[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.
____________________