[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]

 
                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of S. 1281, at 11 a.m. tomorrow morning, 
the Senate, without any intervening action or debate vote on or any 
relation to Senator Lott's amendment No. 1315; that the Helms amendment 
No. 1316 be withdrawn upon the granting of this consent agreement; that 
immediately upon the disposition of the Lott amendment No. 1315, S. 
1281 be read a third time; that the House companion, H.R. 2333, be 
discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate proceed 
to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken and the text of S. 1281, as amended, be substituted in lieu 
thereof and the Senate vote on final passage of H.R. 2333, as amended; 
that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the 
House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees; that the preceding all occur without 
intervening action or debate; and that upon disposition of H.R. 2333, 
S. 1281 be indefinitely postponed.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


            provisions relating to the taiwan relations act

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the provision in this 
bill relating to the Taiwan Relations Act and the 1982 Sino-United 
States Joint Communique, announced in Shanghai by the Reagan 
administration and the Government of the People's Republic of China. 
While we will not consider a floor amendment relevant to the provision, 
it is a critical issue and one which I hope the conference committee 
will consider very carefully.
  Secretary of State Warren Christopher today sent me the following 
letter explaining his views on the provision. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be included at this point in the Record. He makes some 
important points, which I think deserve our review.
  The provision declares that the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 
supersedes the Shanghai Communique. Using the term ``supersedes'' 
implies that the provision repeals the communique--not only our 
statement of policy on arms sales, but the Chinese Government's 
commitment to peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue as well. The 
Secretary raises a serious question about whether this action would 
risk undermining the present relatively peaceful situation in the 
Strait of Taiwan.
  That is a long-term consideration. We should also consider the short 
term, because Sino-American relations are today at a critical point. 
With only 4 months to go before we reach a decision on renewing China's 
most-favored-nation tariff status, repealing the Shanghai Communique 
risks an unnecessary dispute with the Chinese Government. It is quite 
conceivable that opening this dispute would embolden and give 
credibility to factions within the Chinese Government who oppose taking 
the steps on human rights cited in the President's Executive order of 
May 28, 1993.
  The provision does raise a serious point about the supremacy of the 
Taiwan Relations Act's legal requirements over the policy statement of 
the communique. The act requires us to meet Taiwan's legitimate 
security needs, and I strongly support that requirement. However, the 
Secretary addresses this in his letter. By reaffirming that the Taiwan 
Relations Act takes legal precedence over the communique, he implicitly 
states that, while the Shanghai Communique and the Taiwan Relations Act 
do not now conflict with one another, should they ever come into 
conflict we would proceed under the act.
  Finally, there are some aspects of our Taiwan policy which I believe 
we should review. For example, we avoid official contact with leaders 
of the Taiwanese Government. This is a damaging and irrational policy. 
They are democratically elected leaders of our sixth largest trading 
partner, and refusing to speak with them serves neither our economic 
nor political interests. I also find the policy simply embarrassing, 
and we should end it as soon as possible.
  However, proceeding to repeal the communique through legislation is a 
very risky step. I would hope the conference committee considers the 
points the Secretary raises in his letter very seriously.

                                       The Secretary of State,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: Thank you for your continuing interest 
     in our China policy and the effects of Section 707 of S. 
     1281, which would amend the Taiwan Relations Act on the issue 
     of arms sales to Taiwan. I am strongly opposed to this 
     amendment. By declaring that the Taiwan Relations Act 
     ``supersedes'' the 1982 Joint Communique between the United 
     States and the People's Republic of China, this amendment 
     would risk undermining the foundation of the peace and 
     stability we have helped create in the Taiwan Strait over the 
     last fourteen years.
       Furthermore, there is no reason to pass such an amendment. 
     The 1982 Communique does not in any way detract from our 
     commitment in the Taiwan Relations Act to provide for 
     Taiwan's security. Each Administration, including this one, 
     has affirmed that the Taiwan Relations Act takes legal 
     precedence over the 1982 Communique. The Taiwan Relations Act 
     is the law of the land; the 1982 Communique is a statement of 
     policy. The two are complementary and serve the same basic 
     objective--the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue. This 
     Administration is fully meeting, and will continue to meet, 
     its commitments in providing for Taiwan's legitimate defense 
     needs.
       In sum, the Sino-American Communiques, including the 1982 
     Communique, and the Taiwan Relations Act have, through the 
     administrations of both political parties, formed the 
     framework for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait for 
     two decades. It is not in the interests of the United States 
     to dismantle it.
       Thank you again for your interest in this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                               Warren Christopher.


      State Department Reorganization--Bureau for Refugee Programs

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I have long been 
an advocate for refugees around the world. Having just returned from 
Southeast Asia, I feel reinforced in my commitment to the refugee 
cause. Thus, I rise today to voice my concerns about the reorganization 
of the Bureau for Refugee Programs which is included in the 
authorization bill before us.
  The State Department's reorganization plan creates a new Assistant 
Secretary position to head the new Bureau of Population, Refugees and 
Migration. It abolishes the position of the Ambassador at Large and 
Coordinator for Refugee Affairs, and transfers the responsibilities of 
the coordinator for population affairs to this new Bureau. While I am a 
strong supporter of population programs, I am concerned that by 
combining population, refugees and migration, the emphasis on refugees 
will be diminished.
  The Bureau for Refugee Programs was created in 1979 when it became 
apparent that refugee affairs were not getting the focus needed under 
the combined Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Since 
1979, this Bureau has served to highlight the critical importance of 
overseas refugee assistance and U.S. admissions, and has for years been 
the central advocate for humane and effective refugee policies. I am 
concerned that this new combination with population policy will lessen 
the visibility of a Bureau that has played a critical role in operating 
the refugee program.
  In a recent report released by the United Nations High Commissioner 
for Refugees, the current worldwide refugee population is estimated at 
18.2 million--up from 11 million just 10 years ago. Although the number 
of refugees in Southeast Asia has decreased, significant numbers of 
refugees are in crisis in the former Yugoslavia, Haiti, and throughout 
Africa. Clearly, refugee issues are as important today as they were in 
1979, when the Bureau for Refugee Programs was created. Any diminished 
role on refugee issues would be a tragic mistake.
  I considered introducing an amendment to the pending legislation to 
retain the status quo by reinstating the Bureau of Refugee Programs. In 
fact, during the last few days I have had several conversations with 
State Department Counselor Tim Wirth expressing my concern about this 
new combination. During those conversations, I was assured by Counselor 
Wirth that the President will appoint the current Senior Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Refugee Programs, Phyllis Oakley, to head the 
new Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. Although Ms. Oakley's 
refugee background is limited to her short tenure at the Bureau for 
Refugee Programs, she is a distinguished senior foreign service officer 
who has expressed her commitment to refugee affairs. It is my hope that 
she will use this opportunity to continue as a strong advocate for 
refugees--a population without a constituency.
  I have decided not to propose this amendment because I respect the 
right of the executive branch to manage its agencies. I intend, 
however, to keep a careful watch over this new reorganization. It is a 
critical time for refugees around the world and the United States 
cannot afford to play a lesser role in the humanitarian protection of 
these individuals.


                      in support of amendment 1299

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the support of Senator 
Kerry and Senator Helms for the amendment adopted last Friday by 
unanimous consent on providing notice to the Congress on certain events 
involving the Missile Technology Control Regime. I want to briefly use 
this opportunity to explain the background of the amendment. This would 
have been done on Friday, but the person staffing this matter for me 
slipped on the ice outside his home, injured his back, and stayed home 
to recover. Therefore my statement did not get entered in the Record 
when amendment 1299 was adopted.
  Mr. President, this is a very simple provision. It follows up on 
concerns which several of us expressed to the administration last 
summer with regard to any move to decontrol space launch vehicle 
technology within the missile technology control regime. In the fiscal 
year 1994 Defense authorization bill, Congress adopted a sense-of-the-
Congress resolution, section 1614, which Senator McCain, Senator Glenn, 
and I had offered during Senate debate on the bill and which 
Congressman Kyl offered during House debate on that bill. That 
resolution supported a strict interpretation of the MTCR by the United 
States concerning the inability to distinguish space launch vehicle 
technology from missile technology and the inability to safeguard space 
launch vehicle technology in a manner that would provide timely warning 
of the diversion of such technology to military purposes.
  The Vice President and other administration officials gave a fair 
hearing to our views on this matter. But to be honest, I was 
disappointed with the policy announced last September 27 because, while 
it made it clear that we thought new space launch vehicle programs were 
uneconomic and posed proliferation dangers, it held out the possibility 
we would in rare instances on a case-by-case basis approve SLV 
cooperation with our MTCR partners, beyond the cooperation with the 
European Space Agency and Japan that had been grandfathered in the 
original 1987 MTCR agreement. Our policy also envisioned requiring, as 
an admission criterion for new MTCR partners, that they give up 
offensive ballistic missile programs, but not SLV programs. In light of 
the indistinguishability between SLV's and ballistic missiles, which 
CIA Director Jim Woolsey has testified to, and which the RAND Corp. has 
written extensively about, and in light of our success in recent years 
in persuading Argentina, South Africa, and Taiwan to forgo SLV 
programs, we believe that opening these loopholes in the MTCR runs the 
risk of turning a nonproliferation regime into a proliferation regime, 
as the RAND report put it.
  My amendment puts the Congress in a position to monitor executive 
branch execution of the policy announced September 27, 1993. In the 
rare instances where the administration grants export licenses for SLV 
programs of MTCR partners, the President must report to the Congress on 
his rationale for doing so 30 days before granting the license. Even 
the 30-day waiting period may be waived if the President determines our 
national security interests so warrant or if the export involves one of 
the grandfathered programs with which we have a longstanding 
relationship, such as Ariane or the Japanese H-2 launcher. This 
amendment is not meant in any way to encumber those longstanding 
relationships. It is meant to give pause to and guarantee a dialogue on 
support of new SLV programs, even of MTCR partners.
  The second part of the amendment provides for a similar consultation 
before the United States gives its assent to new MTCR partners. The 
President is to give Congress 30 days' notice on such new partners, 
including a discussion of all relevant information concerning the 
proposed new partner's nonproliferation policies, practices, and 
commitments. It is my hope that the administration will be able in 
almost all cases to persuade new partners to forgo both any offensive 
missile programs and any space launch vehicles programs. If the 
administration does not succeed in obtaining such commitments, we 
should examine the implications before expanding MTCR membership. 
Again, my amendment gives the President a waiver of the 30-day waiting 
period if he determines our national security interests so warrant, but 
I would hope that such a waiver would be very rare, since the timetable 
for discussions on new members is usually very clear and predictable.
  Mr. President, the administration needs to continue to talk with 
Congress on these matters on a routine basis and on a bipartisan basis. 
My amendment formalizes such a consultation at really critical moments, 
but ongoing consultations on other nonproliferation matters is also 
needed. All of our nonproliferation regimes are constantly under 
challenge from economic interests or other foreign policy interests 
here and abroad. It is an enormous challenge to keep them viable in the 
face of such pressures.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by again thanking Senator Helms and 
Senator Kerry for their support of this amendment last Friday. I hope 
that it will be accepted by the House conferees in the upcoming 
conference.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am informed that we will momentarily have 
some closing business, wrap-up, as it is known. But before we enter 
into that, I would like to personally thank the distinguished Senator 
from North Carolina. We have disagreed on some of the amendments here, 
but I would say that we have had an extraordinarily cooperative effort. 
We moved an enormous amount of legislative business. I think we have 
done so expeditiously and with minimum inconvenience to colleagues in 
the Senate.
  As all of us know, none of this happens with the two of us standing 
here. I would like to thank Nancy Stetson and Steve Polansky and Mary 
Stakem for their terrific assistance in this effort.
  I would like to thank the staff of Senator Helms: Adm. Bud Nance, 
Steve Berry, Elizabeth Lambird for their assistance.
  I would also like to thank Ed King of Senator Mitchell's staff and 
Randy Scheunemann and Mira Baratta of Senator Dole's staff for their 
help in the process, and particularly to the assembled staff of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee of all of the Senators and, indeed, 
of the committee itself, all of whom have chipped in to help move this 
process.
  Again, Mr. President, I would say we always have a choice on the 
floor. There is enough room for contentiousness in all of these issues 
and there are enough issues to fill up any legislative calendar on any 
one bill. It takes a concerted effort by a lot of Senators cooperating 
to wear those down, to come to agreement, build a consensus and move 
the process forward.
  I really want to thank the distinguished Senator from North Carolina 
for his good faith in that effort.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I certainly reciprocate the kind words of 
the Senator from Massachusetts. It has been a pleasure. Sometimes 
occasionally it is like going to a dentist, but we all live through it. 
But it has been a rewarding experience. I say that with all sincerity.
  I do not think it is very often done, but I want to thank the ladies 
and gentlemen, the Parliamentarian, the clerks and all the rest for 
their patience. We take them for granted, but I watch them, and I have 
watched them for 21 years. They are great people. They are diligent and 
dedicated.
  I want to pay my respects to Bud Nance, Adm. James Wilson Nance, who 
is the chief of staff for the minority on the Foreign Relations 
Committee for his attention to this bill. He could not have done it 
without one of the finest groups of young people I have ever seen 
operate in the Senate or elsewhere: Steve Berry, Elizabeth Lambird, 
Danielle Pletka, Chris Walker, Garrett Grigsby, Tom Callahan, Matt 
Reynolds, Anne Smith, Nancy Ray. I must pay my respects to Senator 
Kerry's staff, Nancy Stetson and Steve Polansky. It has been remarkable 
to watch the two teams work together, particularly this evening because 
we have moved a lot of paper now.
  So with that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think we are about to momentarily proceed 
to some wrap-up. As the able staff prepares us for that, let me also 
thank, if I can for a moment, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee who was here most of the day but who left just a 
little while ago. Without his support within our committee for the 
committee structure that he helped put together, I do not think we 
would have developed the kind of consensus that we have been able to 
develop on these pieces of legislation that have usually been very 
contentious. But I do think that Senator Pell's trust in the 
subcommittees and his willingness to build that consensus and bring it 
to the full committee and subsequently to the floor has helped us 
enormously to eliminate a lot of the sticking points which previously 
allowed this legislation to get stuck.
  I want to thank the Senator and I certainly appreciate his confidence 
and trust in allowing us to proceed in that way.

                          ____________________