[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
H.R. 4426, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which the clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4426) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995.

  The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.


               First Excepted Committee Amendment, Page 2

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question pending before the Senate is the 
first excepted committee amendment on page 2.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, would the Chair restate what the full 
unanimous consent agreement is? Actually, will the Chair restate the 
part of the unanimous-consent agreement referring to the introduction 
of amendments on this bill by a time certain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all listed 
amendments must be offered by 6 p.m., Thursday, July 14, 1994.
  Mr. LEAHY. Thank you.
  Madam President, obviously everybody has until Thursday evening at 
that time to offer an amendment. Certainly, this is not a case where we 
are asking Senators to come in and offer amendments for the sake of 
offering amendments because I am sure we would like to go forward with 
this.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the foreign operations bill 
proceeds, I intend to offer a number of amendments that address U.S. 
assistance to the New Independent States, the Baltics, and Eastern 
Europe. Several of these are amendments which are cosponsored by 
Chairman Leahy. Before we proceed, I wanted to take a few minutes to 
clarify why I feel specific congressional direction is necessary in the 
management of these resources.
  For the better part of the past year, Senator Leahy and I have worked 
with the administration to define clear goals, projects, and activities 
for the $2.5 billion NIS Program. It would be fair to say, Mr. 
President, this process has not been without its problems. But the 
administration has largely worked in good faith to address the various 
and many issues that continue to surface.
  A year into this effort, I think there are two areas where the 
programs are simply not meeting requirements, either identified in last 
year's legislation or as they have emerged over there on the ground.
  Last year, we made every effort to establish the importance of 
respect for territorial integrity and national sovereignty as criteria 
for receiving American aid. In other words, Mr. President, in last 
year's bill, there were provisions included that suggested that our 
assistance to Russia should be contingent upon Russia respecting the 
territorial integrity of the newly emerging states. That was a central 
factor in last year's foreign operations bill.
  At the time--again looking at last year--Russian troops were offering 
training, equipment, and logistical support to rebels attempting to 
overthrow the Shevardnadze government. That is what was going on as we 
debated this bill last year. The Russians were offering training, 
equipment, and logistical support to rebels attempting to overthrow the 
Shevardnadze government in Georgia. In deference to Russian interests, 
the administration essentially refused all pleas for assistance from 
the Georgians. Ultimately, in the aftermath of that, Shevardnadze had 
asked Yeltsin to call off the dogs of war, and a very tentative truce 
has been the situation since.
  Georgia is but one example of my concern about the undue and 
unchallenged Russian influence in the former Soviet Union and, for that 
matter, in Europe as well.
  In April, a secret decree signed by Yeltsin was publicized revealing 
Russian plans to establish military bases throughout that whole 
region--not just within Russia but throughout the whole region.
  As you can imagine, this was particularly disturbing to Latvia and 
Estonia, both engaged at that time in troop withdrawal talks with 
Russia. I doubt either nation was comforted by Yeltsin's declarations 
just this week at the wrap-up news conference.
  At the G-7 meeting, standing side by side, Presidents Clinton and 
Yeltsin were asked specifically about troop withdrawals from Estonia. 
Clinton predicted all troops would be withdrawn by August 31. That was 
just this week. President Yeltsin, standing right beside him at the 
press conference, when asked the same question said, and I quote: 
``This is a good question. The answer is no.''
  In other words, President Clinton said the troops would be out by 
August 31, and President Yeltsin, standing right beside him at the same 
press conference, said they will not be out by August 31.
  It is my intention to address the situation in the Baltics and 
Central Europe with specific amendments. I think the security concerns 
of Russia's neighbors merit both our attention and appropriate 
response.
  The second area where there are shortcomings in the administration's 
strategy bear on the future of economic reforms and market principles. 
Here, again, last year's legislation linked U.S. aid to establishing 
economic reforms, market principles, respect for commercial contracts, 
and repayment of commercial debt.
  The administration has emphasized mass privatization and points to 
the fact that more than 15,000 enterprises have been transferred from 
State to private hands.
  Now, at first blush, Mr. President, these are impressive statistics. 
However, in a series of briefings, several problems have emerged, the 
chief one being there is essentially no monitoring system in place to 
evaluate this privatization process. No one really knows who now owns 
these businesses. No one is willing or able to answer the question: 
Have we created a system which facilitates criminal organizations' 
opportunity for ownership? A very important question.
  It is also clear that we are only in the first stages of 
privatization in that the state continues to subsidize operations by 
offering a range of services from free utilities to providing equipment 
and parts. So even though these may be by some definition private 
enterprises, they are still receiving substantial subsidies from the 
government.
  Now, the effort to privatize is obviously essential to further 
economic growth, and we all hope it will succeed. But the program seems 
to be operating in a vacuum, without adequate official attention to the 
legal and commercial framework necessary to sustain the private sector. 
The serious crime problems Senator Leahy and I observed in Moscow last 
summer are now threatening prospects for continued reforms. Crime and 
corruption may risk an antimarket and an antidemocracy backlash which 
does not serve either United States or Russian interests.
  For this reason, I plan to offer a number of amendments which address 
commercial law and law enforcement matters. This assistance and focus 
is long overdue.
  And I might say, Mr. President, just this morning I spoke with the 
FBI Director, Judge Freeh, about his present trip not only to Russia 
but to the Ukraine and other countries in the area, including the 
former Warsaw Pact countries, about the extent of the criminal problem 
in Russia. We may have a crime problem here, but it pales in 
comparison, Mr. President, to the crime problem inside Russia.
  A number of these organized criminal organizations operate not only 
within Russia but in other countries, not only in that area but some 
operating here in the United States. So the Russians have an enormous 
problem with crime, almost a meltdown situation. This is something that 
we probably cannot have an enormous impact on, but we need to help. I 
commend the Director of the FBI for the effort he is making, and I will 
have a couple of amendments that will help assist him in that process.
  Mr. President, this is clearly a transition year for Russia and for 
the Republics. We have scaled back direct U.S. aid with the hope that 
the emerging private sector will take off and generate jobs, income, 
growth, and economic security.
  I continue to being committed to seeing this historic transition 
through to a successful conclusion. My choosing to attempt to earmark 
and target aid reflects my continued interest in assuring that the 
program succeeds.
  My differences with the administration, although strong, are a matter 
of emphasis and priority and should not be confused as a lack of 
support for Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, or any of the other 
nations in that particular area of the world as they seek independence 
and prosperity.
  Let me conclude my opening statement by expressing my appreciation to 
the Administrator of AID who has recognized the interest of the 
subcommittee in this region and has agreed to provide supplementary 
presentation materials for the fiscal 1995 budget cycle. Mr. Atwood has 
brought about significant changes in the management of foreign 
assistance which has increased the confidence of this Senator and I 
think many others in his Agency and in his activities.
  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. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. LEAHY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished senior Senator 
from South Carolina is seeking recognition. If we could have just one 
moment, I have a couple of housekeeping things that I mentioned to him 
I wanted to take care of.


                    Amendment No. 2125, As Modified

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
2125, which was previously agreed to, be modified. I send the 
modification to the desk and ask the modification be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2125), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:


               prohibition on payment of certain expenses

       Sec.  . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act under the heading ``International 
     Military Education and Training'' or ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'' for Informational Program activities may 
     be obligated or expended to pay for--
       (1) alcoholic beverages;
       (2) food (other than food provided at a military 
     installation) not provided in conjunction with Informational 
     Program trips where students do not stay at a military 
     installation; or
       (3) entertainment expenses for activities that are 
     substantially of a recreational character, including entrance 
     fees at sporting events and amusement parks.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendments be set aside so that I may offer the following 
technical amendments, and that they be agreed to and they be considered 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2238

          (Purpose: To make technical corrections to the bill)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send the amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The bill clerk read as follows

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2238.

  Mr. LEAHY. 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:

       On page 89, line 12 of the Committee reported bill, strike 
     ``in'' and all that follows through ``Act'' on line 16 and 
     insert in lieu thereof:
       On page 99, line 11 of the committee reported bill, after 
     ``country.'' insert: ``The authority provided by subsection 
     (a) may be exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.''
       On page 10, line 1 of the Committee reported bill, after 
     the word ``activities'' insert: ``notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe these amendments have been agreed 
to on both sides.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We have taken a look at these amendments Mr. 
President, and they are fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2238) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have both managers of the bill on the 
floor now. I know the Senator from South Carolina is seeking 
recognition. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] 
is recognized.


Amendment No. 2239 to the First Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 2, 
                          Lines 12 through 21.

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding creation of the 
   World Trade Organization and implementation of the Uruguay Round 
                              Agreements)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for himself 
     and Mr. Pressler, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Craig, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2239 to the first excepted committee 
     amendment on page 2, lines 12 through 21.

  Mr. THURMOND. 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:

       To the first committee amendment, at the end of the 
     amendment insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON URUGUAY ROUND IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) the United States recently signed the Uruguay Round 
     Agreement which included among its provisions the 
     establishment of a new supranational governing body known as 
     the World Trade Organization (hereafter in this section 
     referred to as the ``WTO'').
       (2) The legislation approving fast track authority and 
     giving the executive branch negotiators specific objectives 
     did not authorize the elimination of the current General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade structure and the creation of 
     a new, more powerful world-governing institution.
       (3) The Congress has the constitutional prerogative to 
     regulate foreign commerce and may be ceding such authority to 
     the WTO.
       (4) The initial membership of the WTO is 117 nations. The 
     United States will have only one vote and no veto rights in 
     the WTO.
       (5) The single vote structure will give the European Union 
     the capacity to out vote the United States 12 to 1. It will 
     also give the island nation of St. Kitts, with a population 
     of 60,000, the same voting power as the United States.
       (6) The United States will have less than 1 percent of the 
     total vote, but will be assessed almost 20 percent of the 
     total cost of operating the WTO.
       (7) The one vote-no veto structure of the WTO will increase 
     the power of nations, which are not democracies and do not 
     share our Nation's traditional notions of capitalism and 
     freedom.
       (8) Any United States law can be challenged by a WTO member 
     as an illegal trade barrier and such challenge will be heard 
     by a closed tribunal of 3 trade lawyers.
       (9) The United States must eliminate any law that a WTO 
     tribunal finds to be in conflict with the trade rules of the 
     WTO or the United States will face severe trade sanctions.
       (10) The WTO would effectively set the parameters within 
     which United States Federal, State, and local legislators can 
     maintain or establish domestic policy on the broad array of 
     issues covered under the nontariff provisions of the WTO.
       (11) State officials have no standing before WTO tribunals 
     even if a State law is challenged as an illegal trade 
     barrier.
       (12) The WTO would require the United States Federal 
     Government to preempt, sue, or otherwise coerce States into 
     following the WTO trade rules which the States did not 
     negotiate and to which they are not a legal party.
       (13) The Attorneys General from 42 States have signed a 
     letter to the President expressing their concern over States 
     rights under the WTO and have asked for a summit to 
     discuss these issues.
       (14) WTO decisions could result in shifts in State and 
     local tax burdens from foreign multi-national corporations to 
     American businesses, farmers, and homeowners.
       (15) Under pay-as-you-go budget rules, the revenue losses 
     from tariff reductions must be offset over a 10-year period.
       (16) The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
     such tariff reductions will cost approximately 
     $40,000,000,000.
       (17) When the United States joined other supranational 
     governing bodies, the United States retained rational 
     precautions, such as a permanent seat on the Security Council 
     and veto rights in the United Nations, and a voting share in 
     the International Monetary Fund that is commensurate with its 
     role in the global economy.
       (18) The WTO Agreement prohibits unilateral action by the 
     United States including action against predatory and unfair 
     trade actions of other member nations.
       (19) The dispute settlement mechanisms to be used by the 
     WTO will be conducted in secret and in a manner that is not 
     consistent with the guarantees of judicial impartiality and 
     due process which characterize the United States judicial 
     tradition.
       (20) The WTO Agreement is already resulting in substantial 
     changes and erosion of existing United States law.
       (21) Neither the United States Congress nor the American 
     people have had an opportunity to analyze and debate the 
     long-term impact of United States membership in the WTO.
       (22) Traditionally the United States has entered into 
     international obligations that impact on domestic sovereignty 
     and law and that have the legal stature and permanence that 
     the WTO has, by using treaty ratification procedures.
       (23) The United States Senate rejected, on sovereignty 
     grounds, executive branch attempts to secure ratification of 
     a similar supranational organization known as the 
     International Trade Organization when it was offered 
     repeatedly between 1947 and 1950. The Organization for Trade 
     Cooperation was rejected by the Senate in 1955.
       (24) Under the rules of fast track, the United States 
     Senate cannot change or amend provisions creating the WTO and 
     is limited to 20 hours of debate.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Senate that--
       (1) a task force composed of members of Congress and the 
     executive branch be established to study and report to the 
     Congress and the President within 90 days on whether the 
     provisions creating the World Trade Organization should be 
     treated as a treaty or an executive agreement, and
       (2) a 90-day period be allowed before the introduction of 
     the Uruguay Round implementation legislation and that during 
     that period additional Congressional hearings be held to 
     consider the full ramifications of the United States joining 
     the WTO, including the impact that joining the WTO will have 
     on State and local laws.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today, along with the Senator 
from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Helms], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], to introduce a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution concerning the Uruguay round of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. This resolution outlines several 
concerns that many members have with the final text of the GATT.
  As the clerk has just read, many of these concerns regard the 
creation of the new world trade governing organization called the World 
Trade Organization [WTO]. The WTO is intended to be the arbitrator of 
trade disputes between signatory countries. The WTO has two main 
components: the ministerial conference and the general council. The 
ministerial conference will meet every 2 years and will receive 
decisions on matters covered by trade agreements. The general council 
will govern the WTO on a daily basis. Also established under the 
general council are several committees to review and make 
recommendations on more specific issues such as balance of payments, 
dispute settlements, and specific sectors of trade.
  The dispute settlement body, which is established under the direction 
of the general council, will be the ultimate arbitrator of trade 
disputes. The decisions handed down by the WTO will be voted on by the 
member countries. Each country gets one vote and, except for some 
cases, a majority vote rules. While the WTO has been described as a 
United Nations of trade, the United States will not have veto power 
over its decisions. All decisions are final.
  The United States will have four choices of action if the WTO rules 
against our country. We can either: First, leave the WTO; second, pay 
tariff penalties to other countries; third, not enforce our domestic 
laws; or fourth, change our laws to comply with the WTO ruling. Most of 
the Federal, State, and local laws that would be contested have been 
enacted to protect our workers and our environment. I fail to say why 
we need a new supranational organization to control trade.
  Mr. President, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 
which outlined the overall objectives of our trade negotiations, there 
is no mention of creating a world governing body to administer trade 
disputes.
  Mr. President, I would like to read the article titled ``U.S. Mustn't 
Dawdle on the Trade Pact'' from the International Herald Tribune as 
written on April 26, 1994. It reads:

       Now that the world's biggest-ever trade agreement has been 
     signed and sealed in Marrakesh, it is time to get it through 
     the U.S. Congress, and the sooner the better.
       Already some dangerous ideas about the trade pact are afoot 
     on Capitol Hill. the longer the agreement remains unratified, 
     the more vulnerable it will be to protectionist pressures.
       Administration officials insist they will do everything 
     necessary to ratify the pact, the fruit of seven years of 
     arduous negotiations in the Uruguay Round. They say that 
     President Bill Clinton is fully committed to the cause.
       But it is not clear the administration has learned the 
     lessons of last year's near fiasco over the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement, saved only by a bout of last-minute 
     political arm-wrestling by Mr. Clinton.
       The administration's biggest mistake over NAFTA was 
     complacency--underestimating the opposition and leaving its 
     drive to win approval far too late. As a result, last-minute 
     waverers squeezed a lot of promises out of Mr. Clinton that 
     he would have been better off not making.
       This time there is much less organized opposition, but that 
     could change as November's mid-term elections draw closer.
       Congress is by no means yet committed to the Uruguay Round 
     and its schedule is already overloaded. The committees 
     responsible for the trade pact also happen to have 
     jurisdiction over the two biggest pending items of domestic 
     legislation--health care and welfare reform.
       Some major misconceptions need to be nipped in the bud. One 
     is that it does not matter if the implementing legislation is 
     put off until next year.
       Yes, it does. Delay will increase the chances of the pact 
     being blown off course--perhaps by a major new trade dispute 
     with Japan, China or even Canada.
       Another mistaken impression is that the agreement can still 
     be changed. Many Republicans think they can tighten up lax 
     rules on subsidies, while some in both parties are demanding 
     greater scope for unilateral U.S. action.
       The House Republican whip, Newt Gingrich, even wants to cut 
     out the part of the agreement establishing the World Trade 
     Organization, which he regards as a sinister organ of world 
     government that will ride roughshod over American interests.
       But U.S. agreement to the World Trade Organization was an 
     integral part of the Uruguay Round compromise. There is no 
     way of reopening the negotiations now. Under the fast-track 
     procedure in force for the treaty, Congress must in any case 
     vote `yes' or `no' on the whole pact at once.
       It is true the WTO means a loss of congressional 
     sovereignty. But that will be no bad thing if it clips the 
     wings of Capitol Hill's powerful protectionists. It will 
     actually be good for the United States to be overruled by the 
     world organization when Washington tries to take politically 
     motivated action against other countries' exports.
       Where the debate enters the world of Alice in Wonderland is 
     when it gets to how to pay for it all.
       Under U.S. budgetary rules agreed in 1990, Congress must 
     find ways to offset the revenue lost from the Uruguay Round 
     tariff cuts, which could amount to nearly $14 billion over 
     five years or perhaps $40 billion over 10 years.

  Mr. President, I want to repeat that. I would like the able Senator 
from Kentucky to especially hear this.

       Under U.S. budgetary rules agreed in 1990, Congress must 
     find ways to offset the revenue lost from the Uruguay Round 
     tariff cuts, which could amount to nearly $14 billion over 
     five years or perhaps $40 billion over 10 years.
       With the elections approaching, nobody wants to propose new 
     taxes or spending cuts to bridge the gap. But nor does anyone 
     want to suggest a waiver from the rules and set a precedent 
     that opponents might exploit later on--the Democrats for 
     health care or the Republicans for cuts in the capital gains 
     tax.
       The whole thing is absurd. In the next five years the 
     government is likely to collect about $3 in revenue for every 
     $1 lost in tariffs, because of vastly increased trade.
       It is ridiculous to impose a budgetary penalty for freer 
     trade, which pays for itself many times over. Congress should 
     be brave enough to admit it has made a mistake and exempt 
     trade agreements from the rules.
       The main thing for Congress to remember is that agreements 
     to open up world trade are never perfect, but the United 
     States has always benefited from them.
       Mr. Clinton should remember that his decisive support for 
     NAFTA won top marks even from his critics as the high point 
     of his first year in office. It is time for a repeat 
     performance--preferably without the cliff-hanging finale.

  Let me also read from the European Commission background brief on the 
Uruguay round. It states, ``The agreement on the WTO also contains a 
binding clause which requires members to bring their national 
legislation in line with the agreements that are part of the WTO 
structure.'' Mr. President, while creating an international 
bureaucracy, this agreement is also restricting the ability of Congress 
to do its constitutional duty. Further, let me quote from a statement 
by Peter Sutherland, Director General of GATT, Reuters, on June 16, 
1994: It reads:

       (Peter Sutherland) hit out at countries that saw the right 
     to reject GATT rulings as a sovereign prerogative. ``What 
     this amounts to is a country choosing to be above the law 
     whenever it is inconvenient to observe the law,'' he said, 
     and this opinion would not be open to countries under the 
     WTO.

  Using the term ``law'' to describe the workings of the WTO, implies 
to me that the ability of the United States to make its own laws and 
rules will be severely altered.
  Mr. President, one argument used by the administration to justify the 
WTO is to argue that other countries would not impose harsh penalties 
against the United States since we have such a lucrative marketplace. 
However, I do not think any of us can really be sure how the developing 
nations of the world, which account for 83 percent of the WTO 
membership, will vote when a situation arises.
  Mr. President, I am not asking that my colleagues rethink their 
philosophy on trade. However, we should be examining the agreement to 
see if all that is promised will be forthcoming. It seems to me that 
the benefits of this agreement are dubious.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just want to say to the distinguished 
senior Senator from South Carolina, it is my understanding what he is 
groping for here is that we attempt to learn a little more about what 
the WTO is all about and what kind of impact it may have on us 
internally; is that essentially it?
  Mr. THURMOND. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I went recently to a session on the WTO, and I think 
all of us would like to learn a little more about how it is supposed to 
function in the context of the GATT. As I understand the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, it seems to me it would 
assist us in learning more about the potential for the WTO as it 
relates to our own domestic governance.
  I want to commend the Senator for his amendment. As I understand it, 
I think it is very good.
  Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator very much. I deeply appreciate that 
from the able Senator from Kentucky, the manager of this bill.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I too share many concerns on the law 
enforcement aspects and what is happening in Russia and other parts of 
the former Soviet Union. I met with Director Freeh prior to his trip, a 
historic trip actually, that he took recently. In fact, I highly 
commend FBI Director Freeh for what he did and actually for the hope 
that he brought with him and the response he got.
  I told him prior to his leaving that I intended to make sure that 
this bill would have within it significant amounts of money to be used 
for law enforcement and that it would be available for him. And Senator 
McConnell, myself, Senator D'Amato, and others are going to assure that 
is in there. We are not going to have a situation where people are 
going to invest in Russia or other parts of the former Soviet Union if 
they think they are trying to invest in an area that is something akin 
to a wild West scenario.
  I mentioned when this bill was first in the Chamber the problem of 
shooting and even hand grenades being tossed around in Moscow. The 
story I told at that time was somebody pulling up in an expensive 
imported car, jumping out of it, starting to machine gun an office on 
the ground floor, until the secretary opened the filing drawer, took a 
hand grenade out of the filing drawer, pulled the pin, rolled it 
under--pulled the pin out of the hand grenade and rolled it right under 
the car that was out there.
  Now, this is kind of exciting, of course, but probably is not 
conducive to a good work ethic. And we will try to help in that regard.
  Let me speak to the amendment that has been offered by the 
distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina.
  There is a certain law of physics--I think it goes beyond anything 
Newton was aware of--which comes into play during the foreign 
operations bill. It is a new form of magnetism. It is little studied 
but well understood. It seems that when this bill comes up, it is like 
a magnet. It is pulling amendments out of the air that defy all laws of 
physics--and I might say Jefferson's manual--that have nothing to do 
with this bill.
  Now, this is an appropriations bill. This is not a Finance Committee 
bill. It is not a trade bill. It is not GATT implementing legislation. 
And the amendment on GATT does not have anything to do with this bill. 
It is a Finance Committee issue. In fact, the Finance Committee has not 
even seen this amendment. They will have implementing legislation for 
GATT just as my own committee on agriculture will look, at some point 
when we get an opportunity in the fullness of time, at GATT 
implementing legislation. That is the place to bring up these kinds of 
matters. I cannot imagine that the distinguished chairman of the 
Finance Committee would want to see this legislation coming forward on 
an appropriations bill any more than I in my capacity as chairman of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee would want to see such authorizing 
legislation on an appropriations bill.
  So I hope that he does not go forward with it. The GATT is really of 
great interest to all Senators, of course. But it is also a contentious 
issue.
  Now, this amendment would call for another 90 days before the Uruguay 
round legislation could be introduced. In effect, of course, it kills 
any GATT for this year. I can assure Senators this is an issue that 
would not survive conference. There is no way, if this is on the 
foreign aid bill, the foreign aid bill could come out of conference. It 
just would not happen. We could, for those who are interested in 
particular earmarks in the foreign aid bill, say bye-bye earmarks 
because if this is on the bill we are not going to be able to 
conference this bill, and I suspect at some point we will have, which 
may be good policy, an unearmarked, scaled-down, continuing resolution 
and nothing would be done with GATT. If you want to do something on 
this, argue it before the authorizing committees implementing 
legislation on GATT.
  I think that what we would like to do is accommodate of course what 
the Senator wants. He wants to know more about the World Trade 
Organization. There are going to be hearings on that. If he would like 
to go to those hearings, I suspect that the appropriate committees 
would be delighted to have him testify before the committees. Certainly 
every one of them can study it. We do not need a 19-day delay to do it 
nor do we need this bill to be destroyed to do it.
  If nobody else is prepared to speak on this, I suppose we could go to 
a vote on it very soon.


                         the eurasia foundation

  Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the Eurasia 
Foundation, a privately managed, small-grant making organization funded 
through our program of assistance to the New Independent States of the 
former Soviet Union. The Foundation supports public sector reform and 
private sector development through technical assistance, training and 
education grants to nonprofit organizations in the former Soviet Union, 
and to U.S. nonprofits with partners there.
  The Foundation's success can be attributed to its unique approach. By 
awarding small grants, usually between $50,000 to $75,000, and relying 
on the input of local nonprofits and field staff who understand the 
situation on the ground, the Foundation is able to respond quickly and 
effectively to changing needs in the NIS. Another benefit of this 
flexible, grass roots approach is the ability for U.S. assistance to be 
delivered by a wide range of diverse organizations.
  This program does not finance consultants to do prefeasibility 
studies, following by feasibility studies, which lead to more studies. 
These are grants made to local groups with the expertise to provided 
hands on assistance and produce tangible results. Eurasia Foundation 
grants have supported training in management techniques and market 
economics. They have provided technical assistance to establish 
surveying and mapping systems to assist land privatization. Another 
grant supported an ecology information center and press offices.
  Mr. President, I have heard that AID is considering scaling back its 
original plans to fund the Eurasia Foundation at $75 million over 4 
years. If true, this concerns me. The Eurasia Foundation is one of the 
more promising programs we are funding in the NIS. From what I have 
heard, the Eurasia Foundation could serve as a model for other 
programs.
  I realize, of course, that the foreign aid program faces tight budget 
pressures. The amount of assistance we are recommending for the NIS in 
fiscal year 1995 is significantly less than in fiscal year 1994. 
However, before any decision is made to cut funding for a successful 
program like the Eurasia Foundation, I would expect AID to consult with 
the Appropriations Committee.


                       the summit of the americas

  Mr. President, this December, an important event will take place in 
Miami, FL, which should be of interest to all senators. On December 9 
and 10, President Clinton will host the first meeting of democratically 
elected leaders in the Western Hemisphere. It is the first summit of 
its kind in over a generation, and it is intended to follow up on the 
signing of the NAFTA Treaty with Mexico which created the world's 
largest free trade zone.
  While Presidential summits are often long on photo ops and self-
congratulatory press releases and short on substance, I am hopeful that 
this summit will produce significant results. By bringing Western 
Hemisphere heads of state together, many for the first time, there will 
be an opportunity to begin to build secure relationships which can 
advance common interests. The discussions will focus on ways to 
stabilize democracy, promote greater trade and investment, and support 
sustainable development.
  This summit is on enormous importance to all the countries in he 
hemisphere. It is no secret that relations between the United States 
and our southern neighbors have not always been easy. For much of this 
century we treated the Central American countries as virtual colonies. 
Banana republics, we called them. In recent years we were involved 
militarily in bloody conflicts in Nicaragua and El Salvador that deeply 
divided the Congress and the American people. The concern we all have 
about the possible use of U.S. troops in Haiti is but one reflection of 
this uneasy history.
  Yet even during this period, there was progress toward democracy and 
free enterprise in Latin America, and with the recent peace agreement 
in El Salvador and the possibility of a settlement of the conflict in 
Guatemala, we seem to be entering a new ear. For perhaps the first time 
in history, we can look forward to a period of peace, of strengthening 
democracy, and of building stronger economic ties that benefit both 
North and South America.
  In the long run the United States and the region cold benefit 
enormously from achieving the goals of this summit. Democracies tend 
not to attack one another. Political stability is the key to economic 
growth. United States exports to the region have more than doubled in 
the past 7 years, and they will continue to rise. This in turn has 
created thousands of jobs for Americans. As NAFTA is extended, I 
believe it will be, the prospects for stronger economic ties will 
greatly increase.
  From the very beginning, this has been a cooperative effort. Vice 
President Gore traveled to Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico at 
the end of March to lay the groundwork for the conference. President 
Clinton has been in touch with his counterparts to develop a productive 
schedule for the summit. The Organization of American States and the 
InterAmerican Development Bank have been included in these 
preparations, and there have been consultations with the business 
community and nongovernmental organizations from Latin America and the 
United States to get their input. NGO's have traditionally been either 
ignored or harassed by Latin governments who have often regarded the 
NGO's with suspicion, as a threat to government authority and control. 
This summit is an opportunity to demonstrate the important role NGO's 
can play in building democracy, and in addressing many of the most 
acute problems these countries face.

  Mr. President, this historic event, the largest gathering of 
democratically-elected leaders that the United States has ever hosted, 
deserves our attention and support. Having said that, I will end with a 
warning. Promoting democracy is a central theme of this summit, which 
is why Cuba and Haiti have not been invited to send representatives. 
However, the Dominican Republic recently held an election was marred by 
irregularities. International observers have yet to certify that it was 
a fair election. There is reason to believe that the party of the 
winning candidate, President Balaguer, engaged in widespread fraud 
which could have affected the result. I do not know whether, in the 
final analysis, the election will be ruled fair or not. But we do not 
want to implicitly ratify a stolen election, it that is what this was. 
The Dominican Republic should be invited to participate in the summit 
only if there has been a credible finding that the election was fair.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to add my support to an 
amendment offered by Senator Thurmond and to voice my growing concern 
about the Uruguay round agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade and the General Agreement on Trade in Services.
  The amendment raises a number of concerns about a provision in the 
Uruguay round which would establish an international entity which is 
referred to as the World Trade Organization. This amendment, which is a 
nonbinding resolution, states that it is the sense of the Senate that a 
joint Senate administration commission should be convened to perform a 
90-day blue ribbon panel report on whether or not the World Trade 
Organization should be considered as a treaty rather than an Executive 
agreement. It also requests further hearings, both in Washington, DC, 
and in the field so that the ramifications of the World Trade 
Organization can be fully examined and understood.
  Mr. President, let me be very clear. This amendment does not make the 
GATT agreement a dead-on-arrival agreement. It simply reflects, I 
think, the importance of the agreement and the need to fully understand 
the development of a new international organization prior to our 
country's acceptance of this agreement.
  The World Trade Organization is not a minor change to the structure 
of the GATT. It creates an entity that is, to me, more than an 
international organization. Rather, it is a regime with powers that are 
structurally stronger than those of the United Nations.
  Mr. President, when forming the United Nations, very special care was 
taken to ensure that the United States would have both veto power and a 
permanent seat on the Security Council. However, it is apparent that no 
such effort has been made with regard to the World Trade Organization. 
In the WTO, the United States could be outvoted by a small coalition of 
a handful of any given number of nations, regardless of their overall 
size, population, geographic size, their contribution to world trade 
itself, their funding contribution to the organization, or their 
commitment to fair trade and democracy.
  The World Trade Organization would initially consist of a diverse 
coalition of 117 nations. Each member nation of the WTO, including the 
United States, would have one vote in resolving trade disputes under 
the auspices of the two agreements, the GATT and the GATS.
  The World Trade Organization would vote on amendments and 
interpretations of GATT provisions. Again, Mr. President, the United 
States would be only 1 of 117 votes. Therefore, we could easily be 
outvoted by Third World countries of the World Trade Organization, as 
often happens in the United Nations. We have the history of the United 
Nations to demonstrate that that can clearly occur.
  Another point of frustration is that we will be paying 20 percent of 
the World Trade Organization budget with a voice behind it of only one 
vote. Under the GATT, as it currently exists, the United States has 
veto power and can block a panel decision by denying the necessary 
consensus to adopt the panel's decision. Consensus is also replaced in 
the World Trade Organization with the following agreements: A two-
thirds vote to amend the World Trade Organization, a three-fourths vote 
to impose an amendment on parties and to adopt the interpretation of 
World Trade Organization provisions.
  There have been previous attempts to establish a supranational body 
to cover trade relations and dispute settlements. In other words, Mr. 
President, this is not the first time these concerns and ideas have 
been expressed on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  There have been previous attempts to establish, as I mentioned, these 
supra-national organizations. The fear of granting broad authority over 
our trade rules to a mostly foreign entity led to the repeated 
rejection by the Senate of the International Trade Organization between 
1947 and 1950, and a similar body known as the Organization for Trade 
Cooperation in 1955.
  Under the interstate and foreign commerce clauses of the 
Constitution, States cannot discriminate against foreign businesses, 
including the application of State tax law. Therefore, under the GATT 
currently, the failure of a State to comply with these provisions would 
result in a U.S. court action where the parties involved would be able 
to receive fair and open redress of their complaints. The dispute 
settlement mechanism included in the Uruguay round agreement, on the 
other hand, would require such matters involving State tax policy and 
foreign businesses to be brought before the World Trade Organization 
itself.
  It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the World Trade 
Organization dispute settlement panel can meet in secret and need not 
consider U.S. constitutional standards nor follow the constraints of 
U.S. jurisprudence. This is a serious concern, and it must be clarified 
before this agreement is brought to the Senate floor for ratification.
  It is also my understanding that no individual U.S. State government 
is guaranteed representation on the World Trade Organization's dispute 
panel, and the United States cannot reject a World Trade Organization 
dispute panel mandate without facing foreign retaliation and trade 
penalties enforced by the World Trade Organization. This may be a worse 
case scenario, but if it is a scenario that could occur under the World 
Trade Organization, then that provision in the Uruguay round agreement 
must be changed.
  In short, Mr. President, States rights must be protected at all 
costs.
  We said it in 1947 in a similar debate. We said it again in 1955, and 
I would hope that the U.S. Senate would confirm the Thurmond amendment 
which would examine and clarify those most important issues.
  Our Nation's Founders, in framing the Constitution, and in the 
development of our Federal system, never intended that a State 
relinquish the development and enforcement of its tax policy to a 
foreign entity like the World Trade Organization.
  It is my understanding that many States have expressed serious 
concerns over these provisions of GATT and GATS.
  A letter, signed by 42 attorneys general, including Idaho's Attorney 
General Larry Echohawk, expresses the concerns of our States. It also 
requests a summit with Federal officials to review States rights 
issues.
  Mr. President, the attorneys general of the States of our Nation are 
now requesting of our Government that a similar summit be held, and 
this similar summit has been included in the Thurmond amendment we are 
now offering today.
  Let me share with you, Mr. President, what this letter says, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter from the States 
Attorneys General be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         State of Maine, Department of the Attorney General,
                                        Augusta, ME, July 6, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: As defenders of State laws, State 
     Attorneys General have a particularly keen interest in State 
     sovereignty. The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which is to be submitted to 
     Congress under fast-track authority soon, appears to have 
     broad implications for State self-government. Given the 
     paramount importance that the U.S. Constitution assigns to 
     State's rights, we would like to request a State-Federal 
     Consultation Summit on this issue, to be held in July or 
     August, before the Administration submits implementing 
     legislation. Although we have agreed to take the lead on this 
     issue, because it affects all State officials, an invitation 
     would be extended to State executive and legislative branches 
     as well.
       We are requesting a Summit to give State officials the 
     benefit of a thorough airing of concerns about how the 
     Uruguay Round and the proposed World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     would affect State laws and regulations. Many State officials 
     still have questions about how some of our State laws and 
     regulations would fare under the WTO and its dispute 
     resolution panels. This is of particular concern given that 
     some of our trading partners have apparently identified 
     specific State laws which they intend to challenge under the 
     WTO.
       As you know, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office (USTR) 
     is charged with an interesting set of responsibilities. On 
     one hand, its primary responsibility is to promote U.S. 
     exports and international trade. Yet, one the other hand, the 
     Trade Representative's Office is charged with the 
     responsibility of protecting State sovereignty and defending 
     any State law challenged in the various international dispute 
     tribunals. Given the inevitable conflict in fulfilling both 
     sets of these responsibilities, we would like to take 
     advantage of the proposed Summit to clarify a range of 
     serious concerns, including:
       Whether the implementing legislation adequately guarantees 
     States that the federal government will genuinely consider 
     accepting trade sanctions rather than pressuring States to 
     change State laws which are successfully challenged in the 
     WTO.
       Whether States have a guaranteed right and a formalized 
     process in which they can participate in defending their own 
     State laws.
       Whether the USTR is required to engage in regular 
     consultation with the States, and involve any State whose 
     measures may be challenged in the defense of that measure at 
     the earliest possible opportunity.
       Whether parties challenging a State measure under GATT will 
     be able to prevail based on the fact that one State is simply 
     more or less restrictive than another State's.
       Whether GATT grants any private party a right of action to 
     challenge a State law in federal court.
       Whether an adverse WTO panel decision can be interpreted as 
     the foreign policy of the United States without the 
     subsequent ratification of the Congress and the President.
       Whether GATT panel reports and any information submitted by 
     the States to the USTR during the reservation process are 
     admissible as evidence in any federal court proceeding.
       Whether a panel decision purporting to overturn State law 
     shall be implemented only prospectively.
       Whether the federal government may sue a State and 
     challenge a State measure under GATT without an adverse WTO 
     panel decision.
       How will adverse WTO panel decisions impact State laws 
     covering pesticide residues, food quality, environmental 
     policy including recycling, or consumer health safety, where 
     State standards are more stringent than federal or 
     international standards.
       Whether so-called ``unitary taxation,'' which assesses the 
     State taxes corporations pay on the basis of a corporation's 
     worldwide operations, be illegal under GATT.
       Whether States may maintain public procurement laws that 
     favor in-State business in bidding for public contracts.
       How well protected is a State law if it is included within 
     the coverage of U.S. reservations to new GATT agreements.
       Whether the United States can import some due process 
     guarantees into the WTO dispute resolution system, now that 
     the negotiations are over, the WTO panel proceedings remain 
     closed and documents confidential.
       In responding to our request for this GATT Summit, please 
     have staff contact Christine T. Milliken, Executive Director 
     and General Counsel of the National Association of Attorneys 
     General, at (202) 434-8053. Although the Association has 
     taken no formal position on this issue, the Association 
     provides liaison service upon request when fifteen or more 
     Attorneys General express an interest in a key subject.
       Further, the Association through action at its recent 
     Summer Meeting has instructed staff to develop in concert 
     with the Office of U.S. Trade Representative an ongoing 
     mechanism for consultation. The Association participates in 
     several federal-state work groups, principally with the U.S. 
     Department of Justice and also with the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency that might serve as a starting point for 
     developing a model for an effective ongoing dialogue with the 
     USTR on emerging issues in this key area.
           Respectfully yours,
                                             Michael E. Carpenter,
                                        Attorney General of Maine.
       The following attorneys general signed the letter:
       Alabama: Jimmy Evans.
       Alaska: Bruce M. Botelho.
       Arizona: Grant Woods.
       Colorado: Gale A. Norton.
       Connecticut: Richard Blumenthal.
       Delaware: Charles M. Oberly, III.
       Florida: Robert A. Butterworth.
       Hawaii: Robert A. Marks.
       Idaho: Larry EchoHawk.
       Illinois: Roland W. Burris.
       Indiana: Pamela Fanning Carter.
       Iowa: Bonnie J. Campbell.
       Kansas: Robert T. Stephan.
       Kentucky: Chris Gorman.
       Maine: Michael Carpenter.
       Maryland: J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
       Massachusetts: Scott Harshbarger.
       Michigan: Frank J. Kelley.
       Minnesota: Hubert H. Humphrey, III.
       Mississippi: Mike Moore.
       Missouri: Jeremiah W. Nixon.
       Montana: Jospeh F. Mazurek.
       Nevada: Frankie Sue Del Papa.
       New Hampshire: Jeffrey R. Howard.
       New Jersey: Deborah T. Poritz.
       New Mexico: Tom Udall.
       New York: G. Oliver Koppell.
       North Carolina: Micheal F. Easley.
       North Dakota: Heidi Heitkamp.
       Northern Mariana Islands: Richard Weil.
       Ohio: Lee Fisher.
       Oregon: Theodore R. Kulongoski.
       Pennsylvania: Ernest D. Preate, Jr.
       Puerto Rico: Pedro R. Pierluisi.
       Rhode Island: Jeffrey B. Pine.
       South Carolina: T. Travis Medlock.
       Tennessee: Charles W. Burson.
       Texas: Dan Morales.
       Utah: Jan Graham.
       Vermont: Jeffrey L. Amestoy.
       Virginia: James S. Gilmore, III.
       Washington: Christine O. Gregoire.
       West Virginia: Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.
       Wyoming: Joseph B. Meyer.

  Mr. CRAIG. I will read only the first paragraph. It says:

       As defenders of State laws, State Attorneys General have a 
     particularly keen interest in State sovereignty. The Uruguay 
     Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 
     which is expected to be submitted to Congress under fast-
     track authority soon, appears to have broad implications for 
     State self-government. Given the paramount importance that 
     the U.S. constitution assigns to State's rights, we would 
     like to request a State-Federal Consultation Summit on this 
     issue, to be held in July or August, before the 
     Administration submits implementing legislation. Although we 
     have agreed to take the lead on this issue, because it 
     affects all State officials, an invitation would be extended 
     to State executive and legislative branches as well.

  And the letter goes on to express the concern over 42 of these 
attorneys general now.
  In addition, Mr. President, I have been working with the Idaho State 
Tax Commission on the State sovereignty concerns and would like to read 
the following letter I received from the Idaho State Tax Commission 
which articulates specific concerns of my home State, and for sake of 
time, Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Idaho State Tax Commission,

                                          Boise, ID, May 26, 1994.
     Re Pending GATT/GATS Agreements.

     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: We are writing to explain our concern 
     about the power over state and local taxes that the new 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) will give the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO). Unless modified 
     significantly, these provisions of the new GATT will 
     undermine state and local fiscal sovereignty and likely favor 
     foreign business over U.S. taxpayers.
       As the administrators of tax laws enacted by the state 
     legislature, we strongly support equal treatment of all 
     taxpayers foreign and domestic. We have no objections to 
     those provisions of the GATT designed to encourage trade. 
     However, the WTO provisions applicable to state and local 
     taxes exceed legitimate trade concerns. They are likely to 
     have unintended, but dangerous, consequences for the 
     sovereignty and citizens of Idaho.
       The central problem is in the dispute settlement mechanism 
     of the GATT and WTO. WTO dispute settlement panels are not 
     bound by U.S. constitutional standards and jurisprudence in 
     evaluating challenges to state tax laws, even though the 
     Interstate and Foreign Commerce clauses of the Constitution 
     effectively prohibit discrimination against foreign entities. 
     The fear and experience of state tax administrators is that 
     such panels may well overturn state and local tax laws, 
     because of some perceived bias against international trade, 
     which are not in fact discriminatory and which are perfectly 
     legitimate under the U.S. Constitution.
       This is precisely what happened in the one international 
     trade case involving state taxation. In a case commonly 
     called ``Beer II,'' a trade panel ruled that a Minnesota law 
     granting preferential tax status to small breweries 
     regardless of where they were located violated the GATT. It 
     held that the small brewer preference must be removed or that 
     equally preferential rates must be accorded large Canadian 
     brewers. There was no evidence of discrimination based on 
     national origin, and there was no evidence of any trade 
     barrier. USTR did not veto or reject this decision. Instead, 
     it has encouraged states to comply with it.
       Moreover, unless some action is taken to the contrary, WTO 
     panel rulings can be enforced against a state or local 
     government in the U.S. court system, event though the 
     offending law or policy is otherwise consistent with U.S. 
     constitutional standards. While this is not possible with 
     federal measures, we believe it would be true for state and 
     local laws. With the Congressional adoption of the GATT, 
     dispute panel findings, unless specifically rejected by the 
     U.S. government, can be argued to represent the foreign 
     policy of the U.S. Thus, state and local laws to the contrary 
     would be found to violate the Foreign Commerce Clause of the 
     U.S. Constitution.
       In short, the GATT process provides foreign interests with 
     willing government partners another avenue to challenge state 
     and local tax policies with which they disagree. These 
     challenges will occur in a forum not bound by the U.S. 
     constitutional standards against which state and local laws 
     are shaped and in a forum where states and localities cannot 
     represent themselves. The net result is to place U.S. 
     taxpayers at an unfair disadvantage, compromise state tax 
     sovereignty, and substitute the WTO for the U.S. Supreme 
     Court as the final arbiter of state and local tax policies.
       The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) and the Federation of 
     Tax Administrators (FTA) have proposed two ways to address 
     these concerns without rejecting the GATT. First, the U.S. 
     government could assert a broad reservation from the national 
     treatment requirements of the GATT for state and local tax 
     laws that meet U.S. constitutional standards. Several 
     suggestions along these lines have been rejected as overly 
     broad or unworkable by the U.S. Trade Representative staff.
       The other approach is to include provisions supporting 
     fiscal federalism in the GATT implementing legislation. The 
     following is a summary of the MTC/FTA proposals for the 
     implementing legislation:
       Rejecting all WTO panel decisions not based on U.S. 
     constitutional standards regarding nondiscrimination against 
     foreign parties or not adopted by action of the U.S. Congress 
     within 120 days of the panel decision;
       Requiring that a state or local law or policy may be 
     declared invalid as being in violation of the GATT only 
     through an action brought by the U.S. government for that 
     purpose;
       Prohibiting (a) retroactive application of WTO panel 
     decisions; (b) use of panel findings and decisions as 
     competent evidence in the U.S. courts; and (c) any private 
     right of action emanating from a WTO panel decision;
       Requiring that affected state and local governments assist 
     in representing their interests before the WTO; and
       Requiring the USTR provide notice to state and local 
     governments at least 180 days before USTR initiates or 
     responds to a complaint about state or local tax policies and 
     practices.
       For detailed information on these proposals, your office 
     may contact Nancy Donohoe, MTC Consultant at (202) 296-8060 
     or Roxanne Davis, FTA Research Attorney at (202) 824-5890.
       The U.S. Constitution has for 200 years balanced the 
     interests of federalism and free trade. That balance can be 
     accomplished in the GATT only with the types of reservations 
     and implementing legislation outlined above. Your help in 
     preserving this balance is sorely needed. Thank you for your 
     support and commitment to federalism.
           Sincerely,
     Coleen Grant,
       Chairman.
     R. Michael Southcombe,
       Commissioner.
     G. Anne Barker,
       Commissioner.
     DuWayne D. Hammond, Jr.,
       Commissioner.

  Mr. CRAIG. Let me read the first paragraph. It says:

       Dear Senator Craig: We are writing to explain our concern 
     about the power over state and local taxes that the new 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) will give the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO). Unless modified 
     significantly, these provisions of the new GATT will 
     undermine state and local fiscal sovereignty and likely favor 
     foreign business over U.S. taxpayers.

  Let me repeat:

       * * * will undermine State and local fiscal sovereignty and 
     likely favor foreign businesses over U.S. taxpayers.

  If that is true, Mr. President, this can simply not be allowed. I say 
if it is true. That is why the amendment as proposed by Senator 
Thurmond and that is why the State attorneys general have asked that 
this Government stop, bring its people together, examine these critical 
issues before we move toward fast track and implementation.
  Mr. President, there are also problems with the language of the 
Uruguay round agreement, which has the potential of infringing on State 
sovereignty.
  The phrasing of provisions to prevent State discrimination against 
foreign businesses is dangerously vague and would favor foreign 
entities over American taxpayers in the resolution of disputes.
  I cannot imagine that this Senate, blinded as we often times are and 
urged to promote world trade, would not have the willingness to stop 
and look and listen to authorities who can flesh out and explain for us 
these important provisions.
  Both GATT and GATS are worded in a far less precise manner than 
existing State tax laws.
  A vague agreement opens the door for unfair and conflicting 
interpretation.
  For example, under GATT, prohibiting unjustified discrimination 
against foreign businesses in the United States does not clearly define 
a specific standard.
  A State law which fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, 
may not meet the broader standard under GATT and GATS.
  The national treatment provision under GATS requires the United 
States to ensure that foreign services and service providers receive 
``treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own like 
services and service suppliers.''

  Under the provision, only foreign businesses receiving a negative 
economic impact resulting from a State law could seek corrective action 
by the WTO while domestic businesses which are economically harmed by a 
State guideline would have no similar avenue of redress. This grants 
foreign businesses a significant advantage which their domestic 
counterparts would not enjoy.
  The national treatment provision on the surface looks and sounds like 
the foreign commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, but it is 
significantly different.
  Mr. President, I would like to share some information that was 
included in a memorandum to State tax administrators from two 
organizations, the Federation of Tax Administrators and the Multistate 
Tax Commission:
  It reads:

       The standards for proving a violation of national treatment 
     are lower than for proving a violation of the foreign 
     commerce clause.
       Because only foreign taxpayers can benefit directly from 
     the ``national treatment'' provision, they will have access 
     to a more favorable set of rules than U.S. taxpayers.
       State tax provisions that might well meet the requirements 
     of the U.S. Constitution may be found to violate GATS.

  The memorandum goes on to cover dispute settlement panels:

       The rulings of trade panels--``dispute settlement 
     bodies''--may become legally binding on the States and local 
     governments even though they are not legally binding on the 
     Federal Government.
       The Federal Government can decide to comply or not comply 
     with an adverse trade panel ruling.
       However, the dormant foreign commerce and national 
     supremacy clauses of the Constitution are binding on States 
     and localities.
       Thus, foreign taxpayers may use the trade panel ruling as 
     evidence in suits against States or localities and could seek 
     enforcement trade panel rulings in our courts on the basis 
     that they reflect the foreign commercial policies of the 
     United States.

  The memorandum also states that:

       Because of these interactions between trade agreements and 
     the U.S. constitutional law, we think that State and local 
     tax authority will be undermined, tax burdens may 
     increasingly shift from foreign taxpayers to U.S. taxpayers, 
     and desisionmaking authority over State and local taxes will 
     increasingly shift from the U.S. Supreme Court to ``dispute 
     settlement bodies.''
       For these reasons, we have sought protection for all State 
     and local tax practices that conform to Federal law or that 
     are determined by the domestic courts of the United States to 
     be nondiscriminatory under the Constitution.

  These arguments and concerns cannot be summarily dismissed, Mr. 
President. The problems are real and need to be resolved. I hope that 
today's discussion on the World Trade Organization will lead to a more 
thorough discussion as is outlined in the amendment offered by Senator 
Thurmond.
  Mr. President, there is another document that I would like to have 
become part of the Record.
  I highly recommend it to my colleagues who support States rights.
  This testimony was delivered by Dan Bucks, the Executive Director of 
the Multistate Tax Commission, at the House Subcommittee on Trade 
hearing last February. The title, interestingly, is ``Free Trade, 
Federalism and Tax Fairness.''
  I ask unanimous consent that his testimony before that subcommittee 
of the House be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the testimony was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Free Trade, Federalism and Tax Fairness

                      (Testimony by Dan R. Bucks)

       The Multistate Tax Commission is an interstate compact 
     agency that works to ensure that multistate and multinational 
     businesses pay a fair share--but not more than a fair share--
     of taxes to the states and localities in which they operate. 
     We encourage states to adopt uniform tax laws and regulations 
     in the interest of tax fairness as well as administrative 
     ease and efficiency for businesses that operate in several 
     states and nations.
       This testimony substantially draws on a larger report 
     prepared by the staffs of both the Multistate Tax Commission 
     and the Federation of Tax Administrators, the latter being 
     the professional association of state tax officials. The 
     Commission appreciates and acknowledges the efforts of the 
     Federation in helping to analyze the impact of international 
     trade agreements on state taxation.
       The Commission views the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
     Trade (GATT) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services 
     (GATS) from this perspective of fundamental fairness and 
     efficiency. States are committed to treating foreign 
     taxpayers as well as they treat U.S. taxpayers who do 
     business in their borders, and the Commission fully supports 
     this principle of equal taxation. Equality of tax treatment 
     provides a level playing field for the expansion of 
     international trade.
       The U.S. Constitution established a foundation for our 
     nation based on the principles of free trade and federalism. 
     It has created the most successful free trade area known in 
     modern times and establishes the ideal pursued by other 
     nations in international trade agreements. The Constitution 
     also establishes a successful system of federalism. In a 
     world where other nations are beset with social tension, and 
     even civil war, over issues of balancing the aspirations of 
     local communities with central governments, the U.S. system 
     is a model for balancing local and national interests.
       Over the past two centuries, our nation has enhanced and 
     developed an effective balance between free trade and 
     federalism--a balance that flourishes today. However, GATT 
     and GATS, which do not recognize principles of federalism and 
     the sovereignty of state governments, threaten to destroy 
     that balance. Thus, the Commission proposes measures that 
     would restore, in the context of GATT and GATS, a proper 
     balance between free trade and federalism and ensure tax 
     fairness.
       The Constitution, as noted, guarantees that states and 
     localities will treat foreign taxpayers equally as compared 
     to domestic taxpayers. Unfortunately, without significant 
     adjustment through the exemption and reservation process and 
     implementing legislation, GATT and GATS will violate the 
     principle of equality under the Constitution by granting 
     rights and privileges in state and local taxation to foreign 
     taxpayers that are not available to domestic taxpayers. 
     Without adjustments, GATT and GATS will over the long-term:
       Reduce state and local taxes paid by foreign taxpayers and 
     unfairly shift that tax burden to U.S. businesses and 
     ordinary citizens,
       Transfer authority to determine state and local tax policy 
     from the states, subject to the review of Congress and the 
     U.S. Supreme Court, to international trade panels with little 
     or no expertise in state and local tax policy or 
     constitutional law relating to federalism, and
       Erode the ability of states to perform their role as 
     ``laboratories of democracy'' in our system of federalism--
     fashioning local solutions to local problems.
       These problems will arise from the interaction of GATT and 
     GATS with state and federal laws. The key features of this 
     interaction are as follows:
       First, GATT and GATS establish special rules and appeal 
     procedures that are available only to foreign taxpayers and 
     that are more favorable than the rules and procedures 
     available to U.S. taxpayers under state and federal law and 
     the Constitution. If a special class of taxpayers has access 
     to rules and procedures that are more favorable to them than 
     other taxpayers, those taxpayers will ultimately receive tax 
     benefits at the expense of those less favored.
       Second, unless Congress enacts appropriate provisions of 
     implementing legislation, rulings to international trade 
     panels may be legally binding on state and local governments, 
     even though they are not legally binding on the federal 
     government. States are subject to the foreign commerce and 
     national supremacy clauses of the Constitution. Unless an 
     international trade panel ruling is specifically rejected by 
     the federal government, foreign parties may seek enforcement 
     of that ruling.
       Third, states base many of their tax policies on either the 
     federal tax laws or on mandates imposed by the federal 
     government. The federal law may not conform to the trade 
     agreements, and states may find their taxes vulnerable under 
     the agreements simply because they are following federal law.


               How GATT and GATS Favor Foreign Taxpayers

       The special rights and privileges that taxpayers will enjoy 
     under GATT and GATS arise from the broad and ambiguous terms 
     used in the agreements and the ``dispute settlement 
     mechanisms'' established by the agreements. Specifically, the 
     following features of the agreements create problems for 
     state and local taxation:
       The agreements use broad language that is much less precise 
     than tax law and create the potential for unpredictable, 
     unintended and unfortunate decisions. For example, 
     ``unjustified discrimination'' is an ill-defined, ambiguous 
     standard in the agreements, and the limited history of GATT 
     authorities applying that standard to state taxation is 
     disturbing.
       Foreign companies seeking to reduce their state or local 
     tax bills would no longer be required to bring an action in 
     the domestic courts of the U.S., but they could instead 
     recruit their government to lodge a GATT complaint against 
     the state or locality. ``Dispute Settlement Bodies'' 
     comprised of private sector persons from other nations who 
     are trade experts, but most likely have little or no tax or 
     federalism experience, would rule on complaints by foreign 
     nations against a state or local tax practice. The Dispute 
     Settlement Bodies would not be bound by U.S. court precedents 
     or any other body of law.
       States have no guaranteed standing before Dispute 
     Settlement Bodies. Absent Congressional action, states cannot 
     be assured that their views will be presented or protected by 
     the U.S. government at any time in the future. The federal 
     government may defend the states' legitimate interests--or it 
     may decline to, at its sole discretion.
       Because GATT and GATS, unlike the U.S. Constitution, do not 
     recognize federalism, and more specifically the rights of 
     state governments, which are otherwise constitutionally 
     restricted from discriminating against foreign and interstate 
     commerce, as a positive value, Dispute Settlement Bodies will 
     be under no obligation to balance the claims of trading 
     interests with subnational governmental rights.
       These features combine to create opportunities for tax 
     benefits for foreign taxpayers that are more favorable than 
     any U.S. taxpayer can attain. This fact is illustrated by the 
     one case involving state taxes that has been subject to a 
     dispute settlement ruling under GATT. This case is commonly 
     referred to as Beer II and involved a Canadian-U.S. dispute 
     over federal and state taxes and regulations affecting beer 
     production and distribution.


                   The Unfortunate Lessons of Beer II

       A GATT panel issued a report on February 7, 1992, on 
     Canada's challenge to federal and state laws affecting the 
     beer industry. (This GATT panel decision is commonly referred 
     to as ``Beer II.'') The Beer II decision provides ample 
     evidence that states are justified in fearing decisions that 
     will likely flow from Dispute Settlement Bodies under GATT 
     and GATS. Beer II ignores federalism entirely and fails to 
     acknowledge the sovereign right of states in a federal system 
     to establish different, but non-discriminatory, laws that 
     reflect local conditions that do not necessarily pertain in 
     all states. Finally, Beer II creates tax benefits in states 
     for foreign breweries that no U.S. brewery could obtain in 
     the U.S. court system.
       Specifically, there are at least three features of Beer II 
     that are unacceptable to the U.S. constitutional framework of 
     federalism. The three troubling features of Beer II are the 
     panel's (i) employment of an arbitrarily broad notion of 
     ``discrimination;'' (ii) application of the ``least 
     restrictive measure'' standard to define the GATT obligation 
     of ``national treatment;'' and (iii) elevation of GATT above 
     the U.S. Constitution.
       Overly Broad Concept of Discrimination Used to Benefit 
     Foreign Taxpayers: The Beer II panel ruled against certain 
     state tax laws that do not discriminate against either 
     interstate or foreign commerce. In particular, Minnesota 
     offers favorable excise tax treatment for microbrewery 
     production that is conditioned only on the size of the 
     brewery and is completely neutral with respect to the 
     national origin or location of the brewery, its product or 
     its inputs. No microbrewery located in Canada is denied 
     access to the favorable tax treatment. (The Minnesota law 
     is distinguishable from some of the other state laws 
     considered in Beer II that condition favorable tax 
     treatment on geographic location.) Yet, the Beer II panel 
     was unwilling to make that distinction. Employing a ``beer 
     is beer'' standard, the panel swept the Minnesota-type 
     laws into the scope of its disapproval. Under ``beer is 
     beer'' reasoning, no government would ever be able to make 
     reasonable or rational distinctions between beer produced 
     under different circumstances unrelated to geographic 
     location. The ``beer is beer'' standard negates the 
     ability of states to make rational policy choices where 
     there is no evidence of an intent to discriminate against 
     foreign or interstate commerce or to promote local, 
     economic protectionism.
       Unless rejected by the federal government or otherwise 
     resolved to the contrary, the original GATT ruling may well 
     provide large Canadian brewers with a special tax benefit in 
     at least one state that is unavailable to large American 
     brewers. This ruling illustrates that GATT and GATS can 
     undermine the equality of treatment between foreign and 
     domestic taxpayers that is guaranteed under the U.S. 
     Constitution. Unless adjusted, GATT and GATS tilt an 
     otherwise level state and local tax playing field in favor of 
     foreign business and against the interests of U.S. businesses 
     and taxpayers.
       Classifying taxpayers on the basis of size is a common and 
     acceptable practice that generally poses no problems of 
     discrimination against commerce flowing across political 
     boundaries (e.g., in federal law, S Corporations which may 
     not have non-resident alien shareholders can be distinguished 
     from C Corporations on the basis of number of shareholders). 
     Under the U.S. Constitution, state laws like Minnesota's that 
     classify brewers on the basis of size would most likely be 
     upheld. Other state laws that condition favorable tax 
     treatment on in-state location of the activity, inputs or 
     product would most likely fail a constitutional test. The 
     domestic courts of the U.S. would make careful, well-
     informed, well-reasoned and justified distinctions between 
     these different types of tax laws. The Beer II panel did not.
       Ignoring Federalism: Even more disturbing is the Beer II 
     panel's use of a ``least restrictive measure'' standard for 
     defining national treatment in order to determine whether 
     discrimination exists. Using the least restrictive measure 
     standard, the panel ruled against higher regulatory standards 
     of some states on the basis that other states had lower 
     standards. Some states impose requirements on the methods of 
     distributing beer as an effective and efficient means of 
     collecting excise taxes. Other states, however, do not impose 
     the same requirements. The Beer II panel's ruling allowed no 
     room for different requirements based on different 
     circumstances confronted by various states, nor did the panel 
     allow any room for differing judgments by separate sovereigns 
     as to the most appropriate requirements to impose to effect 
     collection of taxes.
       By imposing on all states the least restrictive measure 
     standard among the states for assessing whether a neutrally 
     structured and intended measure operates on a de facto basis 
     to discriminate under the national treatment obligation of 
     GATT, the Beer II panel struck at the very heart of 
     federalism. The panel's reasoning leaves no room for 
     different laws based on different local circumstances, nor 
     for any range of judgment, regardless of the absence of any 
     discriminatory intent in those judgments, to be exercised by 
     different state sovereigns. Indeed, the combination of the 
     least restrictive measure standard and the acceptance of de 
     facto arguments leaves all state law potentially at risk of 
     being subject to challenge under the aegis of GATT and GATS. 
     Higher taxes levied by a state in which a company from one 
     nation does business could be challenged as discriminatory 
     simply because a competitor does business in another state 
     with lower taxes. The following examples illustrate the 
     potential problems created by the Beer II reasoning, if 
     applied to state taxation:
       If Chilean wine is sold primarily in states with low wine 
     taxes, while French wine is sold more often in states with 
     higher wine taxes, the French firms could win a de facto MFN 
     judgment for a GATT panel against states with higher wine 
     taxes.
       If the gross receipts tax on a foreign-owned long distance 
     telephone company is higher in the states in which it 
     operates than the tax rates on American-owned long distance 
     (or local) phone companies in other states, the foreign-owned 
     company could win a de facto ``national treatment judgment'' 
     against the higher tax states.
       If a foreign-owned bank pays higher property taxes in the 
     one state in which it operates (for example, NY) than do 
     banks, on average, in other states, it could win a national 
     treatment judgment against the high tax state. (This result 
     would potentially disrupt the billions in revenues realized 
     from property taxation, a form of taxation that is covered by 
     GATS. Property taxes are the primary source of support for 
     education in the United States.)
       Since GATT/GATS, as drafted, does not recognize federalism 
     and looks at ``discrimination'' on a national basis, 
     differences among states in tax treatment of similar economic 
     activity could be used by foreign multinationals to win tax 
     breaks from GATT/GATS panels using the ``least restrictive 
     measure'' reasoning of the Beer II panel. The obvious result 
     of such rulings would be to destroy America's federal system. 
     Each state would be barred by GATT/GATS panels from setting 
     its own tax policy, settling instead to the lowest level of 
     taxation by any state.
       GATT Overrules the U.S. Constitution: The Beer II panel 
     decision does not recognize governmental powers that are 
     reserved to the States under the U.S. Constitution. The panel 
     found in Beer II the States' alcohol regulatory practices, 
     which could not be described intended to discriminate against 
     foreign or interstate commerce or to promote economic 
     protectionism, to violate GATT obligations. This violation 
     was found even in the face of the central government's 
     (federal government's) lack of power to require the States to 
     change their alcohol regulatory practices that are reserved 
     to the States under Twenty-First Amendment of the U.S. 
     Constitution. In essence, the panel has used a 
     congressionally approved international trade agreement to 
     overrule the U.S. Constitution--something the U.S. Supreme 
     Court cannot even do.


     gatt/gats rulings can bind states, but not federal government

       As suggested above, GATT and GATS generally will bind the 
     states in ways that do not apply to the federal government. 
     It is important to keep this difference in effect in mind, 
     because the federal government is simply not subject to the 
     many restrictions applicable to the states and the 
     perspective of the federal government is not, therefore, 
     directly transferable to the states.
       GATT and GATS are a part of the foreign policy of the 
     United States that, under the Constitution, is binding on the 
     states. U.S. domestic courts entertaining state tax disputes 
     will consider GATT and GATS rulings by the Dispute Settlement 
     Bodies (and the other authorized decision-making agencies of 
     these trade accords) as expressions approved under U.S. 
     foreign policy unless there is a formal rejection of the 
     rulings by the U.S. government. Thus, in any future cases 
     involving state or local taxes in which the U.S. government 
     does not expressly and firmly reject the GATT or GATS ruling, 
     foreign parties will be able to take the trade ruling into 
     U.S. domestic courts and argue persuasively that the state or 
     local tax practice violates the U.S. Constitution by virtue 
     of being inconsistent with the foreign policy of the U.S.
       This ability of foreign parties to seek enforcement of GATT 
     or GATS rulings that may be adverse to a state taxing 
     practice in the domestic courts of the U.S. makes the nature 
     of the dispute settlement process of great concern. Trade 
     panels--closed to the states and comprised of non-U.S. 
     citizens--will begin to play a role previously reserved to 
     the U.S. Supreme Court precedents and constitutional language 
     on the rights and obligations of subnational governments, but 
     empowered instead to interpret broadly vague language, pose a 
     clear and present danger to the U.S. system of federalism.


          federal laws may create gatt problems for the states

       States, especially in the income tax area, have frequently 
     based their state tax treatment on federal law. The practice 
     of ``piggybacking'' on federal laws typically simplifies tax 
     compliance and reduces costs for taxpayers and states alike. 
     This practice generally supports the free flow of commerce 
     and should not be discouraged by GATS or GATT. Accordingly, 
     state laws based on federal law should not be subject to a 
     separate challenge under these trade agreements.
       In addition, there are several state or local tax practices 
     that are required by federal law. This category of state and 
     local taxation should be similarly protected from the 
     jurisdiction of the trade agreements, more because of the 
     federal interests involved than the state interests.
       The following examples--which are not all inclusive--
     illustrate the category of laws involved in state taxing 
     practices reflecting federal law:
       Tax exemptions for non-profit and U.S. government 
     enterprises,
       Protection of businesses engaged in interstate, but not 
     foreign commerce, from state income taxation under Pub. L. 
     86-272, and
       Tax exemptions for U.S. and state government securities.
       These examples all involve activities that provide for 
     favorable treatment of domestic activities. States are 
     prohibited from taxing federal obligations, but they are 
     allowed to tax foreign obligations. States use federal 
     concepts of charitable, non-profit activities to similarly 
     provide favorable tax treatment to charitable activities 
     within their borders. They do not provide favorable tax 
     treatment for charitable activities outside their borders 
     or, following the federal law, for similar activities 
     provided by for-profit entities. States are required by 
     federal law to provide certain favorable treatment to 
     businesses engaged in interstate commerce, but not those 
     engaged in foreign commerce.
       States must comply with federal law and are often wise in 
     using federal tax laws as a basis for their own laws. States 
     should not get caught in a conflict between specific federal 
     laws and general GATT requirements. The federal government 
     should protect states from adverse GATT determinations that 
     might arise from their use of or compliance with federal 
     laws.


           protecting free trade, federalism and tax fairness

       The task at hand is to restore tax fairness and federalism 
     to the framework of the world trade agreements. Unless this 
     task is accomplished, foreign taxpayers will be able to 
     reduce their state and local taxes unfairly at the expense of 
     U.S. taxpayers. Further, because taxation is at the core of 
     sovereignty, the role of the states in our federal system 
     will be undermined as authority over taxation shifts from 
     state and federal officials to non-U.S. citizens serving on 
     international trade panels.
       There is a ready solution to the need to restore tax 
     fairness and federalism to the GATT and GATS framework. 
     Currently, in the GATT negotiations, nations are developing 
     exclusions from the GATT and GATS agreements. These 
     exclusions involve Most Favored Nation Exemptions and 
     National Treatment Reservations. The MFN Exemptions are to be 
     resolved by April 15, and the National Treatment Reservations 
     by June 15.
       We proposed to the Administration that they seek two types 
     of exclusions from GATT and GATS as both MFN Exemptions and 
     National Treatment Reservations. In developing the proposed 
     exclusions, we seek to establish two broad principles that 
     will restore tax fairness and federalism to the trade 
     agreements:
       (1) The U.S. Constitution should be the basic standard for 
     judging whether state and local taxes are fair and non-
     discriminatory as they apply to foreign commerce, and
       (2) States should not suffer the penalty of adverse GATT or 
     GATS ruling because they comply with or base their taxes on 
     federal laws.
       Using these principles, we have proposed to the 
     Administration that they seek an MFN Exemption and a National 
     Treatment Reservation that would exclude from the scope of 
     the trade agreements any state or local tax measures that 
     ``satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Constitution as 
     determined by the domestic courts of the States and the 
     United States.'' Further we have sought an MFN Exemption and 
     a National Treatment Reservation that would exclude from the 
     trade agreements state and local tax measures that 
     ``substantially replicate, or discharge requirements or 
     manifest the policy of, the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or 
     other applicable federal law.''
       These proposed exclusions from the trade agreements remain 
     under discussion. We seek the support of Congress for these 
     exclusions. If these exclusions are incorporated into the 
     GATT and GATS framework, then there would likely be little 
     need to address state and local tax issues in the 
     implementing legislation for GATT and GATS. However, if these 
     exclusions are not adopted, we will return to Congress with 
     extensive and detailed proposals for embodying to the degree 
     possible not only the constitutional and statutory principles 
     listed above, but also a third and fourth additional 
     principles:
       (3) As is the case with the federal government, rulings 
     under GATT and GATS should not be legally binding on state 
     and local governments,
       (4) Federalism should be recognized as a positive value by 
     allowing state governments, as sovereign entities, full and 
     direct participation in GATT or GATS disputes involving state 
     laws and by requiring that trade panels dealing with state 
     and local tax issues should include tax officials from 
     subcentral governments in federal systems.
       Incorporating these principles into the implementing 
     legislation would require detailed provisions dealing with a 
     host of matters including, as a sample, the following: i) a 
     requirement that the U.S. government use the Constitution for 
     judging the acceptability of GATT rulings involving state and 
     local taxes, ii) prohibitions on private rights of action by 
     foreign parties seeking to enforce GATT rulings involving 
     state and local taxes in the domestic courts of the United 
     States, iii) procedures for the direct participation of state 
     governments in defending cases before GATT panels 
     involving state or local taxes, (iv) requirements for 
     nominees from other nations acceptable to the United 
     States for serving on trade panels dealing with state and 
     local tax matters, (v) consultation procedures between the 
     federal government and state and local government when 
     GATT cases begin to arise, (vi) procedures for determining 
     whether and in what manner the U.S. accepts adverse GATT 
     rules, and (vii) procedures for the U.S. government to pay 
     compensation or other means that avoid unfunded mandates 
     on state or local governments if adverse GATT rulings 
     occur. There may be other subjects that should be 
     considered in the implementing legislation as well. 
     However, most if not all of these subjects need not be 
     addressed if the U.S. secures the type of MFN Exemptions 
     and National Treatment Reservations we have sought.
       The linchpin of our proposals is the Constitution. For that 
     reason, it is necessary to understand why the Constitution 
     works to ensure fundamental fairness in state and local 
     taxation for foreign and domestic taxpayers alike.


             how the u.s. constitution ensures tax fairness

       The Interstate Commerce Clause, combined with other 
     provisions of the U.S. Constitution, guarantees that states 
     tax out-of-state parties in the same manner as they tax their 
     own state residents. Further, the Foreign Commerce Clause 
     requires that the states tax foreign parties in the same 
     manner as they tax U.S. parties. Both clauses interact to 
     achieve more effectively and precisely than GATT or GATS can 
     guarantee essential equality in taxation for foreign and U.S. 
     interests alike. Further, the case law under these provisions 
     is careful and well-developed and is not subject to the 
     likely abuses under the ambiguous language and incomplete 
     precedents of the trade agreements. Because of the 
     effectiveness of the U.S. Constitution in guaranteeing equal 
     and non-discriminatory taxation, the Constitution should be 
     the basis for achieving the result sought by GATT and GATS: 
     trade that is not restrained by discriminatory taxation.
       Because foreign companies are well protected by the 
     Constitution against unlawful discrimination, local economic 
     protectionism and undue burdens placed upon commerce, GATT/
     GATS should not limit or affect the tax methods by which 
     states or other subnational governments raise revenue from 
     business activities over which they have jurisdiction. During 
     the past 200 years, the United States Supreme Court has 
     consistently safeguarded interstate and foreign commerce from 
     discrimination and undue burdens caused by unlawful state tax 
     measures. Several provisions of the United States 
     Constitution exist to address overreaching by the states when 
     they seek to require interstate and foreign commerce to bear 
     a ``fair share'' of taxation. Those protections reside in 
     Articles I, Sec. 8, cl.3 (Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
     Clauses), Sec. 10, cl.2 (Import and Export Clause), VI 
     (Supremacy Clause), and Amendment XIV, Sec. 1 (Due Process 
     and Equal Protection Clauses) of the Constitution. This 
     discussion is limited to an examination of the Commerce 
     Clause protections extended by the Constitution which more 
     than amply protects consistent with the standards of GATT and 
     GATS domestic and foreign companies transacting business in 
     foreign commerce.
       Under the Foreign Commerce Clause, states and their 
     political subdivisions are only allowed to impose a tax 
     obligation on business engaged in foreign commerce when the 
     obligation:
       1. Is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with 
     the taxing state;
       2. Is fairly apportioned;
       3. Does not discriminate against interstate commerce;
       4. Is fairly related to the services provided by the taxing 
     state;
       5. Does not create a substantial risk of international tax 
     multiplication; and
       6. Does not prevent the Federal Government from speaking 
     with one voice when regulating commercial relations with 
     foreign governments.
       Unless each and every requirement listed above is fully 
     met, the tax obligation will fail under the Foreign Commerce 
     Clause and the taxpayer who might have paid the tax will be 
     entitled to meaningful relief. See McKesson Corp. v. Division 
     of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990).
       Since the adoption of the Constitution, the United States 
     Supreme Court and state courts have addressed scores of state 
     tax issues and found many to violate the Interstate and 
     Foreign Commerce Clauses. In the past ten years alone, the 
     Supreme Court has issued several opinions declaring 
     invalid against the Commerce Clause state tax measures 
     that bore on interstate and foreign commerce. 
     Representative examples of but a few of those cases are 
     found in Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Tully, 459 U.S. 1144 
     (1983); Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 
     (1984); New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269 
     (1988); Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue 
     and Finance, ---- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2365 (1992). State 
     courts also preserve the free flow of commerce. See HL 
     Farm Corp. v. Self, 1994 WL 1927 (Tex.).
       Our message is simple: the Constitution works, and has 
     worked, for over two centuries as an instrument of free 
     trade, federalism and tax fairness. That is why we have made 
     the standards and procedures of the Constitution the 
     foundation of our proposals for exclusions of certain state 
     and local tax measures from the scope of the GATT and GATS. 
     That proposal, combined with a further provision protecting 
     states when they act on or implement federal law, would 
     effectively harmonize the trade agreements with our system of 
     federalism. We ask for your support for the MFN Exemptions 
     and National Treatment Reservations that we have proposed.
       Protecting the role of state and local governments in our 
     nation is not an abstract or theoretical matter. The states 
     have primary responsibility for meeting the domestic needs of 
     the people of our nation. The states and their subdivisions 
     maintain public order, educate future citizens and workers, 
     maintain the essential infrastructure necessary for commerce 
     and public life, and assist persons beset by misfortune or 
     wrong choices to become productive members of society again. 
     They do these tasks and more in a diversity of ways. That 
     diversity is an important value of our federal system. States 
     are laboratories of democracy and are a continuous source of 
     innovation to meet a range of public needs. Endangering state 
     tax sovereignty inevitably imperils the vitality and 
     stability of our society.

  Mr. CRAIG. Before closing, Mr. President, I would also like to 
mention that the WTO has not received accolades abroad.
  Articles in various papers and journals have outlined concerns that 
our trading partners have on the structure of the World Trade 
Organization and issues of sovereignty.
  Mr. President, after World War II, representatives from the United 
States and Great Britain designed a postwar economic system with three 
pillars: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the 
International Trade Organization [ITO].
  The ITO was intended to be the administrating body covering the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. As I mentioned earlier, 
Mr. President, the U.S. Congress rejected the ITO as a threat to U.S. 
sovereignty.
  The Congress took that action despite warnings from beltway insiders 
that the failure to join this would certainly impede economic recovery 
for the entirety of the world.
  Our predecessors realized that the United States and our trading 
partners did not need a bureaucracy. What they needed was free trade. 
And, of course, this Senate rejected it. And yet we saw the world go on 
to prosper, as GATT itself and as we worked in a voluntary way to 
promote free trade around the world.
  Well, Mr. President, I hope that congressional wisdom will continue 
to prevail and that many of the questions I have spoken to today and 
others are speaking to about the World Trade Organization will be 
resolved to ensure our U.S. sovereignty and the very important question 
of States rights.
  It is clearly time that we listened to the underpinnings of this 
amendment and that we are willing to stop for just a moment and do an 
extensive examination, as the amendment calls for, some 90 days' worth 
of examination, and respond to our attorneys general and to our State 
tax commissioners and to our Governors, who are concerned, as we should 
be, about the issue of our sovereignty and about the issue of States 
rights.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Montana in 
just a moment.
  But assuming all the arguments made by all the supporters of the 
amendment by the Senator from South Carolina, we still come down to one 
major point. This is not the vehicle for it. This is an appropriations 
bill. This is not an authorizing bill.
  We are going to have debates on implementing legislation for the 
GATT. There will be debates in the Finance Committee, as there will be 
in the Senate Agriculture Committee. I am perfectly willing to assume 
that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator 
Moynihan, would oppose this, certainly on this appropriations bill, 
just as I, in my capacity as the chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, would oppose it. If you want to bring it up on implementing 
legislation, fine.
  The other point to realize is, of course, every Senator has a right 
to speak on this as long as they want. But the fact of the matter is, 
this will not become law on this bill. It is not going to be accepted 
by the other body in the conference. It can mean that we could spend a 
lot of time putting our various foreign policy earmarks in this bill, 
and they will disappear. They will disappear in the continuing 
resolution that will be sent over by the other body sometime toward the 
end of September.
  We can either pass a foreign operations bill, one that is designed to 
bring into play a number of significant earmarks and issues raised by 
some of my distinguished colleagues and by the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky and by myself and some by others that are in this bill, 
and it will pass overwhelmingly. And they are not in the legislation 
from the other body.
  But I guarantee you, this is not going to be able to be accepted if 
it is adopted here. All Senators should have the right to vote on it, 
and I hope they might very, very soon. They either vote to add it in or 
vote to keep it out. But it will not make it possible for us to 
conference a bill with it in and that will be accepted by this body or 
the other body, and we will end up with a continuing resolution without 
some of the country specific designations that we now have in our 
foreign aid in here.
  That again is fine. Senators have to make up their own minds on that. 
I am not suggesting whether that is a good idea or a bad idea. I am 
just trying to point out the realities.
  With that, I yield to my friend from Montana, who has proven time and 
again that he is one of the foremost experts the Senate has had on the 
whole issue of international trade, on the question of GATT and NAFTA, 
and numerous others.
  I feel privileged to have him as a member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee and a member of the Finance Committee. He is the chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee. But he is a Senator that I 
turn to more and more in my career in the Senate on these issues of 
international trade because of his proven expertise.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his 
very kind words.
  I understand, and I think most Members of the Senate understand, the 
concerns the Senator from South Carolina has, the Senator from Idaho 
has, and the concerns a lot of Americans have, over proposed Uruguay 
round agreements, including the World Trade Organization and 
particularly including the disputes settlement mechanism.
  I think we all know this is the post-cold-war era. The world has 
changed. It has changed dramatically. Each country is now, to some 
degree, assuming an economic agenda a bit more than it has in the past, 
at least during the cold-war era. And that is probably the way it 
should be, each of us looking for a way to increase our economic 
position, to boost our incomes. American families are looking for ways 
to boost their incomes, as well they should. In fact, we here are doing 
what we can to help, in large respect, particularly American families 
to increase their incomes in this uncertain world we find ourselves in 
into the 1990's, and particularly into the next century.
  I would like to follow on the words of the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Leahy, in basically saying this 
resolution is not properly offered on this bill. This is an 
appropriations bill. This is not an authorizing bill. We are not here 
debating provisions of the Uruguay round. We are not here debating the 
provision of the implementing language that Congress, I think, will 
debate fairly quickly with respect to ratifying or not ratifying the 
proposed Uruguay Round Agreement.
  In addition, I must say that it probably makes much more sense for 
these issues--and they are very good issues, and I have a lot of 
sympathy for and, in fact, agree with a good part of the statements 
that have been made thus far--to debate these in the ordinary course.
  What is the ordinary course? The ordinary course is, of course, the 
Finance Committee will be working on implementing language. Senator 
Moynihan, the chairman of the committee, has scheduled hearings this 
week and next, particularly next week, when he thought he would begin 
to go toward debating and adopting implementing language which goes to 
the questions raised by Senators who have previously spoken in favor of 
this resolution.
  It is, I think, unwise to put the cart before the horse. By voting 
now in favor of this resolution, we, in a sense, would be putting the 
cart before the horse. It makes much more sense for the Congress, 
particularly the Senate, to look at the implementing language after it 
is drafted, and agree to the implementing language which addresses 
concerns raised by Senators in favor of this resolution.
  Once the implementing language comes to the floor of the Senate, we 
will have ample, ample opportunity to debate the merits of that 
implementing language. That is the proper course. I urge Senators to 
follow that course, because that course will result in a much better 
product.
  We must also remember that it would be unwise to lose sight of the 
big picture. What is the big picture? The big picture, frankly, is 
there is a lot of good and, I think on a net basis, more good in the 
Uruguay Round Agreement. If Congress ratifies the Uruguay Round 
Agreement and if the other participating countries ratify it, we 
Americans will find that our GDP will increase $200 billion every year; 
a massive infusion, a massive addition to the United States gross 
domestic product because of provisions in the proposed Uruguay Round 
Trade Agreement.
  Where are those benefits? One is in intellectual properties. Today, 
about $60 billion worth of American intellectual property--that is, 
goods for which we have trademarks that are copyrighted--are pirated by 
people in other countries to their benefit and to America's 
disadvantage.
  The proposed world trade agreement, the proposed Uruguay agreement--
they take very significant first steps. There was a ``free rider'' 
problem in the past; that is, some countries could adopt some portions 
of trade agreements and not others. This proposed trade agreement 
requires all countries to enact very significant intellectual property, 
copyright, and trademark protection that inures to the tremendous 
benefit of Americans because most intellectual property pirating is by 
other countries pirating American intellectual property. We still are 
the most creative society, the most creative country in the world. We 
generate more new ideas that we Americans copyright and provide 
intellectual property protection for than other countries. This 
agreement helps keep those dollars in the United States.
  Second, this agreement opens new markets for American farmers, 
American agriculture. This agreement will open new markets by about a 
third. There are tremendous reductions in export subsidies that other 
countries enact that inure to our benefit. Generally, we Americans have 
about $1 billion of export subsidies helping promote our agricultural 
exports overseas. The European Union has about $10 billion--10 times 
what we have. This agreement provides for a 26-percent reduction in 
export subsidies. Obviously a 26-percent reduction of $10 billion the 
European Union has to face compared to the 26-percent reduction of $1 
billion we Americans face means we come out ahead. We come out very 
much ahead because of the agriculture provisions in the round. Beyond 
that, there are generally major benefits in tariff reduction for 
manufactured products, reductions of about one-third.
  So, all in all, it is important to realize that this agreement has 
tremendous provisions in it which will dramatically increase and give a 
boost to the American economy. That means more jobs for Americans.
  Mr. President, it is true there are some concerns. One is the so-
called secrecy provision referred to by the Senator from Idaho. That is 
a concern I have. I am quite concerned that the dispute settlement 
provisions in the proceedings in the World Trade Organization are not 
sufficiently transparent, they are too secret. We are going to address 
those provisions in the implementing legislation by providing that 
Americans can sit in on proceedings. They should sit in on proceedings. 
I think it is a real problem the Senator from Idaho properly raised. We 
are going to address that.
  Second, we have concerns about American sovereignty--very real 
concerns about American sovereignty. I think it is important to point 
out, though, those same concerns exist today because today we Americans 
bring many more cases to the GATT than do other countries. Four-fifths 
of the time we Americans prevail in cases we bring to the GATT. Why do 
we bring more cases to the GATT than do other countries against us? 
Because we are the biggest country. We are the biggest consuming 
country. We are the wealthiest country. We Americans buy a lot of other 
countries' products and we are also the most open country.
  By the way, that is a major benefit of the round in that it lowers 
other countries' barriers proportionately more than it lowers ours. But 
nevertheless, today we bring more cases to the GATT than other 
countries do. And we win four-fifths of the time.
  Currently, any other single country can block a GATT panel decision 
in America's favor. All it takes is one country. The Reagan 
administration and the Bush administration frankly advocated and asked 
for, in the GATT negotiations, binding dispute settlement mechanisms so 
that no one country in the future could block. Because we are there 
more than other countries, we do not want other countries to block. 
Currently other countries can block with their one vote. Under the 
proposed agreement that will no longer be the case, so we will come out 
net beneficiaries.
  Second, in those areas where a GATT panel rules against the United 
States today, and in the proposed agreement, we Americans--the U.S. 
Government--we reserve the authority to either agree or disagree; we 
reserve the authority to either change our law or not change our law in 
accordance with the GATT panel decision. That is what we have done in 
the past. That is also under this proposed agreement what we will do in 
the future.
  For example, not too many years ago, the GATT panel ruled against the 
United States in the so-called tuna/dolphin case. That was a case where 
the U.S. Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which 
essentially said countries which export tuna into the United States, 
tuna caught with fishing nets that catch dolphins--we could not import 
tuna caught that way into the United States. That went to a GATT panel. 
The GATT panel ruled against the United States.
  What did we do? We Americans said: Sorry, we are not going to change 
our law. We have not changed our law. We still have the same law. Other 
countries have not retaliated.
  Why have they not retaliated? Because we are still the biggest 
economic power in the world and I expect that will be the case in the 
future. The same thing under the proposed agreement. Let us say a panel 
rules against us, hypothetically. We reserve the right to either agree 
or disagree, reserve the right to either change the American law or not 
change.
  Let us say we do not want to change our law. Other countries do have 
the right to retaliate just as they have today. But whether they do or 
do not will depend so much on circumstances and whether they want to 
take on the United States, which is the largest, strongest economic 
power in the world. So far they have not. I do not think they will in 
the future either. So there are a lot of answers to these earlier 
initial concerns that a lot of people had. Frankly, I think it is wise 
for us, again, not to put the cart before the horse.
  I must also point out that we, the Finance Committee and others, are 
working with State governments and State associations to find ways to 
address the States rights concerns that the Senator from Idaho raised. 
Those are good points. They should be addressed and we will be 
addressing those.
  Finally, to sum up, Mr. President, the U.S. Congress passed so-called 
fast-track legislation in 1988, renewed it in 1990, again in 1993. We 
in the Congress passed a law setting up this procedure. We wanted 
executive agreements. That is what the law says. That is what we 
wanted. That is what we provided. We are just here following the law 
that the Congress enacted which Republican Presidents have asked for, 
which Democratic Presidents have asked for. That is the process. Under 
that, we look at the implementing language. If we in the Senate agree 
with the implementing language, we ratify it. If we do not, we reject 
it. But we have not yet seen the language. So it is difficult not to 
prejudge it. I suggest we wait until we get the language, we in the 
Senate, and then make a judgment.
  I tell my colleagues we in the Finance Committee, again, hear these 
concerns. Frankly, we are burning the midnight oil to address them 
because some of them are very real concerns.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator knows we share a concern about the 
importance of trade to the country and its economic well-being and 
place in the world. But I am pleased to hear the Senator speak about 
the dispute resolution provisions. There clearly are questions there 
that have to be answered. I did not say I would oppose GATT. I did come 
to the floor and speak to this amendment, as the amendment itself 
speaks to a concern, trying to bring together our best minds to try to 
solve these problems before we get ourselves into trouble. I think that 
is the essence of the amendment. It is not anti-GATT and was not 
intended to be.
  What it is intended to do is to clarify what the World Trade 
Organization's authority is and how that might impact a State, and 
State tax commissions. I mean, when my State tax commissioners, who are 
very bipartisan, and when my State attorney general, who by the way is 
of your party and not mine, take the time to call me personally and 
say, ``We have some very real problems here, Senator; you ought to 
address them before you vote on this thing,'' I think that is a 
legitimate concern. And that is what provoked me to begin to examine 
the details of the language of the World Trade Organization as proposed 
in this agreement, and why I am now a supporter of this amendment.
  I guess I am surprised that we would want to oppose this amendment. I 
do not believe it is anti-GATT. I think it is desiring to create a 
situation and address the very request of the States attorneys general, 
and that is of a summit that brings out these issues and resolves them 
in the implementing language that you have suggested it could be 
resolved in.
  I thank the Senator for addressing that issue.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Just replying to the Senator, Mr. President, I oppose the 
amendment for two reasons: one, because it is premature; and, second, 
because it kills any ability of the Congress to consider whether or not 
to ratify the GATT this year because of the 90-day provision in the 
resolution.
  I think it is premature for Congress today, with virtually no debate, 
to decide that under no circumstances are we going to take up the 
implementing language and whether or not to ratify the GATT this year. 
That is premature. Without looking at the implementing language, 
without trying to address the implementing language, I think the better 
course is to look at the implementing language, if it ever comes--I say 
to the Senator, there is a possibility the Senate may not take it up 
this year. In fact, I think it is not only a real possibility, but I 
think there is some probability that in the normal course of business, 
the Congress will not take up the Uruguay round this year.
  I say that because I think the administration has done a very poor 
job in explaining what this is all about and explaining its benefits.
  Second, I think the administration has done a very poor job in trying 
to find a way to pay for it. They have not consulted anyone on this 
side of the aisle; they have a few on your side of the aisle. I must 
say, it is a little strange to me that the President of the United 
States would first consult with Members on the minority side before he 
consulted with Members on the majority side.
  Because of the poor job the administration has done, there is some 
probability that it may never come up this year. But if they get their 
act together, if it does come up before the Finance Committee soon, 
then I think we will have an opportunity to address these issues.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding again. That is why I do 
not believe the 90 days is deleterious to the whole issue. I think we 
have ample time and I think that is what the Senator felt when he 
offered the amendment; that we are not going to deal with it this year. 
I guess I must also react by saying I am not terribly surprised this 
President would come to the minority party when it comes to trade 
issues. I think he had to coalesce with them to get NAFTA through. He 
probably feels the same here.
  My guess is, though, that if he resolves or works with us to resolve 
the very real questions of the World Trade Organization, it can become 
a very bipartisan base of support for GATT. If he fails to do that or 
if we fail to do that, my guess is that it will be a very bipartisan 
voice of opposition to this agreement, and we should not find ourselves 
there. We ought to know better and work out these differences before we 
get to this very important trade agreement for our country and the 
world.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that and, just to finish, we will more 
likely get a bipartisan agreement if we let the ordinary process 
continue than if we do not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I listened with great interest to our friend from 
Montana who said something that I did not realize. He said there is 
going to be ``plenty of time'' to debate GATT when it comes up on the 
floor.
  One of the reasons I am apprehensive is that we have the fast track 
rules that are going to apply. Debate will be limited, I say to the 
Senator from Montana, to 20 hours, no more. Also, no amendment will be 
permitted, and that means that what should be a treaty will be 
approved--a treaty that no Senator knows much if anything about. I say 
to you, Mr. President, that this is a bad way to legislate, 
particularly for the U.S. Senate, which has always prided itself as 
being the world's greatest deliberative body.
  So that leads me to the conclusion, Mr. President, that the U.S. 
Senate should overwhelmingly support the pending resolution offered by 
the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] and the 
others of us who have felt it is absolutely imperative that there be a 
delay in the submission to Congress of the GATT agreement until more 
public hearings are held.
  Mr. President, I do not know how many people in the press gallery 
know one thing in the world about this GATT agreement or the World 
Trade Organization. If they profess to know anything about it, I would 
like to meet them outside. I want them to tell me what they know about 
it.
  The Senate has the duty to study this massive agreement very 
carefully, and the Senate has not done that at all. We need to take a 
serious look at this agreement lest a tragic error be made in terms of 
the best interests of this country and the American people. So do not 
give me all this hogwash about we need to move along, or that this is 
not the right vehicle. It is always the ``right vehicle'' when you are 
trying to protest something that ought not happen.
  There are many citizens who have many concerns about the WTO. 
Reference has been made to the State attorneys general--42 of them--who 
have written to me and to the President saying, ``Please, hold up on 
this thing. We have fears about the attacks on the sovereignty of the 
United States.''
  Mr. President, I am sick and tired of this business of rolling things 
through the Senate not knowing one thing about what the Senate is doing 
in the process, just because a President says he would like to have it 
done.
  If the President will send word up to the Senate that he is not going 
to trigger the fast track this year, the Thurmond amendment will be 
withdrawn. I have not checked it with Senator Thurmond, but I believe 
that if the President does not intend to trigger the fast track moving, 
that this argument is over. But, no, they are going to try to slip it 
through at the last minute--20 hours of debate and roll it into law.
  Last week, 42 State attorneys general wrote to the President saying 
in effect, ``Please, delay submitting the GATT agreement for 
consideration by the Senate so that a summit,'' as they put it, ``a 
summit can be held to discuss how the World Trade Organization impacts 
on State laws.'' They are worried about State laws, and I am worried 
about U.S. laws.
  State tax commissioners, or revenue commissioners as they are called 
in some States, have also expressed grave concerns.
  No more than a handful of Senators--and let us be honest about this--
have the vaguest notion what is in this massive trade document, and 
there have been very few hearings on it. The 42 State attorneys general 
are absolutely right, more hearings are imperative before this 
agreement is formally considered by the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, we are not playing games here. We are talking about 
the sovereignty of the United States of America. This new trade 
agreement, and especially the World Trade Organization, could very well 
be a prelude to disaster.
  One of the great privileges I have had in my life is to serve for 2 
years as the junior Senator from North Carolina when Sam Ervin was the 
senior Senator. Sam Ervin had been one of the great constitutional 
scholars of our time. He was also my friend. We did not belong to the 
same party, but I had great affection and respect for him. I believe he 
had some for me. After he left the Senate, never a day passed that he 
did not call me or I call him. He was a great American.
  One of his greatest apprehensions was the danger that international 
agreements so often posed to national sovereignty. Time and time again 
he called me and said, ``Jesse, watch out for that.'' He often said, 
prior to the Vietnam war, that the United States never lost a war, nor 
won a treaty. I do not think this was original. I think Will Rogers, or 
somebody, said it first. But it is well worth bearing in mind.
  Mr. President, I have done my best to uphold Sam Ervin's concerns, 
and as long as I am in the Senate, I will continue to make that effort.
  But let me make this point. We hear the glib comment: ``Well, this is 
so good for trade.'' What kind of trade? What kind of attacks on 
sovereignty? I will bet you that there are not 10 Senators, if that 
many, who could tell you how many pages there are in this agreement. I 
will tell you, it is 825 pages long. It is enough to give you a hernia 
trying to carry it around, and it has 22,000 pages of addenda. Do you 
want to bet me that 10 Senators know what is in it? You will lose.
  In reading parts of this GATT agreement, I found myself amazed. This 
agreement, as I have indicated, creates an entirely new international 
institution. They call it the World Trade Organization, which is going 
to replace the old GATT organization. It has some flaws that Senators 
ought to bear in mind.
  The WTO takes away the ability of the United States to veto decisions 
that are harmful to the best interests of the United States. We have a 
right to veto in the United Nations but not in the World Trade 
Organization. One might refer to this organization as a ``United 
Nations of World Trade,'' except the United States does not have a veto 
anymore.
  Everybody favors expanding world trade. I find myself a little bit 
nauseous at these pious declarations: ``Well, we must have more world 
trade.'' Of course, we all want to eliminate world trade barriers. But 
while I am for world trade, I am flat out against world government. And 
I believe the majority of the American people feel the same way about 
it.

  Mr. President, let me specify just a few of the concerns that I have 
with this so-called World Trade Organization. It is impossible to 
mention all of them here; it would take the rest of the afternoon. I do 
not want to do that. But let us go over a few of them. Later on, if 
anybody wants to hear, I will add a few dozen more concerns.
  But, first, under this World Trade Organization, the United States of 
America, which is supporting about half the world with foreign aid, has 
only 1 vote out of 117. Many important votes will be cast in the next 
10 or 25 years if and when this World Trade Organization goes into 
being and becomes effective. Votes to amend and votes to interpret the 
provisions of the WTO. The WTO will decide how to interpret all of 
these 22,000 pages of addenda and 825 pages of the agreement.
  Since we have only that one vote, we may very well be outvoted by 
Third World countries just as we are in the United Nations where 83 of 
the countries vote against the United States 50 percent of the time. At 
least we have the power of the veto in the United Nations. But we have 
nothing but one vote in the World Trade Organization. These countries 
vote against the United States in the United Nations--think about them 
in terms of the World Trade Organization: Cuba, Uganda, Ghana, Chad, 
Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Bangladesh, Cyprus. At least at the United Nations, 
I reiterate for the purpose of emphasis, the United States can veto 
decisions with which the United States disagrees because of the adverse 
effect on the best interests of this country.
  Second, under this World Trade Organization that is going to be put 
on a fast track--20 hours of debate, and bye-bye birdie, into law it 
goes--the United States gets one vote, but the United States will pay 
20 percent of the budget of the World Trade Organization. They are 
socking it to Uncle Sugar again.
  Why do the American taxpayers always end up on the short end of the 
stick? They end up paying most of the tab for these international 
organizations. That bothered Sam Ervin and it bothers me. It does not 
bother the news media. You will not read one thing about this debate in 
the Washington Post tomorrow morning. It will be the best kept secret 
in American journalism. And that suits me just fine. But if it is 
possible to have any effect whatsoever in slowing down this fast track 
that will be imposed on the U.S. Senate, or better put, upon the 
American people, I am going to try to do it.
  We no longer have the veto to stop the bad decisions. Under the old 
GATT each country could effectively exert a veto over a bad decision by 
not agreeing to adopt the panel's final decision. That is the way it 
used to be. This would preclude another country from retaliating 
against the United States.
  Under the new World Trade Organization as it is proposed to be, a 
country can no longer stop the panel decisions. These World Trade 
Organization decisions will be automatically adopted unless the winner 
agrees to drop the case. And how many winners do you think are going to 
do that? Therefore, if the United States, hypothetically, loses a case 
in the new World Trade Organization, what options do we have?
  First option. When I say this, Mr. President, Sam Ervin is going to 
spin in his grave. The United States can change its laws to conform 
with the World Trade Organization. Or the United States could pay 
compensation. Or the United States could face trade retaliation. Those 
are the three options we have.
  Mr. President, the United States will face incredible pressure, do 
you not see, to change a law that offends somebody in another country. 
It is like having a gun held to Uncle Sam's head: Change your law, give 
us money, or we will shoot you. It sounds like certain sections of 
Washington, DC, at 3 in the morning.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, that the sovereignty of the United 
States is so clearly at risk and we are faced so obviously with such 
consequences if we refuse to change our laws. Strom Thurmond is right 
in sending forward his resolution. I do not care whether it is an 
appropriations bill. I do not care whether some think it is not the 
right bill. I have managed many a bill since I have been in the Senate, 
and I have never objected to anybody's offering an amendment in the 
context of his apprehension or her apprehension that the best interests 
of this country would not be served otherwise. I challenge anybody to 
check the record and see if I have ever objected. I may not have voted 
for it, but I have never complained such a serious amendment was not on 
the right vehicle. And I never will.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I do not know if I misunderstood the Senator.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield for a question.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is the Senator suggesting that the manager of the bill 
said that Senators did not have a right to offer an amendment to this 
bill?
  Mr. HELMS. No, I did not say that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Then I misunderstood the Senator. Was the Senator 
suggesting that the manager of the bill has in any way impeded the 
ability of anybody to offer this amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will repeat all after the word 
``suggesting,'' I will appreciate it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is the Senator suggesting the manager of the bill was in 
any way impeding any Senator from being able to offer the amendment now 
before us?
  Mr. HELMS. Obviously not, because the manager of the bill does not 
have the right to do that in the first place, does he?
  Mr. LEAHY. No. In fact, the manager of the bill has said----
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have no personal animus----
  Mr. LEAHY. It is not appropriate on an appropriations bill but that 
everyone would have a chance to argue----
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator has to state his point with the question mark. 
I am saying to the Senator that I have no personal animus against the 
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. I understand, because I 
have been in his shoes, the desire to move a piece of legislation that 
he is managing. But I am saying that the statements that I constantly 
hear, ``Oh, we must not do this to this bill,'' I think the spirit of 
and meaning of the U.S. Senate is for the Senate to speak its will on 
what Senators--even a minority of Senators-- feel is bad principle for 
this country.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield further for another question?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator accept that this is authorizing 
legislation on an appropriations?
  Mr. HELMS. Absolutely. That does not mean a thing to the American 
people, and it means very little to me. I think that the Senate ought 
to consider vital issues. We have authorizing bills. We have 
appropriations bills. As a general rule, it is fine to go ahead and 
have a delineation of the two. However, I have not seen an 
appropriations bill in a long time that did not have a lot of 
legislation in it. Do you see what I mean?
  I am saying to the Senator that I am so concerned about this 
sovereignty issue that I intend to have my full say, and if I offend 
the Senator, I apologize to him.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield for a question, I hope he does 
not think that I am suggesting he is criticizing me. I was in the 
Cloakroom and missed part of what he said. That is why I was trying to 
find out what he was saying.
  The Senator is not suggesting that the manager of this bill would in 
any way try to cut off the debate of any Member on this issue.
  Mr. HELMS. No, because the Senator cannot do it, unless there are 60 
votes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Would it not have been possible if the Senator who is managing the 
bill--is it not a fact that the Senator urged Senators to come to the 
floor, and did not move to table as he obvious could have under the 
law? In fact, is it not the fact that the Senator says he wants to make 
sure that every Senator has been heard on this subject prior to making 
a motion to table, something that was available to the Senator from 
Vermont, and would have cut off debate on this particular issue?
  Mr. HELMS. If I understand what the Senator is saying--and if it is a 
question, I did not hear a question mark at the end--in the first 
place, any Senator who moves to table an amendment with nobody on the 
floor will find themselves in serious personal difficulty the next time 
he has something. So I know the Senator from Vermont would not do that. 
He is an honorable man. He is a good legislator and a good Senator.
  But I do not think I will yield for any more questions. I think the 
two Senators, Senator Leahy and Senator Helms, understand each other. I 
will probably wind up here in a little bit so somebody else can have 
the floor.
  Mr. President, under the old GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade, each country could effectively exert that veto that I 
discussed over an undesirable decision by not agreeing to adopt the 
panel's final decision. That is what I was saying before the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont asked his several questions.
  A fourth concern is the impact that the new World Trade Organization 
can have on State laws, and those 42 attorneys general have addressed 
that situation very, very clearly. Foreign countries, do you not see, 
have the ability to challenge the laws of any one or all of the 50 
States of the Union. All they have to do is file a case with the World 
Trade Organization. Canada, as a matter of fact, did exactly that sort 
of thing when it challenged the tax laws on beer of some 40 U.S. 
States, and Canada won. Now the administration is trying to convince 
some States to change those laws.
  But under the new World Trade Organization, the Federal Government 
will put pressure on States to change law. As a result, obviously, many 
States may be compelled to change some of their laws. That is why the 
attorneys general of the 42 States wrote a collective letter to 
President Clinton expressing their concern. These 42 attorneys general 
requested that a State-Federal consultation summit be held either this 
month, July, or next month, August, before the administration submits 
the implementing bill. And the Thurmond resolution responds to the 
concerns of the States attorneys general and calls for a delay so that 
this summit can take place.
  That is a valid amendment, whether it is an appropriations bill, or 
authorization bill, or anything else because that takes precedence in 
my mind over any other thing. When we start playing around with the 
sovereignty of the United States of America, that is time for the 
Senate to act under whatever rule it chooses.
  Let me read a little bit of what the attorneys general wrote to Mr. 
Clinton. It said:

       Dear Mr. President: As defenders of State laws, State 
     attorneys general have a particularly keen interest in State 
     sovereignty. The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade, which is expected to be submitted to 
     Congress under fast-track authority soon, appears to have 
     broad implications for States' self government. Given the 
     paramount importance that the U.S. Constitution assigns to 
     States' rights, we would like to request a State-Federal 
     consultation summit on this issue to be held in July or 
     August before the administration submits implementing 
     legislation.

  Mr. President, does that sound familiar? That is exactly what Strom 
Thurmond is asking the Senate to approve. Forty-two attorneys general 
in the United States have asked the President to do this. I do not know 
whether they received a reply from him or not. Then the letter says:

       We are requesting a summit to give State officials the 
     benefit of a thorough airing of the concerns about how the 
     Uruquay Round and the proposed World Trade Organization would 
     affect State laws and regulations. Many State officials still 
     have questions about how some of our State laws and 
     regulations would fare under the WTO.

  I will say, parenthetically, you bet they have concerns, and the U.S. 
Senate, all 100 of us, ought to have the same concerns about Federal 
law, and Federal sovereignty.
  The letter goes on to say:

       As you know, the U.S. Trade Representative's office is 
     charged with an interesting set of responsibilities. On the 
     one hand, its primary responsibility is to promote U.S. 
     exports and international trade. Yet, on the other hand, the 
     Trade Representative's office is charged with the 
     responsibility of protecting State sovereignty and defending 
     State law [any State law] challenged in the various 
     international dispute tribunals. Given the inevitable 
     conflict in fulfilling both sets of these responsibilities, 
     we would like to take advantage of the proposed summit to 
     clarify a range of serious concerns, including: One, whether 
     the implementing legislation adequately guarantees States 
     that the Federal Government will genuinely consider accepting 
     trade sanctions rather than pressuring States to change State 
     laws which are successfully challenged in the WTO.

  Mr. President, I will say to the distinguished manager of the bill on 
the Republican side--I see him smiling--I do not know who wrote this 
letter. But whoever wrote it ought to get a bonus because the author of 
this letter, who is speaking for the 42 State attorneys general, is 
hitting it right on target.
  The second thing they indicate is ``whether States have a guaranteed 
right and formalized process in which they could participate in 
defending their own State laws.'' Of course. These State attorneys 
general are right on target. Then they say: ``We want to know whether 
the USTR is required to engage in regular consultation with the States, 
and involve any State whose measures may be challenged in the defense 
of that measure at the earliest possible opportunity.''
  That is another great point.
  Then they want to know ``whether parties challenging a State measure 
under GATT will be able to prevail based on the fact that one State law 
is simply more or less restrictive than another State,'' and ``whether 
GATT grants any private party a right of action to challenge a State 
law in Federal court,'' and so on and so on.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full letter of the 42 attorneys 
general be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         State of Maine, Department of the Attorney General,
                                        Augusta, ME, July 6, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: As defenders of State laws, State 
     Attorneys General have a particularly keen interest in State 
     sovereignty. The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which is expected to be submitted 
     to Congress under fast-track authority soon, appears to have 
     broad implications for State self-government. Given the 
     paramount importance that the U.S. Constitution assigns to 
     State's rights, we would like to request a State-Federal 
     Consultation Summit on this issue, to be held in July or 
     August, before the Administration submits implementing 
     legislation. Although we have agreed to take the lead on this 
     issue, because it affects all State officials, an invitation 
     would be extended to State executive and legislative branches 
     as well.
       We are requesting a Summit to give State officials the 
     benefit of a thorough airing of concerns about how the 
     Uruguay Round and the proposed World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     would affect State laws and regulations. Many State officials 
     still have questions about how some of our State laws and 
     regulations would fare under the WTO and its dispute 
     resolution panels. This is of particular concern given that 
     some of our trading partners have apparently identified 
     specific State laws which they intend to challenge under the 
     WTO.
       As you know, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office (USTR) 
     is charged with an interesting set of responsibilities. On 
     one hand, its primary responsibility is to promote U.S. 
     exports and international trade. Yet, on the other hand, the 
     Trade Representative's Office is charged with the 
     responsibility of protecting State sovereignty and defending 
     any State law challenged in the various international dispute 
     tribunals. Given the inevitable conflict in fulfilling both 
     sets of these responsibilities, we would like to take 
     advantage of the proposed Summit to clarify a range of 
     serious concerns, including:
       Whether the implementing legislation adequately guarantees 
     States that the federal government will genuinely consider 
     accepting trade sanctions rather than pressuring States to 
     change State laws which are successfully challenged in the 
     WTO.
       Whether States have a guaranteed right and a formalized 
     process in which they can participated in defending their own 
     State laws.
       Whether the USTR is required to engage in regular 
     consultation with the States, and involve any State whose 
     measures may be challenged in the defense of that measure at 
     the earliest possible opportunity.
       Whether parties challenging a State measure under GATT will 
     be able to prevail based on the fact that one State law is 
     simply more or less restrictive than another State's.
       Whether GATT grants any private party a right of action to 
     challenge a State law in federal court.
       Whether an adverse WTO panel decision can be interpreted as 
     the foreign policy of the United States without the 
     subsequent ratification of the Congress and the President.
       Whether GATT panel reports and any information submitted by 
     the States to the USTR during the reservation process are 
     admissible as evidence in any federal court proceeding.
       Whether a panel decision purporting to overturn State law 
     shall be implemented only prospectively.
       Whether the federal government may sue a State and 
     challenge a State measure under GATT without an adverse WTO 
     panel decision.
       How will adverse WTO panel decisions impact State laws 
     covering pesticide residues, food quality, environmental 
     policy including recycling, or consumer health safety, where 
     State standards are more stringent than federal or 
     international standards.
       Whether so-called ``unitary taxation,'' which assesses the 
     State taxes corporations pay on the basis of a corporation's 
     worldwide operations, be illegal under GATT.
       Whether States may maintain public procurement laws that 
     favor in-State business in bidding for public contracts.
       How well protected is a State law if it is included within 
     the coverage of U.S. reservations to the new GATT agreements.
       Whether the United States can import some due process 
     guarantees into the WTO dispute resolution system, now that 
     the negotiations are over, the WTO panel proceedings remain 
     closed and documents confidential.
       In responding to our request for this GATT Summit, please 
     have staff contact Christine T. Milliken, Executive Director 
     and General Counsel of the National Association of Attorneys 
     General, at (202) 434-8053. Although the Association has 
     taken no formal position on this issue, the Association 
     provides liaison service upon request when fifteen or more 
     Attorneys General express an interest in a key subject.
       Further, the Association through action at its recent 
     Summer Meeting has instructed staff to develop in concert 
     with the Office of U.S. Trade Representative an ongoing 
     mechanism for consultation. The Association participates in 
     several federal-state work groups, principally with the U.S. 
     Department of Justice and also with the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency that might serve as a starting point for 
     developing a model for an effective ongoing dialogue with the 
     USTR on emerging issues in this key area.
           Respectfully yours,
                                             Michael E. Carpenter,
                                        Attorney General of Maine.

       The following attorneys general signed the letter:
       Alabama: Jimmy Evans; Alaska: Bruce M. Botelho; Arizona: 
     Grant Woods; Colorado: Gale A. Norton; Connecticut: Richard 
     Blumenthal; Delaware: Charles M. Oberly, III; Florida: Robert 
     A. Butterworth; Hawaii: Robert A. Marks; Idaho: Larry 
     EchoHawk; Illinois: Roland W. Burris; Indiana: Pamela Fanning 
     Carter; Iowa: Bonnie J. Campbell; Kansas: Robert T. Stephan; 
     Kentucky: Chris Gorman; Maine: Michael Carpenter; Maryland: 
     J. Joseph Curran, Jr.; Massachusetts: Scott Harshbarger; 
     Michigan: Frank J. Kelley; Minnesota: Hubert H. Humphrey, 
     III; Mississippi: Mike Moore; Missouri: Jeremiah W. Nixon; 
     Montana: Joseph F. Mazurek; Nevada: Frankie Sue Del Papa; New 
     Hampshire: Jeffrey R. Howard; New Jersey: Deborah T. Poritz; 
     New Mexico: Tom Udall; New York: G. Oliver Koppell; North 
     Carolina: Michael F. Easley; North Dakota: Heidi Heitkamp; 
     Northern Mariana Islands: Richard Weil; Ohio: Lee Fisher; 
     Oregon: Theodore R. Kulongoski; Pennsylvania: Ernest D. 
     Preate, Jr.; Puerto Rico: Pedro R. Pierluisi; Rhode Island: 
     Jeffrey B. Pine; South Carolina: T. Travis Medlock; 
     Tennessee: Charles W. Burson; Texas: Dan Morales; Utah: Jan 
     Graham; Vermont: Jeffrey L. Amestoy; Virginia: James S. 
     Gilmore, III; Washington: Christine O. Gregoire; West 
     Virginia: Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.; Wyoming: Joseph B. Meyer.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Will my friend yield for a friendly question?
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thought he was friendly--he being the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont. As I said to the Senator from 
Vermont, I have no animus against him at all. He and I have been 
friends ever since he came to the Senate, and certainly the Senator is 
my friend.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Would it not be true that this should be a treaty based 
on the criterion that has been established? There was a report by the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on when a treaty is a treaty, and is 
it not true that they outline four points: That the parties intend the 
agreement to be legally binding, subject to international law, deal 
with significant matters, as this agreement does, and it specifically 
describes the legal obligations of the parties, and the form indicates 
that intention to include a party on the substance rather than forms of 
the governing factor. Furthermore, to conclude my question, the Senate 
Finance Committee debated this in 1947.
  Mr. HELMS. Exactly.
  Mr. PRESSLER. The chairman was Eugene D. Milliken. Perhaps my friend 
knew him. I am not asking anything about his age here, merely a 
question. The Finance Committee suggested the following test be 
determined: Whether a treaty should be submitted to the Senate for a 
two-thirds approval.
  Is it not true that they state the proper distinction is when we go 
beyond conventional marks, duties, customs, and management of foreign 
trade commerce, the point where the proper field of treaty comes in, 
whenever you come to the matter where there is substantial 
disparagements of our sovereignty, to a matter where sanctions may be 
imposed against the United States, exactly what this does, by an 
international body, then you have entered the field for treaties; is 
that not true that the Finance Committee and Foreign Relations 
Committee both had such findings?
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator is exactly right. He anticipated a point I was 
going to make later, which I will not make because he has made it so 
eloquently.
  But the real point is that I have an aversion to the fast track in 
general, because I think it complicates the life of any Senator who 
really wants to perform adequately and completely in defense of the 
principles of this country. I do not say that anybody connected with 
WTO, or anybody who supports it, is not in favor of protecting the 
sovereignty of this country. But this fast track, which somebody sort 
of ingeniously fabricated in recent years, does not permit the Senate 
to study a treaty to the complete satisfaction of every Senator. This 
business of saying we are going to discuss it fully is just absolutely 
nonsense. We are allocated 20 hours, which is stipulated by the fast 
track rules.
  Mr. President, State tax officials wrote a letter that states the 
following:

       We are deeply concerned about the power over state and 
     local taxes that the new General Agreement of Tariffs and 
     Trade [GATT] will give the World Trade Organization [WTO]. 
     Our analysis reveals that these provisions will undermine 
     state and local fiscal sovereignty and likely favor business 
     over U.S. taxpayers.
       We have no objections to those provisions of the GATT 
     designed to encourage trade. However, the WTO provisions 
     applicable to State and local taxes exceed legitimate trade 
     concerns. They are likely to have unintended, but 
     significant, consequences for State sovereignty and 
     federalism.

  Furthermore, the Federation of Tax Administrators and the Multistate 
Tax Commission prepared a report that talked about the GATT case that 
Canada brought challenging dozens of state beer tax laws. The report 
concluded:

       The Beer II panel struck at the very heart of federalism. 
     The panel's reasoning leaves no room for different laws based 
     on different local circumstances, nor for any range of 
     judgment, regardless of absence of any discriminatory intent 
     in those judgments, to be exercised by different State 
     sovereigns. Indeed, the combination of the least restrictive 
     measure standard and the acceptance of de facto arguments 
     leaves all State law potentially at risk of being subject to 
     challenge under the aegis of GATT.

  Mr. President, the concerns of 42 State attorney general and the tax 
administrators are very legitimate. Dozens or perhaps hundreds of State 
laws could be attacked by foreign countries. As a matter of fact, the 
European Union issued a book entitled ``Report on United States 
Barriers to Trade and Investment.'' This report contains 111 pages of 
Federal and State laws that the EU claims are barriers and that the 
Europeans may challenge in the WTO.
  Mr. President, some claim that there is no sovereignty problem 
because the United States can ignore a bad decision and not change our 
law. What kind of reasoning is that? Our sovereignty, it seems to me, 
is affected when the courses of action that the United States can take 
are restricted.

  The fact is, the United States will face serious consequences if we 
ignore a WTO decision. If we refuse to change our law, then we will 
face trade retaliation from the winning country. Relations is a nice 
word for a trade war. The only other alternative is to settle the case 
by paying the winner some kind of compensation--like money--which comes 
from the taxpayers' pockets.
  Mr. President, the concern is real: The United States has lost 
several GATT cases--the beer case, the tuna dolphin case to name a 
couple. The administration is trying to change the beer tax laws in the 
implementing bill. And the United States is about to lose another one--
the Germans have challenged our gas guzzler tax and our CAFE laws. The 
retaliation in these two alone could be in the hundreds of millions of 
dollars.
  Let me read a few quotes from several news articles that are quite 
revealing:
  From the BNA Report--March 28, 1994:

       A GATT panel ruled in 1989 that section 337 discriminates 
     unfairly against foreign imports. A GATT panel ruling in 
     1992, initiated by Canada, found that the United States was 
     imposing unfair excise taxes on imports of Canadian beer. The 
     administration plans to implement two panel rulings of the 
     GATT.

  From the Wall Street Journal--March 18, 1994:

       The Clinton administration is preparing to withdraw a 
     clean-air regulation challenged by Venezuela under the GATT. 
     Officials concluded at a White House meeting this week that 
     the regulation would have to be withdrawn and modified 
     because in its present form it was likely to violate GATT.

  From the Journal of Commerce--March 11, 1994:

       Two rulings expected soon from the trade-monitoring General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade could require changes in the 
     U.S. environmental law GATT members are challenging aspects 
     of U.S. fuel economy standards that some argue are tougher 
     for foreign manufacturers.

  Mr. President, how many U.S. laws could be challenged? If we want to 
maintain U.S. laws that the WTO finds are illegal, will we face a trade 
war? How much money will the United States have to pay to settle a case 
to avoid a trade war? Are we prepared to pass those cost along to the 
American taxpayer?
  Mr. President, these are just a few examples of issues that merit 
serious and thoughtful debate. I urge the Congress to support this 
resolution that calls for a 60-day delay. Forty-two State attorneys 
general want more time. And the Congress should take time to hold more 
hearings on this serious subject.
  Well, Mr. President, I have occupied the floor longer than I 
intended. Senator Pressler is here.
  I thank the Chair for recognizing me, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in animated opposition to this 
measure. It would be such a departure from our procedures and such a 
loss to the Nation that it is difficult to imagine that we are even 
debating it now.
  Yesterday, Mr. President, I came to the floor as chairman of the 
Committee on Finance, which is the committee that will be principally 
occupied with the question of the Uruguay round. But the Committee on 
Agriculture will have real responsibilities, and they will be part of 
the final legislation. And I sent a message--as I hoped to do--to the 
administration saying two things: No. 1, we were disturbed to read in 
the Wall Street Journal on Friday that White House aides were not sure 
the Congress would get to the Uruguay round implementing legislation in 
this Congress, which is exactly the opposite of our intention. And that 
Friday story appeared 1 day after we sent notice to each member of the 
Finance Committee that next Tuesday, July 19, we would begin marking up 
the implementing legislation.
  We have been hard at work for the better part of a year. The Uruguay 
round was finally approved in December of last year, and initialed in 
Marrakesh in April. We have been steadily at work on this matter, under 
the fast track procedures that were specifically approved, 
overwhelmingly approved, in the Senate for the specific purpose of 
giving President Clinton the authority to finish up the negotiation, 
which was done. That negotiation took 7 years. It was the initiative in 
the first place of President Reagan; President Bush pursued it, and 
President Clinton was on hand at the conclusion. But it is a wholly 
bipartisan measure. And I said yesterday, and will repeat, that it 
marks the culmination of 60 years of American trade policy.
  From the time that Cordell Hull, Secretary of State under President 
Roosevelt, began the reciprocal trade agreements, trying--too late, as 
it happened--to bring the world back from the closed trading system 
that was precipitated by the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. In the course 
of about 3 years, world trade dropped 60 percent, depression deepened 
everywhere, totalitarian regimes came to power in Europe, the 
expansionist Japanese ``Co-Prosperity Sphere'' began in the Far East, 
the British Commonwealth moved away from free trade and went to a 
Commonwealth preference, unemployment reached 25 percent in our 
country--well, it was too late to prevent the Second World War that 
followed in the wake of these events. Smoot-Hawley was not the only 
event that led to that war, but a profoundly important event.
  In the aftermath of the war, our Government thought to create a 
series of international economic organizations that would learn the 
lessons of the 1930's. We would learn about currencies and exchange 
rates, and so we created the International Monetary Fund. We would 
learn about the movement of capital, and we would create the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now known as the 
World Bank; and we would learn from the disaster of beggar-thy-neighbor 
trade policies of the 1930's, the disaster which began on this floor, 
sir, and would create an international trade organization.
  The World Bank was put in place, and the Monetary Fund was put in 
place. The International Trade Organization was not. It died in the 
Senate Finance Committee. But a temporary arrangement, the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, was worked out in Geneva. As I remarked 
yesterday, I can recall from the negotiations of the Long-Term Cotton 
and Textile Agreement of 1962, when the GATT consisted of Eric Wyndham 
White, former British treasury official and civil servant, and a few 
secretaries in a small villa looking over the city of Geneva.
  (Mr. ROBB assumed the chair.)
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. But now after 7 years of negotiations, we have produced 
a world agreement with 117 nations which eliminates tariffs by about a 
third across the world, contemplates the end of agricultural subsidies 
such that American farm exports can have the place to which they 
economically are entitled in world trade, ensures intellectual property 
rights in developing nations, and does an extraordinary range of other 
things. It is a 22,000-page agreement, if you include the country 
schedules.
  It creates a World Trade Organization, basically the same mechanism 
that was anticipated back in 1945 and 1946. It is, as the GATT is, a 
forum in which trade issues are worked out, new agreements are reached, 
as was the Uruguay round, an agreement under the GATT. The next such 
world agreement will be under the World Trade Organization. And there 
is a dispute settlement mechanism.
  People who trade together will have disputes, and they have an 
interest in arranging for their resolution.
  As to the United States and Canada, my friend from North Carolina was 
mentioning that. When we had the United States-Canadian Free-Trade 
Agreement, we put in a dispute settlement arrangement. It did not 
threaten the sovereignty of Canada; it did not threaten the sovereignty 
of the United States. It just means that we get these things settled. 
Sometimes the cases will go against you, and sometimes they will go for 
you. That is the way trade is. There are many, many issues involved.
  In no sense does this new organization contemplate changing American 
domestic law.
  I have a letter here from the distinguished jurist, Robert H. Bork, 
who wrote to Ambassador Kantor on May 26 saying that it is impossible 
to see a threat to this Nation's sovereignty posed by either the World 
Trade Organization or the dispute settlement arrangement.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Robert H. Bork,

                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 1994.
     Ambassador Michael Kantor,
     Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
     Washington, DC.,
       Dear Mr. Ambassador: I understand that opposition to the 
     Uruguay Round agreements has focused on the creation of the 
     World Trade Organization [WTO]. The claim, which was also 
     made with respect to NAFTA, is that the WTO is a threat to 
     the sovereignty of the United States.
       It is difficult to resist the conclusion that some of those 
     who make this claim are actually opposed to the lowering of 
     tariff and non-tariff barriers in international trade. The 
     protectionist impulse is strong but it is contrary to the 
     best interests of American business, workers, and consumers.
       The sovereignty issue, in particular, is merely a 
     scarecrow. Under our constitutional system, no treaty or 
     international agreement can bind the United States if it does 
     not wish to be bound. Congress may at any time override such 
     an agreement or any provision of it by statute. (The 
     President would, or course, participate as the Constitution 
     provides in the enactment of such a statute.) Congress should 
     be reluctant to renege on an agreement except in serious 
     cases, but that is a matter of international comity and not a 
     loss of sovereignty.
       The same observations apply to the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding [DSU]. A mechanism for settling trade disputes 
     is essential if the aims of the Uruguay Round agreements are 
     to be achieved. It is extremely unlikely that any country 
     will agree with all recommendations as to the resolution of 
     the disputes in which it is involved. There is no dispute 
     resolution process anywhere that can achieve that result. 
     Once again, however, recommendations made under the DSU do 
     not bind Congress and the Executive Branch unless those 
     departments of government choose to be bound.
       Protection of U.S. sovereignty, however, does not depend 
     solely on the undoubted ability of our political branches to 
     nullify or modify agreements or recommendations. The WTO 
     itself contains numerous safeguards concerning procedures 
     which protect not only the sovereignty but the interests of 
     all nations, including the United States. It appears that 
     these safeguards are either the same as or stronger than 
     those already existing in the GATT, under which we have 
     operated successfully for decades.
       In sum, it is impossible to see a threat to this nation's 
     sovereignty posed by either the WTO or the DSU. Any agreement 
     liberalizing international trade would necessarily contain 
     mechanisms similar to those in the Uruguay Round agreements. 
     The claim that such mechanisms are a danger to U.S. 
     sovereignty is not merely wrong but would, if accepted, doom 
     all prospects for freer trade achieved by multi-national 
     agreement.
           Yours truly,
                                                   Robert H. Bork.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, to continue what I was saying yesterday, 
the Finance Committee, having worked on this for the better part of a 
year, next Tuesday, if we get a signal from the President and get from 
the President the financing mechanism which he proposes, we will 
proceed to draft legislation. They will do the same or are doing the 
same on the House side. We will work our bills together.
  Then, under this arrangement we have worked out, having in mind that 
disaster of 1930, we will transmit to the President this legislation 
which he will propose to us as a bill. We will have drafted this 
legislation. It will be a bipartisan effort in the Finance Committee, 
and several other committees.
  The proposal to give the President an extension of his fast-track 
negotiating authority passed the Finance Committee a year ago 18 to 2, 
so the President could go to the G-7 summit in Tokyo, and say we are 
ready to finish up this negotiation, which was done in about 6 months' 
time.
  This would stop it. This would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. 
This could be the kind of decision that we made in the thirties that 
triggered a world depression and helped trigger a world war.
  I am not arguing we are about to do that, but we can break up after 
the cold war into separate trading blocs. We could do that. There is a 
whiff of that in the world right now and the realization that, no, do 
not--a thousand economists wrote President Hoover saying, ``Do not sign 
that Smoot-Hawley tariff.'' He signed it anyway, and the 1930's 
commenced, ending with war.
  I am not making any such melodramatic proposals, but I am saying this 
could be the end of the free-trading system that the United States has 
triumphantly put in place. We have in the Uruguay round the culmination 
of 60 years of American foreign trade policy that has taken place 
through Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, 
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. This particular 
measure, I would remind my friends in the Senate, the Uruguay round was 
initiated by President Reagan, having been given the authority to do so 
under the fast-track mechanism by the Congress.
  President Reagan got going very well indeed. President Bush 
proceeded. It took 7 years. And then when the time ran out and the 
newest President in line, in this case Mr. Clinton, needed an extension 
of fast-track authority, we gave it to him because we want this.
  Mr. President, there is an organization put together recently called 
the Alliance for GATT Now. It represents 200,000 American businesses. 
It is an astonishing list. Any Member of the Senate would want to look 
at it to see the firms from his or her own State, to see firms that are 
in just about every State.
  The organization is headed by the distinguished chairman of Texas 
Instruments, Jerry Junkins with whom I have met and discussed this 
matter at some length.
  I think this organization, if anything, could be said to represent 
the judgment of the American business community, that this is a job-
creating, wealth-creating agreement, a measure that the United States 
has worked for and now is about to achieve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the membership of the Alliance for GATT 
Now be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Alliance for GATT Now Membership

       3M (St. Paul, MN).
       Abbott Laboratories (North Chicago, IL).
       ABI Irrigation, Inc. (Monroeville, PA).
       A.C. Products Inc. (Apple Creek, OH).
       Access International Markets, Ltd (Milwaukee, WI).
       Ace Hardware Corporation (Oak Brook, IL).
       Aerospace Industries Association (Washington, DC).
       Aetna Life & Casualty Company (Hartford, CT).
       Air L.A. (Los Angeles, CA).
       Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Allentown, PA).
       Aire-Mate Inc. (Westfield, IN).
       AlliedSignal Inc. (Morristown, NJ).
       Almerica Overseas, Inc. (Tuscaloosa, AL).
       The Aluminum Association, Inc. (Washington, DC).
       AMC Entertainment Int'l (Kansas City, MO).
       America's Voice Communications (Studio City, CA).
       American Assoc. of Exporters & Importers, (New York, NY).
       American Brands, Inc. (Greenwich. CT).
       American Business Conference (Washington, DC).
       American Cyanamid Company (Wayne, NJ).
       American Electric Power Company, Inc. (Columbus, OH).
       American Electronics Association (Washington, DC).
       American Express Company (New York, NY).
       American Furniture Manufacturers Association (Washington, 
     DC).
       American Home Products Corp, (Madison, NJ).
       American Insurance Association (Washington, DC).
       American International Group (New York, NY).
       American Iron & Steel Institute (Washington, DC).
       American Maize Products Co. (Stamford, CT).
       American Mining Congress (Washington, DC).
       American Petroleum Institute (Washington, DC).
       American President Companies (Oakland, CA).
       American Standard (New York, NY).
       Ameritech (Chicago, IL).
       Amoco Corporation (Chicago, IL).
       AMP Incorporated (Harrisburg, PA).
       Ampacey International (Tarrytown, NY).
       AMR Corporation (Dallas, TX).
       Anheuser-Busch Companies (St. Louis, MO).
       Antelope Valley Board of Trade (Lancaster, CA).
       APAN Corporation (Owings Mills, MD).
       Applause, Inc. (Woodland Hills, CA).
       ARCO (Los Angeles, CA).
       Argyle Atlantic Corporation (Phoenix, AZ).
       Armstrong World Industries (Lancaster, PA).
       Arthur Andersen & Co., SC (Chicago, IL).
       Arvin Industries Inc. (Columbus, IN).
       ASARCO, Inc. (New York, NY).
       Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. (Stamford, CT).
       Ashland Oil, Inc. (Ashland, KY).
       Associated Merchandising Corp. (Washington, DC).
       Association of American Railroads (Washington, DC).
       Association of International Automobile Manufacturers 
     (Arlington, VA).
       AT&T (Basking Ridge, NJ).
       A.T.C.I. (Richardson, TX).
       Atlanta Customs Brokers (Atlanta, GA).
       Avon Products, Inc. (New York, NY).
       Azimex International (Greenwood Lake, NY).
       Azon USA Inc. (Kalamazoo, MI).
       Baker Hughes Inc. (Houston, TX).
       Baldor Electric Company (Fort Smith, AR).
       Bane One Corp. (Columbus, OH).
       Bankers Trust Corp. (New York, NY).
       Baxter International Inc. (Deerfield, IL).
       Bechtel Group Inc. (San Francisco, CA).
       Beehive Botanicals (Hayword, WI).
       Bell Atlantic (Philadelphia, PA).
       BellSouth Corporation (Atlanta, GA).
       Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Bethlehem, PA).
       BFC Industries (Bremen, IN).
       BFGoodrich Company (Akron, OH).
       The Black & Decker Corporation (Towson, MD).
       BMC Specialties (Columbia, SC).
       The Boeing Company (Seattle, WA).
       Booth & Associates (Scottsdale, AZ).
       BP America (Cleveland, OH).
       Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Nashville, TN).
       Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (New York, NY).
       Browning-Ferris Industries (Houston, TX).
       Bruce Foods Corporation (New Iberia. LA).
       Burlington Northern International Services, Inc. (Fort 
     Worth, TX).
       The Business Roundtable (Washington, DC).
       BW/IP International, Inc. (Long Beach, CA).
       Cable & Wireless, Inc. (Vienna, VA).
       California Chamber of Commerce (Sacramento, CA).
       California Council for International Trade (San Francisco, 
     CA).
       Campbell Soup Company (Camden, NJ).
       Capital Cities/ABC (New York, NY).
       Cargill (Minneapolis, MN).
       Carolina Power & Light Company (Raleigh, NC).
       Carolyn Warner and Associates (Phoenix, AZ).
       CASAS International Brokerage (San Diego, CA).
       Cascade Corporation (Portland, OR).
       Case Logic, Inc. (Longmont, CO).
       Caterpillar, Inc. (Peoria, IL).
       Cemex/Sunwest Materials (Washington, DC).
       Ceridian Corporation (Minneapolis, MN).
       Cezadon Group, Inc. (Indianapolis, IN).
       Chase Manhattan Bank (New York, NY).
       Chemical Banking Corporation (New York, NY).
       Chemical Manufacturers Association (Washington, DC).
       Chevron Corporation (San Fransisco, CA).
       The Chubb Corp. (Warren, NJ).
       CIGNA Corporation (Philadelphia, PA).
       Cintron Lehner Barrett, Inc. (Dallas, TX).
       Circuit City Stores, Inc. (Richmond, VA).
       Citicorp/Citibank (New York, NY).
       Citizens for a Sound Economy (Washington, DC).
       Clarklift of San Diego, Inc. (San Diego, CA).
       Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (Cleveland, OH).
       Clorox Company (Oakland, CA).
       Coalition for Open Markets & Expanded Trade (Washington, 
     DC).
       Coalition of New England Companies for Trade (Washington, 
     DC).
       Coalition of Service Industries (Washington, DC).
       The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, GA).
       Coergon, Inc. (Boulder, CO).
       Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, NY).
       The Columbia Gas System, Inc. (Wilmington, DE).
       Columbia Healthcare Corp.
       Committee For Economic Development (Washington, DC).
       Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports (Washington, DC).
       Computer & Business Equipment manufacturers Association 
     (Washington, DC).
       Computer & Communications Industry Association (Washington, 
     DC).
       ConAgra (Omaha, NE).
       Connell Company (Westfield, NJ).
       Consumers for World Trade (Washington, DC).
       Cooper Industries (Houston, TX).
       Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc. (Washington, DC).
       Corn Refiners Association, Inc. (Washington, DC).
       Corning Incorporated (Corning, NY).
       Corpus International (Ellicott City, MD).
       Cosmopolitan Business Comm., Inc. (Arvada, CO).
       CPC International, Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
       Crane Cams, Inc. (Daytona Beach, FL).
       Creed Rice Company, Inc. (Houston, TX).
       CSX Corporation (Richmond, VA).
       Cummins Engine Co., Inc. (Columbus, IN).
       Curtis Dyna-Fog Ltd. (Westfield, IN).
       Custom Duplication (Inglewood, CO).
       Customs Consultants (No. Tonawanda, NY).
       Daimler-Benz Washington (Washington, DC).
       Dana Corporation (Toledo, OH).
       Data General Corp. (Westboro, MA).
       Davis, Keller & Davis (Langley, WA).
       Dayton Hudson Corporation (Minneapolis, MN).
       Deere & Company (Moline, IL).
       Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Atlanta, GA).
       Denver Business & Economics Council (Denver, CO).
       Detroit Diesel Corporation (Detroit, MI).
       The Dial Corporation (Phoenix, AZ).
       Digital Equipment Corporation (Maynard, MA).
       Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (Washington, DC).
       Dodge-Reupol, Inc. (Lancaster, PA).
       R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (Chicago, IL).
       Dormont Mfg. Co. (Export, PA).
       Dow Chemical Company (Midland, MI).
       DPL Inc. (Dayton, OH).
       Dresser Industries (Dallas, TX).
       Drexel Chemical Company (Memphis, TN).
       E.J. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (Wilmington, DE).
       The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. (New York, NY).
       Duracell International (Bethel, CT).
       E'Lan International, Inc. (Newport Beach, CA).
       Eastman Chemical Company (Kingsport, TN).
       Eastman Kodak Co. (Rochester, NY).
       Eaton Corporation (Cleveland, OH).
       EBCO Manufacturing Company (Columbus, OH).
       EBW, Inc. (Muskegon, MI).
       Ecology International Ltd., Corp. (Akron, OH).
       Economic Development Consortium (Georgetown, SC).
       Ed Garber Associates (Los Angeles, CA).
       EDS Corporation (Washington, DC).
       Electronic Industries Association (Washington, DC).
       Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN).
       Emergency Committee for American Trade (Washington, DC).
       Emerson Electric Company (St. Louis, MO).
       Engle-Hambright & Davies, Inc. (Lancaster, PA).
       Enron Corporation (Houston, TX).
       Equipment Manufacturers Institute (Chicago, IL).
       The Equitable Companies Inc. (New York, NY).
       Ernst & Young (New York, NY).
       Eubanks Engineering Co. (Monrovia, CA).
       Exxon Corporation (Irving, TX).
       Fairfield Chair Company (Lenoir, NC).
       Fairmount Minerals, Limited (Chardon, OH).
       Faison-Stone, Inc. (Irving, TX).
       Federal Express Corporation (Memphis, TN).
       Filter Specialists, Inc. (Michigan City, IN).
       First Brands Corporation (Danbury, CT).
       Fluor Corporation (Irvine, CA).
       FMC Corporation (Chicago, IL).
       Food Marketing Institute (Washington, DC).
       Ford New Holland, Inc. (New Holland, PA).
       Gannett Co., Inc. (Arlington, VA).
       GenCorp Inc. (Fairlawn, OH).
       General Electric Co. (Fairfield, CT).
       General Mills, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN).
       General Motors Corporation (Detroit, MI).
       General Tire, Inc. (Akron, OH).
       George Koch Sons, Inc. (Evansville, IN).
       Georgia Ports Authority.
       Gilbert & VanCampen Int'l (New York, NY).
       The Gillette Company (Boston, MA).
       Global Export & Import (Reseda, CA).
       Global Manufacturing, Inc. (Little Rock, AR).
       Global Overseas Services, Inc. (Houston, TX).
       The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Akron, OH).
       Grant Thornton (Los Angeles, CA).
       Great West International, Inc. (Englewood, CO).
       Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce (Dallas, TX).
       Greater Houston Partnership (Houston, TX).
       Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce (Miami, FL).
       Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce (San Diego, CA).
       Grocery Manufacturers Association (Washington, DC).
       Groth Corporation (Houston, TX).
       Grupo Cisneros International (Lakewood, CO).
       GTE Corporation (Stamford, CT).
       Halliburton Co. (Dallas, TX).
       Hallmark Cards, Inc. (Kansas City, MO).
       Harris Associates/The Oatmark Funds (Chicago, IL).
       Harris Corporation (Melbourne, FL).
       Hasbro Inc. (Pawtucket, RI).
       Health Industry Manufacturers Association (HIMA) 
     (Washington, DC).
       Henry Vogt Machine Company (Louisville, KY).
       Hercules Incorporated (Wilmington, DE).
       Hershey Foods Corporation (Hershey, PA).
       Heublein, Inc. (Washington, DC).
       Heukel Corporation (Ambler, PA).
       Hewlett-Packard Company (Palo Alto, CA).
       HHS Export Trading Company (Alhambra, CA).
       Hidden Creek Industries (Troy, MI).
       Honeywell Inc. (Minneapolis, MN).
       Horix MFG. Co. (Pittsburgh, PA).
       Household International (Prospect Heights, IL).
       Hufcor, Inc. (Janesville, WI).
       IBM Corp. (Armonk, NY).
       IKR Corporation (Houston, TX).
       Illinois Corn Growers Assoc. (Bloomington, IL).
       Illinois Department of Agriculture (Springfield, IL).
       Illinois Tool Works (Glenview, IL).
       IMCERA Group, Inc. (Northbrook, IL).
       Importmex (Baltimore, MD).
       Indiana Chamber of Commerce (Indianapolis, IN).
       Information Technology Association of America (Arlington, 
     VA).
       Ingersoll-Rand Company (Woodcliffe Lakes, NJ).
       Inland Empire International Business Association (Moreno 
     Valley, CA).
       InouMar Products, Inc. (Houston, TX).
       Intel Corporation (Santa Clara, CA).
       Intellectual Property Committee (Washington, DC).
       Intellectual Property Owners Association (Washington, DC).
       International Association of Drilling Contractors 
     (Washington, DC).
       International Business Consultants (Lakewood, CO).
       International Business Services I.B.S. (Chicago, IL).
       International Insurance Council (Washington, DC).
       International Mass Retail Association (Washington, DC).
       International Paper Company (New York, NY).
       International Public Relations Affiliates (Long Beach, CA).
       International Services, USA (Austin, TX).
       International Trade Advisor (Berwyn, PA).
       Interpro, Inc. (Phoenix, AZ).
       Inverness Corp. (Fairlawn, NJ).
       ITT Corporation (New York, NY).
       J.C. Penney Company, Inc. (Dallas, TX).
       J.L. Marketing Inc. (Fenton, MO).
       J.R. Simplot Company (Boise, ID).
       Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, NJ).
       Johnson Controls, Inc. (Milwaukee, WI).
       Johnson Matthet, Incorporated (Wayne, PA).
       Joseph A. McKinney Consulting (Waco, TX).
       Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (New York, NY).
       KMart Corporation (Troy, MI).
       Kellogg Company (Battle Creek, MI).
       Kentucky World Trade Center (Lexington, KY).
       Kerr-McGee Corporation (Oklahoma City, OK).
       KPMG Peat Marwick (New York, NY).
       The Kroger Company (Cincinnati, TX).
       Latin American Consulting, Inc. (Kent, WA).
       Lectro Engineering Co. (St. Louis, MO).
       Leeward, Inc. (Dallas, TX).
       Levi Strauss Associates (San Francisco, CA).
       LFP Capital (Los Angeles, CA).
       The Limited, Inc. (Columbus, OH).
       Lindsay International Corp. (Houston, TX).
       Litton Industries, Inc. (Beverly Hills, CA).
       Long Island Foreign Trade Zone Authority (Ronkonkoma, NY).
       The LTV Corporation (Cleveland, OH).
       M.G. Maher & Company, Inc. (New Orleans, LA).
       Made In Mexico, Inc. (Chula Vista, CA).
       Malichi Diversified, Ltd. (Indianapolis, IN).
       Manitowoe Company, Inc. (Manitowoc, WI).
       Marketeck International (Tampa, FL).
       Marriott Corporation (Bethesda, MD).
       Marsh & McLennan Companies (New York, NY).
       Marsheider & Company (Cincinnati, OH).
       Martin K. Eby Construction Co. (Wichita, KS).
       Martin Marietta Corporation (Bethesda, MD).
       Maryland Department of Agriculture (Annapolis, MD).
       Master Chemical Corporation (Perrsyburg, OH).
       Mattel Toys (El Segundo, CA).
       Maytag Corporation (Newton, IA).
       McDermott International Inc. (New Orleans, LA).
       McDonnell Douglas Corporation (St. Louis, MO).
       McDowell Services Company (Cleveland, OH).
       McGraw-Hill, Inc. (New York, NY).
       MCI (Washington, DC).
       McKesson Corporation (San Francisco, CA).
       Melton Truck Lines, Inc. (Tulsa, OK).
       Merck & Co., Inc. (Whitehouse Station, NJ).
       Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (New York, NY).
       Metallia (Washington, DC).
       Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (New York, NY).
       Miami Valley Marketing Group, Inc. (Dayton, OH).
       Michigan Manufacturers Association (Lansing, MI).
       Microfax, Inc. (Arvada, CO).
       Mid-America World Trade Center (Wichita, KS).
       Migrandy Corp. (Merritt Island, FL).
       Miles, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA).
       Milwaukee Heart, S.C. (Milwaukee, WI).
       Milwaukee Minority Chamber of Commerce (Milwaukee, WI).
       Mobil Corporation (Fairfax, VA).
       Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce (Mobile, AL).
       Monsanto Company (St. Louis, MO).
       J.P. Morgan & Company, Inc. (New York, NY).
       Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc. (New York, NY).
       Morrison Knudsen Corp. (Boise, ID).
       Mosler Inc. (Hamilton, OH).
       Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (Washington, 
     DC).
       Motorola (Schaumburg, IL).
       MSI United Ltd. (Seattle, WA).
       N. Merfish Supply Co. (Houston, TX).
       Nalco Chemical Company (Naperville, IL).
       National Apparel & Textile Association (Seattle, WA).
       National Association of Beverage Importers, Inc. 
     (Washington, DC).
       National Assoc. of Hosiery Manufacturers (Charlotte, NC).
       National Association of Insurance Brokers (Washington, DC).
       National Association of Manufacturers (Washington, DC).
       National Business Products (Ste. Genevieve, MO).
       National Electrical Manufacturers Association (Washington, 
     DC).
       National Foreign Trade Council (Washington, DC).
       National Grain and Feed Association (Washington, DC).
       National Intergroup, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA).
       National Retail Federation (Washington, DC).
       National Semiconductor Corp. (Santa Clara, CA).
       NationsBank (Charlotte, NC).
       New England/Canada Business Council (Boston, MA).
       New York Life Insurance Co. (New York, NY).
       NIKE, Inc. (Beaverton, OR).
       NOR-AM Chemical Company (Wilmington, DE).
       Norfolk Southern Corporation (Norfolk, VA).
       North American Chemicals, L.C. (Houston, TX).
       Nuffer, Smith, Tuder, Inc. (San Diego, CA).
       NYNEX (New York, NY).
       Occidental Petroleum Corp. (Los Angeles, CA).
       Ohio Machinery Co. (Broadview Heights, OH).
       Olin Corporation (Stamford, CT).
       Oliver Rubber Company (Oakland, CA).
       Organization for International Investment (Washington, DC).
       Orion Corporate Funding, Inc. (Englewood, CO).
       Ortho-Kinetics, Inc. (Waukesha, WI).
       Owens-Corning Corp. (Toledo, OH).
       Paccar Inc. (Bellevue, WA).
       Pacific Enterprises (Los Angeles, CA).
       Pacific Northwest International Trade Association 
     (Portland, OR).
       Pacific Telesis Group (San Francisco, CA).
       Palocor Corporation (Dallas, TX).
       The Paz Group (Carrollton, TX).
       Pearson's Inc. (Thedford, NE).
       Peavey Electronics Corp. (Meridian, MS).
       Pennzoil (Houston, TX).
       Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce (Pensacola, FL).
       PepsiCo (Purchase, NY).
       The Perkin-Elmer Corporation (Norwalk, CT).
       Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY).
       Pharmaceutical Manuf. Assn. (Washington, DC).
       Pharr Chamber of Commerce (Pharr, TX).
       Phelps Dodge Corporation (Phoenix, AZ).
       PHH Corporation (Hunt Valley, MD).
       Philip Morris Companies Inc. (New York, NY).
       Pina County Board of Supervisors (Tucson, AZ).
       Port of New Orleans (New Orleans, LA).
       Port of Oakland (Oakland, CA).
       Potomac Electric Power Co. (Washington, DC).
       PPG Industries, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA).
       Praxair, Inc. (Danbury, PA).
       Precision Machine & Engineering (Phoenix, AZ).
       Premark International, Inc. (Deerfield, IL).
       Price Waterhouse (New York, NY).
       Prince Mfg. Corporation (Sioux City, IA).
       Principal Financial Group (Des Moines, IA).
       The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, OH).
       Professional Machine and Tool (Wichita, KS).
       The Promus Companies (Memphis, TN).
       The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Newark, NJ).
       PSI Resources (Plainfield, IN).
       Puratil, Inc. (Doraville, GA).
       Quaker Fabric Corporation (Fall River, MA).
       The Quaker Oats Company (Chicago, IL).
       Raytheon Company (Lexington, MA).
       Reader's Digest Association (Pleasantville, NY).
       Reckitt & Coleman, Inc. (Wayne, NJ).
       Red Devil Incorporated (Union, NJ).
       Rendo Company (Fresno, CA).
       Riverwood International Corp. (Washington, DC).
       Roadway Services, Inc. (Akron, OH).
       J.D. Robinson, Inc. (New York, NY).
       Rockwell International Corp. (Seal Beach, CA).
       Rohm and Haas Company (Philadelphia, PA).
       Rome Area Chamber of Commerce (Rome, NY).
       Rotunda, Inc. (Columbus, OH).
       Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. (Cleveland, OH).
       Ryder System, Inc. (Miami, FL).
       Saint-Gobain Corporation (Valley Forge, PA).
       San Diego Economic Development Corp. (San Diego, CA).
       SaniServ (Indianapolis, IN).
       Santa Fe Pacific Corp. (Schaumburg, IL).
       Sara Lee Corporation (Chicago, IL).
       Sayett Group, Inc. (Pittsford, NY).
       Schering-Plough Corporation (Madison, NJ).
       Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Chicago, IL).
       Semiconductor Industry Association (San Jose, CA).
       Shell Oil Company (Houston, TX).
       SIFCO Industries (Cleveland, OH).
       A.O. Smith Corporation (Milwaukee, WI).
       Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (Washington, DC).
       Solomon Brothers (New York, NY).
       Southern California Edison Co. (Rosemead, CA).
       The Southern Company (Atlanta, GA).
       Southern States Cooperative (Richmond, VA).
       Spalding & Eventlo Co., Inc. (Tampa, FL).
       Springs Industries (Fort Mill, SC).
       Sprint Corporation (Shawnee Mission, KS).
       St Publications Inc. (Cincinnati, OH).
       Stafford & Paulsworth (Blue Bell, PA).
       State Farm Insurance Companies (Bloomington, IL).
       Sun Microsystems (Mountain View, CA).
       Sundstrand Corporation (Rockford, IL).
       SunWest Foods, Inc. (Davis, CA).
       SuperValu (Minneapolis, MN).
       Syracuse University School of Management (Syracuse, NY).
       Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of Commerce (Tacoma, WA).
       Telect Inc. (Liberty Lake, WA).
       Tenneco Inc. (Houston, TX).
       Texas Instruments (Dallas, TX).
       Textron, Inc. (Providence, RI).
       Thomas International Publishing Co., Inc. (New York, NY).
       The Times Mirror Company (Los Angeles, CA).
       TLC Beatrice Inter. Holdings (New York, NY).
       Tomlinson Industries (Cleveland, OH).
       Toner Service Co., Inc. (St. Louis, MO).
       Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc. (New York, NY).
       The Travelers Corporation (Hartford, CT).
       TRW Inc. (Cleveland, OH).
       Tubacero International Corporation (Houston, TX).
       TURCK Inc. (Plymouth, MN).
       Tyco International Ltd. (Exeter, NH).
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Washington, DC).
       U.S. Council for International Business (Washington, DC).
       UAL Corporation (Chicago, IL).
       Union Camp Corporation (Wayne, NJ).
       Union Carbide Corporation (Danbury, CT).
       Union Pacific Corp. (Bethlehem, PA).
       Unisys Corp. (Blue Bell, PA).
       United Distillers (Stamford, CT).
       United Parcel Service (UPS) (Atlanta, GA).
       United States Surgical Corporation (Norwalk, CT).
       United Technologies Corporation (Hartford, CT).
       Unitog Co. (Kansas City, MO).
       Universal Metals & Mach., Inc. (Houston, TX).
       Unocal Corporation (Los Angeles, CA).
       UNUM Corp. (Portland, ME).
       The Upjohn Company (Kalamazoo, MI).
       Utilx Corporation (Kent, WA).
       Valve Manufacturers Association (Washington, DC).
       Viasoft Inc. (Phoenix, AZ).
       VME North America (Asheville, NC).
       VSI Catalog Communications International (Riverside, CA).
       Vulcan Industries, Inc. (Missouri Valley, IA).
       Warnaco (New York, NY).
       Warner-Lambert Company (Morris Plains, NJ).
       Warren and Company (Washington, DC).
       Watkins Manufacturing, Inc. (Evendale, OH).
       WCI Steel, Inc. (Warren, OH).
       Wells Fargo & Company (San Francisco, CA).
       Weltron Company (Morgan Hill, CA).
       Westinghouse Corp. (Pittsburgh, PA).
       Westvaco Corporation (New York, NY).
       Wharton Export Network (Philadelphia, PA).
       Whirlpool Corp. (St. Joseph, MI).
       Wilbur-Ellis Co. (Edenburg, TX).
       The Williams Companies, Inc. (Tulsa, OK).
       Wimarco International (South Euclid, OH).
       Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (Madison, WI).
       Witco Corporation (New York, NY).
       WMX Technologies (Oak Brook, IL).
       Woolworth Corporation (New York, NY).
       World Trade Center Portland (Portland, OR).
       Xerox Corporation (Stamford, CT).
       Yuma Economic Development Corp. (Yuma, AZ).
       Zenith Electronics Corp. (Glenview, IL).
       Zero Tariff Coalition (Washington, DC).
       Zurn Industries (Erie, PA).

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my own personal 
appreciation to Mr. Jerry Junkins of Texas Instruments, who is doing a 
civic duty, and I think properly so, in heading up the organization.
  And so, Mr. President, I would speak to my friend, the manager of the 
bill, the chairman of the subcommittee, and urge that we do not 
continue this matter any further. The Committee on Finance, as well as 
Agriculture and Foreign Relations and others, will take up this matter. 
It will come to us. We will have time to debate it on the floor in the 
manner that we have done in the past.
  Mr. President, I ask consent to submit a statement by the chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Pell, a strong opponent of 
the measure before us, for the Record.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this amendment raises several issues of 
concern to the Foreign Relations Committee. First, the amendment 
suggests that existing procedures under which trade agreements are 
treated as executive agreements rather than as treaties be changed. It 
is my view that Congress has been well served by the current practice 
of considering trade agreements as Executive agreements and placing 
them in the primary jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
  Second, it raises concern about a potential threat to U.S. 
sovereignty posed by the World Trade Organization. The committee held 
an extensive hearing on this subject last month, and I am fully 
satisfied that the WTO does not present any threat to U.S. sovereignty.
  The WTO does not affect Congress' sole right to change U.S. law nor 
does it create a new powerful international organization. The WTO 
reaffirms current GATT practice of making decisions by consensus. In 
the rare instances that the WTO would vote, the voting procedures in 
the WTO would strengthen the hand of the United States and weaken the 
power of smaller countries by requiring a higher majority for decisions 
than is currently required in the GATT. In addition, under the rules of 
the WTO, any provision or amendment affecting substantive U.S. rights 
and obligations expressly requires U.S. approval.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Thurmond amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe that I have made such remarks 
as I have had in mind. Seeing no one else seeking recognition, I 
suggest we vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am perfectly willing to go to a vote on this.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I propose that we do?
  Mr. LEAHY. I have been advised by some on the other side that Senator 
Thurmond may wish to speak for another minute or two.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. And if the yeas and nays were ordered, then it would take 
unanimous consent to either withdraw the amendment or vitiate the yeas 
and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I do not want to dissuade the Senator from South Carolina. 
I want to talk for a minute or so, but then we will go to a vote, 
unless I am advised he is about to come back.
  Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from New 
York for his comments. The distinguished Senator from New York carries 
tremendous burdens, not the least of which, of course, is the fact that 
he is the lead figure in trying to put together a health care package 
that this country can be able to afford. I know that he has taken time 
from what was a tremendously busy day on other matters to come over and 
discuss this.
  I hope that Senators will listen to what the Senator from New York 
said. There will be a place to debate GATT. There is going to be a time 
to debate implementation language in the committee of the Senator from 
New York, in the Finance Committee. There will be a chance to debate 
some aspects of it in the Agriculture Committee, although I would note 
that, because of a dispute involving our neighbor to the north, we may 
be delayed in the Agriculture Committee some considerable time before 
we get to the implementing legislation, only because we are distracted, 
some of us, not the least of which is the chairman, somewhat distracted 
by this dispute taking place in Canada and the inability of the 
administration to focus on aspects of that debate and the inability of 
the administration to fully comprehend the interests of some producers 
of commodities in our country and apparently are unaware of the fact 
that our valued neighbor to the north has taken advantage of the United 
States. But I am sure that at some point they might get around to 
noting that.
  Canada is nearby. I would invite any of our trade negotiators to come 
to Vermont with me and I can drive them to Canada, if they would like. 
It is only about an hour from my own home in Vermont. Once they have 
had a chance to look at this issue, we could go forward and set a 
schedule for implementing legislation in the Agriculture Committee. 
Otherwise, we may have to take the full time allotted to us.
  But the distinguished Senator from New York has laid out the reasons 
why this should not be on this bill, as did the distinguished Senator 
from Montana, and I hope that I have.
  This is an appropriations bill for foreign operations.
  Obviously anybody can bring up anything they want, and probably will, 
but I would suggest that if people are serious about getting this 
legislation passed with some of the things that a vast majority of 
Senators support, then they ought to go ahead and do so. If, however, 
they hope to take out some of the country specific items that we have 
here, this is as good a way as any to do it.
  The distinguished Senator from New York is here and I yield to him.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I see my friend from South Carolina has come to the 
floor, so I will be very brief.
  Mr. President, I have a message from the President for the Senate. I 
have just talked to the chief of staff, Mr. Leon Panetta, who is on Air 
Force One returning from Georgia with the President.
  He asked that I say to the Senate, and I say to the distinguished 
manager of the legislation and to my friend from South Carolina, that 
the President is absolutely committed to getting the Uruguay round 
implementing legislation passed this year; that he also made the 
commitment to our trading partners in the G-7 summit in Naples that 
this would be done. He very much hopes that he might have the 
cooperation of this body in this legislation and that this amendment 
might be withdrawn in the spirit of comity which is so characteristic 
of the one time President pro tempore, the most distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Leahy].
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am perfectly willing to go to a vote on 
this amendment. I advise the Senator from South Carolina, I was told he 
may wish to speak further, so I did not suggest that we go to a vote 
until he had a chance to come back to the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator very much. I will speak a little 
bit further.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Thurmond].
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, earlier today, I introduced, along with 
several of my colleagues a resolution regarding the GATT negotiations. 
At this time, I would like to expand upon some of my previous remarks.
  This morning I discussed the WTO and how it will have an effect on 
the sovereignty of our country. This supranational governing body will 
settle trade disputes and impose fines, sanctions, or make the United 
States change its law to comply with WTO decisions. However, I would 
suggest that if you do not want to take my word concerning this issue--
if anyone does not want to take that word, maybe you will listen to 42 
attorneys general. Let me read from the AP newswire concerning a recent 
letter the attorneys general sent to President Clinton. It reads:

                Attorneys General Write Clinton On GATT

                         (By Francis X. Quinn)

       Augusta, ME.--Led by Maine's Michael Carpenter, more than 
     40 state attorneys general are asking President Clinton to 
     hold a state-federal summit on the potential domestic impact 
     of new global trade rules.
       In a letter signed by his counterparts from around the 
     nation, Carpenter asked Clinton this week to agree to a 
     summit this summer before the administration submits 
     legislation to implement provisions of the Uruguay Round of 
     the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
       Carpenter said state officials seek ``a thorough airing of 
     concerns about how the Uruguay Round and the proposed World 
     Trade Organization would affect state laws and regulations.''
       ``This is of particular concern given that some of our 
     trading partners have apparently identified specific state 
     laws which they intend to challenge under the WTO,'' 
     Carpenter wrote.
       Carpenter, who recently announced he will not seek re-
     election but plans to serve out the remainder of his term 
     this year, said questions raised by sate officials concerning 
     GATT are similar to those put to federal officials last 
     year about the North American Free Trade Agreement.
       The October 1993 letter urging increased protections for 
     the states under NAFTA was sent to U.S. Trade Representative 
     Mickey Kantor by Texas Attorney General Dan Morales.
       States lock horns frequently with the federal government in 
     legal disputes over whether local statutes violate national 
     laws. Proponents of state sovereignty say they worry that 
     states may be left without a forum to contest undesirable by-
     products of international trade pacts.
       Carpenter said one illustrative example might be a state's 
     ban on chemicals used to treat fruits or vegetables that 
     could be subject to attack by a foreign government under new 
     global trading rules.
       More broadly, he said countless state standards could be 
     vulnerable ``anything that another country could say is a 
     trade restriction.''
       ``We can't say that this law or that law is in jeopardy, 
     but we're very concerned,'' Carpenter said Thursday in a 
     brief interview.
       He said the states share ``sort of a generalized anxiety.'' 
     Besides writing with other attorneys general directly to 
     Clinton on Wednesday, Carpenter himself also sent a letter to 
     Kantor, thanking him for offering to have his staff meet next 
     week with representatives of individual attorneys general as 
     well as their national association.
       Carpenter wrote that a series of meetings with 
     administration officials could allow state representatives to 
     propose changes in legislation to be submitted to Congress.
       ``Such an opportunity to engage in a real dialogue with the 
     administration over the state's federalism concerns may give 
     greater focus to the proposed summit or make its occurrence 
     somewhat less urgent,'' Carpenter told Kantor.
       Carpenter said Thursday the state expressions of concern 
     were not meant to embarrass the administration. He said the 
     attorneys general hoped to build a permanent structure that 
     could speed reviews of future trade deals, ``so that we can 
     be involved before the deal is done.''

  Mr. President, that is the purpose here--before the deal is done. It 
is too late after the deal is done. This is merely a study we are 
asking for, in this resolution.
  Mr. President, these 42 individuals are charged with upholding the 
laws of their States. If they have some concerns regarding how GATT and 
WTO are going to affect their efforts, then we should listen carefully 
to their concerns.
  Another group of individuals that have also shown concern about the 
WTO are the State tax commissioners. Like the attorneys general, the 
tax commissioners are worried the WTO will render State laws useless. 
More specifically, the tax commissioners are worried that the Federal 
executive branch will have the authority to preempt State and local 
laws without congressional authorization, companies and foreign 
governments will use the Federal commerce clause to overturn State and 
local laws, States will have to pay retroactive taxes if a case is 
decided against the State, the States will not be notified about WTO 
cases against them nor will they have the ability to defend themselves 
when cases are brought against the State.
  Mr. President, the tax commissioners and the attorneys general appear 
to have valid concerns with the authority of the WTO. One can only 
imagine what State and local taxes and laws that could be challenged 
under the WTO. Further, the investigations into whether these items are 
an unfair trade barrier can be conducted without even contacting the 
State or locality. It does not seem fair that actions can be taken 
against States and localities without the right to defend themselves.
  In June of this year, I made a statement here on the Senate floor 
concerning the creation of the WTO and its effect on our country, as 
follows:

       Those of us who were serving in the Senate during some of 
     the previous GATT rounds have heard many of the same 
     arguments that the Clinton administration is making in regard 
     to this agreement. Basically, this agreement will solve our 
     trade problems and open foreign markets for U.S. goods. A 
     brief review of history shows that we did not accomplish our 
     goals. After the 1979 round was completed, we saw a major 
     decline in the steel, textile and apparel, and electronics 
     industries. At the same time, these industries were 
     struggling to survive due in part to the closed markets of 
     other countries.

  Mr. President, now reading from an article from the Associated Press 
news wire:

                 France, U.S. Clash Anew on Trade at G7

                            (By Paul Taylor)

       Naples, Italy--A bitter dispute between France and the 
     United States on liberalising world trade flared anew on 
     Friday when the French rejected President Bill Clinton's call 
     for a fresh review of trade barriers.
       Clinton told a news conference he would urge leaders of the 
     Group of Seven industrial powers at their Naples summit to 
     take a new axe to remaining restrictions following last 
     year's GATT world trade accord.
       U.S. officials listed among the issues financial services, 
     telecommunications, biotechnology, intellectual property 
     rights, investment rules and airline landing rights--all 
     problems on which Washington was frustrated in the GATT 
     negotiations.
       But French President Francois Mitterrand told Japanese 
     Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama that countries which 
     had just signed the GATT treaty in April after seven years 
     of difficult talks, lowering many trade barriers, needed 
     ``a breathing space.''
       ``The president's wish, which he will spell out to Mr. 
     Clinton, is to avoid any excessive haste,'' Mitterrand's 
     spokesman Jean Musitelli told reporters.
       Musitelli also said France had not been invited to a 
     meeting of trade ministers called by Italy on the fringes of 
     the annual G7 summit on Saturday and did not consider it 
     appropriate. The Italian Trade Ministry said that trade 
     ministers, not normally part of the G7 summit line-up, would 
     discuss fresh initiatives to free up world commerce at 
     Washington's request.
       Musitelli said France learned of the ``novel, bizarre and 
     unprecedented'' meeting by rumour and believed it was ``not 
     the type of meeting which is appropriate for the work of the 
     G7.'' He said Britain too had not been included.
       But the Italians said trade ministers of all seven 
     countries had been invited to the Saturday afternoon meeting, 
     and so far Germany, Canada, Japan and Italy had said they 
     would attend.
       U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and European Union 
     Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan will also take part. 
     British officials said Trade Secretary Michael Heseltine 
     could not come to Naples but Britain would be represented by 
     Sarah Hogg, a policy adviser to Prime Minister John Major.
       They said Washington consulted London before sending its 
     letter to G7 governments calling for the new trade review and 
     many of the proposals chimed with British thinking.
       France and the United States were the main adversaries in 
     the last phase of GATT's Uruguay Round, fighting bitterly 
     over agricultural subsidies and trade in film and television.
       German Economics Minister Guenter Rexrodt said on Thursday 
     that the United State planned to use the Naples summit to 
     launch a trade initiative, probably named Open Markets 2000.
       In Brussels, a European Commission spokesman said a new 
     international initiative to boost trade would not be 
     acceptable if it hampered chances of ratifying and 
     implementing the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade.
       ``The Commission is for any initiative that can increase 
     the commitment to liberalising trade, but the first priority 
     above all is ratification and then implementation of the 
     Uruguay Round agreement,'' the spokesman said.
       ``Anything that can hamper that is not acceptable, but 
     anything that can encourage ratification can be acceptable.'' 
     Commission sources acknowledged Washington's concerns to get 
     freer trade access in Europe in areas such as 
     telecommunications and aircraft landing rights, but pointed 
     out that the EU had its own shopping list of reciprocal 
     demands, including complaints about the protectionist impact 
     of ``Buy American'' legislation.
       The U.S. proposal calls for trade ministers to report back 
     their findings to next year's G7 summit in Canada.
       The study would be carried out in cooperation with the 
     World Trade Organization, the successor to GATT due to be 
     created next year, and the Paris-based Organisation for 
     Economic Cooperation and Development.

  Mr. President, to paraphrase President Reagan, here we go again. 
Congress has not completed this agreement and the administration is 
already arguing that we need a new agreement. It appears to me that 
these items should have been corrected in the current round instead of 
waiting until the future to address these issues.
  Mr. President, another concern I have regarding the GATT is the total 
cost of the agreement. According to the news reports, the United States 
will lose--I repeat--will lose roughly $40 billion from tariffs over 
the next 10 years if this agreement is implemented. While some of the 
lost tariffs might be recouped from the increased trade that the United 
States is expected to experience, the pay-as-you-go provisions of our 
budgeting process require that money lost from tariff cuts must come 
from revenue increases or spending cuts. With our national debt at over 
$4 trillion, we need to be fiscally responsible in our actions. 
Therefore, waiving the budget rules to pay for GATT is not being 
fiscally responsible. If this agreement is important enough to pass, 
then we should not have to waive the budget act to enact it. Further, 
while the Federal Government will lose roughly $40 billion, there is no 
way to tell how the States and localities would fare if their taxes are 
challenged as unfair trade barriers.
  Mr. President, hopefully, these concerns can be examined more closely 
before the implementing legislation is presented to Congress. It 
appears that the Congress is going to be forced to examine the 22,000-
page GATT agreement at a time when we are working on health care 
reform, welfare reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of other 
major legislative issues. I would hope that the administration would 
not send the implementing legislation to Congress for at least 60 days. 
This agreement is very important to local, State, and Federal 
jurisdictions, and I would hope that we could have time to fully 
examine the impact of this legislation before being called to vote on 
it.


 the new world trade organization--a risk to sovereignty and powers of 
                               the senate

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Thurmond amendment deserves serious 
consideration by the Senate. The amendment addresses major concerns 
about the new GATT agreement soon to be addressed by the Senate. The 
amendment is simple and straightforward.
  First, it expresses the sense of the Senate that a joint Senate-
administration commission be convened to decide whether the proposed 
World Trade Organization should be considered as a treaty and not as an 
Executive agreement.
  Second, the amendment calls for a period of time, prior to 
introduction of the implementing legislation, for further congressional 
hearings, both in and outside of Washington to consider the full 
ramifications of the United States joining the World Trade 
Organization.
  The process being taken by the administration has brought a new 
meaning to the phrase ``fast-track.'' Fast-track authority permits 
implementing legislation to be considered and voted on without 
amendment. This should not mean pushing through legislation without 
full and deliberate consideration.
  The new trade agreement is a massive document. It was just signed on 
April 15 of this year. The Finance Committee will begin its trial 
markup of implementing legislation next week. I understand that the 
committee hopes to conclude its consideration by the end of next week.
  One thing is certain. We can learn from history. History has taught 
us that free trade brings stronger economic growth. I am a free trader.
  The last time this body considered GATT was in 1947, when it was 
created. At that time, the World Bank and the International Monetary 
Fund were created to address international developmental and monetary 
problems. An International Trade Organization [ITO] was proposed to 
regulate trade relations among countries. However, the ITO encountered 
opposition in the Senate. The issue? Sovereignty. As a result, the 
proposed ITO failed to win enough votes for ratification.
  As CBO reported in 1987, ``As a weak substitute for the envisioned 
ITO, a GATT Secretariat, with a very small staff, was created to 
oversee the General Agreement and to manage multilateral trade 
negotiations.''

  Well, the ITO proposal has resurfaced. It is now called the WTO. The 
new GATT agreement creates a new World Trade Organization that differs 
from the old GATT. The WTO is not a weak version of the ITO, but a new 
version of it.
  Under the old GATT, the United States had a veto. We could block a 
panel decision and we would not face retaliation. Under the WTO, the 
process is automatic. Panels are established, decisions are made and 
the United States has no veto.
  Mr. President, the risks that the WTO pose to sovereignty and to the 
constitutional role of the Senate are real. These risks must be fully 
addressed. That is why my colleagues and I felt it was important to 
offer this amendment today. Time is running out.
  The full consequences of this agreement are just beginning to come to 
light. Recently, I have raised concerns over the proposed World Trade 
Organization [WTO] created under the new agreement. I have addressed 
these concerns on the floor and at two hearings held by the Foreign 
Relations Committee and the Commerce Committee.
  Many questions and concerns about the WTO are being raised. 
Unfortunately, there appear to be more questions than answers.
  For example, what impact will this organization have on Federal, 
State and local laws? What will be its budget? How many taxpayer 
dollars will be spent on the WTO? To whom will the WTO, with its 
unelected bureaucrats, answer? I do not think these questions have been 
answered adequately.
  Another concern is whether or not the creation of the WTO should be 
considered as a treaty. There is a possibility the new WTO could 
threaten the constitutional role of the U.S. Senate.
  I am not certain the WTO could be fixed. If submitted as part of the 
implementing legislation, it would not be subject amendment. The best 
option may be to drop the proposed WTO from the implementing 
legislation and deal with it separately. This option needs careful 
consideration.


                            TREATY CONCERNS

  Mr. President, before I discuss the issue of sovereignty, let me 
explain why I believe the WTO should be considered by the Senate as a 
treaty--not as an executive agreement.
  There are four ways an international agreement can become the law of 
the United States.
  First, if it is accompanied by the advice and consent of the Senate--
a treaty;
  Second, if it is authorized or approved by Congress and the matter 
falls with the constitutional authority of Congress--a congressional-
executive agreement;
  Third, if it is authorized by a prior treaty which received the 
advice and consent of the Senate--an executive agreement pursuant to 
treaty; or
  Fourth, it is based on the President's own constitutional authority--
a sole executive agreement.
  It is clear that past GATT agreements fall under No. 2--
congressional-executive agreements. These agreements call for lowering 
tariffs and quotas, and expanding trade. However, I question whether 
Congress intended or authorized the creation of the WTO.
  Under international law, an international agreement is generally 
considered to be a treaty and binding on the parties if it meets four 
criteria:
  First, the parties intend the agreement to be legally binding and the 
agreement is subject to international law;
  Second, the agreement deals with significant matters;
  Third, the agreement clearly and specifically describes the legal 
obligations of the parties; and
  Fourth, the form indicates an intention to conclude a treaty, 
although the substance of the agreement rather than the form is the 
governing factor.
  Mr. President, international agreements and treaties have been used 
interchangeably in recent years. I do not question that the trade 
agreements under the Uruguay round should be treated as agreements. 
However, the creation of the WTO is a different matter.
  Let's look at Senate precedents. In 1947, the Senate Finance 
Committee debated this issue when considering the International Trade 
Organizations [ITO]. At that time, the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee was Senator Eugene D. Millikin. He suggested the 
following test for determining whether a treaty should be submitted to 
the Senate for two-thirds approval:

       The proper distinction is that when we go beyond 
     conventional matters (duties, custom matters and foreign 
     trade), and commence to surrender sovereignty, this is the 
     point where the proper field of treaty comes in. Whenever you 
     come to a matter where there is substantial disparagement of 
     our sovereignty, whenever you come to a matter where 
     sanctions may be invoked against the United States, by an 
     international body, then you have probably entered the 
     legitimate field for treaties.

  I warn my colleagues. The vote on the GATT implementing legislation, 
which creates the WTO, is expected to be considered by the Senate as an 
Executive agreement. Passage will only require a simple majority.
  I believe it is abundantly clear. The creation of the World Trade 
Organization was not anticipated when the Uruguay round negotiations 
began. It has been reported that the proposed WTO was pushed through in 
the eleventh hour of the negotiations.
  Whether or not the United States joins the WTO should be considered 
apart from legislation implementing the final texts of the GATT Uruguay 
Round Agreements.
  Mr. President, proponents of the WTO will argue that there is no 
difference between the existing GATT structure and the WTO. Proponents 
will argue that the WTO will not be able to coerce the United States 
into any decisions on trade matters. They will argue that there's 
little or no difference between trade dispute settlements under the 
current GATT agreement and the WTO. It's sort of like shopping for a 
used car. You hear all the great things about the WTO, but little about 
its flaws. I am not quite ready to buy all the arguments in favor of 
the WTO.
  United States negotiations in the Uruguay round improved the GATT by 
including goods and services and reducing nontariff trade barriers. For 
the first time agriculture is included under the agreement. Proponents 
of the WTO will say the new organization is needed to ensure that these 
gains are not lost in dispute settlements.
  Mr. President, I hear those arguments. What I do not hear is that 
United States intended to create and promote the creation of the WTO.
  All too often, issues are rushed through this body without full 
consideration. It is these 11th hour deals that all too often get us 
into trouble. I fear that is what is happening with the WTO.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield to Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. If the Senator would, I will probably take about 3 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. I will be glad to, without losing the floor, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the policy expressed in the 
amendment by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Thurmond]. It is an issue about which I feel rather strongly, but I 
also sympathize with the distinguished manager of bill, Mr. Leahy, and 
his sentiments that this is not the right place for the amendment. The 
foreign aid bill is not the place to debate trade policy, and it is 
difficult enough for us to consider this annual legislation without 
major debates on extraneous matters.
  I understand that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina will 
withdraw his amendment shortly. He has not said so, but I understand he 
will. And I think, all concerns considered, that would probably be the 
best thing. I hope that he will.
  But the amendment is nevertheless before the body now, and I strongly 
support it. The Constitution reserves powers over international 
economic matters exclusively to the Congress. This is not a shared 
power with the executive branch. Article I, section 8 says that the 
Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign 
nations.
  In recent years, there have been attempts to tippy-toe around this 
constitutional provision by using a mechanism allowing the executive 
branch to seek legislative authority from Congress to negotiate trade 
agreements with other nations that it structures as executive 
agreements. The executive branch then receives an additional advantage 
through procedures included in the authorizing legislation known as 
``fast track.'' This is a device which denies the Congress the 
opportunity to amend the agreement, and then forces the Congress to 
vote up or down within a limited time period. We do not even have the 
luxury of amending the agreement, which in the case of a treaty we 
would be able to amend.
  First, I agree that the weight of the agreement reached in the case 
of the Uruguay round is such that it rises to the importance of a 
treaty and should be treated as a treaty.
  Second, the long-term implications of the Uruguay round are such that 
the Senate should have full and unrestricted debate--unrestricted 
debate--with the opportunity for the Senate to work its will in this 
most vital arena of foreign policy, the economic relations we have with 
the rest of the world. The fact is that there should be no rush to pass 
legislation implementing this agreement this year. We need time to 
discuss it at length.
  The Congress could wait until next year, next spring, after a full 
investigation of the ramifications of this agreement. In any case, 
implementing legislation is not needed until July of next year.
  The Senator from South Carolina states in his amendment that the 
implementing legislation did not address the question of establishing a 
supernational adjudicatory mechanism which was incorporated in the 
Uruguay round of the World Trade Organization. The mechanism could make 
decisions which could profoundly, profoundly affect U.S. domestic law.
  Considerable investigation needs to be done on this matter by this 
body. There are many other concerns which Members in both Houses have 
raised in respect to this extensive and far-reaching agreement. So let 
us not rush it. I think the agreement should be considered as a treaty. 
In any event, it should be amendable. That may be inconvenient for the 
other signatories to the treaty but American national interests are at 
stake. This is a massive trade document and has not been scrutinized by 
the Senate in any meaningful manner.
  Therefore, I support the amendment of the Senator from South 
Carolina. I appreciate his offering it. I congratulate him on offering 
the amendment. I am glad to have an opportunity to say these few words 
in support of the amendment.
  I hope, now that we have had an opportunity to speak at least briefly 
on the subject, the Senator will withdraw the amendment as it is a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment and it is attached to an appropriations 
bill. In that respect, I hope the wishes of the Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Leahy] will be followed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina retains the 
floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased we have received assurances 
from the Senator from Montana, who is chairman of the trade 
subcommittee, that the issues we have raised today will be addressed 
next week when the Finance Committee meets to mark up the Uruguay round 
implementing bill. This is one Senator who will be very interested in 
whether these issues have been adequately addressed. In fact, we should 
be given adequate time to review the proposed legislation before it is 
submitted to the President.
  Now, Mr. President, I wish to say again that what we are trying to do 
is just not rush this matter. It is a matter of tremendous importance. 
It involves the very sovereignty of our country. It is just to give 
time to the executive branch and legislative branch to get together and 
study this matter carefully and inform the Senate what impact it is 
going to have on our country and just how it is going to affect the 
sovereignty of our country.
  In view of the situation now and out of my great respect for the able 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and what he said, that he 
thinks it would be better not to put it on this legislation, I will 
withdraw the amendment at this time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment offered by 
the Senator from South Carolina is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2239) was withdrawn.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kentucky 
Mr. [McConnell].


 Amendment No. 2240 to the First Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 2

 (Purpose: To establish the date of Russian troop withdrawal from the 
                                Baltics)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Senator McCain, Senator D'Amato, Senator Dole, and 
Senator Helms. It is an amendment to the committee amendment on page 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Helms, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2240 to the first excepted committee 
     amendment on page 2.

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 end of the committee amendment on page 2, odd the 
     following:
       ``Sec.   . (a) Restriction.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated for 
     assistance for the Government of Russia after August 31, 1994 
     unless all armed forced of Russia and the Commonwealth of 
     Independent States have been removed from all Baltic 
     countries or that the status of those armed forces have been 
     otherwise resolved by mutual agreement of the parties.
       ``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to assistance that 
     involves the provision of student exchange programs, food, 
     clothing, medicine or other humanitarian assistance or to 
     housing assistance for officers of the armed forces of Russia 
     or the Commonwealth of Independent States who are removed 
     from the territory of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or 
     countries other than Russia.
       ``(c) Subsection (a) does not apply if after August 31, 
     1994, the President determines that the provision of funds to 
     the Government of Russia is in the national security 
     interest.
       ``(d) Section 568 of this Act is null and void.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, since declaring their independence, 
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have been dedicated to assuring that 
Russian troops are fully and promptly withdrawn from their sovereign 
territory. There is, as we can all imagine, no more provocative symbol 
of 50 years of Soviet occupation than the continued presence of these 
troops. To expedite that process, last year Congress earmarked $190 
million specifically for troop withdrawal including through support for 
an officer resettlement program and technical assistance for the 
housing sector.
  Now, Mr. President, in spite of that directive and an extensive 
legislative history which made clear this commitment was designed to 
remove the Russians from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the 
administration decided to use only 50 percent of the designated funding 
for Baltic troop resettlement and the balance for other Russian troops.
  Now, Mr. President, in spite of undercutting congressional intent, 
progress has been made, I am happy to report. Three years ago, when 
these nations declared their independence, they were occupied by more 
than 100,000 Soviet troops--just 3 years ago, 100,000 Soviet troops. 
Obviously, comparatively speaking, the situation is a good deal 
better. All troops are now out of Lithuania, with 4,500 remaining in 
Latvia, and 2,500 remaining in Estonia. But that remaining 7 percent is 
still a problem. Like the citizens of Latvia and Estonia, I welcome the 
President's public comment in Riga last week that the United States was 
committed to seeing the withdrawal remain on track with all troops out 
by August 31 of this year, 1994. This was a target date. It is 
interesting to note this is the target date that President Yeltsin 
originally offered last year and all the parties agreed to honor. So 
this was a date picked by the Russians.

  While in Riga, the President also offered more financial support to 
secure that goal. Again, I commend the President for his observation. 
But many of us have a nagging feeling irritated by the past year with 
administration compromises and concessions to the Russians that, unless 
held accountable in legislation, August 31 will come and go and Russian 
troops will continue to occupy Estonia and Latvia.
  Mr. President, my concern about the President's predilection to 
capitulate is exacerbated by the Russian's seeming reluctance to honor 
the deadline. We have an example of this very recently. As Warner Wolf 
used to say when he was around here, and may still say, ``Let us go to 
the videotape.''
  On July 11, just this week, standing at Boris Yeltsin's side, 
President Clinton announced the following. These are the President's 
words 2 days ago:

       There has been a promising development in the Baltics. 
     After my very good discussion with the President of Estonia, 
     Mr. Meri, passed on his ideas to President Yeltsin. I believe 
     the differences between the two countries have been announced 
     and then agreement can be reached in the near future so that 
     the troops would be able to be withdrawn by the end of 
     August.

  Two days ago the President was talking about the end of August this 
year. The President said:

       When the Russian troops withdraw from Germany and the 
     Baltics, it will end the bitter legacy of the Second World 
     War.

  Bear in mind 2 days ago President Yeltsin was standing right beside 
President Clinton when he said that. President Yeltsin was immediately 
asked by a reporter:

       Will you have all of the Russian troops out of the Baltics 
     by August 31?

  This is just 2 days ago standing by President Clinton, President 
Yeltsin was asked the question.
  The answer by President Yeltsin, a direct quote: ``No.'' ``Nice 
question'', says President Yeltsin. ``I like the question because I can 
say no.''
  So here we had 2 days ago a joint press conference with President 
Clinton and President Yeltsin standing side by side, and asked the 
question, ``Will the Russian troops be out of the Baltics by August 
31?'' President Clinton says ``yes,'' and President Yeltsin says 
``no.''
  Obviously, there is some confusion here about whether or not the 
August 31 deadline is going to be--originally suggested by the 
Russians, I repeat. August 31, 1994, was originally suggested by the 
Russians as the deadline for having all Russian troops out of the 
Baltics. Yet 2 days ago Yeltsin says, ``I don't think we can make it.''
  I want to just repeat that this was the Russian's selection of this 
date last year. Even though they preferred a more immediate departure, 
when this came up last year reluctantly Estonia and Latvia accepted the 
target of August 31 of this year.
  A full year later, a full 2 years after committing in the Helsinki 
summit to an early, orderly, and complete withdrawal of foreign 
military troops from the territories of the Baltic States, Russia is 
stalling again. On July 11, just a couple of days ago, Yeltsin publicly 
and flatly rejected his self-imposed obligation to withdraw the troops.
  Madam President, this Russian reality check stands in stark contrast 
to the administration's sort of Disney vision about this. It is 
animated, it is colorful, but it is a total fantasy. There is no more 
clear representation of the yawning gap between reality and the 
administration's policy than statements made by the Secretary of State 
over the past 10 months.
  As we are all aware, one of the significant sticking points in troop 
withdrawal negotiations has been how ethnic Russians will be treated. 
Last autumn at the ministerial meetings of the CSCE and again before 
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee in March, Secretary Christopher 
declared that Russia's intention to protect 25 million Russians living 
in the so-called near abroad was understandable and legitimate. This is 
the Secretary of State before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations 
saying the Russian concern about the 25 million Russians living in the 
near abroad was understandable and legitimate. Before the subcommittee 
he added that these Russians should be treated with generosity.
  Needless to say, the sovereign sensibilities of many nations which 
suffered Soviet occupation were deeply offended. Like other nations, 
the Baltics struggled to maintain their language and their culture in 
defiance of the Soviet regime's calculated plans of reunification. 
Thousands of Balts were exiled to Siberia, or worse, and Russians 
dispatched military and civilians alike to establish control.
  History offers a window on the current skepticism. Latvians, 
Lithuanians, and Estonians share with their neighbors Russia's not past 
ambitions but current ambitions. But there are also ongoing serious 
issues which cause any observer to question Moscow's intentions.
  In addition to protecting minority rights, Russia continues to insist 
that they are guaranteed access to military installations and bases. In 
April, during a round of discussions with Estonia, Russia linked 
further progress to payment of $23 million by Estonia to Russia. In 
late June, this threat was repeated in conjunction with the unilateral 
demarcation of the Russia-Estonia border, a declaration I might add 
that was viewed with considerable alarm in Talinn.
  In a similar vein, Latvia has found troop withdrawal subject to 
Russian access to radar facilities and military bases as well as 
offering social guarantees to Russians who reside in Latvia.
  I understand the administration is attempting to balance a number of 
issues in a multilateral context, and is extremely sensitive to Russian 
concerns. But the combination of statements by the Secretary of State, 
and positions taken by the Russians in negotiations, cause me concern 
about the firmness of the August 31 withdrawal commitment.
  At the moment, the bill before the Senate, the bill we are debating, 
bans funds from Russia after December 31, 1994, if all troops have not 
been withdrawn or a mutual agreement on removal has not been reached.
  The amendment at the desk, the amendment we are discussing at the 
moment, simply changes the date to August 31, I repeat a date 
originally chosen by President Yeltsin and the Russians as a date by 
which they would have all of the troops out of the Baltics. Just last 
week in Riga, the President reconfirmed his commitment to that date, a 
commitment shared by many here in Congress.
  I see no reason why legislation should undercut or postpone prospects 
for meeting that deadline. For more than 35 years, the Baltic nations 
have suffered Soviet occupation. I do not think that Congress should 
postpone the end of that era 1 more minute let alone 4 more months. 
Last year, Congress tried to provide the necessary financial incentive 
for withdrawal by supporting housing for withdrawn troops. I supported 
that. The administration decided to use only half the dedicated funds 
for troops from the Baltics. I hope my colleagues will join in sending 
a clear signal that halfhearted attempts are no longer sufficient. We 
expect Russia to comply with its obligations, and we look forward to 
September 1.
  In Estonia, President Meri's words of September 1 represents the 
first day of a new Europe, a day when the Baltics are truly free.
  Let me just quickly summarize what this amendment does. It simply 
moves the withdrawal date from the end of this year back to August 31, 
the date originally set over a year ago by President Yeltsin 
himself. It simply moves that date forward to the expressed intention 
of President Yeltsin a year ago. I think this will be extremely 
reassuring to those in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. In addition to 
that, there is considerable American interest that this date be met.

  (Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. I just call my colleagues' attention to a press 
release dated yesterday from the Joint Baltic American National 
Committee--these are American citizens--supporting this amendment I 
have just offered. I say to all of my colleagues that this is not only 
the foreign policy over a ``there'' kind of an issue; it is also a 
``here'' issue, in the sense that many Americans who came from the 
Baltic countries maintain an ongoing interest in this important date 
and would like it to be met.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement from the 
Joint Baltic American National Committee be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[Press release from the Joint Baltic American National Committee, June 
                               12, 1994]

            Yeltsin Says Russian Troops To Remain in Estonia

       Russian President Boris Yeltsin, after meeting with 
     President Clinton on July 10, stated that Russian troops will 
     remain in Estonia after the August 31, 1994 withdrawal 
     deadline. The statement followed President Clinton's trip to 
     Latvia where he called on Russia to adhere to its 
     unconditional commitment to withdrawal.
       When asked if Russia will meet the self-imposed August 31 
     deadline, Yeltsin bluntly stated ``No'', then added ``I like 
     the question, because I can say no.'' Only moments before, 
     President Clinton optimistically projected that an agreement 
     between Estonia and Russia is near, paving the way for 
     withdrawal by the end of August. According to Yeltsin, the 
     delay is tied to the ``human rights'' violations of 10,640 
     Russian military retirees in Estonia in addition to a lack of 
     housing for returning Russian officers. However, these 
     allegations are false and represent an attempt to gain 
     unacceptable concessions from Estonia. In reality:
       Ex-Soviet military personnel who retired in Estonia prior 
     to August 31, 1991 may apply for Estonian residency permits 
     as allowed by Estonian legislation, which would permit them 
     to live in Estonia and vote in local elections.
       Of the 10,640 ex-Red Army pensioners in Estonia, 1,600 
     retirees are under the age of 50; hundreds of these are 
     younger than 45 and cannot be characterized as ``harmless 
     pensioners.'' Less than half, or 5,170, are over 60.
       Russia demands that all Russian military personnel 
     presently in Estonia (2,500), in addition to military 
     pensioners, be granted residency permits. These include KGB 
     and military intelligence officers and individuals who 
     actively worked against Estonian independence. Their presence 
     will continue to pose a threat to Estonia's security. 
     Succumbing to Russian demands would lead to a demobilization 
     of Russian forces in Estonia--not a withdrawal of Russian 
     forces.
       The United States allocated $6 million (FY93) and $160 
     million (FY94) to house returning Russian officers. This 
     includes 1,250 housing vouchers for Russian officers and 
     retired officers leaving Estonia. Estonia should not be 
     coerced into paying for the illegal Soviet occupation.
       Russia's actions follow a familiar pattern of issuing 
     threatening statements aimed at stalling the withdrawal, such 
     as Russia's suspension of withdrawal from Lithuania only days 
     before its deadline. It is imperative that the United States 
     once again take a firm stand and call on the unconditional 
     removal of Russian troops from the Baltics by August 31.


         congressional support vital in withdrawal from estonia

       The Joint Baltic American National Committee, an 
     organization representing over one million Americans of 
     Baltic heritage, calls on Congress to support an amendment to 
     be submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell to the FY95 Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations Act (sec. 568) that would limit US 
     aid to Russia if withdrawal, or an agreement on withdrawal, 
     is not completed by August 31. The present cut-off date of 
     December 31 will send a tacit signal that a continued Russian 
     military presence in Estonia is acceptable. A firm 
     resolution, however, will send a strong signal to Russia that 
     it must live up to its international commitments and 
     withdrawal by August 31, 1994.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator yielded?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have not yielded.
  Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield briefly, while I 
stand in support of his amendment, I wanted to also clarify something. 
I just came to the floor, and I understand that Senator Thurmond has 
withdrawn his amendment on the World Trade Organization. To the ranking 
member and chairman, let me say that while I support Senator Thurmond 
in withdrawing that amendment, his intent and my intent in coming to 
the floor to debate that issue was to raise its visibility and hope to 
express to all of you and to the Senate at large that this is an issue 
that is now beginning to speak out for an answer. It is not just this 
Senator or others, it is State tax commissions all around our country, 
State attorneys general and Governors who are beginning to look at the 
fine points of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the 
General Agreement on Tariffs in Services as it relates to the 
fundamental issue of sovereignty.
  I strongly support trade and hope we can resolve these issues. I do 
believe it is incumbent upon us who are interested in it, and certainly 
the chairman and ranking member are here today to work with us in 
resolving this issue, whether it be in the implementation language or 
in some other form. I do not believe this is an issue that will now go 
away as easily as the Senator withdrew his amendment. I think it is an 
issue that speaks out for an answer.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Idaho. It is my understanding 
that the chairman--I was here when the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee spoke in support of the Thurmond amendment, as well. There is 
considerable concern about this issue. I do not believe the Senator 
from South Carolina withdrew it with any sense that this was an issue 
that was over. I think the debate was very helpful in bringing this 
issue before the Senate.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield momentarily to the Senator from 
Kentucky, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Byrd, the chairman of the Appropriations committee, be added as a 
cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I just ask the Senator from Kentucky, in 
the last subsection, subsection (c), if he might consider, so we do not 
get into further debate down the way, in the last line, where it says 
``Government of Russia is in the national security interest,'' removing 
the word ``security?''
  While the Senator thinks about that, let me make a couple of 
comments.
  Madam President, in our bill, we have this amendment with the date of 
December 31--partly because we were not sure that the bill might be 
finished--to avoid a continuing resolution. It appears that we may be 
able to avoid that. As a result, the date might be moved up. I listened 
to President Yeltsin's comments in Naples, and I had some concern in 
listening to them. I have been encouraged by the progress Russia has 
made to withdraw its troops from the Baltics, and I considered 
traveling there myself to observe some of that. But I was concerned 
when President Yeltsin said he would not make the August 31 deadline 
that we had originally assumed.
  I hope that President Yeltsin will continue with his earlier 
commitment or be moving the withdrawal so rapidly that it was obvious 
that the conclusion was ineluctable.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If my friend will yield, I do not know whether he was 
on the floor, but my concern is that, just 2 days ago, at a joint press 
conference with President Clinton and President Yeltsin standing side 
by side, President Yeltsin said he was not going to meet the August 31 
deadline. I do not think he left it in a speculative state.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand. I am perfectly willing to support this 
August 31 deadline. My question was only to one word in the third 
paragraph.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I must say to my friend that my initial reaction is 
that I hope we will not water down the language. We both know that 
national security interest is a tougher standard than national 
interest. The freedom and independence of the Baltics have been a big 
issue in this country for 50 years. We are very close to having all 
those Russian troops out. Many people in this country, particularly 
those who belong to these organizations of Latvian-, Estonian-, and 
Lithuanian-Americans, think it is probably in our national security 
interest. I hope that we can avoid modifying the amendment and that we 
will send a strong message to President Yeltsin to meet the date he 
originally suggested a year ago.
  Mr. LEAHY. The reason I mention it is that in the legislation which 
the Senator from Kentucky and I both supported in the committee, it 
spoke of national interest. That was with the December 31 deadline. 
This is adding another word. I am trying to keep it close to that, 
because it is also language I want to be able to maintain as we go 
through this whole process. I also tell my friend from Kentucky that I 
support the August 31 deadline. It is one we had discussed earlier.
  I note that if indeed that was not being followed and indeed the 
administration was not taking it seriously, there are items of this 
Russian aid that will have to go through the normal reprogramming 
process, and that would certainly influence my thinking in such 
reprocessing. I do not intend to allow this just to be a figleaf thing. 
I think the policy of the Baltics, both for stability within the former 
Soviet Union and the ability to improve the efficacy of our own help, 
is such that it is important to remove them from the Baltics.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Vermont, I understand 
his concerns. It seems to me we are not really asking the Russians to 
do much here. We are asking the Russians to stick to the deadline they 
themselves set.
  Logistically, we are down to a rather small number of troops left. I 
was checking my notes here. There are 4,500 in Latvia, 2,500 in 
Estonia, and all of them out of Lithuania.
  So we are not asking them to move all 100,000 in 6 weeks here. They 
are down to a few. We are asking them simply to comply with the 
deadline that they themselves set.
  I really believe firmly that if the Senate sent a strong message with 
this amendment we would see those troops gone by August 31, which would 
be to the substantial relief to people in Latvia, Estonia, and 
certainly a lot of Americans who came from that area over here.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as I said, the Senator has supported 
different language earlier. Both he and I had in the early language 
contemplating August 31 as the date they would be out. So his position 
today is as consistent today as it was earlier.
  I was trying to simply change the date. I was having it be the same 
language.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I may say to my good friend Senator Leahy, the 
reason that I think we now need a tougher standard is just 2 days ago 
this week President Yeltsin stood beside President Clinton and said he 
was not going to meet the August 31 deadline.
  So I think we have a changed condition warranting toughening up a 
little bit the standard as well as moving the date back to the original 
date that the Russians set of August 31. I think there is a changed 
intervening condition, a changed condition that warrants the national 
security interest standard as opposed to the national interest 
standard.
  That would be my thinking there. I would hope the Senator from 
Vermont would agree.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am persuaded by the Senator from Kentucky. At the time 
when I heard the statement in Naples I had expressed then, not on the 
floor of the Senate, but I expressed concern, Madam President.
  We are in the position--the United States is, and I believe my friend 
from Kentucky would agree with this--as a major power--in fact we are 
the major power of the world--we know that it is in our national 
security interests to have the former Soviet Union become a democratic 
market-oriented, however defined, country, not with a copycat 
necessarily of all our laws and institutions but one where there is a 
rule of law, where there are democratic principles, elections, and so 
forth, and one where they can engage in a free and open trade with the 
rest of the world, including the United States, but also one where our 
competition is on economics, it is on the exposure of our own ideas and 
ideals and not a competition on nuclear warheads or the balance of 
terror or deterrence. I know the Senator from Kentucky and I both agree 
on that.
  I think, though, we also have to realize we are dealing with a nation 
redesigning itself, reforming itself, a nation becoming in many ways a 
new and totally new nation but with a proud heritage, also a heritage 
of great strife in the past and a feeling and the kind of concern when 
they did need help from the West also do not want to be considered as a 
second-rate nation, nor should they. This is a nation that has in the 
course of a century gone from being one of the major powers of all 
history. But the fact is that the results are in our security interests 
beyond the Baltics.
  So, Madam President, I have no problem with this amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lautenberg be added as cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I believe that we must continue to hold 
Russia's feet to the fire with regard to troop withdrawal from the 
Baltic countries. Russia has made substantial progress on withdrawing 
from the Baltics--all troops are out of Lithuania and withdrawal from 
Latvia is proceeding on schedule. This progress is due in no small part 
to United States engagement on this issue. Accordingly, I believe we 
should continue to remain engaged by pressing Russia to move ahead on 
its commitment to withdraw its troops from Estonia. One way to do that 
is to remind Russian leaders that continued United States assistance 
depends on responsible international behavior.
  I share the concern expressed by my colleagues about President 
Yeltsin's recent statements that indicate foot dragging on troop 
withdrawal from Estonia. I am encouraged, however, that President 
Yeltsin and Estonian President Meri have agreed to meet within the 
coming days to discuss the issue.
  With the Estonian-Russian talks looming, we must strike a delicate 
balance. On the one hand, we must be clear that continued Russian troop 
presence is unacceptable. On the other, we must give Russia and Estonia 
enough breathing room to work out the outstanding issues surrounding 
troop withdrawal. I believe the underlying committee bill strikes the 
correct balance. It states that we will restrict our assistance to 
Russia if Russian troops are not removed--or if the status of those 
forces has not been resolved by mutual agreement--by December 31. The 
committee language also contains a waiver that would allow the 
President to assist Russia if he believed it was in the national 
interest.
  The McConnell amendment is much more stringent. It moves the deadline 
from December 31 to August 31. It also would make it more difficult for 
the President to waive the restriction. To my mind, this amendment 
could actually damage the prospects for speedily troop withdrawal from 
Estonia. By moving the date at this delicate time, we could undermine 
President Yeltsin and empower the hardliners in Russia who wish to 
undermine the negotiations on troop withdrawal.
  President Yeltsin is already under intense domestic pressure. It is 
in our interest to bolster the reformers in Russia, and one way that we 
are shoring up those progressive elements is through our assistance 
program. If Russian reformers do not survive and nationalist or 
military leaders come to power, does anyone believe that troop 
withdrawal from Estonia will continue on track?
  As I said, I believe the underlying committee amendment strikes a 
good balance, and I believe we should maintain that language in the 
bill. I therefore will oppose the McConnell amendment.
  Senator McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of my friend from 
Kentucky.
  I think it is important. I think it has significant ramifications for 
our future relations with Russia. I believe that it is of the utmost 
importance that at some point Russia recognize that the Western 
countries, especially the United States, will not allow them to 
continue to practice occupation and even expansion similar to that of 
the former Soviet Union.
  Madam President, just in the way of background on March 11, 1994, a 
number of Senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Christopher, 
encouraging continued efforts to remove the Russian armed forces from 
the Baltic States by August 31, 1994.
  As the Senator from Kentucky has pointed out that was the date that 
Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia, had committed to.
  And in this letter it urges the Secretary of State to take action in 
order to try to see that that goal is achieved.
  On April 20, I and the other Senators who cosigned the letter 
received an answer from Secretary Christopher:

       Russian and Latvian negotiators in Moscow initiated an 
     agreement regarding withdrawal of Russian troops from Latvia. 
     This significant breakthrough we hope paves the way for full 
     withdrawal of Russian forces in Estonia by no later than 
     August 31.

  Since April 20 of this year the reasons for optimism and hope on the 
part of the Secretary of State have obviously been dashed.
  According to published reports when President Clinton and President 
Yeltsin were holding a press conference in Naples, President Yeltsin 
was asked the question as to whether he intended to honor his own 
August 31 target date of withdrawal of troops from Estonia. The New 
York Times this week reports:

       Mr. Yeltsin replied with a blunt ``nyet.'' This reply 
     brought a flash of attention to the day in which the leaders 
     sought to show they stood tall on troubled spots from Bosnia 
     to North Korea.

  According to other reports, Yeltsin said:

       Nice question. I like the question because I can say no.

  Madam President, it is very disturbing that President Yeltsin should 
not only say no but in that manner.
  I think we have to understand this issue in the context of what is 
happening in Russia today. We are seeing more and more clear 
indications of its agressive policy in the near abroad. The desire of 
the Russian Government and people have at least some semblance to what 
used to be the Soviet Union and the Russian empire by setting up buffer 
states which are either reabsorbed into Russia or are totally dependent 
upon Russia.
  A number of recent events indicate clearly that events tend in this 
direction. Elections took place just a few days ago in two countries, 
Ukraine and Belarus. Victors in each of these countries were the pro-
Russian candidates. In Ukraine, the president-elect in perhaps the most 
strategically important country in the region has often stated his 
desire to resume extremely strong economic, military, and political 
ties with Russia. Some experts predict as a result of this election 
that the eastern part of the Ukraine will in one way or another be 
reabsorbed into Russia, not necessarily the entire Ukraine but the 
eastern part.
  In Belarus it is obviously the same, and we are seeing instances such 
as Georgia where Russian troops came in to put down an insurgency. For 
all intents and purposes the Government of Georgia today is being run 
from the Russian Embassy in Toblez.
  So there is no doubt as to what the Russians are about. It does not 
necessarily make them bad or evil people. It does not necessarily mean 
we are on the brink of renewing the cold war. But what it does signal, 
all of these events, including all of the countries whose names end in 
stan, Turkistan, Kazakhstan, et cetera, is that there is again in many 
of these countries a re-emergence of pro-Russian governments and more 
and more Russian influence ranging from elections like those in Belarus 
and Ukraine to actual movement of Russian troops.
  We have to tell President Yeltsin that we understand his ambitions, 
but we will not sit by and abandon a commitment that we have had in 
this country ever since the beginning of the cold war.
  I think there are many of us here that remember the Fourth of July 
parades and those funny looking flags that we used to see of the Baltic 
countries--Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Most of us did not know what 
those flags were, but we maintained embassies here in this country, in 
Washington, DC, of those three little countries which had suffered 
under Russian occupation since the end of World War II, and we 
maintained our commitment to their full and complete independence.
  Perhaps in many parts of this country, where there are a great number 
of ethnic Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians, there was great joy and 
rejoicing which accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet empire and 
the promise of free and independent countries.
  The fact is that no country is free and independent, Madam President, 
when they are occupied by a foreign country's military presence. We 
cannot, in my view, provide assistance--the treasured and hard-earned 
tax dollars of the American people--to a country that insists on 
maintaining its troops in a free and independent country against the 
will of that country for an unlimited period of time.
  It is not complicated. We cannot fail to honor the commitment and the 
promise that we made to these three little countries, especially 
Estonia, during the days of the cold war.
  So, Madam President, I believe that the amendment of the Senator from 
Kentucky not only signals our view and that of the American people and 
the Congress concerning Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, but it signals 
Mr. Yeltsin and the military in Russia and their parliament, that we 
will not sit idly by while the Russian empire is reconstituted. Because 
if we do, very soon there will be a threat to other countries, such as 
Poland.
  Later on, I hope we are going to have a spirited debate on the issue 
of what countries are allowed membership in NATO, and under what 
conditions.
  This amendment is important, not only for the Baltic States. It is 
very important that the American Congress send a message that we are 
not ready or willing to have Russian troops maintain a presence in a 
nation against that nation's will. Frankly, over time, if those Russian 
troops remain there, there is bound to be some kind of conflict between 
those troops and the Estonian people, because the Estonian people, very 
correctly, will not stand still for this kind of military occupation of 
their country.
  I know that the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky has the full 
intentions of conveying the message that we share of the withdrawal of 
Russian troops and demand that negotiations move forward. I think we 
can change Yeltsin's attitude and send a message that will spur these 
negotiations and arrange for a peaceful and orderly withdrawal so that 
the people of Estonia can live a free and independent life, as has been 
promised to them by their Constitution and our commitment to them 
during the many long years of the cold war.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona knows I agree 
with him. I would suspect it probably would pass virtually unanimously 
in this body, which would make very clear what the U.S. position is in 
both the policy and the press conference.
  Madam President, seeing the chief sponsor of the amendment on the 
floor, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this be at 3:30 this 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask, if there are others who may have 
amendments that require a rollcall, if they might come forward soon.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, it is my understanding the 
Republican leader will be here momentarily to offer an amendment, and I 
suspect it will take a rollcall. I know the chairman is maybe 
interested in having two votes at 3:30 and I think that would be 
possible.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from Kentucky.
  What I am thinking of is, if we had this and had it fairly clear that 
we were going to have two or even three votes right together at that 
time, we could make sure that was hot-lined.
  The Breyer nomination is before the Judiciary Committee. In fact, I 
am a member of that committee and I have been trying to divide my time 
with that. There are a couple other committee meetings of that nature. 
If we are able to accommodate the chairman and ranking member of those 
various committees to do it in such a way that we get stacked votes, it 
would help them.
  So, with that, I might again reiterate to those who are watching--
certainly if the distinguished Republican leader is coming to the 
floor, I will yield to him for whatever he has--but if anybody else has 
an amendment that could be brought up and is going to require a 
rollcall between now and 3:30, my recommendation would be, if we are 
able to get the votes stacked, if the distinguished leaders would 
agree, that we might be able to then vote on one with a 15-minute vote, 
and the subsequent ones with a shorter time.
  Again, I also note, I appreciate the cooperation of Senators so far 
in moving these things forward. I know we have a couple of late 
evenings ahead of us, but it enables us to then try to get this through 
conference prior to the August 31 date, because otherwise we will be 
unable to get through a conference by that time. But I know it is the 
intent of the Senator from Kentucky, and indeed mine, that if we 
complete this in time, we will try to do just that.
  Madam President, 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. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Madam President, I have four amendments.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent the 
pending amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered be 
temporarily laid aside so as to accommodate the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Without 
objection, the pending amendments will be laid aside.


            Amendments Nos. 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, En Bloc

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I understand these amendments have been 
cleared on each side. Let me say one is a Trans-Caucasus Enterprise 
Fund amendment which earmarks $5 million; another eliminates assistance 
for the violators of Serbian sanctions; the third would be earmarked $5 
million for Bosnian hospitals. If you have been there, you would 
understand the need. The fourth would be for Bosnia winterization, an 
earmark of $10 million.
  I send these four amendments to the desk en bloc and ask they be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2241 through 2244, en bloc.

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2241

        (Purpose: To establish a Trans-Caucasus Enterprise Fund)

  Mr. DOLE offered amendment No. 2241 for himself and Mr. Levin.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 23, line 21, delete ``(m)'' and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (m) Not less than $5 million of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be made available for the 
     capitalization of a Trans-Caucasus Enterprise Fund.

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, this is a simple and straightforward 
amendment. It earmarks $5 million for the establishment of a 
Transcaucasus Enterprise Fund. This represents a modest amount of the 
more than $800 million in aid provided by this legislation for the 
independent states of the former Soviet Union.
  Enterprise funds are one of the few success stories of the American 
aid to the post-Communist world. They were first established in Hungary 
and Poland in the seed legislation in 1989 and provided with initial 
funding of $300 million. Enterprise funds support small- and medium-
sized business ventures. They provide expertise and capital for 
investment. They show by joint venture and by example that projects can 
work--and that fosters additional investment.
  The administration has established enterprise funds for all the 
countries of Eastern Europe, and all the countries of the former Soviet 
Union--with the sole exception of the Transcaucasus region of Armenia, 
Georgia, and Azerbaijan. The Russian Enterprise Fund was established 
with planned funding of $340 million. A Central Asia fund was set up 
for the five Central Asian republics with $150 million. A western NIS 
fund was established with $150 million for Ukraine, Belarus, and 
Moldova. Enterprise funds exist for the Baltics, for Bulgaria, for 
Albania, for Slovenia, and for the Czech and Slovak Republics.
  Yet there is no enterprise fund for the Transcaucasus. There are 
arguments against such a fund--the bureaucrats can always find excuses 
for inaction. Some say there is conflict in the Transcaucasus. But 
there are conflicts in Moldova and in Central Asia as well. If it makes 
sense to establish enterprise funds in those regions--despite ongoing 
conflicts--it make sense to quit include the Transcaucasus in this 
important private sector initiative.
  Some say conditions are not yet ideal for an enterprise fund for the 
Caucasus. But the administration's record shows that it takes months 
and even years for an enterprise fund to begin operations after its 
formal establishment. For example, the Baltic-American Enterprise Fund 
was announced in October 1992, reannounced in June 1993, but no board 
has been named, no funds have been provided, and no operations are 
underway. It is not armed conflict or political violence slowing the 
Baltic enterprise funds, it is bureaucratic inertia. Given this track 
record, it makes sense to plan ahead for enterprise funds and establish 
one for the Transcaucasus now.

  There is no shortage of needs in the Caucasus region. Port, rail, and 
communications facilities all need rebuilding. Armenia is a nation of 
entrepreneurs. Privatization has commenced and opportunities are there. 
In Armenia, for example, $5,000 could finance the start of a computer 
software company. Georgian traders and carpenters could benefit from 
small scale loans.
  The focus of the administration's foreign aid reform is sustainable 
development. In my view, the best type of sustainable development is 
support for the private sector, support which an enterprise fund is 
designed to give.
  Due to Senator McConnell's efforts, this legislation contains $75 
million for Armenia and $50 million for Georgia. Such grants are vital 
to meet immediate needs in the region. But we also need to look ahead, 
to look beyond handouts. That is what the Transcaucasus Enterprise Fund 
will do. An enterprise fund would provide a real incentive for 
privatization. It would foster regional cooperation that is vital to 
the future of the Transcaucasus.
  I know of no opposition to this proposal and urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.


                           amendment no. 2242

(Purpose: To allocate funds for humanitarian assistance for Bosnia and 
                              Herzegovina)

  Mr. DOLE offered amendment No. 2242 for himself and Mr. Lieberman.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE FOR BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       Of the funds appropriated by this Act, not less than 
     $5,000,000 shall be available only for medical equipment, 
     medical supplies, and medicine to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 
     for the repair and reconstruction of hospitals, clinics, and 
     medical facilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, last month, I was in Sarajevo and had the 
opportunity to visit one of its hospitals. What many people fail to 
realize is that hospitals and clinics in Bosnia and Herzegovina have 
been targeted and attacked throughout the war. We saw the Bosnian Serbs 
attack the Red Cross clinic in Gorazde only a few months ago. And, the 
hospital I visited, Kosevo Hospital, was hit often by Bosnian Serb 
forces in the hills surrounding Sarajevo--sometimes with tragic 
results. Not only did the hospital sustain structural damage and 
equipment loss, but doctors and nurses lost their lives when artillery 
shells blasted through the hospital's walls. Nevertheless, at Kosevo 
Hospital, and other hospitals and clinics throughout Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, courageous and dedicated staff worked under horrible 
conditions to try to save lives.
  The amendment I am offering today, together with the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, provides $5 million for 
the repair of hospitals and other medical facilities in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. These funds can also be used to provide medical equipment, 
medical supplies, and medicines, as required.
  I hope that this amendment will receive strong support. The damaged 
hospitals and medical facilities need to be repaired and provided with 
the necessary equipment and supplies so that the Bosnian people--who 
have suffered for so long now--can receive the better medical care.


                           Amendment No. 2243

   (Purpose: To allocate funds for emergency projects in Bosnia and 
                              Herzegovina)

  Mr. DOLE offered amendment No. 2243 for himself and Mr. Lieberman.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . EMERGENCY PROJECTS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       Of the funds appropriated by this Act, not less than 
     $10,000,000 shall be available only for emergency 
     winterization and rehabilitation projects and for the 
     reestablishment of essential services in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I am pleased to offer this amendment on 
behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 
Lieberman]. This amendment provides $10 million in emergency 
winterization and rehabilitation assistance for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
and for the reestablishment of essential services there.
  It is not too early to plan for winter. Winter is only a few months 
away--and in Bosnia, it usually comes early. Unfortunately, it is my 
understanding that not enough is being done by international relief 
agencies at this time to prepare for the coming winter. Instead of 
increasing airlifts and convoys so that winter-related items can be 
stockpiled and prepositioned while the weather is good, the UNHCR has 
actually significantly decreased the number of airlifts into Sarajevo.
  This seems incredibly shortsighted. Maybe the United Nations and 
others are hoping that a settlement will be reached and that the crisis 
in Bosnia will be over. In my view, this is wishful thinking. But, in 
any event there is no concrete evidence before us to suggest that there 
will not be a humanitarian crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina this 
winter.
  Mr. President, now is also the time to work on rehabilitation 
projects and the reestablishment of essential services. It is my 
understanding that U.S. aid officials, such as the disaster assistance 
response team [DART] based in Zagreb, have already conducted 
assessments on rehabilitation assistance and reestablishment of 
essential services.
  Through this amendment we can provide at least some of the resources 
necessary for United States officials to move forward with 
rehabilitation projects, emergency winter assistance, and efforts to 
reestablish essential services in Bosnia.


                           amendment no. 2244

 (Purpose: To restrict funds available for assistance to countries not 
    in compliance with United Nations sanctions against Serbia and 
                              Montenegro)

  Mr. DOLE offered amendment No. 2244 for himself and Mr. Lieberman.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 72, line 23, insert ``, Serbia, and Montenegro'' 
     after ``Iraq''.
       On page 73, line 11, insert ``, Serbia, or Montenegro'' 
     after ``Iraq''.
       On page 73, line 17, insert ``, Serbia, or Montenegro, as 
     the case may be,'' after ``Iraq''.
       On page 73, line 19, insert ``, Serbia, or Montenegro, as 
     the case may be'' after ``Iraq''.

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I am pleased to offer this amendment on 
behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 
Lieberman]. This amendment is very simple. It adds Serbia and 
Montenegro to section 538 of this bill, which provides that no United 
States assistance may be provided to any country that is not in 
compliance with the U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iraq, 
unless the President certifies that such aid is in the United States 
national interest, or that such aid is of a humanitarian nature.
  U.N. sanctions were imposed on Serbia and Montenegro in May 1992, 
shortly after the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina was launched. 
Since that time, the international community--largely at the urging of 
the United States--has worked to tighten these sanctions. While the 
situation has improved over time, sanctions violations still occur, 
particularly along the Danube where NATO ships do not patrol.

  In the absence of lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnians, and in 
the absence of effective enforcement of the NATO exclusion zones in 
Bosnia, sanctions remain the chief source of leverage and pressure on 
the Serbian Government and its collaborators in Bosnia. In short, the 
administration has put most of its eggs in the sanctions basket and 
while some like myself do not believe that is sufficient pressure to 
bring about a just and stable peace, the bottom line is that unless we 
pass legislation to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia, the 
administration's policy which relies on sanctions remains in place.
  Therefore, it is essential that these sanctions are airtight. This 
amendment should serve to enhance compliance with sanctions against 
Serbia and Montenegro since all of the countries that border Serbia and 
Montenegro are recipients of United States foreign assistance.
  It seems to me that we are not asking too much in making compliance 
with United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro a 
prerequisite for United States aid, just as we have made compliance 
with United Nations sanctions against Iraq a prerequisite. Both are 
aggressor states who have violated fundamental principles of 
international law and the U.N. Charter.
  This amendment should not be controversial and I hope it will receive 
broad support.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator from Kansas will yield, I 
have seen these four amendments. I have no problem with them. I 
understand the Senator from Kentucky has no problem with them either. I 
am certainly willing to accept them.
  I obviously cannot guarantee what happens in conference. I do not 
know what will happen in conference, but I am perfectly willing to 
accept them and support them.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. I 
understand the Senator from Kentucky has no problem with the 
amendments. They have been agreed to on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 2241, 2242, 2243, and 2244) were agreed to en 
bloc.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. I have another amendment which I will send to the desk 
which has not been agreed to. I will lay it down now and ask the 
pending amendment be temporarily laid aside, the McConnell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the McConnell amendment and 
the pending committee amendments will be laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 2245

 (Purpose: To establish a congressional commission for the purpose of 
  assessing the humanitarian, political, and diplomatic conditions in 
 Haiti and reporting to the Congress on the appropriate policy options 
         available to the United States with respect to Haiti)

  Mr. DOLE. Madam 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 Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself and Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2245.

  Mr. DOLE. 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 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION ON HAITI POLICY.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the American people support a peaceful transition to a 
     democratic and representative government in Haiti.
       (2) Haiti's elected President who is in exile and the de 
     facto ruling junta in Haiti have reached an impasse in their 
     negotiations for the reinstitutions of civilian government;
       (3) the extensive economic sanctions imposed by the United 
     Nations and United States against the de facto rules are 
     causing grave harm to innocent Haitians;
       (4) private businesses and other sources of employment are 
     being shut down, and the continuation of the comprehensive 
     economic sanctions are causing massive starvation, the spread 
     of disease at epidemic proportions, and widespread 
     environmental degradation; and
       (5) an armed invasion of Haiti by forces of the United 
     States, the United Nations, and the Organization of American 
     States would endanger the lives of troops sent to Haiti as 
     well as thousands of Haitians, especially civilians.
       (b) Establishment and Duties.--(1) There is established a 
     congressional commission which shall be known as the 
     Commission on Haiti Policy (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Commission'').
       (2) It shall be the duty of the Commission--
       (A) to assess the humanitarian, political, and diplomatic 
     conditions in Haiti; and
       (B) to submit to the Congress the report described in 
     subsection (d).
       (3) In carrying out its duties, the Commission shall call 
     upon recognized experts on Haiti and Haitian culture, as well 
     as experts on health and social welfare, political 
     institution building, and diplomatic processes and 
     negotiations.
       (c) Composition of Commission.--The Commission shall 
     consist of the following Members of Congress (or their 
     designees):
       (1) The Majority Leader of the Senate.
       (2) The Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (3) The chairman and the ranking Member of the following 
     committees of the Senate:
       (A) The Committee on Appropriations.
       (B) The Committee on Foreign Relations.
       (C) The Select Committee on Intelligence.
       (D) The Committee on Armed Services.
       (4) The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       (5) The Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
       (6) The chairman and ranking Member of the following 
     committees of the House of Representatives:
       (A) The Committee on Appropriations.
       (B) The Committee on Foreign Affairs.
       (C) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
       (D) The Committee on Armed Services.
       (d) Report of Commission.--Not later than 45 days after 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the 
     congress a report on the Commission's analysis and assessment 
     of conditions in Haiti and, if appropriate, analysis and 
     assessment of appropriate policy options available to the 
     United States with respect to Haiti.

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I join with the international community in 
condemning Haiti's expulsion of United Nations human rights observers. 
It is a cowardly and deplorable act. But I also join with an unlikely 
ally, the editorial page of the New York Times, in urging the 
administration not to use this act as a pretext for invasion.
  The editorial is right to conclude, ``But except for refugees, what 
is going on in Haiti affects only Haiti.'' And I join with the USA 
Today editorial in saying we tried invading Haiti before and we failed 
in our goals.
  I ask unanimous consent both editorials be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOLE. There are obviously many views in this body on what course 
we ought to take in Haiti. It is in the news every night. It is on the 
front page of the paper every morning. It is on the radio wherever you 
go. It is a matter of great concern.
  Here we find the most impoverished country in this hemisphere --poor 
people are poorer now than they were a week ago or 2 weeks ago because 
of sanctions. Some support the use of force. Some support the use of 
American military power. Some oppose risking American lives for that 
purpose.
  But all of us should want the facts before passing judgment on the 
issue. And the last thing we should do is to shoot first and ask 
questions later, questions that could lead to a peaceful resolution.
  For more than 2 months now, I have called for a bipartisan 
factfinding commission to review the situation in Haiti.
  I would expect supporters of the military option to favor my 
proposal. The worst outcome for the United States would be to commit 
U.S. power, prestige, and lives without understanding the nature of 
local conditions. The unfortunate example of Somalia stands as a stark 
reminder of this mistake. We all remember how dozens of Americans lost 
their lives trying to arrest a Somali warlord who just days later was 
given first-class transportation by the United States military.
  I have every confidence in America's men and women in uniform, but in 
Haiti it is not hard to foresee a similar outcome. U.S. military power 
will reinstall Aristide as president, and within days the American 
soldiers will be deployed to restrain excesses of pro-Aristide forces. 
The time to prevent such disaster is before it begins. The time to 
examine the facts is now before troops are deployed. President Aristide 
opposes an invasion. Prime Minister Malval opposes an invasion. Haitian 
parliamentarians oppose an invasion. I have a letter I will include in 
the Record from a number of parliamentarians. I do not know the 
parliamentarians. I do not know where they belong in the political 
spectrum. I think the letter will be helpful to some.
  Under all these circumstances, with all this opposition, it is hard 
to find anyone supporting an invasion. But it appears the 
administration is dead set on an invasion course. Political options 
have been rejected and no longer explored. In this situation, Congress 
has an appropriate role. A few weeks ago, the Senate rejected 
amendments which would require congressional approval before an 
invasion of Haiti. Later, we approved an amendment expressing our view 
that such approval should be sought. It is sort of a sense-of-the-
Senate approach. We made that same approach months or weeks earlier. I 
think the vote was 98 to 0, or something unanimous for all those who 
were here.
  Today I am offering an amendment which establishes a congressional 
commission of limited duration of bipartisan membership. The commission 
would include the majority and minority leaders and chairmen and 
ranking members of four key committees in the House and Senate: Foreign 
Relations, Armed Services, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committee.
  I do not see how anybody can oppose this amendment. It is not tying 
anybody's hands. It simply establishes a joint Senate-House commission 
to assess conditions in Haiti and report back in 45 days--45 days. It 
seems to me it makes a lot of sense.
  I would assume that the members of this commission would have no 
special interest, no ax to grind, no preconceived notion on what the 
recommendations should be.
  Some might say they have enough facts now, that the commission would 
lead to more delay. In my view, there cannot be too much information 
before a decision to employ American troops is made. Maybe that 
decision has already been made by this administration. Sometime next 
week, or the next week, or the next week they are going to deploy 
American troops.
  I believe there are many questions this commission could examine:
  What, if anything, is the exact nature of any threats to Americans in 
Haiti?
  Are any Americans really threatened? We hear some of the newscasts, 
we hear some of the rumors, but are any Americans threatened? If that 
is the case, it would certainly buttress those who favor intervention.
  Why has the flow of Haitians leaving by boat increased so 
dramatically in the past month?
  Why have efforts to achieve a political solution failed over the last 
2 years?
  What role could democratically-elected Haitian parliamentarians play 
in any potential solution?
  Why did the parliamentarians' effort earlier this year fail, an 
effort supported and accepted by the United States and the United 
Nations?
  Why did Prime Minister Malval resign in disgust last year?
  What is the real effect of sanctions on the poorest of Haitians? And 
certainly we know what tragic impact sanctions are having on the 
poorest of Haitians.
  What is the human rights record of Aristide and Cedras governments? I 
think we ought to take a look at both. I do not think in either case 
you are going to find them to anybody's liking.
  Is it feasible to establish a safe haven on Haitian soil, a proposal 
endorsed by the House of Representatives?
  The commission established by my amendment would not review such 
questions with a stacked deck. It would not rely on the spin control of 
high-priced lawyers and public relations firms. It would provide an 
objective view of the situation by the Congress and for the Congress.
  Madam President, earlier this month, as I mentioned, I received this 
letter signed by a majority of the Haitian Chamber of Deputies, some 48 
Haitians. In the letter, the Deputies request that a bipartisan 
commission be designated to assess the situation in Haiti first hand.
  A week later, one of the signatories of the letter, Duly Brutus, 
wrote a Washington Post article supporting a congressional commission. 
This Member of Parliament was democratically chosen in the same 
election which Aristide won in 1991 and is every bit as legitimate as 
President Aristide. I do not know if Bill Gray has met Duly Brutus. I 
do not know how many Haitians he has met with beyond Aristide's circle. 
I do not know if he has been to Haiti recently.
  I do know that U.S. policy should be based on all the available 
facts. I do not believe that 45 days and an independent review by 
Congress is too much to ask. In 1984, with bitter partisan debate 
toward United States policy in Central America, President Reagan 
listened to Congress and appointed a bipartisan panel. It was called 
the Kissinger Commission. I think the cochairman or vice chairman was 
Robert Strauss, later to become Ambassador to Russia, and a very fine 
Democrat.
  I remain ready to work with the President in creating such a 
commission. I am confident the executive branch will work cooperatively 
with this congressional commission if this amendment is adopted.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the letter from the parliamentarians be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Republique D'Haiti,


                                          Chambre Des Deputes,

                                     Port-au-Prince, July 1, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Minority Leader, Senate, Washington DC.
       Honorable Senator: We are writing to you and other members 
     of the bipartisan congressional leadership to request your 
     participation in and support for an effort to peacefully 
     resolve the political crisis that has engulfed our country 
     and threatens to ensnare yours.
       The dire consequences of Haiti's political crisis in 
     addition to the sanctions for our society and economy are 
     increasingly evident. We are certain, however, that foreign 
     military intervention cannot provide a foundation for a 
     lasting solution to Haiti's problems. It must be noted that 
     as Parliamentarians we firmly oppose the very idea of a 
     military intervention which is, in any case, reproved by the 
     different sectors comprising Haitian society.
       In order to avert such a development, we think it critical 
     that democratically-elected legislators in both of our 
     countries establish a dialogue with each other in solemn 
     effort to find a peaceful solution to the crisis.
       Ideally such a dialogue would have been established at an 
     earlier stage of the crisis, but we believe that it is not 
     too late to begin working together to find a peaceful, 
     democratic solution.
       We would recommend as a first step that the bipartisan 
     leadership of the Congress, or a group of Members designated 
     by the bipartisan leadership, visit Haiti to assess the 
     situation in our country first hand and to meet with Deputies 
     from all parties elected to the Haitian Parliament.
       In view of the advanced stage of the crisis, we believe 
     this visit should occur as soon as possible.
       We are available, of course, to meet in Washington with you 
     and other members of the congressional leadership, or with 
     Members designated by the leadership, but we believe that any 
     such meetings should be held in addition to rather than as a 
     substitute for a visit to Haiti.
       We seek a political solution in Haiti under which human 
     rights and the democracy will be fully respected and which 
     would further more put an end to the degradation of the 
     country socio economic problems while contributing to the 
     promotion of human rights in Haiti. We are confident that it 
     is not too late to achieve these objectives by means short of 
     foreign military intervention.
       We urge you to join us in finding a political solution 
     along the lines described above. Please come to our country 
     to learn more about our actual situation and to help us forge 
     a peaceful, democratic solution.
           Sincerely,
         Frantz Robert Monde, President; Depute Marc Ferl 
           Morquette, Vice-President; Depute Gabriel Antoinier 
           Clerva, Deuxieme Secretaire; Depute Benoit Beaubrun; 
           Depute Evans G. Beaubrun; Depute Edmonde S. Beauzile; 
           Depute Emmanuel Reyme, Premier Secretaire; Depute 
           Frederic Cheron, Questeur; Depute Yves Pericles Beauge; 
           Depute Pierre Duly Brutus; Depute Joseph E. Beaumier; 
           Depute Jn Gardy Charlotin; Depute Mie Junie Creve-
           Coeur; Depute Job Dornevil; Depute Delicier Geffrard; 
           Depute Appolon Israel; Depute Jean Lionel Bouzi; Depute 
           Lafontant Clervil; Depute Milcent Datus; Depute Jn Eddy 
           T. Desjardins; Depute Pierre Simon George; Depute Sorel 
           Jacinthe; Depute Jn Baptiste Laveaux; Depute Girard R. 
           Jn-Francois; Depute Gela Jn-Simon; Depute Josue 
           Lafrance; Depute Joseph Benoit Laguerre; Depute Deus 
           Jn-Francois; Depute Jn Neland Jn-Luis; Depute Lonnes 
           Joseph; Depute Firmin Milou Laguerre; Depute Joseph 
           Lambert; Depute Jonas Louis; Depute Francois S. Moise; 
           Depute Rita F. Moncoeur; Depute Olipcial Regis; Depute 
           Millevoye Sanon; Depute Denis St Fort; Depute Joseph 
           Felix Mathieu; Depute Paris Moise; Depute Roosevelt 
           Ovide; Depute Gabriel Sanon; Depute Pierre Francois 
           Vital; Depute Geffrard Etienne; Depute Seignon Jn-
           Jacques; Depute Leosthene Charlot; Depute Jacques 
           Lafleur; Depute Ancelot Venort.

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, let me just conclude by suggesting that 45 
days--that would probably be mid-September, by the time this bill goes 
to conference--Congress will be in session in mid-September. Those 
members of the commission would have time during the August and 
September break, if there is to be an August break, to visit Haiti and 
to have appropriate hearings, whatever might be necessary.
  This is totally bipartisan. As far as I know, nobody, as I said, has 
any preconceived notions on what should happen. I know this is a big, 
big issue in the State of Florida. I know in the State of Florida, they 
are very concerned about more and more and more immigrants coming to 
Florida and the burden it places on the State of Florida.
  I hope that the President will see this effort as an effort to be of 
assistance, to remove this from what has become, at least as I view it, 
as sort of a partisan effort and it ought to be a nonpartisan effort or 
a bipartisan effort.
  There has been very little consultation by the White House. I 
understand there may be some consultation later today. But the best 
way, in my view, to support whatever the President may decide to do is 
to have some bipartisan congressional group. Congress has a role to 
play in foreign policy. Congress has a role to play in Haiti. And 
Congress ought to be given that responsibility. I think they are 
willing to take it.
  I would be very happy, if everything else failed, if the majority 
leader and the minority leader sat down and said, ``OK, we are going to 
appoint this special group to find facts.'' Maybe we do not need the 
legislation. I think we can accomplish the same without it. But there 
would be certain advantages to having Congress approve the commission.
  This is a very important concern. I listened to Congressman Rangel 
last night on television. Obviously, he is very concerned about Haiti 
and has every right to be concerned about Haiti. I have great respect 
for Congressman Rangel. I think he has not clearly decided which course 
to follow, though he may at this point favor intervention.
  I do not believe anybody, regardless of their position today, would 
not be willing to give us 45 days or 60 days to take a look at the 
facts, bring back the facts, give those facts to our colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, and then let us make a judgment at 
that time, working with this administration.
  That is the basis for the amendment, and I hope that my colleagues 
will see some merit to the amendment. I am not certain whether there 
will be a vote on this amendment. I know there is another amendment 
pending. I know some of my colleagues on this side may wish to speak on 
the amendment, and I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                  [From the USA Today, July 13, 1994]

             Invade Haiti? We've done it Before--and Failed

       Temptation to invade Haiti swells with each new outrage by 
     the military gangsters running the show there. Especially for 
     President Clinton.
       He's up to his ears in Haitian refugees, he's suffering a 
     foreign policy flop a week, and his Haiti policy spins 
     chaotically from one questionable tactic to another.
       Small wonder he threatens invasion, particularly with 
     Haiti's thugs now booting out international human rights 
     monitors in defiance of the international community.
       After all, conquering this Caribbean nation the size of 
     Maryland is almost a nobrainer. Overwhelming 7,500 poorly 
     equipped Haitian troops with the full bore of the world's 
     most sophisticated fighting force could take just hours, 
     maybe days. Casualties, though painful, would be few, perhaps 
     on a par with the 1983 Grenada invasion that killed 19 
     Americans.
       Just one problem: That's where the good news ends. So 
     before we send in the Marines, take a moment to look at what 
     could happen next. History suggests an outcome far less 
     satisfying than we might wish.
       The last time U.S. troops tried to rescue Haiti, they 
     stayed 19 years.
       That was in 1915. Haiti had gone through seven presidents 
     in eight years, and President Woodrow Wilson concluded that 
     Marines could teach Haitians how ``to elect good men.'' U.S. 
     forces took over Haiti's finances, imposed their idea of 
     order, dissolved the Congress and mandated a new 
     constitution. An uneasy peace resulted, but riots and strikes 
     erupted just before forces pulled out in 1934. Marine 
     officers left convinced that Haiti could only be run by 
     dictators.
       Many Haitians still blame the USA for humiliating the 
     world's first black republic with that ``white-man'' 
     occupation. And they blame the USA for later support of 
     despot Jean-Claude ``Baby Doc'' Duvalier.
       Another invasion certainly won't change that attitude. More 
     likely, it will be resented by the very people we aim to 
     help.
       Even Haitians fed up with the violent military junta that 
     overthrew popularly elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide 
     in 1991 are unlikely to welcome lingering occupation forces. 
     And not just because of bad, old memories.
       When Duvalier fled in 1986, his brutal followers were 
     hunted, tortured and killed. In the wake of this invasion, 
     U.S. forces could easily find themselves with the unsavory 
     task of protecting anti-Aristide forces.
       Then there's the daunting challenge of establishing 
     democracy in a nation that is a political, economic and 
     environmental basket case.
       President Clinton painted himself into this corner by 
     imposing severe economic sanctions that drove Haitians from 
     their homeland by the thousands.
       Before he blasts his way out of this dilemma with U.S. 
     firepower, the president should consider long-term costs of 
     U.S. intervention, not just short-term rewards.
                                  ____


           [From the New York Times National, July 13, 1994]

                     No Good Reason to Invade Haiti

       If the Clinton Administration is looking for a pretext to 
     invade Haiti--a distinct possibility--it has just been handed 
     a dandy one.
       The army-backed Government's abrupt expulsion of foreign 
     human rights monitors is a defiant slap at the United Nations 
     and the Organization of American States. By threatening the 
     safety of these international civil servants, Gen. Raoul 
     Cedras and his crew have conveniently internationalized what 
     has been essentially a domestic political crisis, finessing 
     the objection that an invasion would violate Haitian 
     sovereignty.
       It is a conscious provocation, daring Washington to 
     override domestic skepticism and invade. But unless force is 
     literally needed to protect the monitors' lives, the 
     Administration should sit tight and settle down to a policy 
     of sanctions, sanctuary and intensified international 
     diplomacy.
       An invasion will not create a workable Haitian political 
     system, win regional respect or set a constructive precedent 
     for the use of force in post-cold war foreign policy. There 
     is no guarantee of a quick exit or acclaim from the Haitian 
     population, even the pro-Aristide majority. And it is not 
     supported by Congress or American public opinion.
       Nevertheless invasion is a seductive idea to some in the 
     White House and the State Department because of frustration 
     with the insolent behavior of Haiti's generals, a desire to 
     refute doubts that this Administration is prepared to use 
     force and fear of the political consequences of the continued 
     massive exodus of Haitian refugees.
       The better, if less dramatic, policy is to let recently 
     tightened international sanctions do their work, pressuring 
     countries like France to suspend commercial flights and 
     cooperate in arranging refugee resettlement; and to find 
     enough safe haven sites, including some in the U.S., to 
     assure that no fleeing Haitian is forced to return home.
       Force is a blunt instrument. It cannot solve political 
     problems. It kills people, including American troops, who 
     should only be asked to die when vital national interests are 
     involved. It punches holes in the international legal order. 
     It is sometimes necessary but must be used only as a last 
     resort.
       Democracy and human rights are national interests for the 
     U.S. But except for refugees, what is going on in Haiti 
     affects only Haiti. Fear of the political consequences of 
     admitting legally qualified but politically unpopular 
     refugees is not a very good reason for invading a country.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, July 7, 1994]

                        Alternative to Invasion

       Port Au Prince.--It would be ironic--as well as tragic--if 
     the United States, in the name of democracy, were to 
     intervene militarily to achieve the return of President Jean-
     Bertrand Aristide to Haiti. It is hard to think of anything 
     that would do more damage to democracy.
       No reputable political leader or party in all of Haiti--
     including Aristide--welcomes the use of military force to 
     achieve his return. Haiti is one of the poorest nations in 
     the world. The only dignity left to us is our sovereignty and 
     our independence. For the United States to strip that away 
     would be taking away the last vestige of our self-respect.
       Such a forcible intervention would only generate entrenched 
     and rigid opposition from all political classes of Haiti--
     including Aristide's supporters. And those supporters could 
     be expected to be among the first to criticize the United 
     States for conducting such an operation--even if the return 
     of Aristide is the reason.
       Everyone in the international community knows that the 
     military of Haiti is unwilling to abide by the will of the 
     majority as expressed in democratic elections. But the 
     military is only one part of the problem. The weakness of 
     democratic political institutions and the absence of a 
     democratic culture are other parts. While the U.S. military 
     is most certainly able to drive the Haitian military from 
     power, it is less certain that the U.S. military would be 
     able to build the political institutions or culture necessary 
     for democracy to succeed. That remains for Haitians. I 
     believe a U.S. invasion would damage Haitians' ability to 
     build those institutions in the future.
       Aristide's return to Haiti depends on his skill as a 
     politician and, above all, his capacity to become a truly 
     national leader. If he were a great force for national unity 
     and reconciliation--as Nelson Mandela has been for South 
     Africa--he would have returned to Haiti long ago. Those who 
     know South Africa know that Mandela compromised at every turn 
     to achieve truly democratic elections.
       Today Aristide is also being tested on his willingness and 
     ability to arrive at a compromise that will result in the 
     departure of the high command. In the past, whenever his 
     political skills have been most needed, he has stumbled and 
     made it possible for the high command to find arguments to 
     remain in power.
       Aristide and his advisers have been unable to build 
     precisely the kind of grand consensus that would make his 
     return a political triumph for all of Haiti. His failure to 
     achieve that victory threatens to produce a national 
     disgrace: his return to Haiti on the shoulders of the U.S. 
     Marine Corps.
       In the past, the power of a grand national movement has 
     worked to advance democracy in Haiti against difficult odds. 
     In 1990 the political classes, in partnership with the 
     economic elite and government employees, overthrew another 
     ruthless dictator, Prosper Avril. Avril was much stronger 
     than Gen. Raoul Cedras has ever been, but the national 
     consensus against him was ever more powerful.
       With political skill and vision, Aristide could still build 
     that consensus. Sadly, however, he is a force for disunity 
     and division. He has played the role of conflict seeker 
     rather than consensus builder. Every time Haitians have come 
     together over the past two years to try to build a broad-
     based consensus for democracy, Aristide--just as much as the 
     high command--has been a reluctant if not recalcitrant 
     participant.
       It is instructive to look at his three different 
     appearances before the United Nations at times when, without 
     his personal participation, there would have been 
     international consensus on Haiti. In 1991 Aristide denounced 
     President Joaquin Balaguer of the Dominican Republic as a 
     racist and called on the United States to lift its economic 
     embargo against Cuba. In 1992, after he had been removed from 
     office by coup, Aristide denounced the pope as racist. Most 
     recently, in 1993, he called for diplomatic recognition of 
     Taiwan.
       Political consensus in Haiti is difficult if not impossible 
     without political consensus in the United States. Congress 
     should create a bipartisan commission on Haiti to listen to 
     all the actors and make recommendations to the president. 
     Such an approach would contribute to the emergence of a 
     dialogue and a real national consensus in Haiti. Nelson 
     Mandela, with his legendary popularity added to his 
     legitimacy as a democratic leader, achieved a consensus that 
     has allowed formation of his new government. That search for 
     consensus should guide American and Haitian political leaders 
     as well.

  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Republican 
leader, and I join him as a cosponsor on this amendment.
  Yesterday afternoon, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted an 
extensive and indepth hearing, with administration officials, primarily 
from the intelligence community, concerning the very complex issue of 
Haiti.
  While I am not at liberty to go into the details of that hearing, I 
wish to assure the Senate that these details can be made available to 
each Member and that they deserve the closest scrutiny at this critical 
time.
  I have joined the Republican leader on this amendment because I think 
he has come up with the most viable approach to this problem that I 
have seen put forward by anyone to date. In reaching this conclusion to 
support the leader, I have undertaken an in-depth study of the history 
of the United States and its relations with Haiti. I urge each 
colleague to go back to 1915, when the President decided to send the 
U.S. Marines into Haiti to try to bring about some order, some 
stability and to lessen human suffering. At that time it was expected 
that the Marines would be in Haiti for a short period of time.
  That short period soon evolved into many years. As a matter of fact, 
it was not until 1934 that the Marines were withdrawn.
  Those who advocate using U.S. military forces to invade Haiti claim 
that it would only take a matter of hours for U.S. forces to achieve 
their initial objectives. But I have not seen the analysis that I feel 
is absolutely essential concerning what happens after the Haitian 
military leaders are removed from power. Have those persons advocating 
this invasion gone back and studied, as I and other Members of this 
body have, the history of the last time the United States sent forces 
into Haiti? I think it is essential for every Member of the Senate, 
indeed of the Congress, to study that chapter of our history and know 
full well the consequences which might follow an initial use of our 
military in Haiti.
  Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent at this time to place in 
the Record an editorial from today's New York Times, which questions 
the wisdom of those who argue for military action by this country; as 
well as an article from the Wall Street Journal. And I hope to receive 
from the Department of Defense today in time to incorporate in the 
Record, some material about that critical chapter of 1915 to 1934 when 
the U.S. Marines were called on to perform a task not dissimilar to the 
one that is being contemplated today.
  There being no objection, the editorial were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 13, 1994]

                     No Good Reason To Invade Haiti

       If the Clinton Administration is looking for a pretext to 
     invade Haiti--a distinct possibility--it has just been handed 
     a dandy one.
       The army-backed Government's abrupt expulsion of foreign 
     human rights monitors is a defiant slap at the United Nations 
     and the Organization of American States. By threatening the 
     safety of these international civil servants, Gen. Raoul 
     Cedras and his crew have conveniently internationalized what 
     has been essentially a domestic political crisis, finessing 
     the objection that an invasion would violate Haitian 
     sovereignty.
       It is a conscious provocation, daring Washington to 
     override domestic skepticism and invade. But unless force is 
     literally needed to protect the monitors' lives, the 
     Administration should sit tight and settle down to a policy 
     of sanctions, sanctuary and intensified international 
     diplomacy.
       An invasion will not create a workable Haitian political 
     system, win regional respect or set a constructive precedent 
     for the use of force in post-cold war foreign policy. There 
     is no guarantee of a quick exit or acclaim from the Haitian 
     population, even the pro-Aristide majority. And it is not 
     supported by Congress or American public opinion.
       Nevertheless invasion is a seductive idea to some in the 
     White House and the State Department because of frustration 
     with the insolent behavior of Haiti's generals, a desire to 
     refute doubts that this Administration is prepared to use 
     force and fear of the political consequences of the continued 
     massive exodus of Haitian refugees.
       The better, if less dramatic, policy is to let recently 
     tightened international sanctions do their work, pressuring 
     countries like France to suspend commercial flights and 
     cooperate in arranging refugee resettlement; and to find 
     enough safe haven sites, including some in the U.S., to 
     assure that no fleeing Haitian is forced to return home.
       Force is a blunt instrument. It cannot solve political 
     problems. It kills people, including American troops, who 
     should only be asked to die when vital national interests are 
     involved. It punches holes in the international legal order. 
     It is sometimes necessary but must be used only as a last 
     resort.
       Democracy and human rights are national interests for the 
     U.S. But except for refugees, what is going on in Haiti 
     affects only Haiti. Fear of the political consequences of 
     admitting legally qualified but politically unpopular 
     refugees is not a very good reason for invading a country.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 1994]

                           Haiti--No Grenada

                           (By William Perry)

       The debate over the merits of U.S. military intervention in 
     Haiti has many curious facets. One of the most obvious is 
     that the liberal doves of yesteryear now seem to have 
     recanted their prejudice that Washington can do no good in 
     the world (especially through military means), as well as 
     their attachments to the principle of nonintervention. And 
     they now invoke precedents, like Grenada, to make their case. 
     Unfortunately for this line of argument, the situations 
     within Haiti and Grenada are not comparable. The wider 
     international context has been completely transformed since 
     1983.
       The nominal purposes of a U.S. military intervention in 
     Haiti would be to ``restore'' democracy to that country and 
     to stanch the flow of refugees from there to our shores. But 
     the fact is that the use of U.S. forces to oust the current 
     regime in Port-au-Prince and substitute a government headed 
     by Jean-Bertrand Aristide is unlikely to produce these 
     results. And any effort to secure them would involve America 
     in a complicated, long-term commitment for which even the 
     most fervent advocates of intervention are not prepared.
       The first thing to appreciate about Haiti is that it is the 
     least developed country--both economically and politically--
     in the Western Hemisphere. To speak more bluntly: At its 
     present state of development, Haitian society may be 
     incapable of sustaining an authentic and functional 
     democratic political system by itself. And the messianic, 
     problematical personality of Mr. Aristide will not make this 
     inherently difficult task any easier. Such judgments are not 
     based on ideology--much less on racism. In fact, the example 
     of Grenada demonstrates that what truly matters is a 
     country's political culture and its level of economic 
     development.
       Thus, in Grenada we were confronted with a group of 
     malefactors who could be surgically removed--in short order 
     and at low cost--gratifying the local population and allowing 
     that country's naturally democratic institutions to resume 
     their normal function. But with regard to Haiti, we would 
     either install Mr. Aristide and promptly leave--in which case 
     he would soon find himself involved in grave difficulties 
     (probably requiring another intervention)--or we would have 
     to stay on for a long time.


                          a difficult partner

       Even if the United Nations could be induced to join us in a 
     longer-term effort, the heart of an occupation force would be 
     American--and seen that way in Haiti and abroad. We would be 
     functioning, in effect, as the security force of an Aristide 
     government. Inevitably, he would prove a difficult partner, 
     while his opponents would blame us for whatever policies he 
     pursues. More fundamentally, we would face the task of 
     transforming Haiti's political culture in the teeth of that 
     nation's fierce and somewhat paranoid nationalism. Ugly 
     incidents would be bound to occur and substantial obligations 
     undertaken, both to sustain the occupation and to refloat the 
     Haitian economy with further financial aid. Frankly, it is 
     doubtful whether U.S. public opinion has the stomach for all 
     this.
       The other major difference between Haiti in 1994 and 
     Grenada in 1983 is the international context. The early 1980s 
     were characterized by an effort on the part of the Reagan 
     administration to contain and reverse the Soviet expansionism 
     that was evident during President Carter's tenure--and to 
     make the ``evil empire'' pay the highest possible price for 
     the aggressive course that it has been pursuing.
       In this high-stakes global game, the very future of the 
     U.S. was seen to hang in the balance. The Western Hemisphere, 
     where the Soviet-Cuban axis was operating in Central America 
     and the Caribbean, had emerged as a significant area in that 
     competition. Grenada had become the third ally of Moscow in 
     the arena (along with Cuba and Nicaragua). Thus, the bloody 
     internal struggle that tore apart the Marxist New Jewel 
     movement in Grenada presented dangers of even greater 
     extremism there--and, alternatively, opportunities for the 
     U.S. containment of Soviet designs--that could not be 
     ignored.
       Haiti in 1994 does not fit into any such strategy to 
     protect vital U.S. interests. The Clinton administration has 
     as yet been unable to articulate any grand design to meet the 
     challenges of the new post-Cold War world. In fact, its 
     vacillating course on the international scene, combined with 
     a painful ambivalence about the use of force that weakens its 
     credibility, has contributed a great deal to the situation we 
     now face in Haiti. As a result, the protagonists in the local 
     struggle have scant respect for the views of the Clinton 
     government. Of equal importance, little in the way of support 
     from the American people can be expected.
       Undoubtedly the U.S. would have to use its military forces 
     if the situation in Haiti exploded to the point that the 
     lives of our citizens and those of other foreign nationals 
     were seriously threatened. But armed intervention to install 
     Mr. Aristide and to halt the tide of refugees would be a 
     serious mistake--in no way justified by our previous 
     experience in places like Grenada.

  Mr. WARNER. A second subject that we covered at some length 
yesterday--and again I am handicapped, understandably, by the 
classification level at that hearing, but I pressed at length about 
whether or not the administration has examined all of the options 
regarding policy toward Haiti. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be in the 
Senate today consulting with the leadership on this and other issues. 
But I question whether we have fully looked at all of the options which 
may be available to us, other than the use of U.S. military force.
  Second, I question the degree to which the United Nations will or 
will not participate in a military mission in Haiti. It is very easy to 
say we should go in under the auspices of the United Nations. Time and 
time again here in this Chamber, primarily in connection with Somalia 
and to some extent Bosnia, my colleagues have quite justifiably 
questioned command and control of military operations under the 
auspices of the United Nations. I would like to see such arrangements 
spelled out with great clarity if, indeed, the United Nations is to be 
involved in a Haiti operation.
  This Senator has been informed that if the military leadership in 
Haiti is removed, there is a question as to whether or not such a move 
would precipitate civil war throughout the country. We should consider 
this possibility and other possible consequences of a U.S. military 
invasion. This is a decision not to be taken lightly.
  Furthermore, this Senator would want to know exactly what role, if 
any, other nations in the hemisphere are going to play. Is this going 
to be solely a U.S. operation or is it to be a multilateral venture? 
Will other nations help with the problem of restoring some stability to 
Haiti and providing the economic assistance that would be necessary in 
the aftermath of any military action?
  Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee will soon be 
completing a report on Somalia. It has been my privilege to work on 
that report with my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin. We have taken 
extensive testimony, interviewed almost everyone that played a key 
role. The experience of developing that report on Somalia directly 
relates to my concerns in the case of Haiti. We have not as yet fully 
documented lessons learned in Somalia. I hope that we could do that 
before, once again, we send our troops forward from these shores in the 
cause of trying to lessen the hardship of other citizens of the world.
  I question whether the United States has national security interests 
in Haiti which would justify the use of the U.S. military. Yes, it is 
but a short distance from our shores as compared to Bosnia and Somalia. 
But that fact alone, to this Senator, does not justify an immediate 
conclusion that there are security interests involved. Humanitarian 
interests, yes. That is apparent; but that is not enough to justify a 
military invasion.
  In the course of the deliberations on the Senate Armed Services 
authorization bill, I produced a chart prepared by the Defense 
Intelligence Agency showing that as of today there are no less than 60 
areas of the world in which hostilities are occurring, resulting in 
human suffering of varying degrees.
  That compared with an analysis using the same parameters 7 years ago 
showing 30-plus areas of the world in which there were hostilities and 
human suffering. This is a very troubled world. We have to be very 
careful as a nation to determine the criteria we use to send our men 
and women in the Armed Forces beyond our shores to try to lessen the 
hardship in the world.
  Mr. President, I urge all colleagues to take a close look at this 
amendment and, hopefully, join with the distinguished Republican leader 
in this effort. I urge that we take the steps outlined in this 
amendment, in this real view of leadership taken by Senator Dole in 
relation to this serious problem in Haiti.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire, [Mr. Gregg].
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise to comment also on the proposal of the senior Senator from 
Kansas, the Republican leader. I think it is a very constructive effort 
to try to address the Haitian situation. A week and a half ago, I 
offered an amendment on this floor to ask that the President be 
required to come to this Congress, this Senate, and explain and report 
the purposes which he was pursuing in Haiti before he used any military 
force in Haiti.
  The Senate decided that, rather than pursue it in a manner which 
would require that it occur relative to funding to be available, to 
rather make it a sense of the Senate to call on the President to come 
to this Congress and explain his purposes relative to Haiti.
  Yet, we have not heard that explanation. Today, it is fairly clear 
that this administration has positioned itself to use military force in 
Haiti. There is no question about that. In fact, one of the national 
channels, CNN, was reporting yesterday the date on which the invasion 
would occur. They said it was going to occur within 10 days. They said 
the reason it was not going to occur today or in the next few days was 
because the President was out of the country and the Secretary of 
Defense was going to be out of the country. So they were specifically 
reporting, from the Pentagon I might add, that the invasion would occur 
within 10 days.
  When we have reached that point of intensity of threat for the use of 
American forces, we need to know why. The American people need to know 
why. The fundamental question has to be when an American soldier is in 
the streets fighting for his or her life, whether it is in the streets 
of Port-au-Prince or in the streets of Somalia, that American soldier 
has to know why he or she is there putting his or her life at risk, and 
the American people need to know why that is occurring. The national 
interest has to have been defined, a national interest significant 
enough to be willing to put at risk an American life, and to be willing 
to put at stake the American military prestige. This President has not 
defined that national interest.
  Is the national interest the failure of his policy and sanctions 
which has created the immigration issue? Is the national interest the 
fact that you have a thuggery running the country? Is the national 
interest the fact that the country is impoverished? I do not happen to 
think that the threshold question of national interest is met by any of 
those issues.
  This Presidency has not been able to make the case that the refugee 
issue from Haiti involving Haitians represents a clear national 
interest which requires us to use military intervention there. In fact, 
the refugee issue is a self-created event, self-inflicted wound 
generated by the policies of this administration as they pursue the 
sanction policy which has impoverished the people of Haiti while 
enriching the thugs who run Haiti, and then at the same time taking a 
bumper car approach of how they deal with refugees, one day saying they 
will give them political asylum and the next saying they will not give 
them political asylum and encouraging Haitians to leave their country 
in hopes of a better life when in fact we are not going to be able to 
accept them here.
  So it is their own policies that have created this exodus, and the 
numbers involved in this exodus, although large and compelling, 
certainly do not impact us as a nation as much as, for example, the 
numbers of people who are illegally immigrating here from other nations 
in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, they are only a small fraction of 
the people coming into our country from, for example, Mexico.
  So the case for national interest for invasion cannot be made on the 
basis of illegal immigrants or the refugees. It cannot be made on the 
basis of fact that there are a bunch of thugs running the country that 
have taken over that country from an elected democracy for elected 
leaders. That has occurred in other parts of this hemisphere, and is in 
fact the case in a nation even closer to our shores than that, and the 
people have been repressed. But it does not justify military 
intervention.
  It cannot be made for the reason that this is a very impoverished 
country because, regrettably, there are a number of impoverished 
countries in this world, and that does not justify military 
intervention.
  So this administration simply has not made the case for why we should 
initiate military intervention. Until it makes that case and makes it 
to the American people, it would be a tremendous mistake to pursue such 
a policy.
  Thus, I rise to support the proposal put forward by Senator Dole, 
which makes the very reasonable suggestion that, if the President is 
not going to lay out the justifications for American policy relative to 
Haiti or if that policy is going to change basically on an hourly basis 
by this administration, that the Congress needs to step in and at least 
find out what is going on and give some definition to American policy. 
That is what the Dole amendment basically proposes: that we as a Senate 
and we as a Congress fulfill our role in the area of giving advice and 
consent in the area of foreign policy and design and assist this 
administration, which really needs a tremendous amount of assistance, 
in giving some definition to what is the American purpose relative to 
Haiti.
  Clearly, at a minimum, at an absolute minimum, this should be done 
before we put American lives at risk. What Senator in this body is 
going to want to go to the loved one of a soldier who has been wounded, 
or maybe even lost his or her life as a result of being put into the 
streets of Port-au-Prince in a military action? What Senator is going 
to want to go to that mother or that father or that spouse, that 
husband, that son, that daughter and try to explain to them what it was 
that their son or their daughter or their husband or their wife went to 
war for? What was the American interest? I could not do it. I would not 
want to be put in that position.
  I do not think we should ask our American soldiers to go into Port-
au-Prince or into Haiti unless they know what they are going in for. 
That is a basic element of a democracy that you do not ask your people 
to fight unless you know and tell them what they are fighting for. This 
administration has not done that. It continues to fail on that account. 
Therefore, the Dole amendment is an attempt to try to clarify the 
situation.
  So I strongly support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Kentucky, [Mr. McConnell].
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me briefly commend the Senator from 
New Hampshire for his comments and the particular leadership he 
exhibited when we discussed a different approach to the Haiti question. 
I suspect that the President thinks that many of us are trying to 
embarrass him on Haiti. We are not. We are clearly trying to force the 
administration to come to grips and define an appropriate policy, Mr. 
President.

  I am not going to read them all, but I have a list here of quotes on 
Haiti policy by people who are friendly to the President. The chairman 
of the Black Caucus in the House said the other day: ``It is a policy 
of anarchy.'' An adviser to Aristide said just 3 days ago: ``I am 
simply lost. Once again, there has been policy derailment.''
  Carl Rowan, a columnist we are all familiar with and frequently read, 
who is certainly not hostile to the Clinton administration, said 2 days 
ago: ``He is about to invade because he hasn't the foggiest notion of 
anything else to do.''
  This is not the Senator from New Hampshire or the Senator from 
Arizona or the Senator from Kentucky making these remarks. This is Carl 
Rowan, a prominent columnist that we all admire and read frequently.
  So the point we are trying to make to the President in a variety of 
different ways is define and stick with a policy on Haiti. The 
Republican leader has come up with a good suggestion on this 
congressional commission because, clearly, before you do anything in 
Haiti, we are all going to have to be participants in it. The message 
we have been trying to send to the President of the United States is 
there is no way, practically speaking that he can politically, or 
should strategically, or for any other reason, invade Haiti without 
coming to us for some consultation.
  So we are not here having this debate because we are trying to 
embarrass the President of the United States. We are having this 
discussion because, Mr. President, we do not understand the policy and 
cannot comprehend how he can justify an invasion of this tiny island. 
As numerous speakers have pointed out, the last time the United States 
did it, it did not work out too well. So we are trying to send a 
message--hopefully not in a confrontational way--to the President, that 
if he has any notions of invasion, let us not do that. So the 
Republican leader has suggested this congressional commission, with a 
very limited lifespan of 45 days, composed of people who represent the 
body that he will have to consult--the Congress--in order to make any 
kind of invasion fly with the American public.
  So I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for his continuing 
involvement in this issue. The Senator from Arizona is about to speak 
as well. We have come at this issue with amendments in a little 
different way. Some of us have had problems with them if they intended 
to restrict the President's involvement in advance; but, fundamentally, 
we are all in the same place. I think we are saying in a rather unified 
chorus: Do not invade, Mr. President. And do, by the way, try to figure 
out what the policy ought to be.
  There were 15,000 new refugees created in the last few weeks because 
of what they think the current policy is. People are leaving the 
country, scrambling to get out. Obviously, what we are doing now is not 
working. Maybe some of us up here may be able to offer some good advice 
to the President as he seeks to formulate a policy that will work.
  I am certain that the invasion option is an inviting thing. I mean, 
most military advisers would think that the initial invasion would be a 
piece of cake. But then we all know--as it has been frequently 
discussed as we have debated Haiti on other occasions--what happens 
then. So you topple the Government and what do you have? Then you have 
the responsibility--a highly questionable option.
  I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for his most important 
contribution to this debate and join the chorus of those saying to the 
President: Please do not invade; it is not a good idea. I know it is 
tempting, and it might be doubly tempting if we are out of here during 
the August recess.
  Mr. President, we should say to the President of the United States 
that there will be an uproar across America if there is an invasion of 
Haiti, particularly if it is not conducted after careful consultation 
with the Congress. And just because there may be some Americans in 
Haiti that will be a strained way to justify such an invasion, because 
there is no evidence that any of them are under a threat of bodily harm 
or would welcome such action.
  So I think the Republican leader has certainly crafted an interesting 
and appropriate approach so that Congress might speak on this Haiti 
issue. We have been trying to. We have been working at it in different 
ways. The amendments may not be clear, or the pattern may not be clear 
of the amendments, but the message should be clear and unambiguous, Mr. 
President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I would advise the Senator that there is a 
rollcall vote scheduled for 3:30 p.m., at which time the Chair will 
have to interrupt the Senator, but then he will immediately regain the 
floor following the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole amendment. I want to 
associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire and 
the Senator from Kentucky, who I think make very important points.
  There are several reasons why this amendment--although perhaps 
unusual--is very important and compelling. One is that, in my view, 
with a caveat, this country is headed toward an invasion of Haiti. The 
embargo policy which starves children and women and poor and elderly 
and prevents rich people from flying to Miami ratchets up in a most 
distressing way the poverty and deprivation of the Haitian people. This 
in turn drives them into boats and drives them into either safe havens, 
or Florida, to be returned after some period of time.
  The caveat I have to the likelihood of this invasion is that the 
President of the United States like all Presidents, pays close 
attention to the polls, and the overwhelming majority of the American 
people are in opposition to a military invasion of Haiti. The 
overwhelming majority of the military leadership in this country, 
uniformed military leadership, is also opposed, not because, as the 
Senator from Kentucky stated, it would be a difficult military 
operation initially, but because once we are enmeshed in this very 
difficult and complex situation, we would sooner or later face very 
fierce resistance on the part of the Haitian people who, for whatever 
reason, do not want to be invaded and occupied by a foreign country or 
countries.
  So we are headed toward an invasion, and perhaps, as my friend from 
Florida, who I see on the floor, very articulately argued, there is a 
reason for an invasion. But if there is going to be one, there should 
be consensus in the Congress and among the American people before we do 
so.
  Unfortunately, this administration has not--I repeat, has not--
consulted in a bipartisan fashion with Members of Congress--not on this 
issue or practically any other issue. I regret it, and I strongly urge 
this administration to do what previous administrations have done, both 
Republican and Democrat, and that is start consulting with Members of 
the opposite party. It has not happened, and they could probably spare 
themselves a lot of grief and criticism if they would begin to do that.
  There are some of us that still believe that partisanship ends at the 
water's edge, but when not consulted, we have to draw our own 
conclusions and reach the American people in the most effective 
fashion.
  The other reason, Mr. President, why there is a need for this 
bipartisan commission is because of the incredible confusion which has 
characterized the conduct of the United States' policy in Haiti.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be delayed for 
an additional 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I want to accommodate the 
Senator from Arizona. I am thinking of the two hearings that are going 
on. We can delay the vote 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand. I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator wants 5 minutes, all right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the vote will then occur at 
3:35 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there have been in my view five Clinton 
policies on Haiti.
  The first policy was that of candidate Clinton, who called the Bush 
policy of forcibly returning fleeing Haitians immoral. Candidate 
Clinton said, ``I am appalled by the decision of the Bush 
administration to pick up fleeing Haitians on the high seas and 
forcibly returning them to Haiti.''
  The second policy was that of a President just beginning to 
understand that being a candidate and being President are vastly 
different things. He announced just before the inauguration a policy 
identical to the Bush policy--that he would continue to intercept 
fleeing Haitians and retain them. The intention was to prevent the 
massive outflow of refugees that may have accompanied his inauguration.
  The third policy was policy by hunger strike. The change came on May 
8 under pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and Randall 
Robinson. The new policy proposed to process refugees on ships off the 
coast of Haiti and in third countries. The new policy took effect on 
June 16, 1994, and then began the new flood of refugees, exactly what 
Clinton had sought to avoid before his inauguration. Between June 16, 
when the policy changed, and July 7, roughly 14,000 Haitians were 
picked up at sea. This is a massive number if compared to the more than 
45,000 between the coup in September 1991 and June 16, 1994.
  The fourth policy came this last Tuesday, 3 weeks after the second 
policy. This was a policy once again designed to stem the flow of 
refugees. Refugees would be taken to out-of-country processing centers. 
If they were found to have a legitimate claim to persecution, they 
would have been allowed to stay in the refugee camp. If not, they would 
be returned to Haiti. This was backed up by statements from the 
administration such as William Gray, ``Those who take to the boats will 
not have resettlement possibilities in the United States.''
  The fifth policy came a day later, apparently under pressure from the 
Black Caucus and others. Once again a tough policy designed to stem the 
flow of refugees was overturned for political reasons. Refugees would 
not have to prove a fear of persecution to stay in the third country 
refugee camps, although they would still be barred from coming to the 
United States.
  We are telling the refugees ``come'' and ``do not come.'' The nuances 
of the policies may be lost on them. The constant flip-flops are 
causing tragedy off the coast of Haiti every day.
  There have also been changes in Clinton's policies on military 
intervention. Last fall the President said that he was only 
contemplating military involvement as part of a peaceful U.N. brokered 
settlement.
  Later he said military force to restore Aristide could not be ruled 
out. October 13, 1993:

       I have no intention of asking our young people in uniform * 
     * * to go in there and do anything other than implement a 
     peace agreement* * *

  May 13, 1994:

       I think that we cannot afford to discount the prospect of a 
     military option in Haiti.

  Mr. President, we have to have consistent policy, as said by 
Congressman Mfume just a couple days ago. We have got to have a 
consistent policy even one that this Senator may disagree with. We are 
confusing our allies, encouraging our enemies, and the response of the 
military leadership in Haiti is only one group that has been 
encouraged.
  Questions need to be answered, Mr. President. What basis under 
international law would justify the United States invading at this 
time?
  If United States troops occupy Haiti, they will become the police 
power there. What will American forces do if Haitian citizens take mob 
action in the street against their purported enemies? Will they shoot 
Haitians if necessary to prevent violence by Haitians against Haitians, 
or will they stand by and permit mob action including necklacing to 
occur?
  What strategy do we have to remove American forces once they are 
committed to Haiti? Will we remove our troops if President Aristide 
requests that we do so within weeks after an invasion? What assurances 
do we have that the United Nations, or another international 
institution, will deploy a force to relieve American forces? How 
quickly would they do so? If we do not have such assurances, what is 
our exit strategy for the United States?
  Mr. President, I note that the hour has almost arrived. I will save 
the remainder of remarks until after the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator from Arizona.


                       VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 2240

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs now under the previous 
order on amendment No. 2240 offered by the Senator from Kentucky. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee] and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--8

     Boren
     Ford
     Glenn
     Hollings
     Metzenbaum
     Pell
     Pryor
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chafee
     Coverdell
     Nunn
  So the amendment (No. 2240) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator 
McConnell's amendment that would condition Russian aid upon a 
commitment to withdrawal of all Russian troops from the Baltics. I 
would like to commend the Senator from Kentucky for offering this 
amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.
  It is very important for Russia to understand that the colonial 
legacy of the Soviet Union is over. Russian policy vis-a-vis its 
neighbors leaves much to be desired. The insistence that Russia be 
allowed to settle disputes along its borders, smacks of imperialism and 
a rightist tendency that must be stopped. Having said this, I am very 
disturbed that President Yeltsin has refused to withdraw its 2,500 
troops from Estonia by August 31, 1994.
  The United States is providing $839,000,000 to Russia. This is no 
small amount of money. While it most certainly needs this assistance, 
it must also realize that it must follow a norm of behavior consistent 
with the rest of the civilized world. As long as Russia refuses to 
commit to the withdrawal of its troops from Estonia and the other 
sovereign Baltic States, then we must condition our aid to them on this 
issue.
  The Baltics are free and independent States and Russia must recognize 
this. The presence of Russian troops represents a Russian dispute with 
this fact. The message that this amendment sends is an important one 
and one that must be clearly understood by Russia. I hope that my 
colleagues will support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2245

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate now returns to the pending 
amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, No. 2245.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment by 
the Senator from Kansas be temporarily laid aside.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it was 
my understanding that Senator McCain was to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the Senator from 
Arizona did indicate that after the vote we just concluded he would 
seek recognition to extend his remarks.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That was my understanding, Mr. President.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Illinois is only 
going to need 2 or 3 minutes while we are waiting for the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I therefore do not object. I do not see 
the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment, No. 
2245, is set aside.


                           Amendment No. 2246

    (Purpose : To allocate assistance that has as its objective the 
                 improvement of the lives of the poor)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration. I think it is agreed to by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself and Mr. 
     Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 2246.

  Mr. SIMON. 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:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new section:


         poverty reduction emphasis for development assistance

       Sec.  . (a) Of the total amount of funds appropriated by 
     this Act to carry out chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, a substantial percentage of 
     the funds shall be available only to finance programs, 
     projects, and activities that directly improve the lives of 
     the poor, with special emphasis on those individuals living 
     in absolute poverty.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the President, in 
     carrying out this section, should--
       (1) promulgate appropriate standards for identifying those 
     populations living in poverty;
       (2) establish a program performance, monitoring, and 
     evaluation capacity within the Agency for International 
     Development that will develop and prepare, in consultation 
     with both local and international nongovernmental 
     organizations, appropriate indicators and criteria for 
     monitoring and evaluation of progress toward poverty 
     reduction; and
       (3) take steps necessary to increase the direct involvement 
     of the poor in project design, implementation and evaluation, 
     including increasing opportunities for direct funding of 
     local nongovernmental organizations serving these 
     populations, and other local capacity-building measures.
       (c) The Congress urges the President, not later than April 
     1, 1995, to submit to the Congress a report setting forth the 
     progress made in carrying out this section.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I believe this is acceptable to both sides. 
What this is, is a sense of the Senate that a substantial amount of our 
foreign aid has to go to those who are the poor in various countries.
  Many people say that is happening already. Unfortunately, frequently 
in foreign aid programs we end up with consultant fees and all kinds of 
other things and they do not get the priority. Back some years ago, 
when I was in the House, I got an amendment on saying that 50 percent 
ought to go, at least, to those who are poor within the countries that 
receive foreign aid, with the exception of the Middle East situation, 
which is special. That was accepted in conference at 40 percent.
  Then a few years ago, unbeknownst to me, that was quietly slipped 
off.
  I think this sense of the Senate, with the requirement that we get a 
report back on what is happening, is acceptable to everyone. I think it 
moves our aid program just a little more in the direction that we ought 
to be going.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment. I 
believe it has been cleared.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Illinois.
  The amendment (No. 2246) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know there are a number of people who 
will speak on the Dole amendment when it recurs. I understand the 
distinguished Republican leader anticipates a vote tomorrow, as opposed 
to today, on that amendment. So I suggest, Mr. President, if there are 
others who have amendments that have either been cleared or could go 
quickly to a vote or otherwise--let me ask the Presiding Officer, what 
now is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has now returned to amendment No. 
2245 offered by the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. LEAHY. And that is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is my understanding correct that the yeas and nays have 
been ordered on that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered on 
that amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am not requesting them. I leave that to the Senator from 
Kansas. I just wanted to know the situation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on the Dole 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Helms and McCain be added as cosponsors to the Dole amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


     Amendment Nos. 2247, 2248, 2249, 2250, 2251, and 2252, En bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if the Senator from North Carolina will 
withhold briefly, under the unanimous-consent agreement under which we 
are operating, it is permissible for me to send to the desk some 
amendments on behalf of one of our colleagues to protect his 
opportunity to offer them.
  So I have a series of amendments that Senator Brown intends to offer. 
I send them to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be temporarily set aside for the purpose of receiving the amendments 
offered by the Senator from Kentucky.
  Does the Senator seek unanimous consent to offer these en bloc?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that they be offered en 
bloc and then laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes amendments numbered 2247 through 2252, en bloc.


                           Amendment No. 2247

 (Purpose: To reduce appropriations under the account ``International 
Organizations and Programs'' which are available for the United Nations 
Development Program in order to bring the bill into compliance with the 
                        Budget Enforcement Act)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2247 for Mr. Brown.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 7, lines 7 and 8, strike ``$382,000,000: 
     Provided,'' and insert ``$273,000,000: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $12,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be made available for the United Nations 
     Development Program: Provided further,''.
                                  ____



        amendment no. 2248 to the committee amendment on page 2

(Purpose: To make Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic eligible for 
allied defense cooperation with NATO countries, and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2248 for Mr. Brown, for himself, 
Mr. Simon, Mr. Roth, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Domenici.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the Committee amendment which ends on line 21 
     of page 2 of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR PARTICIPATION IN 
                   ALLIED DEFENSE COOPERATION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``NATO 
     Participation Act''.
       (b) Transfer of Excess Defense Articles.--The President may 
     transfer excess defense articles under section 516 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or under the Arms Export 
     Control Act to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
       (c) Leases and Loans of Major Defense Equipment and Other 
     Defense Articles.--Section 63(a)(2) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796(b) is amended by striking ``or 
     New Zealand'' and inserting ``New Zealand, Poland, Hungary, 
     or the Czech Republic''.
       (d) Loan Materials, Supplies, and Equipment for Research 
     and Development Purposes.--Section 65(d) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796d(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after ``United States)'' and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic''.
       (e) Cooperative Military Airlift Agreements.--Section 
     2350c(e)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``and the Republic of Korea'' and inserting ``the 
     Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic''.
       (f) Procurement of Communications Support and Related 
     Supplies and Services.--Section 2350f(d)(1)(B) is amended by 
     striking ``or the Republic of Korea'' and inserting ``the 
     Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic''.
       (g) Standardization of Equipment With North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization Members.--Section 2457 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(g) It is the sense of the Congress that in the interest 
     of maintaining stability and promoting democracy in Eastern 
     Europe, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, those 
     countries should, on and after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, be included in all activities under this section 
     related to the increased standardization and enhanced 
     interoperability of equipment and weapons systems, through 
     coordinated training and procurement activities, as well as 
     other means, undertaken by the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization members and other allied countries.''.
       (h) Inclusion of Other European Countries Emerging From 
     Communist domination.--The President should recommend 
     legislation to the Congress making eligible under the 
     provisions of law amended by this section such other European 
     countries emerging from communist domination as the President 
     may determine if such countries--
       (1) have made significant progress toward establishing 
     democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian 
     control of their armed forces, and the rule of law; and
       (2) are likely, within 5 years of such determination, to be 
     in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North 
     Atlantic area.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2249

  (Purpose: To freeze contributions to the International Development 
                           Association [IDA])

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2249 for Mr. Brown.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 12 strike ``$1,207,750,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,024,332,000.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2250

(Purpose: To maintain funding for the Global Environment Facility at FY 
   1994 level and to make the funds available pending certain reform 
                               measures)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2250 for Mr. Brown.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 6, strike $98,800,000, insert $30,000,000 
     and on page 105, line 16, insert the following:
       (c) Funds appropriated by Title I of the Act under the 
     heading ``Limitation on Callable Capital Subscriptions'' 
     shall be available for payment to the IBRD for the Global 
     Environmental Facility (GEF) as follows:
       (1) 50 percent of the funds appropriated under such heading 
     shall be made available prior to April 1, 1995 only if the 
     Secretary of the Treasury makes the determination and so 
     reports to the Committee on Appropriations as described in 
     paragraph (3) of this subsection.
       (2) 50 percent of the funds appropriated under such heading 
     shall be made available on or after April 1, 1995 only if the 
     Secretary of the Treasury makes the determination and so 
     reports to the Committee on Appropriations as described in 
     paragraph (3) of this subsection.
       (3) The determinations referred to in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) are determinations that the GEF has
       (i) established clear procedures ensuring public 
     availability of documentary information on all GEF projects 
     and associated projects of the GEF implementing agencies.
       (ii) established clear procedures ensuring that affected 
     peoples in recipient countries are consulted on 
     identification, preparation and implementation of GEF 
     projects.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2251

(Purpose: To establish an independent commission to study the salaries 
  and benefits of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2251 for Mr. Brown.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill insert the following:

     SEC. 576. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE 
                   ENHANCED STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FACILITY.

       (a) Limitation.--Not more than $20,000,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under Title I under the heading ``CONTRIBUTION 
     TO THE ENHANCED STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FACILITY OF THE 
     INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND'' shall be available until the 
     Bipartisan Commission described in subsection (b) submits the 
     report described in subsection (c).
       (b) Bipartisan Commission.--There shall be established a 
     bipartisan Commission whose members shall be appointed within 
     two months of enactment of this Act to conduct a complete 
     review of the salaries and benefits of World Bank and 
     International Monetary Fund employees and their families. The 
     Commission shall be composed of:
       (i) 1 member appointed by the President;
       (ii) 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (iii) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (iv) 1 member appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       (v) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       (vi) Staff members.--The U.S. Agency for International 
     Development shall provide funding for the hire of outside 
     experts and shall provide expert AID staff members to the 
     Commission as necessary.
       (c) Covered Report.--Within six months after appointment, 
     the Commission shall submit a report to the President, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of 
     the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which includes the 
     following:
       (i) a review of the existing salary paid and benefits 
     received by the employees of the World Bank and the IMF;
       (ii) a review of all benefits paid by the World Bank and 
     the IMF to family members and dependents of the employees of 
     the World Bank and the IMF;
       (iii) a review of all salary and benefits paid to employees 
     and dependents of the World Bank and the IMF as compared to 
     all salary and benefits paid to comparable positions for 
     employees of U.S. banks.
                                  ____



        amendment no. 2252 to the committee amendment on page 2

(Purpose: To make Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic eligible for 
allied defense cooperation with NATO countries, and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2252 for Mr. Brown, for himself, 
Mr. Simon, Mr. Roth, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Dole.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On Page 2, line 21, after the period insert the following:

     SEC.   . ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR PARTICIPATION IN 
                   ALLIED DEFENSE COOPERATION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``NATO 
     Participation Act''.
       (b) Transfer of Excess Defense Articles.--The President may 
     transfer excess defense articles under the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act to Poland, 
     Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
       (c) Leases and Loans of Major Defense Equipment and Other 
     Defense Articles.--Section 63(a)(2) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796b) is amended by striking ``or New 
     Zealand'' and inserting ``New Zealand, Poland, Hungary, or 
     the Czech Republic''.
       (d) Loan Materials, Supplies, and Equipment for Research 
     and Development Purposes.--Section 65(d) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796d(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after ``United States)'' and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic''.
       (e) Cooperative Military Airlift Agreements.--Section 
     2350c(e)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``and the Republic of Korea'' and inserting ``the 
     Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic''.
       (f) Procurement of Communications Support and Related 
     Supplies and Services. Section 2350f(d)(1)(B) is amended by 
     striking ``or the Republic of Korea'' and inserting ``the 
     Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic''.
       (g) Standardization of Equipment With North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization Members.--Section 2457 of title 10, United 
     States code, is amended by adding at the end of the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(g) It is the sense of the Congress that in the interest 
     of maintaining stability and promoting democracy in Eastern 
     Europe, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, those 
     countries should, on and after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, be included in all activities under this section 
     related to the increased standardization and enhanced 
     interoperability of equipment and weapons systems, through 
     coordinated training and procurement activities, as well as 
     other means, undertaken by the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization members and other allied countries.''.
       (h) Inclusion of Other European Countries Emerging From 
     Communist Domination.--The President should recommend 
     legislation to the Congress making eligible under the 
     provisions of law amended by this section such other European 
     countries emerging from communist domination as the President 
     may determine if such countries--
       (1) have made significant progress toward establishing 
     democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian 
     control of their armed forces, and the rule of law; and
       (2) are likely, within 5 years of such determination, to be 
     in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North 
     Atlantic area.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are received 
en bloc and the amendments have been set aside.
  The business before the Senate is the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Kansas, Senator Dole, and the Senator from Virginia, 
Senator Warner.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. The amendments sent 
up en bloc, am I correct in understanding these are sent to protect the 
rights of the Senator as related to the 6 p.m. Thursday deadline under 
the unanimous-consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That was the intention of the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. LEAHY. Also, further parliamentary inquiry, each one would have 
to be brought up and voted on individually in whatever fashion we do, 
either by voice vote, division, yeas and nays, or however they are 
voted on; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is correct.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to 
send to the desk nine amendments and that these nine amendments be 
deemed to have been offered en bloc; that each of the amendments be 
deemed to be a second-degree amendment to a committee amendment and 
that the nine amendments then be set aside; and further, that it be in 
order for me to call up each of them upon my having been duly 
recognized by the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, am I 
correct, Mr. President, this also fulfills the unanimous-consent 
agreement of prior to 6 p.m. Thursday?
  Mr. HELMS. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. And further reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not, am I also correct in understanding even though these are nine 
amendments, the Senator from North Carolina would have to be recognized 
to speak in the normal course? In other words, it does not mean that he 
would automatically hold the floor through nine amendments but would 
have to be recognized in the normal course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator from North Carolina restate 
the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. HELMS. Certainly. But, first, Mr. President, if I may, let me 
respond to the question raised--and it is a good question--by the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  We are in a situation where we have a good faith gentleman's/lady's 
agreement that nobody will be cut off. I am trying to conform to the 
specific language of the unanimous-consent agreement that precipitated 
the problem. I think this unanimous-consent request, when I restate it, 
will take care of that. I may not call up these amendments, and I 
pledge to the managers of the bill that when I decide not to call up an 
amendment, if I decide not to call up an amendment, I will let you 
know.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will further yield, as the Senator knows, 
as having experience as a manager, I always try to protect Senators.
  Mr. LEAHY. I just wanted to make sure if, as we are going along on 
this, we are enabled to do other business in between these amendments. 
I do not want in any way to cut off the ability of the Senator from 
North Carolina or any other Senator to be able to bring up amendments 
and have them disposed of by the Senate if those amendments are filed 
prior to 6 o'clock tomorrow evening.
  Mr. HELMS. I think I agree to that. I am not sure exactly what the 
Senator said.
  Mr. LEAHY. I think the Senator will agree. I think we are both saying 
the same thing.
  Mr. HELMS. I think so.
  Mr. LEAHY. We just want to make sure we have room for everyone else 
to come in here also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would make the following 
parliamentary observation, that the amendments as offered would have to 
be considered or, if withdrawn, withdrawn under a unanimous-consent 
agreement.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand.
  Mr. HELMS. Correct. Correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request as stated by the Senator from North Carolina? The Chair would 
ask again----
  Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object, does the Presiding Officer 
want me to state it again?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Will the Senator from North Carolina 
restate his unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. HELMS. Once more, slowly and with not much of a Southern accent, 
if I can manage that, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for 
me to send to the desk nine amendments and that these nine amendments 
be deemed to have been offered en bloc; that each of the amendments be 
deemed to be a second-degree amendment to a committee amendment, and 
that the nine amendments then be set aside and, further, that it be in 
order for me to call up each of these amendments upon my having been 
recognized by the Chair to do so.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from North Carolina.


   Amendment No. 2253 to first committee amendment on page 2, line 12

  (Purpose: To prohibit U.S. government intervention with respect to 
            abortion laws or policies in foreign countries)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from North Carolina send his 
amendments to the desk.
  Mr. HELMS. What was the question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from North Carolina send his 
amendments to the desk.
  Mr. HELMS. I am going to send the first one up, and then I will send 
the other eight during the time of consideration of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2253 to the first committee amendment on 
     page 2, line 12:
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the first committee amendment, add the 
     following:

     SEC.  . NON-INTERVENTION CONCERNING ABORTION.

       (a) Congressional declaration.--The Congress recognizes 
     that countries adhere to a diversity of cultural, religious, 
     and legal traditions regarding the deliberate abortion of the 
     human fetus.
       (b) Prohibited Activities.--Therefore, none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be used by any agency of the 
     United States or any officer of the Executive Branch to--
       (1) engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or 
     policies in effect in any foreign country concerning the 
     circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, 
     or prohibited;
       (2) support any resolution or participate in any activity 
     of a multilateral organization which seeks to alter such laws 
     or policies in foreign countries; or
       (3) permit any multilateral organization or private 
     organization to use U.S. government funds for such purposes.
       (c) Rule of Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to prevent--
       (1) U.S. funds from being used to pay for treatment of 
     injuries or illness caused by legal or illegal abortions; or
       (2) agencies or offices of the United States from engaging 
     in activities in opposition to policies of coercive abortion 
     or involuntary sterilization.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I had the amendment read in its entirety--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would withhold, the pending 
business before the Senate is the amendments offered by the Senator 
from Kansas and the Senator from Virginia. Does the Senator from North 
Carolina wish to ask unanimous consent----
  Mr. HELMS. I thought those amendments had already been laid aside. 
Please forgive me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments be laid aside?
  Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be laid 
aside temporarily so that these amendments can be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. As I was saying, I asked the distinguished clerk to read 
the entire amendment because I think if ever an amendment spoke for 
itself, this one does. But let me elaborate just a little bit in terms 
of explaining the intent.
  The pending amendment forbids the use of the taxpayers' money by any 
U.S. Government employee or by employees of multilateral organizations 
or by any private organization to lobby or otherwise engage in efforts 
to change any law regarding abortion in any foreign country.
  Now, this means that no U.S. funds under this act can be used in an 
effort to make laws in foreign countries either more permissive or more 
restrictive. In other words, the United States should not be permitted 
to meddle in the affairs of other countries one way or another when it 
comes to abortions.
  This amendment does not--let me repeat, does not--propose to prevent 
the use of funds to pay for treatment of injuries or illnesses caused 
by abortions, nor does it prohibit the United States from engaging in 
activities in opposition to policies of coercive abortion or 
involuntary sterilization. And, of course, I am in fact talking about 
Red China. The amendment merely prohibits the U.S. Government from 
using taxpayers' money to lobby foreign countries to change their laws 
on this subject, the subject of abortion.
  Now, I am prompted to offer this amendment because I believe that 
most Americans are not aware of the hundreds of millions of dollars 
currently being spent by the United States on the so-called population 
control programs. Oftentimes, these programs do little more than 
browbeat countries into adopting policies which can be described only 
as social engineering.
  So the pending amendment addresses an area where the administration 
has gone too far in its worldwide effort to pressure foreign countries 
into changing their abortion laws.
  Now, bear in mind, Mr. President, that the United States gives away 
more foreign aid than most other countries combined. The U.S. 
Government pays the largest portion of any country to the United 
Nations. The United States is a key member of the U.N. Security 
Council. U.S. representatives cast deciding votes at multilateral banks 
and other international institutions. Not surprisingly, small countries 
fear reprisals from and by the United States if they do not comply with 
the proabortion policies of the present administration in Washington, 
DC.
  My point is that foreign aid should never be used as either a carrot 
or a stick by this or any other administration, by any multilateral 
bank or by any international organization in an effort to promote 
worldwide legalization of abortion on demand. The President's policy of 
supporting abortion on demand is unpopular enough here at home without 
taking it overseas.
  Mr. President, the American people will not, in my judgment, support 
a policy of pressuring foreign countries into changing their abortion 
laws one way or the other. It is wrong on its face. But this 
administration will hear the loudest complaints from the citizens of 
foreign countries. Take Egypt for example. Egypt is critically 
important to the United States. Ensuring that Egypt remains stable is 
vitally important to the United States, and we have spent billions of 
dollars to that end. Now, Egypt, as all Senators know, I assume, is a 
Moslem country with a large Coptic Christian population and it has laws 
protecting unborn children.
  Egypt must also maintain relations with Islamic fundamentalists 
within its borders, and pressuring Egypt under those circumstances to 
liberalize its abortion laws is certainly a recipe for internal strife.
  Such an effort by this administration, Mr. President, is just plain 
bad foreign policy. It makes no sense to undermine important U.S. 
interests around the world in order to satisfy the radical proabortion 
lobby in the United States. Mr. President, there is evidence that the 
administration is, indeed, engaged in a policy of pressuring countries 
to change their abortion laws. On March 16 of this year, Secretary 
Christopher sent a cable to all U.S. Embassies directing U.S. diplomats 
to pressure those countries to liberalize their abortion laws. And here 
is what the cable sent by Warren Christopher said:

       The Department [meaning the U.S. State Department] wishes 
     to reiterate that the Clinton administration views 
     international population policy as a major issue in U.S. 
     foreign policy. Accordingly, the advancement of U.S. 
     population policy interests will require senior level 
     diplomatic intervention to complement the more technical 
     interventions which are conducted between assistance 
     agencies.

  So that there will be absolutely no doubt about the administration's 
policy, Secretary Christopher's cable went on to say--this cable was 
sent on March 16 of this year. The cable says:

       A comprehensive strategy begins with the need to ensure 
     universal access to family planning and related reproductive 
     health services, including access to safe abortions. The 
     United States believes that access to safe, legal and 
     voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women. The 
     United States delegation to the U.S. Population Conference in 
     Cairo will also be working for stronger language on the 
     importance of access to abortion services.

  That was Warren Christopher in the cable that he sent on March 16.
  If those statements by Secretary of State Christopher do not make it 
sufficiently clear that a proabortion agenda is being pursued, then 
consider that on April 1, 1993--that happened to be April Fool's Day--
White House spokesman Dee Dee Myers said that the administration 
regards abortion as ``part of the overall approach to population 
control.'' I do not think it can be made more clear than that, Mr. 
President.
  In any case, the administration plans to use the upcoming Conference 
on Population and Development in Cairo to pressure foreign countries 
into liberalizing their abortion laws. It is outrageous for the U.S. 
Government to demand that foreign governments at the conference change 
their abortion laws.
  Citizens of Argentina, Egypt, Namibia have never elected Bill Clinton 
to anything. And U.S. officials have no right to demand that these 
countries change their laws regarding the most sensitive of issues in 
their own countries.
  After Mr. Clinton visited with the Pope on June 2, he stated:

       The United States does not, and will not, support abortion 
     as a means of birth control or population control.

  Those are the direct words from Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton said that in 
one breath and yet at the same time his State Department is right now 
pursuing a policy to promote abortion as part of--here I am quoting 
directly from the cable--``the advancement of U.S. population policy 
interests.''
  Unfortunately, to date there is little or nor correlation between the 
President's rhetoric and the direction his administration has taken on 
international abortion advocacy. I hate to say this, but the President 
tries to be all things to all people. But it is evident that he has 
aligned himself with the most radical elements of the proabortion 
movement in the United States of America, which brings to mind Mother 
Teresa's eloquent speech condemning abortion at this year's National 
Prayer Breakfast, with President Clinton sitting no more than 6 feet to 
her right. That marvelous lady, let me quote her--

       The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion. Any 
     country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to 
     love but to use violence to get what they want.

  That is the end of the quote of Mother Teresa.
  In the face of enthusiastic policy supporting Mother Teresa's brave 
statement, President Clinton sat on his hands. He did not applaud.
  I also find it difficult to forget that one of the first things Mr. 
Clinton did after his inauguration was to obliterate many of the 
protections that the pro-life movement had won for unborn children 
during the past several years. It is demonstrable that the President is 
in the corner of the proabortion crowd. Just the same, Mr. President, 
it makes no sense for the U.S. Government using the American taxpayers' 
money to entangle itself in such a sensitive issue in foreign countries 
where the governments and the people do not agree with Bill Clinton.
  If a sovereign nation has a greater respect for unborn babies than 
Mr. Clinton does, and if a foreign nation chooses to enact laws to 
protect the rights of the unborn, is it not morally indefensible, is it 
not atrocious foreign policy, is it not obviously arrogant for this 
administration to pressure these countries to change their laws to suit 
Mr. Clinton and his administration on this sensitive subject?
  Mr. President, I have a bunch of letters here that I want to have 
printed in the Record.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters opposing President Clinton's 
advocacy of worldwide abortion on demand be printed in the Record.
  The first is signed by the following Protestant leaders: Chuck 
Colson, chairman of the Prison Fellowship; James Dobson, of the Focus 
on the Family; Joseph Stowell, of Moody Bible Institute; Charles 
Swindoll, president of Insight for Living; Edwin Young, of the Southern 
Baptist Convention; Paul Cedar, of the Evangelical Free Church of 
America; Billy Melvin, executive director of the National Association 
of Evangelicals; Dr. James Kennedy, pastor of the Coral Ridge 
Presbyterian Church; Dr. Brandt Gustavson, president of the National 
Religious Broadcasters; Dr. William Bright, of the Campus Crusade for 
Christ; and Rev. John Perkins, president of the John Perkins Foundation 
for Reconciliation and Development.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   April 22, 1994.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are sending you this open letter to 
     express our deep concern over the State Department's cable 
     last month to all diplomatic and consular posts asking them 
     to pressure foreign governments to support greater abortion 
     availability in the United Nations population-stabilization 
     plan. The cable described access to legal abortion as a 
     ``fundamental right of all women.''
       Mr. President, this is an unprecedented misuse of our 
     diplomatic corps for political ends. We can think of no other 
     time in history when American embassies were used to promote 
     a domestic social agenda--particularly one that has bitterly 
     divided our own people for more than two decades. The 
     majority of Americans do not accept abortion as a 
     ``fundamental right.''
       Moreover, the countries that the State Department is 
     pressuring to embrace liberalized abortion policies, often in 
     violation of their own laws, deeply resent what they rightly 
     regard as cultural imperialism. The citizens of Africa, Asia, 
     Central America, and South America are offended that the 
     United States would urge them to refashion their own social 
     policies to ``look like America.''
       Apart from the moral issue, which we consider paramount, 
     how can we urge greater access to abortion in countries that 
     often do not have antibiotics, ultrasound machines, or even 
     sterile operating rooms? At a press conference on Capitol 
     Hill, Dr. Margaret Ogola from Kenya pointed out that in 
     remote regions of her country, clinics often lack life-saving 
     medications, such as penicillin. If a surgical procedure like 
     abortion were introduced into these regions, the result would 
     be massive infections and death. Surely the United Nation's 
     plan to slow population growth does not include mothers dying 
     on unsafe operating tables.
       Mr. President, we remind you of the words of Mother Teresa 
     that you yourself heard a few weeks ago at the National 
     Prayer Breakfast. This tiny woman has spent her life working 
     among the world's poor and understands their needs far better 
     than any of us do. She said: ``the greatest destroyer of 
     peace today is abortion. . . . Any country that accepts 
     abortion is not teaching the people to love but to use any 
     violence to get what they want.''
       In a recent interview with Peggy Wehmeyer of ABC News, you 
     stated, ``I think there are too many abortions in America. I 
     think there should be more adoptions in America.'' During 
     your campaign you proclaimed that abortions should be ``safe, 
     legal and rare.'' How can these statements be reconciled with 
     your cable to our embassies, directing them to promote 
     abortions world wide? How do they square with your allocation 
     of federal dollars to agencies that perform or support 
     abortions internationally? A chasm exists between your public 
     pronouncements and the quieter actions of your 
     Administration. We plead with you, Mr. President, not to make 
     the United States an exporter of violence and death. Instead, 
     we urge you to maintain our heritage as a beacon of morality 
     and hope to the poor and suffering of the world.
       We respectfully ask that you direct the State Department to 
     rescind last month's directive pressuring foreign governments 
     to accept abortion on demand. America is at its best when we 
     respect other nations' desire to nurture life, not destroy 
     life.
           Respectfully,
         Charles W. Colson, Dr. Charles Swindoll, Dr. Billy A. 
           Melvin, Dr. William R. Bright, Dr. James C. Dobson, Dr. 
           Edwin Young, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Rev. John M. 
           Perkins, Dr. Joseph M. Stowell, Dr. Paul A. Cedar, Dr. 
           Brandt Gustavson.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the second letter to which I referred a 
moment ago is signed by the following leaders of the Catholic Church: 
the Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Hickey; the Archbishop of 
Chicago, Cardinal Berenardin; the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Law; 
the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal O'Connor; the Archbishop of 
Philadelphia, Cardinal Bevilacqua; the Archbishop of Los Angeles, 
Cardinal Mahony; the Archbishop of Baltimore and the president of the 
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Most Reverend William 
Keeler.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Archdiocese of Washington,

                                     Washington, DC, May 28, 1994.
     The President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As plans proceed for the International 
     Conference on Population and Development at Cairo in 
     September, we write with great urgency as leaders of the 
     Catholic Church in our nation concerning your 
     Administration's promotion of abortion, contraception, 
     sterilization and the re-definition of the family.
       We speak, Mr. President, not only for Catholics throughout 
     the United States but also for many other people of good 
     will. We are looking for leadership that truly respects the 
     dignity of innocent human life and recognizes the fundamental 
     importance of the family for the development of nations and 
     individual persons. We are calling for policies which promote 
     sound economic and social development throughout the world 
     precisely because they recognize the indispensable role of 
     the family and respect the innate dignity and rights of each 
     person.
       There is a broad consensus in our country that abortion on 
     demand is morally repugnant. With millions of people 
     representing all faiths, we recognize that abortion destroys 
     not only the child in the womb but also creates untold 
     conflict in the lives of millions of women. Abortion cheapens 
     human life, tears apart families and contributes to the 
     violence that plagues our culture. However cleverly the 
     current Cairo document may be crafted, in fact it continues 
     to advocate abortion as a way of controlling population 
     growth and promiscuity.
       Mr. President, we urge you to shun the advice of those who 
     would apply pressure on developing nations to mandate 
     abortion as a condition for receiving aid from other 
     countries. Do not allow our country to participate in 
     trampling the rights and religious values of people around 
     the world. Please recognize that abortion is not a legitimate 
     way to control population and that it does not improve 
     women's lives. There is no such thing as a ``safe'' abortion; 
     whether legal or not, abortion is lethal for the child and 
     destructive of the mother and society.
       The Draft Final Document of the Cairo Conference, with the 
     support of the United States, also advocates the world-wide 
     distribution of artificial contraceptives and the increased 
     practice of sterilization which will have the effect of 
     promoting a self-centered and casual view of human sexuality, 
     an approach so destructive of family life and the moral fiber 
     of society. When the United States supports such measures for 
     unmarried adolescents as well as adults, what ideals are we 
     holding up to young people? How are we helping them 
     develop authentic values and that mastery of self which is 
     the calling of every human being? As we prepare for 
     tomorrow, we dare not take the course of least resistance 
     today!
       So also, when our government advocates population control 
     through abortion, contraception and sterilization, it is not 
     a force for freedom but an agent of coercion. Sadly it 
     appears that the United States is urging developing countries 
     to adopt population control programs that will interfere with 
     the rights of couples to make responsible and moral family 
     planning decisions. Couples in poor countries will find 
     themselves at the mercy of government officials and programs 
     that have no real regard for the dignity of the human person. 
     They will face the prospect of government agencies providing 
     abortion and contraceptives for their adolescent children 
     with utterly no regard for parental authority and 
     responsibility. At the same time, such policies could be 
     insensitive to the existing realities of strong family life 
     in many of those countries. As you have stated, Mr. 
     President, ``families raise children, not governments.''
       Even if such coercive population control measures would 
     lead to economic growth and development, they would still be 
     morally objectionable. In fact, however, there is no proof 
     that enforced population control will bring about economic 
     development in the Third World. What will help poor nations 
     develop their full potential is not pressure from the First 
     World for population control but rather a greater commitment 
     on the part of wealthy nations to foster sustainable economic 
     growth in Third World countries. That is the kind of 
     constructive leadership we should expect from our country!
       The Cairo Conference represents a golden opportunity for 
     nations to come together to improve the lives of people 
     throughout the world. That improvement will come only if the 
     participants have the vision and moral courage to recognize 
     that the future of humanity lies in strong, stable families. 
     Time and time again, the bishops of the United States have 
     shared with you our alarm over Administration policies and 
     statements that place non-marital sexual relationships on a 
     par with marriage and family. Archbishop Keeler, President of 
     the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, has pointed out 
     the dangers in such positions in a personal letter to 
     Secretary of State Christopher. Sadly, however, the United 
     States' participation in the preparatory meeting of the Cario 
     Conference mirrored Administration policies and positions by 
     advocating ``a plurality of family forms.''
       The United States is doing the world no favor by exporting 
     a false ideology which claims that any type of union, 
     permanent or temporary, is as good as the traditional family. 
     There is mounting evidence that being part of an intact, 
     traditional family or an extended family helps children grow 
     into emotionally well-adjusted and productive citizens. While 
     it is true that many single parents do an admirable job of 
     raising their children, nonetheless we owe it to the children 
     of our country and of the world to encourage stable, intact 
     two-parent families. Mr. President, we wholeheartedly agree 
     with what you said in your 1994 State of the Union address: 
     ``we cannot renew our country when, within a decade, more 
     than half of the children will be born into families where 
     there is no marriage.'' We hasten to add that we will never 
     develop and renew our world by encouraging substitutes for 
     marriage and family life.
       Mr. President, the United States' delegation to the Cairo 
     Conference will have enormous influence; it will represent 
     the power, prestige and influence of the United States among 
     the family of nations. We ask you, as the leader of our 
     country, to steer our nation away from promoting an agenda so 
     destructive of our own society and of the nations of the 
     world. We thank you for your attention to the pressing 
     concerns we have shared with you in loyalty to our country 
     and to the many citizens whom we serve.
       I sign, Mr. President, for myself and for the following 
     Cardinal-Archbishops of the United States listed below, who, 
     together with the President of the United States Conference 
     of Catholic Bishops, have explicitly authorized this letter.
           Sincerely,
         James Cardinal Hickey, Archbishop of Washington; Joseph 
           Cardinal Dernardin, Archbishop of Chicago; Bernard 
           Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston; John Cardinal 
           O'Connor, Archbishop of New York; Anthony Cardinal 
           Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia; Roger Cardinal 
           Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles; Most Rev. William H. 
           Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, President, National 
           Conference of Catholic Bishops.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in very brief summary, this amendment now 
pending prohibits using foreign aid money provided by the U.S. 
taxpayers to lobby foreign countries to change their abortion laws. It 
does not--I repeat, does not--prohibit funds from being used to pay for 
treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by abortion. And it does not 
prohibit funds from being used to oppose policies of coercive abortion 
or sterilization, such as is going on in Communist China.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask for the yeas and nays 
on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. When my unanimous-consent request was agreed to, I 
mentioned nine amendments. One is pending, and there are eight others, 
one of which I will not be able to offer until tomorrow.


  Amendments No. 2254, 2255, 2256, 2257, 2258, 2259 and 2260, en bloc

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send seven amendments to the desk, en 
bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2254, 2255, 2256, 2257, 2258, 2259, and 
     2260, en bloc.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2254

     (Purpose: To prohibit the availability of funds for the U.N. 
                          Development Program)

       On page 8, line 22, before the period insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be made available for the United Nations 
     Development Program''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2255

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the foreign governments 
            engaged in espionage against the United States)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:


 PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ENGAGED IN ESPIONAGE 
                       AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

       Sec.   . (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     (other than for humanitarian assistance or assistance for 
     refugees) may be provided to any foreign government which the 
     President determines is engaged in intelligence activities 
     within the United States harmful to the national security of 
     the United States.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2256

  (Purpose: To prohibit funds for Russia while that country is not in 
   compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RUSSIAN CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act may be made available in any fiscal year for 
     Russia (other than humanitarian assistance) unless the 
     President has certified to the Congress not more than 6 
     months in advance of the obligation or expenditure of such 
     funds that Russia is in compliance with the Convention on the 
     Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of 
     Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their 
     Destruction, and has disclosed the existence of its binary 
     chemical weapons program (as required under the memorandum of 
     understanding regarding a bilateral verification experiment 
     and data exchange related to prohibition of chemical weapons) 
     and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, 
     Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on 
     Their Destruction.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2257

      (Purpose: To limit the provision of assistance to Nicaragua)

       At the appropriate place in the first Committee amendment 
     add the following: On page 93, between lines 13 and 14, 
     insert the following:
       (1) a full and independent investigation conducted relating 
     to issues raised by the discovery, after the May 23 explosion 
     in Managua, of weapons caches, false passports, identity 
     papers and other documents, suggesting the existence of a 
     terrorist/kidnapping ring;
       On page 93, line 22, strike out ``(2)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``(3)''.
       On page 93, line 24, strike out ``(3)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``(4)''.
       On page 94, line 4, strike out ``(4)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``(5)''.
       On page 94, line 8, strike out ``(5)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``(6)''.
       On page 94, line 11, strike out ``(6)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``(7)''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2258

  (Purpose: To limit the authority to reduce U.S. government debt to 
                           certain countries)

       On page 98, line 24 strike out ``and'' and all that follows 
     through page 99, line 3, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       (4) (including its military or other security forces) does 
     not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights; and
       (5) has not nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise seized 
     ownership or control of property owned by any United States 
     person and has not either--
       (A) returned the property;
       (B) provided adequate and effective compensation for such 
     property in convertible foreign exchange or other mutually 
     accepted compensation equivalent to the full value thereof, 
     as required by international law;
       (C) offered a domestic procedure providing prompt, adequate 
     and effective compensation in accordance with international 
     law; or
       (D) submitted the dispute to arbitration under the rules of 
     the Convention for the Settlement of Investment disputes or 
     other mutually agreeable binding international arbitration 
     procedure.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2259

 (Purpose: To provide conditions for renewing nondiscriminatory (most-
     favored-nation) treatment for the People's Republic of China)

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

       On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert:
 TITLE VI--MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``United States-China Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 602. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In Executive Order 12850, dated May 28, 1993, the 
     President established conditions for renewing most-favored-
     nation treatment for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
       (2) The Executive order requires that in recommending the 
     extension of most-favored-nation trade status to the People's 
     Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning July 3, 
     1994, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension 
     unless the Secretary determines that such extension 
     substantially promotes the freedom of emigration objectives 
     contained in section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2432) and that China is complying with the 1992 bilateral 
     agreement between the United States and China concerning 
     export to the United States of products made with prison 
     labor.
       (3) The Executive order further requires that in making the 
     recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine if 
     China has made overall significant progress with respect to--
       (A) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights;
       (B) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for 
     Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the nonviolent 
     expression of their political and religious beliefs, 
     including such expressions of beliefs in connection with the 
     Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
       (C) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, and allowing 
     access to prisons by international humanitarian and human 
     rights organizations;
       (D protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural 
     heritage; and
       (E) permitting international radio and television 
     broadcasts into China.
       (4) The Executive order 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 United 
     States businesses and adheres to the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
     Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines and 
     parameters, and other nonproliferation commitments.
       (5) The Government of the People's Republic of China, a 
     member of the United Nations Security Council obligated to 
     respect and uphold the United Nations charter and Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights, has over the past year made less 
     than significant progress on human rights. The People's 
     Republic of China has released only a few prominent political 
     prisoners and continues to violate internationally recognized 
     standards of human rights by arbitrary arrests and detention 
     of persons for the nonviolent expression of their political 
     and religious beliefs.
       (6) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     not allowed humanitarian and human rights organizations 
     access to prisons.
       (7) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, or his representative, 
     to discuss the protection of Tibet's distinctive religious 
     and cultural heritage.
       (8) It continues to be the policy and practice of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to control all 
     trade unions and suppress and harass members of the 
     independent labor union movement.
       (9) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     continues to restrict the activities of accredited 
     journalists and Voice of America broadcasts.
       (10) The People's Republic of China's defense industrial 
     trading companies and the People's Liberation Army engage in 
     lucrative trade relations with the United States and operate 
     lucrative commercial businesses within the United States. 
     Trade with and investments in the defense industrial trading 
     companies and the People's Liberation Army are contrary to 
     the national security interests of the United States.
       (11) The President has conducted an intensive high-level 
     dialogue with the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China, including meeting with the President of China, in an 
     effort to encourage that government to make significant 
     progress toward meeting the standards contained in the 
     Executive order for continuation of most-favored-nation 
     treatment.
       (12) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     not made overall significant progress with respect to the 
     standards contained in the President's Executive Order 12850, 
     dated May 28, 1993.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Congress that, since 
     the President has recommended the continuation of the waiver 
     under section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the 
     People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning 
     July 3, 1994, such waiver shall not provide for extension of 
     nondiscriminatory trade treatment to goods that are produced, 
     manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army or 
     Chinese defense industrial trading companies or to 
     nonqualified goods that are produced, manufactured, or 
     exported by state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic 
     of China.

     SEC. 603. LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY 
                   TREATMENT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) if nondiscriminatory treatment is not granted to the 
     People's Republic of China by reason of the enactment into 
     law of a disapproval resolution described in subsection 
     (b)(1), nondiscriminatory treatment shall--
       (A) continue to apply to any good that is produced or 
     manufactured by a person that is not a state-owned enterprise 
     of the People's Republic of China, but
       (B) not apply to any good that is produced, manufactured, 
     or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China,
       (2) if nondiscriminatory treatment is granted to the 
     People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning 
     on July 3, 1994, such nondiscriminatory treatment shall not 
     apply to--
       (A) any good that is produced, manufactured, or exported by 
     the People's Liberation Army or a Chinese defense industrial 
     trading company, or
       (B) any nonqualified good that is produced, manufactured, 
     or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China, and
       (3) if nondiscriminatory treatment is or is not granted to 
     the People's Republic of China, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     should consult with leaders of American businesses having 
     significant trade with or investment in the People's Republic 
     of China, to encourage them to adopt a voluntary code of 
     conduct that--
       (A) follows internationally recognized human rights 
     principles,
       (B) ensures that the employment of Chinese citizens is not 
     discriminatory in terms of sex, ethnic origin, or political 
     belief,
       (C) ensures that no convict, forced, or indentured labor is 
     knowingly used,
       (D) recognizes the rights of workers to freely organize and 
     bargain collectively, and
       (E) discourages mandatory political indoctrination on 
     business premises.
       (b) Disapproval Resolution.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the two 
     Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of 
     which is as follows: ``That the Congress does not approve the 
     extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the 
     Congress on ______________________ with respect to the 
     People's Republic of China because the Congress does not 
     agree that the People's Republic of China has met the 
     standards described in the President's Executive Order 12850, 
     dated May 28, 1993.'', with the blank space being filled with 
     the appropriate date.
       (2) Applicable rules.--The provisions of sections 153 
     (other than paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b)) and 
     402(d)(2) (as modified by this subsection) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 shall apply to a resolution described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (c) Determination of State-Owned Enterprises and Chinese 
     Defense Industrial Trading Companies.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine which 
     persons are state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic 
     of China and which persons are Chinese defense industrial 
     trading companies for purposes of this title. The Secretary 
     shall publish a list of such persons in the Federal Register.
       (2) Public hearing.--
       (A) General rule.--Before making the determination and 
     publishing the list required by paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall hold a public hearing for the purpose 
     of receiving oral and written testimony regarding the persons 
     to be included on the list.
       (B) Additions and deletions.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may add or delete persons from the list based on information 
     available to the Secretary or upon receipt of a request 
     containing sufficient information to take such action.
       (3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of making 
     the determination required by paragraph (1), the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Chinese defense industrial trading company.--The term 
     ``Chinese defense industrial trading company''--
       (i) means a person that is--

       (I) engaged in manufacturing, producing, or exporting, and
       (II) affiliated with or owned, controlled, or subsidized by 
     the People's Liberation Army, and

       (ii) includes any person identified in the United States 
     Defense Intelligence Agency publication numbered VP-1920-271-
     90, dated September 1990.
       (B) People's liberation army.--The term ``People's 
     Liberation Army'' means any branch or division of the land, 
     naval, or air military service or the police of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China.
       (C) State-owned enterprise of the people's republic of 
     china.--(i) The term ``state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China'' means a person who is affiliated with or 
     wholly owned, controlled, or subsidized by the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China and whose means of production, 
     products, and revenues are owned or controlled by a central 
     or provincial government authority. A person shall be 
     considered to be state-owned if--
       (I) the person's assets are primarily owned by a central or 
     provincial government authority;
       (II) a substantial proportion of the person's profits are 
     required to be submitted to a central or provincial 
     government authority;
       (III) the person's production, purchases of inputs, and 
     sales of output, in whole or in part, are subject to state, 
     sectoral, or regional plans; or
       (IV) a license issued by a government authority classifies 
     the person as state-owned.
       (ii) Any person that--
       (I) is a qualified foreign joint venture or is licensed by 
     a governmental authority as a collective, cooperative, or 
     private enterprise; or
       (II) is wholly owned by a foreign person,

     shall not be considered to be state-owned.
       (D) Qualified foreign joint venture.--The term ``qualified 
     foreign joint venture'' means any person--
       (i) which is registered and licensed in the agency or 
     department of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China concerned with foreign economic relations and trade as 
     an equity, cooperative, contractual joint venture, or joint 
     stock company with foreign investment;
       (ii) in which the foreign investor partner and a person of 
     the People's republic of China share profits and losses and 
     jointly manage the venture;
       (iii) in which the foreign investor partner holds or 
     controls at least 25 percent of the investment and the 
     foreign investor partner is not substantially owned or 
     controlled by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China;
       (iv) in which the foreign investor partner is not a person 
     of a country the government of which the Secretary of State 
     has determined under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) to have 
     repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism; and
       (v) which does not use state-owned enterprises of the 
     People's Republic of China to export its goods or services.
       (E) Person.--The term ``person'' means a natural person, 
     corporation, partnership, enterprise, instrumentality, 
     agency, or other entity.
       (F) Foreign investor partner.--The term ``foreign investor 
     partner'' means--
       (i) a natural person who is not a citizen of the People's 
     Republic of China; and
       (ii) a corporation, partnership, instrumentality, 
     enterprise, agency, or other entity that is organized under 
     the laws of a country other than the People's Republic of 
     China and 50 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock 
     or beneficial interest of such entity is owned (directly or 
     indirectly) by natural persons who are not citizens of the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (G) Nonqualified good.--The term ``nonqualified good'' 
     means a good to which chapter 39, 44, 48, 61, 62, 64, 70, 73, 
     84, 93, or 94 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States applies.
       (H) Convict, forced, or indentured labor.--The term 
     ``convict, forced, or indentured labor'' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1307).
       (I) Violations of internationally recognized standards of 
     human rights.--The term ``violations of internationally 
     recognized standards of human rights'' includes but is not 
     limited to, torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 
     or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, 
     causing the disappearance of persons by abduction and 
     clandestine detention of those persons, secret judicial 
     proceedings, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, 
     liberty, or the security of any person.
       (J) Missile technology control regime.--The term ``Missile 
     Technology Control Regime'' means the agreement, as amended, 
     between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal 
     Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan, 
     announced on April 16, 1987, to restrict sensitive missile-
     relevant transfers based on an annex of missile equipment and 
     technology.
       (d) Semiannual Reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and the end of each 6-month period 
     occurring thereafter, report to the Congress on the efforts 
     of the executive branch to carry out subsection (c). The 
     Secretary may include in the report a request for additional 
     authority, if necessary, to carry out subsection (c). In 
     addition, the report shall include information regarding the 
     efforts of the executive branch to carry out subsection 
     (a)(3).

     SEC. 604. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

       The President may waive the application of any condition or 
     prohibition imposed on any person pursuant to this title, if 
     the President determines and reports to the Congress that the 
     continued imposition of the condition or prohibition would 
     have a serious adverse effect on the vital national security 
     interests of the United States.

     SEC. 605. REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT.

       If the President recommends in 1995 that the waiver 
     referred to in section 602 be continued for the People's 
     Republic of China, the President shall state in the document 
     required to be submitted to the Congress by section 402(d) of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, the extent to which the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China has made progress during the 
     period covered by the document, with respect to--
       (1) adhering to the provisions of the Universal Declaration 
     of Human Rights,
       (2) ceasing the exportation to the United States of 
     products made with convict, force, or indentured labor,
       (3) ceasing unfair and discriminatory trade practices which 
     restrict and unreasonably burden American business, and
       (4) adhering to the guidelines and parameters of the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, the controls adopted by 
     the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the controls adopted by the 
     Australia Group.

     SEC. 606. SANCTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.

       If the President decides not to seek a continuation of a 
     waiver in 1995 for the People's Republic of China under 
     section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, the President shall, 
     during the 30-day period beginning on the date that the 
     President would have recommended to the Congress that such a 
     waiver be continued, undertake efforts to ensure that members 
     of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade take a similar 
     action with respect to the People's Republic of China.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2260

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.  . AMBASSADORIAL RANK FOR HEAD OF UNITED STATES 
                   DELEGATION TO THE CSCE.

       The United States delegation to the Conference on Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe shall be headed by an individual 
     who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, and who shall have the rank 
     of ambassador.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Carolina seek 
further unanimous consent to submit his ninth amendment at a later 
time, prior to 6 p.m. tomorrow?
  Mr. HELMS. Let me have a few moments. First, I will suggest the 
absence----
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will withhold that, I will chat about the 
pending amendment. I think I know what the Senator wants to do, and I 
am going to be in agreement with him on it. I just say this about the 
amendment now pending, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered, it 
is one of those amendments that looks harmless enough on the surface. 
But it is so broadly written that it can be construed to prevent the 
United States from even participating in the world population 
conference in Cairo in September.
  I understand that some probably feel that should be our policy. I am 
not one who feels that way. It is a conference that we ought to be able 
to participate in. If they had the Cairo conference and they came out 
with a resolution that called for a reduction in unsafe abortions 
worldwide, technically, under this amendment, the United States could 
not even join that, join in an effort to cut the number of unsafe 
abortions. Obviously, we do not want to do that. We do want, however, 
to be able to at least talk about the question of population.
  I look at the foreign aid legislation before us, and in many parts of 
the world it is but a drop in the bucket because of unchecked 
population. From the time I was born, the world population has almost 
tripled. Can you imagine that? For thousands and thousands of years the 
world population was at a certain level. It went from 2.5 to 5.7 
billion. In the middle of the next century, it can double again. We 
know what this means--the kind of pressures brought on areas with 
tragic ecosystems, and pressure on the environment, and the ability to 
raise food in this world.
  We have 19 million refugees in the world today. That is almost 35 
times the population of my own State of Vermont. What is going to 
happen is, there is going to be twice the mouths to feed in the world 
by the middle of the next century. Can you imagine the number of 
refugees we will have?
  Today, there are half a million women who die each year of pregnancy-
related causes, and many are in the developing world. Up to one-third 
are from septic or incomplete abortions. We have to find better ways of 
population control than abortion. Certainly, concerning the world 
population, for instance, the conference in Cairo can look at such 
issues.
  But this amendment would stop the administration from calling for a 
reduction in unsafe abortions, or if the administration wanted to sign 
on to agreements to cut the number of unsafe abortions, it could not do 
it under this amendment. In fact, it could not contribute to any 
multilateral organization that wanted to do that. We would be precluded 
from reproductive health services for women.
  The President has said time and again that the administration does 
not support abortion as a method of family planning. We have carefully 
crafted our legislation in the past to keep from doing that. He has 
said that abortion should be safe and legal and rare. If it does exist, 
it should be safe. One of the central goals in Cairo is to promote 
alternatives to abortion.
  No one is telling any other country to change their laws. We could 
not do that. Sometimes what goes on is, in resolutions we ask other 
countries to change their laws. This is not one of them. We cannot do 
that and will not do that. Every country has to decide ultimately what 
its laws should be. The Cairo document says just that. But what you do 
by a resolution like this is you so tie the United States hands that we 
cannot even go out and explore alternatives to abortion. We cannot 
explore ways of getting rid of the unsafe abortions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has a parliamentary inquiry of the 
Senator from North Carolina as to whether he wishes to modify his 
unanimous-consent request to incorporate the fact that the amendment 
that would be offered to complete his en bloc nine amendments at a 
later date, prior to 6 p.m. on Thursday?
  Mr. HELMS. I thought we had said that. If I am mistaken----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The inquiry was made earlier, but there was 
not a response as to whether that was the Senator's intention.
  Mr. HELMS. Sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it gives me no pleasure to disagree with my 
friend from Vermont, but I simply do not understand what amendment he 
was talking about in his comments just now. He was not talking about 
the pending amendment, because the amendment speaks for itself, and I 
will be glad to read it to him. But I hope that will not be necessary.
  If he is really defending the use of the American taxpayers' money to 
force or to pressure any foreign country, such as Egypt and many other 
countries that have strict religious rules against the deliberate 
destruction of innocent human life--which is what abortion is--then we 
part company.
  The amendment does not say anything about the nicety of population 
control, even though population control has taken on sort of a gruesome 
meaning in later years. But I will say to the Senator from Vermont that 
this amendment says what it says. It says that the taxpayers' money 
shall not be used in any attempt to force a foreign country to change 
its position or its laws relative to abortion one way or another, to 
liberalize it, or to restrict it.
  That is all the amendment says.
  I think it is indefensible for the administration to try to do 
otherwise with the taxpayers' money.
  I understand that the Clinton administration is all gung-ho for 
abortion. Kill them all. Get rid of them. That is the way to control 
population.
  That is not what Mother Tereas said, and that is not what a number of 
the rest of us have said far less eloquently than the way Mother Teresa 
said it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold.
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it seems we are talking a little at cross-
purposes here.
  But, one, I will not accept the fact that the Clinton administration 
has said let us go kill them all. I do not know of any administration--
I have served here with five administrations, Republican and 
Democratic--that has taken that attitude. I certainly do not attribute 
it to the Clinton administration any more than I would the Bush, 
Reagan, Carter, or Ford administrations, the administrations that I 
have served with.
  What I am concerned about is this would stop any participation in the 
world population conference in Cairo this September. That may or may 
not have been the intention of the proponent of the amendment. It is 
certainly the position of some who support it.
  It says that the United States cannot support any resolution or 
participation in any activity of a multilateral organization that seeks 
to alter such laws or policies in foreign countries.
  In other words, should a multilateral organization try to get 
countries to stop abortion as a means of birth control, we could not 
join in that. The U.S. policy is and always has been that abortion is 
not a method of birth control. We have also tried to make it clear that 
where abortion is legal that abortion be safe.
  That is the policy of the United States. It is not a policy of 
killing them all, by any means, nor do I accept that. Nor would I 
support any legislation that would carry out such a policy.
  This legislation basically says do not go to Cairo. Whether it was 
intended to do that or not, that is the sum effect of it.
  And because of that, I will oppose it. I have made it very clear that 
my support of population money or family planning money in this bill is 
limited in this fashion, that no money, no U.S. tax dollars should ever 
go to a country that uses abortion as a method of family planning, or 
uses or pays for enforced abortion.
  I suspect that is a known fact. That is the position of the Clinton 
administration. To suggest otherwise is wrong. To suggest that this 
bill or the position of the administration is different than that 
states by the President in his meeting in the Vatican City with the 
pontiff is also erroneous.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I still have difficulty understanding the 
meaning of the opposition to this amendment of the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont. Maybe the acoustics are not good in the Senate, 
but I understood him to say that this means that we cannot go to the 
population conference in Cairo. I want him to point out anywhere in the 
amendment that that is even suggested or implied.
  All it says and what it says is that you cannot use American 
taxpayers' money to compel or to try to compel another country, such as 
Egypt, to change its laws regarding abortion.
  There are all sorts of religions in the world and many religions 
forbid the deliberate destruction on innocent human life. They used to 
be forbidden in this country until things changed for the worse in 1972 
when the U.S. Supreme Court wrote the Roe versus Wade decision.
  But I do not understand what the Senator is saying in opposition to 
my amendment.
  I hope the Record will reflect that I am asking him to be more 
specific and point out precisely in the amendment where it implies what 
he said it provides.
  It simply does not do that. It was not intended to do it, and I 
regret that the amendment is not being characterized properly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have high regard and respect for my 
friend from North Carolina. I mean that. Senator Helms is a splendid 
friend. He has been very helpful to me in my activities as assistant 
leader of our party, and I have come to know him in a way I did not 
when I came to this body, and I have the highest regard for him.
  But I must in this instance resist and speak in strong opposition to 
the amendment of my friend from North Carolina because I have been 
involved in these population issues for many years, as was my father. I 
think the Senator from North Carolina will recall that my father, 
Senator Milward Simpson, was deeply involved in population issues. For 
it is here that everything we do in the world, literally--and I am not 
being overly dramatic--will depend upon how many footprints will fit 
upon the face of the Earth.
  Our mission to Cairo is not about abortion--and I knew that that 
would eventually come--but it is not about abortion. We are talking 
about education. We are talking about women's rights. We are talking 
about men's responsibilities. We are talking about things that have to 
do with fertility rates and families. And we are not talking about 
abortion.
  But as I interpret the amendment in reading it, it would prohibit the 
United States from participating in or endorsing the world consensus 
document that is to be negotiated and ratified at the upcoming 
population conference in Cairo. It would prohibit the United States 
from endorsing any international agreements that acknowledge the high 
rates of maternal mortality associated with unsafe abortions throughout 
the developing world and the call for reducing reliance on unsafe 
abortions. In essence, then, this amendment goes to the heart of the 
International Conference on Population and Development [ICPD] that will 
be held in Cairo in September.
  Delegates from 110 nations from around the world will gather in Cairo 
to assess the current state of global population. How many human beings 
can the Earth sustain? We are presented with figures that show that the 
population will double from 5\1/2\ to 11 billion in the year 2047, if I 
recall, and then go on up exponentially into the year 2150 when the 
population reaches a figure of 694 billion. That is beyond my 
comprehension.
  I am not a mathematician, but I do know the issues that concern the 
Senator from North Carolina and concern me, issues like immigration, 
illegal immigration, population, how much food is to be presented to 
the world for its billions. What are we going to do when in a society 
of food gatherers and wanderers--when they take the last bird, kill the 
last animal, drink the last water, and move on in nomadic ways with a 
sack of grain over their shoulders looking for a place to live.
  Now that is pretty dramatic, but these are the things that we are 
going to discuss in Cairo to determine its impact on human development, 
and to try to produce an action plan for the next decade and the next 
century.
  And the United States will play a very significant role at that 
Conference because of the current administration's complete reversal of 
the position then stated at the 1984 Mexico City Conference. Over the 
past decade, the United States, in a sense, has had its hands tied in 
terms of acting on the challenge of increasing population growth, and 
its impact on the environment, impact on the global economy, and the 
international standards of living. And I must say I am heartened to see 
the administration's renewed interest in these serious issues and the 
leadership role it has embraced in the past year.
  But when the United States travels to Cairo this September--and I 
plan to be a part of our delegation--I strongly believe the United 
States should be leading the international community in a unified 
effort to meet the severest of challenges involved with these issues of 
global population, economic opportunity, and sustainable development.
  That is why this amendment troubles me so. Because every time we 
bring up the issue of global population here in the Congress, we 
suddenly find ourselves embroiled in a debate over abortion--that is a 
political reality--and it is most unfortunate. This is not about 
abortion.
  I respectfully say that my colleague from North Carolina or his able 
staff is misinterpreting the goals of the draft document that is 
currently being edited for discussion in Cairo. This draft document 
addresses a comprehensive array of population and development issues, 
including, as I say, environmental concerns, sustained economic growth, 
child survival and health, international migration, and maternal 
health, which includes a call for the elimination of all deaths 
associated with unsafe abortion.
  Hear that. It calls for the elimination of all deaths associated with 
unsafe abortion.
  This draft document is not calling for the legalization of abortion. 
Let us be absolutely clear. It does not call for the legalization of 
abortion where it is currently illegal. No one is forced. There is no 
coercion. The document recognizes abortion as a women's health issue 
because of the current crisis of maternal mortality resulting from 
unsafe abortion.
  Accordingly, governments are urged--and this is from the document--
``to deal openly and forthrightly with unsafe abortion as a major 
public health concern.'' And then the document also calls for the 
prevention of abortion and urges countries to avoid promoting abortion 
as a method of family planning. Very important.
  This amendment, unfortunately, mischaracterizes or misunderstands the 
U.S. position on abortion and the U.S. role at the Cairo Conference.
  The administration, led by our former colleague, now Vice-President 
Al Gore--and he and I had some spirited debates in opposition to each 
other here--and Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth--who was another 
former colleague--we have had serious discussions with on this issue-- 
has articulated its view on abortion numerous times and they say 
abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I uphold that. I think that 
is an important distinction. And the U.S. will continue to articulate 
that very clear position at the Cairo Conference.
  In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development, AID, has 
a longstanding policy based on the efforts and good work of Senator 
Helms with an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 stating 
that AID ``does not advocate the use of abortion as a method of family 
planning.'' That is in the law. U.S. AID also recognizes that unsafe 
abortion is a major cause of mortality and morbidity for women, leading 
to as many as 200,000 deaths of women every year in the developing 
world.
  The U.S. position on population that will be expressed at the Cairo 
Conference is not just about abortion policy. It is about ensuring 
access to high quality family planning and related reproductive health 
services, increasing child survival programs, addressing migration and 
environmental degradation--I am being repetitive--strengthening 
families, and addressing the needs of adolescents.
  The document that comes out of the Cairo Conference never calls for 
legalization of abortion where it is currently illegal. It is so 
important to hear that, and I share that with my friend from North 
Carolina. Our negotiations taking place at the International Conference 
will result in an international consensus document on all of the very 
serious issues of which I have spoken today. In addition, this document 
will--or hopefully will--be endorsed by 110 member nations of the 
United Nations.
  I think it would surely be a shame, a real shame, if the United 
States could not resume its position of moral leadership and global 
efforts to reach responsible and sustainable population levels, and to 
back that leadership up with specific commitments to population 
planning activities--without seeing the debate slide into the numbing 
and vexing issue of abortion, where never a vote is changed on this 
floor, ever--never is a vote changed on the issue of abortion on this 
floor.
  This amendment would prohibit the United States from playing a key 
role, its important key role, in this international Conference, and we 
simply cannot stand by and let this occur.
  I urge my colleagues to assist me in that outcome.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Wyoming, for whom 
I have the greatest affection, and he knows that; he has indicated the 
same with respect to me and I return it twofold to him because he has 
been so helpful to me through the years, even when we disagree.
  I do not know how the Cairo Conference got into this debate. This 
amendment says nothing about the Cairo Conference.
  I would ask the Senator, first of all, if he has read the amendment? 
And would he be good enough, if he has read it, to point out to me 
where even inferentially the Cairo Conference is mentioned?
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there is no mention of the Cairo 
Conference. But the Cairo Conference will take place in September. I 
have read the amendment and it ``recognizes that countries adhere to a 
diversity of cultural, religious, and legal traditions regarding the 
deliberate abortion of the human fetus. Therefore, none of the funds 
appropriated by this act may be used by any agency of the United 
States''--that is any agency of the United States; I assume that means 
anything we do in the international field, including all our activities 
with regard to AID, with regard to our mission to Cairo--will not 
``engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or policies in 
effect in any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which 
abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited; support any resolution 
or participate in any activity of a multilateral organization''--that 
is where we are going is the U.N. operation--``which seeks to alter 
such laws or policies in foreign countries; or permit any multilateral 
organization''--that is the United Nations--``or private organization 
to use U.S. Government funds.''
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will permit me, would you explain----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wyoming yield to the 
Senator from North Carolina?
  Mr. HELMS. I would like to know how it ties into the Cairo 
Conference.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I do yield to my friend from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I see that the leader of the delegation to the Cairo 
Conference--or one of the participants, it is a bipartisan delegation--
is here on the floor. He has been much more active in this than I.
  My simple reason for participating in the beginning, and I do think 
this does impact--I am going to yield to my friend from Massachusetts--
--
  Mr. HELMS. You cannot yield because I have the floor, is that 
correct?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Then I shall not yield. It is not my opportunity to 
yield.
  Did the Senator have a further question?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes, I do. How does the Senator, even if he infers 
something that is not even implied in the amendment--how does he assume 
it is going to prevent our participation in the Cairo Conference? When 
is the Cairo Conference?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. The Cairo Conference is in September. The dates I 
believe are----
  Mr. HELMS. The third of September?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, this September.
  Mr. HELMS. This bill is effective for the spending of the taxpayers' 
money beginning when?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment of Senator 
Helms is to prohibit U.S. Government intervention with respect to 
abortion laws or policies in foreign countries. This was the Mexico 
City proposal, which I thought was very restrictive and strained. Now 
this administration has chosen to proceed in a different way. I think 
it is an important way.

  All I am doing is looking at the amendment. I am using the term 
``Cairo Conference'' because that is the next issue that will come 
before this country in any significant way with regard to dealing with 
population and family planning and the future of children and 
discussion of women and legalization of abortion and not allowing 
unsafe, illegal abortions. And all of this has to do with that. I do 
not see how it could be said that this would escape what we are going 
to be talking about in Cairo.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I would like to differ with my friend 
from Wyoming, because he is my friend and we work together so often. 
But let me say to him that part (b)(3) of the amendment is not like 
President Reagan's Mexico City policy--not at all.
  Mexico City said that an organization could not use any funds, no 
matter where those funds came from, to promote abortion. Therefore, if 
an organization spent 1 dime raised from private sources to promote 
abortion, it was ineligible to receive funds provided by the U.S. 
Government.
  This amendment pending says nothing of the sort. Part (b)(3) of the 
pending amendment says that funds provided by the U.S. Government 
cannot be used to lobby countries to change their abortion laws based 
on their religious principles, based on whatever. We have no right to 
do that.
  The amendment allows organizations to do whatever they please, even 
if they receive U.S. funds. The language of the  amendment simply 
prohibits an organization from using U.S. funds to lobby for abortion.

  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HELMS. No, no, not yet. Not yet. I say that respectfully.
  Furthermore, the funds involved in this amendment do not begin to 
flow until October 1 of this year. And the Cairo Conference is in early 
September.
  This amendment does not mention the Cairo Conference. So I think that 
some of the opponents of the amendment--and I say this as respectfully 
as I can--sort of kneejerk whenever one of us who believes in prolife 
gets up, that they have to oppose an amendment without even reading it 
or knowing what it says, let alone what it implies. I regret that.
  We cannot discuss dispassionately this business of the deliberate 
destruction of millions of innocent human lives. That goes beyond any 
friendship, certainly that I have.
  Certainly it bothers me. It worries me. And I cannot countenance the 
suggestion that trying to do the minimum, that is to prevent the U.S. 
Government from using taxpayer funds to lobby other countries one way 
or another on the abortion question--that is all the amendment does, 
that is all the amendment says. It does not mention the Cairo 
Conference.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HELMS. I am going to yield the floor. You can have at me.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the observations 
of my friend from North Carolina. First of all, I do not observe any 
knees jerking over here. I do not think this is a reaction that is not 
in keeping with what this amendment does. I am not sure the Senator 
from North Carolina intends this amendment to do what it does. I would 
say to him respectfully, it may well be that the language in his 
amendment is more overreaching than perhaps the Senator intends.
  Let me say respectfully to the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. 
President, that, for example, in paragraph (b)(2) of this amendment 
there is a policy statement, not an expenditure. And a policy statement 
takes effect upon enactment. So, in effect, upon enactment this 
amendment seeks to say that the United States is not able ``to support 
any resolution or participate in any activity of a multilateral 
organization which seeks to alter such laws or policies in foreign 
countries.''
  I know my friend from North Carolina does not intend to say that the 
United States could not go to the Cairo conference and argue against 
unsafe abortions. I know my friend from North Carolina does not intend 
to say that the United States should not be taking efforts to prevent 
abortions. And there is nothing that better prevents abortions than 
offering women alternative choices which are part of the voluntary 
family planning practices of the United States.
  The language that the Senator offers in his amendment would, in fact, 
prohibit us from doing that because it says you cannot do anything to 
alter a law, even if you were trying to alter the law to the positive 
effect of the Senator from North Carolina.
  I would say when you measure this amendment against the larger 
objectives, not only in Cairo but in the United States policy, I do not 
think the U.S. Senate wants to do this.
  Population is a significant issue for foreign policy and the United 
States has a responsibility to fully participate in these international 
debates. Rapid population growth is closely linked with poverty and 
environmental degradation. The population of the world has gone from 2 
to 5.7 billion during the course of this century. Unfortunately, this 
trend is expected to continue. The great issue facing us when we go to 
International Conference on Population and Development [ICPD] in Cairo 
this September is whether or not we can develop strategies to level 
growth to 11 billion and not have it explode to 20 billion.
  The President of the United States has said very clearly this 
conference is not about abortion, nor is U.S. policy about abortion. In 
fact, the President said very clearly that he is seeking to make sure 
that abortion is legal, safe, and rare.
  I cannot imagine that the Senator does not want to permit the United 
States to engage in a policy that reaches out to people to empower them 
to be able to make abortion more rare; 173 of the 190 countries have 
some form of legalized abortion today; and many if not all of those 173 
countries have abortions that are very unsafe. Some are so unsafe that 
the purpose of the U.S. delegation is to try to save lives.
  But the Senator from North Carolina, in his amendment, just broadly, 
sweepingly says ``you cannot support any resolution or participate in 
any activity of a multilateral organization (that is, the United 
Nations) which seeks to alter such laws or policies in foreign 
countries.''
  So, among other activities, we would be prohibited from going to 
Cairo to attempt to change the policy of a country, other than coercive 
abortion, which this amendment allows. But there are other issues in 
addition to coercive abortion; for example, unsafe abortion practices 
which must be dealt with. The World Health Organization estimates that 
over 150,000 deaths and injuries to women each year are a direct result 
of unsafe abortion practices. We would not be allowed to talk about 
this critical health issue under the amendment of the Senator from 
North Carolina.
  This amendment would be a formal statutory codification of the 
abdication of U.S. responsibility. It would also be a prohibition on 
our involvement in this activity as a matter of policy, whether or not 
American funds were expended. Therefore, Mr. President, I respectfully 
suggest that I cannot imagine why the Members of the Senate would want 
to ratify this amendment.
  Furthermore, the Senator from North Carolina should be fully aware 
that the United States' policy does not--in any way--attempt to dictate 
to other countries on the issue of abortion. In fact, President 
Clinton, in a speech he delivered just 2 weeks ago reiterated his 
administration's policy, and I quote:

       Contrary to some assertions, we do not support abortion as 
     a method of family planning. We respect, however, the 
     diversity of national laws, except we do oppose coercion 
     wherever it exists. Our own policy in the United States is 
     that this should be a matter of personal choice, not public 
     dictation and, as I have said many times, abortion should be 
     safe and legal and rare. In other countries where it does 
     exist, we believe safety is an important issue * * * we also 
     believe that providing women with the means to prevent 
     unwanted pregnancy will do more than anything else to reduce 
     abortion.

  Under the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, regretfully, 
we would not be able to pursue that policy of the President of the 
United States.

  In addition to participation in the U.N.-sponsored ICPD, this 
amendment would prohibit U.S. endorsement of international agreements 
that promote safe abortion services and could prohibit research and 
educational programs focused on the incidence and health consequences 
of unsafe abortion by any organization, such as the World Health 
Organization, U.N. Population Fund or the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation. So the scope of this amendment goes far beyond 
the upcoming Cairo Conference.
  The effect of this amendment is that we would not be able to save 
lives. We would not be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and I 
think it would have a contrary effect to the very thing that the 
Senator from North Carolina is trying to set out to do.
  It is imperative that the United States be a leader in the population 
debate. As President Clinton has stated, the overriding objective of 
his administration and of its participation at the ICPD meeting in 
Cairo is to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. We cannot 
achieve this goal with this amendment and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it.
  Several Senators addressed the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Does the Senator yield the 
floor?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will yield in a moment to my friend 
from Maryland.
  I think that was a very excellent review of that, but I would ask my 
friend from North Carolina--because he does care, he is a caring person 
on these issues and he talks of millions of human babies--but now we 
are at a point in the world's history where there will be millions of 
human babies. If we do nothing, they will simply die. They will die of 
starvation; they will die of dehydration; they will die of disease 
because there is no way this Earth, this planet home of ours, can 
sustain the growth that is coming. That is who will die. They will die 
first. They are the babies and those who are not able to sustain 
themselves, and that is a very serious issue.
  I respect my friend from North Carolina and know what he is trying to 
do. But even if it does not take effect until October, after October, 
we are all done if this amendment is adopted because there are no funds 
to use after October. And that, I am sure, was not the intent. If we 
are going to get a good start in September, we do not want to see the 
funds gone in October.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from 
North Carolina a question, if I might, if he would consider adding 
language that would clearly state that this does not apply to funds for 
the Cairo Conference or, I would suggest, any other followup 
conferences?
  I think the Senator from Massachusetts and I think the Senator from 
North Carolina himself would believe that it is important for us to 
participate for the very reasons that we do need to be there, to 
express a sensitivity to the cultures and the concerns of other 
nations. And yet, population is an important issue, sustainable 
development, children in the African countries, the Third World 
countries where population is such a major problem.
  I personally feel that we need to be there at the table in a 
constructive way, recognizing that we cannot nor should we force other 
countries into positions with which they would have trouble. But we 
need to discuss them and be cognizant of those problems.
  I myself have some real difficulties with language that was part of 
the International Women's Health Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 
January 1994 in preparation for the Cairo Conference. I have some 
problems with the language that was expressed in this.
  But I also believe very strongly that we need to be part of the Cairo 
Conference. I wonder if the Senator would be willing to look at some 
language that would clarify our participation.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. HELMS. That is the easiest question I received all day. Of 
course, I have stood here and said a dozen times it does not apply to 
the Cairo Conference. To answer your question specifically, I say to 
the distinguished Senator from Kansas, certainly I will be glad to 
accept any language that she may wish to draft in that regard.

  Now as far as going into the future, I think sufficient unto the day 
the evil thereof. I would rather leave that alone. I did not introduce 
the Cairo Conference. I did not even imply it in the amendment. But to 
answer, again, the Senator's question, certainly I will accept that 
language as a modification. It will require unanimous consent, of 
course.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will work on some language and work 
with others who are concerned about this, because I think there would 
be a question, even though it might not have been intended. And maybe 
if we could just clarify that, that would be useful.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator. I thank her very much.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. I yield the 
floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Helms 
amendment. I believe there is much that the Senator from North Carolina 
and I would agree on. I believe we would agree that neither of us would 
support involuntary sterilizations; neither of us would support 
coercive abortions. However, I believe that the amendment, as is 
currently drafted, would prevent the United States of America from 
fully participating in the International Conference on Population and 
Development in Cairo. It would weaken the United States as we seek to 
provide world leadership on population issues and also women's health 
issues. And I believe it would result in untold suffering for hundreds 
of thousands of men, women and children worldwide.
  The Helms amendment does have the effect of preventing the United 
States from endorsing the world consensus document to be negotiated and 
ratified in Cairo in September by most of the countries at this world 
conference.
  The draft document addresses many issues. It addresses many 
development issues as well as population concerns. It does include a 
call for the elimination of all deaths associated with unsafe 
abortions.
  Some opponents of abortion believe that calling for safe motherhood 
initiatives and a reduced level of unsafe abortions is the same as 
altering laws or policies involving abortion. This is a shortsighted 
and flawed evaluation of what the Cairo Conference is all about.
  If the Helms amendment is adopted, it will prevent our Government 
from sending a delegation to the Cairo Conference or participating in 
diplomatic negotiations in advance of the Conference, or afterward.
  Mr. President, this would be a terrible loss for women and children 
in developing countries who run the risk, first of all, of going to 
unsafe and unsanitary conditions in health facilities.
  This is about public health initiatives.
  For years, the United Nations, with our country's support, has sought 
to improve global health standards, including the reduction in 
hazardous abortion practices. The Cairo Conference is not an effort to 
promote a prochoice agenda. The Conference is an opportunity for the 
nations of the world to address and seek solutions to the wide range of 
common problems concerning population and development, issues such as 
children's survival; access to family planning; women's education; the 
needs of adolescents; the improvement of the status of women worldwide, 
because we know as the status of women improves and the legal status of 
women is ratified, the birth rate goes down; the encouragement also of 
responsible sexual behavior; the strengthening of families, as well as 
issues related to migration and environmental degradation.
  The supporters of the Helms amendment would have us believe the Cairo 
Conference is to force countries which do not permit abortion because 
of their cultural, religious, or legal traditions to change their laws.
  This just is not so. The Cairo Conference document currently states 
that all population and development policies are to be formulated and 
implemented as the sovereign responsibility of each country. We will 
continue to acknowledge the sovereignty of nations.
  Nothing about the Cairo Conference will alter the sovereignty of 
nations to make their own laws based on the economic, social, cultural 
and political conditions in their country.
  Supporters of the Helms amendment claim that the United States will 
lobby to forward a prochoice agenda, and to pressure countries to 
liberalize their abortion laws.
  The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said what the 
President's position was before the National Academy of Sciences:

       We do not support abortion as a method of family planning. 
     We respect the diversity of national laws, except we do 
     oppose coercion wherever it exists.

  That is what the President says, and I support what the President 
says.
  I do, however, oppose the Helms amendment because it keeps the United 
States from exerting its leadership to alleviate human suffering.
  Population in the world, in our lifetime, has nearly tripled. We are 
seeing with increasing frequency the link between overpopulation, 
poverty, and environmental degradation.
  Five hundred thousand women die each year from pregnancy-related 
causes. Many suffer from acute or chronic complications related to 
pregnancy-related complications.
  Why? Because abortions in many countries are illegal and are done in 
filthy, dirty circumstances. And if the Helms amendment is passed, the 
United States will be effectively barred from participating in seeking 
solutions to these pressing problems. It will also be prohibited from 
contributing constructively to the deliberations leading to up to 
Cairo, and after Cairo.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the Helms amendment, 
an amendment the purpose of which is to hinder the participation of the 
United States in this important conference. I hope that when we 
ultimately vote, the amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I also note 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 called the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the 
distinguished Senator from North Carolina and the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky.
  I ask unanimous consent that we vote on or in relation to the pending 
Helms amendment at 11 a.m. tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none, 
and it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________