[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry].
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are now trying to begin to schedule the
final amendments.
I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 6 o'clock, the Senate
proceed to vote on or in relation to the Helms amendment No. 1320, with
no second-degree amendments being permitted thereto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to colleagues that if we could
get cooperation with those who have amendments already laid down, we
may be able to make a determination to have a series of votes following
that 6 o'clock vote and, if so, we would obviously try to make those 10
minutes votes. But we do need to try to resolve some issues regarding
those amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield the
floor?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from New York, I believe,
wanted to address some of the questions raised by the amendment of
Senator Lott.
I ask unanimous consent, subject to the next business that the
Senator from North Carolina wishes to raise, that the Senate return to
the Lott-Helms amendment No. 1316 on the United Nations for the purpose
of permitting the Senator from New York to speak thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
York would be recognized for up to 5 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me be clear. After the next
intervention by the Senator from North Carolina, the Senator from New
York will proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms].
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me be sure I understand what the
Senator from Massachusetts has proposed. As of now, we have only one
vote in place at 6 o'clock, or the first vote after 6 o'clock; is that
right?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is correct.
Mr. HELMS. And that is amendment No. 1320?
Mr. KERRY. On or in relation to.
Mr. HELMS. Right.
I thank the Senator.
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Pressler, Mr. D'Amato,
and Mr. Thurmond be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1320.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Have the yeas and nays been obtained on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered for
amendment No. 1320.
Mr. HELMS. Very well. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1316
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, our long-suffering, able manager of this
legislation asked me if I would come to the floor to speak to the
amendment offered by our friend, the Senator from Mississippi, that
prohibits the provision of certain foreign programs, such as the
Military Education Training Program, to countries which consistently
vote against us in the U.N. General Assembly. In this particular case,
voting with the United States less than a quarter of the time.
Mr. President, I would like to start by saying that the Senator from
Mississippi has a point to make. There is still a large number of
countries in the world which have a reflexive anti-Americanism which
they acquired, one, in the cold war; or, two, in an early, independent,
anticolonial mode that carried over somehow to the United States. In
the case of the Philippines, it was direct anticolonialism, inasmuch as
the Philippines was for a half a century a colony of the United States.
I was once our permanent representative to the United Nations. Let me
say to you that few have had a greater sense of this pattern of anti-
Americanism than I did at that last moment of Soviet assertion in the
world. It resulted in propositions such as the obscene resolution
equating Zionism with racism.
To get ahead of my argument a bit, let me say that resolution was
repelled, Resolution 3379 of 1975. It was a Soviet initiative, carried
out by the Third World in a so-called non-aligned movement, which was
effectively an instrument of Soviet foreign policy.
The cold war, as I said, is over. There are a great many countries
that have not yet absorbed that. There are countries where the news may
not yet have reached, such is the backwardness of their political
system and their political sensibilities. I am quite serious in that
regard.
I can look down the list and I see my friends from Cape Verde and the
Congo. The Congo may change. The Congo is a good example of what we are
dealing with in so much of the world.
The People's Republic of Congo, as it was until 2 years ago, was an
ugly, Leninist state run along the lines of those former people's
republics of Eastern Europe and the current People's Republic of China.
That regime has been overthrown, only to be replaced by fierce ethnic
warfare. A pattern so often observed. When the suppressive force of an
international ideology disappears, ethnic tensions, long suppressed are
quickly ignited, often resulting in fierce ethnic battles, as we have
seen in this era and will see in the eras to come. For the longest
while the United States did not make any real connection between the
voting at the United Nations and bilateral relations. We are not
accustomed to thinking in terms of multilateral relations. There is
only one other nation on Earth which existed, in 1800, and has not had
its form of government changed by force since, and that is the United
Kingdom. Our idea of diplomacy frequently has been shaped by figures
such as Benjamin Franklin and his efforts at the court of Louis XVI.
Indeed, in our Embassy in Paris you will find on a bench a wonderful
sculpture of Dr. Franklin sitting there. Multilateral diplomacy is new
to us, in the sense that bilateral is so old. Most nations of the world
never knew anything about bilateral diplomacy. They went from colonial
status to the Non-Aligned Movement and the United Nations and various
organizations in Geneva.
When I became the U.N. Ambassador, having been the Ambassador to
India, I had dinner with the very distinguished Ambassador from Egypt
at that time, who later became the Foreign Minister. I was talking
about the 1973 war, that awful war between Israel and surrounding
enemies, which led to the oil embargo, a huge increase in the price of
oil, and disrupted the economies of the world. Our median family income
has still not got back to the 1973 levels.
I was asking the Ambassador, what led to the war? Certainly it did no
one any good.
He said, ``Well, you know, it never would have happened if it had not
been for the Indian measure in the Security Council.''
I said ``What?''
I said to myself, ``What Indian resolution?'' I mean, I had been
sitting out there with the Ambassador in New Delhi and the Indians were
involved in a matter which, had I been informed, we might have headed
off. Possibly this would have prevented the 1973 war which in turn led
to the oil embargo. By carefully ``walking the cat back,'' as they say,
``across the river,'' I learned that no one in Washington had ever
bothered to tell us in New Delhi about this United Nations resolution.
Our bilateral relations just did not seem to be relevant to what was
going on in the Security Council?
Well, it had a lot to do with it. We soon learned and we established
a bureau because before that we had no voting records. We found a
professor at the Naval Academy who had put the voting records on a
computer for teaching a course in international relations and we were
delighted by that. Thus began a small bureau in the State Department,
the object of which is to connect our bilateral diplomacy with the
multilateral international agencies, inasmuch as for three quarters of
the nations in the world, our most important contact is at the General
Assembly, or the International Labor Organization, or the World Health
Organization, and other international organizations. Our actual
bilateral relations are very small.
Yet, the pattern of the General Assembly voting against us, which
reached its crest in the 1970's, is now gradually receding. The habits
of the nonaligned, will change very slowly, but they will change
implacably, as nations learn their interest in associating themselves
with what generally speaking are the Western democracies.
The point to make, however, is that we do not want to limit our
capacity to decide what relations we will have with these countries.
Military education is going to continue to be a hugely important issue.
Half the countries in the world are governed by their military and will
be into the next century. And few of them have in recent years any
experience of a military which is responsive to an elected government.
And nothing could be more important than for these military governments
to have contact with such responsive counterparts, and the United
States should have something to contribute to that experience.
In the Congos, in the Cape Verdes, in the Madagascars, even in
Thailand, we do not want to tell ourselves what we cannot do. If it is
in our interest to do these things, we ought--the President ought--to
be free to do so. But those are the marginal cases. We want to ask
ourselves what about the large states that would be on Senator Lott's
list? Many of whom we have in fact very friendly relations but which
for tactical purposes at home, be they dealing with a political
opposition of a democratic nature--as for example India, the world's
most populous democracy--oppose us at the United Nations and therefore
are on this list.
I do not know why--India chooses to vote with us so little. But it is
not because it is arrayed against us in international affairs. It is
because there is a parliament and there is the reality that in the
Indian Parliament you can improve your situation from time to time by
not choosing to support the Western democracies even though you are
yourself an Eastern democracy, the most populous of them all.
There are countries such as Egypt. We are just now seeing, in the
Near East, an extraordinary decision by Egypt to enter into a peaceful
relationship with Israel.
Anwar Sadat traveled to Jerusalem, and not 6 months ago, Yasser
Arafat was on the White House lawn. There was a price paid by Sadat. He
paid the price of his life. Egypt was expelled from the Arab League.
The headquarters of the Arab League were moved out of Cairo.
So, obviously, Egypt has been following a somewhat defensive position
of voting in the General Assembly where no vote is binding, no law is
made, no commitment is entered into.
Morocco. The first nation on Earth to recognize the United States as
a new independent nation was Morocco. We have had the finest relations
with Morocco and with King Hassan, and not unlike the Egyptian
experience.
King Hassan arranged for the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of
Israel to visit on their way back from the White House signing
ceremonies for the Israel-PLO accord. More recently, the Israelis have
sent a large economic mission to Rabat where they met with their
Moroccan counterparts.
So go to Morocco, if you can get Dorothy to go with you, Dorothy
Lamour.
If you go to Morocco, one of the things you will see in Tangiers is a
major relay station for the United States Voice of America. We asked
for use of Moroccan territory to place an installation of that kind,
and the answer was yes. That is the kind of friend you need in the
world. When you have a friend like that, you will often find them
making symbolic votes in the General Assembly that protect them with
another part of the world.
I make the point, Mr. President, that only in the Security Council is
a vote cast that has the effect of law, of commitment, of consequence.
General Assembly votes are statements of opinion, and a government such
as Morocco will often find it useful to distance themselves from the
West for purposes of placating the sub-Sahara. Morocco has an ongoing
problem with Algeria about the former Spanish Sahara. This reverberates
into the whole organization of African unity.
They are in no sense arrayed against the United States, and we ought
not to prohibit our President from making decisions to enter certain
relationships with them which the President deems to be in the best
interest of the United States. That is what this amendment would
prevent.
This amendment would tell us that Mexico is in some way an adversary
because of its voting patterns in the General Assembly. In this Chamber
not 3 months ago we agreed to the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
There is a history here, Mr. President. I do not want to go on too
long, but in that strange set of accommodations which the Mexicans made
with one another to calm down and bring order or relative order to a
country that had been tumultuous and fratricidal in the extreme. In the
early part of the century, one of the things that happened--and I will
put it as bluntly as need be--is they gave foreign policy to the left.
Foreign policy does not matter much to Mexico. It has no overseas
interests of a military kind or an ideological kind. But all through
the fifties and sixties, the seventies and I assume in the eighties,
the left was allowed to vote with Castro in Cuba. It did not mean a
thing, it did not change a thing, but that is part of their
accommodations. If I were the left, I would have chosen more valuable
properties than foreign policy, but there you are.
So here we have ourselves saying, having entered a free-trade
agreement with Mexico, we cannot offer them military education
training. A military in a struggling democracy--and let us give the
present administration credit for trying--needs that association with
the United States. I do not say it always works--but an association
with a military that is subordinate to an elected government can
instill important values. And if the President decides that is in the
interest of the United States to have such programs, he ought to be
allowed to do it.
We make a distinction, of course, in publishing U.N. voting records,
between important votes and votes of small consequence. Morocco votes
with us a majority of the time on important votes. Mexico votes with us
half the time. Now those are the votes where the United States
Representative calls his counterpart in New York and says, ``Will you
be with us on this vote?'' And the answer from Mexico and Morocco is
``yes.''
Is there a Senator in this Chamber who has not gone to a friend and
said, ``I really need you on this vote,'' and have a friend who might
go one way or the other say, ``Well, I can be with you on this vote''?
It is a normal practice of an assembly of the kind the General Assembly
is and of the kind the Senate is.
So, Mr. President, I say why offer this affront to India, a
democracy, an enormous achievement? For 1 year we have not sent an
Ambassador to India. Mary McGrory had a very powerful column on that in
this morning's Washington Post.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1994]
Treating India Undiplomatically
(By Mary McGrory)
India is fuming at the Clinton administration. The world's
largest democracy has been without a U.S. ambassador for the
better part of a year and the prospects for getting one soon
are not brilliant.
The Indian ambassador to the United States, Siddhartha
Shankar Ray, points out that his country thought it had
become what the Clinton foreign policy was all about, a
democracy with a free market. Relations between the United
States and India were strained throughout the Cold War, when
Washington found New Delhi's self-righteous neutrality
maddening and its state-run economy hard to deal with.
But India has changed. In July 1991 it opened it markets.
More than 600 U.S.-Indian corporate joint ventures are in
progress. We have become India's largest trading partner.
India admitted error in human rights, established a
commissioner for human rights and, in the United Nations, has
sponsored with us a resolution for a worldwide commissioner
for human rights. Once, the United States was resigned to
lectures from the Indians in the United Nations. Now they
vote with us almost all the time, but Washington seems not to
have noticed.
``We expected the greatest democracy would look at our
country with different eyes,'' said Ray.
Instead, the Indians are finding out the George Bush
treated them better. At least he sent his trade
representative, Carla Hills, to visit New Delhi.
Under President Clinton, Washington has so far declined to
add to the procession of notable shepherding high-level trade
delegations to India. British Prime Minister John Major led
off with a large group of businessmen last January; Boris
Yeltsin of Russia, Helmut Kohl of Germany and Mary Robinson,
president of Ireland, followed. China, Spain and France all
showed up with stars. We never got higher than an assistant
secretary of state.
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown observed last week that we
should pay ``much more attention'' to India.
India was delighted when Bush chose Thomas R. Pickering as
ambassador. A high-profile career diplomat, he served for
several months before Clinton yanked him off to our Moscow
embassy. The Indians regard this as squandering because of
the general opinion that Strobe Talbott, the expert on Russia
who has been nominated to be deputy secretary of state, is
the de facto ambassador to Russia anyway.
Clinton's next choice was Stephen J. Solarz, who for years
dreamed of being secretary of state. He is a former
Democratic congressman from New York noted for his brains and
his withering comments on those less endowed. Many colleagues
were awed by his grasp of foreign affairs; others found him
too clever by half and hated his noisy pro-gulf war stand in
the face of Democratic opposition.
Clinton designated Solarz last March. He owed him. Solarz
was an early Clinton fan; on the darkest day of the
presidential primary campaign, the day of the Gennifer
Flowers news conference, Solarz called campaign headquarters
and announced he was having a news conference in New York to
defend Clinton.
Solarz had his own problems. He was one of the top 10
writers of checking account overdrafts at the House Bank. He
also helped a Hong Kong businessman who had criminal ties.
Reportedly he was cleared of all allegations and can now be
formally nominated, but no paper on him ever went to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has been trying to
rally support.
The Indians would be perfectly happy to have Solarz. They
just want the administration to acknowledge their existence,
to counter the impression, stated by embassy spokesman
Nirupama Rao, ``that India has dropped off the map.''
That feeling has been exacerbated by two letters recently
emanating from Clinton that revealed considerable ignorance
of recent developments and caused a furor in the Indian press
and complaints about ``meddling.''
The first was addressed to a paid lobbyist for a Kashmiri
separatist group. Ray wrote a stiff letter to the State
Department: ``It is disconcerting to see that an individual
who is in the forefront of the campaign for dismembering
India should seemingly receive recognition and encouragement
from the highest political authority in the U.S.''
The second was to a California congressman complaining
about conditions in Punjab, which, thanks to several local
elections, have improved to the point where the Sikh police
Chief, K.P.S. Gill, defended the government's treatment of
the Sikhs. This letter particularly irritated Ray, who was
governor of Punjab for four years.
These misunderstandings, he said, leave Indians feeling
``hurt, bewildered and worried,'' and make the naming of a
U.S. envoy ``absolutely imperative.''
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Government of India, which has
provided asylum this whole generation to the Dalai Lama and the
Tibetans, the Government of India which stands alone as a democracy in
South Asia with great trials; do this to India? Slap Egypt in the face?
Tell Morocco, the country that was the first to recognize us going back
to the 18th century and has been very supportive throughout the postwar
era, ``Nope, not satisfied?'' Tell Mexico we obviously do not know what
we are doing up here? No, Mr. President.
Having stated that, I understand the frustrations that the Senator
from Mississippi may well feel, even so, this does not in any way
affect the countries that are to be on this list. The only country
whose freedom of action will be limited by this amendment is that of
the United States of America. This is no time for that, no reason for
it, and I do hope that the distinguished manager will move to table
this measure because I see nothing but mischief. There will be
consequences abroad with countries that we are in active, close,
friendly, supportive, instructive relations. There will be deleterious
consequences. We will do ourselves harm. There is no need nor occasion
to limit ourselves in this way.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator
from New York for a most important and articulate historical analysis
and, frankly, a practical analysis of the impact that this amendment
would have on our relationships with a number of different countries.
I could not agree with him more, that to come in with an arbitrary
cutoff point on the basis of a whole number of votes which have no true
relationship to the real relationship of our country and those people
who voted is not the way to make judgments about military education
training, which is in fact the very kind of training that they want to
have go to countries which need that kind of assistance and help, who
might not be 100 percent with us.
So in a sense the policy is truly cutting off our noses to spite our
faces and can have dramatic negative consequences with respect to
countries that are enormously important to us in very delicate
relationships, for instance, Cyprus.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, Cyprus.
Mr. KERRY. To suddenly say that Cyprus is not going to receive this
assistance would upset a relationship that is critical to us in that
part of the world, and already delicate enough given the balance
between Turkey, Greece, and so forth.
So my colleague, who has the most experienced voice in the Senate on
the subject of the United Nations, as a former President of the
Security Council, I think has served as good notice about the dangers
of the Lott amendment, and I thank him for that.
Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the Cohen amendment No. 1317. I do not believe the yeas and
nays have been requested. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do not believe there is further debate on
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Maine, amendment No. 1317.
The amendment (No. 1317) was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerry). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 1333
(Purpose: To urge the President to prepare to reintroduce United States
tactical nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula, in full coordination
with United States allies in the region, should North Korea not return
to, and fully comply with, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons)
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
business be temporarily laid aside so that I might send an amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] proposes an amendment
numbered 1333:
On page 179, after line 6, insert the following new
section:
SEC. 714. POLICY ON PREPARING TO REINTRODUCE TACTICAL NUCLEAR
WEAPONS TO THE KOREAN PENINSULA.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It was announced by South Korean President Roh Tae Woo
on December 18, 1991, that all tactical nuclear weapons had
been removed from the Korean peninsula.
(2) On December 31, 1991, North Korea agreed to a
denuclearization agreement with South Korea pledging not to
possess, manufacture, or use nuclear weapons, not to possess
plutonium reprocessing facilities, and to negotiate the
establishment of a nuclear inspection system.
(3) On January 30, 1992, North Korea signed a nuclear
safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), allowing for IAEA regular inspections of
nuclear facilities designated by North Korea.
(4) Negotiations between North and South Korea over
implementation of the bilateral denuclearization agreement
have stalled.
(5) North Korea stated its intention on March 12, 1993, to
withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), done on July 1, 1968.
(6) North Korea said it would ``suspend as long as it
considers necessary'' its withdrawal from the Treaty on June
11, 1993, but continues to refuse to fully comply with Treaty
provisions requiring regular inspections of declared
nuclear facilities and allowing special inspections of
undeclared sites.
(7) North Korea is the only country to ever formally
threaten to withdraw from the Treaty, and effectively remains
in a state of noncompliance with the Treaty.
(8) President Clinton has stated that the United States
objective is a Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons, and
reaffirmed the United States security commitment to South
Korea during a visit there on July 10-11, 1993.
(9) On November 7, 1993, President Clinton stated that
``North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.''.
(10) North Korea has reportedly rejected IAEA inspection
procedures of seven declared nuclear sites after agreeing, in
principle, with United States officials to allow IAEA
investigators to visit each of those sites.
(11) In a statement issued on January 21, 1994, to IAEA
authorities, North Korea reportedly declared that ``routine
or ad hoc'' inspections, otherwise known as regular or
special inspections, would not be allowed, and an IAEA
spokesman stated that ``we are not in agreement'' about the
inspections.
(b) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that if North
Korea continues to resist the efforts of the international
community to allow the IAEA to conduct regular and special
inspections of its declared and undeclared nuclear sites and
facilities, and refuses to return to, and fully comply with,
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the
President should--
(1) fully coordinate with United States allies in the
region regarding the military posture of North Korea and the
ability of the United States to deter any future nuclear
attack against South Korea or Japan; and
(2) in conjunction with United States allies, act to defend
United States security interests on the Korean peninsula and
enhance the defense capability of United States forces by
preparing to reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons in South
Korea.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``IAEA'' means the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I asked that the entire amendment be read
because I do not believe that many of the Members have had an
opportunity to consider precisely the proposal that I am making at this
time.
Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is designed to send
a strong and clear message to North Korea.
Since last March, Pyongyang stated its intention to withdraw from the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has engaged in a dangerous game of
nuclear poker.
The stakes involve nothing less than the proliferation of nuclear
weapons in the modern age.
In the case of this recalcitrant nation, I fully supported President
Clinton, when he declared last November, that ``North Korea cannot be
allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.''
This sense-of-Congress amendment, provides an incentive for North
Korea to agree to a compromise with the United States, South Korea, and
the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The measure urges the President, (after full coordination with our
allies in the region) to prepare to reintroduce United States tactical
nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula should North Korea not return
to, and fully comply with, the NPT treaty.
In simple terms, the amendment lays out a marker.
Should North Korea choose to continue to defy the nonproliferation
regime, great leader Kim II Sung and dear leader Kim Chong-Il should
understand that they will not be gaining a nuclear advantage on the
peninsula.
The announcement on December 18, 1991, by the then President of South
Korea, No Tae Woo, that United States tactical nuclear weapons had been
removed from the Korean Peninsula, encouraged just that speculation.
Active consideration of the reintroduction of United States tactical
nuclear weapons could serve as an active deterrent to a nuclear armed
North Korea.
We thought that our good faith effort of withdrawing tactical nuclear
weapons might contribute to the security of South Korean and United
States interests in the region.
We now need to make clear to North Korea that their continued
intransigence on this issue leaves us with no choice but to prepare to
``restore'' that security by other means.
This brings me to the Sense-of-Congress language I am offering today.
North Korea may well go its own way and seek to divert more nuclear
fuel from its operational reactor at Yongbyon, denying IAEA
investigators the opportunity to analyze whether fissile material is
being created.
If North Korea has indeed produced enough weapons grade plutonium, it
is fair to assume they are only months, if not weeks, away from
constructing a nuclear device if they so choose.
The weaponization technology is rather easy to procure.
If we reach such a point, I believe it makes little sense to allow
North Korea to operate with such a nuclear advantage.
One reason United States tactical nuclear weapons were removed from
the peninsula in 1991 was to boost negotiations with the North on
proliferation issues. The North Korean Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
stated in April 1991 that North Korea's decision to sign the NPT in
1985, ``was aimed at creating a condition for the withdrawal of United
States nuclear arms in the South.''
There seems to be little doubt about the linkage of these issues. A
newspaper report in late 1991 stated that, ``though both Washington and
Seoul insist formally that nuclear weapons policy regarding South Korea
should not be linked to North Korea's nuclear program, there is little
doubt that North Korea's stand on international inspection has brought
the two issues together.''
A Korea expert at Australian National University, Mr. Peter Hayes,
commented at the time that:
* * * the United States has made its move * * * This puts
the responsibility on the North to go the same way, and give
[South Korean President] Roh the political credit for moving
toward a nuclear-free Korea.
Unfortunately, North Korea has not fulfilled its end of the bargain,
throwing back into question whether the peninsula is nuclear-free after
all. And now, given North Korea's noncompliance to the NPT for the past
10 months, it becomes increasingly reasonable to assume that Pyongyang
aims to fully develop an indigenous weapons program.
I believe it is important to send this signal to Pyongyang now, in
the midst of these talks, while it believes it is negotiating from a
position of strength, and believes it has nothing to lose by ignoring
the international community.
Over time, through external pressure and isolation, I believe we can
join with our Asian allies to reduce the threat of nuclear
proliferation in the region. That threat comes from an oppressive
totalitarian state regime that, in some ways, represents the last
bastion of pure, unadulterated communism.
We did not win the cold war standing down to communism, nor should we
tolerate it here.
Of late, a diplomatic resolution to the current impasse over regular
inspections appears to be close at hand. I applaud the administration
for its recent efforts to begin to fashion an interim solution in
principle allowing for periodic inspections, thereby assuring that the
continuity of safeguards have been maintained. Unfortunately, the devil
is in the details.
Withn the last 2 weeks, North Korea has rejected a series of IAEA
inspection procedures for seven designated facilities that would
determine if nuclear weapons are under development. The gulf between
the Atomic Energy Agency and North Korea is wide.
The scope and detail of the inspections are nonnegotiable, according
to the IAEA, and the State Department has bluntly expressed its
concern: ``If the IAEA is unhappy, we are unhappy,'' stated the
official spokesman for the Department 2 weeks ago. I support the IAEA
in its efforts to hold North Korea to the letter and spirit of the
treaty and the nuclear safeguards agreement it signed in January 1992.
In the last 8 months, the Senate's Asia Subcommittee, which I chair,
has met four times with the key State Department official heading the
negotiations with the North Koreans, Assistant Secretary for Political-
Military Affairs Bob Gallucci. The subcommittee called him as a primary
witness early on in the crisis last May, and has engaged him in three
classified question and answer sessions since then.
In discussing the ebb and flow of the negotiations with Assistant
Secretary Gallucci, I have been struck by our hesitancy to use the
stick, or even threaten to use the stick, in lieu of the carrot. How a
country postures itself in negotiations can often be as or more
important than the actual give and take itself, and I believe we have
created the perception that we are militarily, politically, and
diplomatically impotent in this situation. Let me explain.
The administration has ruled out a military strike against the
Yongbyon nuclear facility, the President has indicated he has real
doubts about the effectiveness of economic sanctions, it is difficult
to find any positive return from cancellation of Team Spirit, and we
seem less insistent on exchanging high level envoys between North and
South Korea, as previously planned, as a condition for a third round of
talks at the Assistant Secretary level. Meanwhile, two other atomic
reactors continue under construction at Yongbyon--in addition to the 5
megawatt reactor already in operation--and a facility fitting the
description of a plutonium reprocessing plant appears near to
completion as well.
Without the lever of the U.S. tactical nuclear presence, our
negotiating posture may be untenable. Indeed, from a North Korean
perspective, the scenario appears to be risk-free. The construction of
their nuclear facilities continues uninterrupted, enough time has
passed to reprocess nuclear fuel into weapons grade plutonium to
produce one nuclear device or more, and a deft diplomatic campaign to
create uncertainty about the overall program at Yongbyon has generated
the fear they may have the bomb, which is perceived as almost as
valuable as having the bomb itself.
I urge the administration to immediately change the tenor of these
talks by negotiating from the position of strength that this country
has rightfully earned as the remaining superpower.
This is not a call to arms; it is a call for more forceful diplomatic
tactics to help Pyongyang better understand the weakness of its
position.
For example, I hope President Clinton will publicly describe how we
might implement economic sanctions, by cutting off foreign remittances
from North Koreans living in Japan, rather than estimating they have a
slim chance of working.
State Department officials could convene a meeting to discuss the
particulars of cutting off the flow of hard currency to the North. No
harm is done by such meetings and talk and they offer powerful
persuasion to leaders in Pyongyang to think again about the defiant
course they are undertaking.
In addition, I would encourage the administration to discuss when and
how to implement Team Spirit exercises, not that they are prepared to
shut then down in exchange for a mere glimpse of the Yongbyon facility.
We could reinforce this message by sending Secretaries Christopher--
and, I hope, Perry--to view Team Spirit exercises when they're
conducted later this year.
Again, the message sent to Pyongyang is unmistakable: We have no
intention of provoking a military conflict, but we will respond to your
transgressions.
Finally, I have privately raised the issue with Assistant Secretary
Gallucci that the Chinese be directly involved in negotiations with the
North Koreans.
Officially, sitting on the sidelines, the leadership in Beijing has
nothing at stake right now. But asking for their direct participation
in talks raises the ante.
Their credibility and oft-stated hope that the peninsula be free of
nuclear weapons becomes an issue.
Extraordinary diplomatic problems require extraordinary diplomacy,
and I urge the administration to work directly with China to address
the problems at hand.
Is mere public vetting of sanctions, and following through on Team
Spirit exercises beating a drum for war?
Absolutely not.
Do these and other steps suggest that we will not be cowed by threats
and rhetoric from Pyongyang?
Yes.
Should North Korea ultimately fail to abide by the NPT and safeguards
agreement, I believe the United States should act to defend its
security interests in the region and soldiers on the peninsula by
reintroducing tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea to serve as an
active deterrent to any North Korean consideration of attack.
In the event of a full-scale military barrage against the South, the
Communist leadership might hope that the North would prove to be a
sanctuary from nuclear war.
That is simply not the case.
While our long-range strategic nuclear systems could respond to such
an event, having these powerful weapons of mass destruction on the
ground and ready to use at a moment's notice effectively conveys the
seriousness of purpose we bring to defending South Korea.
My point with this amendment, and the other ideas I have raised
today, is to encourage the administration to negotiate from a position
of strength, not weakness.
Other countries; namely Iran are watching with great interest how we
handle this nuclear renegade in Asia without compromising our nuclear
proliferation policy.
It is time to ratchet up the diplomatic pressure, and this amendment
represents a step in that direction.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from North Carolina
Mr. HELMS. We are prepared to accept the amendment as well on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1333) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 1291
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed now to Helms amendment No. 1291.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1334
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1334.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following new section:
Section 1.--Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) The international boundaries between the independent
countries of the former Yugoslavia are the same as the
internal borders among the constituent republics of the
former Yugoslavia as specified in the 1974 Yugoslav Federal
Constitution (except with regard to the border between Serbia
and Montenegro) and cannot be altered without the consent of
all countries concerned.
(2) The Government of Croatia is violating the sovereignty
of Bosnia-Hercegovina by sending thousands of Croatian troops
to Hercegovina, ostensibly to counter an offensive against
ethnic Croatian civilians by Bosnian Government forces.
(3) Croatian forces are interfering with U.N. peacekeeping
operations, including the delivery of humanitarian aid to
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Sec. 2.--Sanctions Against Croatia.--The President shall
take any or all of the following actions--
(1) Instruct the United States Executive Director or
representative at all international financial institutions of
which the United States is a member to vote against all loans
to Croatia;
(2) Provide no assistance to Croatia (except for
humanitarian assistance);
(3) Make no sales to Croatia of any kind of military
equipment;
(4) Prohibit the licensing of commercial military sales to
Croatia;
(5) Provide no credits, and provide no guarantees of any
credits to Croatia;
(6) Prohibit the sale or transfer to Croatia of any item
subject to export controls by any agency of the United
States;
(7) Direct the Secretary of Transportation to revoke the
right of any air carrier designated by the Government of
Croatia to provide service to the United States; or
(8) Negotiate comprehensive multilateral sanctions pursuant
to the provisions of Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.
Sec. 3.--Waiver.--The President may waive the sanctions
contained in section 2 if he determines and so certifies in
writing to the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
that--
(1) Croatia is not waging a war of military aggression
against any other country;
(2) Croatia is not supporting directly or indirectly, any
military unit, militia, or paramilitary organization in any
other country;
(3) Croatia is not occupying any territory of another
country and is not assisting forces occupying the territory
of another country;
(4) Croatia recognizes the borders of Bosnia-Hercegovina as
specified in the 1974 Yugoslav Federal Constitution;
(5) Croatia or forces loyal to or controlled by Croatia are
not interfering with United Nations peacekeeping operations
or with international humanitarian relief efforts; or
(6) It is in the national interest of the United States to
do so.
Mr. PELL. I look forward to completing action on the amendment at the
appropriate time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the current business before the Senate is
the MFN; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island just called up
an amendment, and he is going to pursue it at another time.
amendment no. 1291
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to amendment No. 1291.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 1291 be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe the Senator from Texas would
like to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Vitiation of Action on Amendment No. 1285
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I offered amendment No. 1285 last
Thursday based on a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate on
the annual savings generated by the amendment.
Since that time, the amendment did pass, but it has come to my
attention that the estimate of savings that I was provided may have
been in error.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that action on amendment No. 1285
be vitiated.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado reserves the right
to object.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I will not object. I simply want to make
the point that the estimate was not in error at all. What happened was
the Congressional Budget Office changed that estimate after the
amendment passed.
I certainly will not object and do not object and commend the Senator
for her forthrightness in bringing this important issue before the
Senate and her willingness to have the issue examined again with the
changes by the Congressional Budget Office.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor back to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 1291
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to Senator Helms' amendment No. 1291.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this is the amendment which the Senator
proposed last week referring to MFN and China. We did have a debate on
it last week during which time the Senator from North Carolina pointed
out that the language that he was offering was, in effect, the language
offered by Senator Mitchell 2 years ago during the time that President
Bush was President.
On behalf of Senator Mitchell, I offered a second-degree amendment
which reflects the current policy of the Clinton administration.
It was my hope that the Senator and I would be able to get together
on this amendment in order to permit the Senate to send a unified and,
hopefully, strong message to China with respect to this issue.
I am informed now that the Senator still I think has some difference
with respect to the second-degree amendment.
So I will let the Senator, who more than adequately can speak for
himself on this, define those differences, and hopefully we can proceed
to a vote at some time shortly on this issue if it needs a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts.
I even thank the distinguished majority leader. I would prefer to
have his measure of 9 months ago rather than the one that we have now.
But I understand that we change Presidents and the shoe is on the other
foot, and all the other cliches that come to mind.
This second-degree amendment I have examined carefully, and I do not
want to overstate the case, but it is scarcely more than a legislative
toothless tiger, an attempt to gum the Chinese into submission. I am
sure there is going to be great merriment in Beijing tonight. I can see
them giving each other the high five and other Oriental practices and
hoisting glasses of Kaoliang.
I continue to believe that my original amendment, which was the
position of the distinguished majority leader during the Bush
administration, and is a sense of the Senate based on the conditional
MFN renewal legislation offered by the distinguished majority leader,
Mr. Mitchell, just a few months ago in April of last year is far
superior. I believe my original amendment sends the strong, clear
message that the butchers in Beijing need to hear.
What is in the President's Executive order that seems to turn a lot
of people around?
With all charity, all I can see is a little bit of political
machinations going on. It is that toothless tiger, the Executive order,
which at best is only a first cousin of Senator Mitchell's legislation
of some months back. It attempts to whitewash the blood stains in
Tiananmen Square, and I do not like that. I cannot agree to that. It
attempts to conceal Chinese proliferation violations that threaten
American national security. I cannot go along with that. The dictators
in Beijing will be high-fiving it all over the place when they learn
that this amendment has put the United States Senate on record as
endorsing the Clinton administration's patty-cake game with China's
Communist emperors.
The Executive order is scarcely more than a mirage, only an illusion
of toughness. There is nothing really there to grab on to. It is sort
of a ghost of important human rights, trade, and proliferation
principles that have been crushed under the Communist tanks along with
the sacrifices and aspirations of the brave Chinese freedom advocates.
The President can change or rescind his Executive order at any time
that it suits his fancy to do so. By the way, the Executive order
requires a ``no'' MFN renewal recommendation only if China cannot meet
the Jackson-Vanik waiver and if China is not adhering to the 1992
prison labor agreement. That is it. If you doubt what I am saying, read
the Executive order. As a matter of fact, I want to have printed the
Executive order in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, and I so
ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HELMS. But the second-degree amendment, which is now the pending
amendment, does not even uphold President Clinton's standard. It is
merely a sense-of-the-Senate piece of legislation. At a minimum, this
Senate, in my judgment, should incorporate the binding language of the
President's Executive order.
The Executive order is a sort of sell-out. Already, the
administration has cleverly crafted the weak justifications it needs to
renew China's MFN under the Executive order. Secretary Bentsen went to
Beijing and persuaded China to agree to comply with the prison labor
agreement China made 2 years ago. Wow--China finally agreed to do--
now--what it promised to do 2 years ago. That is progress? But, that is
all that is technically needed to fulfill the Executive order.
What penalty has Clinton imposed on China for breaking its agreements
with us in the first place? What price does China have to pay for
flooding our markets with illegal slave-made goods and stealing hard-
working American jobs? Absolutely nothing. Why do Bill Clinton and
other China apologists place the American worker--whose job they let
China steal--and his suffering family behind the Communist dictators in
China?
What about all the other important issues this Senate has repeatedly
raised--human rights, nonproliferation and trade?
While President Clinton's Executive order references human rights,
the dictators in Beijing could lock up and torture half of Tibet and
China and nothing is required under the Executive order.
According to the State Department's 1993 Human Rights report on
China, issued yesterday--and I quote:
``The Government's overall human rights record in 1993 fell
far short of internationally accepted norms as it continued
to repress domestic critics and failed to control abuses by
its own security forces. * * * In 1993 hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of political prisoners remained under detention or
in prison. Estimates by some foreign researchers of the
number of political prisoners are much higher. * * * Physical
abuse, including torture by police and prison officials
persisted, especially in regions with minority populations
like Tibet. * * * There were accounts of extrajudicial
killings by government officials.''
And, it goes on and on and on for 34 pages detailing arbitrary
arrests; denial of due process of law; extensive violations of privacy;
forced abortions; severe political and religious persecution--
especially in occupied Tibet; racial and ethnic discrimination; and
widespread denial of basic labor rights among other serious abuses.
And, while the Clinton administration has tried to down-play these
horrendous abuses in the new Human Rights report through classic State
Department understatements and diplomatic-speak, the message between
the lines is crystal clear. China is, as the internationally-recognized
Freedom House organization proclaimed just a month and a half ago, one
of the ``terrible 20'' worst human rights abusers in the world. It
shares company with North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Iran.
And, what does the Clinton Executive order and the pending amendment
do about this? Nothing. The Executive order has no binding requirements
for human rights. At least the Mitchell bill and Helms amendment make
significant overall progress in human rights a condition for MFN
renewal.
I know what is going to happen. This administration and its
apologists are going to tout the release of a couple of high-profile
political prisoners as progress. While I welcome the release of every
innocent spokesman for freedom in China and occupied Tibet, this
administration is setting the stage to accept a less than the minimum
passing grade on human rights. The pending amendment endorses this
charade. What kind of standard is this Senate setting when it accepts
China's ``F'' as a passing grade?
What if the murderous regime in Beijing expands China's new forced
abortion law to authorize euthanasia for millions of disabled children
as is being discussed in the current session of China's rubber-stamp
Congress? Clinton's Executive order and this amendment do nothing. This
Senate should oppose--not endorse--Chinese infanticide.
What about nonproliferation? As with the Executive order itself, this
amendment says nothing about the serious and dangerous problem of
continued Chinese violations of non-proliferation agreements.
In complete contempt for this Senate and this country, Red China sold
missile technology to Pakistan--the only country this Congress has
sanctioned by name because of nuclear proliferation. That happened just
5 months ago. Yet, on Friday, Senator Kerry argued this Senate should
not even consider China's proliferation record as part of the MFN
renewal process because President Clinton had a separate, but tough,
nonproliferation policy.
Where is the tough stand Senator Kerry claimed on Friday? For China's
missile proliferation violations, Beijing received only the minimal
sanctions required by law. Through questionable legal reinterpretation,
the so-called tough Clinton administration is in the process of waiving
the heart of those sanctions and giving China important dual-use space
technology that can be used to modernize and improve Communist China's
offensive nuclear missile arsenal. This administration will be
rewarding--yes, rewarding, the blood-stained Chinese military for
proliferation violations. That sends a strong message?
And what, for example, if China sells nuclear missiles to terrorist
Iran? Nothing. The Executive order's silence on proliferation is almost
deafening.
So, Madam President, I simply cannot, as much as I wish I could, put
my imprimatur on the second-degree amendment which will replace my
amendment.
Mr. President, what is MFN? It is a special, favorable trade status.
It allows a country, like China, to sell goods to the United States at
very low, concessionary tariff rates making foreign goods highly
competitive against American products. Therefore, most Americans would
assume that how China conducts trade should be central to the question
of MFN renewal. But, not in Clinton's Executive order or the pending
amendment. They do not even mention trade.
So, what if Communist China continues to discriminate against
American businesses and steal the jobs of hard-working Americans by
illegally dumping subsidized goods here? Under Clinton's Executive
order and the pending amendment, nothing. Explain that to John Q.
Citizen--why protecting Chinese jobs in Shanghai is more important than
protecting American jobs in Boston, New York, or Raleigh. Under the
original Helms amendment, unfair trade practices that hurt Americans
must be addressed. What is wrong with that?
Mr. President, there is a far superior alternative pending in the
Senate. It is the original Helms amendment which is a sense of the
Senate reminding both the administration and Communist China of the MFN
renewal conditions laid out by the distinguished majority leader well
after Bill Clinton was sworn into office.
I want to emphasize that. On Friday, Senator Kerry tried to paint the
original amendment as an out-of-date, Bush-era measure. It is not. Nine
months ago, I reiterate, on April 19, 1993, the distinguished Majority
Leader, Senator George Mitchell, introduced S. 806, legislation that
would statutorily condition China's MFN renewal. Along with 19 other
Democrats, the majority leader introduced this bill because of
legitimate fears that President Bill Clinton would sell out on the
earlier promises made by candidate Bill Clinton to get tough with
China.
And how right the majority leader was then. With all due respect to
him--and he is my friend--I wish he had stuck by his guns. He did not.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[Executive Order]
Conditions for Renewal of Most-Favored-Nation Status for the People's
Republic of China in 1994
Whereas, the Congress and the American people have
expressed deep concern about the appropriateness of
unconditional most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status for
the People's Republic of China (China);
Whereas, I share the concerns of the Congress and the
American people regarding this important issue, particularly
with respect to China's record on human rights, nuclear
nonproliferation, and trade;
Whereas, I have carefully weighed the advisability of
conditioning China's MFN status as a means of achieving
progress in these areas;
Whereas, I have concluded that the public interest would be
served by a continuation of the waiver of the application of
sections 402 (a) and (b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2432(a) and 2432(b)) (Act) on China's MFN status for an
additional 12 months with renewal thereafter subject to the
condition below;
Now, therefore, by the authority vested in me as President
by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. The Secretary of State (Secretary) shall make a
recommendation to the President to extend or not to extend
MFN status to China for the 12-month period beginning July 3,
1994.
(a) In making this recommendation the Secretary shall not
recommend extension unless he determines that:
Extension will substantially promote the freedom of
emigration objectives of section 402 of the Act; and
China is complying with the 1992 bilateral agreement
between the United States and China concerning prison labor.
(b) In making this recommendation the Secretary shall also
determine whether China has made overall, significant
progress with respect to the following:
Taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights;
Releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for
Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the non-violent
expression of their political and religious beliefs,
including such expression of beliefs in connection with the
Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
Ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, such as by allowing
access to prisons by international humanitarian and human
rights organizations;
Protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural
heritage; and
Permitting international radio and television broadcasts
into China.
Sec. 2. The Secretary shall submit his recommendation to
the President before June 3, 1994.
Sec. 3. The Secretary, and other appropriate officials of
the United States, shall pursue resolutely all legislative
and executive actions to ensure that China abides by its
commitments to follow fair, nondiscriminatory trade practices
in dealing with U.S. businesses, and adheres to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology Control
Regime guidelines and parameters, and other nonproliferation
commitments.
Sec. 4. This order does not create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person or
entity against the United States, its officers or employees.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, May 28, 1993.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will yield just one moment, I ask for the
yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
AMENDMENT NO. 1335 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1291
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that certain conditions
should be met before the People's Republic of China is accorded
nondiscriminatory most-favored-nation treatment)
Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will withhold for one moment, I send to the
desk a second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator withholding his request?
Mr. HELMS. Yes. I was under the impression, with all the confusion,
that the second-degree amendment had already been submitted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an
amendment numbered 1335 to amendment No. 1291.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the Amendment, strike all after the first word and
insert the following:
The Congress finds that:
(a) In an Executive Order of May 28, 1993, the President
established conditions for renewal of most-favored-nation
(MFN) status for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
(b) This Executive Order requires that in making a
recommendation about the further extension of MFN status to
China, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension
unless he determines that--
(1) extension will substantially promote the freedom of
emigration objectives of Section 402 of the Trade Act of
1974; and
(2) China is complying with the 1992 bilateral agreement
between the United States and China concerning prison labor.
(c) The Executive Order further required that in making his
recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine
whether China has made overall, significant progress with
respect to:
(1) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights;
(2) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for
Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the non-violent
expression of their political and religious beliefs,
including such expression of religious beliefs in connection
with the Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
(3) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, such as by
allowing access to prisons by international humanitarian and
human rights organizations;
(4) protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural
heritage; and
(5) permitting international radio and television
broadcasts into China.
(d) The Executive Order further requires the Executive
Branch to resolutely pursue all legislative and executive
actions to ensure that China abides by its commitments to
follow fair, nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing
with U.S. businesses, and adheres to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology Control
Regime guidelines and parameters, and other nonproliferation
commitments.
(e) The Chinese government should cooperate with
international efforts to obtain North Korea's full,
unconditional compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
(f) The President has initiated an intensive high-level
dialogue with the Chinese government which began last year
with a meeting between the Secretary of State and the Chinese
Foreign Minister, included a meeting in Seattle between the
President and the President of China, meetings in Beijing
with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Assistant Secretary
for Human Rights and others, a recent meeting in Paris
between the Secretary of State and the Chinese Foreign
Minister, and recent meetings in Washington with several
Under Secretaries and their Chinese counterparts.
(g) The President's efforts have led to some recent
progress on some issues of concern to the United States.
(h) Notwithstanding this, substantially more progress is
needed to meet the standards in the President's Executive
Order.
(i) The Chinese government's overall human rights record in
1993 fell far short of internationally accepted norms as it
continued to repress critics and failed to control abuses by
its own security forces.
Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that:
The President of the United States should use all
appropriate opportunities, in particular more high-level
exchanges with the Chinese government, to press for further
concrete progress towards meeting the standards for
continuation of MFN status as contained in the Executive
Order.
Mr. KERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the Senator has described a China that we
have all come to understand and to have very strong feelings about with
respect to the abuses of human rights and the problems that exist. We
know that in this Senate because we voted on it again and again.
The Senator from North Carolina has described some of the worst of
those abuses. I do not know one U.S. Senator who could fairly be
accused of supporting any of the abuses in any way that have been
described by the Senator from North Carolina. That is not the issue
here.
The issue that we need to keep our eyes focused on, and our minds, is
to not undo a policy that is working or send to the Chinese a message
that works against the interests that the Senator has expressed.
The second-degree amendment that Senator Mitchell has sent to the
desk, or I have sent to the desk on his behalf, contains in it every
single component that is in the amendment of the Senator from North
Carolina and that was in Senator Mitchell's original amendment.
There is not one item--Tibet, prison labor, inspection of prisons,
the question of access to information from the flow of outside radio
transmissions being sent into China--there is not one issue raised by
the Senator from North Carolina that is not contained in the amendment
of Senator Mitchell. The difference is in how it is being approached.
The Senator from North Carolina wraps each and every one of these
items up into conditionality for MFN. But President Clinton, which is
his prerogative, has separated MFN and some of the issues raised by the
Senator from North Carolina, separated them only as to MFN.
That does not mean that they are not on the table in the negotiating
process. That does not mean that the administration is not pressing
them with greater vigor than they have been pressed previously. It
simply means that, unlike the Senator from North Carolina, the
President of the United States and the amendment of Senator Mitchell
are not linking all of those items to the conditionality of MFN.
I think the vast majority of colleagues in the U.S. Senate accept
that concept; that, in fact, we want MFN to be linked separately. And
some are even extremely apprehensive about linking MFN. There are many
Senators who do not think it ought to be linked, but that you can make
great headway on human rights and on these other issues through other
avenues of diplomacy.
In point of fact, for years after President Nixon made his overtures
to China, all the way through the process with President Carter and
Zbigniew Brzezinski in moving toward normalization, we did not have a
conditioning of MFN. And that was a China more brutal than the China
today.
It was Tiananmen Square that brought about the conditioning of MFN.
And I think most people who have been observing what is happening in
China today would agree that a certain road has been traveled from that
moment and that we might even describe ourselves as today in a
different period of time, a different transitional period, if you will,
from the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen Square events.
But the fact is--and this is what I think colleagues should focus
on--every single item that was in the original amendment of Senator
Mitchell is contained in the amendment at the desk. And, in fact, every
item that is in the Executive order--the immigration objectives; the
objectives with respect to prison labor; the objectives with respect to
adherence to the universal declaration of human rights; the objectives
with respect to releasing Chinese citizens who are imprisoned and
having the process of accountability, particularly with regard to
Tiananmen Square; the process of ensuring human treatment of prisoners;
the process of protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural
heritage; the process of permitting international radio and television
broadcasts into China; the legislative and executive actions that will
guarantee that China abides by fair, nondiscriminatory trade practices;
and the efforts to keep China adhering to Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty and Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines.
All of those items, all of those items which were in Senator
Mitchell's original amendment and contained in the Helms amendment, are
in the Executive order and are embraced in the amendment which Senator
Mitchell sends to the desk.
Moreover, there is additional language not in Senator Helms'
amendment which exhorts China to provide assistance with respect to the
North Korean nuclear problem. In addition to that, there is very
distinct and tough language with respect to the trade practices and the
question of missile technology proliferation.
So I say to my colleagues that if you want to keep the process on
track, if you want to send a strong message to China, if you want to
send a message that is sensitive to the new dialog that the President
has initiated with respect to China, and if we do not want to mix the
process and confuse the Chinese, then we should support the second-
degree amendment of Senator Mitchell.
But if you want to undo the process and send confusion and, in fact,
not even be as strong, then we can proceed down a road that will in
fact set back our China policy.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of the
Senator from Maine.
The President, with wide support in Congress, signed an Executive
order last spring which will govern his decision on renewing China's
most-favored-nation tariff status next June. It cited seven conditions:
Freedom of emigration; living up to the Memorandum of Understanding on
Prison Labor Products; moving toward meeting the obligations of the
International Declaration on Human Rights; release and accounting for
political prisoners; ensuring humane prison conditions, for example
through allowing the International Committee on the Red Cross to
inspect jails; protecting the religious and cultural heritage of Tibet;
and ending the jamming of foreign radio broadcasts.
Last spring, like many other Members of the Senate, I endorsed this
Executive order. We are operating under it today, and are working very
hard to get China to meet its seven conditions. I personally visited
Beijing, Chengdu, Lhasa, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen last summer in large
part to urge China to meet them.
By substituting a much longer list of conditions including trade
barriers and weapons proliferation, this amendment seeks to undo the
President's policy and move the goalposts back many yards. That would
be a serious mistake. If China believes we intend to change policy in
midcourse, and find an excuse to revoke MFN regardless of their
actions, they will not take the necessary steps on human rights. That
would mean fewer jobs here and more suffering in China.
The Senator from Massachusetts has made the point very well. Congress
and the administration have been united in urging China to meet the
conditions in the Executive order, and we should remain united. When we
consider renewing MFN status for China this spring, we should do so on
the basis of the Executive order. I support the second degree amendment
and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we have only one-half hour before all
amendments have to be laid down. I do not want to be the person
responsible for preventing that from happening.
So before we proceed forward and before I yield the floor, let me ask
the distinguished minority leader if he wishes to lay down an amendment
or proceed from where we were with respect to the amendment that he has
already submitted.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, it is my understanding, if the manager
will yield, that our amendment is being compromised to the satisfaction
of both myself and Senator Mitchell and that it should be completed
before 6 o'clock. So there would be a modified amendment. If not, we
would hope to get unanimous consent, since we are working on it with
the majority leader. But I think there are other amendments that need
to be laid down.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished minority leader and yield the
floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
current amendment on the floor of the body be set aside so I may
proceed to an amendment that is on the list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1336
(Purpose: To authorize the International Boundary and Water Commission
to negotiate agreements with Mexico on the financing, construction and
operation of sewage treatment and other pollution control works along
the United States-Mexico border.)
Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] proposes an
amendment numbered 1336.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . SEWAGE TREATMENT ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO
BORDER.
(a) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the
United States Commissioner of the International Boundary and
Water Commission.
(2) Construction.--The term ``construction'' has the
meaning provided the term under section 212(1) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)).
(3) Treatment Works.--The term ``treatment works'' has the
meaning provided the term under section 212(2) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)).
(b) Agreements To Correct Pollution.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State, acting through
the Commissioner, may enter into an agreement with the
appropriate representative of the Ministry of Foreign
Relations of Mexico to address the international problems
related to pollution caused by the discharge of raw and
inadequately treated sewage originating in the Republic of
Mexico to waters which form or cross the boundary between the
United States and Mexico.
(2) Contents of agreements.--An agreement entered into
under paragraph (1) shall consist of recommendations to the
appropriate officials of the Federal Government and the
Government of Mexico concerning measures to protect the
health and welfare of individuals from adverse effects of the
pollution referred to in paragraph (1), including
recommendations concerning--
(A) whether treatment works should be constructed,
operated, and maintained in Mexico or the United States;
(B) estimates of the cost of the planning, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the treatment works referred to
in subparagraph (A);
(C) formulas for the initial allocation of costs between
the United States and Mexico with respect to the planning,
construction, operation, and maintenance of the treatment
works referred to in subparagraph (A);
(D) a method for the review and adjustments of the formulas
recommended under subparagraph (C), not later than 5 years
after the date of issuance of the formulas, and every 5 years
thereafter, that recognizes that the initial formulas
should not be used as a precedent with respect to a
subsequent review and adjustment carried out pursuant to
this subparagraph; and
(E) an estimated time period for the construction of a
treatment works referred to in subparagraph (A).
(c) Authority of Secretary of State to Plan, Construct,
Operate, and Maintain Facilities.--The Secretary of State,
acting through the Commissioner, may act jointly with the
appropriate representative of the Government of Mexico to
supervise--
(1) the planning of; and
(2) the construction, operation, and maintenance of, the
treatment works recommended in an agreement entered into
pursuant to subsection (b)(1).
(d) Consultation With The Administrator and Other
Officials.--In carrying out subsection (b), the Secretary
shall consult with the Administrator and other appropriate
officials of the Federal Government, and appropriate
officials of the governments of States and political
subdivisions of States.
(e) Annual Report.--
(1) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary of State,
acting through the Commissioner, shall prepare and submit to
the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and the Majority Leader of the Senate an annual report
concerning the activities of the International Boundary and
Water Commission in carrying out the responsibilities of the
Secretary of State pursuant to this section.
(2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) a summary of the activities of the Commission during
the fiscal year;
(B) a review of the problems related to pollution caused by
the discharge of raw and inadequately treated sewage from the
Republic of Mexico to the waters which form or cross the
boundary between the United States and Mexico;
(C) a summary of the progress made by the Commissioner
during the fiscal year in entering into an agreement pursuant
to subsection (b)(1);
(D) a summary of the progress made toward fulfilling the
recommendations included in an agreement referred to in
subparagraph (C);
(E) a summary of any actions taken by the Commissioner to
plan, construct, operate, and maintain treatment works
pursuant to this section;
(F) a summary of the consultations made by the Commissioner
pursuant to subsection (e);
(G) recommendations that the Commissioner determines will
be beneficial in correcting pollution caused by the discharge
of raw and inadequately treated sewage from the Republic of
Mexico to waters which form or cross the boundary between the
United States and Mexico; and
(H) such other information as the Commissioner determines
is necessary or appropriate.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of State such sums as may be necessary to support agreements
concluded pursuant to subsection (b).
(2) nothing in this section authorizes funds appropriated
pursuant to the fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies (Public Law 103-124).
Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, the amendment I am proposing
clarifies and expands the present authority of the International
Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC] to negotiate agreements with
Mexico to jointly finance the construction and operation of sewage
treatment facilities along the United States-Mexico border to treat raw
sewage entering this country from Mexico.
The IBWC already believes it has the authority to enter into this
type of agreement with Mexico but this amendment sets it forth in
specific terms so that there can be no question.
This is an appropriate role for the IBWC and the State Department and
is not precedent setting. This same authority already exists for the
IBWC along the water boundary of the Rio Grande in the Rio Grande
Pollution Correction Act of 1987, Public Law 100-465.
This amendment would extend that authorization to the land boundary
of the United States-Mexico border, as well as the Rio Grande.
It is my understanding that the IBWC does not have a problem with
this amendment. As a matter of fact, I believe it would welcome the
clarification of this authority.
This amendment specifically states that this authority is not meant
to be used to tap into the $500 million set aside for hardship
communities in the fiscal year 1994 VA, HUD appropriations bill, which
I had something to do with it getting there for the purpose of dealing
with some border communities in my States.
Hopefully, those funds will be authorized for the EPA in the upcoming
Clean Water Act.
I also want to make it clear that this does not preclude border
communities from securing EPA funding for pollution problems on the
border. This amendment deals only with preventing raw sewage from
flowing from Mexico into the United States.
This amendment is extremely critical to protect the public health and
environment of my State and to all of the Southwest border States. The
conditions in many border communities are deplorable and rectifying the
dangerous pollution problems on our border should be one of our highest
priorities.
In my State, Nogales, AZ is a community in desperate need of Federal
assistance to meet its wastewater treatment needs. This city is located
immediately downhill and downstream from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.
Because of the topography of the area, the treatment facility is on the
U.S. side of the border and services the communities in both countries.
Until the recent expansion of the Nogales International Wastewater
Treatment Plant, raw sewage from Mexico community flowed unmitigated
into the Santa Cruz River, washes and even the streets into Nogales,
AZ.
The existing treatment facility was designed to satisfy the treatment
needs of both communities for the next 20 years. Because of a
population explosion in Nogales, Sonora, the inability of Mexico to
pretreat its industrial waste and increased sewer link-ups in Mexico,
the facility has already reached 75 percent of its operating capacity.
By April 1994, the facility is estimated to reach 100 percent of its
capacity and a moratorium will have to be placed on new sewer linkups
in Nogales, AZ. Thus, one of Arizona's fastest growing border
communities will be penalized because of problems beyond its control
across the border--very disturbing with the ongoing NAFTA
implementation.
Right now there is a cancer cluster in Nogales, AZ. The specific
cause is unknown at this time, but evidence points to chemical and
heavy metal contaminants used in Mexican factories that flow down
Nogales Wash from Mexico into Arizona. Mexico does not pretreat its
industrial waste and the existing facility is unable to handle the
amount of inflow. Citizens of Nogales are facing a cancer epidemic.
A study by the University of Arizona Cancer Center found that Nogales
has 4.8 times the expected average of my-low-ma (myeloma) cases, 1.6
times the leukemia cases and 4.5 times the lupus cases--the highest
rate of lupus in the world. The exact cause of lupus is unknown, but
one of the probable causes is exposure to toxic chemicals.
I am sad to say that I could continue citing birth defect and disease
statistics for the Southwest border region and even specific cases.
These are horrible cases and horrifying statistics.
Negotiations for the present Nogales facility required specific
authorization for the IBWC for Nogales. Between securing this site-
specific authorization and conducting these difficult negotiations, the
process took 12 years. We do not have 12 years of leeway this time--not
with Nogales and not with other border communities.
Authorizing the IBWC to negotiate and enter into agreements with
Mexico along the land border, will allow the IBWC to work with Mexico
to plan, finance and construct desperately needed wastewater treatment
facilities.
Hopefully, in the Clean Water Act we will authorize EPA to use funds
for wastewater treatment on the border and in other hardship
communities. But to remedy the problem on the United States side of the
border, it is also necessary to deal with the sewage problem in
neighboring Mexican communities.
I hope that my colleagues see the necessity of this amendment, and I
urge them to approve it.
I hope the committee will accept the amendment and try to keep it in
conference.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1336) was agreed to.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished
Senators from Massachusetts and North Carolina and their staffs for
their cooperation and for accepting this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I might use 5
minutes of my leader time not to be charged against the time between
now and 6 o'clock, so in effect it would extend it to 6:05 because it
is not an amendment to this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Dole pertaining to the introduction of S. 1815
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Amendment No. 1337
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting Malaysia's
continued participation in the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP])
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] proposes an amendment
numbered 1337,
At the end of the bill add the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MALAYSIA'S GSP STATUS.
It is the sense of the Senate that the President should
maintain Malaysia's benefits under the Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP) unless it is determined that, under the
terms of 19 U.S.C. sec. 2462(c)(2), Malaysia has developed
economically beyond the goals of the GSP.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I will only take a moment to outline the
basic thrust of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. There are a number
of other Members who would like to offer amendments before the cutoff
time of 6:05. I will, therefore, defer any lengthy debate at this
particular point. Malaysia is a country that has been extended benefits
under the generalized system of preferences, or GSP, program. A
petition has been filed, the fourth in nearly as many years, to
withdraw that status. The basis is that Malaysia prohibits the
formation of national unions in its electronics industry. However, the
fact is that Malaysia allows each company to be unionized, but does not
allow national unions.
I must say to an administration that is interested in opening up
trade to Asia that Malaysia is one of our more important trading
countries. They have made tremendous progress, and we ought not
punitively withdraw GSP benefits at this time. They are improving the
nature of their work force, their education level, and their
compensation level, having made what I think is quite marked
advancement in recent years. So I will reserve further debate.
I do have a letter that I will be submitting to Ambassador Kantor
which now contains some 36 signatures of Members of the Senate from
both sides of the aisle. I think we have to have a very strong message
to the administration that GSP status ought to continue until such time
as Malaysia graduates from the GSP Program as a result of its continued
economic development.
I yield back the remainder of any time I might have so we can
consider other amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, indeed there is, and this is not
acceptable on this side of the fence. So we need to wait. I am trying
to see where the Finance Committee is on it. I, personally, have some
problems with it. I first want to see where they are and hopefully we
can proceed later. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set it
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina was seeking
recognition.
Mr. HELMS. Did the Chair recognize me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Let me see if I can propound a
unanimous-consent request that makes sense that takes care of the
problem we have.
Mr. KERRY. Could I ask my colleague if he will withhold. We can get
rid of one piece of business quickly.
Amendment No. 1249, As Further Modified
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that relative to
amendment No. 1249, previously adopted, that a modification in the
language, a technical correction, be made, and I send it to the desk. I
ask unanimous consent that that be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The modification is as follows:
On page 179, line 6, after the language added by amendment
No. 1249 (as modified) add the following: ``entered into
after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Act of 1978.''.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I suggest to the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts that we ask unanimous consent jointly, that each of
us send identification of amendments that we have from Senators from
our respective sides, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered
offered for the purpose of the unanimous consent agreement about 6:05.
Mr. KERRY. To be honest with you, it does not appeal to me
tremendously, but we may have to do it.
Mr. HELMS. We are going to have to do something.
Mr. KERRY. I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum for a
moment. I want to confer with my colleague. I withhold the request for
a quorum call and I think there is an amendment that can be offered
quickly.
Amendment No. 1338
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of State to report to Congress
within 60 days on Bosnian refugees)
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment
numbered 1338.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
A. The Senate finds that:
1. In Bosnia-Hercegovina the civilian population has been
subject to egregious violations of basic human rights,
including wide-spread willful killing, the torture of
prisoners, deliberate attacks on non-combatants, the
intentional impeding of the delivery of food and medical
supplies to the civilian population, mass forcible expulsion
and deportation of civilians, the abuse of civilians in
detention centers, and the wanton devastation and destruction
of property.
2. Ethnic cleansing, the systematic persecution of
minorities, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, violations
of internationally-held humanitarian principles, and the
deliberate targeting of aid workers has been and continues to
be common events in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
B. The Department of State shall within 60 days after the
enactment of this law brief the Committees of Judiciary of
the House of Representatives and the Senate on the steps
being taken by the United States to assure that all
appropriate efforts are being made to expeditiously identify
and assist all cases of Bosnian individuals and families who
are requesting third country resettlement and who are
eligible to seek refugee status in the United States and who
are seeking such refugee status.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the civilian population in Bosnia has
been subjected to egregious violations of humans rights. Many of them
are eligible for resettlement in third countries, including this
country. There have been a number of bottlenecks, however, to that
resettlement, even for those who are eligible for resettlement in this
country.
Having not come to their direct military assistance, and having not
even lifted the arms embargo so they can defend themselves, the least
we can do, it seems to me, is eliminate bottlenecks and roadblocks to
the resettlement of those refugees where they are eligible for
resettlement here.
This amendment simply would require the Department of State, within
60 days after the enactment of this law, to brief the Judiciary
committees of the House and the Senate on the steps being taken by the
United States to assure that all appropriate efforts are being made to
expeditiously identify and assist all cases of Bosnian individuals and
families who request third-party resettlement here and who are eligible
to seek that status and refugee status in the United States.
I understand this has been cleared by the Senator from Massachusetts
and the Senator from North Carolina. Based on that assumption, I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this is a good amendment. We want to
accept it. I congratulate the Senator for bringing it forward.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friends from North Carolina and Massachusetts.
Mr. HELMS. The amendment is satisfactory on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1338) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum all be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
amendment no. 1291
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
Helms amendment relative to China MFN. I would like to say at the
outset that I feel very strongly, as I think every Senator in this
Chamber feels, that human rights is the hallmark of this country. It is
that which gives us legitimacy, it is that which distinguishes this
country from virtually every country on the face of the Earth. There
are others that celebrate human rights to the extent that we do, but
very few. Certainly, no superpower does. We should insist at every turn
on promoting and promulgating our human rights agenda across the world.
Where I differ with the Helms amendment is in the fact that MFN
should not be used, is not an appropriate way to either maximize the
influence of this country or to promote human rights.
I perceive from, I think, the very clear fact that the one thing that
has promoted human rights more than any other single thing in China is
trade. At the end of the Cultural Revolution, China was coming off a
period of isolation in which there were no public human rights or
private human rights. By public human rights, I mean the ability to
demonstrate in Tiananmen Square, the ability to form a political party,
to make a political speech, to communicate publicly your opposition to
the government. There were no public human rights.
There were also no private human rights. By private human rights, I
mean not only freedom from hunger, but freedom to take a job anywhere
you wished, freedom to speak to your neighbor, freedom to have a fax
machine, to listen to television, to listen to a radio, to buy at a
market, to live where you want to. There were no private human rights
coming off the Cultural Revolution. That has drastically changed in
China.
Today, private human rights are, if not perfect, if not perfect
certainly by American standards, light years away from where they were.
Private human rights in China, to those who go there and see for
themselves, are rather extensive. There are about 150 million Chinese
today who travel around China and seek and receive jobs in various
endeavors. In coming off the old cultural revolution, jobs were
assigned by the old danwei or unit system. The block captain assigned
the jobs, gave the place to live, gave the ration cards, and controlled
every aspect of life.
Today, Madam President, those 150 million-odd people who move about
China seek and secure their own jobs, make their own money, are not
subject to rationing, can buy their own goods, can get their fax
machine, can buy the color television, and by the millions they buy
color televisions and listen to Hong Kong TV and listen to all kinds of
outside influences.
Madam President, we are propagating American values and American
culture through trade, and it would be unthinkable to stop that flow of
ideas, that flow of Western influence. It is changing the landscape,
the economic, the cultural, the political, the human rights landscape
in China right before your very eyes. And so the threat of removing MFN
is not a credible threat, Madam President, just not credible.
The second aspect of this is that the United States, in order to have
stability in the Far East, in order to maximize its influence, needs to
have China as a good friend. The most obvious example is Korea and
Northern Korea and their atomic bomb. We are dependent on China and its
influence with North Korea. More than that, Madam President, as long as
we are friendly with China, the two of us standing together promote
stability throughout Asia and the Asian economy. As long as we are
together, Japan is reassured, Indonesia feels better; Vietnam, which
has been a traditional enemy of China, is much reassured that we have
influence with China. Now, if we should revoke MFN, our influence with
China would go to zero. There would undoubtedly be retaliation against
American companies, and we could see a deterioration in our situation,
in our influence, in our relationship with China.
Madam President, the best thing we can do is to do as our Ambassador
in China, Winston Lord, has stated, and move beyond MFN as an annual
exercise. I believe there are ways to do that. I believe we could form
a bilateral relationship formalized with China under which we would set
goals. We would discuss them publicly. We would have a staff in place.
We would have the ability to investigate all kinds of complaints,
whether from Amnesty International or Asia Watch or any of those
groups.
I believe the Chinese would be willing to form that kind of group
with us and pledge their cooperation to it--perhaps not pledge to dance
the tune exactly that America calls, but at least to discuss and to
bring human rights up as a discussion point and take it seriously.
Li Peng, the Premier of China, has stated that he wished to pursue
human rights but not as an annual MFN exercise. Madam President, I
believe all over Asia this country should quit treating trade as if it
is a favor which we bestow upon our friends for good behavior. Trade is
the key that promulgates America's influence throughout Asia. It is the
key that allows us the dialog that will promote human rights. Without
trade, we, as we say, shoot ourselves in the foot, and it is simply not
credible to do that. We need to do as Assistant Secretary of State
Winston Lord says and move beyond MFN as an annual exercise.
Now, having said that, I can report that when we had our meeting,
seven Senators strong, with the Premier of China, we asked that he
improve human rights and he indicated he was; and I hope the State
Department is going to be satisfied and find the facts upon which to
base a record of progress on human rights.
Madam President, I see my colleague needs to reclaim the floor. Let
me close by saying we should defeat the Helms amendment. We should
allow the administration to continue to pursue its policy, which is a
flexible one, which I believe will lead us beyond an annual exercise on
human rights and MFN.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Amendment No. 1339
(Purpose: To eliminate the proposed repeal of a provision
of law relating to burdensharing)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be laid aside so that I could introduce an amendment
which I would like to send to the desk at this moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself,
Mr. Byrd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an
amendment numbered 1339.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 47, strike out lines 1 through 3.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the version of the State Department
authorization bill reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
eliminates the position of Ambassador at Large for burdensharing which
was created by the Congress in the fiscal year 1989 Defense Department
Appropriations Act.
Our amendment would restore the position.
Eliminating this ambassadorial-level position would send our allies
exactly the wrong signal at exactly the wrong time. It would
undoubtedly be viewed as a sign of a reduced U.S. commitment, a
declining level of American concern. It could even be viewed as a sign
that our Government is satisfied with the progress our allies are
making.
That, Mr. President, would be a mistake.
I believe this administration is committed to securing greater
contributions from the allies. For example, when I proposed a
burdensharing amendment to the Defense authorization bill last fall,
Secretaries Aspin and Christopher assured us that they ``share the
Congress' concern about equitable burdensharing, and this remains a
primary administration policy. We will continue to negotiate vigorously
arrangements with our allies that seek to be more beneficial to the
United States.''
Eliminating or downgrading the position of ambassador at large for
burdensharing will not advance the administration's policy. It will not
help us achieve our goals. It will not give us any leverage in
negotiation. Indeed, eliminating the individual with sole
responsibility for burdensharing negotiations, will do just the
opposite.
Mr. President, I guess some say that eliminating or downgrading the
position would save money. The CBO, however, has made no such claim.
And I understand why. What I have been told is that the State
Department, instead of having a burdensharing ambassador at large,
would designate a special coordinator on burdensharing. Like a
burdensharing ambassador at large, this special coordinator would still
be paid a salary--but he or she wouldn't have as much institutional
clout.
So, in addition to downgrading the level of importance America places
on this issue, we do not get any meaningful savings.
In fact, this proposal might actually end up costing us money.
Since 1989, the Ambassador at large, with a two-person staff, has
cost the State Department less than a million dollars. In the same
time, burdensharing agreements have been negotiated with Japan in which
they agreed to pay 75 percent of our overseas basing costs. Some
estimate that burdensharing negotiations with Japan and the Republic of
Korea have brought $2.77 billion to the U.S. Treasury. We may be able
to get even more.
An effective burdensharing ambassador could help bring down the tab
the American taxpayers currently pay operating military installations
outside of Asia as well. In 1993, the American taxpayers spent $10
billion on the cost of operating military installations in foreign
countries. Our burdensharing ambassador should be working to bring
those costs down.
Additionally, an aggressive and effective burdensharing ambassador
could work to ensure that the allies pay us for the value of the
investments--buildings, roads, sewers and such--we are leaving behind
as we withdraw from Europe.
The Pentagon has announced plans to close or reduce our presence at
854 military sites overseas, a large majority of which are in Europe.
America has already closed 427 military sites in Europe.
The facilities we leave behind represent a significant investment of
American taxpayer dollars--about $6.5 billion, according to the Defense
Department--in the collective security of the West. An estimated $3.89
billion of that investment is in Germany, where we have already left
over 60 percent of the military sites slated for closure.
Through a series of residual value agreements, some allies have
agreed to repay us for the value of what we leave behind.
We ought to turn those commitments into cash. But so far we haven't.
Over the past few years, we have collected less than $50 million out
of the $6.5 billion the facilities are worth.
We should be encouraging our burdensharing Ambassador at Large to get
the allies to make good on these commitments. We shouldn't be
downgrading the position. We should be strengthening it and getting
some real results.
Clearly our allies can do better. And to get them to do better, we
need to convince them we mean business. To convince them we mean
business, we need at least an Ambassador at Large whose sole portfolio
is producing fair agreements with our allies.
Mr. President, the task of soliciting greater contributions for the
collective defense is a daunting one. It is difficult enough even to
hold the line when the world economy is dragging.
I hope my colleagues share my view that we should not make it more
difficult by eliminating--or even downgrading--this position at a time
when his job is hardest--and more important than ever.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the past several years the Congress has
become increasingly interested in the distribution of costs for the
collective defense of the United States and its allies. Much of that
interest has been generated by the efforts of the distinguished Senator
from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], and he deserves credit for keeping
our attention on this issue. I am happy to cosponsor this amendment to
retain the office of Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing.
For most of the Cold War, the U.S. occupied a position of both
military and economic supremacy within the Western alliance. During
this time, America shouldered the largest share of the burden for the
common defense of Western Europe, Japan, Korea, and other allies. We
all know that after World War II the United States stood as the only
Western nation with the industrial and economic might to carry this
responsibility. It is a role which we played well and one of which we
should be proud.
But as our allies have grown and prospered over the years, and as the
threats to them have receded, the share of the costs borne by the
United States has become unreasonably high. In recent years, the
Congress has enacted legislation to try to remedy this situation. Each
of the last three Defense Authorization Acts required the President to
work for more favorable agreements with countries where the U.S. bases
troops. In some cases, notably Japan, the Executive branch has
succeeded. But in many other countries negotiations continue.
The organization charged with carrying on these negotiations is the
Office of the Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing, a position created
by the Fiscal Year 1989 Defense Appropriations Act. From October of
1989 until his appointment as Assistant Secretary of Defense last
November, Ambassador Henry Allen Holmes filled this statutorily-created
post. During his tenure, Ambassador Holmes successfully negotiated
agreements with Japan and South Korea. These agreements will result in
billions of dollars flowing to the U.S. Treasury either in direct
payments from the host nations or in savings to the Defense Department.
The Office of the Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing estimates that
the U.S. has already realized $2.77 billion in incremental savings as a
result of these agreements, with larger savings projected. When one
stops to realize that these savings were achieved by a three-person
office at the State Department, the favorable cost-benefit outcome is
obvious.
This office will be renegotiating the agreements with Japan and South
Korea in 1995 and is currently negotiating burdensharing issues with
several NATO allies, including Germany and the United Kingdom. Yet,
despite the success of Ambassador Holmes, and the clear need for
continued attention to these negotiations, the Administration has asked
that the Congress repeal the legislative requirement for the position
of Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing. I understand that the
Secretary of State plans to keep the office in place for one year,
after which time the Under Secretary of State for International
Security Affairs would determine whether to retain the office or fold
its functions into another bureau of the State Department.
I find it unfortunate, and somewhat troubling, that the State
Department would consider eliminating or downgrading one of the few
offices anywhere in the government that actually brings money into the
U.S. Treasury. I understand that the Secretary of State wants the
flexibility to organize the State Department in an efficient manner,
and I realize that no final decision has been made as to the future of
this office, but this position exists because of serious Congressional
concern over inattention to the question of burdensharing. To suggest
eliminating the statutory requirement for this position at a time when
important negotiations are pending, or on the horizon, seems odd
indeed.
The Congress created this office at the level of ambassador in order
to give this issue visibility within the bureaucracy, but more
importantly as a signal to U.S. allies that we are serious about
achieving more equitable burden-sharing arrangements. To now repeal the
requirement would have the opposite effect, and would tell our allies,
all of whom carefully scrutinize Congressional actions, that the
pressure is off and they can stop worrying about making further
concessions. That is certainly not the case and we should make that
abundantly clear by striking Section 140(b) of this bill.
Once again, I commend Senator Lautenberg for his efforts on this
issue.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I simply sent the amendment to the
desk so that we can take it up at a later time.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
after the vote on the Helms amendment No. 1320, the Senate proceed
without intervening business to vote on the second-degree amendment to
the Helms amendment No. 1291, the second-degree amendment of Senator
Mitchell sent to the table by Senator Kerry, and that that vote would
occur and be a 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe the Senator from North Carolina
and I would like to join together in a unanimous-consent request to
send to the desk a series of amendments to be considered as offered,
each amendment qualifying to be offered by virtue of being on the list
under the previous order.
Madam President, is it necessary for the Senator to name each of the
amendments or should we simply send them to the desk?
We will name the amendments. There is an amendment from Senator Brown
and Senator Simon, which is one of the relevant amendments; a second
amendment from Senator Brown, which is relevant; an amendment from
Senator Bingaman, which is his reserved position on the list; and that
is all the amendments from this side that are being sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I believe the Senator referred to the
Brown amendments?
Mr. KERRY. That is correct. I had two of the Brown amendments. Those
obviously properly belonged on the Senator's side.
Mr. HELMS. There will be a total of three Brown amendments, all
relevant; one Pressler amendment, relevant; three Helms amendments,
relevant; Mr. McConnell has one amendment, relevant; and Mr. Dole has
three amendments, relevant. I am advised there is another amendment of
Senator Dole on Vietnam, and one relevant amendment by Mr. D'Amato.
I send these amendments to the desk.
Madam President, I may say for the record that I realize that we are
sort of jamming the machinery for the gentleman at the desk. But they,
in short order, will give us the numbers for each one of these
amendments as we proceed.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, let me also say that the vast majority of
these amendments are probably going to be acceptable. We have had a
chance to look at most of them. So while there are a number coming to
the desk at the last minute, it is not assumed that we are suddenly
looking at a huge number of rollcall votes.
However, we are looking at several rollcall votes and, hopefully, in
the intervening time while we are voting now or shortly it will be
possible for us to try to work out a schedule with time agreements and
understand exactly what we are looking at.
I believe that we can shortly have a vote after the two votes to come
on the Helms amendment--on the Lott-Helms amendments for the United
Nations. But the Senator has indicated that he would like to say a few
more words. Senator Lott has indicated he would like a few more words
with respect to that. The Dole peacekeeping amendment has been worked
out. So we now have a series of amendments which will be acceptable.
That will not require, I believe, a rollcall vote.
So I think notwithstanding the number of amendments, we are closing
the door and coming down to the final vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note that the amendments have
been received, qualified, and will be numbered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I send one other amendment to the desk
under my name.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received, and will be
qualified and numbered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask for regular order.
vote on amendment no. 1320
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a rollcall vote will
now occur with respect to amendment 1320.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I move to table amendment 1320, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments in
opposition to Senator Helms' amendment which limits the number of State
Department Assistant Secretaries.
As chairman of the appropriations bill that funds the State
Department, I have inspected many embassies overseas and discussed
management and policy issues with Secretary Warren Christopher and
Under Secretary for Management Dick Moose.
Now, I think that most Senators would agree that the position of
Secretary of State is regarded as the most prestigious Cabinet position
in the U.S. Government. That is because of the diplomatic
responsibilities that the position carries with it--like nuclear arms
negotiations, Russian aid, and the Middle East peace process. It is not
because of the operations of the Department itself. It is no secret
that it has been hard to find Secretaries of State who take time to
care about the management of the Department. To worry about everyday
``nuts and bolts'' issues--like personnel, real property management,
and the budget.
Mr. Chairman, I have chaired the State Department appropriations bill
since 1977, and I have met with a lot of Secretaries of State--
appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. And I can say that this
team is the first in a long time that has focused on management. Warren
Christopher's first act was to reorganize the Department of State to
reduce duplication, make his span of control manageable by having five
Under Secretaries, and to reduce the overseas post structure that the
budget can no longer afford to finance. He closed 20 overseas posts--
with little help from Congress. He inherited 105 deputy assistant
secretary positions and has cut that down to 78 positions.
And for Under Secretary for Management he has chosen the best--Dick
Moose. Dick came from the private sector--from investment banking. He
started his career as a foreign service officer, and served with
President Johnson--and he was a professional staff member of the
Foreign Relations Committee. And, he also has worked on the policy side
of the House--having served as Assistant Secretary for African Affairs.
I have traveled with him to several State Department posts. He gets
down in the trenches and conducts in depth reviews of how each embassy
is staffed and how they are using their resources. He takes time to
meet with all embassy employees--not only the senior staff--but also
the junior officers and the foreign national employees.
And Secretary Christopher's team has been thrown into the ``deep end
of the pool'' with this budget--they have been forced to pay close
attention to the day to day issues at out of necessity. That is because
the ``fire walls'' in the budget agreement are off. And the Clinton
administration submitted a freeze budget--no inflation, and no
increases. Congress took that budget and cut $89 million below that
level in the appropriations process.
I can say with some pride that in the fiscal year 1994 appropriations
bill we have not done any of this ``micro-management.'' We have not put
in limitations or earmarks. There is no language regarding number of
secretaries or about maintaining offices that the Secretary has
proposed to close. We have been trying to let Secretary Christopher do
his job. And we approved his reorganization months ago through the
reprogramming process, the very reorganization being debated today.
Frankly, I am not happy that the Foreign Relations Committee's bill
felt it necessary to legislate that the Secretary maintain in law a
number of bureaus and I hope that the managers will allow him more
flexibility in conference. Furthermore, I have heard that there are
additional amendments requiring retention of positions that Secretary
Christopher has proposed consolidating.
Now the senior Senator from North Carolina is proposing something
more drastic. He is accepting the mandated positions in this bill and
then forcing the Secretary to operate with fewer assistant secretaries
than necessary to implement his reorganization.
Secretary Christopher is trying to reorganize the Department of State
to react and plan for changing world events--to fight nuclear
proliferation, to tighten up on immigration, to promote U.S. industry.
So let's not tie the Secretary's hands. Let's give him some flexibility
and the ability to do his job. Let's stop micromanaging.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Massachusetts to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from North Carolina.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Mikulski). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--49
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Faircloth
Feingold
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
So, the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay
on the table was agreed to.
vote on amendment no. 1335
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to Amendment
No. 1335. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Wallop
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--39
Bond
Brown
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Dole
Domenici
Durenberger
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 1335) was agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, then the
question is on agreeing to Helms amendment 1291, as amended.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, are the yeas and nays requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not been.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I suggest we vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1291), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, the manager of
the bill.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, if I can just say to my colleagues, I
know there is a lot of interest in where we are going, whether or not
we can finish and what the schedule will be. Senator Helms and I
believe that we could wrap this up this evening. Obviously we would
like to.
There are only a few amendments that may require record votes. There
are a number of amendments at the desk, a good many of which we have
already been able to determine we will accept. What we are prepared to
do--a couple of Members have mentioned they would yet like to debate
one or two of the amendments that were laid down earlier. We are,
therefore, prepared to try to bundle up those amendments that we could
agree to and do so over the course of the next hour or so, set up for
votes in sequence those amendments which cannot be disposed of
otherwise, and hopefully be able to proceed in that fashion seriatim in
votes in a way that would allow Senators to have a gap, now, for 1\1/2\
or 2 hours, go eat, do whatever, and then hopefully come back and
finish up. Unless somebody has a belief that there is an amendment
which would take longer? But I think we could probably do that.
Mr. HELMS. I concur. I think we should move along rapidly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from North Carolina withhold?
The Senate is not in order.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say to colleagues we have made
terrific progress in the course of the last 10 minutes. I thank my
colleague. We are really narrowing down. We have now almost a finite
list of the amendments that we are able to accept. We are down to a
very few possibilities of rollcall votes.
So if colleagues will bear with us just a little bit longer, we will
come up with the final number of rollcall votes, and hopefully it will
happen sooner than later this evening.
So I think that is encouraging. I know the Senator from Maine wants
to address one of the amendments which will be withdrawn. He wants to
make some comments prior to that.
Why do we not proceed with that? Meanwhile we will proceed with our
process.
Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
amendment no. 1337
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, during the break I have had an opportunity
to talk with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. As a result
of our discussions, I have agreed to withdraw the amendment that I was
prepared to offer; namely, a sense of the Senate that the President
ought to maintain Malaysia's benefits under the Generalized System of
Preferences unless it is determined that Malaysia has developed
economically beyond the goals of GSP.
Let me just take a few moments to explain the situation as I see it.
I have a letter signed by 41 Members of the Senate directed to our
Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor. It is bipartisan in nature. We
have Senators Nunn, Robb, Johnston, Bumpers, Boren, and others who have
joined a number of Republicans totalling some 41 Members of the Senate
to indicate our concern regarding Malaysia's continued participation in
the GSP program.
I am pursuing this matter this evening because Malaysia, I think, is
one of those success stories that has been building in Southeast Asia
as a result of the trade relationship that we have established with
that country. We are enjoying Malaysia's rising standard of living in
this country, as Malaysia engages in more trade with the United States,
and is able to purchase our goods and services. It has become quite a
remarkable country.
Much of that region has become prosperous. From Taiwan, Tunisia,
Thailand, China and now even Vietnam, that entire region is really
booming economically.
In Malaysia the question has arisen as to whether GSP status should
be withdrawn because its laws do not permit nationwide unionization of
its electronics industry. However, Malaysia does allow individual
companies to unionize.
There has been pressure to withdraw its status from GSP. I think it
would be a terrible mistake. This is a country which has developed
tremendously economically. It is providing better and better jobs for
its citizens. Its electronics industry in particular pays among the
highest wages in that nation. They are making tremendous progress from
any human rights point of view. Denying GSP privileges would
significantly raise tariffs on Malaysian products and undermine our
growing bilateral trade with Malaysia.
Withdrawing GSP treatment would hurt the very people that the makers
of the petition are trying to help, Malaysian workers. Denying GSP
would cost many Malaysian workers their jobs. It also, I think, would
deal blows to various States that now are enjoying a positive trade
relationship with Malaysia, Maine being one of them. I was surprised
this year to learn that Malaysia is our largest overseas trading
partner.
I have made two trips to Malaysia to visit with their Prime Minister,
Finance Minister, and Defense Minister. Based on those meetings, I am
convinced that this Nation, like the others in that region, want
desperately to establish a good, solid trade relationship with the
United States and are making progress in virtually every facet of their
society.
I had intended to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I am told
it would not at all have interfered with the ability of this bill to
move in the House. There was some suggestion that perhaps it might be
``blue-slipped'' because it might have an impact on the revenue. I hope
that does not come about if the administration ever decides to withdraw
GSP from Malaysia. I have been advised that a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution does not amount to jeopardizing this particular bill.
Nonetheless, in the interest of moving forward this evening, I am
prepared to withdraw my amendment. But let me say to those who may be
watching down at the White House or the Trade Representative's office
we are coming rapidly, I think, to the conclusion, whether we are
talking about China, whether we are talking about any of the nations in
that region, that we want to establish solid trading relationships and
not interfere, unless there is great cause to do so, in the internal
affairs of another nation.
Obviously, if there are violent or egregious human rights abuses, we
must take that into account. But we ought not to be constantly using
GSP as a club to be whacking the heads of our trading partners. I think
that we can establish our respective positions relative to human
rights, and certainly we can take note of the development taking place
in these countries. If those who are here in this Chamber were to
travel to that part of the world, they would see enormous progress in
terms of economic growth and savings rates. In Malaysia, the savings
rate is 35 percent. In Singapore, it is 40 percent.
Both Malaysia and Singapore are now sustaining growth rates of
roughly 8 percent. The same is true with respect to Indonesia. These
countries are starting to prosper. When they prosper, they are going to
be positioned to start buying our goods, as well.
Malaysia recently decided to purchase some F-18 aircraft, as I
recall. They are interested in purchasing the goods and services. In
fact, I will be leading a trade mission to Malaysia in late March. By
opening up the eyes of the people in my State to the opportunities
available in that country, hopefully, we can stimulate the creation of
more jobs in my own State of Maine.
There are unique opportunities for us to take advantage of, and we
ought to explore those opportunities without trying to, once again,
micromanage the internal affairs of other countries. If we have a
legitimate complaint, we can voice it. We can try to negotiate our way
through those particular obstacles. But to withdraw this preferential
treatment from Malaysia, I think would be really detrimental to our
emerging relations with that country.
We have not always had such a positive relationship in recent years
with Malaysia. That has improved in large part due to the efforts of
John Wolf, our Ambassador there. He has been active, aggressive, and
dynamic. He is young and he is promoting business, and he is making
tremendous inroads in that society and others, promoting U.S. interests
abroad.
So I think that we ought to really expand upon his work and the work
of his staff, and our other ambassadors in the region, to really tell
these nations that we want to do business; we want to maintain our high
standards and our concerns about human rights and worker rights and,
hopefully, to work with those countries to improve their domestic
situation.
I would hope that Mr. Kantor and those in the administration will
take into account that we have 41 Senators now on record supporting a
continuation of GSP for Malaysia until that country does, in fact,
develop beyond the goals of the GSP.
With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1337) was withdrawn.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues for their
patience here. It has paid off. We have now reduced some 24 amendments
to an en bloc amendment which we will accept and to two votes, both of
which votes, pending the action we are about to take, will be able to
occur tomorrow morning. One of those votes will be on the Lott
amendment on the United Nations, and a second vote will be a final
passage vote--again pending the action we are about to take.
Amendment Nos. 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349,
1350, and 1354
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc: Amendment Nos. 1339,
1340, 1341, 1342, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, and 1354; that
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; and that the
consideration of these amendments appear separately in the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:
amendment No. 1339
On page 47, strike out lines 1 through 3.
____
amendment no. 1340
(Purpose: To require reports every 6 months by the President on the
implementation of the Partnership for Peace)
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section--
SEC. . IMPLEMENTATION OF PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE.
Report.--The President shall submit every six months,
beginning six months after the date of enactment of this Act,
a detailed report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the House and the
Senate Armed Services Committees on the implementation of the
``Partnership for Peace'' initiative, including an assessment
of the progress made by former members of the Warsaw Treaty
Organization in meeting the criteria for full membership
articulated in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty,
wherein any other European state may, by unanimous agreement,
be invited to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty if it is in
a position to further the principles of the treaty and to
contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.
____
amendment no. 1341
At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new
section:
Sec. . In addition to the other matters to be reviewed by
the commission established by this Act to study the
effectiveness of democracy programs funded by the United
States, the commission shall also undertake a review of the
feasibility and desirability of mandating non-U.S. government
funding, including matching funds and in-kind support, for
democracy promotion programs. If the commission determines
that mandating such non-government funding is feasible and
desirable it shall make recommendations regarding goals and
procedures for implementation.
____
amendment no. 1342
(Purpose: To provide for limitations on the transfer of excess defense
articles)
On page 179, below line 6, add the following:
SEC. 714. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER EXCESS DEFENSE
ARTICLES.
(a) Transfers to Countries on the Southern and Southeastern
Flank of NATO.--Section 516(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3)
and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph.
``(4) the President first considers the effects of the
transfer of the excess defense articles on the national
technology and industrial base, particularly the extent, if
any, to which the transfer reduces the opportunities of
entities in the national technology and industrial base to
sell new equipment to the country or countries to which the
excess defense articles are transferred.''
(b) Transfers to Countries Participating in a Comprehensive
National Antinarcotics Program.--Section 517(f) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321k(f)) is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3)
and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) the President first considers the effects of the
transfer of the excess defense articles on the national
technology and industrial base, particularly the extent, if
any, to which the transfer reduces the opportunities of
entities in the national technology and industrial base to
sell new equipment to the country or countries to which the
excess defense articles are transferred.''.
(c) Transfers to Countries Eligible To Participate in a
Foreign Military Financing Program.--Section 519(b) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321m(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (4)
and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) the President first considers the effects of the
transfer of the excess defense articles on the national
technology and industrial base, particularly the extent, if
any, to which the transfer reduces the opportunities of
entities in the national technology and industrial base to
sell new equipment to the country or countries to which the
excess defense articles are transferred.''.
(d) Sales from Stock Under Arms Export Control Act.--
Section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(k) Before entering into the sale under this Act of
defense articles that are excess to the stocks of the
Department of Defense, the President shall first consider the
effects of the sale of the articles on the national
technology and industrial base, particularly the extent, if
any, to which the sale reduces the opportunities of entities
in the national technology and industrial base to sell new
equipment to the country or countries to which the excess
defense articles are sold.''.
(e) Leases under Arms Export Control Act.--
Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2796(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph (3):
____
amendment no. 1345
On page 74, line 5, strike ``agencies.'' and insert:
agencies.
SEC. 166A. AMERICAN PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT OF UNITED
NATIONS.
(a) Funds authorized in section 102(a) of this Act for
fiscal year 1995 for the assessed contribution of the United
States to the United Nations are authorized to be
appropriated only upon a certification by the Secretary of
State to the appropriate committees of the Congress that the
position of Under Secretary-General of the United Nations for
Administration and Management is being held by a citizen of
the United States as of October 1, 1994.
(b) Subsection (a) may be waived by the Secretary of State
only upon a certification to the appropriate committees of
the Congress that--
(1) such waiver is in the national interest of the United
States, including the reason or reasons it is in our
interest; and
(2) the Secretary of State has confidence the individual
holding the position of Under Secretary-General of the United
Nations for Administration and Management is committed to
efficient management practices and restrained budgets for the
United Nations.
(c) If a waiver and certification is made pursuant to
subsection (b), such certification shall include a
justification why a citizen of the United States does not
hold said position, since the United States is the largest
single contributor to the United Nations.
(d) Sense-of-the-Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the position of Under Secretary-General of the United
Nations for Administration and Management should be held by a
citizen of the United States.
____
amendment no. 1346
(Purpose: To require notification of Congress of billing requests for
United States contributions to United Nations peacekeeping activities,
and for other purposes)
On page 82, after line 23, insert the following:
SEC. 170B. TRANSMITTALS OF UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS.
(a) Transmittal to Congress of United Nations Resolutions
and Reports.--Section 4 of the United Nations Participation
Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287b), as amended by subsection (a),
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
(c)(1) Not later than 72 hours after adoption by the
Security Council of a resolution authorizing United Nations
peacekeeping activities or any other action under the Charter
of the United Nations (including any extension, modification,
suspension, or termination of any previously authorized
United Nations peacekeeping activity or other action) which
would involve the use of United States Armed Forces or the
expenditure of United States funds, the Permanent
Representative shall transmit the text of such resolution and
any supporting documentation to the appropriate congressional
committees.
``(2) The Permanent Representative shall promptly transmit
to the appropriate congressional committees any report
prepared by the United Nations distributed to the members of
Security Council assessments of any proposed, ongoing, or
concluded United Nations peacekeeping activity.''.
(c) Definitions.--The United Nations Participation Act of
1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 10. For purposes of this Act--
``(1) the term `appropriate congressional committees' means
the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives;
``(2) the term `Permanent Representative' means the
Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
Nations appointed by the President pursuant to section 2 of
this Act; and
``(3) the term `United Nations peacekeeping activities'
means any international peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace-
enforcing, or similar activity involving the use of nationals
of member countries of the United Nations that is authorized
by the Security Council under chapter VI or VII of the United
Nations Charter.''.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment.
It simply requires: notice to Congress and transmittal to Congress of
U.N. peacekeeping resolutions and reports. I know of no opposition to
this amendment. I understand that with recent changes just completed
there is no opposition.
The Congress and the American people do not know what is going on up
at U.N. headquarters in New York. We have to rely on the good will of
State Department or U.N. bureaucrats to share what they want and when
they want. We cannot afford to do business like that any longer.
Every peacekeeping operation is preceded by a detailed U.N. report.
Every peacekeeping operation is authorized--and regularly extended--
with resolutions in the Security Council. My amendment simply makes
sure Congress has access to that information.
I cannot imagine any argument against this amendment--especially from
a Congress that has enacted hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign
policy reporting requirements on Republican administrations. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
amendment no. 1347
(Purpose: To strengthen controls on missile technology exports to
countries the governments of which have repeatedly provided support for
acts of international terrorism)
On page 179, after line 6, insert the following new
section:
SEC. . MISSILE TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS TO CERTAIN MIDDLE EASTERN
AND ASIAN COUNTRIES.
(a) Exports by United States Persons.--Section 72 of the
Arms Export Council Act (22 U.S.C. 2797a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Presumption.--In determining whether to apply
sanctions under subsection (a) to a United States person
involved in the export, transfer, or trade of an item on the
MTCR Annex, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that such
item is designed for use in a missile listed under the MTCR
Annex if the President determines that the final destination
of the item is a country the government of which the
Secretary of State determines, for purposes of 6(j)(1)(A) of
the Export Administration Act of 1979, has repeatedly
provided support for acts of international terrorism.''.
(b) Exports by Foreign Persons.--Section 73 of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b) is amended--
(1) be redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Presumption.--In determining whether to apply
sanctions under subsection (a) to a foreign person involved
in the export, transfer, or trade of an item on the MTCR
Annex, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that such item is
designed for use in a missile listed under the MTCR Annex if
the President determines that the final destination of the
item is a country the government of which the Secretary of
State determines, for purposes of 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, has repeatedly provided support
for acts international terrorism.''.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, it is not often that Members on both
sides of the aisle find themselves in agreement. However, curbing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is an issue upon which I
think we can all agree. In his State of the Union Address, President
Clinton spoke of the dangers of ``rampant arms proliferation.'' Several
of my colleagues have spoken on the issue during debate on this bill.
The most horrifying kind of arms proliferation occuring in the world
today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The greater
part of this despicable trade in instruments of death is carried out
among antidemocratic regimes. Indeed, by regimes which, under the terms
of the Export Administration Act, are labeled as terrorist countries.
We all know who these ``bad actors'' are: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya,
North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
Today, I offer an amendment designed to give the administration new
authority to deal with this serious problem. Specifically, it is
enhanced authority to impose sanctions on countries trading in the
equipment and technology necessary to make long-range ballistic
missiles. As a nation of laws, we do not impose sanctions, even on non-
U.S. citizens, without cause.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is largely an
illicit trade--modern-day smuggling with extremely high stakes. The
difficulty is that information on the final destination of equipment
and technology that can be used to produce long-range ballistic
missiles, even from our excellent intelligence services, is difficult
to obtain.
For instance, in the case of ballistic missile trade, our
intelligence services often learn that some equipment or material is
going to a missile program in the Middle East. What they are unable to
determine is whether the items in question are destined for a missile
program covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime [MTCR] or for
a different program. The MTCR covers only large, long-range missiles--
those with more than 300 kilometers in range or 500 kilograms in
payload. Typically, a country starting a missile program begins small.
Only later will it move to an MTCR-class missile program. Because we
usually cannot determine precisely for which missile program this
illicit trade is intended, the administration is reluctant to impose
sanctions on the exporter.
My amendment is designed to give the administration new authority by
creating a legal presumption that anything listed on the MTCR annexes
and destined for countries of particular proliferation concern--those
countries listed in section 6(J) of the Export Administration Act--is,
in fact destined for an MTCR-class missile program and therefore
subject to U.S. sanctions. Let me repeat the countries we currently are
talking about: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
The presumption is specifically rebuttable. This means the sanctioned
firm or individual may show that the materials or equipment are
destined for an innocent purpose. if the presumption is rebutted,
sanctions will be lifted immediately.
Mr. President, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is
the most serious national security issue facing the United States and
its allies. All one need do is contemplate a nuclear weapon in the
hands of a terrorist country to understand the grave implications of
allowing this trade to continue. My amendment gives this country an
enhanced ability to deal with proliferation. It is simple to
understand. It will put suppliers on notice that their illicit actions
will have consequences. I urge its adoption.
amendment no. 1348
(Purpose: To place limitations on United States funding of United
Nations peacekeeping activities)
On page 82, after line 23, insert the following new
section:
SEC. 170B. LIMITATIONS ON UNITED STATES FUNDING OF UNITED
NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
(a) It is the sense of the Senate that beginning October 1,
1995, funds made available to the Department of Defense
(including funds for ``Operation and Maintenance'') shall be
available for--
(1) United States assessed or voluntary contributions for
United Nations peacekeeping activities, or
(2) the incremental costs associated with the participation
of United States Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping
activities,
only to the extent that the Congress has authorized,
appropriate or otherwise approved funds for such purposes.
(b) Assessed Contributions for United Nations Peacekeeping
Activities.--
(1) Reassessment of contribution percentages.--The
Permanent Representative should make every effort to ensure
that the United Nations completes an overall review and
reassessment of each nation's assessed contributions for
United Nations peacekeeping activities. As part of the
overall review and assessment, the Permanent Representative
should make every effort to advance the concept that host
governments and other governments in the region where a
United Nations peacekeeping activity is carried out should
bear a greater burden of its financial cost.
(2) United States contributions.--(A) The Permanent
Representatives should make every effort to obtain agreement
by the United Nations to a United States assessed
contribution for United Nations peacekeeping activities that
is no greater a percentage of such contributions by all
countries than the United States percentage share of assessed
contributions for other United Nations activities.
(B) The Congress declares that, effective for fiscal year
1996, it does not intend to make available funds for payment
of United States assessed or voluntary contributions for
United Nations peacekeeping activities that exceed 25 percent
of the total amount of the assessed and voluntary
contributions of all countries for such activities unless,
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Congress enacts
a statute specifically authorizing a greater percentage
contribution.
(C) The Permanent Representative shall inform the Secretary
General of the congressional intent expressed in paragraph
(2).
(c) United States Contributions to United Nations
Peacekeeping Activities.--Section 4 of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287b) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The President''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b)(1) The President shall, at the time of submission of
his annual budget request to the Congress, submit a report to
the Congress on the anticipated budget for the fiscal year
for United States participation in United Nations
peacekeeping activities.
``(2) The report required by paragraph (a) shall state--
``(A) the aggregate amount of funds available to the United
Nations for that fiscal year, including assessed and
voluntary contributions, which may be made available for
United Nations peacekeeping activities; and
``(B) the aggregate amount of funds (from all accounts) and
the aggregate costs of in-kind contributions that the United
States proposes to make available to the United Nations for
that fiscal year for United Nations peacekeeping activities.
``(3) The President shall include in his budget submission
for fiscal year 1996 a projection of all United States costs
for United Nations peacekeeping activities during each of
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, including costs of in-kind
contributions and assessed and voluntary contributions.''.
(d) Definitions.--
(1) Amendment.--The United Nations Participation Act of
1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 10. For purposes of this Act--
``(1) the term `appropriate congressional committees' means
the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives;
``(2) the term `Permanent Representative' means the
Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
Nations appointed by the President pursuant to section 2 of
this Act;
amendment no. 1349
(Purpose: To withhold contributions for United Nations peacekeeping
activities unless certain budget and management reforms in the United
Nations are made)
On page 82, after line 23, insert the following:
SEC. 170B. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING BUDGETARY AND
MANAGEMENT REFORM.
(A) Withholding of Contributions for United Nations
Peacekeeping.--(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year
(beginning with fiscal year 1995), 20 percent of the amounts
of funds made available for United States assessed
contributions for United Nations peacekeeping activities
shall be withheld from obligation and expenditure unless a
certification has been made under subsection (b).
(2) For each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 1995),
the United States may not pay any voluntary contribution for
international peacekeeping activities unless a certification
has been made under subsection (b).
(b) Certification.--The certification referred to in
subsection (a) is a certification by the President to the
Congress that--
(1) the United Nations has established an independent and
objective Office of Inspector General to conduct and
supervise audits, inspections, and investigations relating to
the United Nations peacekeeping activities carried out by the
United Nations;
(2) the Secretary General of the United Nations has
appointed an Inspector General, with the consent of the
General Assembly, solely the basis of integrity and
demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial
analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or
investigations;
(3) the United Nations Office of Inspector General is
authorized to--
(A) make investigations and reports relating to the
administration of the United Nations peacekeeping activities
carried out by the United Nations;
(B) have access to all records and documents or other
material available which relate to those activities; and
(C) have direct and prompt access to relevant officials of
the United Nations, including any official of the United
Nations Secretariat;
(4) the United Nations Office of Inspector General is
keeping the Secretary General and the members of the Security
Council fully informed about problems, deficiencies, and the
necessity for, and progress of, corrective action;
(5) the United Nations has established measures to protect
the identity of, and to prevent reprisals against, any staff
member making a complaint or disclosing information to, or
cooperating in any investigation or inspection by the Office
of the Inspector General; and
(6) the United Nations has enacted procedures to ensure
compliance with Inspector General recommendations.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means
the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives;
(2) the term ``Permanent Representative'' means the
Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
Nations appointed by the President pursuant to section 2 of
this Act; and
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment--
adopted by this body by a vote of 93-6--designed to put pressure on the
United Nations [U.N.] to appoint a permanent, independent inspector
general. Today I seek to enhance our leverage with the U.N. on this
point.
As I said last week, this is an issue I have struggled with for
years. It concerns the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse at the U.N. The
examples are innumerable. I presented a litany during consideration of
my earlier amendment. I will not reiterate them all here. However, let
me touch upon the highlights. The U.N. has no system to monitor its
cash flow. No U.N. official can tell us how many people are on the U.N.
payroll. Millions of dollars are spent on equipment that is not needed
or does not work. There is absolutely no accountability.
Some will say that the U.S. Congress suffers from the same sorts of
problems. The difference is that we have independent inspectors general
to investigate and recommend punishment for those guilty of misconduct.
U.S. attorneys can indict any one of us here in Congress for violating
the law. Not one U.N. official has that kind of authority. The U.N.
needs a permanent, independent inspector general.
My amendment which passed last week requires that, beginning in
fiscal year 1994, 10 percent of our assessed contributions to
nonpeacekeeping operations of the U.N. be withheld until the President
certifies the U.N. has established a permanent, independent inspector
general. Beginning in fiscal year 1995, the President must make this
certification or 20 percent of our assessed contributions for
nonpeacekeeping operations will be withheld.
The amendment I offer today would--beginning in 1995--withhold 20
percent of the funds made available for U.S. assessed contributions for
peacekeeping operations unless the President makes the certification.
In other words, I simply seek to extend--after this year--the terms of
the amendment adopted by a large margin last week to peacekeeping as
well as nonpeacekeeping U.N. activities.
I proposed this measure not because I have lost faith in the U.N. as
an institution, but because I have lost faith in the ability and
willingness of the U.N. leadership to police its own organization. It
is time we take serious steps to insist the U.N. police itself with the
same vigor and commitment with which it polices the world. Last week's
amendment was a serious step. This is another. It also is the right
step. It is designed to force the U.N. to reform its ways. At the very
least, it will ensure the U.S. taxpayer that Congress refuses to write
a blank check to an institution which is out of control.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
amendment no. 1350
(Purpose: To require reports involving the status of prisoners and
human rights observance during multilateral peacekeeping activities)
On page 82, after line 23, insert the following:
SEC. 170B. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS INVOLVING MULTILATERAL
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
(a) United States Personnel Taken Prisoner While Serving in
Multilateral Peacekeeping Forces.--
(1) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(A) until recent years United States military personnel
rarely served as part of multilateral forces under the United
Nations or regional international organizations;
(B) despite infrequent service as part of multilateral
forces, United States personnel, such as Colonel William
Higgins in Lebanon, have been captured, tortured, and
murdered;
(C) in recent years, United States military personnel have
served much more frequently as part of multilateral forces;
(D) the capture and torture of Chief Warrant Officer
Michael Durant in Somalia in October 1993 was a horrendous
and recent example of the risk to United States personnel in
multilateral forces;
(E) continued multilateral service increases the
probability that United States military personnel will be
captured, and subject to mistreatment;
(F) United States military personnel captured while serving
as part of multilateral forces have not been treated as
prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other
international agreements intended to protect prisoners of
war; and
(G) failure of United States military personnel serving as
part of a multilateral force to receive protection under
international law increases the risk to personnel while
serving in multinational forces.
(2) Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
(A) the President should take immediate steps, unilaterally
and in appropriate international bodies, to assure that any
United States military personnel serving as part of a
multilateral force who are captured are accorded the
protection accorded to prisoners of war; and
(B) the President should also take all necessary steps to
bring to justice all individuals responsible for any
mistreatment, torture, or death of United States military
personnel who are captured while serving in a multilateral
force.
(3) Report.--Each report submitted pursuant to section 169
of this Act shall include a separate section setting forth--
(A) the status under international law of members of
multilateral peacekeeping forces, including the legal status
of such personnel if captured, missing, or detained,
(B) the extent of the risk for United States military
personnel who are captured while participating in
multinational peacekeeping forces in cases where their
captors fail to respect the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other
international agreements intended to protect prisoners of
war, and
(C) the specific steps that have been taken to protect
United States military personnel participating in
multinational peacekeeping forces, together (if necessary)
with any recommendations for the enactment of legislation to
achieve that objective.
(b) Human Rights Observance in United Nations Peacekeeping
Activities.--(1) Section 1769 of the bill is amended to
include the following at the end:
``(5) a description of respect for internationally
recognized human rights in countries or territories where a
United Nations peacekeeping activity has taken place during
the preceding year by UN Forces, including a description of
United Nations' efforts to investigate and take appropriate
action in cases of alleged human rights violations.''.
____
amendment no. 1354
At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new
section:
``Sec. . It is the sense of the Senate that the President
should not restrict informational, educational, religious, or
humanitarian exchanges, or exchanges for public performances
or exhibitions, or travel for any such informational,
eucational, religious, performance, or exhibition exchanges,
or travel for furtherance of humanitarian activities, between
the United States and any other country.''
amendment no. 1334, as modified
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 1334.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1334 be
modified with the language that I now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1334), as modified, reads as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(A) The international boundaries between the independent
countries of the former Yugoslavia are the same as the
internal borders among the constituent republics of the
former Yugoslavia as specified in the 1974 Yugoslav Federal
Constitution (except with regard to the border between Serbia
and Montenegro) and cannot be altered without the consent of
all countries concerned.
(B) The Government of Croatia is violating the sovereignty
of Bosnia-Hercegovina by sending thousands of Croatian troops
to Hercegovina, ostensibly to counter an offensive against
ethnic Croatian civilians by Bosnian Government forces.
(C) Croatian forces are interfering with U.N. peacekeeping
operations, including the delivery of humanitarian aid to
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
SEC. 2. POLICY TOWARD CROATIA.
It is the Sense of the Senate that the President should
consider taking the following actions--
(A) Instruct the United States Executive Director or
representative at all international financial institutions of
which the United States is a member to vote against all loans
except for loans directed at programs which serve basic human
needs to Croatia;
(B) Provide no assistance to Croatia (except for
humanitarian and refugee assistance);
(C) Make no sales to Croatia of any kind of military
equipment;
(D) Prohibit the licensing of commercial military sales to
Croatia;
(E) Provide no credits, and provide no guarantees of any
credits to Croatia;
(F) Prohibit the sale or transfer to Croatia of any item
subject to export controls by any agency of the United
States;
(G) Direct the Secretary of Transportation to revoke the
right of any air carrier designated by the Government of
Croatia to provide service to the United States; and
(H) Negotiate comprehensive multilateral sanctions pursuant
to the provisions of Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the
Senate that the President should impose sanctions on Croatia. The
government of Croatia has sent several thousand troops into Bosnia and
Herzegovina ostensibly to counter a Bosnian Government offensive in
Herzegovina, where there is an overwhelming ethnic Croatian minority.
While Croatia's short-term goal may indeed be to protect the ethnic
Croats, many believe that Croatia's longer term purpose is to change
borders by force.
Even if Croatia's goals are limited to protecting ethnic Croats, that
is an unacceptable excuse for unilaterally sending troops into Bosnia.
To let Croatia off the hook would be a dangerous signal to other
governments throughout the world who could use protection of ethnic
groups to justify naked aggression. The Iraqis, for instance, could
invade Kurdistan based on a dubious Iraqi claim to be protecting ethnic
Arabs that inhabit Kurdistan. The Russians, too, could use a similar
claim to keep their troops in the Baltic countries indefinitely.
For many months, Croatian forces have been uncooperative at best,
obstructionist at worst, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to
Bosnia. Bosnian Croat forces, with the backing of Croatian Government
forces, have carried out vicious atrocities in the Bosnian war. I ask
unanimous consent that a recent Washington Post article that chronicles
the increased Croatian presence in Bosnia be printed in the Record at
the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. PELL. Given Croatia's stepped-up involvement in the war, I
believe that we have little choice but to sanction Croatia.
Accordingly, I am offering an amendment that states that the President
should begin imposing sanctions on Croatia. I would add that the
amendment offers the President broad flexibility in choosing which
tools to use in responding to Croatia's blatant violation of
international borders.
In May 1992, the Senate passed, by a vote of 99 to 0, an original
Foreign Relations Committee bill to impose sanctions on Serbia because
of the aggressive actions that it was--and continues to take--in
Bosnia. Subsequently, a strict international sanctions regime has been
imposed on Serbia. The Senate bill also set standards for imposing
sanctions against the other former Yugoslav republics.
Had the Senate bill become law, Croatia's current activities would
have resulted in sanctions. That bill instructed the President to apply
sanctions ``to any other independent country of the Former Yugoslavia
which he determines is engaged, directly or indirectly, in military
aggression against a neighbor for the purpose of changing its
boundaries.''
In essence, the Senate is already on record as endorsing some of the
sanctions encompassed in my amendment. Indeed, my amendment holds
Croatia to the same standards to which we are holding Serbia. It states
that unless the President can certify, among other things, that Croatia
is not occupying the territory of another country, sanctions should be
imposed. Accordingly, I would urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Finally, I would note that although this amendment addresses Croatia,
we cannot ignore the actions of Bosnian Government forces which
ostensibly precipitated the Croatian Government decision to send troops
into Herzegovina. As I mentioned, ethnic Croats make up the vast
majority of the population in the Herzegovina area, which until now,
has been relatively untouched by the vicious fighting that is gripping
Bosnia. The Bosnian Government should be told unequivocally that
offensive actions in Herzegovina--particularly against innocent
civilians--are unacceptable. The United States should take the lead in
sending this message to Bosnia.
Exhibit 1
Croatia Sends Its Troops Into Bosnia
(By David B. Ottaway)
Posusje, Bosnia.--Croatian President Franjo Tudjman has
sent several thousand Croatian army regulars into Bosnia to
help Bosnian Croat forces counter an expected offensive by
the Muslim-led Bosnian army, according to Croatian, U.N. and
diplomatic sources.
A senior officer of the U.N. Protection Force in Zagreb,
the Croatian capital, said Croatia is now far more openly
involved in the three-sided Bosnian war than neighboring
Serbia, which from the other side of Bosnia has backed the
Bosnian Serbs as they captured 70 percent of Bosnia over the
last 21 months from the Muslim-dominated government in
Sarajevo.
Although there have been previous reports of Croatian army
regulars fighting in Bosnia, U.N. confirmation of the army's
direct involvement raises the question of whether the U.N.
Security Council will now impose sanctions on Croatia.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine K.
Albright, warned Jan. 5 during a visit to Zagreb that
Tudjman's government risked such sanctions if it stepped up
involvement in the Bosnian war.
The council decreed a series of devastating economic and
financial sanctions against Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia in
1992-93 because of the Serb-run regular Yugoslav army's
support for Bosnian Serb forces.
The U.N. officer said, however, that the U.N. peacekeeping
force has no evidence so for to confirm reports this week
from Belgrade that regular Yugoslav army units, plus hundreds
of Serbian ``volunteers,'' have recently gone again into
Bosnia to help Bosnian Serb forces.
Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic called yesterday for
an emergency session of the Security Council ``to condemn
this * * * open military intervention by the republic of
Croatia'' and take measures to stop it, the Reuter news
agency reported from Sarajevo.
Silajdzic put the number of Croatian army regulars at
12,000 and said they were fighting alongside the Bosnian
Croat militia near the central Bosnian towns of Prozor, Gorni
Vakuf and Jablanica.
The reason for the direct engagement of the Croatian army
in the Bosnian conflict, according to U.N. and other sources,
is Tudjman's mounting fear that the Bosnian army will seek to
push the remaining Croat population out of central Bosnia and
then move to establish a corridor through Croat-held
territory to the Adriatic Sea.
But the Croatian army's involvement seems to be part of a
larger process in which Tudjman is accelerating the
incorporation of Herzegovina, the Croat-populated lands of
southwestern Bosnia, into Croatia. Tudjman has long dreamed
of creating a ``Greater Croatia,'' just as the Serbian
leader, Slobodan Milosevic, has sought a ``Greater Serbia''
to be formed by eventually annexing Serb-held lands in Bosnia
and Croatia.
Another sign of Croatia's progressive takeover of
Herzegovina, according to various sources is Tudjman's
decision to oust from power Mate Boban, the controversial
Bosnian Croat leader whom he personally installed in 1992.
Tudjman now sees Boban as a huge liability, because his
ruthless policies against Bosnian Muslims may lead to his
indictment and prosecution as a war criminal, according to
Croatian and diplomatic sources.
The efforts of U.N. and European Union mediators to end the
war, the bloodiest in Europe since World War II, by
partitioning Bosnia into separate Serb, Croat and Muslim
republics have reached an impasse, with the government in
Sarajevo demanding more territory for a Muslim-majority
republic in central Bosnia.
Croatia, one of the six republics of the prewar Yugoslav
federation, broke away to become independent in 1991 and
fought a six-month war against Croatian Serb militias backed
by the Serb-led Yugoslav national army. More than one-fourth
of Croatia is still occupied by a self-proclaimed Serb state.
Tudjman faces the prospect of seeing fellow Croats lose
part of Herzegovina, the strategic area behind Croatia's
narrow Dalmatian coast, to the Bosnian Muslim army, which has
already pushed Bosnian Croat forces out of large parts of
central Bosnia.
Tudjman is under considerable pressure from the
``Herzegovina lobby,'' as members of his government born
there are called, to make sure the region is held, no matter
the political cost or the risk of U.N. sanctions being
imposed on Croatia.
In December, Tudjman named the head of the Croatian army's
special forces, French Foreign Legion veterans Ante Roso, to
take over the Bosnian Croat militia.
In addition, Croatia has sent into Bosnia between 3,000 and
5,000 regular troops from six army brigades, including the
112th, 113th and 116th according to U.N. military and other
sources. The army is also rounding up and sending thousands
of Bosnian-born Croatians to fight as ``volunteers'' for the
Bosnian Croats.
The Croatian army's growing involvement was underlined here
in Posusje on Tuesday when Croatian Defense Minister Gojko
Susak came to this small Bosnian Croat town, 70 miles east of
the Croatian Adriatic port of Split, to review the military
situation with Roso. Apparently, anxious to avoid answering
questions, Susak ran past waiting reporters outside Roso's
headquarters here after their two-hour meeting.
In addition to asserting more direct control over the
Bosnian Croat militia, Tudjman has virtually taken over
negotiating the terms of a peace settlement with the Bosnian
Serbs and the Sarajevo government.
Boban was absent from both the latest round of peace talks
in Geneva and from a meeting in Bona on Jan. 10 where Tudjman
and Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic tried to end the
fighting between Bosnian Muslims and Croats.
A Boban aide said he was no longer participating in the
peace talks because ``the Muslims said they can't reach an
agreement if Boban is present, that he's an obstacle to
one.''
The aide insisted Boban is still president of the self-
proclaimed Bosnian Croat state in Herzegovina. But diplomatic
sources said he is awaiting a visa to go into exile abroad.
He reportedly has run into difficulties finding a country
willing to accept him, because he could be indicted and
called before the U.N. war crimes tribunal being set up in
The Hague, according to these sources.
Boban, 53, owed his entire political career to Tudjman. He
was chosen by the Croatian president to take over in February
1992 from Stjepan Kljuic as head of the Bosnian branch of the
Croatian Democratic Union, Tudjman's ruling party. Kljuic,
now a member of the Bosnian government's presidency,
supported a united Bosnia, while Tudjman and Boban sought its
partition.
Boban, who was convicted by a Yugoslav court of economic
crimes and served more than two years in jail in the early
1980s, is blamed by the U.S. Embassy in Zagreb--and now the
Croatian government as well--for some of the worst excesses
perpetrated by Bosnian Croat forces against the Bosnian
Muslims.
These included a massacre of civilians and razing of the
village of Stupni Do in central Bosnia last October, the
detention of thousands of Muslim prisoners in concentration
camp-like conditions and the destruction in mid-November of
the 16th-century stone bridge in Mostar, a jewel of Bosnian
Muslim civilization.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection the question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1334), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 1296, as modified
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
numbered 1296, adopted earlier, be modified with the language that I
now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1296), as modified, reads as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new title:
IRAN-IRAQ ARMS NON-PROLIFERATION AMENDMENTS OF 1994
SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE REFERENCES IN ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Iran-
Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Amendments of 1994.''
(b) Reference in Title.--Except as specifically provided in
the title, whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is
expressed as an amendment to or repeal of a provision, the
reference shall be deemed to be made to the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.
SEC. 02. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States to halt the
proliferation of advanced conventional weapons within Iran
and Iraq.
SEC. 03. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this title to impose additional
sanctions against those foreign countries and persons that
transfer destabilizing numbers and types of advanced
conventional weapons, or goods and technology that assist in
enhancing the capabilities of Iran and Iraq to manufacture
and deliver such weapons.
SEC. 04. SANCTIONS AGAINST PERSONS.
Section 1604 is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Prohibition.--If the President determines that any
person has transferred or retransferred goods or technology
so as to contribute knowingly and materially to the efforts
by Iran or Iraq (or any agency or instrumentality of either
such country) to acquire establishing numbers and types of
advanced conventional weapons, then--
``(1) the sanctions described in subsection (b) shall be
imposed; and
``(2) the President may apply, in the discretion of the
President, the sanctions described in subsection (c).
``(b) Mandatory Sanctions.--The sanctions to be imposed
pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are as follows:
``(1) Procurement sanction.--Except as provided in
subsection (d), the United States Government shall not
procure directly or indirectly, or enter into any contract
for the procurement of, any goods or services from the
sanctioned person.
``(3) Export sanction.--The United States Government shall
not issue any license for any export by or to the sanctioned
person.
``(c) Discretionary Sanctions.--The sanctions referred to
in subsection (a)(2) are as follows:
``(1) Transiting united states territory.--
``(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other
than a treaty or other international agreement), no employee
or official of a sanctioned person and no good or technology
that is manufactured, produced, sold, or shipped by the
sanctioned person may transit by vessel or aircraft any
territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The Secretary of Transportation may promulgate regulations,
as necessary, to provide for the implementation of this
sanction in the most effective manner.
(B) The Secretary of Transportation may provide for such
exceptions from this paragraph as the Secretary considers in
the interest of the United States.
``(2) Financial institutions.--(A) The President may by
order prohibit any depositary institution that is chartered
by, or that has its principal place of business within, a
State or the United States from making any loan or providing
any credit to the sanction person, except for loans or
credits for the purpose of purchasing food or other
agricultural commodities.
``(B) As used in this paragraph, the term `depository
institution' means a bank or savings association, as defined
in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
``(3) Use of authorities of the international emergency
economic powers act.--The President may exercise the
authorities of the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act to prohibit any transaction involving any property in
which the sanctioned person has any interest whatsoever
except for transactions involving the provision of
humanitarian assistance.
``(4) Prohibition on vessels that enter ports of sanctioned
countries to engage in trade.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning on the 10th day after a
sanction is imposed under this Act against a country, a
vessel which enters a port or place in the sanctioned country
to engage in the trade of goods or services may not if the
President so requires within 180 days after departure from
such port or place in the sanctioned country, load or unload
any freight at any place in the United States.
``(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the term
`vessel' includes every description of water craft or other
contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation in water, but does not include aircraft.
``(d) Exceptions.--The sanction described in subsection
(b)(1) shall not apply--
``(1) in the case of procurement of defense articles or
defense services--
``(A) under existing contracts or subcontracts, including
the exercise of options for production quantities to satisfy
operational military requirements essential to the national
security for the United States;
``(B) if the President determines that the person or other
entity to which the sanctions would otherwise be applied is a
sole source supplier of the defense articles or services,
that the defense articles or services are essential, and that
alternative sources are not readily or reasonably available;
or
``(C) if the President determines that such articles or
services are essential to the national security under defense
coproduction agreements;
``(2) to products or services provided under contracts
entered into before the date on which the President makes a
determination under subsection (a),
``(3) in the case of contracts entered into before the date
on which the resident makes a determination under subsection
(a), with respect to--
``(A) spare parts which are essential to United States
products or production; or
``(B) component parts, but not finished products essential
to United States products or production; or
``(C) routine servicing and maintenance of products, to the
extent that alternatives sources are not readily or
reasonably available;
``(4) to information and technology essential to United
States products or production; or
``(5) to medical or other humanitarian items.
``(e) Consultation With and Actions by Foreign Government
of Jurisdiction.--
``(1) Consultations.--Whenever the President makes a
determination under subsection (a) with respect to a foreign
person, the Congress urges the President--
``(A) to initiate consultations immediately with the
government with primary jurisdiction over that foreign person
with respect to the imposition of sanctions pursuant to this
section; and, as appropriate,
``(B) to take steps in the United Nations and other
multilateral groups to negotiate comprehensive multilateral
sanctions pursuant to the provisions of chapter 7 of the
United Nations Charter, including a partial or complete
embargo, against the government of the foreign country of
primary jurisdiction over that sanctioned person, as long as
that government has not taken specific and effective actions,
including appropriate penalties, to terminate the involvement
of the sanctioned person or firm in the activities described
in section 1604(a).
``(2) Actions by Government of Jurisdiction.--In order to
pursue such consultations with the government, the President
may delay imposition of sanctions pursuant to subsections (b)
and (c) for up to 90 days. Following these consultations, the
President shall impose sanctions immediately unless the
President determines and certifies to the Congress that that
government has taken specific and effective actions,
including appropriate penalties, to terminate the involvement
of the foreign person in the activities described in
subsection (a). The President may delay the imposition of
sanctions for up to an additional 90 days if the President
determines and certifies to the Congress that that government
is in the process of taking the actions described in the
preceding sentence.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
application of sanctions under this section, the President
shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
a report on the status of consultations with the appropriate
government under this subsection, and the basis for any
determination under paragraph (2) of this subsection that
such government has taken specific corrective action.''
SEC. 05. SANCTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
Section 1605 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``sanction'' and
inserting ``sanctions'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``sanction.--The sanction referred to in
subsection (a)(2) is'' and inserting ``sanctions.--The
sanctions referred to in subsection (a)(2) are''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) Diplomatic relations.--The President is urged to
downgrade or suspend diplomatic relations between the United
States and the government of the sanctioned country.
``(4) Suspension of trade agreements.--The President may
exercise the authorities of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act to suspend any trade agreement with the
sanctioned country, except those affecting imports into the
United States from the sanctioned country.
``(7) Revocations of licenses for export of nuclear
material.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized to
revoke any license for the export of nuclear material
pursuant to a nuclear cooperation agreement with the
sanctioned country.
``(8) Presidential action regarding aviation.--
(A)(1) The President is authorized to notify the government
of a sanctioned country of his intention to suspend the
authority of foreign air carriers owned or controlled by the
government of that country to engage in foreign air
transportation to or from the United States.
``(ii) The President is authorized to direct the Secretary
of Transportation to suspend at the earliest possible date
the authority of any foreign air carrier owned or controlled,
directly or indirectly, by that government to engage in
foreign air transportation to or from the United States,
notwithstanding any agreement relating to air services.
``(B)(i) The President may direct the Secretary of State to
terminate any air service agreement between the United States
and a sanctioned country in accordance with the provisions of
that agreement.
``(ii) Upon termination of an agreement under this
subparagraph, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized
to take such steps as may be necessary to revoke at the
earliest possible date the right of any foreign air carrier
owned, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the
government of that country to engage in foreign air
transportation to or from the United States.
``(C) The President may direct the Secretary of
Transportation to provide for such exceptions from this
subsection as the President considers necessary to provide
for emergencies in which the safety of an aircraft or its
crew or passengers is threatened.
``(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the terms `aircraft',
`air carrier', `air transportation', and `foreign air
carrier' have the meanings given those terms in section 101
of the Federal Aviation Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. 1301).
``(9) Other sanctions.--The President may apply the
sanctions described in section 1606(c) with respect to
actions of a foreign government.''
SEC. 06. WAIVER.
Section 1606 is amended--
(1) ``by striking ``waiver'' each place it appears and
inserting ``modification, and waiver''; and
(2) by striking ``waive'' each place it appears and
inserting ``modify or waive''.
SEC. 07. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.
The Act is amended by inserting after section 1606 the
following new section:
``SEC. 1006A. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.
``Except as otherwise provided in this title, the sanctions
imposed pursuant to the Act shall apply for a period of at
least 24 months following the imposition of sanctions and
shall cease to apply thereafter only if the President
determines and certifies to the Congress that--
``(1) reliable information indicates that the government of
jurisdiction has taken specific and effective actions,
including appropriate penalties, to terminate the involvement
of the sanctioned person in the sanctionable activity.
``(2) The President has received reliable assurances from
the sanctioned government that such government will not, in
the future, violate this Act.''
SEC. 08. STAY OF SANCTIONS.
The Act is amended by inserting after section 1607 the
following new section:
(a) Criterion for Stay.--The President may stay the
imposition of any sanction on any entity in order to
protect--
(1) ongoing criminal investigations, or
(2) sensitive intelligence sources and methods which are
being used to acquire further information on the
proliferation of advanced conventional weapons, weapons of
mass destruction, or missiles that would be comprised by the
publication of the sanctioned entity's name.
(b) Determination.--The President shall exercise the
authority described in paragraph (1) only when the President
determines that the non-proliferation goals of the Act are
better served by delaying the imposition of sanctions rather
than by compromising the criminal investigation or
intelligence sources and methods at issue.
(c) Lifting of Stay.--The President shall lift any stay
imposed pursuant to this subsection as soon as the basis for
the determination made pursuant to paragraph (2) no longer
exists.
(d) Notification and Report to Congress.--Whenever the
duration of any stay imposed pursuant to this subsection
exceeds 120 days, the President shall promptly report to the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives the rationale and circumstances that led the
President to exercise the stay authority.
SEC. 09. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
The Act is amended by inserting after section 1607 the
following new section:
``SEC. 1607A. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
``The President is authorized to prescribe such rules and
regulations as the President may require to carry out this
Act.''
SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS.
Section 1608 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(8) The terms `goods and technology' includes any item of
the type that is listed on the Nuclear Referral List under
section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978,
the United States Munitions List (established in section 36
of the Arms Export Control Act), or the MTCR Annex (as
defined in section 74(4) of the Arms Export Control Act) or
any item that is subject to licensing by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
``(9) The term `United States' includes territories and
possessions of the United States and the customs waters of
the United States, as defined in section 401 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).
SEC. 011. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
Whereas both Iran and Iraq have re-emerged as continuing
threats to the peace and stability of the Middle East and
thus pose a threat to the stability of the post-Cold War
world, it is the sense of the Senate that the conference
agreement on S. 1281 should include as additional
discretionary sanctions under Section 05 of this Title
denial of Most Favored Nation status to a sanctioned country
and suspension of special trade privileges for a sanctioned
country which were extended pursuant to the Generalized
System of Preferences or the Caribbean Basin Initiative.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on Friday, January 28, 1994, the Senate
unanimously adopted an amendment which gave the President the authority
to impose additional sanctions on persons or countries that assisted
Iran or Iraq in their efforts to acquire destabilizing numbers and
types of advanced conventional weapons. This amendment recognized the
reemergent threat posed by these two nations to the peace and stability
of the Middle East, and thus the future stability of the post-cold-war
world.
Unfortunately, because of certain arcane jurisdictional restrictions
concerning import sanctions, I am advised that certain of the
provisions of that amendment would cause the entire State Department
authorization bill to be ``blue-slipped'' in the House of
Representative. The State Department authorization bill is an important
piece of legislation which includes a number of very important foreign
policy provisions. Therefore, I have agreed to modify my amendment as
follows:
Remove the provision which would allow the President to suspend most-
favored-nation status for a sanctioned country.
Delete the provision which would permit the President to suspend
special trade privileges for a sanctioned country which were extended
pursuant to the Caribbean Basin Initiative or the General System or
Preferences.
Modify the provision giving the President broad authority to suspend
any trade agreements with a sanctioned country, by restricting that
authority only to agreements which do not affect imports into the
United States from that country.
Add a section expressing the sense of the Senate that the sanctions
stricken from the original amendment be restored in conference on this
bill.
Mr. President, but for the anticipated objections from the House Ways
and means Committee concerning the origin of these import sanctions, I
would insist that the President be authorized to impose these sanctions
in order to deter any foreign country from assisting Iran or Iraq in
their efforts to acquire destabilizing advanced conventional weapons.
The danger of proliferation of advanced conventional weapons, as well
as weapons of mass destruction, to countries such as Iran and Iraq is
so great that we must bring to bear all available pressure on persons
or countries who assist these nations. Import sanctions are a very
effective means of demonstrating to a potential proliferator
the disincentives which accompany such dangerous actions.
Mr. President, I hope the wisdom of the Senate in adopting the full
text of this amendment last Friday will prevail in conference with the
House. I strongly urge my colleagues in conference with the House to
insist on the reinstatement of these provisions.
AMENDMENT NO. 1324, AS MODIFIED
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1324, the Kerry-
Mitchell amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that is the pending
question.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a
modification of amendment No. 1324 to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1324), as modified, reads as follows:
In the amendment, on page 2, line 4, strike all after
`TITLE' and insert the following:
SEC. 167. COST ASSESSMENT REPORT REGARDING ANY UNITED STATES
PARTICIPATION IN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 42 OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), at
least 15 days before--
(1) any obligation of funds for United States participation
in international peace operations, or
(2) any vote by the Security Council to take action under
Article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations which would
involve the use of United States Armed Forces,
the President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign
Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report
containing a cost assessment of the participation of the
United States Armed Forces in those operations.
(b) Exception.--The period for submission of the report
specified in subsection (a) shall not apply if the President
determines that an emergency exists which prevents submission
of the report in a timely manner.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``United States participation in international peace
operations'' means the use of the United States Armed
Forces--
(1) pursuant to, or consistent with, action taken by the
Security Council under Article 42 of the Charter of the
United Nations; or
(2) consistent with the United Nations Participation Act of
1945.
SEC. 168. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION REGARDING ANY UNITED
STATES IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 43 OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), at
least 15 days before any agency or entity of the United
States Government makes available armed forces, assistance,
or facilities to the United Nations under Article 43 of the
United Nations Charter, the President shall so notify the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Exception.--The period for notifying Congress in
subsection (a) shall not apply if the President determines
that an emergency exists which prevents making a notification
in a timely manner.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``assistance'' means assistance of any kind, including the
provision of logistical support and the grant of rights of
passage.
SEC. 169. REPORT ON UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, and each year thereafter at the time of the President's
budget submission to Congress, the Secretary of State, after
consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal
agencies (including the Department of Defense), shall submit
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate a report on United States contributions to United
Nations peacekeeping activities. Such report shall include--
(1) the overall cost of all peacekeeping operations as of
the date of the report;
(2) the costs of each peacekeeping operation;
(3) the amount of United States contributions (assessed and
voluntary) on an operation-by-operation basis; and
(4) an assessment of the effectiveness of ongoing
peacekeeping operations, their relevance to United States
national interests, the efforts by the United Nations to
resolve the relevant armed conflicts, and the projected
termination dates for such operations.
SEC. . UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN UNITED NATIONS
PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) the President of the United States has asserted that
reform of United Nations peacekeeping operations is to be of
the highest national priority in furtherance of United States
national security objectives;
(2) at the direction of the President of the United States
the National Security Council is coordinating a comprehensive
review of United States policy towards United Nations
peacekeeping operations on which the Congress of the United
States is to be consulted;
(3) in cooperation with the Congress of the United States,
the purpose of the National Security Council review is to
reform policies and programs governing United States
participation in United Nations operations;
(4) in conjunction with the President's review, the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate has requested the
Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to
examine thoroughly the proper role of U.S. troops in the
post-Cold War world and the implications for U.S. foreign
policy with the intent of enacting legislation, in
cooperation with the President, regarding U.S. policy toward
post-Cold War conflicts, United States involvement in
peacekeeping operations, and of establishing a process to
ensure proper accommodations of Legislative and Executive
Branch prerogatives in addressing such issues;
(5) such a process will embody sound constitutional
principles and reflect the appropriate roles of the President
and the Congress relating to the use of United States Armed
Forces both in unilateral and multilateral operations in
order for such operations to enjoy the support of both the
Executive and Legislative Branches and the American people;
and
(6) the concerned committees of jurisdiction have initiated
a process of examination of the appropriate use of United
States Forces.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Therefore, it is the Sense of the
Congress that--
(1) the primacy of United States national security
interests with respect to United States participation in and
support for United Nations peacekeeping activities must be
maintained;
(2) congressional oversight of United Nations peacekeeping
activities and other United Nations activities must be
strengthened;
(3) coordination between the executive and legislative
branches of Government regarding United States participation
in and support for United Nations peacekeeping operations
must be improved and communication between the two branches
prompt;
(4) the Congress should be notified in advance of the
intent to approve United Nations peacekeeping operations;
(5) for United Nations peacekeeping operations that would
involve the participation of United States combat forces,
such notification should include detailed information
concerning command and control arrangements for such forces,
their military mission and objectives, and their rules of
engagement, and
(6) United States contributions to United Nations
peacekeeping activities must be fair and equitable.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for approval of the amendment, as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the amendment (No. 1324), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1323) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1351, As Modified
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1351.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be approved as modified, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1351), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . REPORT ON SANCTIONS ON VIETNAM.
Not later than 30 days after any action to modify or
terminate any prohibition, restriction, condition or
limitation on transaction involving commercial sale of any
good or technology to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, or
involving the importation into the United States of goods or
services of Vietnamese origin, in effect as of January 27,
1994 under the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411 et seq.)
as amended, the President shall submit a report, taking into
account information available to the U.S. government, to the
Senate and the House of Representatives on achieving the
fullest possible accounting of U.S. personnel unaccounted for
from the Vietnam War, including:
(1) Progress on recovering and repatriating American
remains from Vietnam;
(2) progress on resolution of discrepancy cases;
(3) the status of Vietnamese cooperation in implementing
trilateral investigations with Laos; and
(4) progress on accelerated efforts to obtain all POW/MIA
related documents from Vietnam.
The amendment (No. 1351), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 1344 And 1316 Withdrawn
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
Helms amendment No. 1344, and amendment No. 1316, currently pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendments (No. 1344) and (No. 1316) were withdrawn.
Amendment no. 1352, As Modified
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
1352 be modified by adding the following language, that I send to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1352), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . COORDINATOR FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM.
(a) Establishment.--There shall be within the Department of
State a Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (hereafter in this
section referred to as the ``Coordinator'') who shall be
appointed by the President,
(b) Responsibilities.--(1) The Coordinator shall perform
such duties and exercise such power as the Secretary of State
shall prescribe.
(2) The Coordinator shall have as his principal duty the
overall supervision (including oversight of policy and
resources) of counter-terrorism activities of the Department
of State. The Coordinator shall be the principal advisor to
the Secretary of State on counter-terrorism matters and
(after the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the appropriate
Under Secretary) shall be the principal counter-terrorism
official within the senior management of the Department of
State.
(c) Rank and Status.--The Coordinator shall have the rank
and status of an Assistant Secretary. The Coordinator shall
be compensated at the annual rate of basic pay in effect for
a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
At the appropriate place insert the following:
(d) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that there shall be in the Department of State a Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State with the rank of ambassador
whose sole responsibility shall be the day-to-day management
of counter-terrorism activities in the Department of State.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1352), as modified, was agreed to.
Yeas and Nays Vitiated--Amendment No. 1329 and Amendment No. 1330
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas
and nays on both Amendments No. 1329 and No. 1330.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1330, As Modified
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk to
Amendment No. 1330.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is modified.
The Amendment (No. 1330), as modified, is as follows:
The pending amendment is modified to read as follows:
``(F) Waiver.--The president may waive the prohibition in
section (a) if he determined and so notifies Congress that--
(1) it is in the national interest to do so and such
determination must be made on a country by country basis
every 180 days; or
(2) the parties have submitted the dispute to arbitration
under rules of the Convention for the Settlement of
Investment Disputes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1330), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1329, as amended
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the underlying amendment.
The amendment (No. 1329), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1290
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
to modify amendment 1290.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 1290, modified as follows.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment as modified be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 179, after line 6, insert the following:
SEC. . CHINESE FLEEING COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL
POLICIES.
(1) In numbers not to exceed those specified in subsection
(5), the Attorney General shall protect from deportation or
exclusion to the People's Republic of China nationals of the
People's Republic of China who demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood that they will be forced to abort a pregnancy or
will be subjected to forced sterilization under Chinese
Communist Party directives and/or government directives of
the People's Republic of China on population or will suffer
other severe harm for refusal to comply with such directives,
or who demonstrate that they have experienced severe harm on
account of their refusal to comply with such directives.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude
the Attorney General from deporting or excluding any national
of the People's Republic of China to the People's Republic of
China if the Attorney General determines that such national
is inadmissible to the United States under Section 212(a)(2),
(3), (6)(E) (if such action were taken knowingly and for
gain), or (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(3) The Attorney General shall, within 90 days of enactment
of this section, promulgate regulations and guidelines to
carry out the provisions of this section.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as--
(A) Shifting the burden of providing, in each individual
case, facts sufficient to establish a claim within the scope
of subsection (1) of this section from any person making such
claim to the Attorney General; or
(B) Requiring the Attorney General to disprove such claim
in the absence of proof of facts sufficient to establish a
claim described in subsection (1) of this section by any
person making such claim.
(5) The number of persons receiving the benefit of this
section shall not exceed 2,000 applicants in any fiscal year.
(6) The provisions of this section shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act, and relief under this section
shall be available, in numbers not to exceed those specified
in subsection (5), to any national of the People's Republic
of China who is entitled to such relief under the provisions
of this section notwithstanding the pendency of
administrative or judicial proceedings or appeals on the date
of enactment of this Act, and to any such national whose
claim arises on or after the date of enactment.
(7) A person who is not deported or excluded to the
People's Republic of China pursuant to subsection (1) of this
section shall be entitled to the same associated benefits as
a person granted asylum under Section 208 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
(8) This section does not apply to an alien who has
received a final conviction of an aggravated felony or who
has claimed the benefit of subsection (1) solely for the
purposes of evading the immigration laws of the United
States.
(9) This section shall remain in effect for a period of
three years from its date of enactment.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to provide
relief from exclusion and/or deportation, beyond whatever relief may be
afforded under the refugee and asylum provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, to persons who can show that they have a well founded
fear of persecution for refusal to submit to forced abortion or
sterilization under the coercive population control program now in
force in the People's Republic of China, or that they have actually
undergone such persecution or been forced to undergo such a procedure.
As originally drafted, our amendment would have accomplished this
purpose by clarifying the statutory definition of refugee. There are,
however, sincere people who have expressed reservations about
cluttering up the basic definition of refugee with references to
particular types of cases. So we have agreed to a substitute amendment
which does not say anything one way or the other about whether these
people are refugees but which provides separate and additional
protection under a different provision of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
There is an extremely strong case that people facing persecution for
resistance to the coercive population control program are refugees
within the definition of the act. The PRC regime treats these people
not as ordinary lawbreakers but as its political and ideological
enemies. The immediate former general counsel of INS issued a legal
opinion to the effect that such persons are refugees on the ground of
political opinion imputed to them by the persecutors. The three
immediate former Attorneys General have officially ordered that these
people be protected under the asylum law, and the present Attorney
General has specifically declined to recede from this position. Forced
abortion and forced sterilization under a program such as that of the
PRC has recently been held to be persecution on account of political
opinion in an excellent decision by Judge Ellis of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The present amendment does
not subtract anything from these arguments. Rather, it simply provides
additional protection for a specified number of persons, beyond those
who my be granted asylum or refugee status.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is no intention to
make the burden of proof under this section either higher or lower than
the current standard for asylum and refugee applicants. That is, in
order to get such persecution the applicant must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence both that he or she subjectively fears
such persecution, and that there is an objective basis for the fear--
that is, that a reasonable person in the applicant's situation would
have such a fear.
The statute provides a numerical limit for persons who may be
afforded protection under this section. There is no reason to expect
that this will present a practical problem. Despite wildly inaccurate
news reports of many thousands of people being granted asylum because
they fear the coercive population control program, the number has never
been more than a few hundred per year. Of course, people who are
granted asylum or refugee status under existing law are not included in
the numerical limit under this section. Mr. President, I am not one to
believe in opening the floodgates to anyone who wants to come live in
the United States for any reason, but there are some things Americans
just will not do. One of these things is to force people back to places
where they reasonably fear that they will face gruesome tortures. If
the number of valid claimants should ever exceed the numerical limit, I
would hope and expect that our Government would not forcibly repatriate
these valid claimants, but would find some other solution, such as
resettlement in safe countries other than the United States.
Finally, Mr. President, news reports from China indicate that the 118
people we sent back a few days ago, despite assurance that they would
not be imprisoned, are now in prison and that many of them face
indefinite terms of incarceration. The reports also cite evidence of
beatings and various other kinds of harsh treatment. These people have
committed no crime except to escape from China and to seek asylum in
the United States. Our asylum regulations provide that asylum officers
and immigration judges give due consideration to evidence that the
government of the applicant's country of nationality or last habitual
residence persecutes its nationals or residents if they leave the
country without authorization or seek asylum in another country. 8 CFR
208.13(b)(2)(B)(ii). I trust that this dramatic new evidence will be
taken into account.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following materials
be inserted in the Record:
First, an article from the Washington Post, December 22, 1993.
Second, a letter from Grover Joseph Rees, the immediate former
general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Third, a document entitled ``Resistance to the PRC Population Control
Policy as Political Dissent.''
Fourth, a document entitled ``Disproportionately Severe Punishment.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 22, 1993]
China Plans to Restrict `Inferior' Births--Compulsory Abortions,
Sterilization Aim at `Heightening Standards'
(By Steven Mufson)
Beijing, Dec. 21--China will use abortions, sterilization
and marriage bans to ``avoid new births of inferior quality
and heighten the standards of the whole population,'' the
official New China News Agency said Monday.
The measures will be aimed at restricting reproduction by
people likely to pass on congenital illnesses or defects to
their children, the agency said. It added that the births of
more than 10 million people with such defects could have been
prevented.
China's population policy has drawn extensive international
criticism with its one-child-per-family rule and allegations
of coercion in enforcing it. But the new measures appear to
go far beyond normal family planning standards.
In New York, a spokesman for the U.N. Population Fund said
the agency had only heard of the measure from Chinese news
reports and could not comment on it directly. But spokesman
Alex Marshall said: ``In principle we are against any form of
compulsion with respect to family planning. Family planning
must be voluntary, and that has no qualifying clauses to
it.''
In Washington, State Department observers said they had
seen no indication China was contemplating such a program.
Abortion in China is a sensitive issue for the Clinton
administration, which is keeping a close eye on human rights
issues. ``We would take a very dim view of this kind of
abortion program, if it comes into being,'' a State
Department official said.
Under draft legislation titled ``On Eugenics and Health
Protection'' submitted to the National People's Congress,
people with hepatitis, venereal disease or mental illness
will be barred from marrying, the news agency said.
Pregnant women diagnosed as having certain infectious
diseases or abnormal fetuses ``will be advised to halt the
pregnancy,'' the agency said. The draft bill says married
couples with those illnesses or mental disabilities ``should
have themselves sterilized,'' it added.
Once legislation reaches the draft stage and is submitted
to the National People's Congress, approval is usually
automatic.
In the United States and many other countries, prospective
parents may test for congenital defects and they often abort
fetuses as a result of those tests, but such decisions are
left to individuals and are not matters of government policy.
The Public Health Ministry did not spell out how the
measures would be implemented, but the impact could be
widespread. A large portion of the population carries the
hepatitis virus, often contracted from eating contaminated
food or using contaminated needles. In addition, there are
10.2 million mentally disabled people in China, the
government-run People's Daily reported today.
Citing the annual birth of 300,000 to 460,000 congenitally
disabled children yearly, Public Health Minister Chen Min
Zhang told the National People's Congress standing committee
that there is an urgent need to reduce abnormal births.
``If this situation continues, it will be a very heavy
burden to Chinese economic construction and a big burden to
the state as well as bring disaster to thousands and millions
of families and result in a drop in the quality standards of
the population,'' Chen said, according to the People's Daily.
In the poor northwestern province of Gansu, there already
is a mandatory sterilization law for the mentally retarded.
Local officials have said their goal is to quickly sterilize
most of the 260,000 mentally retarded residents there.
China has come under international criticism for its strict
policy limiting most families to one child. That policy,
pursued since 1979, has lowered the birthrate below levels
needed to replace the population. The rate fell to 18.24
births per thousand people in 1992, about half the 1970
level.
China has insisted that stringent measures are needed in a
country of nearly 1.2 billion people so that population
growth does not outstrip the nation's economy. The government
has noted that China has 22 percent of the world's population
but only 7 percent of its arable land.
Many family planning and human rights groups have raised
concerns over the coercion used to enforce the policy, citing
reports of forced abortions, sterilizations and infanticide.
The Chinese news agency said the draft bill ``does not
state whether China will adopt euthanasia to eliminate
congenitally abnormal children, saying that the international
community has not come to a conclusion on that issue.''
____
St. Mary's University,
January 27, 1994.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: This is in response to an inquiry from
your staff about concerns that have been raised respecting
refugee status for persons fleeing forced abortions and
sterilizations.
First, with respect to the 6500 PRC nationals who are said
to have applied for asylum status during 1993: I had not
heard this statistic, but it is hardly the ``floodgate'' that
opponents of refugee status were predicting earlier in the
year. It is a tiny fraction of the many thousands of asylum
applications received during the year, although a country
with about 20% of the world's population and one of its most
repressive governments might be expected to generate a
substantial percentage of such applications.
It is also important to remember that several thousand
applications during a year typically result in only a few
hundred actual grants of asylum during the year. For
instance, in 1992 there were 1911 applications from illegal
immigrants in deportation and exclusion proceedings and
another 3464 ``affirmative'' applications to INS Asylum
Officers from persons who were not in proceedings, presumably
because they were living here legally. Yet the total number
of grants in both categories was only 654--even though INS
was then treating credible claims of persecution based on
resistance to the population control program as giving rise
to eligibility for asylum.
In response to the argument that no legislation is
necessary because the Executive Order is still being enforced
so as to protect valid claims based on the PRC population
control policy, this is simply untrue. The Board of
Immigration Appeals has stated in several decisions that
neither the Executive Order nor the interim regulations
require it to reverse its Chang decision, which treated the
population control program as just another routine law
enforcement measure which will not give rise to valid refugee
claims except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Both
the Board and many immigration judges continue to cite the
Chang rationale as a basis for routinely denying asylum
claims based on forced abortion or sterilization, even when
the applicant's testimony is found credible.
Finally, it is shocking to hear the PRC population control
program--in which women are sometimes dragged kicking and
screaming to undergo late-term abortions, and in which more
routine punishments include fines of several times the per
capita annual income and destruction of the family home--
compared to family planning programs in India and
Singapore. If I recall correctly, India experimented
briefly and sporadically with forced sterilizations
(although never with forced abortions) about fifteen years
ago, before learning that popular resistance to such
measures made then untenable for a government that is not
prepared to rule by terror. The argument about Singapore
is apparently that if you have too many children you will
not be able to get a large enough apartment. Although
there is no telling what people will argue, I cannot
imagine as asylum claim on this basis ever being granted.
Similarly, it is certainly true that single young men have
applied for asylum on the ground that they may someday want
to marry and have children. At least during my tenure as
General Counsel of INS, however, we routinely opposed such
claims as too speculative, and I am unaware of any such claim
having been granted.
The only case I know in which an unmarried man had a
meritorious asylum claim based on resistance to the
population control program was the case of a young man who
had been living with his financee in the equivalent of a
common-law marriage. They had announced their wedding
banquet, and she had become pregnant. She was ordered to have
a late abortion. When she refused, she was physically forced
to undergo the operation--during which she died. The asylum
applicant, overcome with grief and anger, confronted the
government official who had ordered the abortion. This
confrontation resulted in various forms of persecution, as a
result of which the applicant fled China. The immigration
judge who heard his asylum case found his testimony to be
credible and expressed great sympathy, but denied asylum on
the case of Chang. In one of my last official acts as INS
General Counsel, I filed a brief supporting his appeal and
urging the Board to overrule Chang. I left the government
soon thereafter and never learned the result of the appeal,
but I do know that the Board reaffirmed Chang instead of
overruling it, so my guess is that this young man has been
denied asylum
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Grover Joseph Rees III,
Visiting Scholar Center for
International Legal Studies.
____
Resistance to the PRC Population Control Policy as Political Dissent
``An applicant must show that he has a fear of persecution
for holding [political] opinions. This presupposes that the
applicant holds opinions not tolerated by the authorities,
which are critical of their policies or methods. It also
presupposes that such opinions have come to the notice of the
authorities or are attributed by them to the applicant.''
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on
Procedures for Determining Refugee Status 80 (1992 ed.)
(emphasis supplied).
``Whether political opinion is actually held or implied
makes little difference where the alien's life is equally at
risk.'' Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 729 (9th Cir. 1988).
``[I]t is irrelevant whether a victim actually possesses any
of these opinions as long as the government believes that he
does.'' Hernandez-Ortiz v. INS, 777 F.2d 509, 517 (9th Cir.
1985).
``To refuse to control fertility or to encourage others to
refuse is sometimes treated as a crime against the state. * *
* Most married people of reproductive age in China must
control their fertility to avoid being guilty of an
ideological offense in the eyes of the government. Those who
would rather not practice birth control find that they must
do so, or at least pretend to, in order to avoid political
reprisals.'' Judith Banister, China's Changing Population 200
(Stanford 1987) (hereinafter ``Banister'').
``Chinese officials view this opposition [to forced
abortion and sterilization] as political dissent and are
determined to suppress it even if it means violating
fundamental human rights.'' Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights, Matter of M-, #A28 760 748 (BIA
1989) at 4.
``Planned parenthood work, like other work, also suffered
from interference and sabotage by Lin Piao and the `gang of
four.' Lin Piao, the `gang of four,' and their followers
incited anarchism in marriage and childbirth.'' Foreign
Broadcast Information Service Daily Report--People's Republic
of China, Vol. I., 239 (July 13, 1978): E 10. ``We must
expose and deal resolute blows at class enemies who sabotage
planned parenthood.'' Id. at 135 (August 7, 1978): G4.
``[F]amily planning must be understood as the
implementation of party discipline and state law.'' Director
of State Family Planning Commission, quoted in Jiankang Bao
(Health Gazette, Beijing), Feb. 27, 1983: 1
``Recently, [Secretary-General of the Chinese Communist
Party] Comrade Hu Yaobang pointed out that the work of
population control should `rely first on political
mobilization, second on law, and third on technical
measures.'' ``Hebei Provincial Telephone Meeting on Family
Planning,'' Department of Commerce, Joint Publications
Research Service 83105 (Mar. 21, 1983). [``Technical
measures'' is a euphemism for required sterilization,
abortion, and IUD insertion. Banister, supra, at 201.]
____
DISPROPORTIONATELY SEVERE PUNISHMENT
``Disciplinary measures against those who violate the
policy include stiff fines (up to the equivalent of $4,000 in
some parts of China), withholding of social services,
demotion, and other administrative punishments, including
loss of employment. Unpaid fines have sometimes resulted in
confiscation or destruction of personal property.''
Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices for 1992; 544 (1993).
``[U]nder China's complex quote sytem for births, local
family planning officials wanted Ms. Li to give birth in 1992
rather than 1993. So on Dec. 30, when she was seven months
pregnant, they took her to an unsantiary first aid station
and ordered the doctor to induce early labor. Ms. Li's family
pleaded, the doctor protested, but the family planning
workers insisted. The result: the baby died after nine hours,
and 23-year-old Ms. Li is incapaciated.'' Kristof, ``China's
Crackdown on Births: A Stunning, and Harsh, Success,'' N.Y.
Times, April 25, 1993: A1 (hereinafter ``China's
Crackdown'').
``Typically, local cadres swoop down on each village once
or twice a year, taking all the women who have already had
children to a nearby clinic. There they are fitted with IUDs
or else undergo sterilization. Some women manage to get
pregnant again before they are sterilized; others flee the
village on the day they are supposed to go to the clinic.
When the authorities discover an unauthorized pregnancy, they
normally apply a daily dose of threats and brow-beating.
``Some women buckle and accept an abortion, while many
others simply flee to a relative's village, returning only
after the child is born. In such cases, fines equivalent to
hundreds or even thousands of dollars--per capita income in
the countryside last year was $135--are imposed. Peasants in
many different provinces say homes are routinely knocked down
if the fine is not paid.'' China's Crackdown, N.Y. Times,
Apr. 25, 1993: A12
``[A]fter the baby came, a brigade from the township
knocked down his house. The team also confiscated his wooden
thrasher, used to prepare the rice after it is harvested. Mr.
Luo said his family had to live in the hills until they could
borrow straw to rebuild the house. `They often take things,
your furniture, your cow, your pig, your chickens, your
preserved meat,' said a 35-year-old woman in another Guizho
Province village. `If you get sterilized, they take your
stuff, and if you don't get sterilized, they beat you. Some
people have been beaten badly, family members and women,' she
added. `They take electric batons and they hit whomever they
see.''' WuDunn, ``Births Punished by Fines, Beating, or
Ruined Home,'' N.Y. Times, Apr. 25, 1993; A12.
``I have been allowed to accompany 10 Chinese government
employees who make up one of the `task forces' that have been
dispatched to hundreds of villages in a northern county.
Their purpose is to make all the women who are expecting a
second or later baby have abortions, and then be
sterilized.'' Liu Yin, ``China's Wanted Children,'' London
Independent, Sept. 11, 1991 (hereinafter ``China's Wanted
Children'').
``The families whose women escaped the raid were warned
that if they did not go to the abortion centre within a week,
their houses would be pulled down. This was no bluff. On the
way back from the raid, I saw six collapsed houses. No family
in the village is allowed to provide shelter for the people
whose houses have been destroyed.'' China's Wanted Children,
supra.
``Security officers in a Chinese province [Hunan] forced at
least 21 women to have abortions last month to meet family
planning quotas, [``Hong Kong's Ming Pao, a leading Chinese
language newspaper''] reported yesterday.'' San Francisco
Chronicle, Nov. 14, 1991: A15.
From 1979 to 1982 any second or higher order births that
happened in spite of government pressure were met with
escalating punishments designed to impoverish the offending
couple for at least fourteen years if not for life. This
repression continued to mount, until in mid-1982 official,
statements clarified that local government officials must not
permit a couple to have a second or third birth and then
impose the economic sanctions. Rather, local officials must
prevent conceptions of second or higher order children, and
when that fails are required to see to it that women have
abortions.'' Judith Banister, China's Changing Population 200
(Stanford 1987) (hereinafter ``Banister'').
``Forced abortion at late pregnancy was the worst of all.
One time we caught a pregnant woman with her baby due in only
one week. Right after she was pulled into the car, she was
held by several men and a lethal injection was given to kill
the unborn baby before abortion.'' Jian-Hua Lin, ```Poverty
Relief Team' to Catch Women in Countryside: A Story from a
Birth Control Officer,'' Chi-Am Daily News, Sept. 11-12,
1992.
``Rural family planning committees wield awesome powers.
Not only do they decide the year when a couple may have a
child within the annual birth quota, but they can impose
fines equivalent to two to three years' wages for those who
flout the regulations. Parents who violate the one-child
policy automatically lose their rights to free education,
state subsidies, and other privileges.'' Schmetzer, ``Chinese
Beat Men Who Flout Abortion Laws,'' San Francisco Examiner,
Mar. 29, 1991.
``[T]he husbands were marched one by one into an empty
room, ordered to strip naked and lie face down on the floor.
`They were then beaten on their bare buttocks with a cane as
many times as the number of days their wives had been
pregnant.' . . . A woman whose husband was out of town also
consented to an abortion after being threatened with a
flogging.'' Schmetzer, supra, (quoting Chinese news
accounts).
``Nowhere is this dark side of family planning more evident
than in Dongguan, [in Guandong Province]. Here, abortion
posses scoured the countryside in the spring of 1981,
rounding up women in rice paddies and thatched roof houses.
Expectant mothers, including many in their last trimester,
were trussed, handcuffed, herded into hog cages and delivered
by the truckload to the operating tables of rural clinics,
according to eyewitness accounts.'' Weisskopf, ``One Couple,
One Child,'' Washington Post, Jan. 7, 1985: A1 (hereinafter
``One Couple, One Child'').
``Party chief Huang Zhigao of Double Bridge Village in the
southwestern province of Sichuan acknowledged the practice of
`helping' pregnant women to the clinic if they refuse to go
on their own. As an example, he cited the story of a 32-year-
old woman named Li who had a baby girl and became pregnant
again in the hope of having a boy. After numerous visits to
her home by `persuasion groups' proved unsuccessful, eight
activists appeared at her doorstep one morning and told Li,
then four months pregnant, `you don't go to the clinic
willingly, we'll take you,' according to Huang. `The woman
struggled and started crying when they started taking her by
the arms,' recalled Huang, `She was dragged about 50 yards
and finally gave in.''' One Couple, One Child, supra.
``In the Inner Mongolian capital of Hohhot . . . hospital
doctors practice what amounts to infanticide by a different
name, according to a Hohhot surgeon who would not allow his
name to be used for fear of reprisals. After inducing labor,
he said, doctors routinely smash the baby's skull with
forceps as it emerges from the womb. In some cases, he added,
newborns are killed by injecting formaldehyde into the soft
spot of the head.'' One Couple, One Child, supra.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the sponsors' modification to this
amendment greatly improves it, in my view.
The original amendment would have modified the Refugee Act to provide
special treatment to a particular group. For all the reasons I
expressed this morning as we debated the Lautenberg amendment, I
strongly oppose changing the definition of ``refugee'' as it is stated
in the Refugee Act of 1980.
That is the U.N. definition. It is the international definition that
most refugee receiving companies use. I don't believe it should be
tampered with solely in order to provide special benefits for
particular groups.
This modification does not do that. Rather, it forbids the
deportation or exclusion of persons who can demonstrate that they will
be severely punished for refusal to comply with China's population
control policies.
This modification also will provide for the sunset of these special
provisions in 3 years and it limits the number who may receive the
benefit to 2,000 per year.
I continue to oppose ``special'' treatment for ``special'' groups,
even when it does not modify the refugee definition. The whole purpose
and ideal of the Refugee Act of 1980 was to get us away from providing
special treatment to special groups. Our refugee policy should be
evenhanded. It should provide equal protection to those who qualify.
As I said, this modification is a substantial improvement and I thank
the sponsors for the changes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1290), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment Withdrawn--Amendment No. 1353
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
1353 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________