[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 47 (Tuesday, April 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONFERENCE REPORT NO. 103-482 ON H.R. 2333

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
receipt of a message from the House that the House has agreed to the 
conference report No. 103-482 on H.R. 2333, the State Department 
authorization bill, or a conference report that is identical to that 
conference report as filed in the House on April 25; that the 
conference report be considered agreed to and the motion to reconsider 
laid on the table, notwithstanding the recess or adjournment of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate is 
taking up the conference report on H.R. 2333, the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act. The report contains the authorization of 
appropriations for the Department of State, the United States 
Information Agency, and the Board for International Broadcasting.
  The legislation incorporates and endorses the administration's 
restructuring of the Department of State, most notably by enabling the 
establishment of the new position of Under Secretary for Global Affairs 
to oversee policy on many of the issues that transcend national 
borders.
  In addition, the legislation consolidates U.S. Government 
international broadcasting. I am hopeful that this will enhance our 
broadcast services to those regions where it is most needed while at 
the same time saving the taxpayers' money.
  Madam President, there are a number of provisions that I have either 
authored or cosponsored in this legislation, but I would like to 
highlight just two. First, part A of title VII of the conference report 
contains provisions that will significantly strengthen the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency. I firmly believe that a revitalized ACDA will 
enhance our Nation's efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Second, I have worked closely with Senator Glenn to craft legislation 
that will strengthen our Nation's nuclear nonproliferation policy. This 
has passed the Senate and House several times, and I am pleased that it 
is finally headed towards enactment.
  Finally, I would note that the conference report authorizes the 
administration's request for a supplemental appropriation of $670 
million for U.S. assessed dues for U.N. peacekeeping. Madam President, 
I firmly believe that the Congress and executive branch need to put 
U.S. financing for its U.N. obligations on a sound footing. This is a 
step in the right direction. More needs to be done. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on this in the weeks to come.
  Madam President, I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, in my role as ranking Republican on 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce-Justice-State, I rise to 
discuss several provisions of the conference report on the foreign 
Relations Authorization Act.
  First, I am pleased that the conferees accepted a modification of my 
amendment to exempt signatories to the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement from the new visa fees that are authorized in the act. The 
provision retains the exemption, but provides the Secretary of State 
with discretionary authority to impose these fees if either Canada or 
Mexico charge a visa fee to citizens of the United States.
  I would hope and expect that the State Department will only use such 
authority if if fails in attempts to persuade either Canada or Mexico 
to eliminate current or future visa fees. In my view, this authority 
should be used as a method of reducing fees that could impede cross-
border traffic, not as an excuse to impose new fees.
  In any event, I would expect the Department will not use such 
authority in the near future and that it will consult with Congress 
prior to any action in this regard.
  I want to thank Senators Pell, Kerry, Helms, and Pressler for their 
help in resolving this matter. I would also like to acknowledge the 
assistance of the chairman of the House Subcommittee on International 
Operations, Congressman Howard Berman, for his willingness to negotiate 
the terms of this compromise.
  Second, I note the conferees have included a provision withholding 10 
percent of the funds appropriated for the assessed contribution of the 
United States to the United Nations for 1994 until that organization 
has established an office of inspector general. The withholding rises 
to 20 percent in 1995.
  The conference agreement is very similar to language I included in 
the 1994 State Department Appropriations Act. That provision, enacted 
into law as part of Public Law 103-121, already requires the 
withholding of 10 percent of the funds appropriated to the United 
Nations.
  These funds can be released only upon a certification by the 
Secretary of State that the United Nations has established an 
independent office of inspector general. As a result, $29 million has 
been withheld pursuant to my amendment.
  I hope the United Nations responds positively to these provisions. It 
is essential that it regain the confidence of the American people if it 
is to maintain an adequate funding base.
  Once again, I congratulate the members of the conference committee 
for following the lead of the Appropriations Committee in the area of 
U.N. reform.
  I would like to reiterate for the Record that Senate scorekeeping 
with regard to lease-purchase agreements is the exclusive jurisdiction 
of the Committee on the Budget. I would expect that the committee will 
continue to enforce the existing lease-purchase scorekeeping rules, 
without regard to language in the statement of managers on H.R. 2333 
which suggests that special treatment should be accorded to the 
Department of State with regard to lease-purchase matters.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I am pleased to support the conference 
report on the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994 
and 1995. I want to commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Pell, and the ranking member, Senator Helms. I would 
also like to express my appreciation to Senator Kerry, who skillfully 
steered the bill through the various stages of the legislative process.
  I would like to call attention to title III of the bill, the U. S. 
International Broadcasting Act of 1994. This title reorganizes and 
consolidates all nonmilitary international broadcasting supported by 
the U.S. Government--the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio 
Liberty, Radio and TV Marti--under a single broadcasting board of 
governors, which will be responsible for supervising the operations of 
these entities.
  Also under this structure will be a new Radio Free Asia, which is 
established in this legislation. As the Senate author of this 
provision, I am particularly pleased that this idea--which I first 
began working on nearly 3 years ago--is about to come to fruition.
  In May 1991, I introduced legislation to establish a commission to 
examine whether the United States should initiate a surrogate radio 
service--on the model of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty [RFE/RL]--
for the People's Republic of China. In September 1992, the Commission 
on Broadcasting to the People's Republic of China reported its 
findings. The commission unanimously recommended that the United States 
increase its surrogate broadcasting to China and the other Communist 
nations of Asia. Although the panel divided on the best means of 
achieving that goal, the message was clear--we need to expand our 
broadcasting in Asia.
  Following the work of the commission, I introduced legislation to 
establish a Radio Free Asia, modeled on RFE/RL. The bill in the current 
Congress, S. 659, has 19 cosponsors, including the Senate majority 
leader, and the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. Its central provisions are included in the conference report 
now before the Senate.
  This initiative would not have succeeded but for the support of 
President Clinton. Although I am disappointed that the administration's 
budget request for Radio Free Asia for fiscal 1995 is only $10 million, 
I am heartened by the President's commitment to this concept.
  The proposal to establish a Radio Free Asia is based on a proven 
model--Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty--which for over four decades 
have broadcast to the nations of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet 
Union. The leaders of the new democracies in Eastern Europe--such as 
Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa--have testified to the importance of RFE/
RL in encouraging their democratic movements during the cold war. The 
radios, as they are known, heartened dissidents from Berlin to 
Bucharest, from Vilnius to Vladivostok, helping to fan the flame of 
freedom in the hearts and minds of citizens throughout the Soviet 
Empire--a flame that suddenly in 1989 became a torch and then a 
wildfire.
  A Radio Free Asia, like RFE/RL, is designed to provide accurate news 
and information to the people living under Communist and dictatorial 
rule in east Asia. Foremost among these nations is China, where one-
fifth of the world's population resides. Despite impressive economic 
liberalization in China, political freedom--including freedom of the 
press--remains under the tight control of the Communist Party. Indeed, 
it is an unchallenged fact that China severely represses press freedom. 
The State Department's annual report on human rights describes the 
situation clearly:

       Domestic television and radio broadcasting remain under 
     party and government control and are used to propagate the 
     currently acceptable ideological line.

  The extent to which the Chinese people are thus kept ignorant about 
events in their own country was placed in perspective by Liu Binyan, a 
prominent Chinese dissident now in exile in the United States, in 
testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee in 1991:

       According to an internal report of the Chinese Communist 
     Party, in the two years after the Tiananmen massacre, there 
     were more than 1,500 workers' strikes nationwide. In at least 
     five provinces, underground workers' organizations emerged. 
     There are 43 underground students' organizations in the 
     universities in Beijing alone. But the vast majority of the 
     Chinese people know nothing about all that I have just 
     mentioned.

  The situation in the other Communist countries in Asia is similarly 
repressive. Press freedom is virtually nonexistent, and the media are 
used largely as instruments of state policy.
  During the public debate on this issue over the past several years, 
numerous myths have arisen about the establishment of a Radio Free 
Asia. I want to take a few minutes to put those myths to rest.
  Myth no. 1: China is open. It is said that China's economic 
transformation has already made the Radio Free Asia proposal 
unnecessary--that China is so open and free that external broadcasting 
is not needed. This is patently false. China is indeed open to 
foreigners bringing investment. It is not open to strangers bringing 
foreign ideas.
  If China is open and free, why then does it attempt to jam the 
Chinese language broadcasts of the Voice of America and the British 
Broadcasting Corporation? If China is so open and free, why then does 
it continue to arrest leading dissidents? If China is so open and free, 
why then do thousands of political prisoners languish in its jails? If 
China is so open and free, why then do millions suffer in brutal labor 
camps?
  Just as economic liberalization, spurred by western investment, has 
reduced Beijing's role in the economy, broadcasting the truth about 
internal events in China will undermine the communist axiom that the 
state must control not only the lives of the people, but their every 
though as well. This was the strategy we pursued with the Soviet Union 
and Eastern Europe: detente through business and cultural exchange, 
dissemination of accurate news and information through radio 
broadcasts.
  Myth no. 2: Radio Free Asia will upset the Chinese. It is said that 
establishment of a Radio Free Asia will upset the Chinese Government, 
reinforcing its xenophobia tendencies. To be sure, China will be 
unhappy. But Beijing's petulance ought not to guide American policy. 
Moreover, this argument is made by people who contend--in the same 
breath--that we should increase Voice of America broadcasts. Even the 
Bush administration--well known for its zealous defense of Beijing--
increased the budget for VOA programming to China.
  Myth no. 3: There are already enough foreign broadcasts to China. It 
is said that there is already a plethora of foreign radio broadcasts to 
China, and that Radio Free Asia would be lost amid the cacophony of 
voices. This too is false. The Commission on Broadcasting to China 
examined this question closely.
  There are some 350 hours of foreign broadcasts to China each day. A 
mere 15 percent--52 hours--is in Chinese languages. Of this, more than 
half is provided by two Taiwan services, which broadcast hard line 
propaganda and disinformation. What remains is the VOA and the BBC, and 
a smattering of hours on stations such as Radio France and Radio 
Canada. Of the 350 hours of foreign broadcasts to China, the commission 
reported, ``the preponderance is related to developments outside 
China.''
  Myth no. 4: China isn't ready for democracy. It is often said that 
China is not ready for democracy. That is Confucian traditions make it 
unsuitable for democratic rule. And so on. This is not only false, it 
is an insult to the Chinese people. One need look only to Taiwan, where 
the Chinese people have dismantled an authoritarian state and are 
building a multiparty democratic structure. Or to Hong Kong, where the 
Chinese people have voted overwhelmingly for candidates committed to 
greater democracy. As Professor Andrew Nathan, a China scholar at 
Columbia University writes, ``the theme of China's backwardness as a 
limit on democracy is as old as the Chinese desire for democracy.''
  One final concern often raised about the Radio Free Asia proposal is 
that no nation in Asia will permit the United States to use 
transmission facilities for these broadcasts. This proposition has yet 
to be tested. But when it is, I fully expect the State Department and 
the U.S. Information Agency to use their best efforts in seeking 
permission to use transmission facilities. In diplomacy, the medium is 
the message. If we send a low-ranking diplomat from an embassy to carry 
out a mission, we can expect the counterpart nation to treat our 
request accordingly--as a lower priority. I do not expect that Congress 
will micromanage this process. But suffice it to say that I hope that 
senior officials from State and USIA will carry the message to our 
friends and allies.
  In closing, I want to underscore that Radio Free Asia must be a 
source of objective news and information. Accuracy must be its 
watchword. It must not be a source for propaganda. It must adhere to 
the highest standards of professional journalism. The standards and 
principles outlined in section 303 of the legislation are not 
makeweight, designed merely to fill the pages of the United States 
Code; they are designed to provide a clear mission statement for 
international broadcasting funded by the U.S. Government.
  Madam President, Radio Free Asia is but one piece of a Clinton 
administration initiative to consolidate U.S. international 
broadcasting under the umbrella of the USIA. I am gratified that after 
a year of debate and discussion, the legislation to implement the 
President's proposal--which will transform our international 
broadcasting for the long-term, post-cold-war effort to promote 
democracy and U.S. interests around the world--is nearing enactment. I 
urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, as we move to adopt the State Department 
authorization conference report, I wanted to bring two points to the 
attention of the Senate.
  First, I wanted to bring the attention of the members of this body to 
the waiver provision included in the Anti-Economic Discrimination Act 
of 1994 prohibiting sales of defense services or articles to countries 
enforcing the secondary or tertiary economic boycott of Israel. It is 
the expectation of this member, and of other members as well, that this 
waiver would be used very sparingly--if at all. If it were used, it is 
envisioned that it would only be used in instances in which a clear and 
convincing case can be made that use of the waiver will directly 
achieve progress in lifting the secondary and tertiary boycott of 
Israel. The waivers are generous so as not to tread too heavily on the 
President's ability to make foreign policy. But we expect the 
President, when and if he ever uses the waivers included in the 
legislation, to make a strong and unassailable case for their use that 
directly links the utility of his actions to ending the boycott.
  Second, concerning the language in the bill urging the President to 
send cabinet-level appointees to the Republic of China on Taiwan. The 
language of the amendment also urges the President to take ``steps to 
show clear United States support for Taiwan both in our bilateral 
relationship and in multilateral organizations of which the United 
States is a member.''
  Madam President, it is important that it be understood unequivocally 
that the members of the Conference and the members of the Senate, when 
passing this legislation, did not want simply to limit themselves to 
urging membership for the Republic of China just in the United Nations, 
or just in the GATT or just in any other particular international 
organization. But the United States is a member of all of these 
organizations. It was the intent of the authors of the amendment to put 
the Congress squarely on record behind United States support for 
bringing the Republic of China into all international organizations as 
a regular member. Specifically, that support includes membership in 
both the United Nations and in the GATT, as well as a host of other 
international organizations.
  Madam President, I would also like to thank Senator Jesse Helms, 
Chairman Pell, Senator John Kerry, and Senator Larry Pressler for their 
efforts on this important piece of legislation, and the support of 
their staffs.
  Madam President, I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

                          ____________________