[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1923-1924]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PRESERVATION ACT 
                                OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. BOB BARR

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 4, 1999

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
United States Federal Government Preservation Act. On the first day of 
the 106th Congress, I introduced H.R. 62 and H.R. 63. Both of these 
bills concern Executive Order 13107, which President Bill Clinton 
signed on December 10, 1998. Today I am introducing a redrafted version 
of this legislation. The two bills I am reintroducing today take the 
necessary steps to nullify the provisions of Executive Order 13107 and 
prevents the Federal Government from spending any money to implement 
this Executive Order.
  Executive Order 13107 directs the Federal Government to take numerous 
steps to require our nation to comply with the International Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture 
and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 
and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial 
Discrimination (CERD). In my legislation, I discussed the fact that 
these treaties were never given the advice and consent of the Senate. 
In clarification, these treaties did in fact pass the Senate by voice 
vote.
  Our Constitution provides in Article II, section 2, clause 2, that 
``He [the President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and 
Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the 
Senators present concur.'' Because these treaties were accepted by 
voice vote, we cannot be certain where each individual Senator stands 
on the particular treaties involved. I believe these concerns warrant a 
debate, and an individual vote in the Senate. Committing the American 
people to United Nations treaties is an endeavor that should be 
carefully scrutinized.
  President Clinton claims this Executive Order was written to promote 
this Administration's human rights record. In actuality, it acts as a 
vehicle to commit the United States to a definition of human rights 
that is vastly different from the one contained in our Constitution. 
The United Nations defines human rights in The Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, which addresses the freedom of thought, conscience, 
religion, opinion, and expression. Article 29 of this document states 
that ``These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary 
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.''
  The founding documents of the United States make it clear that basic 
human rights are inalienable, meaning they descend from the ultimate 
Sovereign, the Creator, God. Therefore, no human authority, no 
government, no criminal, no individual can abrogate or abridge those 
rights. The United Nations has frequently shown only contempt for 
biblical values, American sovereignty, and the U.S. Constitution. If 
the government can bestow upon a people certain rights, it can just

[[Page 1924]]

as easily take those rights away. On December 10, 1998, with the 
signing of this Executive Order, President Clinton accepted on behalf 
of all Americans a definition of human rights that descends from 
government authority. Due to this action, every American has lost some 
of their basic freedoms.
  Executive Orders are supposed to be a presidential tool for running 
the Federal Government. President Clinton, however, has used Executive 
Orders to bypass the legislative branch, and make policy affecting 
other branches of government, states, and individuals. For example, 
Executive Order 13107 requires the Federal government to establish the 
Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties to provide guidance, 
oversight, and coordination concerning adherence to and implementation 
of U.S. human rights obligations and related matters. This not only 
expands the President's regulatory authority, but also bypasses 
Congress's legislative powers and the Senate's treaty power. If 
President Clinton believes this is an important objective of his 
Administration he should send legislation to Capitol Hill and allow 
Congress the ability to debate and vote on this proposal. It is clear 
this Executive Order contains alarming provisions that diminish basic 
rights provided for in our Constitution.
  This is a clear example of the President abusing the power entrusted 
to him by the American people. As Paul Begala, an aid to Clinton, has 
stated ``The President has a very strong sense of powers of the 
presidency, and is willing to use all of them.'' I believe Congress 
should recognize its power and vote on the United States Federal 
Government Preservation Act of 1999 in order to stop the implementation 
of Executive Order 13107. Executive Orders have long been recognized as 
a presidential prerogative. However, they are not a blank check to 
rewrite the Constitution or to assume powers that belong to the states, 
or other branches of government. This Congress needs to take immediate 
steps to ensure Executive Orders are used for their intended purpose, 
and not to take rights away from American citizens.

                          ____________________