Russia.

                            committee action

    The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human 
Rights during the 104th and 105th Congresses held the following 
hearings or markups related to religious persecution in the 
PRC:
    1. February 2, 15, 1995--Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices for 1994.
    2. April 3, 1995--Chinese Prison System, ``LAOGAI''.
    3. February 15, 1996--Persecution of Christians Worldwide.
    4. March 26, 1996--Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices for 1995.
    5. June 18, 1996--China MFN: Human Rights Consequences.
    On March 6, 1997, Chairman Gilman introduced H.R. 967 (for 
himself, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Cox, Mr. Burton, Mr. Smith 
of New Jersey, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Lantos). The 
bill was referred to the Committee on International Relations 
and the Committee on the Judiciary.
    On September 26, 29, and 30, 1997, the Committee on 
International Relations met in open session and amended the 
bill as follows:
    Agreed to a Manzullo amendment, as amended by a Smith 
substitute (as modified), to revise the provisions barring 
certain PRC nationals and to provide a Presidential waiver of 
those provisions if the President determines that it is vital 
to the national interest to do so, and so reports to the 
appropriate congressional committees (this language is now 
carried as section 3 of the bill as reported).
    Agreed to a Campbell amendment to strike Section 1 of the 
bill as introduced (relating to findings).
    Agreed to a Bereuter amendment to page 8, line 14 of the 
bill as introduced replacing (in paragraph (a)(2) of section 2 
of the bill as reported) the phrase ``is directly involved in'' 
with the phrase ``carried out or directed the carrying out.'' 
It also deleted language on lines 15 to 17 of page 8 of the 
bill as introduced (section 2(a)(2) of the bill as reported) 
including, in the description of persons affected by aspects of 
the bill, persons who ``were responsible for the supervision of 
persons directly involved in'' certain described policies or 
practices.
    On September 30, 1997, with a quorum present, the Committee 
ordered the bill reported with the recommendation that the 
bill, as amended, do pass by a record vote of 22 ayes to 18 
nays.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded 
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto. The Committee's votes in this regard are set out 
below:

Votes during full committee markup of H.R. 967--September 26, 1997

    Vote #1 (12:39 p.m.)--CAMPBELL amendment to strike Section 
3(a)(1).
    Voting yes: Bereuter, Kim, Sanford, Houghton, Campbell, 
McHugh, Hamilton, Ackerman, Martinez, Payne, Hilliard, Capps, 
Sherman, and Luther.
    Voting no: Gilman, Goodling, Hyde, Smith, Burton, 
Ballenger, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot, Fox, Graham, Blunt, Brady, 
and Rothman.
    Defeated 14 ayes to 14 noes.
    Vote #2 (12:45 p.m.)--CAMPBELL amendment to strike Section 
1
    Voting yes: Bereuter, Manzullo, Kim, Houghton, Campbell, 
Fox, McHugh, Hamilton, Ackerman, Martinez, Payne, Hilliard, 
Capps, and Luther.
    Voting no: Gilman, Goodling, Hyde, Smith, Ballenger, Royce, 
Chabot, Salmon, Graham, Brady, and Rothman.
    Passed 14 ayes to 11 noes.

Votes during full committee markup of H.R. 967--September 29, 1997

    Vote #1 (5:56 p.m.)--Smith motion to favorably report H.R. 
967 to the House, as amended.
    Voting yes: Goodling, Smith, Burton, Ros-Lehtinen, 
Ballenger, Royce, Kim, Chabot, Blunt, Brady, Payne, Menendez, 
Rothman, and Luther.
    Voting no: Gilman, Bereuter, Manzullo, Houghton, Campbell, 
McHugh, Hamilton, Gejdenson, Berman, Ackerman, Martinez, 
Danner, Hilliard, Capps, Sherman, Clement, and Davis.
    Defeated 14 ayes to 17 noes.

Votes during full committee markup of H.R. 967--September 30, 1997

    Vote #1 (11:59 a.m.)--Gejdenson motion to table the Gilman 
motion to reconsider the vote by which the Committee failed to 
agree to the motion to report favorably H.R. 967, as amended.
    Voting yes: Bereuter, Manzullo, Houghton, Campbell, 
Hamilton, Gejdenson, Ackerman, Payne, Menendez, Brown, 
Hastings, Danner, Hilliard, Capps, Sherman, Clement, and Davis.
    Voting no: Gilman, Goodling, Hyde, Smith, Burton, Ros-
Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, King, Kim, Chabot, 
Salmon, Fox, McHugh, Graham, Blunt, Brady, McKinney, and 
Luther.
    Defeated 17 ayes to 20 noes.
    Vote #2 (12:24 p.m.)--Smith motion (on reconsideration) to 
favorably report H.R. 967, as amended.
    Voting yes: Gilman, Goodling, Hyde, Smith, Burton, Ros-
Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, King, Kim, Chabot, 
Salmon, Fox, McHugh, Graham, Blunt, Brady, Payne, Menendez, 
McKinney, and Luther.
    Voting no: Bereuter, Manzullo, Houghton, Campbell, 
Hamilton, Gejdenson, Ackerman, Martinez, Andrews, Brown, 
Hastings, Danner, Hilliard, Capps, Sherman, Wexler, Clement, 
and Davis.
    Passed 22 ayes to 18 noes.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight 
activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this 
report.

          Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

     No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

                New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

     The Committee adopts the cost estimate of the 
Congressional Budget Office, set out below, as its submission 
of any required information on new budget authority, new 
spending authority, new credit authority, or an increase or 
decrease in the national debt required by clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

     The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

     No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                 Applicability to the Legislative Branch

     The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate 
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

     In compliance with clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee cites the 
following specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution as authority for enactment of H.R. 967 as reported 
by the Committee: Article I, section 8, clause 3 (relating to 
the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the 
several states); and Article I, section 8, clause 18 (relating 
to making all laws necessary and proper for carrying into 
execution powers vested by the Constitution in the government 
of the United States).

                Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

     In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth 
with respect to H.R. 967 as reported by the Committee the 
following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the Budget 
Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, October 3, 1997.
Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 967, a bill to 
prohibit the use of United States funds to provide for the 
participation of certain Chinese officials in international 
conferences, programs, and activities and to provide that 
certain Chinese officials shall be ineligible to receive visas 
and excluded from admission to the United States.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Joseph C. 
Whitehill.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 967--A bill to prohibit the use of United States funds to provide 
        for the participation of certain Chinese officials in 
        international conferences, programs, and activities and to 
        provide that certain Chinese officials shall be ineligible to 
        receive visas and excluded from admission to the United States

    H.R. 967 would prohibit the Department of State, the United 
States Information Agency, and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development from funding travel expenses for 
certain nationals of the People's Republic of China to 
participate in international conferences, exchange programs, 
and activities. The prohibition would apply to the head or 
political secretary of government-created or approved religious 
organizations and military or civilian government officials 
engaged in policies or practices that repress religious 
activities or the free expression of religious beliefs. In 
addition, the bill would prohibit the State Department from 
issuing visas to such military and government officials, 
thereby excluding them from the United States.
    The bill would add new screening and reporting requirements 
that could slightly increase the administrative overhead costs 
for any exchange program with the People's Republic of China. 
Nevertheless, CBO estimates that enactment of H.R. 967 would 
have no significant impact on the federal budget. Because it 
would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The estimate was prepared by Joseph C. Whitehall. The 
estimate was approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director of Budget Analysis.

                jurisdictional issues and other matters

    This legislation has been referred, in addition, to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.

                      section-by-section analysis

Section 1. Congressional statement of policy

    States the sense of Congress that the President should make 
freedom of religion one of the major objectives of United 
States foreign policy with respect to China; that the 
Department of State should raise in every relevant forum the 
issue of individuals imprisoned or otherwise harassed by the 
Chinese government on religious grounds; and that the 
Department of State should provide specific names of 
individuals of concern and request a complete and timely 
response from the Chinese government regarding such 
individuals.

Section 2. Prohibition on use of funds for the participation of certain 
        Chinese officials in conferences, exchanges, programs, and 
        activities

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal 
years after fiscal year 1997, no funds available to the 
Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency, or the U.S. 
Agency for International Development may be used to fund travel 
or related expenses for the participation of certain nationals 
of the People's Republic of China in conferences, exchanges, 
programs and activities. The Chinese nationals subject to this 
prohibition are the heads or political secretaries of specified 
Chinese Government-created or approved religious organizations, 
and any military or civilian official or employee of the 
Chinese government who carried out or directed the carrying out 
of specified repressive policies or practices with regard to 
religion.
    The Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency, and 
the U.S. Agency for International Development are required to 
certify periodically to the appropriate committees of Congress 
that they did not pay, either directly or through contractors 
or grantees, for travel or related expenses of any Chinese 
national subject to the prohibition. Each such certification 
must be supported by the name of each Chinese government 
employee whose travel expenses were paid by agency funds; a 
description of the procedures employed to ascertain whether 
each such Chinese government employee did or did not 
participate in religious persecution; and the agency's basis 
for concluding that each such Chinese government employee did 
not participate in religious persecution.

Section 3. Certain officials of the People's Republic of China 
        ineligible to receive visas and excluded from admission

    Any military or civilian official or employee of the 
Chinese government who carried out or directed the carrying out 
of specified repressive policies or practices with regard to 
religion (except the head of state, the head of government, and 
cabinet level ministers) shall be ineligible to receive visas 
and shall be excluded from admission to the United States. The 
President may waive this prohibition if he determines that it 
is vital to the national interest to do so and provides written 
notification to the appropriate committees of Congress, 
including a justification for the waiver.

Section 4. Sunset provision

    Sections 2 and 3 shall cease to have effect 4 years after 
the date of enactment.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    This resolution would prohibit the use of United States 
funds to provide for the participation of certain Chinese 
officials in international conferences, programs, and 
exchanges. The resolution would also ban certain Chinese 
officials from receiving U.S. visas or being admitted into the 
United States.
    This resolution is flawed both substantively and 
procedurally. While this bill was improved by a number of 
amendments in committee, it still contains several serious 
substantive problems:
    First, the impact of this bill is unclear. The category of 
individuals who might be subject to the provisions of this 
legislation is unduly broad, vague, and undefined. Members are 
not able to say with precision which Chinese officials might be 
affected by this bill. Members did not have the opportunity to 
determine the broad reaches of the bill--for example, how this 
bill would affect travel by Chinese officials to the United 
Nations.
    Second, there is significant danger that passage of this 
bill will encourage China to retaliate by barring visits to 
China by American religious figures. To assume that Beijing 
will not retaliate is certainly not in accord with our 
experience with the Chinese on other issues, such as trade.
    Third, this bill would create an administrative nightmare 
for the Executive branch. Compiling and maintaining lists of 
officials covered by this bill will likely be difficult, 
costly, and time-consuming.
    Fourth, this bill represents another example of the 
Congress writing unwise or unworkable laws and then giving the 
President a limited authority to waive the law. Such a practice 
undermines the role of the Legislative branch as a constructive 
partner in the making of U.S. foreign policy. It allows the 
Congress to take political credit for popular stands while 
placing all the burden on the President. This is hardly 
conducive to the establishment of a true partnership between 
the branches.
    Fifth, this bill embraces the concept that we can solve our 
problems by cutting off contact and dialogue with the Chinese. 
But the record suggests that we are most likely to move the 
Chinese in the directions we wish by engagement--by maintaining 
and even encouraging dialogue. This bill is likely to undermine 
the ability of United States' religious and human rights 
leaders to visit China.
    Procedurally, the process followed by the Committee in 
marking up this resolution was most unfortunate.
    First, the process did not reflect the way a responsible 
committee should operate. Members and staff were not given 
adequate notice to study this resolution, even though it deals 
with serious issues that could have a major adverse impact on 
the upcoming summit meeting with the Chinese president. The 
usual requirement of one week's notice for a mark up was 
reduced to barely more than 24 hours. No unusual or emergency 
circumstances exist that warranted waiving the customary one-
week rule. No committee hearings have been held on this 
resolution, nor were any senior Administration officials 
permitted to testify on the policy implications of this 
resolution prior to the mark up.
    Second, this resolution is badly timed. It does not enhance 
the ability of the President to advance United States non-
proliferation goals at the upcoming United States-China summit, 
the first official United States-China summit in over eight 
years. It is counterproductive for the Committee--on the basis 
of hasty deliberation and inadequate consultation with the 
Executive branch--to condemn Chinese actions and criticize 
Administration policy, since this approach is unlikely to 
persuade the Chinese that the Congress is serious about its 
commitment to non-proliferation. Adoption of this resolution 
will make the President's job more difficult as he attempts to 
persuade the Chinese to halt the transfer to Iran of dangerous 
weapons. The Congress should be working with the President to 
help make the summit successful, not passing bills to put 
obstacles in his way, and to create the impression that the 
Congress is moving in one direction and the President the other 
in China policy.
    Finally, the cumulative impact of five resolutions on China 
marked up and voted out of Committee as a package--plus others 
that are circulating and may come to the Floor simultaneously 
with these five--is likely to be harmful to U.S. foreign policy 
interests. Congress of course has every right to express its 
views on these important issues. Nonetheless, when this many 
resolutions each with a strongly anti Chinese tilt suddenly 
come forward simultaneously, and only weeks before a summit 
meeting, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that 
considerations other than foreign policy are also at work here. 
The Chinese-American relationship will not advance if it 
becomes a game board for the purpose of scoring points of 
perceived domestic political advantage.

                                   Lee H. Hamilton.
                                   Gary L. Ackerman.
                                   Amo Houghton.
                                   Bob Clement.