[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11165-S11168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREATIES
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to consider the following treaties on today's Executive
Calendar: Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. I further ask unanimous consent that
the treaties be considered as having passed through their various
parliamentary stages, up to and including the presentation of the
resolutions of ratification; that all committee provisos, reservations,
understandings, and declarations be considered agreed to; that any
statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read; and that
the Senate take one vote on the resolutions of ratification to be
considered as separate votes; further, that when the resolutions of
ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table; that the President be notified of the Senate's action; and that
following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for a division vote on the resolutions
of ratification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A division has been requested.
Senators in favor of the resolutions of ratification will rise and
stand until counted. (After a pause.) Those opposed will rise and stand
until counted.
On a division, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the
affirmative, the resolutions of ratification are agreed to.
The resolutions of ratification were agreed to as follows:
Agreement With Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitives
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Agreement Between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for
the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders signed at Hong Kong on
December 20, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 105-3), subject to the
understandings of subsection (a), the declarations of
subsection (b), and the proviso of subsection (c).
(a) Understandings.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following two understandings, which shall be
included in the instrument of ratification, and shall be
binding on the President:
(1) Third party transfers.--The United States understands
that Article 16(2) permits the transfer of persons
surrendered to Hong Kong under this Agreement beyond the
jurisdiction of Hong Kong when the United States so consents,
but that the United States will not apply Article 16(2) of
the Agreement to permit the transfer of persons surrendered
to the Government of Hong Kong to any other jurisdiction in
the People's Republic of China, unless the person being
surrendered consents to the transfer.
(2) Hong Kong courts' power of final adjudication.--The
United States understands that Hong Kong's courts have the
power of final adjudication over all matters within Hong
Kong's autonomy as guaranteed in the 1984 Sino-British Joint
Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, signed on December
19, 1984, and ratified on May 27, 1985. The United States
expects that any exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Hong
Kong courts for acts of state shall be construed narrowly.
The United States understands that the exemption for acts of
state does not diminish the responsibilities of the Hong Kong
authorities with respect to extradition or the rights of an
individual to a fair trial in Hong Kong courts. Any attempt
by the Government of Hong Kong or the Government of the
People's Republic of China to curtail the jurisdiction and
power of final adjudication of the Hong Kong courts may be
considered grounds for withdrawal from the Agreement.
(b) Declarations.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following two declarations, which shall be
binding on the President:
(1) Report on the hong kong judicial system.--One year
after entry into force, the Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Attorney General, shall prepare and
submit a report to the Committee on Foreign Relations that
addresses the following issues during the period after entry
into force of the Agreement:
(i) an assessment of the independence of the Hong Kong
judicial system from the Government of the People's Republic
of China, including a summary of any instances in which the
Government of the People's Republic of China has infringed
upon the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary;
(ii) an assessment of the due process accorded all persons
under the jurisdiction of the Government of Hong Kong;
(iii) an assessment of the due process accorded persons
extradited to Hong Kong by the United States;
(iv) an accounting of the citizenship and number of persons
extradited to Hong Kong from the United States, and the
citizenship and number of persons extradited to the United
States from Hong Kong;
(v) an accounting of the destination of third party
transfer of persons who were originally extradited from the
United States, and the citizenship of those persons;
(vi) a summary of the types of crimes for which persons
have been extradited between the United States and Hong Kong.
(2) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally based
principles of treaty interpretation set forth in Condition
(1) of the resolution of ratification with respect to the INF
Treaty.
(c) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject to
the following proviso, which shall not be included in the
instrument of ratification to be signed by the President:
(1) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the Treaty
requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the
United States of America that is prohibited by the
Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the
United States.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to address the United States-Hong
Kong Extradition Treaty, a treaty which I have followed closely in its
passage through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
To most Americans, the seemingly nebulous topic of extradition
treaties is not particularly important. But let us not be distracted by
the complex legal jargon that accompanies this
[[Page S11166]]
agreement with Hong Kong. Our extradition agreements strike at the very
heart of equality before the law, one of our most cherished freedoms in
America. Our judicial system seeks to protect the due process right of
foreigner and native citizen alike, and our extradition treaties with
other nations are based on the premise that any person we transfer to a
foreign court system will receive similarly just treatment.
The extradition treaty with Hong Kong is thus a very important
consideration in assessing the future prospects for freedom in the
former colony, now under Chinese rule. We need to consider this
extradition treaty in light of China's overall behavior toward Hong
Kong in recent months. China's actions to undermine democracy in Hong
Kong cast doubt on the future of civil liberties in the British colony.
China has declared the elected Hong Kong legislature invalid and
appointed a hand-picked provisional legislative body. China's appointed
chief executive of Hong Kong, Tung Chee-hwa, has announced additional
measures to restrict civil liberties in the colony.
Public protests will have to receive prior approval and could be
banned to protect ``national security.'' Hong Kong political
organizations will be required to register with the government and will
be prohibited from seeking or receiving funds from overseas
organizations. Under China's definition of a Hong Kong political group,
international organizations that expose China's human rights abuses
also will be banned from receiving critical foreign funding. In light
of these troubling steps taken by Beijing, not to mention China's
violation of trade agreements, weapons proliferation commitments, and
human rights standards, there are few doubts in my mind that China will
bend the rules of this extradition treaty we are considering today.
The extradition treaty contains provisions that supposedly preserve
due process and the ability of the United States to refuse extradition
requests that are politically motivated. As with all international
agreements, however, effective enforcement is essential to protect
American interests. The strongest treaty language in the world is
meaningless without presidential vigilance, a vigilance I find
appallingly lacking in the Clinton administration. This administration
has failed to confront China consistently on human rights violations,
trade barriers, and weapons proliferation. I am concerned that the
administration will adopt a similarly lax attitude in the enforcement
of this treaty.
The Clinton administration's defense of Hong Kong in other areas has
been weak at best. The White House has been hesitant to meet with
political activists from the colony, and Vice President Gore failed to
include Hong Kong in the itinerary of his last trip to East Asia. The 6
million people in Hong Kong deserve better treatment from America. The
fight to preserve liberty in Hong Kong could be the battle that
determines the outcome of the overall campaign to cultivate democracy
in China. Hong Kong serves as yet another example of liberty to over 1
billion Chinese, and the effective removal of that example would set
back the march of freedom in China.
In considering this extradition treaty, we need to be honest. We are
not signing this treaty with Hong Kong alone, but with Beijing. By
doing so, we could be placing our stamp of approval on a court system
that will, by all appearances, increasingly be an extension of the
Chinese Communist Party.
The United States has never before signed a treaty to extradite human
beings to a totalitarian Communist regime, and I hope this treaty will
not turn into the first example of such policy. The United States has
been given a great trust as the leader of the free world, and the
international commitments we make should reflect our country's
commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
We in America need to realize that the forces of justice and liberty
are at work in the Chinese people just as they have been at work with
such stunning effect in other nations around the world. When China
embraces democracy--just as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan have done--
the rule of law will follow. Until that day arrives, it will be good to
say we stood by the Chinese people in their struggle for justice and
liberty. Effective enforcement of this extradition treaty will be an
important step in ensuring that the example of freedom in Hong Kong is
preserved for the benefit of all Chinese.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the reversion of Hong Kong to the People's
Republic of China is a historic event, the full impact of which may not
be known for years. At midnight on June 30, the world watched as the
flag of the United Kingdom came down over Hong Kong, the final chapter
of over a century of the British Empire's presence in the Far East.
July 1 dawned with the flag of China flying over Victoria Harbor,
providing a great moment of pride for the people of China as Beijing
recovered a territory lost in humiliating fashion to foreign powers.
For the cause of freedom, the reversion is a conundrum.
Some observers warn that China intends to trample Hong Kong's
freedoms. After a decade in which millions have cast off the yoke of
Communist rule of the Soviet Empire, the subjugation of the people of
Hong Kong to the control of a dictatorial government in Beijing is
surely a sad anomaly.
Others predict optimistically that in the end China, not Hong Kong,
will be transformed by the new union. They point to the changes already
underway in China, and foresee a more prosperous, open, plural, and
democratic system for one-fifth of the world's population.
I believe the future of Hong Kong, like that of China, is not yet
written. The actions of the United States will affect the ability of
the people of Hong Kong to preserve their democratic freedoms and
overall quality of life.
Visiting Washington recently on his first trip abroad as Hong Kong's
Chief Executive, Tung Chee-hwa rightly took pride in the former
colony's smooth transition to Chinese rule. But he also candidly
acknowledged that preserving Hong Kong's economic vitality and
expanding the democratic freedoms enjoyed by its 5\1/2\ million
residents required not only a steady hand in Hong Kong, but also the
sustained interest and support of the international community.
It is in this context that we must view the U.S.-Hong Kong
extradition agreement.
Approval of the treaty is a risk, for it is predicated on a question
which cannot be answered in the abstract. The question is this: will
the Beijing Government adhere to its pledge to permit Hong Kong a high
degree of autonomy for at least 50 years? In other words, will China
abide by its promise to maintain ``one country, two systems?''
No one can answer that question definitively today--not the people of
Hong Kong, not the British Government, not the Clinton
administration, not even the gerontocracy in Beijing, which struggles
to chart a course for China's modernization in the post-Deng Xiao Ping
era.
Of course, there is always the risk that a treaty partner will prove
to be unreliable. That risk is particularly acute here, where the
treaty partner--the Hong Kong Government--will be overseen by a
government in Beijing which has often failed to adhere adequately to
commitments made to the United States.
Standing opposite that risk are the benefits that flow from having an
extradition relationship with Hong Kong. For most of this decade, the
relationship has undeniably been in our interests. Since 1991, more
than 60 persons have been returned to the United States from Hong Kong
pursuant to extradition requests, many of them for serious crimes such
as narcotics trafficking. By contrast, we have extradited just seven
persons to Hong Kong.
Moreover, the extradition treaty is a critical component of our
overall law enforcement cooperation with Hong Kong authorities--
cooperation which has proven enormously successful over the years in
combating organized crime, drug smuggling, and international terrorism.
Finally, this treaty contains extraordinary protections against any
attempt by Beijing to meddle with or politicize the extradition
process.
Indeed, the treaty provides several protections against valid
concerns that the PRC may renege on its pledge to permit Hong Kong to
retain an independent judiciary. The treaty contains several
safeguards; these include: First, a provision allowing the United
States broad power to refuse to surrender U.S.
[[Page S11167]]
nationals in cases relating to ``the defense, foreign affairs, or
essential public interest or policy of the United States'' (Article 3);
second, a provision permitting the Secretary of State to deny
extradition if the request was politically motivated, or the person
sought is likely to be denied a fair trial or punished because of his
race, religion, nationality, or political opinions (Article 6); and
third, a provision barring the retransfer of any fugitive beyond the
territory of Hong Kong without U.S. consent (Article 16).
The Committee has added included two provisions in the resolution of
ratification that provide additional protection. First, understanding
No. 1 makes it plain that the United States will not permit the
retransfer to the People's Republic of China of any persons surrendered
under this agreement, unless the person being surrendered consents to
the transfer. Understanding No. 2 makes a strong statement in support
of the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary, by stating that any
effort to curtail the jurisdiction and power of adjudication of the
Hong Kong courts may be considered grounds for withdrawal from the
Agreement.
In exercising its power to advise and consent, the Senate must
balance the risks that China will interfere with the autonomy of Hong
Kong against the likely benefits to U.S. law enforcement that will flow
from the agreement. In my view, the benefits clearly outweigh the
risks. And the safeguards in the treaty, in addition to the provisions
in the resolution of ratification, provide strong protection of U.S.
interests and of the rights of those persons who may be surrendered
under the treaty.
By ratifying this treaty, the Senate will send a strong signal to the
people of Hong Kong that we have confidence in their ability to make
the unique ``one country, two systems'' formula work. We also send a
strong message to Beijing that we will not tolerate any efforts to
undermine the traditional autonomy and impartiality of Hong Kong's
judiciary. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting ratification
of the Hong Kong extradition agreement.
Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication
Union
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Constitution of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), with Annexes, signed at Geneva
on December 22, 1992, and Amendments to the Constitution and
Convention, signed at Kyoto on October 14, 1994, together
with Declarations and Reservations by the United States
contained in the Final Acts (Treaty Doc. 104-34), subject to
declarations and reservations Nos. 68, 73 and 82 of the 1992
Final Acts; declarations and reservations Nos. 84, 92, 97,
and 98 of the 994 Final Acts; and the understandings of
subsection (a), the declarations of subsection (b), and the
proviso of subsection (c).
(a) Understandings.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following two understandings, which shall be
included in the instrument of ratification, and shall be
binding on the President.
(1) Broadcasts to cuba.--The United States of America,
noting the Statement (No. 40) entered by the delegation of
Cuba during the Plenipotentiary Conference of the
International Telecommunication Union, in Kyoto Japan,
affirms its rights to broadcast to Cuba on appropriate
frequencies free of jamming or other wrongful interference
and reserves its rights to address existing interference and
any future interference, by Cuba with United States
broadcasting. Furthermore, the United States of America notes
that its presence in Gurantanamo is by virtue of an
international agreement presently in force; the United States
of America reserves the right to meet its radio communication
requirements there as heretofore.
(2) Geostationary-satellite orbits.--The United States
understands that the reference in Article 44 of the
Constitution to the ``geographical situation of particular
countries'' does not imply a recognition of claim to any
preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite orbit.
(b) Declarations.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following two declarations, which shall be
binding on the President:
(1) Assessed payments to the united nations international
telecommunication union.--Payments by the United States to
the International Telecommunication Union shall be limited to
assessed contributions, appropriated by Congress. This
provision does not apply to United States payments
voluntarily made for a specific purpose other than the
payment of assessed contributions. The United States shall
seek to amend Article 33(3) of the ITU Convention to
eliminate to ITU's authority to impose interest payments on
ITU members.
(2) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally based
principles of treaty interpretation set forth in Condition
(1) of the resolution of ratification of the INF Treaty,
approved by the Senate on May 27, 1998, and Condition (8) of
the resolution of ratification of the Document Agreed Among
the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces
in Europe, approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997.
(c) Proviso.--The Senate's resolution of ratification is
subject to the following proviso, which shall be binding on
the President:
(1) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the Treaty
requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the
United States of America that is prohibited by the
Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the
United States.
____
Treaty on Maritime Boundaries Between the United States of America and
the United Mexican States
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Treaty on Maritime Boundaries between the
United States of America and the United Mexican States,
signed at Mexico City on May 4, 1978 (Ex. F, 96-1), subject
to the declaration of subsection (a), and the proviso of
subsection (b).
(a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding
on the President:
(1) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally based
principles of treaty interpretation set forth in Condition
(1) of the resolution of ratification of the INF Treaty,
approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and Condition (8) of
the resolution of ratification of the Document Agreed Among
the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces
in Europe, approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997.
(b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject to
the following proviso, which shall be binding on the
President:
(1) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the Treaty
requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the
United States of America that is prohibited by the
Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the
United States.
____
Protocol Between the United States and Canada Amending the 1916
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the
United States
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Protocol Between the United States and
Canada Amending the 1916 Convention for the Protection of
Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States, with Related
Exchange of Notes, signed at Washington on December 14, 1995
(Treaty Doc. 104-28), subject to the understanding of
subsection (a), the declaration of subsection (b), and the
proviso of subsection (c).
(a) Understanding.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following understanding, which shall be
included in the instrument of ratification, and shall be
binding on the President:
(1) Indigenous inhabitants.--The United States understands
that the term ``indigenous inhabitants'' as used in Article
II(4)(b) means a permanent resident of a village within a
subsistence harvest area, regardless of race. In its
implementation of Article II(4)(b), the United States also
understands that where it is appropriate to recognize a need
to assist indigenous inhabitants in meeting nutritional and
other essential needs, or for the teaching of cultural
knowledge to or by their family members, there may be cases
where, with the permission of the village council and the
appropriate permits, immediate family members of indigenous
inhabitants may be invited to participate in the customary
spring and summer subsistence harvest.
(b) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding
on the President:
(1) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally based
principles of treaty interpretation set forth in Condition
(1) of the resolution of ratification of the INF Treaty,
approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and Condition (8) of
the resolution of ratification of the Document Agreed Among
the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces
in Europe, approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997.
(c) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject to
the following proviso, which shall be binding on the
President;
(1) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the Treaty
requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the
United States of America that is prohibited by the
Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the
United States.
____
Protocol Between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the United Mexican States Amending the Convention for the
Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals.
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein, That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Protocol between the Government of the
United
[[Page S11168]]
States of America and the Government of the United Mexican
States Amending the Convention for the Protection of
Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, signed at Mexico City on
May 5, 1997 (Treaty Doc. 105-26), subject to the
understanding of subsection (a), the declaration of
subsection (b), and the proviso of subsection (c).
(a) Understanding.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following understanding, which shall be
included in the instrument of ratification, and shall be
binding on the President:
(1) Indigenous inhabitants.--The United States understands
that the term ``indigenous inhabitants'' as used in Article I
means a permanent resident of a village within a subsistence
harvest area, regardless of race. In its implementation of
Article I, the United States also understands that where it
is appropriate to recognize a need to assist indigenous
inhabitants in meeting nutritional and other essential needs,
or for the teaching of cultural knowledge to or by their
family members, there may be cases where, with the permission
of the village council and the appropriate permits, immediate
family members of indigenous inhabitants may be invited to
participate in the customary spring and summer subsistence
harvest.
(b) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding
on the President:
(1) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally based
principles of treaty interpretation set forth in Condition
(1) of the resolution of ratification of the INF Treaty,
approved by the Senate on May 27, 1998, and Condition (8) of
the resolution of ratification of the Document Agreed Among
the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces
in Europe, approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997.
(c) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject to
the following proviso, which shall be binding on the
President:
(1) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the Treaty
requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the
United States of America that is prohibited by the
Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the
United States.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to propound a parliamentary inquiry
concerning the treaties that were agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, did the Chair actually count Senators on the
division that took place with respect to the adoption of the resolution
of ratification of those treaties?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is required to and so did.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, those treaties were the Agreement with Hong
Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders; the International
Telecommunications Union Constitution and Convention; the U.S.-Mexico
Treaty on Maritime Boundaries; the Migratory Bird Protocol with Canada;
and the Migratory Bird Protocol with Mexico.
____________________