[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16225-16233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATION SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     UNITED STATES-MOROCCO FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now resume legislative session and that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. 2677, the Morocco free-trade legislation, as 
provided under the statute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. We, of course, have no objection to this request. Senator 
Baucus will be the manager on our side. At some subsequent time, we 
will make a decision as to how much of the 10 hours we will use. We 
will report that through our manager to the chairman of the committee 
at the earliest possible time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the requests are agreed to.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2677) to implement the United States-Morocco 
     Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant 
minority leader for his approval of going ahead on this issue. I thank 
every Senator on the other side because any Senator on the other side 
or, for that matter, this side can object to any legislation coming up. 
Trade legislation is a little more controversial than it used to be. We 
have had great cooperation from the Democrats in the bipartisan manner 
it takes to get business done in the Senate on three very important 
trade agreements, including now this one, the United States-Morocco 
Free Trade Agreement. Last week we did the United States-Australia Free 
Trade Agreement, and prior to that the extension and reauthorization of 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which was passed just prior to 
our previous recess for the Fourth of July.
  So often in this body the antagonism gets highlighted between 
Republican and Democrats. I wish to thank all the minority Members for 
allowing me to move ahead with this legislation.
  Obviously, since I presented this legislation, I support this bill, 
S. 2677. It is legislation that implements the United States-Morocco 
Free Trade Agreement. I happen to believe this agreement marks a solid 
win for America, and when it comes to trade legislation, when we talk 
about a solid win, that is in economic terms and that creates jobs in 
America because America produces, in most instances, more than we can 
consume, particularly in agriculture but in other areas as well.
  The United States is 5 percent of the world's population. So if 
anybody thinks we should not accept goods from overseas and then other 
countries not let us export, understand that 5 percent of the people of 
this world, the Americans, when we produce much more than we consume--
and in agriculture that is 40 percent--what they would be saying is 
that we ought to shut down part of productive America. Obviously, if we 
shut down part of productive America, we lose jobs. So if we are going 
to keep enhancing our economy, to increase our standard of living--and 
that is related to increased productivity--then, obviously, we have to 
look to the 95 percent of the people of the world who are outside the 
United States as a market.
  Other countries, obviously, look to the world for a market. So it is 
a very competitive market. But the extent to which we reduce trade 
barriers--and this Morocco agreement is one example of reducing 
barriers to trade--then we let the marketplace make a decision on where 
goods go, what goods cost, and the quality of goods. For the most part, 
consumers of those respective countries, including America, make a 
determination as to what they want to pay and the quality of product 
they want. But the marketplace is going to be making that decision.
  When we have barriers to trade that are set up by governments, then 
political leaders are making those decisions. Or if it is not political 
leaders, it is government employees making those decisions. Quite 
frankly, when government makes decisions, you do not reap the benefits 
of the efficiency of the marketplace and the efficiency of productivity 
of the respective workers of the respective countries that you do if 
the marketplace is making those decisions.
  Willing buyer, willing seller, setting price, setting quality, 
setting time of transaction is better than 535 Members of Congress 
making that decision. All one has to do is look at Russia today. It is 
much more productive than it was when bureaucrats in Moscow were 
deciding how many acres of wheat to plant and when to combine those 
acres, the mature crop. A third of it was left in the field because 
when 5 o'clock came, they went home. When the American farmer goes out 
to harvest crops, he stays there until he gets it done, particularly 
something that is time sensitive, such as the maturing crop of wheat or 
soybeans. But not the Russian farmer under the Soviet system of command 
and control. Russia was not exporting grain. Today, Russia is exporting 
grain. We have to go back to the new economic program of the late 1920s 
for that to have happened, or you have to go back to the days of the 
czar for that to have happened in Russia.
  So the marketplace is the best place to make these decisions, and 
agreements leveling the playing field, such as this Morocco agreement, 
are examples of the United States looking to the rest of the world to 
sell the surplus we manufacture, the surplus we produce, the excess--if 
you do not want to call it surplus, it is excess--of what we can 
consume here.
  When this agreement is implemented, more than 95 percent of bilateral 
trade will become duty free immediately. According to the Office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative, this is the best market access package of 
any U.S. free-trade agreement with a developing country. This will 
bring important new opportunities for America's manufacturing sector. 
The agreement will also benefit our service providers with new market 
opportunities, particularly in key sectors such as engineering, 
telecommunications, banking, and insurance. U.S. intellectual property 
rights owners will obtain the benefits of stronger protection for their 
trademarks, for their copyrights, and for their patents.
  Any agreement will lead to a more open and transparent trading regime 
with the implementation of the new transparency procedures for customs 
administration, new commitments to combat bribery, and strong 
protections for U.S. investors in the region.
  Perhaps most importantly for my home State of Iowa, the agreement 
brings substantial benefits to the U.S. agricultural community. I note 
firstly that the agreement is comprehensive. No sector is excluded. 
This is important for the future of our U.S. agriculture. The fact is, 
when we take a sector off the table during negotiations, our trading 
partners are bound to do the same. All too often the sector they want 
excluded is one of our most competitive agricultural products. That 
means lost sales for America's family farmers.
  It is very important that we send a strong message to our future 
trading partners that our country, the United States of America, 
remains committed to negotiating broad and very comprehensive free-
trade agreements. Passage of this agreement moves that ball closer to 
the goalpost and reaffirms our commitment to negotiating and not being 
on the sideline.
  Second, this agreement is sure to advance our agricultural exports in 
an important and growing region of the market. The recent trend of 
Argentine

[[Page 16226]]

and Brazilian corn displacing American corn in the Moroccan market will 
end. In fact, the International Trade Commission predicts that absent 
the current tariff, United States corn producers will supply nearly all 
of Morocco's corn imports in the coming years.
  The International Trade Commission also estimates that United States 
exports of soybean meal to Morocco will likely increase substantially 
under this agreement. With Morocco presently imposing tariffs as high 
as, believe this, 275 percent on the import of United States beef, the 
United States is in effect literally shut out of the Moroccan beef 
market. This will change under this agreement, with the United States 
gaining new access for our beef going into Morocco.
  United States exporters are currently at a competitive disadvantage 
when they try to sell wheat to Morocco. The fact is that competitors of 
the United States can sell their wheat cheaper. This agreement will 
change that. This agreement will level the playing field for America's 
wheat farmers. It is also going to do it for our beef ranchers.
  An independent study by the American Farm Bureau Federation found 
that under this agreement--now, this is the American Farm Bureau--the 
United States agricultural trade surplus with Morocco could reach $382 
million by 2015 with Moroccan agricultural exports rising by only $25 
million. Thus, under this agreement, U.S. agriculture would see roughly 
a 10-to-1 gain. Those figures speak louder than words.
  I have received testimony and letters in support of this agreement 
from across America's agricultural sector. I concentrate on what we 
have heard from one Iowa farmer, but also a person who is very much a 
leader in the Iowa Soybean Association, Ron Heck from Perry, IA. He 
testified before the Finance Committee, which I chair, that the 
agreement will not only benefit soybean farmers directly in increased 
exports to the country of Morocco but also indirectly as they sell 
their grain to America's beef and poultry farmers who will in turn 
export these products of beef and poultry to Morocco.
  When one sells meat, one sells a value-added agricultural product 
that has created more jobs in America. It is better to sell the beef 
and the poultry, it brings more wealth to America than sending our raw 
grain and our raw soybeans overseas.
  We have the National Corn Growers Association, the International 
Dairy Food Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Association of 
Wheat Growers, the National Chicken Council, the Corn Refiners, and the 
USA Rice Federation, to name a few, that have all written to me in 
favor of this agreement.
  The Morocco free trade agreement also contains a preference clause 
that grants the United States market access provisions that will be at 
least as good as those granted by Morocco to other countries in any 
future free trade agreement they may enter into.
  Finally, the agreement enabled us to tackle tough sanitary and 
phytosanitary issues which had been acting as a bar to many of our 
agricultural exports.
  In my mind, the economic benefits are enough for any Senator to 
support this agreement. I think my colleagues ought to take into 
consideration other less tangible reasons to cast their vote as yea.
  Morocco is a longstanding friend and ally of the United States. In 
fact, Morocco was the first country to extend diplomatic relations to 
the United States following our independence. Our two nations first 
signed a treaty of peace and friendship in 1786, making this the oldest 
unbroken treaty in the history of the United States foreign relations.
  Today, Morocco is a valuable ally in the war against terrorism, 
working with our country to bring peace and stability throughout the 
Middle East. In short, Morocco has been and still remains a valued 
friend of our country. I am pleased we will be able to strengthen our 
friendship with the passage of this free trade agreement.
  The Morocco free trade agreement marks our third free trade agreement 
in the Middle East. Although we enjoy strong free trade agreements with 
Israel and Jordan, the Congress may soon have an opportunity to 
consider a fourth free trade agreement with Bahrain, another important 
Middle Eastern country and one that is very helpful to us in a military 
way.
  While each free trade agreement is valued in and of itself, these 
free trade agreements are also steppingstones toward President Bush's 
broader vision of a Middle East free trade agreement by the year 2013. 
Today, far too many people in the Middle East are plagued by poverty 
and lack of education and opportunity. While trade itself will not 
alleviate every ill, it is a vital tool of development which has been 
lacking for far too long in that important region of the world. I am 
confident the passage of this free trade agreement, along with our 
continued efforts to build a Middle East free trade agreement, can help 
change that by ushering in a new era of hope and prosperity in that 
critical part of the world.
  I yield the floor, and 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation to 
implement the U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement. By voting to approve 
the Morocco implementing legislation, we can confirm our close and 
longstanding ties with Morocco.
  In 1777, soon after a breakaway British colony calling itself the 
United States of America declared independence from Britain, Morocco 
was the first country in the world to recognize the new government.
  In 1787, the two nations negotiated a Treaty of Peace and Friendship 
that is still in force, representing the longest unbroken treaty 
relationship in U.S. history.
  Soon thereafter, Morocco's rule wrote to President Washington to ask 
for help in protecting Morocco's shipping fleet from marauding bandits.
  Washington wrote back, apologizing that the United States was too 
poor and too weak from the recent American Revolution to help Morocco. 
But Washington said that perhaps someday, the United States would be 
strong enough to help its friends. For Morocco, that day has now come.
  So there are strong foreign policy reasons to vote for the Morocco 
implementing legislation. But I have often said that foreign policy 
concerns alone should not control our trade policy. I have argued that 
we should negotiate free trade agreements with countries that offer 
real economic advantages for U.S. farmers, workers, and businesses.
  I am happy to report that while Morocco has a relatively small 
economy, the agreement with Morocco is a strong agreement that offers 
significant opportunities for American exporters. In many ways, it sets 
a new standard for U.S. free trade agreements with developing 
countries.
  Take, for instance, the provisions regarding intellectual property. 
Morocco has agreed to a high level of protection for intellectual 
property rights. The agreement includes state-of-the-art protections 
for digital copyrights and trademarks, expands protection for patents, 
and mandates tough penalties for piracy and counterfeiting.
  Morocco has also agreed to the best market access package to date of 
any U.S. free trade agreement with a developing country.
  Over 95 percent of our trade with Morocco in consumer and industrial 
products will become duty-free immediately upon the entry into force of 
the agreement. All remaining tariffs will be eliminated within 9 years.
  The agreement is also good for U.S. agricultural producers. Wheat was 
a sensitive issue for the Moroccan negotiators. They initially resisted 
attempts to increase access to U.S. wheat exports. Morocco purchased 
most of

[[Page 16227]]

the wheat it needed to import from the European Union. They did not 
want to open it up to America, but I fought hard to ensure that U.S. 
wheat producers would not be left out of the agreement. I made it clear 
that I could not--and would not--support any agreement with Morocco 
that excluded wheat. Wheat is an important export crop for many U.S. 
States, including my home State of Montana.
  In the end, Morocco agreed to open up its market to U.S. wheat. The 
agreement creates new tariff rate quotas for wheat that could lead to a 
5-fold increase in U.S. exports to Morocco. Most importantly, it will 
allow U.S. wheat producers to compete in Morocco on a level playing 
field with their European competitors.
  Beef was another sensitive issue for Moroccans. Again, I made clear 
how important beef exports were to me and to others in the Congress. In 
the end, the agreement gives U.S. beef producers new access to Morocco 
for their high-quality beef exports.
  The agreement is good for the United States, but it is also good for 
Morocco. It will help update and modernize Morocco's economy and 
attract investment to Morocco.
  Morocco has used the free trade agreement negotiations to consolidate 
significant domestic reforms. For example Morocco recently enacted a 
new labor law and a new law on child labor, both of which were drafted 
with the help of the International Labor Organization.
  Also, during the course of the negotiations, Morocco agreed to accede 
to the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology.
  As a result, Morocco recently eliminated tariffs on a number of 
information technology products. That could help increase Morocco's 
productivity as Moroccan businesspeople gain easier access to high-tech 
products.
  By voting to approve Morocco implementing legislation, we can support 
reformers in Morocco who seek to modernize its economy. We can also 
send a signal to other developing countries with reform-minded 
governments that opening up their economies can lead to closer economic 
relations with the United States and new opportunities for their 
citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Before I conclude, I would like to take a moment to thank my good 
friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Charles Grassley, for 
his leadership not only on this legislation but on every piece of 
legislation we have dealt with in this Congress. The chairman and I 
have worked with other members of the Finance Committee to address 
their concerns. I must say, there were several on this implementing 
legislation with Morocco. We worked with those Senators, with their 
concerns. I compliment the chairman for his leadership in working all 
that out, and I believe he has successfully addressed all those 
concerns.
  I appreciate the willingness of the members of the committee to work 
cooperatively to get this legislation done in a timely manner.
  I yield the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask 
unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be charged equally 
against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was thinking about speaking about trade 
but I nearly wore out my welcome last week on that subject so I will 
only say that I would much prefer a trade bill be brought to the Senate 
floor that solves problems rather than creates new problems. I do not 
know that a trade agreement with Morocco is going to cause new problems 
but I do know that in trade agreement after trade agreement over a good 
many years, we have caused more problems, none of which ever get fixed. 
The problems of trade with Europe, with Japan, with Korea, with Mexico, 
with Canada never get fixed. Again, I do not know that this will cause 
problems with respect to Morocco. Morocco is one of those few countries 
with which we have a trade surplus.
  But it has been the case that in every circumstance where we 
negotiated a trade agreement the surpluses that existed soon turned 
into deficits. In fact, we have the largest trade deficit in human 
history right now and that trade deficit exists with China, well over 
$130 billion a year; we have a trade deficit with Japan, Europe, Korea, 
and more. The NAFTA agreement was supposed to create a massive number 
of new jobs, hundreds of thousands of new jobs in this country, yet 
following the NAFTA agreement with Mexico and Canada we, in fact, 
turned a small trade surplus we had with Mexico into a very large 
deficit and we turned a modest deficit that we had with Canada into a 
very large trade balance deficit.
  I do not intend to give a lengthy speech about trade today and repeat 
what I have talked about before, the outsourcing of American jobs, the 
movement of jobs from this country to other countries that is going on 
in a wholesale capacity. I will mention just a couple of issues, as 
examples of broken promises in trade. With respect to Mexico, we were 
told that we would see the products being imported into this country 
from Mexico, being the product of low-skill, low-wage labor. In fact, 
that is not the case at all.
  The three largest imports into this country from Mexico are 
automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics, the products of high-
skill, high-wage labor except they do not pay high wages in Mexico. 
That is why these jobs have moved to Mexico.
  I was told, although I have not yet checked this, that we now 
perversely import more automobiles from Mexico into the United States 
than we export to all of the rest of the world. This is after we did a 
trade agreement with Mexico.
  I could spend time talking about our trade agreements with China, 
Japan, Europe, and others, and it is the same result.
  Now, especially during the Olympic trials, our negotiators really 
ought to be required to wear jerseys so they can look down and see, as 
the Olympic athletes do, ``USA'' so at least they know for whom they 
work.
  It is not very easy, in my judgment, to see the result of their work 
and understand whose side they were on when they negotiated these 
agreements.
  I mentioned last week the recent agreement that was negotiated with 
China. In the agreement between the United States and China, we agreed 
the Chinese could impose a 25-percent tariff on any automobiles the 
United States ships to China and that we would impose a 2.5-percent 
tariff on any Chinese automobiles they would aspire to sell in our 
marketplace. In other words, our negotiator agreed that, with a country 
with which we have a $100-plus billion deficit, we would allow them to 
put a tariff on automobiles that would be 10 times higher than the 
tariff we would impose on Chinese automobiles to be sold in our 
country.
  I say to you, that is incompetent. I have no idea how that happens; 
how someone rationalizes that this is fair.
  What does it mean to average folks? It means jobs lost. It means jobs 
are created there rather than here. It means jobs leave here to go 
there. It means outsourcing. In most cases, it is why I do not support 
these trade agreements. Those who negotiated the agreements did not 
decide to stand up for the economic interests of our country. I am not 
talking about protectionism, I am talking about standing up for our 
economic interests and requiring and demanding fair trade.
  It was one thing post the Second World War to be able to have 
concessionary trade policies, to say to other countries: Look, we will 
be glad

[[Page 16228]]

to provide some concessions because we are bigger than you are, we are 
stronger, we are more capable, we have a thriving, growing economy and 
we can beat almost anyone in economic competition with one hand tied 
behind our back. That wasn't a big problem then. But things have 
changed. We now face stiff, shrewd, international competitors, yet most 
of our trade policy is still softheaded foreign policy, and those who 
negotiate it don't stand up for the economic interests of this country, 
in my judgment.
  So much for trade.
  I did want to mention a couple of other items, if I might.


                              Tax Shelters

  The Washington Post did a story which described something most of us 
now have known is occurring. The U.S. Treasury Department has tapped a 
private company called KPMG, one of the largest accounting companies, 
perhaps the largest in our country, to audit the Treasury Department's 
consolidated financial statements. These are audits that were done 
previously by Government folks. These are internal audits by the 
Inspector General's office or others. But now they have tapped this 
company to audit the Treasury Department's financial statements.
  Interestingly enough, the company they have hired to do that down at 
the Treasury Department is the subject of a Federal grand jury probe 
into its tax shelter abuses. By tax shelter abuses I mean this is a 
company that by all accounts now was aggressively marketing tax shelter 
abuses to clients and refuses to provide to the Treasury Department 
names of its clients so we can find out who avoided paying taxes by 
using the aggressive tax shelters proposed by this company. The 
Treasury Department says: On the one hand, we are investigating you 
with a grand jury probe. On the other hand, let's give you a big 
contract.
  I don't understand that. I don't understand it at all. Why on Earth 
would the Treasury Department do this?
  This aggressive marketing of tax dodges to those who want to avoid 
paying taxes is pretty difficult for the Treasury Department to get at. 
They have a difficult time trying to shut these down, these aggressive 
tax shelters. Because of the marketing of aggressive and abusive tax 
shelters, more and more companies have decided I want to be an American 
company for purposes of doing business in America and calling myself 
American, but I don't want to be an American company when it comes to 
paying taxes. Then I want to call myself a citizen of the Bahamas, or 
the Cayman Islands, or the Dutch Antilles. I want to run my company 
through a mailbox. I want to rent a mailbox in one of these countries 
that sets themselves up as a tax haven, and I want to run my company 
through a mailbox. Why? Not because that is where the company is going 
to be run from. It is because they want to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
  Some companies--not too many, but some--have gone the extra step of 
deciding to dump their U.S. citizenship, renounce their U.S. 
citizenship and become citizens of other countries.
  These corporations are given life as an artificial person. A 
corporation isn't a real person, but we, in law in this country, have 
decided to create artificial persons. It is called a corporation. They 
can sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with. They, by a 
charter granted them in this country--in most cases by the State of 
Delaware but in other places as well--become an artificial citizen of 
the U.S. They do business. With a corporation, they limit liability and 
they are able to accumulate capital. It has been good for this system 
of ours, the capitalistic system, the free enterprise system. It has 
been good.
  Except now this is what we are saying to companies such as KPMG, that 
are marketing aggressive tax shelters to these other companies, 
American companies who want to remain American companies and want to do 
everything but pay taxes to our country. We have the largest Federal 
budget deficit in history and we have companies trying to avoid paying 
taxes right and left and we have a big company that was advising them 
on how to avoid paying their taxes and in some cases creating abusive 
and aggressive tax shelters, and the Treasury Department says: Oh, by 
the way, I know we are investigating you in a grand jury probe, but on 
the other hand, let us help you out with a big, fat contract.
  I don't understand who makes these decisions, but I don't think it is 
a decision that makes sense for the taxpayers of this country. I don't 
like the signal it sends. I don't know this company. I am not involved 
with the people involved in this company. It is not about this being 
personal. It seems to me, if a company, in order to curry favor with 
its clients, decides it wants to market aggressive and abusive tax 
shelters, it has to bear the responsibility for having done that. Part 
of the responsibility is not, in my judgment, bringing down a big, old 
contract on the positive side of the ledger, to now audit the 
Department of the Federal Treasury.
  Let me say, while I am at this, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus 
have made statements about this which I think are very admirable. I 
could read some of them. I think the statements about this by both the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee are right on 
target. Senator Grassley says:

       If we could just get Federal agencies not to work at cross 
     purposes it would go a long way towards ensuring everybody 
     pays their fair share of taxes.

  Senator Baucus launched a probe into the Department of Interior's 
planned acquisition of mineral rights from a seller who wanted to claim 
a big charitable deduction. That is the same thing.
  These companies marketing these strategies these days, they even have 
now in this country something a lot of people would find strange, 
subway systems and city hall being sold to the private sector in a 
leaseback. You actually sell it and then lease it back so the private 
company can get tax benefits from a building that was owned by the 
Federal Government or State government or local government--in most 
cases it is State or local government--and it is kind of a golden 
handshake where a building that would not be depreciated, because the 
government wouldn't depreciate it, sells the building to a private 
business and then leases it back so the private company can actually 
collect more in tax benefits than it lays out to the government in the 
first place. It is a big tax dodge. It doesn't make any sense at all.
  At a time when we have a giant Federal budget deficit, trying to 
figure out how we make enterprises pay their fair share and people pay 
their fair share, the ordinary folks, the folks who go to work every 
day and try to do the best they can, at the end of the year file a tax 
return on April 15 and pay their fair share, they look at this and say 
I don't understand that. A company that makes $500 million pays zero or 
next to zero, companies that make billions of dollars end up claiming 
these tax dodges.
  Let me commend Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and encourage them 
and say, as one Member of the Senate, I hope you will be as aggressive 
as possible to try to shut this down because this makes no sense at 
all.


                   Secret Airplane Flights after 9/11

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to mention one other issue, one 
that I think very few people are paying as much attention to as they 
should, especially in the press.
  I believe my colleague from New Jersey has discussed it on the Senate 
floor, it was discussed recently in a Commerce Committee hearing, and I 
have discussed it in many venues--the question of something that 
happened which was curious and very worrisome to me in the days 
following September 11, 2001. Let me describe what it was. We have all 
read snippets about it, and some of them are not accurate.
  In the days following 9/11, there were six secret charter flights 
that were allowed to leave this country. They gathered up 142 Saudi 
nationals that were in the United States. They gathered up those 
Saudis, which included over two dozen members of the bin Laden family, 
and got them to a few gathering points, and on six secret charter 
flights they left this country. The public did

[[Page 16229]]

not know they were leaving. The public did not know that these flights 
were occurring until after they left our country.
  There have been a lot of questions about this issue. Let me describe 
some of what is in the public record.
  Fifteen of the 19 terrorists who struck this country on September 11, 
2001, were Saudi citizens. So who would have allowed the gathering up 
of 142 Saudi citizens to be put on 6 secret charter airplane flights to 
leave this country?
  On September 3, 2003, Richard Clarke, head of counterterrorism in the 
White House at the National Security Council, said this before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. He addressed this question:

       It's true that members of the bin Laden family were among 
     those who left.

  That is part of the 142 Saudis who left on the 6 secret flights.

       It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among 
     those who left. We knew at the time--I can't say much more in 
     open session--but it was a conscious decision with complete 
     review at the highest levels of the State Department and the 
     FBI and the White House.

  That is Richard Clarke testifying before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee when asked about who allowed these secret flights. He said: 
Well, we knew about it. I can't tell you much more in open session, but 
it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels 
of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.
  Then Richard Clarke--the same Richard Clarke--appeared under oath in 
March 2004 at the 9/11 Commission. Here is what he said about who 
sought these secret charter flights:

       I'd love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought 
     this proposal to me, but I do not know. The two possibilities 
     that are the most likely are either the Department of State 
     or the White House Chief of Staff's office.

  That is what he told the 9/11 Commission when asked who proposed 
these secret flights to be allowed to leave. He said: I do not know. 
The two possibilities are the Department of State or the White House 
Chief of Staff's office.
  In the same testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Mr. Clark testified 
with respect to the secret flights, and the request that the flights be 
approved:

       I suggested that it be routed to the FBI, and the FBI 
     looked at the names of individuals who were going to be on 
     the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I 
     spoke with at the time the No. 2 person at the FBI, Dale 
     Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then 
     approved the flight.

  That is Richard Clarke, a direct quote under oath to the 9/11 
Commission.
  The FBI spokesperson, speaking of these charter flights with the 
Saudis and the bin Laden family members, said:

       We haven't had anything to do with arranging or clearing 
     the flights.

  Then the FBI said no one was allowed to depart ``who the FBI wanted 
to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks.''
  That is what the FBI said. No one was allowed to leave who the FBI 
wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks.
  However, Dale Watson, the No. 2 person at the FBI, head of 
counterterrorism at the time of these flights, said that the FBI did 
not conduct in-depth checks on the Saudis being repatriated.
  He said:

       They were identified but they were not subject to serious 
     interviews or interrogation.

  What we now know, according to the 9/11 Commission, is that about 30 
of the 142 Saudis who were allowed to leave were interviewed by the 
FBI. But the No. 2 person at the FBI said none of them were subject to 
interviews or interrogation.
  Among those who were allowed to leave this country, the Saudis--and I 
will not use their names; though I may have used them before--was a 
cousin of Osama bin Laden who had run the U.S. operations of a charity 
that had been accused of financing terrorism by the Governments of 
India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Bosnia. The FBI had investigated 
this person dating back to 1996. His case file was reopened on 
September 19, 2001, even as these flights were in progress.
  Another individual was allowed to leave. He, it turns out, curiously, 
was in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before 
September 11, 2001. He was a former director of a Saudi charity that 
has been investigated for ties to terrorism. He was interviewed by the 
FBI shortly after 9/11, but the interview was cut short when he 
pretended to be ill. The FBI agent recommended that he should not be 
allowed to leave until a followup interview could occur. That 
recommendation was not complied with, and he was allowed to return to 
Saudi Arabia without a followup interview.
  The interesting thing about the 9/11 Commission report is what they 
say about this flight and these citizens. The 9/11 Commission says that 
no one was allowed to depart who the FBI wanted to interview in 
connection with the 9/11 attacks. Incidentally, we can't get the 
manifest of the passenger list; I think Senator Lautenberg has gotten 
one of them, but the rest of them have not been made available--but at 
any rate, the 9/11 Commission says that no one was allowed to depart 
who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks.
  Just take that for a moment and understand what they are saying. No 
one was allowed to leave who the FBI wanted to interview in connection 
with the 9/11 attacks. What about someone who they should have 
interviewed in connection with financing terrorist activities? What 
about someone who they should have interviewed because of involvement 
with a charity that had been financing terrorist activities, perhaps 
not 9/11 but other terrorist activities?
  They say no one was allowed to leave who the FBI wanted to interview 
in connection with these attacks, but I just described to you two 
people who left, one who an FBI agent did not want permitted to leave, 
and the other who had his case reopened on September 19, 2001.
  This is really a little too cute, I think. The 9/11 Commission says 
no one was allowed to leave who might have had some issue dealing with 
9/11. But what about other ties to terrorism? The issue is the 
gathering up of 142 Saudi citizens in the aftermath of 9/11--keeping in 
mind that 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia--and 
putting these 142 people, including two dozen members of the bin Laden 
family, on 6 secret charter flights, disclosing those flights to no one 
until they left for Saudi Arabia.
  The question for me is, Were any of those people involved in any way 
in the financing of terrorist activities anywhere any time in the 
world? That has not been answered. The 9/11 Commission has not answered 
that and may not answer it, apparently, and most people have stopped 
asking those questions.
  My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, asked those 
questions. I asked those questions. The American people deserve to know 
answers to those questions.
  I don't allege some elaborate coverup. I allege gross incompetence. 
Somebody said that I was alleging a conspiracy at the White House. I am 
not alleging that at all. Richard Clarke says that the decision to 
allow these six secret flights was ``at the highest levels'' of the 
State Department, the FBI, and the White House. But I am not alleging 
there is some sort of conspiracy or connection. All I am alleging is 
gross incompetence, I think, because somebody allowed there to be 
gathered up a big group of people who should have been properly 
interrogated, and they allowed them, before those proper 
interrogations, to jump on six secret charter flights and were given 
opportunities no one else in this country was given. There are a lot of 
other Saudi citizens here. A lot of other people weren't given the 
opportunity to leave this country on secret flights. Why did that 
happen? How did it happen? Who asked for it and who approved it? Those 
questions have not yet been answered. I think the American people 
deserve those answers.
  We are told now that there is threat of a substantial terrorist 
attack

[[Page 16230]]

 against this country. Two weeks ago we were told that terrorists would 
attempt to strike this country between now and the election to disrupt 
the election, or disrupt the two political conventions. The ability of 
this country to detect and to stop a potential terrorist attack relies 
on our ability to use good intelligence and the coordination between 
the intelligence community and our law enforcement community. If that 
does not work, then we are in trouble.
  I don't for the life of me understand how we could have allowed these 
secret flights to occur without learning everything there was to learn 
from these passengers. One might say: Well, maybe we would not have 
learned anything. Maybe not. I expect you would learn something from 
the two people I described, both of whom had previously been of 
interest to the FBI, but now, after 9/11, were not questioned 
thoroughly by the FBI. I don't know about the rest of them.
  Someone made a grievous error, in my view. Someone did not exhibit 
the competence we should expect from those making decisions to protect 
this country.
  I continue to ask these questions. I know my colleague, will, as 
well, and I hope at some point we will find out what the answers are. 
Who authorized these flights? Why were they authorized? What is on the 
passenger manifest list? Are there more Saudis who the FBI should have 
questioned further who were allowed to leave this country? I don't know 
the answer to that, but this country, in my judgment, deserves an 
answer.
  I yield the floor and 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2694 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. 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.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             20th Anniversary of Rule 208-Age 21 Enactment

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, 20 years ago this month, as Transportation 
Secretary, raising the drinking age to 21 across our Nation was a 
measure I was confident in supporting. I was confident it would prevent 
crippling and disabling injuries and save thousands of lives.
  Statistics of teens driving across State borders, ``blood borders,'' 
into a neighboring State with a lower drinking age, then driving back 
under the influence of alcohol, convinced me of the dire need to 
eliminate the differences between State laws.
  Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Richard Lugar, and former Senator 
Jack Danforth were instrumental in the passage of age 21 legislation.
  On July 17, 1984, when President Reagan signed this law in a Rose 
Garden ceremony, he said:

       We know that drinking, plus driving, spells death and 
     disaster. . . . And I know there's one . . . simple measure 
     that will save thousands of young lives . . . if we raise the 
     drinking age.

  And it has. Twenty thousand lives have been saved in 20 years. The 
numbers represent real people, tragedies averted, family members and 
friends who did not have to suffer the loss of a loved one in an 
alcohol-related automobile accident. My family had to suffer such a 
loss. My uncle, just out of college, just about to be married, was hit 
head on and killed by a drunk driver.
  This month also marks the 20th anniversary of another revolution in 
highway safety. On July 11, 1984, the same week President Reagan signed 
the age 21 law, the Department of Transportation enacted rule 208 with 
the goal of saving as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. 
This successfully resolved the 17-year policy dispute that spanned four 
administrations. Rule 208 resulted in the production of airbags and the 
passage of State safety belt laws. It recognized the role of the States 
in automotive safety. No State, in July 1984, had passed a safety belt 
law, not a single State. Usage was only 13 percent. Airbags were 
virtually nonexistent. In fact, I had to look all over to find a car 
with an airbag to place on the White House lawn for President Reagan 
and the Cabinet to examine. Consumer acceptance was low. Many people 
thought airbags would go off just crossing the railroad tracks.
  Most of us get into a car and automatically fasten our safety belts 
today. We barely notice that the vehicle has an airbag. Today, 49 
States have belt laws. National belt usage is 79 percent and climbing. 
There are more than 149 million airbag-equipped vehicles on the road. 
As of this year, all cars, light trucks, and minivans come equipped 
with front seat airbags.
  The National Safety Council reports that since 1984, 190,000 lives 
have been saved through this safety trifecta: the 21 drinking age, 
State safety belt laws, and airbags. They totally changed the climate 
of highway safety in America. My hat's off to the tremendous team I had 
at the Transportation Department--Jim Burnley, Diane Steed, Phil 
Haseltine, Erika Jones, Jenna Dorn, Bob Davis--and many others, like 
Chuck Hurley of the National Safety Council and the Mothers Against 
Drunk Driving.
  According to the National Safety Council, since 1984, 157,500 lives 
have been saved by safety belts. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration estimates that safety belt use has resulted in savings 
to the U.S. economy of $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity, 
and other injury-related costs. NHTSA also reports that more than 
14,500 lives have been saved by airbags.
  The record speaks for itself; however, work remains to be done. I am 
pleased the highway bill recently passed in the Senate contains 
numerous safety provisions. In particular, I commend my colleague, 
Senator John Warner, for introducing incentives for States to enact 
primary safety belt laws. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has voiced 
strong support for primary belt laws, allowing a law enforcement 
officer to write a citation when observing an unbelted driver or 
passenger. Secondary enforcement allows the citation only after 
stopping a vehicle for some other reason.
  My home State of North Carolina was one of the first to enact primary 
belt laws in 1985. Our usage rate last year was 86 percent. But as of 
May 2004, only 20 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia 
have primary laws. According to NHTSA, safety belt usage is much higher 
on average in States with primary enforcement laws. Two decades after 
the safety trifecta, incentives for State safety belt laws, airbags, 
and 21 drinking age are reported by the National Safety Council to have 
saved 190,000 lives. This is just one example where we continue to 
strive for improvement, strive to prevent injuries, and strive to save 
lives.


               united states-morocco free trade agreement

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I express my support for the United States-
Morocco Free Trade Agreement. Under the leadership of U.S. Trade 
Representative Robert Zoellick, the U.S. has once again negotiated a 
sound free trade agreement with a country that is energetic in their 
support of U.S. interests around the world.
  I thank all of those involved in negotiating this agreement, 
especially the dedicated staff at the U.S. Trade Representative's 
Office and my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley 
and ranking minority member Baucus. Although bilateral trade agreements 
with relatively small countries are very time consuming and difficult, 
when taken in aggregate, they add up to a substantial amount of U.S.

[[Page 16231]]

annual exports. In all, these smaller free-trade agreements end up 
saving U.S. businesses millions of dollars a year in tariffs and duties 
and, therefore, are worth all the effort exerted in getting them 
negotiated and enacted.
  The United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement will open up the 
Moroccan market to fair trade and will allow U.S. companies to compete 
effectively. In fact, with the signing of this agreement, more than 95 
percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products will 
become duty free immediately. Industries such as information 
technology, machinery, chemicals, and construction equipment will gain 
immediate duty-free access to Morocco. Agricultural markets in Morocco 
will continue to open up to U.S. imports at a rapid pace. Service 
industries that are so crucial to the economy of the State of Utah will 
have rapidly increasing access to Morocco, thereby, allowing banks, 
consulting companies, insurance companies, and telecommunications 
companies the ability to compete on a level playing field. Of 
particular note in this agreement is the inclusion of antibribery and 
transparency provisions. These provisions will help Morocco in cracking 
down on illegal activity which hurts U.S. exporters and leads to higher 
costs for consumers.
  Utah companies have exported nearly $1 million worth of goods and 
services to Morocco over the last 5 years. Although this amount seems 
relatively modest, I take comfort in the fact that those small 
businesses engaged in this trade will be saving money under this 
agreement and be better positioned to increase the amount they export. 
One million dollars in trade with Morocco may not seem like much when 
measured against overall Utah exports, but to those individuals whose 
jobs depend on trade with Morocco, $1 million is a very big deal and I 
am proud to be able to help them. Much of the products exported by Utah 
companies are manufactured products and manufacturing jobs can be 
difficult to hold on to these days. Therefore, I am pleased to help 
lower barriers around the world and make it easier for Utah 
manufacturers and their employees to compete.
  Utah workers, and American workers collectively, deserve to be 
treated fairly in the world-wide marketplace and this agreement 
accomplishes that goal. Fairness and transparency only help U.S. 
companies compete and that is why I support the swift approval of this 
implementing legislation.


                   The Situation in Darfur and Sudan

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the 
situation in Darfur, Sudan. I have come to the floor many times before 
to discuss this horrible crisis. I do so again today.
  My colleague Senator Biden and I have introduced a bill, which I will 
describe in detail in a few minutes. Significant, I think, within the 
past hour was a very graphic video and audio description of the 
situation in Darfur, as it appeared on CNN. I commend it to any 
colleagues who may have the opportunity to see it, or who can even get 
a transcript of that show. It is a 3- or 4-minute piece. It clearly 
demonstrated in the most stark terms that the tragedy of Darfur 
continues to unfold. We saw little children who were in danger of 
dying. Some may be dying. They described one man who had been injured--
shot within the last week by the militias who came in. So despite the 
pledges of the Sudanese Government that they will stop the militias 
from carrying out this genocide, in fact, as we meet here today, it 
continues.
  There has been a discussion about whether genocide is in fact 
occurring. Some have argued this is not genocide. So as I describe what 
is in the bill Senator Biden and I have introduced today, I want to 
describe for my colleagues what, under the law, it takes for genocide 
to occur, what the convention says, and what the facts are.
  I am on the floor tonight to discuss whether what is happening in the 
Darfur region of Sudan is in fact genocide. I believe it is genocide, 
although for some reason there seems to be some confusion about what 
that term, in fact, means and what responsibilities come with that once 
it is determined that genocide is taking place.
  I have been using the term ``genocide'' to describe what has been 
happening in the Darfur region of Sudan since May, and I think it is 
time, frankly, that this body, as a whole, and the world, more 
importantly, begins to do the same. That is why Senator Biden and I 
have introduced a bill that refers to what is happening, in fact, as 
genocide.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Biden, for his leadership on this 
issue. He, too, has been calling this genocide since the beginning, and 
we hope our colleagues will join us and rightly identify the atrocities 
in Darfur as, in fact, genocide.
  Our bill will also prevent any normalization of relations between the 
U.S. Government and the Sudanese Government unless and until the 
President of the United States can certify that the Government of Sudan 
is taking significant and demonstrable steps to stop the militias and 
allow humanitarian aid to flow.
  The bill we have introduced today will allow us to place sanctions on 
Sudan contingent on improvements in Darfur. Simply put, this bill will 
use every weapon in our diplomatic arsenal to attack this problem, and, 
frankly, that is exactly what is needed.
  Only when the Government of Sudan satisfies the requirements laid out 
in this bill--and we have set a high but, frankly, reasonable hurdle--
would the Government of Sudan then be eligible for any U.S. assistance.
  The bill will authorize $800 million in support of the north-south 
peace process, but that money will not be available until and unless 
the Government of Sudan complies with the terms of the bill. But 
separate and apart from that money, the bill will authorize an 
additional $200 million for humanitarian assistance for Darfur, 
obviously not going through the Government of Sudan.
  Let me reiterate. The $800 million that we would authorize in support 
of the north-south peace process would only be available if and when 
the genocide has stopped, the atrocities have stopped, the humanitarian 
situation has improved, and the President of the United States is 
confident and willing to certify to Congress that the Government of 
Sudan is protecting its people.
  It is my hope that this bill will be passed before the summer recess 
so the pressure on the Government of Sudan begins immediately and does 
not stop until that Government complies.
  I want to return to the larger issue of whether what is taking place 
in Sudan now is, in fact, genocide because there does seem to be a lot 
of confusion about this issue. There should not be any confusion about 
it because what is taking place in Sudan today clearly is genocide.
  The definition of ``genocide'' can be found in the Convention on the 
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which entered into 
force originally in 1951. Specifically, article 2 states that genocide 
is any one of five acts which is committed with the intent to destroy, 
in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
  Let me repeat that. Specifically, article 2 states that genocide is 
any one of five acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or 
in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
  Here are the five acts, any one of which will qualify for genocide.
  First is the act of killing members of the group. There is no doubt 
that the militias in Darfur, aided by the Government of Sudan, have 
been killing the Black Africans of Darfur. Their scorched Earth 
campaign has left 30,000 dead--men, women, children. These people were 
killed because they were Black, while their Arab neighbors went 
untouched. That is the fact. Even when the people fled, the militias 
chased them into Chad trying to finish the job. Under this 
qualification alone, what is happening should be classified as 
``genocide.''
  The second group of actions that constitute genocide under the 
Convention is causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the 
group. The militias have used rape as a weapon, killed children in 
front of the parents, killed parents in front of the children, made 
husbands stand by while their

[[Page 16232]]

wives are raped and killed, and have done all of this because their 
victims are Black.
  An Amnesty International report stated:

       The long-term effects of these crimes can be seen in 
     countries like Rwanda where many women and children remain 
     traumatized.

  In the same way, the people of Darfur will remain traumatized for 
years to come, and this is what the militias want. The militias want to 
make sure that the Black Africans they do not kill are broken by the 
atrocities they have witnessed and suffered through.
  Let me turn to the third measure. The third way to commit genocide is 
to deliberately inflict on a group conditions of life calculated to 
bring about a group's physical destruction in whole or in part. The 
numbers in Darfur are appalling and clearly makes a case that this 
provision is satisfied. Over 1 million people--1 million people--have 
been driven from their homes, over 400 villages have been destroyed, 
wells have been poisoned, crops have been destroyed, and granaries and 
herds have been looted. The militias and Government have done 
everything possible to ensure that the Black Africans of Darfur cannot 
survive even if they escape the initial killings. There is nothing left 
for them. Their herds are gone. Their crops are gone. What is worse is 
the Government militias are also now blocking humanitarian aid.
  These tactics, in the face of the worst humanitarian crisis in the 
world, can be for no other purpose than to ensure that those who escape 
the killing now die along the way or die in camps.
  The militias have turned the camps into prisons, killing those who 
leave in search of firewood and food. This campaign is, obviously, not 
just about driving these people off the land; it is about destroying 
the Black African groups, and that, I say to my colleagues, is what is 
genocide. That is genocide.
  The final two acts that qualify as genocide are imposing measures 
intended to prevent births within a group and forcibly transferring 
children of the group to another group. We have reports that children 
have been abducted and that women are being raped by Arab men to ``make 
a light baby.''
  In these societies, a child adopts the father's ethnic background, 
and by raping all of these women with the purpose of making lighter 
children, they are effectively meeting the fourth and fifth criteria 
for genocide in the Convention.
  Specifically on the fifth criteria for genocide, forcibly 
transferring children from one group to another group, I want to share 
with my colleagues in the Senate the story of a woman named Mecca. She 
was killed by the militias when she tried to stop them from taking her 
3-year-old son. I am sure there are countless others who were killed 
trying to save their children, as any parent would. For these parents, 
for the children who have been abducted, for the girls and women who 
have been raped, for the people dying right now, I ask this body, I 
plead with this body to support using the term ``genocide'' because 
that is what it is.
  Although we can make a case that all five of these provisions have 
been met, the Convention is very specific. The Convention states that 
any one of these actions constitutes genocide. The fact that we have 
evidence to support all five qualifying categories only makes the 
decision to call this genocide that much easier.
  The question remains, though, if we call it genocide, what does that 
mean? What is the significance? Maybe when we know the answer, that 
will tell us why sometimes some people in the international community 
may be a little reluctant to call it genocide. The answer to the 
question once again is right in the convention, both in its title and 
in its articles. The document is called the Convention on the 
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is called that 
for a good reason.
  We need to make sure that the crimes being committed in Darfur are 
both prevented and punished. To prevent these crimes, the Government of 
Sudan and the militias need to be forced to end their reign of terror. 
We have tried to use diplomatic pressure to get them to start. The U.N. 
Secretary General and our own Secretary of State Colin Powell both went 
to the region to plead with the Government to stop the atrocities. The 
U.N. even submitted a draft U.N. Security Council resolution including 
targeted sanctions on the militias and an option for sanctions on the 
Sudanese Government if they did not keep their promises to rein in the 
militias. All of this, and yet, as Secretary Powell has said, the 
Government of Sudan is still not keeping their promises. The atrocities 
continue. That means to prevent genocide, we will need more than 
promises and high-level visits.
  Quite frankly and bluntly, we need troops on the ground. The African 
Union is going to send 300 peacekeepers, but we all know that is not 
enough for a region that is the size of Texas. We need more countries 
to commit troops, and we, the U.S. Government, need to be prepared to 
fund and assist these troops in reaching the region and protecting the 
civilian population of Darfur.
  The second major responsibility we have under the convention is to 
ensure that the crime of genocide is punished. The Government of Sudan 
must try those individuals suspected of committing these atrocities, 
and if they are found guilty, they must punish them. This includes 
vetting the ranks of the military to ensure that no further militia 
members find refuge there. It also means not just rounding up a few 
low-level members of the militias and punishing them. That is not 
enough.
  In addition, the international community will not accept show trials 
and, if necessary, an international tribunal should be convened to 
ensure that justice is served in Darfur.
  Justice also must be blind to the position held by those responsible 
for genocide. If any public officials in Sudan are guilty of genocide, 
conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit 
genocide, an attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, 
they must be held just as accountable as the militia members 
themselves.
  It does no one any good to wait until after the fact to call this 
genocide. Let's not wait 6 months. Let's not wait a year. Let's not 
wait 5 years. That is what happened in Rwanda. We cannot afford to let 
that mistake happen again. That is why I have been calling this 
genocide, because it is. We must call this genocide.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Biden and myself in calling this 
genocide. I urge my colleagues to speak out. My colleagues, Senator 
McCain, Senator Brownback, and others, have been on the floor of the 
Senate speaking about this issue. Senator Biden and I have a bill. I 
urge my colleagues to come forward and cosponsor and help us pass this 
bill. I also urge my colleagues to come forward and help us pass 
Senator Brownback's resolution condemning this as well. This is 
something that needs to be done. This Senate needs to speak out. This 
country needs to take action. The international community needs to take 
action.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow 
morning, immediately following morning business, the Senate resume 
consideration of S. 2677; provided further that the time until 11:30 be 
equally divided between the chairman or ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, and at 11:30 the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the 
bill with no intervening action or debate, and all provisions of the 
governing statute remain in order; I further ask that when the Senate 
receives from the House the companion measure, the Senate proceed to 
its consideration, the bill will be read the third time and passed, 
with no intervening action or debate; provided further, once the Senate 
has passed the

[[Page 16233]]

House companion, passage of S. 2677 be vitiated, and the bill be 
returned to the calendar.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________