[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of
H.R. 4426, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which the clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4426) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.
First Excepted Committee Amendment, Page 2
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question pending before the Senate is the
first excepted committee amendment on page 2.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, would the Chair restate what the full
unanimous consent agreement is? Actually, will the Chair restate the
part of the unanimous-consent agreement referring to the introduction
of amendments on this bill by a time certain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all listed
amendments must be offered by 6 p.m., Thursday, July 14, 1994.
Mr. LEAHY. Thank you.
Madam President, obviously everybody has until Thursday evening at
that time to offer an amendment. Certainly, this is not a case where we
are asking Senators to come in and offer amendments for the sake of
offering amendments because I am sure we would like to go forward with
this.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the foreign operations bill
proceeds, I intend to offer a number of amendments that address U.S.
assistance to the New Independent States, the Baltics, and Eastern
Europe. Several of these are amendments which are cosponsored by
Chairman Leahy. Before we proceed, I wanted to take a few minutes to
clarify why I feel specific congressional direction is necessary in the
management of these resources.
For the better part of the past year, Senator Leahy and I have worked
with the administration to define clear goals, projects, and activities
for the $2.5 billion NIS Program. It would be fair to say, Mr.
President, this process has not been without its problems. But the
administration has largely worked in good faith to address the various
and many issues that continue to surface.
A year into this effort, I think there are two areas where the
programs are simply not meeting requirements, either identified in last
year's legislation or as they have emerged over there on the ground.
Last year, we made every effort to establish the importance of
respect for territorial integrity and national sovereignty as criteria
for receiving American aid. In other words, Mr. President, in last
year's bill, there were provisions included that suggested that our
assistance to Russia should be contingent upon Russia respecting the
territorial integrity of the newly emerging states. That was a central
factor in last year's foreign operations bill.
At the time--again looking at last year--Russian troops were offering
training, equipment, and logistical support to rebels attempting to
overthrow the Shevardnadze government. That is what was going on as we
debated this bill last year. The Russians were offering training,
equipment, and logistical support to rebels attempting to overthrow the
Shevardnadze government in Georgia. In deference to Russian interests,
the administration essentially refused all pleas for assistance from
the Georgians. Ultimately, in the aftermath of that, Shevardnadze had
asked Yeltsin to call off the dogs of war, and a very tentative truce
has been the situation since.
Georgia is but one example of my concern about the undue and
unchallenged Russian influence in the former Soviet Union and, for that
matter, in Europe as well.
In April, a secret decree signed by Yeltsin was publicized revealing
Russian plans to establish military bases throughout that whole
region--not just within Russia but throughout the whole region.
As you can imagine, this was particularly disturbing to Latvia and
Estonia, both engaged at that time in troop withdrawal talks with
Russia. I doubt either nation was comforted by Yeltsin's declarations
just this week at the wrap-up news conference.
At the G-7 meeting, standing side by side, Presidents Clinton and
Yeltsin were asked specifically about troop withdrawals from Estonia.
Clinton predicted all troops would be withdrawn by August 31. That was
just this week. President Yeltsin, standing right beside him at the
press conference, when asked the same question said, and I quote:
``This is a good question. The answer is no.''
In other words, President Clinton said the troops would be out by
August 31, and President Yeltsin, standing right beside him at the same
press conference, said they will not be out by August 31.
It is my intention to address the situation in the Baltics and
Central Europe with specific amendments. I think the security concerns
of Russia's neighbors merit both our attention and appropriate
response.
The second area where there are shortcomings in the administration's
strategy bear on the future of economic reforms and market principles.
Here, again, last year's legislation linked U.S. aid to establishing
economic reforms, market principles, respect for commercial contracts,
and repayment of commercial debt.
The administration has emphasized mass privatization and points to
the fact that more than 15,000 enterprises have been transferred from
State to private hands.
Now, at first blush, Mr. President, these are impressive statistics.
However, in a series of briefings, several problems have emerged, the
chief one being there is essentially no monitoring system in place to
evaluate this privatization process. No one really knows who now owns
these businesses. No one is willing or able to answer the question:
Have we created a system which facilitates criminal organizations'
opportunity for ownership? A very important question.
It is also clear that we are only in the first stages of
privatization in that the state continues to subsidize operations by
offering a range of services from free utilities to providing equipment
and parts. So even though these may be by some definition private
enterprises, they are still receiving substantial subsidies from the
government.
Now, the effort to privatize is obviously essential to further
economic growth, and we all hope it will succeed. But the program seems
to be operating in a vacuum, without adequate official attention to the
legal and commercial framework necessary to sustain the private sector.
The serious crime problems Senator Leahy and I observed in Moscow last
summer are now threatening prospects for continued reforms. Crime and
corruption may risk an antimarket and an antidemocracy backlash which
does not serve either United States or Russian interests.
For this reason, I plan to offer a number of amendments which address
commercial law and law enforcement matters. This assistance and focus
is long overdue.
And I might say, Mr. President, just this morning I spoke with the
FBI Director, Judge Freeh, about his present trip not only to Russia
but to the Ukraine and other countries in the area, including the
former Warsaw Pact countries, about the extent of the criminal problem
in Russia. We may have a crime problem here, but it pales in
comparison, Mr. President, to the crime problem inside Russia.
A number of these organized criminal organizations operate not only
within Russia but in other countries, not only in that area but some
operating here in the United States. So the Russians have an enormous
problem with crime, almost a meltdown situation. This is something that
we probably cannot have an enormous impact on, but we need to help. I
commend the Director of the FBI for the effort he is making, and I will
have a couple of amendments that will help assist him in that process.
Mr. President, this is clearly a transition year for Russia and for
the Republics. We have scaled back direct U.S. aid with the hope that
the emerging private sector will take off and generate jobs, income,
growth, and economic security.
I continue to being committed to seeing this historic transition
through to a successful conclusion. My choosing to attempt to earmark
and target aid reflects my continued interest in assuring that the
program succeeds.
My differences with the administration, although strong, are a matter
of emphasis and priority and should not be confused as a lack of
support for Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, or any of the other
nations in that particular area of the world as they seek independence
and prosperity.
Let me conclude my opening statement by expressing my appreciation to
the Administrator of AID who has recognized the interest of the
subcommittee in this region and has agreed to provide supplementary
presentation materials for the fiscal 1995 budget cycle. Mr. Atwood has
brought about significant changes in the management of foreign
assistance which has increased the confidence of this Senator and I
think many others in his Agency and in his activities.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. LEAHY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished senior Senator
from South Carolina is seeking recognition. If we could have just one
moment, I have a couple of housekeeping things that I mentioned to him
I wanted to take care of.
Amendment No. 2125, As Modified
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
2125, which was previously agreed to, be modified. I send the
modification to the desk and ask the modification be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the amendment (No. 2125), as modified, is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
prohibition on payment of certain expenses
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act under the heading ``International
Military Education and Training'' or ``Foreign Military
Financing Program'' for Informational Program activities may
be obligated or expended to pay for--
(1) alcoholic beverages;
(2) food (other than food provided at a military
installation) not provided in conjunction with Informational
Program trips where students do not stay at a military
installation; or
(3) entertainment expenses for activities that are
substantially of a recreational character, including entrance
fees at sporting events and amusement parks.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
committee amendments be set aside so that I may offer the following
technical amendments, and that they be agreed to and they be considered
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2238
(Purpose: To make technical corrections to the bill)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send the amendments to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
The bill clerk read as follows
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment
numbered 2238.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 89, line 12 of the Committee reported bill, strike
``in'' and all that follows through ``Act'' on line 16 and
insert in lieu thereof:
On page 99, line 11 of the committee reported bill, after
``country.'' insert: ``The authority provided by subsection
(a) may be exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.''
On page 10, line 1 of the Committee reported bill, after
the word ``activities'' insert: ``notwithstanding any other
provision of law''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe these amendments have been agreed
to on both sides.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. We have taken a look at these amendments Mr.
President, and they are fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
So the amendment (No. 2238) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have both managers of the bill on the
floor now. I know the Senator from South Carolina is seeking
recognition. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond]
is recognized.
Amendment No. 2239 to the First Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 2,
Lines 12 through 21.
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding creation of the
World Trade Organization and implementation of the Uruguay Round
Agreements)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] for himself
and Mr. Pressler, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Craig, proposes an
amendment numbered 2239 to the first excepted committee
amendment on page 2, lines 12 through 21.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
To the first committee amendment, at the end of the
amendment insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON URUGUAY ROUND IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) the United States recently signed the Uruguay Round
Agreement which included among its provisions the
establishment of a new supranational governing body known as
the World Trade Organization (hereafter in this section
referred to as the ``WTO'').
(2) The legislation approving fast track authority and
giving the executive branch negotiators specific objectives
did not authorize the elimination of the current General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade structure and the creation of
a new, more powerful world-governing institution.
(3) The Congress has the constitutional prerogative to
regulate foreign commerce and may be ceding such authority to
the WTO.
(4) The initial membership of the WTO is 117 nations. The
United States will have only one vote and no veto rights in
the WTO.
(5) The single vote structure will give the European Union
the capacity to out vote the United States 12 to 1. It will
also give the island nation of St. Kitts, with a population
of 60,000, the same voting power as the United States.
(6) The United States will have less than 1 percent of the
total vote, but will be assessed almost 20 percent of the
total cost of operating the WTO.
(7) The one vote-no veto structure of the WTO will increase
the power of nations, which are not democracies and do not
share our Nation's traditional notions of capitalism and
freedom.
(8) Any United States law can be challenged by a WTO member
as an illegal trade barrier and such challenge will be heard
by a closed tribunal of 3 trade lawyers.
(9) The United States must eliminate any law that a WTO
tribunal finds to be in conflict with the trade rules of the
WTO or the United States will face severe trade sanctions.
(10) The WTO would effectively set the parameters within
which United States Federal, State, and local legislators can
maintain or establish domestic policy on the broad array of
issues covered under the nontariff provisions of the WTO.
(11) State officials have no standing before WTO tribunals
even if a State law is challenged as an illegal trade
barrier.
(12) The WTO would require the United States Federal
Government to preempt, sue, or otherwise coerce States into
following the WTO trade rules which the States did not
negotiate and to which they are not a legal party.
(13) The Attorneys General from 42 States have signed a
letter to the President expressing their concern over States
rights under the WTO and have asked for a summit to
discuss these issues.
(14) WTO decisions could result in shifts in State and
local tax burdens from foreign multi-national corporations to
American businesses, farmers, and homeowners.
(15) Under pay-as-you-go budget rules, the revenue losses
from tariff reductions must be offset over a 10-year period.
(16) The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that
such tariff reductions will cost approximately
$40,000,000,000.
(17) When the United States joined other supranational
governing bodies, the United States retained rational
precautions, such as a permanent seat on the Security Council
and veto rights in the United Nations, and a voting share in
the International Monetary Fund that is commensurate with its
role in the global economy.
(18) The WTO Agreement prohibits unilateral action by the
United States including action against predatory and unfair
trade actions of other member nations.
(19) The dispute settlement mechanisms to be used by the
WTO will be conducted in secret and in a manner that is not
consistent with the guarantees of judicial impartiality and
due process which characterize the United States judicial
tradition.
(20) The WTO Agreement is already resulting in substantial
changes and erosion of existing United States law.
(21) Neither the United States Congress nor the American
people have had an opportunity to analyze and debate the
long-term impact of United States membership in the WTO.
(22) Traditionally the United States has entered into
international obligations that impact on domestic sovereignty
and law and that have the legal stature and permanence that
the WTO has, by using treaty ratification procedures.
(23) The United States Senate rejected, on sovereignty
grounds, executive branch attempts to secure ratification of
a similar supranational organization known as the
International Trade Organization when it was offered
repeatedly between 1947 and 1950. The Organization for Trade
Cooperation was rejected by the Senate in 1955.
(24) Under the rules of fast track, the United States
Senate cannot change or amend provisions creating the WTO and
is limited to 20 hours of debate.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Senate that--
(1) a task force composed of members of Congress and the
executive branch be established to study and report to the
Congress and the President within 90 days on whether the
provisions creating the World Trade Organization should be
treated as a treaty or an executive agreement, and
(2) a 90-day period be allowed before the introduction of
the Uruguay Round implementation legislation and that during
that period additional Congressional hearings be held to
consider the full ramifications of the United States joining
the WTO, including the impact that joining the WTO will have
on State and local laws.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today, along with the Senator
from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Helms], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], to introduce a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution concerning the Uruguay round of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. This resolution outlines several
concerns that many members have with the final text of the GATT.
As the clerk has just read, many of these concerns regard the
creation of the new world trade governing organization called the World
Trade Organization [WTO]. The WTO is intended to be the arbitrator of
trade disputes between signatory countries. The WTO has two main
components: the ministerial conference and the general council. The
ministerial conference will meet every 2 years and will receive
decisions on matters covered by trade agreements. The general council
will govern the WTO on a daily basis. Also established under the
general council are several committees to review and make
recommendations on more specific issues such as balance of payments,
dispute settlements, and specific sectors of trade.
The dispute settlement body, which is established under the direction
of the general council, will be the ultimate arbitrator of trade
disputes. The decisions handed down by the WTO will be voted on by the
member countries. Each country gets one vote and, except for some
cases, a majority vote rules. While the WTO has been described as a
United Nations of trade, the United States will not have veto power
over its decisions. All decisions are final.
The United States will have four choices of action if the WTO rules
against our country. We can either: First, leave the WTO; second, pay
tariff penalties to other countries; third, not enforce our domestic
laws; or fourth, change our laws to comply with the WTO ruling. Most of
the Federal, State, and local laws that would be contested have been
enacted to protect our workers and our environment. I fail to say why
we need a new supranational organization to control trade.
Mr. President, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,
which outlined the overall objectives of our trade negotiations, there
is no mention of creating a world governing body to administer trade
disputes.
Mr. President, I would like to read the article titled ``U.S. Mustn't
Dawdle on the Trade Pact'' from the International Herald Tribune as
written on April 26, 1994. It reads:
Now that the world's biggest-ever trade agreement has been
signed and sealed in Marrakesh, it is time to get it through
the U.S. Congress, and the sooner the better.
Already some dangerous ideas about the trade pact are afoot
on Capitol Hill. the longer the agreement remains unratified,
the more vulnerable it will be to protectionist pressures.
Administration officials insist they will do everything
necessary to ratify the pact, the fruit of seven years of
arduous negotiations in the Uruguay Round. They say that
President Bill Clinton is fully committed to the cause.
But it is not clear the administration has learned the
lessons of last year's near fiasco over the North American
Free Trade Agreement, saved only by a bout of last-minute
political arm-wrestling by Mr. Clinton.
The administration's biggest mistake over NAFTA was
complacency--underestimating the opposition and leaving its
drive to win approval far too late. As a result, last-minute
waverers squeezed a lot of promises out of Mr. Clinton that
he would have been better off not making.
This time there is much less organized opposition, but that
could change as November's mid-term elections draw closer.
Congress is by no means yet committed to the Uruguay Round
and its schedule is already overloaded. The committees
responsible for the trade pact also happen to have
jurisdiction over the two biggest pending items of domestic
legislation--health care and welfare reform.
Some major misconceptions need to be nipped in the bud. One
is that it does not matter if the implementing legislation is
put off until next year.
Yes, it does. Delay will increase the chances of the pact
being blown off course--perhaps by a major new trade dispute
with Japan, China or even Canada.
Another mistaken impression is that the agreement can still
be changed. Many Republicans think they can tighten up lax
rules on subsidies, while some in both parties are demanding
greater scope for unilateral U.S. action.
The House Republican whip, Newt Gingrich, even wants to cut
out the part of the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization, which he regards as a sinister organ of world
government that will ride roughshod over American interests.
But U.S. agreement to the World Trade Organization was an
integral part of the Uruguay Round compromise. There is no
way of reopening the negotiations now. Under the fast-track
procedure in force for the treaty, Congress must in any case
vote `yes' or `no' on the whole pact at once.
It is true the WTO means a loss of congressional
sovereignty. But that will be no bad thing if it clips the
wings of Capitol Hill's powerful protectionists. It will
actually be good for the United States to be overruled by the
world organization when Washington tries to take politically
motivated action against other countries' exports.
Where the debate enters the world of Alice in Wonderland is
when it gets to how to pay for it all.
Under U.S. budgetary rules agreed in 1990, Congress must
find ways to offset the revenue lost from the Uruguay Round
tariff cuts, which could amount to nearly $14 billion over
five years or perhaps $40 billion over 10 years.
Mr. President, I want to repeat that. I would like the able Senator
from Kentucky to especially hear this.
Under U.S. budgetary rules agreed in 1990, Congress must
find ways to offset the revenue lost from the Uruguay Round
tariff cuts, which could amount to nearly $14 billion over
five years or perhaps $40 billion over 10 years.
With the elections approaching, nobody wants to propose new
taxes or spending cuts to bridge the gap. But nor does anyone
want to suggest a waiver from the rules and set a precedent
that opponents might exploit later on--the Democrats for
health care or the Republicans for cuts in the capital gains
tax.
The whole thing is absurd. In the next five years the
government is likely to collect about $3 in revenue for every
$1 lost in tariffs, because of vastly increased trade.
It is ridiculous to impose a budgetary penalty for freer
trade, which pays for itself many times over. Congress should
be brave enough to admit it has made a mistake and exempt
trade agreements from the rules.
The main thing for Congress to remember is that agreements
to open up world trade are never perfect, but the United
States has always benefited from them.
Mr. Clinton should remember that his decisive support for
NAFTA won top marks even from his critics as the high point
of his first year in office. It is time for a repeat
performance--preferably without the cliff-hanging finale.
Let me also read from the European Commission background brief on the
Uruguay round. It states, ``The agreement on the WTO also contains a
binding clause which requires members to bring their national
legislation in line with the agreements that are part of the WTO
structure.'' Mr. President, while creating an international
bureaucracy, this agreement is also restricting the ability of Congress
to do its constitutional duty. Further, let me quote from a statement
by Peter Sutherland, Director General of GATT, Reuters, on June 16,
1994: It reads:
(Peter Sutherland) hit out at countries that saw the right
to reject GATT rulings as a sovereign prerogative. ``What
this amounts to is a country choosing to be above the law
whenever it is inconvenient to observe the law,'' he said,
and this opinion would not be open to countries under the
WTO.
Using the term ``law'' to describe the workings of the WTO, implies
to me that the ability of the United States to make its own laws and
rules will be severely altered.
Mr. President, one argument used by the administration to justify the
WTO is to argue that other countries would not impose harsh penalties
against the United States since we have such a lucrative marketplace.
However, I do not think any of us can really be sure how the developing
nations of the world, which account for 83 percent of the WTO
membership, will vote when a situation arises.
Mr. President, I am not asking that my colleagues rethink their
philosophy on trade. However, we should be examining the agreement to
see if all that is promised will be forthcoming. It seems to me that
the benefits of this agreement are dubious.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just want to say to the distinguished
senior Senator from South Carolina, it is my understanding what he is
groping for here is that we attempt to learn a little more about what
the WTO is all about and what kind of impact it may have on us
internally; is that essentially it?
Mr. THURMOND. That is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I went recently to a session on the WTO, and I think
all of us would like to learn a little more about how it is supposed to
function in the context of the GATT. As I understand the amendment of
the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, it seems to me it would
assist us in learning more about the potential for the WTO as it
relates to our own domestic governance.
I want to commend the Senator for his amendment. As I understand it,
I think it is very good.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator very much. I deeply appreciate that
from the able Senator from Kentucky, the manager of this bill.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is
recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I too share many concerns on the law
enforcement aspects and what is happening in Russia and other parts of
the former Soviet Union. I met with Director Freeh prior to his trip, a
historic trip actually, that he took recently. In fact, I highly
commend FBI Director Freeh for what he did and actually for the hope
that he brought with him and the response he got.
I told him prior to his leaving that I intended to make sure that
this bill would have within it significant amounts of money to be used
for law enforcement and that it would be available for him. And Senator
McConnell, myself, Senator D'Amato, and others are going to assure that
is in there. We are not going to have a situation where people are
going to invest in Russia or other parts of the former Soviet Union if
they think they are trying to invest in an area that is something akin
to a wild West scenario.
I mentioned when this bill was first in the Chamber the problem of
shooting and even hand grenades being tossed around in Moscow. The
story I told at that time was somebody pulling up in an expensive
imported car, jumping out of it, starting to machine gun an office on
the ground floor, until the secretary opened the filing drawer, took a
hand grenade out of the filing drawer, pulled the pin, rolled it
under--pulled the pin out of the hand grenade and rolled it right under
the car that was out there.
Now, this is kind of exciting, of course, but probably is not
conducive to a good work ethic. And we will try to help in that regard.
Let me speak to the amendment that has been offered by the
distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina.
There is a certain law of physics--I think it goes beyond anything
Newton was aware of--which comes into play during the foreign
operations bill. It is a new form of magnetism. It is little studied
but well understood. It seems that when this bill comes up, it is like
a magnet. It is pulling amendments out of the air that defy all laws of
physics--and I might say Jefferson's manual--that have nothing to do
with this bill.
Now, this is an appropriations bill. This is not a Finance Committee
bill. It is not a trade bill. It is not GATT implementing legislation.
And the amendment on GATT does not have anything to do with this bill.
It is a Finance Committee issue. In fact, the Finance Committee has not
even seen this amendment. They will have implementing legislation for
GATT just as my own committee on agriculture will look, at some point
when we get an opportunity in the fullness of time, at GATT
implementing legislation. That is the place to bring up these kinds of
matters. I cannot imagine that the distinguished chairman of the
Finance Committee would want to see this legislation coming forward on
an appropriations bill any more than I in my capacity as chairman of
the Senate Agriculture Committee would want to see such authorizing
legislation on an appropriations bill.
So I hope that he does not go forward with it. The GATT is really of
great interest to all Senators, of course. But it is also a contentious
issue.
Now, this amendment would call for another 90 days before the Uruguay
round legislation could be introduced. In effect, of course, it kills
any GATT for this year. I can assure Senators this is an issue that
would not survive conference. There is no way, if this is on the
foreign aid bill, the foreign aid bill could come out of conference. It
just would not happen. We could, for those who are interested in
particular earmarks in the foreign aid bill, say bye-bye earmarks
because if this is on the bill we are not going to be able to
conference this bill, and I suspect at some point we will have, which
may be good policy, an unearmarked, scaled-down, continuing resolution
and nothing would be done with GATT. If you want to do something on
this, argue it before the authorizing committees implementing
legislation on GATT.
I think that what we would like to do is accommodate of course what
the Senator wants. He wants to know more about the World Trade
Organization. There are going to be hearings on that. If he would like
to go to those hearings, I suspect that the appropriate committees
would be delighted to have him testify before the committees. Certainly
every one of them can study it. We do not need a 19-day delay to do it
nor do we need this bill to be destroyed to do it.
If nobody else is prepared to speak on this, I suppose we could go to
a vote on it very soon.
the eurasia foundation
Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the Eurasia
Foundation, a privately managed, small-grant making organization funded
through our program of assistance to the New Independent States of the
former Soviet Union. The Foundation supports public sector reform and
private sector development through technical assistance, training and
education grants to nonprofit organizations in the former Soviet Union,
and to U.S. nonprofits with partners there.
The Foundation's success can be attributed to its unique approach. By
awarding small grants, usually between $50,000 to $75,000, and relying
on the input of local nonprofits and field staff who understand the
situation on the ground, the Foundation is able to respond quickly and
effectively to changing needs in the NIS. Another benefit of this
flexible, grass roots approach is the ability for U.S. assistance to be
delivered by a wide range of diverse organizations.
This program does not finance consultants to do prefeasibility
studies, following by feasibility studies, which lead to more studies.
These are grants made to local groups with the expertise to provided
hands on assistance and produce tangible results. Eurasia Foundation
grants have supported training in management techniques and market
economics. They have provided technical assistance to establish
surveying and mapping systems to assist land privatization. Another
grant supported an ecology information center and press offices.
Mr. President, I have heard that AID is considering scaling back its
original plans to fund the Eurasia Foundation at $75 million over 4
years. If true, this concerns me. The Eurasia Foundation is one of the
more promising programs we are funding in the NIS. From what I have
heard, the Eurasia Foundation could serve as a model for other
programs.
I realize, of course, that the foreign aid program faces tight budget
pressures. The amount of assistance we are recommending for the NIS in
fiscal year 1995 is significantly less than in fiscal year 1994.
However, before any decision is made to cut funding for a successful
program like the Eurasia Foundation, I would expect AID to consult with
the Appropriations Committee.
the summit of the americas
Mr. President, this December, an important event will take place in
Miami, FL, which should be of interest to all senators. On December 9
and 10, President Clinton will host the first meeting of democratically
elected leaders in the Western Hemisphere. It is the first summit of
its kind in over a generation, and it is intended to follow up on the
signing of the NAFTA Treaty with Mexico which created the world's
largest free trade zone.
While Presidential summits are often long on photo ops and self-
congratulatory press releases and short on substance, I am hopeful that
this summit will produce significant results. By bringing Western
Hemisphere heads of state together, many for the first time, there will
be an opportunity to begin to build secure relationships which can
advance common interests. The discussions will focus on ways to
stabilize democracy, promote greater trade and investment, and support
sustainable development.
This summit is on enormous importance to all the countries in he
hemisphere. It is no secret that relations between the United States
and our southern neighbors have not always been easy. For much of this
century we treated the Central American countries as virtual colonies.
Banana republics, we called them. In recent years we were involved
militarily in bloody conflicts in Nicaragua and El Salvador that deeply
divided the Congress and the American people. The concern we all have
about the possible use of U.S. troops in Haiti is but one reflection of
this uneasy history.
Yet even during this period, there was progress toward democracy and
free enterprise in Latin America, and with the recent peace agreement
in El Salvador and the possibility of a settlement of the conflict in
Guatemala, we seem to be entering a new ear. For perhaps the first time
in history, we can look forward to a period of peace, of strengthening
democracy, and of building stronger economic ties that benefit both
North and South America.
In the long run the United States and the region cold benefit
enormously from achieving the goals of this summit. Democracies tend
not to attack one another. Political stability is the key to economic
growth. United States exports to the region have more than doubled in
the past 7 years, and they will continue to rise. This in turn has
created thousands of jobs for Americans. As NAFTA is extended, I
believe it will be, the prospects for stronger economic ties will
greatly increase.
From the very beginning, this has been a cooperative effort. Vice
President Gore traveled to Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico at
the end of March to lay the groundwork for the conference. President
Clinton has been in touch with his counterparts to develop a productive
schedule for the summit. The Organization of American States and the
InterAmerican Development Bank have been included in these
preparations, and there have been consultations with the business
community and nongovernmental organizations from Latin America and the
United States to get their input. NGO's have traditionally been either
ignored or harassed by Latin governments who have often regarded the
NGO's with suspicion, as a threat to government authority and control.
This summit is an opportunity to demonstrate the important role NGO's
can play in building democracy, and in addressing many of the most
acute problems these countries face.
Mr. President, this historic event, the largest gathering of
democratically-elected leaders that the United States has ever hosted,
deserves our attention and support. Having said that, I will end with a
warning. Promoting democracy is a central theme of this summit, which
is why Cuba and Haiti have not been invited to send representatives.
However, the Dominican Republic recently held an election was marred by
irregularities. International observers have yet to certify that it was
a fair election. There is reason to believe that the party of the
winning candidate, President Balaguer, engaged in widespread fraud
which could have affected the result. I do not know whether, in the
final analysis, the election will be ruled fair or not. But we do not
want to implicitly ratify a stolen election, it that is what this was.
The Dominican Republic should be invited to participate in the summit
only if there has been a credible finding that the election was fair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to add my support to an
amendment offered by Senator Thurmond and to voice my growing concern
about the Uruguay round agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade and the General Agreement on Trade in Services.
The amendment raises a number of concerns about a provision in the
Uruguay round which would establish an international entity which is
referred to as the World Trade Organization. This amendment, which is a
nonbinding resolution, states that it is the sense of the Senate that a
joint Senate administration commission should be convened to perform a
90-day blue ribbon panel report on whether or not the World Trade
Organization should be considered as a treaty rather than an Executive
agreement. It also requests further hearings, both in Washington, DC,
and in the field so that the ramifications of the World Trade
Organization can be fully examined and understood.
Mr. President, let me be very clear. This amendment does not make the
GATT agreement a dead-on-arrival agreement. It simply reflects, I
think, the importance of the agreement and the need to fully understand
the development of a new international organization prior to our
country's acceptance of this agreement.
The World Trade Organization is not a minor change to the structure
of the GATT. It creates an entity that is, to me, more than an
international organization. Rather, it is a regime with powers that are
structurally stronger than those of the United Nations.
Mr. President, when forming the United Nations, very special care was
taken to ensure that the United States would have both veto power and a
permanent seat on the Security Council. However, it is apparent that no
such effort has been made with regard to the World Trade Organization.
In the WTO, the United States could be outvoted by a small coalition of
a handful of any given number of nations, regardless of their overall
size, population, geographic size, their contribution to world trade
itself, their funding contribution to the organization, or their
commitment to fair trade and democracy.
The World Trade Organization would initially consist of a diverse
coalition of 117 nations. Each member nation of the WTO, including the
United States, would have one vote in resolving trade disputes under
the auspices of the two agreements, the GATT and the GATS.
The World Trade Organization would vote on amendments and
interpretations of GATT provisions. Again, Mr. President, the United
States would be only 1 of 117 votes. Therefore, we could easily be
outvoted by Third World countries of the World Trade Organization, as
often happens in the United Nations. We have the history of the United
Nations to demonstrate that that can clearly occur.
Another point of frustration is that we will be paying 20 percent of
the World Trade Organization budget with a voice behind it of only one
vote. Under the GATT, as it currently exists, the United States has
veto power and can block a panel decision by denying the necessary
consensus to adopt the panel's decision. Consensus is also replaced in
the World Trade Organization with the following agreements: A two-
thirds vote to amend the World Trade Organization, a three-fourths vote
to impose an amendment on parties and to adopt the interpretation of
World Trade Organization provisions.
There have been previous attempts to establish a supranational body
to cover trade relations and dispute settlements. In other words, Mr.
President, this is not the first time these concerns and ideas have
been expressed on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
There have been previous attempts to establish, as I mentioned, these
supra-national organizations. The fear of granting broad authority over
our trade rules to a mostly foreign entity led to the repeated
rejection by the Senate of the International Trade Organization between
1947 and 1950, and a similar body known as the Organization for Trade
Cooperation in 1955.
Under the interstate and foreign commerce clauses of the
Constitution, States cannot discriminate against foreign businesses,
including the application of State tax law. Therefore, under the GATT
currently, the failure of a State to comply with these provisions would
result in a U.S. court action where the parties involved would be able
to receive fair and open redress of their complaints. The dispute
settlement mechanism included in the Uruguay round agreement, on the
other hand, would require such matters involving State tax policy and
foreign businesses to be brought before the World Trade Organization
itself.
It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the World Trade
Organization dispute settlement panel can meet in secret and need not
consider U.S. constitutional standards nor follow the constraints of
U.S. jurisprudence. This is a serious concern, and it must be clarified
before this agreement is brought to the Senate floor for ratification.
It is also my understanding that no individual U.S. State government
is guaranteed representation on the World Trade Organization's dispute
panel, and the United States cannot reject a World Trade Organization
dispute panel mandate without facing foreign retaliation and trade
penalties enforced by the World Trade Organization. This may be a worse
case scenario, but if it is a scenario that could occur under the World
Trade Organization, then that provision in the Uruguay round agreement
must be changed.
In short, Mr. President, States rights must be protected at all
costs.
We said it in 1947 in a similar debate. We said it again in 1955, and
I would hope that the U.S. Senate would confirm the Thurmond amendment
which would examine and clarify those most important issues.
Our Nation's Founders, in framing the Constitution, and in the
development of our Federal system, never intended that a State
relinquish the development and enforcement of its tax policy to a
foreign entity like the World Trade Organization.
It is my understanding that many States have expressed serious
concerns over these provisions of GATT and GATS.
A letter, signed by 42 attorneys general, including Idaho's Attorney
General Larry Echohawk, expresses the concerns of our States. It also
requests a summit with Federal officials to review States rights
issues.
Mr. President, the attorneys general of the States of our Nation are
now requesting of our Government that a similar summit be held, and
this similar summit has been included in the Thurmond amendment we are
now offering today.
Let me share with you, Mr. President, what this letter says, and I
ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter from the States
Attorneys General be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
State of Maine, Department of the Attorney General,
Augusta, ME, July 6, 1994.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
President of the United States,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Clinton: As defenders of State laws, State
Attorneys General have a particularly keen interest in State
sovereignty. The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which is to be submitted to
Congress under fast-track authority soon, appears to have
broad implications for State self-government. Given the
paramount importance that the U.S. Constitution assigns to
State's rights, we would like to request a State-Federal
Consultation Summit on this issue, to be held in July or
August, before the Administration submits implementing
legislation. Although we have agreed to take the lead on this
issue, because it affects all State officials, an invitation
would be extended to State executive and legislative branches
as well.
We are requesting a Summit to give State officials the
benefit of a thorough airing of concerns about how the
Uruguay Round and the proposed World Trade Organization (WTO)
would affect State laws and regulations. Many State officials
still have questions about how some of our State laws and
regulations would fare under the WTO and its dispute
resolution panels. This is of particular concern given that
some of our trading partners have apparently identified
specific State laws which they intend to challenge under the
WTO.
As you know, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office (USTR)
is charged with an interesting set of responsibilities. On
one hand, its primary responsibility is to promote U.S.
exports and international trade. Yet, one the other hand, the
Trade Representative's Office is charged with the
responsibility of protecting State sovereignty and defending
any State law challenged in the various international dispute
tribunals. Given the inevitable conflict in fulfilling both
sets of these responsibilities, we would like to take
advantage of the proposed Summit to clarify a range of
serious concerns, including:
Whether the implementing legislation adequately guarantees
States that the federal government will genuinely consider
accepting trade sanctions rather than pressuring States to
change State laws which are successfully challenged in the
WTO.
Whether States have a guaranteed right and a formalized
process in which they can participate in defending their own
State laws.
Whether the USTR is required to engage in regular
consultation with the States, and involve any State whose
measures may be challenged in the defense of that measure at
the earliest possible opportunity.
Whether parties challenging a State measure under GATT will
be able to prevail based on the fact that one State is simply
more or less restrictive than another State's.
Whether GATT grants any private party a right of action to
challenge a State law in federal court.
Whether an adverse WTO panel decision can be interpreted as
the foreign policy of the United States without the
subsequent ratification of the Congress and the President.
Whether GATT panel reports and any information submitted by
the States to the USTR during the reservation process are
admissible as evidence in any federal court proceeding.
Whether a panel decision purporting to overturn State law
shall be implemented only prospectively.
Whether the federal government may sue a State and
challenge a State measure under GATT without an adverse WTO
panel decision.
How will adverse WTO panel decisions impact State laws
covering pesticide residues, food quality, environmental
policy including recycling, or consumer health safety, where
State standards are more stringent than federal or
international standards.
Whether so-called ``unitary taxation,'' which assesses the
State taxes corporations pay on the basis of a corporation's
worldwide operations, be illegal under GATT.
Whether States may maintain public procurement laws that
favor in-State business in bidding for public contracts.
How well protected is a State law if it is included within
the coverage of U.S. reservations to new GATT agreements.
Whether the United States can import some due process
guarantees into the WTO dispute resolution system, now that
the negotiations are over, the WTO panel proceedings remain
closed and documents confidential.
In responding to our request for this GATT Summit, please
have staff contact Christine T. Milliken, Executive Director
and General Counsel of the National Association of Attorneys
General, at (202) 434-8053. Although the Association has
taken no formal position on this issue, the Association
provides liaison service upon request when fifteen or more
Attorneys General express an interest in a key subject.
Further, the Association through action at its recent
Summer Meeting has instructed staff to develop in concert
with the Office of U.S. Trade Representative an ongoing
mechanism for consultation. The Association participates in
several federal-state work groups, principally with the U.S.
Department of Justice and also with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that might serve as a starting point for
developing a model for an effective ongoing dialogue with the
USTR on emerging issues in this key area.
Respectfully yours,
Michael E. Carpenter,
Attorney General of Maine.
The following attorneys general signed the letter:
Alabama: Jimmy Evans.
Alaska: Bruce M. Botelho.
Arizona: Grant Woods.
Colorado: Gale A. Norton.
Connecticut: Richard Blumenthal.
Delaware: Charles M. Oberly, III.
Florida: Robert A. Butterworth.
Hawaii: Robert A. Marks.
Idaho: Larry EchoHawk.
Illinois: Roland W. Burris.
Indiana: Pamela Fanning Carter.
Iowa: Bonnie J. Campbell.
Kansas: Robert T. Stephan.
Kentucky: Chris Gorman.
Maine: Michael Carpenter.
Maryland: J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
Massachusetts: Scott Harshbarger.
Michigan: Frank J. Kelley.
Minnesota: Hubert H. Humphrey, III.
Mississippi: Mike Moore.
Missouri: Jeremiah W. Nixon.
Montana: Jospeh F. Mazurek.
Nevada: Frankie Sue Del Papa.
New Hampshire: Jeffrey R. Howard.
New Jersey: Deborah T. Poritz.
New Mexico: Tom Udall.
New York: G. Oliver Koppell.
North Carolina: Micheal F. Easley.
North Dakota: Heidi Heitkamp.
Northern Mariana Islands: Richard Weil.
Ohio: Lee Fisher.
Oregon: Theodore R. Kulongoski.
Pennsylvania: Ernest D. Preate, Jr.
Puerto Rico: Pedro R. Pierluisi.
Rhode Island: Jeffrey B. Pine.
South Carolina: T. Travis Medlock.
Tennessee: Charles W. Burson.
Texas: Dan Morales.
Utah: Jan Graham.
Vermont: Jeffrey L. Amestoy.
Virginia: James S. Gilmore, III.
Washington: Christine O. Gregoire.
West Virginia: Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.
Wyoming: Joseph B. Meyer.
Mr. CRAIG. I will read only the first paragraph. It says:
As defenders of State laws, State Attorneys General have a
particularly keen interest in State sovereignty. The Uruguay
Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
which is expected to be submitted to Congress under fast-
track authority soon, appears to have broad implications for
State self-government. Given the paramount importance that
the U.S. constitution assigns to State's rights, we would
like to request a State-Federal Consultation Summit on this
issue, to be held in July or August, before the
Administration submits implementing legislation. Although we
have agreed to take the lead on this issue, because it
affects all State officials, an invitation would be extended
to State executive and legislative branches as well.
And the letter goes on to express the concern over 42 of these
attorneys general now.
In addition, Mr. President, I have been working with the Idaho State
Tax Commission on the State sovereignty concerns and would like to read
the following letter I received from the Idaho State Tax Commission
which articulates specific concerns of my home State, and for sake of
time, Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent that the full text of
that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Idaho State Tax Commission,
Boise, ID, May 26, 1994.
Re Pending GATT/GATS Agreements.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: We are writing to explain our concern
about the power over state and local taxes that the new
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) will give the
World Trade Organization (WTO). Unless modified
significantly, these provisions of the new GATT will
undermine state and local fiscal sovereignty and likely favor
foreign business over U.S. taxpayers.
As the administrators of tax laws enacted by the state
legislature, we strongly support equal treatment of all
taxpayers foreign and domestic. We have no objections to
those provisions of the GATT designed to encourage trade.
However, the WTO provisions applicable to state and local
taxes exceed legitimate trade concerns. They are likely to
have unintended, but dangerous, consequences for the
sovereignty and citizens of Idaho.
The central problem is in the dispute settlement mechanism
of the GATT and WTO. WTO dispute settlement panels are not
bound by U.S. constitutional standards and jurisprudence in
evaluating challenges to state tax laws, even though the
Interstate and Foreign Commerce clauses of the Constitution
effectively prohibit discrimination against foreign entities.
The fear and experience of state tax administrators is that
such panels may well overturn state and local tax laws,
because of some perceived bias against international trade,
which are not in fact discriminatory and which are perfectly
legitimate under the U.S. Constitution.
This is precisely what happened in the one international
trade case involving state taxation. In a case commonly
called ``Beer II,'' a trade panel ruled that a Minnesota law
granting preferential tax status to small breweries
regardless of where they were located violated the GATT. It
held that the small brewer preference must be removed or that
equally preferential rates must be accorded large Canadian
brewers. There was no evidence of discrimination based on
national origin, and there was no evidence of any trade
barrier. USTR did not veto or reject this decision. Instead,
it has encouraged states to comply with it.
Moreover, unless some action is taken to the contrary, WTO
panel rulings can be enforced against a state or local
government in the U.S. court system, event though the
offending law or policy is otherwise consistent with U.S.
constitutional standards. While this is not possible with
federal measures, we believe it would be true for state and
local laws. With the Congressional adoption of the GATT,
dispute panel findings, unless specifically rejected by the
U.S. government, can be argued to represent the foreign
policy of the U.S. Thus, state and local laws to the contrary
would be found to violate the Foreign Commerce Clause of the
U.S. Constitution.
In short, the GATT process provides foreign interests with
willing government partners another avenue to challenge state
and local tax policies with which they disagree. These
challenges will occur in a forum not bound by the U.S.
constitutional standards against which state and local laws
are shaped and in a forum where states and localities cannot
represent themselves. The net result is to place U.S.
taxpayers at an unfair disadvantage, compromise state tax
sovereignty, and substitute the WTO for the U.S. Supreme
Court as the final arbiter of state and local tax policies.
The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) and the Federation of
Tax Administrators (FTA) have proposed two ways to address
these concerns without rejecting the GATT. First, the U.S.
government could assert a broad reservation from the national
treatment requirements of the GATT for state and local tax
laws that meet U.S. constitutional standards. Several
suggestions along these lines have been rejected as overly
broad or unworkable by the U.S. Trade Representative staff.
The other approach is to include provisions supporting
fiscal federalism in the GATT implementing legislation. The
following is a summary of the MTC/FTA proposals for the
implementing legislation:
Rejecting all WTO panel decisions not based on U.S.
constitutional standards regarding nondiscrimination against
foreign parties or not adopted by action of the U.S. Congress
within 120 days of the panel decision;
Requiring that a state or local law or policy may be
declared invalid as being in violation of the GATT only
through an action brought by the U.S. government for that
purpose;
Prohibiting (a) retroactive application of WTO panel
decisions; (b) use of panel findings and decisions as
competent evidence in the U.S. courts; and (c) any private
right of action emanating from a WTO panel decision;
Requiring that affected state and local governments assist
in representing their interests before the WTO; and
Requiring the USTR provide notice to state and local
governments at least 180 days before USTR initiates or
responds to a complaint about state or local tax policies and
practices.
For detailed information on these proposals, your office
may contact Nancy Donohoe, MTC Consultant at (202) 296-8060
or Roxanne Davis, FTA Research Attorney at (202) 824-5890.
The U.S. Constitution has for 200 years balanced the
interests of federalism and free trade. That balance can be
accomplished in the GATT only with the types of reservations
and implementing legislation outlined above. Your help in
preserving this balance is sorely needed. Thank you for your
support and commitment to federalism.
Sincerely,
Coleen Grant,
Chairman.
R. Michael Southcombe,
Commissioner.
G. Anne Barker,
Commissioner.
DuWayne D. Hammond, Jr.,
Commissioner.
Mr. CRAIG. Let me read the first paragraph. It says:
Dear Senator Craig: We are writing to explain our concern
about the power over state and local taxes that the new
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) will give the
World Trade Organization (WTO). Unless modified
significantly, these provisions of the new GATT will
undermine state and local fiscal sovereignty and likely favor
foreign business over U.S. taxpayers.
Let me repeat:
* * * will undermine State and local fiscal sovereignty and
likely favor foreign businesses over U.S. taxpayers.
If that is true, Mr. President, this can simply not be allowed. I say
if it is true. That is why the amendment as proposed by Senator
Thurmond and that is why the State attorneys general have asked that
this Government stop, bring its people together, examine these critical
issues before we move toward fast track and implementation.
Mr. President, there are also problems with the language of the
Uruguay round agreement, which has the potential of infringing on State
sovereignty.
The phrasing of provisions to prevent State discrimination against
foreign businesses is dangerously vague and would favor foreign
entities over American taxpayers in the resolution of disputes.
I cannot imagine that this Senate, blinded as we often times are and
urged to promote world trade, would not have the willingness to stop
and look and listen to authorities who can flesh out and explain for us
these important provisions.
Both GATT and GATS are worded in a far less precise manner than
existing State tax laws.
A vague agreement opens the door for unfair and conflicting
interpretation.
For example, under GATT, prohibiting unjustified discrimination
against foreign businesses in the United States does not clearly define
a specific standard.
A State law which fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Constitution,
may not meet the broader standard under GATT and GATS.
The national treatment provision under GATS requires the United
States to ensure that foreign services and service providers receive
``treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own like
services and service suppliers.''
Under the provision, only foreign businesses receiving a negative
economic impact resulting from a State law could seek corrective action
by the WTO while domestic businesses which are economically harmed by a
State guideline would have no similar avenue of redress. This grants
foreign businesses a significant advantage which their domestic
counterparts would not enjoy.
The national treatment provision on the surface looks and sounds like
the foreign commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, but it is
significantly different.
Mr. President, I would like to share some information that was
included in a memorandum to State tax administrators from two
organizations, the Federation of Tax Administrators and the Multistate
Tax Commission:
It reads:
The standards for proving a violation of national treatment
are lower than for proving a violation of the foreign
commerce clause.
Because only foreign taxpayers can benefit directly from
the ``national treatment'' provision, they will have access
to a more favorable set of rules than U.S. taxpayers.
State tax provisions that might well meet the requirements
of the U.S. Constitution may be found to violate GATS.
The memorandum goes on to cover dispute settlement panels:
The rulings of trade panels--``dispute settlement
bodies''--may become legally binding on the States and local
governments even though they are not legally binding on the
Federal Government.
The Federal Government can decide to comply or not comply
with an adverse trade panel ruling.
However, the dormant foreign commerce and national
supremacy clauses of the Constitution are binding on States
and localities.
Thus, foreign taxpayers may use the trade panel ruling as
evidence in suits against States or localities and could seek
enforcement trade panel rulings in our courts on the basis
that they reflect the foreign commercial policies of the
United States.
The memorandum also states that:
Because of these interactions between trade agreements and
the U.S. constitutional law, we think that State and local
tax authority will be undermined, tax burdens may
increasingly shift from foreign taxpayers to U.S. taxpayers,
and desisionmaking authority over State and local taxes will
increasingly shift from the U.S. Supreme Court to ``dispute
settlement bodies.''
For these reasons, we have sought protection for all State
and local tax practices that conform to Federal law or that
are determined by the domestic courts of the United States to
be nondiscriminatory under the Constitution.
These arguments and concerns cannot be summarily dismissed, Mr.
President. The problems are real and need to be resolved. I hope that
today's discussion on the World Trade Organization will lead to a more
thorough discussion as is outlined in the amendment offered by Senator
Thurmond.
Mr. President, there is another document that I would like to have
become part of the Record.
I highly recommend it to my colleagues who support States rights.
This testimony was delivered by Dan Bucks, the Executive Director of
the Multistate Tax Commission, at the House Subcommittee on Trade
hearing last February. The title, interestingly, is ``Free Trade,
Federalism and Tax Fairness.''
I ask unanimous consent that his testimony before that subcommittee
of the House be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the testimony was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Free Trade, Federalism and Tax Fairness
(Testimony by Dan R. Bucks)
The Multistate Tax Commission is an interstate compact
agency that works to ensure that multistate and multinational
businesses pay a fair share--but not more than a fair share--
of taxes to the states and localities in which they operate.
We encourage states to adopt uniform tax laws and regulations
in the interest of tax fairness as well as administrative
ease and efficiency for businesses that operate in several
states and nations.
This testimony substantially draws on a larger report
prepared by the staffs of both the Multistate Tax Commission
and the Federation of Tax Administrators, the latter being
the professional association of state tax officials. The
Commission appreciates and acknowledges the efforts of the
Federation in helping to analyze the impact of international
trade agreements on state taxation.
The Commission views the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) from this perspective of fundamental fairness and
efficiency. States are committed to treating foreign
taxpayers as well as they treat U.S. taxpayers who do
business in their borders, and the Commission fully supports
this principle of equal taxation. Equality of tax treatment
provides a level playing field for the expansion of
international trade.
The U.S. Constitution established a foundation for our
nation based on the principles of free trade and federalism.
It has created the most successful free trade area known in
modern times and establishes the ideal pursued by other
nations in international trade agreements. The Constitution
also establishes a successful system of federalism. In a
world where other nations are beset with social tension, and
even civil war, over issues of balancing the aspirations of
local communities with central governments, the U.S. system
is a model for balancing local and national interests.
Over the past two centuries, our nation has enhanced and
developed an effective balance between free trade and
federalism--a balance that flourishes today. However, GATT
and GATS, which do not recognize principles of federalism and
the sovereignty of state governments, threaten to destroy
that balance. Thus, the Commission proposes measures that
would restore, in the context of GATT and GATS, a proper
balance between free trade and federalism and ensure tax
fairness.
The Constitution, as noted, guarantees that states and
localities will treat foreign taxpayers equally as compared
to domestic taxpayers. Unfortunately, without significant
adjustment through the exemption and reservation process and
implementing legislation, GATT and GATS will violate the
principle of equality under the Constitution by granting
rights and privileges in state and local taxation to foreign
taxpayers that are not available to domestic taxpayers.
Without adjustments, GATT and GATS will over the long-term:
Reduce state and local taxes paid by foreign taxpayers and
unfairly shift that tax burden to U.S. businesses and
ordinary citizens,
Transfer authority to determine state and local tax policy
from the states, subject to the review of Congress and the
U.S. Supreme Court, to international trade panels with little
or no expertise in state and local tax policy or
constitutional law relating to federalism, and
Erode the ability of states to perform their role as
``laboratories of democracy'' in our system of federalism--
fashioning local solutions to local problems.
These problems will arise from the interaction of GATT and
GATS with state and federal laws. The key features of this
interaction are as follows:
First, GATT and GATS establish special rules and appeal
procedures that are available only to foreign taxpayers and
that are more favorable than the rules and procedures
available to U.S. taxpayers under state and federal law and
the Constitution. If a special class of taxpayers has access
to rules and procedures that are more favorable to them than
other taxpayers, those taxpayers will ultimately receive tax
benefits at the expense of those less favored.
Second, unless Congress enacts appropriate provisions of
implementing legislation, rulings to international trade
panels may be legally binding on state and local governments,
even though they are not legally binding on the federal
government. States are subject to the foreign commerce and
national supremacy clauses of the Constitution. Unless an
international trade panel ruling is specifically rejected by
the federal government, foreign parties may seek enforcement
of that ruling.
Third, states base many of their tax policies on either the
federal tax laws or on mandates imposed by the federal
government. The federal law may not conform to the trade
agreements, and states may find their taxes vulnerable under
the agreements simply because they are following federal law.
How GATT and GATS Favor Foreign Taxpayers
The special rights and privileges that taxpayers will enjoy
under GATT and GATS arise from the broad and ambiguous terms
used in the agreements and the ``dispute settlement
mechanisms'' established by the agreements. Specifically, the
following features of the agreements create problems for
state and local taxation:
The agreements use broad language that is much less precise
than tax law and create the potential for unpredictable,
unintended and unfortunate decisions. For example,
``unjustified discrimination'' is an ill-defined, ambiguous
standard in the agreements, and the limited history of GATT
authorities applying that standard to state taxation is
disturbing.
Foreign companies seeking to reduce their state or local
tax bills would no longer be required to bring an action in
the domestic courts of the U.S., but they could instead
recruit their government to lodge a GATT complaint against
the state or locality. ``Dispute Settlement Bodies''
comprised of private sector persons from other nations who
are trade experts, but most likely have little or no tax or
federalism experience, would rule on complaints by foreign
nations against a state or local tax practice. The Dispute
Settlement Bodies would not be bound by U.S. court precedents
or any other body of law.
States have no guaranteed standing before Dispute
Settlement Bodies. Absent Congressional action, states cannot
be assured that their views will be presented or protected by
the U.S. government at any time in the future. The federal
government may defend the states' legitimate interests--or it
may decline to, at its sole discretion.
Because GATT and GATS, unlike the U.S. Constitution, do not
recognize federalism, and more specifically the rights of
state governments, which are otherwise constitutionally
restricted from discriminating against foreign and interstate
commerce, as a positive value, Dispute Settlement Bodies will
be under no obligation to balance the claims of trading
interests with subnational governmental rights.
These features combine to create opportunities for tax
benefits for foreign taxpayers that are more favorable than
any U.S. taxpayer can attain. This fact is illustrated by the
one case involving state taxes that has been subject to a
dispute settlement ruling under GATT. This case is commonly
referred to as Beer II and involved a Canadian-U.S. dispute
over federal and state taxes and regulations affecting beer
production and distribution.
The Unfortunate Lessons of Beer II
A GATT panel issued a report on February 7, 1992, on
Canada's challenge to federal and state laws affecting the
beer industry. (This GATT panel decision is commonly referred
to as ``Beer II.'') The Beer II decision provides ample
evidence that states are justified in fearing decisions that
will likely flow from Dispute Settlement Bodies under GATT
and GATS. Beer II ignores federalism entirely and fails to
acknowledge the sovereign right of states in a federal system
to establish different, but non-discriminatory, laws that
reflect local conditions that do not necessarily pertain in
all states. Finally, Beer II creates tax benefits in states
for foreign breweries that no U.S. brewery could obtain in
the U.S. court system.
Specifically, there are at least three features of Beer II
that are unacceptable to the U.S. constitutional framework of
federalism. The three troubling features of Beer II are the
panel's (i) employment of an arbitrarily broad notion of
``discrimination;'' (ii) application of the ``least
restrictive measure'' standard to define the GATT obligation
of ``national treatment;'' and (iii) elevation of GATT above
the U.S. Constitution.
Overly Broad Concept of Discrimination Used to Benefit
Foreign Taxpayers: The Beer II panel ruled against certain
state tax laws that do not discriminate against either
interstate or foreign commerce. In particular, Minnesota
offers favorable excise tax treatment for microbrewery
production that is conditioned only on the size of the
brewery and is completely neutral with respect to the
national origin or location of the brewery, its product or
its inputs. No microbrewery located in Canada is denied
access to the favorable tax treatment. (The Minnesota law
is distinguishable from some of the other state laws
considered in Beer II that condition favorable tax
treatment on geographic location.) Yet, the Beer II panel
was unwilling to make that distinction. Employing a ``beer
is beer'' standard, the panel swept the Minnesota-type
laws into the scope of its disapproval. Under ``beer is
beer'' reasoning, no government would ever be able to make
reasonable or rational distinctions between beer produced
under different circumstances unrelated to geographic
location. The ``beer is beer'' standard negates the
ability of states to make rational policy choices where
there is no evidence of an intent to discriminate against
foreign or interstate commerce or to promote local,
economic protectionism.
Unless rejected by the federal government or otherwise
resolved to the contrary, the original GATT ruling may well
provide large Canadian brewers with a special tax benefit in
at least one state that is unavailable to large American
brewers. This ruling illustrates that GATT and GATS can
undermine the equality of treatment between foreign and
domestic taxpayers that is guaranteed under the U.S.
Constitution. Unless adjusted, GATT and GATS tilt an
otherwise level state and local tax playing field in favor of
foreign business and against the interests of U.S. businesses
and taxpayers.
Classifying taxpayers on the basis of size is a common and
acceptable practice that generally poses no problems of
discrimination against commerce flowing across political
boundaries (e.g., in federal law, S Corporations which may
not have non-resident alien shareholders can be distinguished
from C Corporations on the basis of number of shareholders).
Under the U.S. Constitution, state laws like Minnesota's that
classify brewers on the basis of size would most likely be
upheld. Other state laws that condition favorable tax
treatment on in-state location of the activity, inputs or
product would most likely fail a constitutional test. The
domestic courts of the U.S. would make careful, well-
informed, well-reasoned and justified distinctions between
these different types of tax laws. The Beer II panel did not.
Ignoring Federalism: Even more disturbing is the Beer II
panel's use of a ``least restrictive measure'' standard for
defining national treatment in order to determine whether
discrimination exists. Using the least restrictive measure
standard, the panel ruled against higher regulatory standards
of some states on the basis that other states had lower
standards. Some states impose requirements on the methods of
distributing beer as an effective and efficient means of
collecting excise taxes. Other states, however, do not impose
the same requirements. The Beer II panel's ruling allowed no
room for different requirements based on different
circumstances confronted by various states, nor did the panel
allow any room for differing judgments by separate sovereigns
as to the most appropriate requirements to impose to effect
collection of taxes.
By imposing on all states the least restrictive measure
standard among the states for assessing whether a neutrally
structured and intended measure operates on a de facto basis
to discriminate under the national treatment obligation of
GATT, the Beer II panel struck at the very heart of
federalism. The panel's reasoning leaves no room for
different laws based on different local circumstances, nor
for any range of judgment, regardless of the absence of any
discriminatory intent in those judgments, to be exercised by
different state sovereigns. Indeed, the combination of the
least restrictive measure standard and the acceptance of de
facto arguments leaves all state law potentially at risk of
being subject to challenge under the aegis of GATT and GATS.
Higher taxes levied by a state in which a company from one
nation does business could be challenged as discriminatory
simply because a competitor does business in another state
with lower taxes. The following examples illustrate the
potential problems created by the Beer II reasoning, if
applied to state taxation:
If Chilean wine is sold primarily in states with low wine
taxes, while French wine is sold more often in states with
higher wine taxes, the French firms could win a de facto MFN
judgment for a GATT panel against states with higher wine
taxes.
If the gross receipts tax on a foreign-owned long distance
telephone company is higher in the states in which it
operates than the tax rates on American-owned long distance
(or local) phone companies in other states, the foreign-owned
company could win a de facto ``national treatment judgment''
against the higher tax states.
If a foreign-owned bank pays higher property taxes in the
one state in which it operates (for example, NY) than do
banks, on average, in other states, it could win a national
treatment judgment against the high tax state. (This result
would potentially disrupt the billions in revenues realized
from property taxation, a form of taxation that is covered by
GATS. Property taxes are the primary source of support for
education in the United States.)
Since GATT/GATS, as drafted, does not recognize federalism
and looks at ``discrimination'' on a national basis,
differences among states in tax treatment of similar economic
activity could be used by foreign multinationals to win tax
breaks from GATT/GATS panels using the ``least restrictive
measure'' reasoning of the Beer II panel. The obvious result
of such rulings would be to destroy America's federal system.
Each state would be barred by GATT/GATS panels from setting
its own tax policy, settling instead to the lowest level of
taxation by any state.
GATT Overrules the U.S. Constitution: The Beer II panel
decision does not recognize governmental powers that are
reserved to the States under the U.S. Constitution. The panel
found in Beer II the States' alcohol regulatory practices,
which could not be described intended to discriminate against
foreign or interstate commerce or to promote economic
protectionism, to violate GATT obligations. This violation
was found even in the face of the central government's
(federal government's) lack of power to require the States to
change their alcohol regulatory practices that are reserved
to the States under Twenty-First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. In essence, the panel has used a
congressionally approved international trade agreement to
overrule the U.S. Constitution--something the U.S. Supreme
Court cannot even do.
gatt/gats rulings can bind states, but not federal government
As suggested above, GATT and GATS generally will bind the
states in ways that do not apply to the federal government.
It is important to keep this difference in effect in mind,
because the federal government is simply not subject to the
many restrictions applicable to the states and the
perspective of the federal government is not, therefore,
directly transferable to the states.
GATT and GATS are a part of the foreign policy of the
United States that, under the Constitution, is binding on the
states. U.S. domestic courts entertaining state tax disputes
will consider GATT and GATS rulings by the Dispute Settlement
Bodies (and the other authorized decision-making agencies of
these trade accords) as expressions approved under U.S.
foreign policy unless there is a formal rejection of the
rulings by the U.S. government. Thus, in any future cases
involving state or local taxes in which the U.S. government
does not expressly and firmly reject the GATT or GATS ruling,
foreign parties will be able to take the trade ruling into
U.S. domestic courts and argue persuasively that the state or
local tax practice violates the U.S. Constitution by virtue
of being inconsistent with the foreign policy of the U.S.
This ability of foreign parties to seek enforcement of GATT
or GATS rulings that may be adverse to a state taxing
practice in the domestic courts of the U.S. makes the nature
of the dispute settlement process of great concern. Trade
panels--closed to the states and comprised of non-U.S.
citizens--will begin to play a role previously reserved to
the U.S. Supreme Court precedents and constitutional language
on the rights and obligations of subnational governments, but
empowered instead to interpret broadly vague language, pose a
clear and present danger to the U.S. system of federalism.
federal laws may create gatt problems for the states
States, especially in the income tax area, have frequently
based their state tax treatment on federal law. The practice
of ``piggybacking'' on federal laws typically simplifies tax
compliance and reduces costs for taxpayers and states alike.
This practice generally supports the free flow of commerce
and should not be discouraged by GATS or GATT. Accordingly,
state laws based on federal law should not be subject to a
separate challenge under these trade agreements.
In addition, there are several state or local tax practices
that are required by federal law. This category of state and
local taxation should be similarly protected from the
jurisdiction of the trade agreements, more because of the
federal interests involved than the state interests.
The following examples--which are not all inclusive--
illustrate the category of laws involved in state taxing
practices reflecting federal law:
Tax exemptions for non-profit and U.S. government
enterprises,
Protection of businesses engaged in interstate, but not
foreign commerce, from state income taxation under Pub. L.
86-272, and
Tax exemptions for U.S. and state government securities.
These examples all involve activities that provide for
favorable treatment of domestic activities. States are
prohibited from taxing federal obligations, but they are
allowed to tax foreign obligations. States use federal
concepts of charitable, non-profit activities to similarly
provide favorable tax treatment to charitable activities
within their borders. They do not provide favorable tax
treatment for charitable activities outside their borders
or, following the federal law, for similar activities
provided by for-profit entities. States are required by
federal law to provide certain favorable treatment to
businesses engaged in interstate commerce, but not those
engaged in foreign commerce.
States must comply with federal law and are often wise in
using federal tax laws as a basis for their own laws. States
should not get caught in a conflict between specific federal
laws and general GATT requirements. The federal government
should protect states from adverse GATT determinations that
might arise from their use of or compliance with federal
laws.
protecting free trade, federalism and tax fairness
The task at hand is to restore tax fairness and federalism
to the framework of the world trade agreements. Unless this
task is accomplished, foreign taxpayers will be able to
reduce their state and local taxes unfairly at the expense of
U.S. taxpayers. Further, because taxation is at the core of
sovereignty, the role of the states in our federal system
will be undermined as authority over taxation shifts from
state and federal officials to non-U.S. citizens serving on
international trade panels.
There is a ready solution to the need to restore tax
fairness and federalism to the GATT and GATS framework.
Currently, in the GATT negotiations, nations are developing
exclusions from the GATT and GATS agreements. These
exclusions involve Most Favored Nation Exemptions and
National Treatment Reservations. The MFN Exemptions are to be
resolved by April 15, and the National Treatment Reservations
by June 15.
We proposed to the Administration that they seek two types
of exclusions from GATT and GATS as both MFN Exemptions and
National Treatment Reservations. In developing the proposed
exclusions, we seek to establish two broad principles that
will restore tax fairness and federalism to the trade
agreements:
(1) The U.S. Constitution should be the basic standard for
judging whether state and local taxes are fair and non-
discriminatory as they apply to foreign commerce, and
(2) States should not suffer the penalty of adverse GATT or
GATS ruling because they comply with or base their taxes on
federal laws.
Using these principles, we have proposed to the
Administration that they seek an MFN Exemption and a National
Treatment Reservation that would exclude from the scope of
the trade agreements any state or local tax measures that
``satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Constitution as
determined by the domestic courts of the States and the
United States.'' Further we have sought an MFN Exemption and
a National Treatment Reservation that would exclude from the
trade agreements state and local tax measures that
``substantially replicate, or discharge requirements or
manifest the policy of, the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or
other applicable federal law.''
These proposed exclusions from the trade agreements remain
under discussion. We seek the support of Congress for these
exclusions. If these exclusions are incorporated into the
GATT and GATS framework, then there would likely be little
need to address state and local tax issues in the
implementing legislation for GATT and GATS. However, if these
exclusions are not adopted, we will return to Congress with
extensive and detailed proposals for embodying to the degree
possible not only the constitutional and statutory principles
listed above, but also a third and fourth additional
principles:
(3) As is the case with the federal government, rulings
under GATT and GATS should not be legally binding on state
and local governments,
(4) Federalism should be recognized as a positive value by
allowing state governments, as sovereign entities, full and
direct participation in GATT or GATS disputes involving state
laws and by requiring that trade panels dealing with state
and local tax issues should include tax officials from
subcentral governments in federal systems.
Incorporating these principles into the implementing
legislation would require detailed provisions dealing with a
host of matters including, as a sample, the following: i) a
requirement that the U.S. government use the Constitution for
judging the acceptability of GATT rulings involving state and
local taxes, ii) prohibitions on private rights of action by
foreign parties seeking to enforce GATT rulings involving
state and local taxes in the domestic courts of the United
States, iii) procedures for the direct participation of state
governments in defending cases before GATT panels
involving state or local taxes, (iv) requirements for
nominees from other nations acceptable to the United
States for serving on trade panels dealing with state and
local tax matters, (v) consultation procedures between the
federal government and state and local government when
GATT cases begin to arise, (vi) procedures for determining
whether and in what manner the U.S. accepts adverse GATT
rules, and (vii) procedures for the U.S. government to pay
compensation or other means that avoid unfunded mandates
on state or local governments if adverse GATT rulings
occur. There may be other subjects that should be
considered in the implementing legislation as well.
However, most if not all of these subjects need not be
addressed if the U.S. secures the type of MFN Exemptions
and National Treatment Reservations we have sought.
The linchpin of our proposals is the Constitution. For that
reason, it is necessary to understand why the Constitution
works to ensure fundamental fairness in state and local
taxation for foreign and domestic taxpayers alike.
how the u.s. constitution ensures tax fairness
The Interstate Commerce Clause, combined with other
provisions of the U.S. Constitution, guarantees that states
tax out-of-state parties in the same manner as they tax their
own state residents. Further, the Foreign Commerce Clause
requires that the states tax foreign parties in the same
manner as they tax U.S. parties. Both clauses interact to
achieve more effectively and precisely than GATT or GATS can
guarantee essential equality in taxation for foreign and U.S.
interests alike. Further, the case law under these provisions
is careful and well-developed and is not subject to the
likely abuses under the ambiguous language and incomplete
precedents of the trade agreements. Because of the
effectiveness of the U.S. Constitution in guaranteeing equal
and non-discriminatory taxation, the Constitution should be
the basis for achieving the result sought by GATT and GATS:
trade that is not restrained by discriminatory taxation.
Because foreign companies are well protected by the
Constitution against unlawful discrimination, local economic
protectionism and undue burdens placed upon commerce, GATT/
GATS should not limit or affect the tax methods by which
states or other subnational governments raise revenue from
business activities over which they have jurisdiction. During
the past 200 years, the United States Supreme Court has
consistently safeguarded interstate and foreign commerce from
discrimination and undue burdens caused by unlawful state tax
measures. Several provisions of the United States
Constitution exist to address overreaching by the states when
they seek to require interstate and foreign commerce to bear
a ``fair share'' of taxation. Those protections reside in
Articles I, Sec. 8, cl.3 (Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Clauses), Sec. 10, cl.2 (Import and Export Clause), VI
(Supremacy Clause), and Amendment XIV, Sec. 1 (Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses) of the Constitution. This
discussion is limited to an examination of the Commerce
Clause protections extended by the Constitution which more
than amply protects consistent with the standards of GATT and
GATS domestic and foreign companies transacting business in
foreign commerce.
Under the Foreign Commerce Clause, states and their
political subdivisions are only allowed to impose a tax
obligation on business engaged in foreign commerce when the
obligation:
1. Is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with
the taxing state;
2. Is fairly apportioned;
3. Does not discriminate against interstate commerce;
4. Is fairly related to the services provided by the taxing
state;
5. Does not create a substantial risk of international tax
multiplication; and
6. Does not prevent the Federal Government from speaking
with one voice when regulating commercial relations with
foreign governments.
Unless each and every requirement listed above is fully
met, the tax obligation will fail under the Foreign Commerce
Clause and the taxpayer who might have paid the tax will be
entitled to meaningful relief. See McKesson Corp. v. Division
of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990).
Since the adoption of the Constitution, the United States
Supreme Court and state courts have addressed scores of state
tax issues and found many to violate the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Clauses. In the past ten years alone, the
Supreme Court has issued several opinions declaring
invalid against the Commerce Clause state tax measures
that bore on interstate and foreign commerce.
Representative examples of but a few of those cases are
found in Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Tully, 459 U.S. 1144
(1983); Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263
(1984); New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269
(1988); Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue
and Finance, ---- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2365 (1992). State
courts also preserve the free flow of commerce. See HL
Farm Corp. v. Self, 1994 WL 1927 (Tex.).
Our message is simple: the Constitution works, and has
worked, for over two centuries as an instrument of free
trade, federalism and tax fairness. That is why we have made
the standards and procedures of the Constitution the
foundation of our proposals for exclusions of certain state
and local tax measures from the scope of the GATT and GATS.
That proposal, combined with a further provision protecting
states when they act on or implement federal law, would
effectively harmonize the trade agreements with our system of
federalism. We ask for your support for the MFN Exemptions
and National Treatment Reservations that we have proposed.
Protecting the role of state and local governments in our
nation is not an abstract or theoretical matter. The states
have primary responsibility for meeting the domestic needs of
the people of our nation. The states and their subdivisions
maintain public order, educate future citizens and workers,
maintain the essential infrastructure necessary for commerce
and public life, and assist persons beset by misfortune or
wrong choices to become productive members of society again.
They do these tasks and more in a diversity of ways. That
diversity is an important value of our federal system. States
are laboratories of democracy and are a continuous source of
innovation to meet a range of public needs. Endangering state
tax sovereignty inevitably imperils the vitality and
stability of our society.
Mr. CRAIG. Before closing, Mr. President, I would also like to
mention that the WTO has not received accolades abroad.
Articles in various papers and journals have outlined concerns that
our trading partners have on the structure of the World Trade
Organization and issues of sovereignty.
Mr. President, after World War II, representatives from the United
States and Great Britain designed a postwar economic system with three
pillars: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the
International Trade Organization [ITO].
The ITO was intended to be the administrating body covering the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. As I mentioned earlier,
Mr. President, the U.S. Congress rejected the ITO as a threat to U.S.
sovereignty.
The Congress took that action despite warnings from beltway insiders
that the failure to join this would certainly impede economic recovery
for the entirety of the world.
Our predecessors realized that the United States and our trading
partners did not need a bureaucracy. What they needed was free trade.
And, of course, this Senate rejected it. And yet we saw the world go on
to prosper, as GATT itself and as we worked in a voluntary way to
promote free trade around the world.
Well, Mr. President, I hope that congressional wisdom will continue
to prevail and that many of the questions I have spoken to today and
others are speaking to about the World Trade Organization will be
resolved to ensure our U.S. sovereignty and the very important question
of States rights.
It is clearly time that we listened to the underpinnings of this
amendment and that we are willing to stop for just a moment and do an
extensive examination, as the amendment calls for, some 90 days' worth
of examination, and respond to our attorneys general and to our State
tax commissioners and to our Governors, who are concerned, as we should
be, about the issue of our sovereignty and about the issue of States
rights.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Montana in
just a moment.
But assuming all the arguments made by all the supporters of the
amendment by the Senator from South Carolina, we still come down to one
major point. This is not the vehicle for it. This is an appropriations
bill. This is not an authorizing bill.
We are going to have debates on implementing legislation for the
GATT. There will be debates in the Finance Committee, as there will be
in the Senate Agriculture Committee. I am perfectly willing to assume
that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator
Moynihan, would oppose this, certainly on this appropriations bill,
just as I, in my capacity as the chairman of the Senate Agriculture
Committee, would oppose it. If you want to bring it up on implementing
legislation, fine.
The other point to realize is, of course, every Senator has a right
to speak on this as long as they want. But the fact of the matter is,
this will not become law on this bill. It is not going to be accepted
by the other body in the conference. It can mean that we could spend a
lot of time putting our various foreign policy earmarks in this bill,
and they will disappear. They will disappear in the continuing
resolution that will be sent over by the other body sometime toward the
end of September.
We can either pass a foreign operations bill, one that is designed to
bring into play a number of significant earmarks and issues raised by
some of my distinguished colleagues and by the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky and by myself and some by others that are in this bill,
and it will pass overwhelmingly. And they are not in the legislation
from the other body.
But I guarantee you, this is not going to be able to be accepted if
it is adopted here. All Senators should have the right to vote on it,
and I hope they might very, very soon. They either vote to add it in or
vote to keep it out. But it will not make it possible for us to
conference a bill with it in and that will be accepted by this body or
the other body, and we will end up with a continuing resolution without
some of the country specific designations that we now have in our
foreign aid in here.
That again is fine. Senators have to make up their own minds on that.
I am not suggesting whether that is a good idea or a bad idea. I am
just trying to point out the realities.
With that, I yield to my friend from Montana, who has proven time and
again that he is one of the foremost experts the Senate has had on the
whole issue of international trade, on the question of GATT and NAFTA,
and numerous others.
I feel privileged to have him as a member of the Senate Agriculture
Committee and a member of the Finance Committee. He is the chairman of
the Environment and Public Works Committee. But he is a Senator that I
turn to more and more in my career in the Senate on these issues of
international trade because of his proven expertise.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his
very kind words.
I understand, and I think most Members of the Senate understand, the
concerns the Senator from South Carolina has, the Senator from Idaho
has, and the concerns a lot of Americans have, over proposed Uruguay
round agreements, including the World Trade Organization and
particularly including the disputes settlement mechanism.
I think we all know this is the post-cold-war era. The world has
changed. It has changed dramatically. Each country is now, to some
degree, assuming an economic agenda a bit more than it has in the past,
at least during the cold-war era. And that is probably the way it
should be, each of us looking for a way to increase our economic
position, to boost our incomes. American families are looking for ways
to boost their incomes, as well they should. In fact, we here are doing
what we can to help, in large respect, particularly American families
to increase their incomes in this uncertain world we find ourselves in
into the 1990's, and particularly into the next century.
I would like to follow on the words of the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, Senator Leahy, in basically saying this
resolution is not properly offered on this bill. This is an
appropriations bill. This is not an authorizing bill. We are not here
debating provisions of the Uruguay round. We are not here debating the
provision of the implementing language that Congress, I think, will
debate fairly quickly with respect to ratifying or not ratifying the
proposed Uruguay Round Agreement.
In addition, I must say that it probably makes much more sense for
these issues--and they are very good issues, and I have a lot of
sympathy for and, in fact, agree with a good part of the statements
that have been made thus far--to debate these in the ordinary course.
What is the ordinary course? The ordinary course is, of course, the
Finance Committee will be working on implementing language. Senator
Moynihan, the chairman of the committee, has scheduled hearings this
week and next, particularly next week, when he thought he would begin
to go toward debating and adopting implementing language which goes to
the questions raised by Senators who have previously spoken in favor of
this resolution.
It is, I think, unwise to put the cart before the horse. By voting
now in favor of this resolution, we, in a sense, would be putting the
cart before the horse. It makes much more sense for the Congress,
particularly the Senate, to look at the implementing language after it
is drafted, and agree to the implementing language which addresses
concerns raised by Senators in favor of this resolution.
Once the implementing language comes to the floor of the Senate, we
will have ample, ample opportunity to debate the merits of that
implementing language. That is the proper course. I urge Senators to
follow that course, because that course will result in a much better
product.
We must also remember that it would be unwise to lose sight of the
big picture. What is the big picture? The big picture, frankly, is
there is a lot of good and, I think on a net basis, more good in the
Uruguay Round Agreement. If Congress ratifies the Uruguay Round
Agreement and if the other participating countries ratify it, we
Americans will find that our GDP will increase $200 billion every year;
a massive infusion, a massive addition to the United States gross
domestic product because of provisions in the proposed Uruguay Round
Trade Agreement.
Where are those benefits? One is in intellectual properties. Today,
about $60 billion worth of American intellectual property--that is,
goods for which we have trademarks that are copyrighted--are pirated by
people in other countries to their benefit and to America's
disadvantage.
The proposed world trade agreement, the proposed Uruguay agreement--
they take very significant first steps. There was a ``free rider''
problem in the past; that is, some countries could adopt some portions
of trade agreements and not others. This proposed trade agreement
requires all countries to enact very significant intellectual property,
copyright, and trademark protection that inures to the tremendous
benefit of Americans because most intellectual property pirating is by
other countries pirating American intellectual property. We still are
the most creative society, the most creative country in the world. We
generate more new ideas that we Americans copyright and provide
intellectual property protection for than other countries. This
agreement helps keep those dollars in the United States.
Second, this agreement opens new markets for American farmers,
American agriculture. This agreement will open new markets by about a
third. There are tremendous reductions in export subsidies that other
countries enact that inure to our benefit. Generally, we Americans have
about $1 billion of export subsidies helping promote our agricultural
exports overseas. The European Union has about $10 billion--10 times
what we have. This agreement provides for a 26-percent reduction in
export subsidies. Obviously a 26-percent reduction of $10 billion the
European Union has to face compared to the 26-percent reduction of $1
billion we Americans face means we come out ahead. We come out very
much ahead because of the agriculture provisions in the round. Beyond
that, there are generally major benefits in tariff reduction for
manufactured products, reductions of about one-third.
So, all in all, it is important to realize that this agreement has
tremendous provisions in it which will dramatically increase and give a
boost to the American economy. That means more jobs for Americans.
Mr. President, it is true there are some concerns. One is the so-
called secrecy provision referred to by the Senator from Idaho. That is
a concern I have. I am quite concerned that the dispute settlement
provisions in the proceedings in the World Trade Organization are not
sufficiently transparent, they are too secret. We are going to address
those provisions in the implementing legislation by providing that
Americans can sit in on proceedings. They should sit in on proceedings.
I think it is a real problem the Senator from Idaho properly raised. We
are going to address that.
Second, we have concerns about American sovereignty--very real
concerns about American sovereignty. I think it is important to point
out, though, those same concerns exist today because today we Americans
bring many more cases to the GATT than do other countries. Four-fifths
of the time we Americans prevail in cases we bring to the GATT. Why do
we bring more cases to the GATT than do other countries against us?
Because we are the biggest country. We are the biggest consuming
country. We are the wealthiest country. We Americans buy a lot of other
countries' products and we are also the most open country.
By the way, that is a major benefit of the round in that it lowers
other countries' barriers proportionately more than it lowers ours. But
nevertheless, today we bring more cases to the GATT than other
countries do. And we win four-fifths of the time.
Currently, any other single country can block a GATT panel decision
in America's favor. All it takes is one country. The Reagan
administration and the Bush administration frankly advocated and asked
for, in the GATT negotiations, binding dispute settlement mechanisms so
that no one country in the future could block. Because we are there
more than other countries, we do not want other countries to block.
Currently other countries can block with their one vote. Under the
proposed agreement that will no longer be the case, so we will come out
net beneficiaries.
Second, in those areas where a GATT panel rules against the United
States today, and in the proposed agreement, we Americans--the U.S.
Government--we reserve the authority to either agree or disagree; we
reserve the authority to either change our law or not change our law in
accordance with the GATT panel decision. That is what we have done in
the past. That is also under this proposed agreement what we will do in
the future.
For example, not too many years ago, the GATT panel ruled against the
United States in the so-called tuna/dolphin case. That was a case where
the U.S. Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which
essentially said countries which export tuna into the United States,
tuna caught with fishing nets that catch dolphins--we could not import
tuna caught that way into the United States. That went to a GATT panel.
The GATT panel ruled against the United States.
What did we do? We Americans said: Sorry, we are not going to change
our law. We have not changed our law. We still have the same law. Other
countries have not retaliated.
Why have they not retaliated? Because we are still the biggest
economic power in the world and I expect that will be the case in the
future. The same thing under the proposed agreement. Let us say a panel
rules against us, hypothetically. We reserve the right to either agree
or disagree, reserve the right to either change the American law or not
change.
Let us say we do not want to change our law. Other countries do have
the right to retaliate just as they have today. But whether they do or
do not will depend so much on circumstances and whether they want to
take on the United States, which is the largest, strongest economic
power in the world. So far they have not. I do not think they will in
the future either. So there are a lot of answers to these earlier
initial concerns that a lot of people had. Frankly, I think it is wise
for us, again, not to put the cart before the horse.
I must also point out that we, the Finance Committee and others, are
working with State governments and State associations to find ways to
address the States rights concerns that the Senator from Idaho raised.
Those are good points. They should be addressed and we will be
addressing those.
Finally, to sum up, Mr. President, the U.S. Congress passed so-called
fast-track legislation in 1988, renewed it in 1990, again in 1993. We
in the Congress passed a law setting up this procedure. We wanted
executive agreements. That is what the law says. That is what we
wanted. That is what we provided. We are just here following the law
that the Congress enacted which Republican Presidents have asked for,
which Democratic Presidents have asked for. That is the process. Under
that, we look at the implementing language. If we in the Senate agree
with the implementing language, we ratify it. If we do not, we reject
it. But we have not yet seen the language. So it is difficult not to
prejudge it. I suggest we wait until we get the language, we in the
Senate, and then make a judgment.
I tell my colleagues we in the Finance Committee, again, hear these
concerns. Frankly, we are burning the midnight oil to address them
because some of them are very real concerns.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAUCUS. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator knows we share a concern about the
importance of trade to the country and its economic well-being and
place in the world. But I am pleased to hear the Senator speak about
the dispute resolution provisions. There clearly are questions there
that have to be answered. I did not say I would oppose GATT. I did come
to the floor and speak to this amendment, as the amendment itself
speaks to a concern, trying to bring together our best minds to try to
solve these problems before we get ourselves into trouble. I think that
is the essence of the amendment. It is not anti-GATT and was not
intended to be.
What it is intended to do is to clarify what the World Trade
Organization's authority is and how that might impact a State, and
State tax commissions. I mean, when my State tax commissioners, who are
very bipartisan, and when my State attorney general, who by the way is
of your party and not mine, take the time to call me personally and
say, ``We have some very real problems here, Senator; you ought to
address them before you vote on this thing,'' I think that is a
legitimate concern. And that is what provoked me to begin to examine
the details of the language of the World Trade Organization as proposed
in this agreement, and why I am now a supporter of this amendment.
I guess I am surprised that we would want to oppose this amendment. I
do not believe it is anti-GATT. I think it is desiring to create a
situation and address the very request of the States attorneys general,
and that is of a summit that brings out these issues and resolves them
in the implementing language that you have suggested it could be
resolved in.
I thank the Senator for addressing that issue.
Mr. BAUCUS. Just replying to the Senator, Mr. President, I oppose the
amendment for two reasons: one, because it is premature; and, second,
because it kills any ability of the Congress to consider whether or not
to ratify the GATT this year because of the 90-day provision in the
resolution.
I think it is premature for Congress today, with virtually no debate,
to decide that under no circumstances are we going to take up the
implementing language and whether or not to ratify the GATT this year.
That is premature. Without looking at the implementing language,
without trying to address the implementing language, I think the better
course is to look at the implementing language, if it ever comes--I say
to the Senator, there is a possibility the Senate may not take it up
this year. In fact, I think it is not only a real possibility, but I
think there is some probability that in the normal course of business,
the Congress will not take up the Uruguay round this year.
I say that because I think the administration has done a very poor
job in explaining what this is all about and explaining its benefits.
Second, I think the administration has done a very poor job in trying
to find a way to pay for it. They have not consulted anyone on this
side of the aisle; they have a few on your side of the aisle. I must
say, it is a little strange to me that the President of the United
States would first consult with Members on the minority side before he
consulted with Members on the majority side.
Because of the poor job the administration has done, there is some
probability that it may never come up this year. But if they get their
act together, if it does come up before the Finance Committee soon,
then I think we will have an opportunity to address these issues.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding again. That is why I do
not believe the 90 days is deleterious to the whole issue. I think we
have ample time and I think that is what the Senator felt when he
offered the amendment; that we are not going to deal with it this year.
I guess I must also react by saying I am not terribly surprised this
President would come to the minority party when it comes to trade
issues. I think he had to coalesce with them to get NAFTA through. He
probably feels the same here.
My guess is, though, that if he resolves or works with us to resolve
the very real questions of the World Trade Organization, it can become
a very bipartisan base of support for GATT. If he fails to do that or
if we fail to do that, my guess is that it will be a very bipartisan
voice of opposition to this agreement, and we should not find ourselves
there. We ought to know better and work out these differences before we
get to this very important trade agreement for our country and the
world.
Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that and, just to finish, we will more
likely get a bipartisan agreement if we let the ordinary process
continue than if we do not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I listened with great interest to our friend from
Montana who said something that I did not realize. He said there is
going to be ``plenty of time'' to debate GATT when it comes up on the
floor.
One of the reasons I am apprehensive is that we have the fast track
rules that are going to apply. Debate will be limited, I say to the
Senator from Montana, to 20 hours, no more. Also, no amendment will be
permitted, and that means that what should be a treaty will be
approved--a treaty that no Senator knows much if anything about. I say
to you, Mr. President, that this is a bad way to legislate,
particularly for the U.S. Senate, which has always prided itself as
being the world's greatest deliberative body.
So that leads me to the conclusion, Mr. President, that the U.S.
Senate should overwhelmingly support the pending resolution offered by
the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] and the
others of us who have felt it is absolutely imperative that there be a
delay in the submission to Congress of the GATT agreement until more
public hearings are held.
Mr. President, I do not know how many people in the press gallery
know one thing in the world about this GATT agreement or the World
Trade Organization. If they profess to know anything about it, I would
like to meet them outside. I want them to tell me what they know about
it.
The Senate has the duty to study this massive agreement very
carefully, and the Senate has not done that at all. We need to take a
serious look at this agreement lest a tragic error be made in terms of
the best interests of this country and the American people. So do not
give me all this hogwash about we need to move along, or that this is
not the right vehicle. It is always the ``right vehicle'' when you are
trying to protest something that ought not happen.
There are many citizens who have many concerns about the WTO.
Reference has been made to the State attorneys general--42 of them--who
have written to me and to the President saying, ``Please, hold up on
this thing. We have fears about the attacks on the sovereignty of the
United States.''
Mr. President, I am sick and tired of this business of rolling things
through the Senate not knowing one thing about what the Senate is doing
in the process, just because a President says he would like to have it
done.
If the President will send word up to the Senate that he is not going
to trigger the fast track this year, the Thurmond amendment will be
withdrawn. I have not checked it with Senator Thurmond, but I believe
that if the President does not intend to trigger the fast track moving,
that this argument is over. But, no, they are going to try to slip it
through at the last minute--20 hours of debate and roll it into law.
Last week, 42 State attorneys general wrote to the President saying
in effect, ``Please, delay submitting the GATT agreement for
consideration by the Senate so that a summit,'' as they put it, ``a
summit can be held to discuss how the World Trade Organization impacts
on State laws.'' They are worried about State laws, and I am worried
about U.S. laws.
State tax commissioners, or revenue commissioners as they are called
in some States, have also expressed grave concerns.
No more than a handful of Senators--and let us be honest about this--
have the vaguest notion what is in this massive trade document, and
there have been very few hearings on it. The 42 State attorneys general
are absolutely right, more hearings are imperative before this
agreement is formally considered by the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, we are not playing games here. We are talking about
the sovereignty of the United States of America. This new trade
agreement, and especially the World Trade Organization, could very well
be a prelude to disaster.
One of the great privileges I have had in my life is to serve for 2
years as the junior Senator from North Carolina when Sam Ervin was the
senior Senator. Sam Ervin had been one of the great constitutional
scholars of our time. He was also my friend. We did not belong to the
same party, but I had great affection and respect for him. I believe he
had some for me. After he left the Senate, never a day passed that he
did not call me or I call him. He was a great American.
One of his greatest apprehensions was the danger that international
agreements so often posed to national sovereignty. Time and time again
he called me and said, ``Jesse, watch out for that.'' He often said,
prior to the Vietnam war, that the United States never lost a war, nor
won a treaty. I do not think this was original. I think Will Rogers, or
somebody, said it first. But it is well worth bearing in mind.
Mr. President, I have done my best to uphold Sam Ervin's concerns,
and as long as I am in the Senate, I will continue to make that effort.
But let me make this point. We hear the glib comment: ``Well, this is
so good for trade.'' What kind of trade? What kind of attacks on
sovereignty? I will bet you that there are not 10 Senators, if that
many, who could tell you how many pages there are in this agreement. I
will tell you, it is 825 pages long. It is enough to give you a hernia
trying to carry it around, and it has 22,000 pages of addenda. Do you
want to bet me that 10 Senators know what is in it? You will lose.
In reading parts of this GATT agreement, I found myself amazed. This
agreement, as I have indicated, creates an entirely new international
institution. They call it the World Trade Organization, which is going
to replace the old GATT organization. It has some flaws that Senators
ought to bear in mind.
The WTO takes away the ability of the United States to veto decisions
that are harmful to the best interests of the United States. We have a
right to veto in the United Nations but not in the World Trade
Organization. One might refer to this organization as a ``United
Nations of World Trade,'' except the United States does not have a veto
anymore.
Everybody favors expanding world trade. I find myself a little bit
nauseous at these pious declarations: ``Well, we must have more world
trade.'' Of course, we all want to eliminate world trade barriers. But
while I am for world trade, I am flat out against world government. And
I believe the majority of the American people feel the same way about
it.
Mr. President, let me specify just a few of the concerns that I have
with this so-called World Trade Organization. It is impossible to
mention all of them here; it would take the rest of the afternoon. I do
not want to do that. But let us go over a few of them. Later on, if
anybody wants to hear, I will add a few dozen more concerns.
But, first, under this World Trade Organization, the United States of
America, which is supporting about half the world with foreign aid, has
only 1 vote out of 117. Many important votes will be cast in the next
10 or 25 years if and when this World Trade Organization goes into
being and becomes effective. Votes to amend and votes to interpret the
provisions of the WTO. The WTO will decide how to interpret all of
these 22,000 pages of addenda and 825 pages of the agreement.
Since we have only that one vote, we may very well be outvoted by
Third World countries just as we are in the United Nations where 83 of
the countries vote against the United States 50 percent of the time. At
least we have the power of the veto in the United Nations. But we have
nothing but one vote in the World Trade Organization. These countries
vote against the United States in the United Nations--think about them
in terms of the World Trade Organization: Cuba, Uganda, Ghana, Chad,
Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Bangladesh, Cyprus. At least at the United Nations,
I reiterate for the purpose of emphasis, the United States can veto
decisions with which the United States disagrees because of the adverse
effect on the best interests of this country.
Second, under this World Trade Organization that is going to be put
on a fast track--20 hours of debate, and bye-bye birdie, into law it
goes--the United States gets one vote, but the United States will pay
20 percent of the budget of the World Trade Organization. They are
socking it to Uncle Sugar again.
Why do the American taxpayers always end up on the short end of the
stick? They end up paying most of the tab for these international
organizations. That bothered Sam Ervin and it bothers me. It does not
bother the news media. You will not read one thing about this debate in
the Washington Post tomorrow morning. It will be the best kept secret
in American journalism. And that suits me just fine. But if it is
possible to have any effect whatsoever in slowing down this fast track
that will be imposed on the U.S. Senate, or better put, upon the
American people, I am going to try to do it.
We no longer have the veto to stop the bad decisions. Under the old
GATT each country could effectively exert a veto over a bad decision by
not agreeing to adopt the panel's final decision. That is the way it
used to be. This would preclude another country from retaliating
against the United States.
Under the new World Trade Organization as it is proposed to be, a
country can no longer stop the panel decisions. These World Trade
Organization decisions will be automatically adopted unless the winner
agrees to drop the case. And how many winners do you think are going to
do that? Therefore, if the United States, hypothetically, loses a case
in the new World Trade Organization, what options do we have?
First option. When I say this, Mr. President, Sam Ervin is going to
spin in his grave. The United States can change its laws to conform
with the World Trade Organization. Or the United States could pay
compensation. Or the United States could face trade retaliation. Those
are the three options we have.
Mr. President, the United States will face incredible pressure, do
you not see, to change a law that offends somebody in another country.
It is like having a gun held to Uncle Sam's head: Change your law, give
us money, or we will shoot you. It sounds like certain sections of
Washington, DC, at 3 in the morning.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that the sovereignty of the United
States is so clearly at risk and we are faced so obviously with such
consequences if we refuse to change our laws. Strom Thurmond is right
in sending forward his resolution. I do not care whether it is an
appropriations bill. I do not care whether some think it is not the
right bill. I have managed many a bill since I have been in the Senate,
and I have never objected to anybody's offering an amendment in the
context of his apprehension or her apprehension that the best interests
of this country would not be served otherwise. I challenge anybody to
check the record and see if I have ever objected. I may not have voted
for it, but I have never complained such a serious amendment was not on
the right vehicle. And I never will.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HELMS. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. I do not know if I misunderstood the Senator.
Mr. HELMS. I yield for a question.
Mr. LEAHY. Is the Senator suggesting that the manager of the bill
said that Senators did not have a right to offer an amendment to this
bill?
Mr. HELMS. No, I did not say that.
Mr. LEAHY. Then I misunderstood the Senator. Was the Senator
suggesting that the manager of the bill has in any way impeded the
ability of anybody to offer this amendment?
Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will repeat all after the word
``suggesting,'' I will appreciate it.
Mr. LEAHY. Is the Senator suggesting the manager of the bill was in
any way impeding any Senator from being able to offer the amendment now
before us?
Mr. HELMS. Obviously not, because the manager of the bill does not
have the right to do that in the first place, does he?
Mr. LEAHY. No. In fact, the manager of the bill has said----
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have no personal animus----
Mr. LEAHY. It is not appropriate on an appropriations bill but that
everyone would have a chance to argue----
Mr. HELMS. The Senator has to state his point with the question mark.
I am saying to the Senator that I have no personal animus against the
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. I understand, because I
have been in his shoes, the desire to move a piece of legislation that
he is managing. But I am saying that the statements that I constantly
hear, ``Oh, we must not do this to this bill,'' I think the spirit of
and meaning of the U.S. Senate is for the Senate to speak its will on
what Senators--even a minority of Senators-- feel is bad principle for
this country.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield further for another question?
Mr. HELMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator accept that this is authorizing
legislation on an appropriations?
Mr. HELMS. Absolutely. That does not mean a thing to the American
people, and it means very little to me. I think that the Senate ought
to consider vital issues. We have authorizing bills. We have
appropriations bills. As a general rule, it is fine to go ahead and
have a delineation of the two. However, I have not seen an
appropriations bill in a long time that did not have a lot of
legislation in it. Do you see what I mean?
I am saying to the Senator that I am so concerned about this
sovereignty issue that I intend to have my full say, and if I offend
the Senator, I apologize to him.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield for a question, I hope he does
not think that I am suggesting he is criticizing me. I was in the
Cloakroom and missed part of what he said. That is why I was trying to
find out what he was saying.
The Senator is not suggesting that the manager of this bill would in
any way try to cut off the debate of any Member on this issue.
Mr. HELMS. No, because the Senator cannot do it, unless there are 60
votes.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Would it not have been possible if the Senator who is managing the
bill--is it not a fact that the Senator urged Senators to come to the
floor, and did not move to table as he obvious could have under the
law? In fact, is it not the fact that the Senator says he wants to make
sure that every Senator has been heard on this subject prior to making
a motion to table, something that was available to the Senator from
Vermont, and would have cut off debate on this particular issue?
Mr. HELMS. If I understand what the Senator is saying--and if it is a
question, I did not hear a question mark at the end--in the first
place, any Senator who moves to table an amendment with nobody on the
floor will find themselves in serious personal difficulty the next time
he has something. So I know the Senator from Vermont would not do that.
He is an honorable man. He is a good legislator and a good Senator.
But I do not think I will yield for any more questions. I think the
two Senators, Senator Leahy and Senator Helms, understand each other. I
will probably wind up here in a little bit so somebody else can have
the floor.
Mr. President, under the old GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, each country could effectively exert that veto that I
discussed over an undesirable decision by not agreeing to adopt the
panel's final decision. That is what I was saying before the
distinguished Senator from Vermont asked his several questions.
A fourth concern is the impact that the new World Trade Organization
can have on State laws, and those 42 attorneys general have addressed
that situation very, very clearly. Foreign countries, do you not see,
have the ability to challenge the laws of any one or all of the 50
States of the Union. All they have to do is file a case with the World
Trade Organization. Canada, as a matter of fact, did exactly that sort
of thing when it challenged the tax laws on beer of some 40 U.S.
States, and Canada won. Now the administration is trying to convince
some States to change those laws.
But under the new World Trade Organization, the Federal Government
will put pressure on States to change law. As a result, obviously, many
States may be compelled to change some of their laws. That is why the
attorneys general of the 42 States wrote a collective letter to
President Clinton expressing their concern. These 42 attorneys general
requested that a State-Federal consultation summit be held either this
month, July, or next month, August, before the administration submits
the implementing bill. And the Thurmond resolution responds to the
concerns of the States attorneys general and calls for a delay so that
this summit can take place.
That is a valid amendment, whether it is an appropriations bill, or
authorization bill, or anything else because that takes precedence in
my mind over any other thing. When we start playing around with the
sovereignty of the United States of America, that is time for the
Senate to act under whatever rule it chooses.
Let me read a little bit of what the attorneys general wrote to Mr.
Clinton. It said:
Dear Mr. President: As defenders of State laws, State
attorneys general have a particularly keen interest in State
sovereignty. The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, which is expected to be submitted to
Congress under fast-track authority soon, appears to have
broad implications for States' self government. Given the
paramount importance that the U.S. Constitution assigns to
States' rights, we would like to request a State-Federal
consultation summit on this issue to be held in July or
August before the administration submits implementing
legislation.
Mr. President, does that sound familiar? That is exactly what Strom
Thurmond is asking the Senate to approve. Forty-two attorneys general
in the United States have asked the President to do this. I do not know
whether they received a reply from him or not. Then the letter says:
We are requesting a summit to give State officials the
benefit of a thorough airing of the concerns about how the
Uruquay Round and the proposed World Trade Organization would
affect State laws and regulations. Many State officials still
have questions about how some of our State laws and
regulations would fare under the WTO.
I will say, parenthetically, you bet they have concerns, and the U.S.
Senate, all 100 of us, ought to have the same concerns about Federal
law, and Federal sovereignty.
The letter goes on to say:
As you know, the U.S. Trade Representative's office is
charged with an interesting set of responsibilities. On the
one hand, its primary responsibility is to promote U.S.
exports and international trade. Yet, on the other hand, the
Trade Representative's office is charged with the
responsibility of protecting State sovereignty and defending
State law [any State law] challenged in the various
international dispute tribunals. Given the inevitable
conflict in fulfilling both sets of these responsibilities,
we would like to take advantage of the proposed summit to
clarify a range of serious concerns, including: One, whether
the implementing legislation adequately guarantees States
that the Federal Government will genuinely consider accepting
trade sanctions rather than pressuring States to change State
laws which are successfully challenged in the WTO.
Mr. President, I will say to the distinguished manager of the bill on
the Republican side--I see him smiling--I do not know who wrote this
letter. But whoever wrote it ought to get a bonus because the author of
this letter, who is speaking for the 42 State attorneys general, is
hitting it right on target.
The second thing they indicate is ``whether States have a guaranteed
right and formalized process in which they could participate in
defending their own State laws.'' Of course. These State attorneys
general are right on target. Then they say: ``We want to know whether
the USTR is required to engage in regular consultation with the States,
and involve any State whose measures may be challenged in the defense
of that measure at the earliest possible opportunity.''
That is another great point.
Then they want to know ``whether parties challenging a State measure
under GATT will be able to prevail based on the fact that one State law
is simply more or less restrictive than another State,'' and ``whether
GATT grants any private party a right of action to challenge a State
law in Federal court,'' and so on and so on.
I ask unanimous consent that the full letter of the 42 attorneys
general be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
State of Maine, Department of the Attorney General,
Augusta, ME, July 6, 1994.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
President of the United States,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Clinton: As defenders of State laws, State
Attorneys General have a particularly keen interest in State
sovereignty. The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which is expected to be submitted
to Congress under fast-track authority soon, appears to have
broad implications for State self-government. Given the
paramount importance that the U.S. Constitution assigns to
State's rights, we would like to request a State-Federal
Consultation Summit on this issue, to be held in July or
August, before the Administration submits implementing
legislation. Although we have agreed to take the lead on this
issue, because it affects all State officials, an invitation
would be extended to State executive and legislative branches
as well.
We are requesting a Summit to give State officials the
benefit of a thorough airing of concerns about how the
Uruguay Round and the proposed World Trade Organization (WTO)
would affect State laws and regulations. Many State officials
still have questions about how some of our State laws and
regulations would fare under the WTO and its dispute
resolution panels. This is of particular concern given that
some of our trading partners have apparently identified
specific State laws which they intend to challenge under the
WTO.
As you know, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office (USTR)
is charged with an interesting set of responsibilities. On
one hand, its primary responsibility is to promote U.S.
exports and international trade. Yet, on the other hand, the
Trade Representative's Office is charged with the
responsibility of protecting State sovereignty and defending
any State law challenged in the various international dispute
tribunals. Given the inevitable conflict in fulfilling both
sets of these responsibilities, we would like to take
advantage of the proposed Summit to clarify a range of
serious concerns, including:
Whether the implementing legislation adequately guarantees
States that the federal government will genuinely consider
accepting trade sanctions rather than pressuring States to
change State laws which are successfully challenged in the
WTO.
Whether States have a guaranteed right and a formalized
process in which they can participated in defending their own
State laws.
Whether the USTR is required to engage in regular
consultation with the States, and involve any State whose
measures may be challenged in the defense of that measure at
the earliest possible opportunity.
Whether parties challenging a State measure under GATT will
be able to prevail based on the fact that one State law is
simply more or less restrictive than another State's.
Whether GATT grants any private party a right of action to
challenge a State law in federal court.
Whether an adverse WTO panel decision can be interpreted as
the foreign policy of the United States without the
subsequent ratification of the Congress and the President.
Whether GATT panel reports and any information submitted by
the States to the USTR during the reservation process are
admissible as evidence in any federal court proceeding.
Whether a panel decision purporting to overturn State law
shall be implemented only prospectively.
Whether the federal government may sue a State and
challenge a State measure under GATT without an adverse WTO
panel decision.
How will adverse WTO panel decisions impact State laws
covering pesticide residues, food quality, environmental
policy including recycling, or consumer health safety, where
State standards are more stringent than federal or
international standards.
Whether so-called ``unitary taxation,'' which assesses the
State taxes corporations pay on the basis of a corporation's
worldwide operations, be illegal under GATT.
Whether States may maintain public procurement laws that
favor in-State business in bidding for public contracts.
How well protected is a State law if it is included within
the coverage of U.S. reservations to the new GATT agreements.
Whether the United States can import some due process
guarantees into the WTO dispute resolution system, now that
the negotiations are over, the WTO panel proceedings remain
closed and documents confidential.
In responding to our request for this GATT Summit, please
have staff contact Christine T. Milliken, Executive Director
and General Counsel of the National Association of Attorneys
General, at (202) 434-8053. Although the Association has
taken no formal position on this issue, the Association
provides liaison service upon request when fifteen or more
Attorneys General express an interest in a key subject.
Further, the Association through action at its recent
Summer Meeting has instructed staff to develop in concert
with the Office of U.S. Trade Representative an ongoing
mechanism for consultation. The Association participates in
several federal-state work groups, principally with the U.S.
Department of Justice and also with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that might serve as a starting point for
developing a model for an effective ongoing dialogue with the
USTR on emerging issues in this key area.
Respectfully yours,
Michael E. Carpenter,
Attorney General of Maine.
The following attorneys general signed the letter:
Alabama: Jimmy Evans; Alaska: Bruce M. Botelho; Arizona:
Grant Woods; Colorado: Gale A. Norton; Connecticut: Richard
Blumenthal; Delaware: Charles M. Oberly, III; Florida: Robert
A. Butterworth; Hawaii: Robert A. Marks; Idaho: Larry
EchoHawk; Illinois: Roland W. Burris; Indiana: Pamela Fanning
Carter; Iowa: Bonnie J. Campbell; Kansas: Robert T. Stephan;
Kentucky: Chris Gorman; Maine: Michael Carpenter; Maryland:
J. Joseph Curran, Jr.; Massachusetts: Scott Harshbarger;
Michigan: Frank J. Kelley; Minnesota: Hubert H. Humphrey,
III; Mississippi: Mike Moore; Missouri: Jeremiah W. Nixon;
Montana: Joseph F. Mazurek; Nevada: Frankie Sue Del Papa; New
Hampshire: Jeffrey R. Howard; New Jersey: Deborah T. Poritz;
New Mexico: Tom Udall; New York: G. Oliver Koppell; North
Carolina: Michael F. Easley; North Dakota: Heidi Heitkamp;
Northern Mariana Islands: Richard Weil; Ohio: Lee Fisher;
Oregon: Theodore R. Kulongoski; Pennsylvania: Ernest D.
Preate, Jr.; Puerto Rico: Pedro R. Pierluisi; Rhode Island:
Jeffrey B. Pine; South Carolina: T. Travis Medlock;
Tennessee: Charles W. Burson; Texas: Dan Morales; Utah: Jan
Graham; Vermont: Jeffrey L. Amestoy; Virginia: James S.
Gilmore, III; Washington: Christine O. Gregoire; West
Virginia: Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.; Wyoming: Joseph B. Meyer.
Mr. PRESSLER. Will my friend yield for a friendly question?
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thought he was friendly--he being the
distinguished Senator from Vermont. As I said to the Senator from
Vermont, I have no animus against him at all. He and I have been
friends ever since he came to the Senate, and certainly the Senator is
my friend.
Mr. PRESSLER. Would it not be true that this should be a treaty based
on the criterion that has been established? There was a report by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on when a treaty is a treaty, and is
it not true that they outline four points: That the parties intend the
agreement to be legally binding, subject to international law, deal
with significant matters, as this agreement does, and it specifically
describes the legal obligations of the parties, and the form indicates
that intention to include a party on the substance rather than forms of
the governing factor. Furthermore, to conclude my question, the Senate
Finance Committee debated this in 1947.
Mr. HELMS. Exactly.
Mr. PRESSLER. The chairman was Eugene D. Milliken. Perhaps my friend
knew him. I am not asking anything about his age here, merely a
question. The Finance Committee suggested the following test be
determined: Whether a treaty should be submitted to the Senate for a
two-thirds approval.
Is it not true that they state the proper distinction is when we go
beyond conventional marks, duties, customs, and management of foreign
trade commerce, the point where the proper field of treaty comes in,
whenever you come to the matter where there is substantial
disparagements of our sovereignty, to a matter where sanctions may be
imposed against the United States, exactly what this does, by an
international body, then you have entered the field for treaties; is
that not true that the Finance Committee and Foreign Relations
Committee both had such findings?
Mr. HELMS. The Senator is exactly right. He anticipated a point I was
going to make later, which I will not make because he has made it so
eloquently.
But the real point is that I have an aversion to the fast track in
general, because I think it complicates the life of any Senator who
really wants to perform adequately and completely in defense of the
principles of this country. I do not say that anybody connected with
WTO, or anybody who supports it, is not in favor of protecting the
sovereignty of this country. But this fast track, which somebody sort
of ingeniously fabricated in recent years, does not permit the Senate
to study a treaty to the complete satisfaction of every Senator. This
business of saying we are going to discuss it fully is just absolutely
nonsense. We are allocated 20 hours, which is stipulated by the fast
track rules.
Mr. President, State tax officials wrote a letter that states the
following:
We are deeply concerned about the power over state and
local taxes that the new General Agreement of Tariffs and
Trade [GATT] will give the World Trade Organization [WTO].
Our analysis reveals that these provisions will undermine
state and local fiscal sovereignty and likely favor business
over U.S. taxpayers.
We have no objections to those provisions of the GATT
designed to encourage trade. However, the WTO provisions
applicable to State and local taxes exceed legitimate trade
concerns. They are likely to have unintended, but
significant, consequences for State sovereignty and
federalism.
Furthermore, the Federation of Tax Administrators and the Multistate
Tax Commission prepared a report that talked about the GATT case that
Canada brought challenging dozens of state beer tax laws. The report
concluded:
The Beer II panel struck at the very heart of federalism.
The panel's reasoning leaves no room for different laws based
on different local circumstances, nor for any range of
judgment, regardless of absence of any discriminatory intent
in those judgments, to be exercised by different State
sovereigns. Indeed, the combination of the least restrictive
measure standard and the acceptance of de facto arguments
leaves all State law potentially at risk of being subject to
challenge under the aegis of GATT.
Mr. President, the concerns of 42 State attorney general and the tax
administrators are very legitimate. Dozens or perhaps hundreds of State
laws could be attacked by foreign countries. As a matter of fact, the
European Union issued a book entitled ``Report on United States
Barriers to Trade and Investment.'' This report contains 111 pages of
Federal and State laws that the EU claims are barriers and that the
Europeans may challenge in the WTO.
Mr. President, some claim that there is no sovereignty problem
because the United States can ignore a bad decision and not change our
law. What kind of reasoning is that? Our sovereignty, it seems to me,
is affected when the courses of action that the United States can take
are restricted.
The fact is, the United States will face serious consequences if we
ignore a WTO decision. If we refuse to change our law, then we will
face trade retaliation from the winning country. Relations is a nice
word for a trade war. The only other alternative is to settle the case
by paying the winner some kind of compensation--like money--which comes
from the taxpayers' pockets.
Mr. President, the concern is real: The United States has lost
several GATT cases--the beer case, the tuna dolphin case to name a
couple. The administration is trying to change the beer tax laws in the
implementing bill. And the United States is about to lose another one--
the Germans have challenged our gas guzzler tax and our CAFE laws. The
retaliation in these two alone could be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars.
Let me read a few quotes from several news articles that are quite
revealing:
From the BNA Report--March 28, 1994:
A GATT panel ruled in 1989 that section 337 discriminates
unfairly against foreign imports. A GATT panel ruling in
1992, initiated by Canada, found that the United States was
imposing unfair excise taxes on imports of Canadian beer. The
administration plans to implement two panel rulings of the
GATT.
From the Wall Street Journal--March 18, 1994:
The Clinton administration is preparing to withdraw a
clean-air regulation challenged by Venezuela under the GATT.
Officials concluded at a White House meeting this week that
the regulation would have to be withdrawn and modified
because in its present form it was likely to violate GATT.
From the Journal of Commerce--March 11, 1994:
Two rulings expected soon from the trade-monitoring General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade could require changes in the
U.S. environmental law GATT members are challenging aspects
of U.S. fuel economy standards that some argue are tougher
for foreign manufacturers.
Mr. President, how many U.S. laws could be challenged? If we want to
maintain U.S. laws that the WTO finds are illegal, will we face a trade
war? How much money will the United States have to pay to settle a case
to avoid a trade war? Are we prepared to pass those cost along to the
American taxpayer?
Mr. President, these are just a few examples of issues that merit
serious and thoughtful debate. I urge the Congress to support this
resolution that calls for a 60-day delay. Forty-two State attorneys
general want more time. And the Congress should take time to hold more
hearings on this serious subject.
Well, Mr. President, I have occupied the floor longer than I
intended. Senator Pressler is here.
I thank the Chair for recognizing me, and I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in animated opposition to this
measure. It would be such a departure from our procedures and such a
loss to the Nation that it is difficult to imagine that we are even
debating it now.
Yesterday, Mr. President, I came to the floor as chairman of the
Committee on Finance, which is the committee that will be principally
occupied with the question of the Uruguay round. But the Committee on
Agriculture will have real responsibilities, and they will be part of
the final legislation. And I sent a message--as I hoped to do--to the
administration saying two things: No. 1, we were disturbed to read in
the Wall Street Journal on Friday that White House aides were not sure
the Congress would get to the Uruguay round implementing legislation in
this Congress, which is exactly the opposite of our intention. And that
Friday story appeared 1 day after we sent notice to each member of the
Finance Committee that next Tuesday, July 19, we would begin marking up
the implementing legislation.
We have been hard at work for the better part of a year. The Uruguay
round was finally approved in December of last year, and initialed in
Marrakesh in April. We have been steadily at work on this matter, under
the fast track procedures that were specifically approved,
overwhelmingly approved, in the Senate for the specific purpose of
giving President Clinton the authority to finish up the negotiation,
which was done. That negotiation took 7 years. It was the initiative in
the first place of President Reagan; President Bush pursued it, and
President Clinton was on hand at the conclusion. But it is a wholly
bipartisan measure. And I said yesterday, and will repeat, that it
marks the culmination of 60 years of American trade policy.
From the time that Cordell Hull, Secretary of State under President
Roosevelt, began the reciprocal trade agreements, trying--too late, as
it happened--to bring the world back from the closed trading system
that was precipitated by the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. In the course
of about 3 years, world trade dropped 60 percent, depression deepened
everywhere, totalitarian regimes came to power in Europe, the
expansionist Japanese ``Co-Prosperity Sphere'' began in the Far East,
the British Commonwealth moved away from free trade and went to a
Commonwealth preference, unemployment reached 25 percent in our
country--well, it was too late to prevent the Second World War that
followed in the wake of these events. Smoot-Hawley was not the only
event that led to that war, but a profoundly important event.
In the aftermath of the war, our Government thought to create a
series of international economic organizations that would learn the
lessons of the 1930's. We would learn about currencies and exchange
rates, and so we created the International Monetary Fund. We would
learn about the movement of capital, and we would create the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now known as the
World Bank; and we would learn from the disaster of beggar-thy-neighbor
trade policies of the 1930's, the disaster which began on this floor,
sir, and would create an international trade organization.
The World Bank was put in place, and the Monetary Fund was put in
place. The International Trade Organization was not. It died in the
Senate Finance Committee. But a temporary arrangement, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, was worked out in Geneva. As I remarked
yesterday, I can recall from the negotiations of the Long-Term Cotton
and Textile Agreement of 1962, when the GATT consisted of Eric Wyndham
White, former British treasury official and civil servant, and a few
secretaries in a small villa looking over the city of Geneva.
(Mr. ROBB assumed the chair.)
Mr. MOYNIHAN. But now after 7 years of negotiations, we have produced
a world agreement with 117 nations which eliminates tariffs by about a
third across the world, contemplates the end of agricultural subsidies
such that American farm exports can have the place to which they
economically are entitled in world trade, ensures intellectual property
rights in developing nations, and does an extraordinary range of other
things. It is a 22,000-page agreement, if you include the country
schedules.
It creates a World Trade Organization, basically the same mechanism
that was anticipated back in 1945 and 1946. It is, as the GATT is, a
forum in which trade issues are worked out, new agreements are reached,
as was the Uruguay round, an agreement under the GATT. The next such
world agreement will be under the World Trade Organization. And there
is a dispute settlement mechanism.
People who trade together will have disputes, and they have an
interest in arranging for their resolution.
As to the United States and Canada, my friend from North Carolina was
mentioning that. When we had the United States-Canadian Free-Trade
Agreement, we put in a dispute settlement arrangement. It did not
threaten the sovereignty of Canada; it did not threaten the sovereignty
of the United States. It just means that we get these things settled.
Sometimes the cases will go against you, and sometimes they will go for
you. That is the way trade is. There are many, many issues involved.
In no sense does this new organization contemplate changing American
domestic law.
I have a letter here from the distinguished jurist, Robert H. Bork,
who wrote to Ambassador Kantor on May 26 saying that it is impossible
to see a threat to this Nation's sovereignty posed by either the World
Trade Organization or the dispute settlement arrangement.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Robert H. Bork,
Washington, DC, May 26, 1994.
Ambassador Michael Kantor,
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
Washington, DC.,
Dear Mr. Ambassador: I understand that opposition to the
Uruguay Round agreements has focused on the creation of the
World Trade Organization [WTO]. The claim, which was also
made with respect to NAFTA, is that the WTO is a threat to
the sovereignty of the United States.
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that some of those
who make this claim are actually opposed to the lowering of
tariff and non-tariff barriers in international trade. The
protectionist impulse is strong but it is contrary to the
best interests of American business, workers, and consumers.
The sovereignty issue, in particular, is merely a
scarecrow. Under our constitutional system, no treaty or
international agreement can bind the United States if it does
not wish to be bound. Congress may at any time override such
an agreement or any provision of it by statute. (The
President would, or course, participate as the Constitution
provides in the enactment of such a statute.) Congress should
be reluctant to renege on an agreement except in serious
cases, but that is a matter of international comity and not a
loss of sovereignty.
The same observations apply to the Dispute Settlement
Understanding [DSU]. A mechanism for settling trade disputes
is essential if the aims of the Uruguay Round agreements are
to be achieved. It is extremely unlikely that any country
will agree with all recommendations as to the resolution of
the disputes in which it is involved. There is no dispute
resolution process anywhere that can achieve that result.
Once again, however, recommendations made under the DSU do
not bind Congress and the Executive Branch unless those
departments of government choose to be bound.
Protection of U.S. sovereignty, however, does not depend
solely on the undoubted ability of our political branches to
nullify or modify agreements or recommendations. The WTO
itself contains numerous safeguards concerning procedures
which protect not only the sovereignty but the interests of
all nations, including the United States. It appears that
these safeguards are either the same as or stronger than
those already existing in the GATT, under which we have
operated successfully for decades.
In sum, it is impossible to see a threat to this nation's
sovereignty posed by either the WTO or the DSU. Any agreement
liberalizing international trade would necessarily contain
mechanisms similar to those in the Uruguay Round agreements.
The claim that such mechanisms are a danger to U.S.
sovereignty is not merely wrong but would, if accepted, doom
all prospects for freer trade achieved by multi-national
agreement.
Yours truly,
Robert H. Bork.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, to continue what I was saying yesterday,
the Finance Committee, having worked on this for the better part of a
year, next Tuesday, if we get a signal from the President and get from
the President the financing mechanism which he proposes, we will
proceed to draft legislation. They will do the same or are doing the
same on the House side. We will work our bills together.
Then, under this arrangement we have worked out, having in mind that
disaster of 1930, we will transmit to the President this legislation
which he will propose to us as a bill. We will have drafted this
legislation. It will be a bipartisan effort in the Finance Committee,
and several other committees.
The proposal to give the President an extension of his fast-track
negotiating authority passed the Finance Committee a year ago 18 to 2,
so the President could go to the G-7 summit in Tokyo, and say we are
ready to finish up this negotiation, which was done in about 6 months'
time.
This would stop it. This would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
This could be the kind of decision that we made in the thirties that
triggered a world depression and helped trigger a world war.
I am not arguing we are about to do that, but we can break up after
the cold war into separate trading blocs. We could do that. There is a
whiff of that in the world right now and the realization that, no, do
not--a thousand economists wrote President Hoover saying, ``Do not sign
that Smoot-Hawley tariff.'' He signed it anyway, and the 1930's
commenced, ending with war.
I am not making any such melodramatic proposals, but I am saying this
could be the end of the free-trading system that the United States has
triumphantly put in place. We have in the Uruguay round the culmination
of 60 years of American foreign trade policy that has taken place
through Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. This particular
measure, I would remind my friends in the Senate, the Uruguay round was
initiated by President Reagan, having been given the authority to do so
under the fast-track mechanism by the Congress.
President Reagan got going very well indeed. President Bush
proceeded. It took 7 years. And then when the time ran out and the
newest President in line, in this case Mr. Clinton, needed an extension
of fast-track authority, we gave it to him because we want this.
Mr. President, there is an organization put together recently called
the Alliance for GATT Now. It represents 200,000 American businesses.
It is an astonishing list. Any Member of the Senate would want to look
at it to see the firms from his or her own State, to see firms that are
in just about every State.
The organization is headed by the distinguished chairman of Texas
Instruments, Jerry Junkins with whom I have met and discussed this
matter at some length.
I think this organization, if anything, could be said to represent
the judgment of the American business community, that this is a job-
creating, wealth-creating agreement, a measure that the United States
has worked for and now is about to achieve.
I ask unanimous consent that the membership of the Alliance for GATT
Now be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Alliance for GATT Now Membership
3M (St. Paul, MN).
Abbott Laboratories (North Chicago, IL).
ABI Irrigation, Inc. (Monroeville, PA).
A.C. Products Inc. (Apple Creek, OH).
Access International Markets, Ltd (Milwaukee, WI).
Ace Hardware Corporation (Oak Brook, IL).
Aerospace Industries Association (Washington, DC).
Aetna Life & Casualty Company (Hartford, CT).
Air L.A. (Los Angeles, CA).
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Allentown, PA).
Aire-Mate Inc. (Westfield, IN).
AlliedSignal Inc. (Morristown, NJ).
Almerica Overseas, Inc. (Tuscaloosa, AL).
The Aluminum Association, Inc. (Washington, DC).
AMC Entertainment Int'l (Kansas City, MO).
America's Voice Communications (Studio City, CA).
American Assoc. of Exporters & Importers, (New York, NY).
American Brands, Inc. (Greenwich. CT).
American Business Conference (Washington, DC).
American Cyanamid Company (Wayne, NJ).
American Electric Power Company, Inc. (Columbus, OH).
American Electronics Association (Washington, DC).
American Express Company (New York, NY).
American Furniture Manufacturers Association (Washington,
DC).
American Home Products Corp, (Madison, NJ).
American Insurance Association (Washington, DC).
American International Group (New York, NY).
American Iron & Steel Institute (Washington, DC).
American Maize Products Co. (Stamford, CT).
American Mining Congress (Washington, DC).
American Petroleum Institute (Washington, DC).
American President Companies (Oakland, CA).
American Standard (New York, NY).
Ameritech (Chicago, IL).
Amoco Corporation (Chicago, IL).
AMP Incorporated (Harrisburg, PA).
Ampacey International (Tarrytown, NY).
AMR Corporation (Dallas, TX).
Anheuser-Busch Companies (St. Louis, MO).
Antelope Valley Board of Trade (Lancaster, CA).
APAN Corporation (Owings Mills, MD).
Applause, Inc. (Woodland Hills, CA).
ARCO (Los Angeles, CA).
Argyle Atlantic Corporation (Phoenix, AZ).
Armstrong World Industries (Lancaster, PA).
Arthur Andersen & Co., SC (Chicago, IL).
Arvin Industries Inc. (Columbus, IN).
ASARCO, Inc. (New York, NY).
Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. (Stamford, CT).
Ashland Oil, Inc. (Ashland, KY).
Associated Merchandising Corp. (Washington, DC).
Association of American Railroads (Washington, DC).
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
(Arlington, VA).
AT&T (Basking Ridge, NJ).
A.T.C.I. (Richardson, TX).
Atlanta Customs Brokers (Atlanta, GA).
Avon Products, Inc. (New York, NY).
Azimex International (Greenwood Lake, NY).
Azon USA Inc. (Kalamazoo, MI).
Baker Hughes Inc. (Houston, TX).
Baldor Electric Company (Fort Smith, AR).
Bane One Corp. (Columbus, OH).
Bankers Trust Corp. (New York, NY).
Baxter International Inc. (Deerfield, IL).
Bechtel Group Inc. (San Francisco, CA).
Beehive Botanicals (Hayword, WI).
Bell Atlantic (Philadelphia, PA).
BellSouth Corporation (Atlanta, GA).
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Bethlehem, PA).
BFC Industries (Bremen, IN).
BFGoodrich Company (Akron, OH).
The Black & Decker Corporation (Towson, MD).
BMC Specialties (Columbia, SC).
The Boeing Company (Seattle, WA).
Booth & Associates (Scottsdale, AZ).
BP America (Cleveland, OH).
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Nashville, TN).
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (New York, NY).
Browning-Ferris Industries (Houston, TX).
Bruce Foods Corporation (New Iberia. LA).
Burlington Northern International Services, Inc. (Fort
Worth, TX).
The Business Roundtable (Washington, DC).
BW/IP International, Inc. (Long Beach, CA).
Cable & Wireless, Inc. (Vienna, VA).
California Chamber of Commerce (Sacramento, CA).
California Council for International Trade (San Francisco,
CA).
Campbell Soup Company (Camden, NJ).
Capital Cities/ABC (New York, NY).
Cargill (Minneapolis, MN).
Carolina Power & Light Company (Raleigh, NC).
Carolyn Warner and Associates (Phoenix, AZ).
CASAS International Brokerage (San Diego, CA).
Cascade Corporation (Portland, OR).
Case Logic, Inc. (Longmont, CO).
Caterpillar, Inc. (Peoria, IL).
Cemex/Sunwest Materials (Washington, DC).
Ceridian Corporation (Minneapolis, MN).
Cezadon Group, Inc. (Indianapolis, IN).
Chase Manhattan Bank (New York, NY).
Chemical Banking Corporation (New York, NY).
Chemical Manufacturers Association (Washington, DC).
Chevron Corporation (San Fransisco, CA).
The Chubb Corp. (Warren, NJ).
CIGNA Corporation (Philadelphia, PA).
Cintron Lehner Barrett, Inc. (Dallas, TX).
Circuit City Stores, Inc. (Richmond, VA).
Citicorp/Citibank (New York, NY).
Citizens for a Sound Economy (Washington, DC).
Clarklift of San Diego, Inc. (San Diego, CA).
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (Cleveland, OH).
Clorox Company (Oakland, CA).
Coalition for Open Markets & Expanded Trade (Washington,
DC).
Coalition of New England Companies for Trade (Washington,
DC).
Coalition of Service Industries (Washington, DC).
The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, GA).
Coergon, Inc. (Boulder, CO).
Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, NY).
The Columbia Gas System, Inc. (Wilmington, DE).
Columbia Healthcare Corp.
Committee For Economic Development (Washington, DC).
Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports (Washington, DC).
Computer & Business Equipment manufacturers Association
(Washington, DC).
Computer & Communications Industry Association (Washington,
DC).
ConAgra (Omaha, NE).
Connell Company (Westfield, NJ).
Consumers for World Trade (Washington, DC).
Cooper Industries (Houston, TX).
Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc. (Washington, DC).
Corn Refiners Association, Inc. (Washington, DC).
Corning Incorporated (Corning, NY).
Corpus International (Ellicott City, MD).
Cosmopolitan Business Comm., Inc. (Arvada, CO).
CPC International, Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Crane Cams, Inc. (Daytona Beach, FL).
Creed Rice Company, Inc. (Houston, TX).
CSX Corporation (Richmond, VA).
Cummins Engine Co., Inc. (Columbus, IN).
Curtis Dyna-Fog Ltd. (Westfield, IN).
Custom Duplication (Inglewood, CO).
Customs Consultants (No. Tonawanda, NY).
Daimler-Benz Washington (Washington, DC).
Dana Corporation (Toledo, OH).
Data General Corp. (Westboro, MA).
Davis, Keller & Davis (Langley, WA).
Dayton Hudson Corporation (Minneapolis, MN).
Deere & Company (Moline, IL).
Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Atlanta, GA).
Denver Business & Economics Council (Denver, CO).
Detroit Diesel Corporation (Detroit, MI).
The Dial Corporation (Phoenix, AZ).
Digital Equipment Corporation (Maynard, MA).
Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (Washington, DC).
Dodge-Reupol, Inc. (Lancaster, PA).
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (Chicago, IL).
Dormont Mfg. Co. (Export, PA).
Dow Chemical Company (Midland, MI).
DPL Inc. (Dayton, OH).
Dresser Industries (Dallas, TX).
Drexel Chemical Company (Memphis, TN).
E.J. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (Wilmington, DE).
The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. (New York, NY).
Duracell International (Bethel, CT).
E'Lan International, Inc. (Newport Beach, CA).
Eastman Chemical Company (Kingsport, TN).
Eastman Kodak Co. (Rochester, NY).
Eaton Corporation (Cleveland, OH).
EBCO Manufacturing Company (Columbus, OH).
EBW, Inc. (Muskegon, MI).
Ecology International Ltd., Corp. (Akron, OH).
Economic Development Consortium (Georgetown, SC).
Ed Garber Associates (Los Angeles, CA).
EDS Corporation (Washington, DC).
Electronic Industries Association (Washington, DC).
Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN).
Emergency Committee for American Trade (Washington, DC).
Emerson Electric Company (St. Louis, MO).
Engle-Hambright & Davies, Inc. (Lancaster, PA).
Enron Corporation (Houston, TX).
Equipment Manufacturers Institute (Chicago, IL).
The Equitable Companies Inc. (New York, NY).
Ernst & Young (New York, NY).
Eubanks Engineering Co. (Monrovia, CA).
Exxon Corporation (Irving, TX).
Fairfield Chair Company (Lenoir, NC).
Fairmount Minerals, Limited (Chardon, OH).
Faison-Stone, Inc. (Irving, TX).
Federal Express Corporation (Memphis, TN).
Filter Specialists, Inc. (Michigan City, IN).
First Brands Corporation (Danbury, CT).
Fluor Corporation (Irvine, CA).
FMC Corporation (Chicago, IL).
Food Marketing Institute (Washington, DC).
Ford New Holland, Inc. (New Holland, PA).
Gannett Co., Inc. (Arlington, VA).
GenCorp Inc. (Fairlawn, OH).
General Electric Co. (Fairfield, CT).
General Mills, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN).
General Motors Corporation (Detroit, MI).
General Tire, Inc. (Akron, OH).
George Koch Sons, Inc. (Evansville, IN).
Georgia Ports Authority.
Gilbert & VanCampen Int'l (New York, NY).
The Gillette Company (Boston, MA).
Global Export & Import (Reseda, CA).
Global Manufacturing, Inc. (Little Rock, AR).
Global Overseas Services, Inc. (Houston, TX).
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Akron, OH).
Grant Thornton (Los Angeles, CA).
Great West International, Inc. (Englewood, CO).
Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce (Dallas, TX).
Greater Houston Partnership (Houston, TX).
Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce (Miami, FL).
Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce (San Diego, CA).
Grocery Manufacturers Association (Washington, DC).
Groth Corporation (Houston, TX).
Grupo Cisneros International (Lakewood, CO).
GTE Corporation (Stamford, CT).
Halliburton Co. (Dallas, TX).
Hallmark Cards, Inc. (Kansas City, MO).
Harris Associates/The Oatmark Funds (Chicago, IL).
Harris Corporation (Melbourne, FL).
Hasbro Inc. (Pawtucket, RI).
Health Industry Manufacturers Association (HIMA)
(Washington, DC).
Henry Vogt Machine Company (Louisville, KY).
Hercules Incorporated (Wilmington, DE).
Hershey Foods Corporation (Hershey, PA).
Heublein, Inc. (Washington, DC).
Heukel Corporation (Ambler, PA).
Hewlett-Packard Company (Palo Alto, CA).
HHS Export Trading Company (Alhambra, CA).
Hidden Creek Industries (Troy, MI).
Honeywell Inc. (Minneapolis, MN).
Horix MFG. Co. (Pittsburgh, PA).
Household International (Prospect Heights, IL).
Hufcor, Inc. (Janesville, WI).
IBM Corp. (Armonk, NY).
IKR Corporation (Houston, TX).
Illinois Corn Growers Assoc. (Bloomington, IL).
Illinois Department of Agriculture (Springfield, IL).
Illinois Tool Works (Glenview, IL).
IMCERA Group, Inc. (Northbrook, IL).
Importmex (Baltimore, MD).
Indiana Chamber of Commerce (Indianapolis, IN).
Information Technology Association of America (Arlington,
VA).
Ingersoll-Rand Company (Woodcliffe Lakes, NJ).
Inland Empire International Business Association (Moreno
Valley, CA).
InouMar Products, Inc. (Houston, TX).
Intel Corporation (Santa Clara, CA).
Intellectual Property Committee (Washington, DC).
Intellectual Property Owners Association (Washington, DC).
International Association of Drilling Contractors
(Washington, DC).
International Business Consultants (Lakewood, CO).
International Business Services I.B.S. (Chicago, IL).
International Insurance Council (Washington, DC).
International Mass Retail Association (Washington, DC).
International Paper Company (New York, NY).
International Public Relations Affiliates (Long Beach, CA).
International Services, USA (Austin, TX).
International Trade Advisor (Berwyn, PA).
Interpro, Inc. (Phoenix, AZ).
Inverness Corp. (Fairlawn, NJ).
ITT Corporation (New York, NY).
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. (Dallas, TX).
J.L. Marketing Inc. (Fenton, MO).
J.R. Simplot Company (Boise, ID).
Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, NJ).
Johnson Controls, Inc. (Milwaukee, WI).
Johnson Matthet, Incorporated (Wayne, PA).
Joseph A. McKinney Consulting (Waco, TX).
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (New York, NY).
KMart Corporation (Troy, MI).
Kellogg Company (Battle Creek, MI).
Kentucky World Trade Center (Lexington, KY).
Kerr-McGee Corporation (Oklahoma City, OK).
KPMG Peat Marwick (New York, NY).
The Kroger Company (Cincinnati, TX).
Latin American Consulting, Inc. (Kent, WA).
Lectro Engineering Co. (St. Louis, MO).
Leeward, Inc. (Dallas, TX).
Levi Strauss Associates (San Francisco, CA).
LFP Capital (Los Angeles, CA).
The Limited, Inc. (Columbus, OH).
Lindsay International Corp. (Houston, TX).
Litton Industries, Inc. (Beverly Hills, CA).
Long Island Foreign Trade Zone Authority (Ronkonkoma, NY).
The LTV Corporation (Cleveland, OH).
M.G. Maher & Company, Inc. (New Orleans, LA).
Made In Mexico, Inc. (Chula Vista, CA).
Malichi Diversified, Ltd. (Indianapolis, IN).
Manitowoe Company, Inc. (Manitowoc, WI).
Marketeck International (Tampa, FL).
Marriott Corporation (Bethesda, MD).
Marsh & McLennan Companies (New York, NY).
Marsheider & Company (Cincinnati, OH).
Martin K. Eby Construction Co. (Wichita, KS).
Martin Marietta Corporation (Bethesda, MD).
Maryland Department of Agriculture (Annapolis, MD).
Master Chemical Corporation (Perrsyburg, OH).
Mattel Toys (El Segundo, CA).
Maytag Corporation (Newton, IA).
McDermott International Inc. (New Orleans, LA).
McDonnell Douglas Corporation (St. Louis, MO).
McDowell Services Company (Cleveland, OH).
McGraw-Hill, Inc. (New York, NY).
MCI (Washington, DC).
McKesson Corporation (San Francisco, CA).
Melton Truck Lines, Inc. (Tulsa, OK).
Merck & Co., Inc. (Whitehouse Station, NJ).
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (New York, NY).
Metallia (Washington, DC).
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (New York, NY).
Miami Valley Marketing Group, Inc. (Dayton, OH).
Michigan Manufacturers Association (Lansing, MI).
Microfax, Inc. (Arvada, CO).
Mid-America World Trade Center (Wichita, KS).
Migrandy Corp. (Merritt Island, FL).
Miles, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA).
Milwaukee Heart, S.C. (Milwaukee, WI).
Milwaukee Minority Chamber of Commerce (Milwaukee, WI).
Mobil Corporation (Fairfax, VA).
Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce (Mobile, AL).
Monsanto Company (St. Louis, MO).
J.P. Morgan & Company, Inc. (New York, NY).
Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc. (New York, NY).
Morrison Knudsen Corp. (Boise, ID).
Mosler Inc. (Hamilton, OH).
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (Washington,
DC).
Motorola (Schaumburg, IL).
MSI United Ltd. (Seattle, WA).
N. Merfish Supply Co. (Houston, TX).
Nalco Chemical Company (Naperville, IL).
National Apparel & Textile Association (Seattle, WA).
National Association of Beverage Importers, Inc.
(Washington, DC).
National Assoc. of Hosiery Manufacturers (Charlotte, NC).
National Association of Insurance Brokers (Washington, DC).
National Association of Manufacturers (Washington, DC).
National Business Products (Ste. Genevieve, MO).
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (Washington,
DC).
National Foreign Trade Council (Washington, DC).
National Grain and Feed Association (Washington, DC).
National Intergroup, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA).
National Retail Federation (Washington, DC).
National Semiconductor Corp. (Santa Clara, CA).
NationsBank (Charlotte, NC).
New England/Canada Business Council (Boston, MA).
New York Life Insurance Co. (New York, NY).
NIKE, Inc. (Beaverton, OR).
NOR-AM Chemical Company (Wilmington, DE).
Norfolk Southern Corporation (Norfolk, VA).
North American Chemicals, L.C. (Houston, TX).
Nuffer, Smith, Tuder, Inc. (San Diego, CA).
NYNEX (New York, NY).
Occidental Petroleum Corp. (Los Angeles, CA).
Ohio Machinery Co. (Broadview Heights, OH).
Olin Corporation (Stamford, CT).
Oliver Rubber Company (Oakland, CA).
Organization for International Investment (Washington, DC).
Orion Corporate Funding, Inc. (Englewood, CO).
Ortho-Kinetics, Inc. (Waukesha, WI).
Owens-Corning Corp. (Toledo, OH).
Paccar Inc. (Bellevue, WA).
Pacific Enterprises (Los Angeles, CA).
Pacific Northwest International Trade Association
(Portland, OR).
Pacific Telesis Group (San Francisco, CA).
Palocor Corporation (Dallas, TX).
The Paz Group (Carrollton, TX).
Pearson's Inc. (Thedford, NE).
Peavey Electronics Corp. (Meridian, MS).
Pennzoil (Houston, TX).
Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce (Pensacola, FL).
PepsiCo (Purchase, NY).
The Perkin-Elmer Corporation (Norwalk, CT).
Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY).
Pharmaceutical Manuf. Assn. (Washington, DC).
Pharr Chamber of Commerce (Pharr, TX).
Phelps Dodge Corporation (Phoenix, AZ).
PHH Corporation (Hunt Valley, MD).
Philip Morris Companies Inc. (New York, NY).
Pina County Board of Supervisors (Tucson, AZ).
Port of New Orleans (New Orleans, LA).
Port of Oakland (Oakland, CA).
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Washington, DC).
PPG Industries, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA).
Praxair, Inc. (Danbury, PA).
Precision Machine & Engineering (Phoenix, AZ).
Premark International, Inc. (Deerfield, IL).
Price Waterhouse (New York, NY).
Prince Mfg. Corporation (Sioux City, IA).
Principal Financial Group (Des Moines, IA).
The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, OH).
Professional Machine and Tool (Wichita, KS).
The Promus Companies (Memphis, TN).
The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Newark, NJ).
PSI Resources (Plainfield, IN).
Puratil, Inc. (Doraville, GA).
Quaker Fabric Corporation (Fall River, MA).
The Quaker Oats Company (Chicago, IL).
Raytheon Company (Lexington, MA).
Reader's Digest Association (Pleasantville, NY).
Reckitt & Coleman, Inc. (Wayne, NJ).
Red Devil Incorporated (Union, NJ).
Rendo Company (Fresno, CA).
Riverwood International Corp. (Washington, DC).
Roadway Services, Inc. (Akron, OH).
J.D. Robinson, Inc. (New York, NY).
Rockwell International Corp. (Seal Beach, CA).
Rohm and Haas Company (Philadelphia, PA).
Rome Area Chamber of Commerce (Rome, NY).
Rotunda, Inc. (Columbus, OH).
Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. (Cleveland, OH).
Ryder System, Inc. (Miami, FL).
Saint-Gobain Corporation (Valley Forge, PA).
San Diego Economic Development Corp. (San Diego, CA).
SaniServ (Indianapolis, IN).
Santa Fe Pacific Corp. (Schaumburg, IL).
Sara Lee Corporation (Chicago, IL).
Sayett Group, Inc. (Pittsford, NY).
Schering-Plough Corporation (Madison, NJ).
Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Chicago, IL).
Semiconductor Industry Association (San Jose, CA).
Shell Oil Company (Houston, TX).
SIFCO Industries (Cleveland, OH).
A.O. Smith Corporation (Milwaukee, WI).
Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (Washington, DC).
Solomon Brothers (New York, NY).
Southern California Edison Co. (Rosemead, CA).
The Southern Company (Atlanta, GA).
Southern States Cooperative (Richmond, VA).
Spalding & Eventlo Co., Inc. (Tampa, FL).
Springs Industries (Fort Mill, SC).
Sprint Corporation (Shawnee Mission, KS).
St Publications Inc. (Cincinnati, OH).
Stafford & Paulsworth (Blue Bell, PA).
State Farm Insurance Companies (Bloomington, IL).
Sun Microsystems (Mountain View, CA).
Sundstrand Corporation (Rockford, IL).
SunWest Foods, Inc. (Davis, CA).
SuperValu (Minneapolis, MN).
Syracuse University School of Management (Syracuse, NY).
Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of Commerce (Tacoma, WA).
Telect Inc. (Liberty Lake, WA).
Tenneco Inc. (Houston, TX).
Texas Instruments (Dallas, TX).
Textron, Inc. (Providence, RI).
Thomas International Publishing Co., Inc. (New York, NY).
The Times Mirror Company (Los Angeles, CA).
TLC Beatrice Inter. Holdings (New York, NY).
Tomlinson Industries (Cleveland, OH).
Toner Service Co., Inc. (St. Louis, MO).
Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc. (New York, NY).
The Travelers Corporation (Hartford, CT).
TRW Inc. (Cleveland, OH).
Tubacero International Corporation (Houston, TX).
TURCK Inc. (Plymouth, MN).
Tyco International Ltd. (Exeter, NH).
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Washington, DC).
U.S. Council for International Business (Washington, DC).
UAL Corporation (Chicago, IL).
Union Camp Corporation (Wayne, NJ).
Union Carbide Corporation (Danbury, CT).
Union Pacific Corp. (Bethlehem, PA).
Unisys Corp. (Blue Bell, PA).
United Distillers (Stamford, CT).
United Parcel Service (UPS) (Atlanta, GA).
United States Surgical Corporation (Norwalk, CT).
United Technologies Corporation (Hartford, CT).
Unitog Co. (Kansas City, MO).
Universal Metals & Mach., Inc. (Houston, TX).
Unocal Corporation (Los Angeles, CA).
UNUM Corp. (Portland, ME).
The Upjohn Company (Kalamazoo, MI).
Utilx Corporation (Kent, WA).
Valve Manufacturers Association (Washington, DC).
Viasoft Inc. (Phoenix, AZ).
VME North America (Asheville, NC).
VSI Catalog Communications International (Riverside, CA).
Vulcan Industries, Inc. (Missouri Valley, IA).
Warnaco (New York, NY).
Warner-Lambert Company (Morris Plains, NJ).
Warren and Company (Washington, DC).
Watkins Manufacturing, Inc. (Evendale, OH).
WCI Steel, Inc. (Warren, OH).
Wells Fargo & Company (San Francisco, CA).
Weltron Company (Morgan Hill, CA).
Westinghouse Corp. (Pittsburgh, PA).
Westvaco Corporation (New York, NY).
Wharton Export Network (Philadelphia, PA).
Whirlpool Corp. (St. Joseph, MI).
Wilbur-Ellis Co. (Edenburg, TX).
The Williams Companies, Inc. (Tulsa, OK).
Wimarco International (South Euclid, OH).
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (Madison, WI).
Witco Corporation (New York, NY).
WMX Technologies (Oak Brook, IL).
Woolworth Corporation (New York, NY).
World Trade Center Portland (Portland, OR).
Xerox Corporation (Stamford, CT).
Yuma Economic Development Corp. (Yuma, AZ).
Zenith Electronics Corp. (Glenview, IL).
Zero Tariff Coalition (Washington, DC).
Zurn Industries (Erie, PA).
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my own personal
appreciation to Mr. Jerry Junkins of Texas Instruments, who is doing a
civic duty, and I think properly so, in heading up the organization.
And so, Mr. President, I would speak to my friend, the manager of the
bill, the chairman of the subcommittee, and urge that we do not
continue this matter any further. The Committee on Finance, as well as
Agriculture and Foreign Relations and others, will take up this matter.
It will come to us. We will have time to debate it on the floor in the
manner that we have done in the past.
Mr. President, I ask consent to submit a statement by the chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Pell, a strong opponent of
the measure before us, for the Record.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this amendment raises several issues of
concern to the Foreign Relations Committee. First, the amendment
suggests that existing procedures under which trade agreements are
treated as executive agreements rather than as treaties be changed. It
is my view that Congress has been well served by the current practice
of considering trade agreements as Executive agreements and placing
them in the primary jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
Second, it raises concern about a potential threat to U.S.
sovereignty posed by the World Trade Organization. The committee held
an extensive hearing on this subject last month, and I am fully
satisfied that the WTO does not present any threat to U.S. sovereignty.
The WTO does not affect Congress' sole right to change U.S. law nor
does it create a new powerful international organization. The WTO
reaffirms current GATT practice of making decisions by consensus. In
the rare instances that the WTO would vote, the voting procedures in
the WTO would strengthen the hand of the United States and weaken the
power of smaller countries by requiring a higher majority for decisions
than is currently required in the GATT. In addition, under the rules of
the WTO, any provision or amendment affecting substantive U.S. rights
and obligations expressly requires U.S. approval.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the Thurmond amendment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe that I have made such remarks
as I have had in mind. Seeing no one else seeking recognition, I
suggest we vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I am perfectly willing to go to a vote on this.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I propose that we do?
Mr. LEAHY. I have been advised by some on the other side that Senator
Thurmond may wish to speak for another minute or two.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. And if the yeas and nays were ordered, then it would take
unanimous consent to either withdraw the amendment or vitiate the yeas
and nays?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I do not want to dissuade the Senator from South Carolina.
I want to talk for a minute or so, but then we will go to a vote,
unless I am advised he is about to come back.
Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from New
York for his comments. The distinguished Senator from New York carries
tremendous burdens, not the least of which, of course, is the fact that
he is the lead figure in trying to put together a health care package
that this country can be able to afford. I know that he has taken time
from what was a tremendously busy day on other matters to come over and
discuss this.
I hope that Senators will listen to what the Senator from New York
said. There will be a place to debate GATT. There is going to be a time
to debate implementation language in the committee of the Senator from
New York, in the Finance Committee. There will be a chance to debate
some aspects of it in the Agriculture Committee, although I would note
that, because of a dispute involving our neighbor to the north, we may
be delayed in the Agriculture Committee some considerable time before
we get to the implementing legislation, only because we are distracted,
some of us, not the least of which is the chairman, somewhat distracted
by this dispute taking place in Canada and the inability of the
administration to focus on aspects of that debate and the inability of
the administration to fully comprehend the interests of some producers
of commodities in our country and apparently are unaware of the fact
that our valued neighbor to the north has taken advantage of the United
States. But I am sure that at some point they might get around to
noting that.
Canada is nearby. I would invite any of our trade negotiators to come
to Vermont with me and I can drive them to Canada, if they would like.
It is only about an hour from my own home in Vermont. Once they have
had a chance to look at this issue, we could go forward and set a
schedule for implementing legislation in the Agriculture Committee.
Otherwise, we may have to take the full time allotted to us.
But the distinguished Senator from New York has laid out the reasons
why this should not be on this bill, as did the distinguished Senator
from Montana, and I hope that I have.
This is an appropriations bill for foreign operations.
Obviously anybody can bring up anything they want, and probably will,
but I would suggest that if people are serious about getting this
legislation passed with some of the things that a vast majority of
Senators support, then they ought to go ahead and do so. If, however,
they hope to take out some of the country specific items that we have
here, this is as good a way as any to do it.
The distinguished Senator from New York is here and I yield to him.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I see my friend from South Carolina has come to the
floor, so I will be very brief.
Mr. President, I have a message from the President for the Senate. I
have just talked to the chief of staff, Mr. Leon Panetta, who is on Air
Force One returning from Georgia with the President.
He asked that I say to the Senate, and I say to the distinguished
manager of the legislation and to my friend from South Carolina, that
the President is absolutely committed to getting the Uruguay round
implementing legislation passed this year; that he also made the
commitment to our trading partners in the G-7 summit in Naples that
this would be done. He very much hopes that he might have the
cooperation of this body in this legislation and that this amendment
might be withdrawn in the spirit of comity which is so characteristic
of the one time President pro tempore, the most distinguished Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Leahy].
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am perfectly willing to go to a vote on
this amendment. I advise the Senator from South Carolina, I was told he
may wish to speak further, so I did not suggest that we go to a vote
until he had a chance to come back to the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator very much. I will speak a little
bit further.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. Thurmond].
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, earlier today, I introduced, along with
several of my colleagues a resolution regarding the GATT negotiations.
At this time, I would like to expand upon some of my previous remarks.
This morning I discussed the WTO and how it will have an effect on
the sovereignty of our country. This supranational governing body will
settle trade disputes and impose fines, sanctions, or make the United
States change its law to comply with WTO decisions. However, I would
suggest that if you do not want to take my word concerning this issue--
if anyone does not want to take that word, maybe you will listen to 42
attorneys general. Let me read from the AP newswire concerning a recent
letter the attorneys general sent to President Clinton. It reads:
Attorneys General Write Clinton On GATT
(By Francis X. Quinn)
Augusta, ME.--Led by Maine's Michael Carpenter, more than
40 state attorneys general are asking President Clinton to
hold a state-federal summit on the potential domestic impact
of new global trade rules.
In a letter signed by his counterparts from around the
nation, Carpenter asked Clinton this week to agree to a
summit this summer before the administration submits
legislation to implement provisions of the Uruguay Round of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Carpenter said state officials seek ``a thorough airing of
concerns about how the Uruguay Round and the proposed World
Trade Organization would affect state laws and regulations.''
``This is of particular concern given that some of our
trading partners have apparently identified specific state
laws which they intend to challenge under the WTO,''
Carpenter wrote.
Carpenter, who recently announced he will not seek re-
election but plans to serve out the remainder of his term
this year, said questions raised by sate officials concerning
GATT are similar to those put to federal officials last
year about the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The October 1993 letter urging increased protections for
the states under NAFTA was sent to U.S. Trade Representative
Mickey Kantor by Texas Attorney General Dan Morales.
States lock horns frequently with the federal government in
legal disputes over whether local statutes violate national
laws. Proponents of state sovereignty say they worry that
states may be left without a forum to contest undesirable by-
products of international trade pacts.
Carpenter said one illustrative example might be a state's
ban on chemicals used to treat fruits or vegetables that
could be subject to attack by a foreign government under new
global trading rules.
More broadly, he said countless state standards could be
vulnerable ``anything that another country could say is a
trade restriction.''
``We can't say that this law or that law is in jeopardy,
but we're very concerned,'' Carpenter said Thursday in a
brief interview.
He said the states share ``sort of a generalized anxiety.''
Besides writing with other attorneys general directly to
Clinton on Wednesday, Carpenter himself also sent a letter to
Kantor, thanking him for offering to have his staff meet next
week with representatives of individual attorneys general as
well as their national association.
Carpenter wrote that a series of meetings with
administration officials could allow state representatives to
propose changes in legislation to be submitted to Congress.
``Such an opportunity to engage in a real dialogue with the
administration over the state's federalism concerns may give
greater focus to the proposed summit or make its occurrence
somewhat less urgent,'' Carpenter told Kantor.
Carpenter said Thursday the state expressions of concern
were not meant to embarrass the administration. He said the
attorneys general hoped to build a permanent structure that
could speed reviews of future trade deals, ``so that we can
be involved before the deal is done.''
Mr. President, that is the purpose here--before the deal is done. It
is too late after the deal is done. This is merely a study we are
asking for, in this resolution.
Mr. President, these 42 individuals are charged with upholding the
laws of their States. If they have some concerns regarding how GATT and
WTO are going to affect their efforts, then we should listen carefully
to their concerns.
Another group of individuals that have also shown concern about the
WTO are the State tax commissioners. Like the attorneys general, the
tax commissioners are worried the WTO will render State laws useless.
More specifically, the tax commissioners are worried that the Federal
executive branch will have the authority to preempt State and local
laws without congressional authorization, companies and foreign
governments will use the Federal commerce clause to overturn State and
local laws, States will have to pay retroactive taxes if a case is
decided against the State, the States will not be notified about WTO
cases against them nor will they have the ability to defend themselves
when cases are brought against the State.
Mr. President, the tax commissioners and the attorneys general appear
to have valid concerns with the authority of the WTO. One can only
imagine what State and local taxes and laws that could be challenged
under the WTO. Further, the investigations into whether these items are
an unfair trade barrier can be conducted without even contacting the
State or locality. It does not seem fair that actions can be taken
against States and localities without the right to defend themselves.
In June of this year, I made a statement here on the Senate floor
concerning the creation of the WTO and its effect on our country, as
follows:
Those of us who were serving in the Senate during some of
the previous GATT rounds have heard many of the same
arguments that the Clinton administration is making in regard
to this agreement. Basically, this agreement will solve our
trade problems and open foreign markets for U.S. goods. A
brief review of history shows that we did not accomplish our
goals. After the 1979 round was completed, we saw a major
decline in the steel, textile and apparel, and electronics
industries. At the same time, these industries were
struggling to survive due in part to the closed markets of
other countries.
Mr. President, now reading from an article from the Associated Press
news wire:
France, U.S. Clash Anew on Trade at G7
(By Paul Taylor)
Naples, Italy--A bitter dispute between France and the
United States on liberalising world trade flared anew on
Friday when the French rejected President Bill Clinton's call
for a fresh review of trade barriers.
Clinton told a news conference he would urge leaders of the
Group of Seven industrial powers at their Naples summit to
take a new axe to remaining restrictions following last
year's GATT world trade accord.
U.S. officials listed among the issues financial services,
telecommunications, biotechnology, intellectual property
rights, investment rules and airline landing rights--all
problems on which Washington was frustrated in the GATT
negotiations.
But French President Francois Mitterrand told Japanese
Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama that countries which
had just signed the GATT treaty in April after seven years
of difficult talks, lowering many trade barriers, needed
``a breathing space.''
``The president's wish, which he will spell out to Mr.
Clinton, is to avoid any excessive haste,'' Mitterrand's
spokesman Jean Musitelli told reporters.
Musitelli also said France had not been invited to a
meeting of trade ministers called by Italy on the fringes of
the annual G7 summit on Saturday and did not consider it
appropriate. The Italian Trade Ministry said that trade
ministers, not normally part of the G7 summit line-up, would
discuss fresh initiatives to free up world commerce at
Washington's request.
Musitelli said France learned of the ``novel, bizarre and
unprecedented'' meeting by rumour and believed it was ``not
the type of meeting which is appropriate for the work of the
G7.'' He said Britain too had not been included.
But the Italians said trade ministers of all seven
countries had been invited to the Saturday afternoon meeting,
and so far Germany, Canada, Japan and Italy had said they
would attend.
U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and European Union
Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan will also take part.
British officials said Trade Secretary Michael Heseltine
could not come to Naples but Britain would be represented by
Sarah Hogg, a policy adviser to Prime Minister John Major.
They said Washington consulted London before sending its
letter to G7 governments calling for the new trade review and
many of the proposals chimed with British thinking.
France and the United States were the main adversaries in
the last phase of GATT's Uruguay Round, fighting bitterly
over agricultural subsidies and trade in film and television.
German Economics Minister Guenter Rexrodt said on Thursday
that the United State planned to use the Naples summit to
launch a trade initiative, probably named Open Markets 2000.
In Brussels, a European Commission spokesman said a new
international initiative to boost trade would not be
acceptable if it hampered chances of ratifying and
implementing the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade.
``The Commission is for any initiative that can increase
the commitment to liberalising trade, but the first priority
above all is ratification and then implementation of the
Uruguay Round agreement,'' the spokesman said.
``Anything that can hamper that is not acceptable, but
anything that can encourage ratification can be acceptable.''
Commission sources acknowledged Washington's concerns to get
freer trade access in Europe in areas such as
telecommunications and aircraft landing rights, but pointed
out that the EU had its own shopping list of reciprocal
demands, including complaints about the protectionist impact
of ``Buy American'' legislation.
The U.S. proposal calls for trade ministers to report back
their findings to next year's G7 summit in Canada.
The study would be carried out in cooperation with the
World Trade Organization, the successor to GATT due to be
created next year, and the Paris-based Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development.
Mr. President, to paraphrase President Reagan, here we go again.
Congress has not completed this agreement and the administration is
already arguing that we need a new agreement. It appears to me that
these items should have been corrected in the current round instead of
waiting until the future to address these issues.
Mr. President, another concern I have regarding the GATT is the total
cost of the agreement. According to the news reports, the United States
will lose--I repeat--will lose roughly $40 billion from tariffs over
the next 10 years if this agreement is implemented. While some of the
lost tariffs might be recouped from the increased trade that the United
States is expected to experience, the pay-as-you-go provisions of our
budgeting process require that money lost from tariff cuts must come
from revenue increases or spending cuts. With our national debt at over
$4 trillion, we need to be fiscally responsible in our actions.
Therefore, waiving the budget rules to pay for GATT is not being
fiscally responsible. If this agreement is important enough to pass,
then we should not have to waive the budget act to enact it. Further,
while the Federal Government will lose roughly $40 billion, there is no
way to tell how the States and localities would fare if their taxes are
challenged as unfair trade barriers.
Mr. President, hopefully, these concerns can be examined more closely
before the implementing legislation is presented to Congress. It
appears that the Congress is going to be forced to examine the 22,000-
page GATT agreement at a time when we are working on health care
reform, welfare reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of other
major legislative issues. I would hope that the administration would
not send the implementing legislation to Congress for at least 60 days.
This agreement is very important to local, State, and Federal
jurisdictions, and I would hope that we could have time to fully
examine the impact of this legislation before being called to vote on
it.
the new world trade organization--a risk to sovereignty and powers of
the senate
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Thurmond amendment deserves serious
consideration by the Senate. The amendment addresses major concerns
about the new GATT agreement soon to be addressed by the Senate. The
amendment is simple and straightforward.
First, it expresses the sense of the Senate that a joint Senate-
administration commission be convened to decide whether the proposed
World Trade Organization should be considered as a treaty and not as an
Executive agreement.
Second, the amendment calls for a period of time, prior to
introduction of the implementing legislation, for further congressional
hearings, both in and outside of Washington to consider the full
ramifications of the United States joining the World Trade
Organization.
The process being taken by the administration has brought a new
meaning to the phrase ``fast-track.'' Fast-track authority permits
implementing legislation to be considered and voted on without
amendment. This should not mean pushing through legislation without
full and deliberate consideration.
The new trade agreement is a massive document. It was just signed on
April 15 of this year. The Finance Committee will begin its trial
markup of implementing legislation next week. I understand that the
committee hopes to conclude its consideration by the end of next week.
One thing is certain. We can learn from history. History has taught
us that free trade brings stronger economic growth. I am a free trader.
The last time this body considered GATT was in 1947, when it was
created. At that time, the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund were created to address international developmental and monetary
problems. An International Trade Organization [ITO] was proposed to
regulate trade relations among countries. However, the ITO encountered
opposition in the Senate. The issue? Sovereignty. As a result, the
proposed ITO failed to win enough votes for ratification.
As CBO reported in 1987, ``As a weak substitute for the envisioned
ITO, a GATT Secretariat, with a very small staff, was created to
oversee the General Agreement and to manage multilateral trade
negotiations.''
Well, the ITO proposal has resurfaced. It is now called the WTO. The
new GATT agreement creates a new World Trade Organization that differs
from the old GATT. The WTO is not a weak version of the ITO, but a new
version of it.
Under the old GATT, the United States had a veto. We could block a
panel decision and we would not face retaliation. Under the WTO, the
process is automatic. Panels are established, decisions are made and
the United States has no veto.
Mr. President, the risks that the WTO pose to sovereignty and to the
constitutional role of the Senate are real. These risks must be fully
addressed. That is why my colleagues and I felt it was important to
offer this amendment today. Time is running out.
The full consequences of this agreement are just beginning to come to
light. Recently, I have raised concerns over the proposed World Trade
Organization [WTO] created under the new agreement. I have addressed
these concerns on the floor and at two hearings held by the Foreign
Relations Committee and the Commerce Committee.
Many questions and concerns about the WTO are being raised.
Unfortunately, there appear to be more questions than answers.
For example, what impact will this organization have on Federal,
State and local laws? What will be its budget? How many taxpayer
dollars will be spent on the WTO? To whom will the WTO, with its
unelected bureaucrats, answer? I do not think these questions have been
answered adequately.
Another concern is whether or not the creation of the WTO should be
considered as a treaty. There is a possibility the new WTO could
threaten the constitutional role of the U.S. Senate.
I am not certain the WTO could be fixed. If submitted as part of the
implementing legislation, it would not be subject amendment. The best
option may be to drop the proposed WTO from the implementing
legislation and deal with it separately. This option needs careful
consideration.
TREATY CONCERNS
Mr. President, before I discuss the issue of sovereignty, let me
explain why I believe the WTO should be considered by the Senate as a
treaty--not as an executive agreement.
There are four ways an international agreement can become the law of
the United States.
First, if it is accompanied by the advice and consent of the Senate--
a treaty;
Second, if it is authorized or approved by Congress and the matter
falls with the constitutional authority of Congress--a congressional-
executive agreement;
Third, if it is authorized by a prior treaty which received the
advice and consent of the Senate--an executive agreement pursuant to
treaty; or
Fourth, it is based on the President's own constitutional authority--
a sole executive agreement.
It is clear that past GATT agreements fall under No. 2--
congressional-executive agreements. These agreements call for lowering
tariffs and quotas, and expanding trade. However, I question whether
Congress intended or authorized the creation of the WTO.
Under international law, an international agreement is generally
considered to be a treaty and binding on the parties if it meets four
criteria:
First, the parties intend the agreement to be legally binding and the
agreement is subject to international law;
Second, the agreement deals with significant matters;
Third, the agreement clearly and specifically describes the legal
obligations of the parties; and
Fourth, the form indicates an intention to conclude a treaty,
although the substance of the agreement rather than the form is the
governing factor.
Mr. President, international agreements and treaties have been used
interchangeably in recent years. I do not question that the trade
agreements under the Uruguay round should be treated as agreements.
However, the creation of the WTO is a different matter.
Let's look at Senate precedents. In 1947, the Senate Finance
Committee debated this issue when considering the International Trade
Organizations [ITO]. At that time, the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee was Senator Eugene D. Millikin. He suggested the
following test for determining whether a treaty should be submitted to
the Senate for two-thirds approval:
The proper distinction is that when we go beyond
conventional matters (duties, custom matters and foreign
trade), and commence to surrender sovereignty, this is the
point where the proper field of treaty comes in. Whenever you
come to a matter where there is substantial disparagement of
our sovereignty, whenever you come to a matter where
sanctions may be invoked against the United States, by an
international body, then you have probably entered the
legitimate field for treaties.
I warn my colleagues. The vote on the GATT implementing legislation,
which creates the WTO, is expected to be considered by the Senate as an
Executive agreement. Passage will only require a simple majority.
I believe it is abundantly clear. The creation of the World Trade
Organization was not anticipated when the Uruguay round negotiations
began. It has been reported that the proposed WTO was pushed through in
the eleventh hour of the negotiations.
Whether or not the United States joins the WTO should be considered
apart from legislation implementing the final texts of the GATT Uruguay
Round Agreements.
Mr. President, proponents of the WTO will argue that there is no
difference between the existing GATT structure and the WTO. Proponents
will argue that the WTO will not be able to coerce the United States
into any decisions on trade matters. They will argue that there's
little or no difference between trade dispute settlements under the
current GATT agreement and the WTO. It's sort of like shopping for a
used car. You hear all the great things about the WTO, but little about
its flaws. I am not quite ready to buy all the arguments in favor of
the WTO.
United States negotiations in the Uruguay round improved the GATT by
including goods and services and reducing nontariff trade barriers. For
the first time agriculture is included under the agreement. Proponents
of the WTO will say the new organization is needed to ensure that these
gains are not lost in dispute settlements.
Mr. President, I hear those arguments. What I do not hear is that
United States intended to create and promote the creation of the WTO.
All too often, issues are rushed through this body without full
consideration. It is these 11th hour deals that all too often get us
into trouble. I fear that is what is happening with the WTO.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield to Senator Byrd.
Mr. BYRD. If the Senator would, I will probably take about 3 minutes.
Mr. THURMOND. I will be glad to, without losing the floor, Mr.
President.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the policy expressed in the
amendment by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
Thurmond]. It is an issue about which I feel rather strongly, but I
also sympathize with the distinguished manager of bill, Mr. Leahy, and
his sentiments that this is not the right place for the amendment. The
foreign aid bill is not the place to debate trade policy, and it is
difficult enough for us to consider this annual legislation without
major debates on extraneous matters.
I understand that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina will
withdraw his amendment shortly. He has not said so, but I understand he
will. And I think, all concerns considered, that would probably be the
best thing. I hope that he will.
But the amendment is nevertheless before the body now, and I strongly
support it. The Constitution reserves powers over international
economic matters exclusively to the Congress. This is not a shared
power with the executive branch. Article I, section 8 says that the
Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations.
In recent years, there have been attempts to tippy-toe around this
constitutional provision by using a mechanism allowing the executive
branch to seek legislative authority from Congress to negotiate trade
agreements with other nations that it structures as executive
agreements. The executive branch then receives an additional advantage
through procedures included in the authorizing legislation known as
``fast track.'' This is a device which denies the Congress the
opportunity to amend the agreement, and then forces the Congress to
vote up or down within a limited time period. We do not even have the
luxury of amending the agreement, which in the case of a treaty we
would be able to amend.
First, I agree that the weight of the agreement reached in the case
of the Uruguay round is such that it rises to the importance of a
treaty and should be treated as a treaty.
Second, the long-term implications of the Uruguay round are such that
the Senate should have full and unrestricted debate--unrestricted
debate--with the opportunity for the Senate to work its will in this
most vital arena of foreign policy, the economic relations we have with
the rest of the world. The fact is that there should be no rush to pass
legislation implementing this agreement this year. We need time to
discuss it at length.
The Congress could wait until next year, next spring, after a full
investigation of the ramifications of this agreement. In any case,
implementing legislation is not needed until July of next year.
The Senator from South Carolina states in his amendment that the
implementing legislation did not address the question of establishing a
supernational adjudicatory mechanism which was incorporated in the
Uruguay round of the World Trade Organization. The mechanism could make
decisions which could profoundly, profoundly affect U.S. domestic law.
Considerable investigation needs to be done on this matter by this
body. There are many other concerns which Members in both Houses have
raised in respect to this extensive and far-reaching agreement. So let
us not rush it. I think the agreement should be considered as a treaty.
In any event, it should be amendable. That may be inconvenient for the
other signatories to the treaty but American national interests are at
stake. This is a massive trade document and has not been scrutinized by
the Senate in any meaningful manner.
Therefore, I support the amendment of the Senator from South
Carolina. I appreciate his offering it. I congratulate him on offering
the amendment. I am glad to have an opportunity to say these few words
in support of the amendment.
I hope, now that we have had an opportunity to speak at least briefly
on the subject, the Senator will withdraw the amendment as it is a
sense-of-the-Senate amendment and it is attached to an appropriations
bill. In that respect, I hope the wishes of the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Leahy] will be followed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina retains the
floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased we have received assurances
from the Senator from Montana, who is chairman of the trade
subcommittee, that the issues we have raised today will be addressed
next week when the Finance Committee meets to mark up the Uruguay round
implementing bill. This is one Senator who will be very interested in
whether these issues have been adequately addressed. In fact, we should
be given adequate time to review the proposed legislation before it is
submitted to the President.
Now, Mr. President, I wish to say again that what we are trying to do
is just not rush this matter. It is a matter of tremendous importance.
It involves the very sovereignty of our country. It is just to give
time to the executive branch and legislative branch to get together and
study this matter carefully and inform the Senate what impact it is
going to have on our country and just how it is going to affect the
sovereignty of our country.
In view of the situation now and out of my great respect for the able
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and what he said, that he
thinks it would be better not to put it on this legislation, I will
withdraw the amendment at this time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment offered by
the Senator from South Carolina is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 2239) was withdrawn.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kentucky
Mr. [McConnell].
Amendment No. 2240 to the First Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 2
(Purpose: To establish the date of Russian troop withdrawal from the
Baltics)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself, Senator McCain, Senator D'Amato, Senator Dole, and
Senator Helms. It is an amendment to the committee amendment on page 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr.
McCain, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Helms, proposes an
amendment numbered 2240 to the first excepted committee
amendment on page 2.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the committee amendment on page 2, odd the
following:
``Sec. . (a) Restriction.--None of the funds appropriated
or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated for
assistance for the Government of Russia after August 31, 1994
unless all armed forced of Russia and the Commonwealth of
Independent States have been removed from all Baltic
countries or that the status of those armed forces have been
otherwise resolved by mutual agreement of the parties.
``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to assistance that
involves the provision of student exchange programs, food,
clothing, medicine or other humanitarian assistance or to
housing assistance for officers of the armed forces of Russia
or the Commonwealth of Independent States who are removed
from the territory of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or
countries other than Russia.
``(c) Subsection (a) does not apply if after August 31,
1994, the President determines that the provision of funds to
the Government of Russia is in the national security
interest.
``(d) Section 568 of this Act is null and void.''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, since declaring their independence,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have been dedicated to assuring that
Russian troops are fully and promptly withdrawn from their sovereign
territory. There is, as we can all imagine, no more provocative symbol
of 50 years of Soviet occupation than the continued presence of these
troops. To expedite that process, last year Congress earmarked $190
million specifically for troop withdrawal including through support for
an officer resettlement program and technical assistance for the
housing sector.
Now, Mr. President, in spite of that directive and an extensive
legislative history which made clear this commitment was designed to
remove the Russians from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the
administration decided to use only 50 percent of the designated funding
for Baltic troop resettlement and the balance for other Russian troops.
Now, Mr. President, in spite of undercutting congressional intent,
progress has been made, I am happy to report. Three years ago, when
these nations declared their independence, they were occupied by more
than 100,000 Soviet troops--just 3 years ago, 100,000 Soviet troops.
Obviously, comparatively speaking, the situation is a good deal
better. All troops are now out of Lithuania, with 4,500 remaining in
Latvia, and 2,500 remaining in Estonia. But that remaining 7 percent is
still a problem. Like the citizens of Latvia and Estonia, I welcome the
President's public comment in Riga last week that the United States was
committed to seeing the withdrawal remain on track with all troops out
by August 31 of this year, 1994. This was a target date. It is
interesting to note this is the target date that President Yeltsin
originally offered last year and all the parties agreed to honor. So
this was a date picked by the Russians.
While in Riga, the President also offered more financial support to
secure that goal. Again, I commend the President for his observation.
But many of us have a nagging feeling irritated by the past year with
administration compromises and concessions to the Russians that, unless
held accountable in legislation, August 31 will come and go and Russian
troops will continue to occupy Estonia and Latvia.
Mr. President, my concern about the President's predilection to
capitulate is exacerbated by the Russian's seeming reluctance to honor
the deadline. We have an example of this very recently. As Warner Wolf
used to say when he was around here, and may still say, ``Let us go to
the videotape.''
On July 11, just this week, standing at Boris Yeltsin's side,
President Clinton announced the following. These are the President's
words 2 days ago:
There has been a promising development in the Baltics.
After my very good discussion with the President of Estonia,
Mr. Meri, passed on his ideas to President Yeltsin. I believe
the differences between the two countries have been announced
and then agreement can be reached in the near future so that
the troops would be able to be withdrawn by the end of
August.
Two days ago the President was talking about the end of August this
year. The President said:
When the Russian troops withdraw from Germany and the
Baltics, it will end the bitter legacy of the Second World
War.
Bear in mind 2 days ago President Yeltsin was standing right beside
President Clinton when he said that. President Yeltsin was immediately
asked by a reporter:
Will you have all of the Russian troops out of the Baltics
by August 31?
This is just 2 days ago standing by President Clinton, President
Yeltsin was asked the question.
The answer by President Yeltsin, a direct quote: ``No.'' ``Nice
question'', says President Yeltsin. ``I like the question because I can
say no.''
So here we had 2 days ago a joint press conference with President
Clinton and President Yeltsin standing side by side, and asked the
question, ``Will the Russian troops be out of the Baltics by August
31?'' President Clinton says ``yes,'' and President Yeltsin says
``no.''
Obviously, there is some confusion here about whether or not the
August 31 deadline is going to be--originally suggested by the
Russians, I repeat. August 31, 1994, was originally suggested by the
Russians as the deadline for having all Russian troops out of the
Baltics. Yet 2 days ago Yeltsin says, ``I don't think we can make it.''
I want to just repeat that this was the Russian's selection of this
date last year. Even though they preferred a more immediate departure,
when this came up last year reluctantly Estonia and Latvia accepted the
target of August 31 of this year.
A full year later, a full 2 years after committing in the Helsinki
summit to an early, orderly, and complete withdrawal of foreign
military troops from the territories of the Baltic States, Russia is
stalling again. On July 11, just a couple of days ago, Yeltsin publicly
and flatly rejected his self-imposed obligation to withdraw the troops.
Madam President, this Russian reality check stands in stark contrast
to the administration's sort of Disney vision about this. It is
animated, it is colorful, but it is a total fantasy. There is no more
clear representation of the yawning gap between reality and the
administration's policy than statements made by the Secretary of State
over the past 10 months.
As we are all aware, one of the significant sticking points in troop
withdrawal negotiations has been how ethnic Russians will be treated.
Last autumn at the ministerial meetings of the CSCE and again before
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee in March, Secretary Christopher
declared that Russia's intention to protect 25 million Russians living
in the so-called near abroad was understandable and legitimate. This is
the Secretary of State before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
saying the Russian concern about the 25 million Russians living in the
near abroad was understandable and legitimate. Before the subcommittee
he added that these Russians should be treated with generosity.
Needless to say, the sovereign sensibilities of many nations which
suffered Soviet occupation were deeply offended. Like other nations,
the Baltics struggled to maintain their language and their culture in
defiance of the Soviet regime's calculated plans of reunification.
Thousands of Balts were exiled to Siberia, or worse, and Russians
dispatched military and civilians alike to establish control.
History offers a window on the current skepticism. Latvians,
Lithuanians, and Estonians share with their neighbors Russia's not past
ambitions but current ambitions. But there are also ongoing serious
issues which cause any observer to question Moscow's intentions.
In addition to protecting minority rights, Russia continues to insist
that they are guaranteed access to military installations and bases. In
April, during a round of discussions with Estonia, Russia linked
further progress to payment of $23 million by Estonia to Russia. In
late June, this threat was repeated in conjunction with the unilateral
demarcation of the Russia-Estonia border, a declaration I might add
that was viewed with considerable alarm in Talinn.
In a similar vein, Latvia has found troop withdrawal subject to
Russian access to radar facilities and military bases as well as
offering social guarantees to Russians who reside in Latvia.
I understand the administration is attempting to balance a number of
issues in a multilateral context, and is extremely sensitive to Russian
concerns. But the combination of statements by the Secretary of State,
and positions taken by the Russians in negotiations, cause me concern
about the firmness of the August 31 withdrawal commitment.
At the moment, the bill before the Senate, the bill we are debating,
bans funds from Russia after December 31, 1994, if all troops have not
been withdrawn or a mutual agreement on removal has not been reached.
The amendment at the desk, the amendment we are discussing at the
moment, simply changes the date to August 31, I repeat a date
originally chosen by President Yeltsin and the Russians as a date by
which they would have all of the troops out of the Baltics. Just last
week in Riga, the President reconfirmed his commitment to that date, a
commitment shared by many here in Congress.
I see no reason why legislation should undercut or postpone prospects
for meeting that deadline. For more than 35 years, the Baltic nations
have suffered Soviet occupation. I do not think that Congress should
postpone the end of that era 1 more minute let alone 4 more months.
Last year, Congress tried to provide the necessary financial incentive
for withdrawal by supporting housing for withdrawn troops. I supported
that. The administration decided to use only half the dedicated funds
for troops from the Baltics. I hope my colleagues will join in sending
a clear signal that halfhearted attempts are no longer sufficient. We
expect Russia to comply with its obligations, and we look forward to
September 1.
In Estonia, President Meri's words of September 1 represents the
first day of a new Europe, a day when the Baltics are truly free.
Let me just quickly summarize what this amendment does. It simply
moves the withdrawal date from the end of this year back to August 31,
the date originally set over a year ago by President Yeltsin
himself. It simply moves that date forward to the expressed intention
of President Yeltsin a year ago. I think this will be extremely
reassuring to those in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. In addition to
that, there is considerable American interest that this date be met.
(Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
Mr. McCONNELL. I just call my colleagues' attention to a press
release dated yesterday from the Joint Baltic American National
Committee--these are American citizens--supporting this amendment I
have just offered. I say to all of my colleagues that this is not only
the foreign policy over a ``there'' kind of an issue; it is also a
``here'' issue, in the sense that many Americans who came from the
Baltic countries maintain an ongoing interest in this important date
and would like it to be met.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement from the
Joint Baltic American National Committee be printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Press release from the Joint Baltic American National Committee, June
12, 1994]
Yeltsin Says Russian Troops To Remain in Estonia
Russian President Boris Yeltsin, after meeting with
President Clinton on July 10, stated that Russian troops will
remain in Estonia after the August 31, 1994 withdrawal
deadline. The statement followed President Clinton's trip to
Latvia where he called on Russia to adhere to its
unconditional commitment to withdrawal.
When asked if Russia will meet the self-imposed August 31
deadline, Yeltsin bluntly stated ``No'', then added ``I like
the question, because I can say no.'' Only moments before,
President Clinton optimistically projected that an agreement
between Estonia and Russia is near, paving the way for
withdrawal by the end of August. According to Yeltsin, the
delay is tied to the ``human rights'' violations of 10,640
Russian military retirees in Estonia in addition to a lack of
housing for returning Russian officers. However, these
allegations are false and represent an attempt to gain
unacceptable concessions from Estonia. In reality:
Ex-Soviet military personnel who retired in Estonia prior
to August 31, 1991 may apply for Estonian residency permits
as allowed by Estonian legislation, which would permit them
to live in Estonia and vote in local elections.
Of the 10,640 ex-Red Army pensioners in Estonia, 1,600
retirees are under the age of 50; hundreds of these are
younger than 45 and cannot be characterized as ``harmless
pensioners.'' Less than half, or 5,170, are over 60.
Russia demands that all Russian military personnel
presently in Estonia (2,500), in addition to military
pensioners, be granted residency permits. These include KGB
and military intelligence officers and individuals who
actively worked against Estonian independence. Their presence
will continue to pose a threat to Estonia's security.
Succumbing to Russian demands would lead to a demobilization
of Russian forces in Estonia--not a withdrawal of Russian
forces.
The United States allocated $6 million (FY93) and $160
million (FY94) to house returning Russian officers. This
includes 1,250 housing vouchers for Russian officers and
retired officers leaving Estonia. Estonia should not be
coerced into paying for the illegal Soviet occupation.
Russia's actions follow a familiar pattern of issuing
threatening statements aimed at stalling the withdrawal, such
as Russia's suspension of withdrawal from Lithuania only days
before its deadline. It is imperative that the United States
once again take a firm stand and call on the unconditional
removal of Russian troops from the Baltics by August 31.
congressional support vital in withdrawal from estonia
The Joint Baltic American National Committee, an
organization representing over one million Americans of
Baltic heritage, calls on Congress to support an amendment to
be submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell to the FY95 Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act (sec. 568) that would limit US
aid to Russia if withdrawal, or an agreement on withdrawal,
is not completed by August 31. The present cut-off date of
December 31 will send a tacit signal that a continued Russian
military presence in Estonia is acceptable. A firm
resolution, however, will send a strong signal to Russia that
it must live up to its international commitments and
withdrawal by August 31, 1994.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator yielded?
Mr. McCONNELL. I have not yielded.
Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield briefly, while I
stand in support of his amendment, I wanted to also clarify something.
I just came to the floor, and I understand that Senator Thurmond has
withdrawn his amendment on the World Trade Organization. To the ranking
member and chairman, let me say that while I support Senator Thurmond
in withdrawing that amendment, his intent and my intent in coming to
the floor to debate that issue was to raise its visibility and hope to
express to all of you and to the Senate at large that this is an issue
that is now beginning to speak out for an answer. It is not just this
Senator or others, it is State tax commissions all around our country,
State attorneys general and Governors who are beginning to look at the
fine points of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the
General Agreement on Tariffs in Services as it relates to the
fundamental issue of sovereignty.
I strongly support trade and hope we can resolve these issues. I do
believe it is incumbent upon us who are interested in it, and certainly
the chairman and ranking member are here today to work with us in
resolving this issue, whether it be in the implementation language or
in some other form. I do not believe this is an issue that will now go
away as easily as the Senator withdrew his amendment. I think it is an
issue that speaks out for an answer.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Idaho. It is my understanding
that the chairman--I was here when the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee spoke in support of the Thurmond amendment, as well. There is
considerable concern about this issue. I do not believe the Senator
from South Carolina withdrew it with any sense that this was an issue
that was over. I think the debate was very helpful in bringing this
issue before the Senate.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield momentarily to the Senator from
Kentucky, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Byrd, the chairman of the Appropriations committee, be added as a
cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I just ask the Senator from Kentucky, in
the last subsection, subsection (c), if he might consider, so we do not
get into further debate down the way, in the last line, where it says
``Government of Russia is in the national security interest,'' removing
the word ``security?''
While the Senator thinks about that, let me make a couple of
comments.
Madam President, in our bill, we have this amendment with the date of
December 31--partly because we were not sure that the bill might be
finished--to avoid a continuing resolution. It appears that we may be
able to avoid that. As a result, the date might be moved up. I listened
to President Yeltsin's comments in Naples, and I had some concern in
listening to them. I have been encouraged by the progress Russia has
made to withdraw its troops from the Baltics, and I considered
traveling there myself to observe some of that. But I was concerned
when President Yeltsin said he would not make the August 31 deadline
that we had originally assumed.
I hope that President Yeltsin will continue with his earlier
commitment or be moving the withdrawal so rapidly that it was obvious
that the conclusion was ineluctable.
Mr. McCONNELL. If my friend will yield, I do not know whether he was
on the floor, but my concern is that, just 2 days ago, at a joint press
conference with President Clinton and President Yeltsin standing side
by side, President Yeltsin said he was not going to meet the August 31
deadline. I do not think he left it in a speculative state.
Mr. LEAHY. I understand. I am perfectly willing to support this
August 31 deadline. My question was only to one word in the third
paragraph.
Mr. McCONNELL. I must say to my friend that my initial reaction is
that I hope we will not water down the language. We both know that
national security interest is a tougher standard than national
interest. The freedom and independence of the Baltics have been a big
issue in this country for 50 years. We are very close to having all
those Russian troops out. Many people in this country, particularly
those who belong to these organizations of Latvian-, Estonian-, and
Lithuanian-Americans, think it is probably in our national security
interest. I hope that we can avoid modifying the amendment and that we
will send a strong message to President Yeltsin to meet the date he
originally suggested a year ago.
Mr. LEAHY. The reason I mention it is that in the legislation which
the Senator from Kentucky and I both supported in the committee, it
spoke of national interest. That was with the December 31 deadline.
This is adding another word. I am trying to keep it close to that,
because it is also language I want to be able to maintain as we go
through this whole process. I also tell my friend from Kentucky that I
support the August 31 deadline. It is one we had discussed earlier.
I note that if indeed that was not being followed and indeed the
administration was not taking it seriously, there are items of this
Russian aid that will have to go through the normal reprogramming
process, and that would certainly influence my thinking in such
reprocessing. I do not intend to allow this just to be a figleaf thing.
I think the policy of the Baltics, both for stability within the former
Soviet Union and the ability to improve the efficacy of our own help,
is such that it is important to remove them from the Baltics.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Vermont, I understand
his concerns. It seems to me we are not really asking the Russians to
do much here. We are asking the Russians to stick to the deadline they
themselves set.
Logistically, we are down to a rather small number of troops left. I
was checking my notes here. There are 4,500 in Latvia, 2,500 in
Estonia, and all of them out of Lithuania.
So we are not asking them to move all 100,000 in 6 weeks here. They
are down to a few. We are asking them simply to comply with the
deadline that they themselves set.
I really believe firmly that if the Senate sent a strong message with
this amendment we would see those troops gone by August 31, which would
be to the substantial relief to people in Latvia, Estonia, and
certainly a lot of Americans who came from that area over here.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as I said, the Senator has supported
different language earlier. Both he and I had in the early language
contemplating August 31 as the date they would be out. So his position
today is as consistent today as it was earlier.
I was trying to simply change the date. I was having it be the same
language.
Mr. McCONNELL. If I may say to my good friend Senator Leahy, the
reason that I think we now need a tougher standard is just 2 days ago
this week President Yeltsin stood beside President Clinton and said he
was not going to meet the August 31 deadline.
So I think we have a changed condition warranting toughening up a
little bit the standard as well as moving the date back to the original
date that the Russians set of August 31. I think there is a changed
intervening condition, a changed condition that warrants the national
security interest standard as opposed to the national interest
standard.
That would be my thinking there. I would hope the Senator from
Vermont would agree.
Mr. LEAHY. I am persuaded by the Senator from Kentucky. At the time
when I heard the statement in Naples I had expressed then, not on the
floor of the Senate, but I expressed concern, Madam President.
We are in the position--the United States is, and I believe my friend
from Kentucky would agree with this--as a major power--in fact we are
the major power of the world--we know that it is in our national
security interests to have the former Soviet Union become a democratic
market-oriented, however defined, country, not with a copycat
necessarily of all our laws and institutions but one where there is a
rule of law, where there are democratic principles, elections, and so
forth, and one where they can engage in a free and open trade with the
rest of the world, including the United States, but also one where our
competition is on economics, it is on the exposure of our own ideas and
ideals and not a competition on nuclear warheads or the balance of
terror or deterrence. I know the Senator from Kentucky and I both agree
on that.
I think, though, we also have to realize we are dealing with a nation
redesigning itself, reforming itself, a nation becoming in many ways a
new and totally new nation but with a proud heritage, also a heritage
of great strife in the past and a feeling and the kind of concern when
they did need help from the West also do not want to be considered as a
second-rate nation, nor should they. This is a nation that has in the
course of a century gone from being one of the major powers of all
history. But the fact is that the results are in our security interests
beyond the Baltics.
So, Madam President, I have no problem with this amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Lautenberg be added as cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, I believe that we must continue to hold
Russia's feet to the fire with regard to troop withdrawal from the
Baltic countries. Russia has made substantial progress on withdrawing
from the Baltics--all troops are out of Lithuania and withdrawal from
Latvia is proceeding on schedule. This progress is due in no small part
to United States engagement on this issue. Accordingly, I believe we
should continue to remain engaged by pressing Russia to move ahead on
its commitment to withdraw its troops from Estonia. One way to do that
is to remind Russian leaders that continued United States assistance
depends on responsible international behavior.
I share the concern expressed by my colleagues about President
Yeltsin's recent statements that indicate foot dragging on troop
withdrawal from Estonia. I am encouraged, however, that President
Yeltsin and Estonian President Meri have agreed to meet within the
coming days to discuss the issue.
With the Estonian-Russian talks looming, we must strike a delicate
balance. On the one hand, we must be clear that continued Russian troop
presence is unacceptable. On the other, we must give Russia and Estonia
enough breathing room to work out the outstanding issues surrounding
troop withdrawal. I believe the underlying committee bill strikes the
correct balance. It states that we will restrict our assistance to
Russia if Russian troops are not removed--or if the status of those
forces has not been resolved by mutual agreement--by December 31. The
committee language also contains a waiver that would allow the
President to assist Russia if he believed it was in the national
interest.
The McConnell amendment is much more stringent. It moves the deadline
from December 31 to August 31. It also would make it more difficult for
the President to waive the restriction. To my mind, this amendment
could actually damage the prospects for speedily troop withdrawal from
Estonia. By moving the date at this delicate time, we could undermine
President Yeltsin and empower the hardliners in Russia who wish to
undermine the negotiations on troop withdrawal.
President Yeltsin is already under intense domestic pressure. It is
in our interest to bolster the reformers in Russia, and one way that we
are shoring up those progressive elements is through our assistance
program. If Russian reformers do not survive and nationalist or
military leaders come to power, does anyone believe that troop
withdrawal from Estonia will continue on track?
As I said, I believe the underlying committee amendment strikes a
good balance, and I believe we should maintain that language in the
bill. I therefore will oppose the McConnell amendment.
Senator McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of my friend from
Kentucky.
I think it is important. I think it has significant ramifications for
our future relations with Russia. I believe that it is of the utmost
importance that at some point Russia recognize that the Western
countries, especially the United States, will not allow them to
continue to practice occupation and even expansion similar to that of
the former Soviet Union.
Madam President, just in the way of background on March 11, 1994, a
number of Senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Christopher,
encouraging continued efforts to remove the Russian armed forces from
the Baltic States by August 31, 1994.
As the Senator from Kentucky has pointed out that was the date that
Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia, had committed to.
And in this letter it urges the Secretary of State to take action in
order to try to see that that goal is achieved.
On April 20, I and the other Senators who cosigned the letter
received an answer from Secretary Christopher:
Russian and Latvian negotiators in Moscow initiated an
agreement regarding withdrawal of Russian troops from Latvia.
This significant breakthrough we hope paves the way for full
withdrawal of Russian forces in Estonia by no later than
August 31.
Since April 20 of this year the reasons for optimism and hope on the
part of the Secretary of State have obviously been dashed.
According to published reports when President Clinton and President
Yeltsin were holding a press conference in Naples, President Yeltsin
was asked the question as to whether he intended to honor his own
August 31 target date of withdrawal of troops from Estonia. The New
York Times this week reports:
Mr. Yeltsin replied with a blunt ``nyet.'' This reply
brought a flash of attention to the day in which the leaders
sought to show they stood tall on troubled spots from Bosnia
to North Korea.
According to other reports, Yeltsin said:
Nice question. I like the question because I can say no.
Madam President, it is very disturbing that President Yeltsin should
not only say no but in that manner.
I think we have to understand this issue in the context of what is
happening in Russia today. We are seeing more and more clear
indications of its agressive policy in the near abroad. The desire of
the Russian Government and people have at least some semblance to what
used to be the Soviet Union and the Russian empire by setting up buffer
states which are either reabsorbed into Russia or are totally dependent
upon Russia.
A number of recent events indicate clearly that events tend in this
direction. Elections took place just a few days ago in two countries,
Ukraine and Belarus. Victors in each of these countries were the pro-
Russian candidates. In Ukraine, the president-elect in perhaps the most
strategically important country in the region has often stated his
desire to resume extremely strong economic, military, and political
ties with Russia. Some experts predict as a result of this election
that the eastern part of the Ukraine will in one way or another be
reabsorbed into Russia, not necessarily the entire Ukraine but the
eastern part.
In Belarus it is obviously the same, and we are seeing instances such
as Georgia where Russian troops came in to put down an insurgency. For
all intents and purposes the Government of Georgia today is being run
from the Russian Embassy in Toblez.
So there is no doubt as to what the Russians are about. It does not
necessarily make them bad or evil people. It does not necessarily mean
we are on the brink of renewing the cold war. But what it does signal,
all of these events, including all of the countries whose names end in
stan, Turkistan, Kazakhstan, et cetera, is that there is again in many
of these countries a re-emergence of pro-Russian governments and more
and more Russian influence ranging from elections like those in Belarus
and Ukraine to actual movement of Russian troops.
We have to tell President Yeltsin that we understand his ambitions,
but we will not sit by and abandon a commitment that we have had in
this country ever since the beginning of the cold war.
I think there are many of us here that remember the Fourth of July
parades and those funny looking flags that we used to see of the Baltic
countries--Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Most of us did not know what
those flags were, but we maintained embassies here in this country, in
Washington, DC, of those three little countries which had suffered
under Russian occupation since the end of World War II, and we
maintained our commitment to their full and complete independence.
Perhaps in many parts of this country, where there are a great number
of ethnic Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians, there was great joy and
rejoicing which accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet empire and
the promise of free and independent countries.
The fact is that no country is free and independent, Madam President,
when they are occupied by a foreign country's military presence. We
cannot, in my view, provide assistance--the treasured and hard-earned
tax dollars of the American people--to a country that insists on
maintaining its troops in a free and independent country against the
will of that country for an unlimited period of time.
It is not complicated. We cannot fail to honor the commitment and the
promise that we made to these three little countries, especially
Estonia, during the days of the cold war.
So, Madam President, I believe that the amendment of the Senator from
Kentucky not only signals our view and that of the American people and
the Congress concerning Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, but it signals
Mr. Yeltsin and the military in Russia and their parliament, that we
will not sit idly by while the Russian empire is reconstituted. Because
if we do, very soon there will be a threat to other countries, such as
Poland.
Later on, I hope we are going to have a spirited debate on the issue
of what countries are allowed membership in NATO, and under what
conditions.
This amendment is important, not only for the Baltic States. It is
very important that the American Congress send a message that we are
not ready or willing to have Russian troops maintain a presence in a
nation against that nation's will. Frankly, over time, if those Russian
troops remain there, there is bound to be some kind of conflict between
those troops and the Estonian people, because the Estonian people, very
correctly, will not stand still for this kind of military occupation of
their country.
I know that the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky has the full
intentions of conveying the message that we share of the withdrawal of
Russian troops and demand that negotiations move forward. I think we
can change Yeltsin's attitude and send a message that will spur these
negotiations and arrange for a peaceful and orderly withdrawal so that
the people of Estonia can live a free and independent life, as has been
promised to them by their Constitution and our commitment to them
during the many long years of the cold war.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona knows I agree
with him. I would suspect it probably would pass virtually unanimously
in this body, which would make very clear what the U.S. position is in
both the policy and the press conference.
Madam President, seeing the chief sponsor of the amendment on the
floor, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this be at 3:30 this
afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask, if there are others who may have
amendments that require a rollcall, if they might come forward soon.
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, it is my understanding the
Republican leader will be here momentarily to offer an amendment, and I
suspect it will take a rollcall. I know the chairman is maybe
interested in having two votes at 3:30 and I think that would be
possible.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from Kentucky.
What I am thinking of is, if we had this and had it fairly clear that
we were going to have two or even three votes right together at that
time, we could make sure that was hot-lined.
The Breyer nomination is before the Judiciary Committee. In fact, I
am a member of that committee and I have been trying to divide my time
with that. There are a couple other committee meetings of that nature.
If we are able to accommodate the chairman and ranking member of those
various committees to do it in such a way that we get stacked votes, it
would help them.
So, with that, I might again reiterate to those who are watching--
certainly if the distinguished Republican leader is coming to the
floor, I will yield to him for whatever he has--but if anybody else has
an amendment that could be brought up and is going to require a
rollcall between now and 3:30, my recommendation would be, if we are
able to get the votes stacked, if the distinguished leaders would
agree, that we might be able to then vote on one with a 15-minute vote,
and the subsequent ones with a shorter time.
Again, I also note, I appreciate the cooperation of Senators so far
in moving these things forward. I know we have a couple of late
evenings ahead of us, but it enables us to then try to get this through
conference prior to the August 31 date, because otherwise we will be
unable to get through a conference by that time. But I know it is the
intent of the Senator from Kentucky, and indeed mine, that if we
complete this in time, we will try to do just that.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I have four amendments.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent the
pending amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered be
temporarily laid aside so as to accommodate the Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Without
objection, the pending amendments will be laid aside.
Amendments Nos. 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, En Bloc
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I understand these amendments have been
cleared on each side. Let me say one is a Trans-Caucasus Enterprise
Fund amendment which earmarks $5 million; another eliminates assistance
for the violators of Serbian sanctions; the third would be earmarked $5
million for Bosnian hospitals. If you have been there, you would
understand the need. The fourth would be for Bosnia winterization, an
earmark of $10 million.
I send these four amendments to the desk en bloc and ask they be
considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes amendments
numbered 2241 through 2244, en bloc.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2241
(Purpose: To establish a Trans-Caucasus Enterprise Fund)
Mr. DOLE offered amendment No. 2241 for himself and Mr. Levin.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 23, line 21, delete ``(m)'' and insert the
following new subsection:
(m) Not less than $5 million of the funds appropriated
under this heading shall be made available for the
capitalization of a Trans-Caucasus Enterprise Fund.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, this is a simple and straightforward
amendment. It earmarks $5 million for the establishment of a
Transcaucasus Enterprise Fund. This represents a modest amount of the
more than $800 million in aid provided by this legislation for the
independent states of the former Soviet Union.
Enterprise funds are one of the few success stories of the American
aid to the post-Communist world. They were first established in Hungary
and Poland in the seed legislation in 1989 and provided with initial
funding of $300 million. Enterprise funds support small- and medium-
sized business ventures. They provide expertise and capital for
investment. They show by joint venture and by example that projects can
work--and that fosters additional investment.
The administration has established enterprise funds for all the
countries of Eastern Europe, and all the countries of the former Soviet
Union--with the sole exception of the Transcaucasus region of Armenia,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan. The Russian Enterprise Fund was established
with planned funding of $340 million. A Central Asia fund was set up
for the five Central Asian republics with $150 million. A western NIS
fund was established with $150 million for Ukraine, Belarus, and
Moldova. Enterprise funds exist for the Baltics, for Bulgaria, for
Albania, for Slovenia, and for the Czech and Slovak Republics.
Yet there is no enterprise fund for the Transcaucasus. There are
arguments against such a fund--the bureaucrats can always find excuses
for inaction. Some say there is conflict in the Transcaucasus. But
there are conflicts in Moldova and in Central Asia as well. If it makes
sense to establish enterprise funds in those regions--despite ongoing
conflicts--it make sense to quit include the Transcaucasus in this
important private sector initiative.
Some say conditions are not yet ideal for an enterprise fund for the
Caucasus. But the administration's record shows that it takes months
and even years for an enterprise fund to begin operations after its
formal establishment. For example, the Baltic-American Enterprise Fund
was announced in October 1992, reannounced in June 1993, but no board
has been named, no funds have been provided, and no operations are
underway. It is not armed conflict or political violence slowing the
Baltic enterprise funds, it is bureaucratic inertia. Given this track
record, it makes sense to plan ahead for enterprise funds and establish
one for the Transcaucasus now.
There is no shortage of needs in the Caucasus region. Port, rail, and
communications facilities all need rebuilding. Armenia is a nation of
entrepreneurs. Privatization has commenced and opportunities are there.
In Armenia, for example, $5,000 could finance the start of a computer
software company. Georgian traders and carpenters could benefit from
small scale loans.
The focus of the administration's foreign aid reform is sustainable
development. In my view, the best type of sustainable development is
support for the private sector, support which an enterprise fund is
designed to give.
Due to Senator McConnell's efforts, this legislation contains $75
million for Armenia and $50 million for Georgia. Such grants are vital
to meet immediate needs in the region. But we also need to look ahead,
to look beyond handouts. That is what the Transcaucasus Enterprise Fund
will do. An enterprise fund would provide a real incentive for
privatization. It would foster regional cooperation that is vital to
the future of the Transcaucasus.
I know of no opposition to this proposal and urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
amendment no. 2242
(Purpose: To allocate funds for humanitarian assistance for Bosnia and
Herzegovina)
Mr. DOLE offered amendment No. 2242 for himself and Mr. Lieberman.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE FOR BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.
Of the funds appropriated by this Act, not less than
$5,000,000 shall be available only for medical equipment,
medical supplies, and medicine to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
for the repair and reconstruction of hospitals, clinics, and
medical facilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, last month, I was in Sarajevo and had the
opportunity to visit one of its hospitals. What many people fail to
realize is that hospitals and clinics in Bosnia and Herzegovina have
been targeted and attacked throughout the war. We saw the Bosnian Serbs
attack the Red Cross clinic in Gorazde only a few months ago. And, the
hospital I visited, Kosevo Hospital, was hit often by Bosnian Serb
forces in the hills surrounding Sarajevo--sometimes with tragic
results. Not only did the hospital sustain structural damage and
equipment loss, but doctors and nurses lost their lives when artillery
shells blasted through the hospital's walls. Nevertheless, at Kosevo
Hospital, and other hospitals and clinics throughout Bosnia and
Herzegovina, courageous and dedicated staff worked under horrible
conditions to try to save lives.
The amendment I am offering today, together with the distinguished
Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, provides $5 million for
the repair of hospitals and other medical facilities in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. These funds can also be used to provide medical equipment,
medical supplies, and medicines, as required.
I hope that this amendment will receive strong support. The damaged
hospitals and medical facilities need to be repaired and provided with
the necessary equipment and supplies so that the Bosnian people--who
have suffered for so long now--can receive the better medical care.
Amendment No. 2243
(Purpose: To allocate funds for emergency projects in Bosnia and
Herzegovina)
Mr. DOLE offered amendment No. 2243 for himself and Mr. Lieberman.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . EMERGENCY PROJECTS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.
Of the funds appropriated by this Act, not less than
$10,000,000 shall be available only for emergency
winterization and rehabilitation projects and for the
reestablishment of essential services in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I am pleased to offer this amendment on
behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Lieberman]. This amendment provides $10 million in emergency
winterization and rehabilitation assistance for Bosnia and Herzegovina,
and for the reestablishment of essential services there.
It is not too early to plan for winter. Winter is only a few months
away--and in Bosnia, it usually comes early. Unfortunately, it is my
understanding that not enough is being done by international relief
agencies at this time to prepare for the coming winter. Instead of
increasing airlifts and convoys so that winter-related items can be
stockpiled and prepositioned while the weather is good, the UNHCR has
actually significantly decreased the number of airlifts into Sarajevo.
This seems incredibly shortsighted. Maybe the United Nations and
others are hoping that a settlement will be reached and that the crisis
in Bosnia will be over. In my view, this is wishful thinking. But, in
any event there is no concrete evidence before us to suggest that there
will not be a humanitarian crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina this
winter.
Mr. President, now is also the time to work on rehabilitation
projects and the reestablishment of essential services. It is my
understanding that U.S. aid officials, such as the disaster assistance
response team [DART] based in Zagreb, have already conducted
assessments on rehabilitation assistance and reestablishment of
essential services.
Through this amendment we can provide at least some of the resources
necessary for United States officials to move forward with
rehabilitation projects, emergency winter assistance, and efforts to
reestablish essential services in Bosnia.
amendment no. 2244
(Purpose: To restrict funds available for assistance to countries not
in compliance with United Nations sanctions against Serbia and
Montenegro)
Mr. DOLE offered amendment No. 2244 for himself and Mr. Lieberman.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 72, line 23, insert ``, Serbia, and Montenegro''
after ``Iraq''.
On page 73, line 11, insert ``, Serbia, or Montenegro''
after ``Iraq''.
On page 73, line 17, insert ``, Serbia, or Montenegro, as
the case may be,'' after ``Iraq''.
On page 73, line 19, insert ``, Serbia, or Montenegro, as
the case may be'' after ``Iraq''.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I am pleased to offer this amendment on
behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Lieberman]. This amendment is very simple. It adds Serbia and
Montenegro to section 538 of this bill, which provides that no United
States assistance may be provided to any country that is not in
compliance with the U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iraq,
unless the President certifies that such aid is in the United States
national interest, or that such aid is of a humanitarian nature.
U.N. sanctions were imposed on Serbia and Montenegro in May 1992,
shortly after the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina was launched.
Since that time, the international community--largely at the urging of
the United States--has worked to tighten these sanctions. While the
situation has improved over time, sanctions violations still occur,
particularly along the Danube where NATO ships do not patrol.
In the absence of lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnians, and in
the absence of effective enforcement of the NATO exclusion zones in
Bosnia, sanctions remain the chief source of leverage and pressure on
the Serbian Government and its collaborators in Bosnia. In short, the
administration has put most of its eggs in the sanctions basket and
while some like myself do not believe that is sufficient pressure to
bring about a just and stable peace, the bottom line is that unless we
pass legislation to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia, the
administration's policy which relies on sanctions remains in place.
Therefore, it is essential that these sanctions are airtight. This
amendment should serve to enhance compliance with sanctions against
Serbia and Montenegro since all of the countries that border Serbia and
Montenegro are recipients of United States foreign assistance.
It seems to me that we are not asking too much in making compliance
with United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro a
prerequisite for United States aid, just as we have made compliance
with United Nations sanctions against Iraq a prerequisite. Both are
aggressor states who have violated fundamental principles of
international law and the U.N. Charter.
This amendment should not be controversial and I hope it will receive
broad support.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator from Kansas will yield, I
have seen these four amendments. I have no problem with them. I
understand the Senator from Kentucky has no problem with them either. I
am certainly willing to accept them.
I obviously cannot guarantee what happens in conference. I do not
know what will happen in conference, but I am perfectly willing to
accept them and support them.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. I
understand the Senator from Kentucky has no problem with the
amendments. They have been agreed to on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments (Nos. 2241, 2242, 2243, and 2244) were agreed to en
bloc.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. I have another amendment which I will send to the desk
which has not been agreed to. I will lay it down now and ask the
pending amendment be temporarily laid aside, the McConnell amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the McConnell amendment and
the pending committee amendments will be laid aside.
Amendment No. 2245
(Purpose: To establish a congressional commission for the purpose of
assessing the humanitarian, political, and diplomatic conditions in
Haiti and reporting to the Congress on the appropriate policy options
available to the United States with respect to Haiti)
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself and Mr.
Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2245.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION ON HAITI POLICY.
(a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the American people support a peaceful transition to a
democratic and representative government in Haiti.
(2) Haiti's elected President who is in exile and the de
facto ruling junta in Haiti have reached an impasse in their
negotiations for the reinstitutions of civilian government;
(3) the extensive economic sanctions imposed by the United
Nations and United States against the de facto rules are
causing grave harm to innocent Haitians;
(4) private businesses and other sources of employment are
being shut down, and the continuation of the comprehensive
economic sanctions are causing massive starvation, the spread
of disease at epidemic proportions, and widespread
environmental degradation; and
(5) an armed invasion of Haiti by forces of the United
States, the United Nations, and the Organization of American
States would endanger the lives of troops sent to Haiti as
well as thousands of Haitians, especially civilians.
(b) Establishment and Duties.--(1) There is established a
congressional commission which shall be known as the
Commission on Haiti Policy (in this section referred to as
the ``Commission'').
(2) It shall be the duty of the Commission--
(A) to assess the humanitarian, political, and diplomatic
conditions in Haiti; and
(B) to submit to the Congress the report described in
subsection (d).
(3) In carrying out its duties, the Commission shall call
upon recognized experts on Haiti and Haitian culture, as well
as experts on health and social welfare, political
institution building, and diplomatic processes and
negotiations.
(c) Composition of Commission.--The Commission shall
consist of the following Members of Congress (or their
designees):
(1) The Majority Leader of the Senate.
(2) The Minority Leader of the Senate.
(3) The chairman and the ranking Member of the following
committees of the Senate:
(A) The Committee on Appropriations.
(B) The Committee on Foreign Relations.
(C) The Select Committee on Intelligence.
(D) The Committee on Armed Services.
(4) The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(5) The Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
(6) The chairman and ranking Member of the following
committees of the House of Representatives:
(A) The Committee on Appropriations.
(B) The Committee on Foreign Affairs.
(C) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(D) The Committee on Armed Services.
(d) Report of Commission.--Not later than 45 days after
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the
congress a report on the Commission's analysis and assessment
of conditions in Haiti and, if appropriate, analysis and
assessment of appropriate policy options available to the
United States with respect to Haiti.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I join with the international community in
condemning Haiti's expulsion of United Nations human rights observers.
It is a cowardly and deplorable act. But I also join with an unlikely
ally, the editorial page of the New York Times, in urging the
administration not to use this act as a pretext for invasion.
The editorial is right to conclude, ``But except for refugees, what
is going on in Haiti affects only Haiti.'' And I join with the USA
Today editorial in saying we tried invading Haiti before and we failed
in our goals.
I ask unanimous consent both editorials be printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DOLE. There are obviously many views in this body on what course
we ought to take in Haiti. It is in the news every night. It is on the
front page of the paper every morning. It is on the radio wherever you
go. It is a matter of great concern.
Here we find the most impoverished country in this hemisphere --poor
people are poorer now than they were a week ago or 2 weeks ago because
of sanctions. Some support the use of force. Some support the use of
American military power. Some oppose risking American lives for that
purpose.
But all of us should want the facts before passing judgment on the
issue. And the last thing we should do is to shoot first and ask
questions later, questions that could lead to a peaceful resolution.
For more than 2 months now, I have called for a bipartisan
factfinding commission to review the situation in Haiti.
I would expect supporters of the military option to favor my
proposal. The worst outcome for the United States would be to commit
U.S. power, prestige, and lives without understanding the nature of
local conditions. The unfortunate example of Somalia stands as a stark
reminder of this mistake. We all remember how dozens of Americans lost
their lives trying to arrest a Somali warlord who just days later was
given first-class transportation by the United States military.
I have every confidence in America's men and women in uniform, but in
Haiti it is not hard to foresee a similar outcome. U.S. military power
will reinstall Aristide as president, and within days the American
soldiers will be deployed to restrain excesses of pro-Aristide forces.
The time to prevent such disaster is before it begins. The time to
examine the facts is now before troops are deployed. President Aristide
opposes an invasion. Prime Minister Malval opposes an invasion. Haitian
parliamentarians oppose an invasion. I have a letter I will include in
the Record from a number of parliamentarians. I do not know the
parliamentarians. I do not know where they belong in the political
spectrum. I think the letter will be helpful to some.
Under all these circumstances, with all this opposition, it is hard
to find anyone supporting an invasion. But it appears the
administration is dead set on an invasion course. Political options
have been rejected and no longer explored. In this situation, Congress
has an appropriate role. A few weeks ago, the Senate rejected
amendments which would require congressional approval before an
invasion of Haiti. Later, we approved an amendment expressing our view
that such approval should be sought. It is sort of a sense-of-the-
Senate approach. We made that same approach months or weeks earlier. I
think the vote was 98 to 0, or something unanimous for all those who
were here.
Today I am offering an amendment which establishes a congressional
commission of limited duration of bipartisan membership. The commission
would include the majority and minority leaders and chairmen and
ranking members of four key committees in the House and Senate: Foreign
Relations, Armed Services, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committee.
I do not see how anybody can oppose this amendment. It is not tying
anybody's hands. It simply establishes a joint Senate-House commission
to assess conditions in Haiti and report back in 45 days--45 days. It
seems to me it makes a lot of sense.
I would assume that the members of this commission would have no
special interest, no ax to grind, no preconceived notion on what the
recommendations should be.
Some might say they have enough facts now, that the commission would
lead to more delay. In my view, there cannot be too much information
before a decision to employ American troops is made. Maybe that
decision has already been made by this administration. Sometime next
week, or the next week, or the next week they are going to deploy
American troops.
I believe there are many questions this commission could examine:
What, if anything, is the exact nature of any threats to Americans in
Haiti?
Are any Americans really threatened? We hear some of the newscasts,
we hear some of the rumors, but are any Americans threatened? If that
is the case, it would certainly buttress those who favor intervention.
Why has the flow of Haitians leaving by boat increased so
dramatically in the past month?
Why have efforts to achieve a political solution failed over the last
2 years?
What role could democratically-elected Haitian parliamentarians play
in any potential solution?
Why did the parliamentarians' effort earlier this year fail, an
effort supported and accepted by the United States and the United
Nations?
Why did Prime Minister Malval resign in disgust last year?
What is the real effect of sanctions on the poorest of Haitians? And
certainly we know what tragic impact sanctions are having on the
poorest of Haitians.
What is the human rights record of Aristide and Cedras governments? I
think we ought to take a look at both. I do not think in either case
you are going to find them to anybody's liking.
Is it feasible to establish a safe haven on Haitian soil, a proposal
endorsed by the House of Representatives?
The commission established by my amendment would not review such
questions with a stacked deck. It would not rely on the spin control of
high-priced lawyers and public relations firms. It would provide an
objective view of the situation by the Congress and for the Congress.
Madam President, earlier this month, as I mentioned, I received this
letter signed by a majority of the Haitian Chamber of Deputies, some 48
Haitians. In the letter, the Deputies request that a bipartisan
commission be designated to assess the situation in Haiti first hand.
A week later, one of the signatories of the letter, Duly Brutus,
wrote a Washington Post article supporting a congressional commission.
This Member of Parliament was democratically chosen in the same
election which Aristide won in 1991 and is every bit as legitimate as
President Aristide. I do not know if Bill Gray has met Duly Brutus. I
do not know how many Haitians he has met with beyond Aristide's circle.
I do not know if he has been to Haiti recently.
I do know that U.S. policy should be based on all the available
facts. I do not believe that 45 days and an independent review by
Congress is too much to ask. In 1984, with bitter partisan debate
toward United States policy in Central America, President Reagan
listened to Congress and appointed a bipartisan panel. It was called
the Kissinger Commission. I think the cochairman or vice chairman was
Robert Strauss, later to become Ambassador to Russia, and a very fine
Democrat.
I remain ready to work with the President in creating such a
commission. I am confident the executive branch will work cooperatively
with this congressional commission if this amendment is adopted.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask unanimous
consent that the letter from the parliamentarians be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Republique D'Haiti,
Chambre Des Deputes,
Port-au-Prince, July 1, 1994.
Hon. Robert Dole,
Minority Leader, Senate, Washington DC.
Honorable Senator: We are writing to you and other members
of the bipartisan congressional leadership to request your
participation in and support for an effort to peacefully
resolve the political crisis that has engulfed our country
and threatens to ensnare yours.
The dire consequences of Haiti's political crisis in
addition to the sanctions for our society and economy are
increasingly evident. We are certain, however, that foreign
military intervention cannot provide a foundation for a
lasting solution to Haiti's problems. It must be noted that
as Parliamentarians we firmly oppose the very idea of a
military intervention which is, in any case, reproved by the
different sectors comprising Haitian society.
In order to avert such a development, we think it critical
that democratically-elected legislators in both of our
countries establish a dialogue with each other in solemn
effort to find a peaceful solution to the crisis.
Ideally such a dialogue would have been established at an
earlier stage of the crisis, but we believe that it is not
too late to begin working together to find a peaceful,
democratic solution.
We would recommend as a first step that the bipartisan
leadership of the Congress, or a group of Members designated
by the bipartisan leadership, visit Haiti to assess the
situation in our country first hand and to meet with Deputies
from all parties elected to the Haitian Parliament.
In view of the advanced stage of the crisis, we believe
this visit should occur as soon as possible.
We are available, of course, to meet in Washington with you
and other members of the congressional leadership, or with
Members designated by the leadership, but we believe that any
such meetings should be held in addition to rather than as a
substitute for a visit to Haiti.
We seek a political solution in Haiti under which human
rights and the democracy will be fully respected and which
would further more put an end to the degradation of the
country socio economic problems while contributing to the
promotion of human rights in Haiti. We are confident that it
is not too late to achieve these objectives by means short of
foreign military intervention.
We urge you to join us in finding a political solution
along the lines described above. Please come to our country
to learn more about our actual situation and to help us forge
a peaceful, democratic solution.
Sincerely,
Frantz Robert Monde, President; Depute Marc Ferl
Morquette, Vice-President; Depute Gabriel Antoinier
Clerva, Deuxieme Secretaire; Depute Benoit Beaubrun;
Depute Evans G. Beaubrun; Depute Edmonde S. Beauzile;
Depute Emmanuel Reyme, Premier Secretaire; Depute
Frederic Cheron, Questeur; Depute Yves Pericles Beauge;
Depute Pierre Duly Brutus; Depute Joseph E. Beaumier;
Depute Jn Gardy Charlotin; Depute Mie Junie Creve-
Coeur; Depute Job Dornevil; Depute Delicier Geffrard;
Depute Appolon Israel; Depute Jean Lionel Bouzi; Depute
Lafontant Clervil; Depute Milcent Datus; Depute Jn Eddy
T. Desjardins; Depute Pierre Simon George; Depute Sorel
Jacinthe; Depute Jn Baptiste Laveaux; Depute Girard R.
Jn-Francois; Depute Gela Jn-Simon; Depute Josue
Lafrance; Depute Joseph Benoit Laguerre; Depute Deus
Jn-Francois; Depute Jn Neland Jn-Luis; Depute Lonnes
Joseph; Depute Firmin Milou Laguerre; Depute Joseph
Lambert; Depute Jonas Louis; Depute Francois S. Moise;
Depute Rita F. Moncoeur; Depute Olipcial Regis; Depute
Millevoye Sanon; Depute Denis St Fort; Depute Joseph
Felix Mathieu; Depute Paris Moise; Depute Roosevelt
Ovide; Depute Gabriel Sanon; Depute Pierre Francois
Vital; Depute Geffrard Etienne; Depute Seignon Jn-
Jacques; Depute Leosthene Charlot; Depute Jacques
Lafleur; Depute Ancelot Venort.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, let me just conclude by suggesting that 45
days--that would probably be mid-September, by the time this bill goes
to conference--Congress will be in session in mid-September. Those
members of the commission would have time during the August and
September break, if there is to be an August break, to visit Haiti and
to have appropriate hearings, whatever might be necessary.
This is totally bipartisan. As far as I know, nobody, as I said, has
any preconceived notions on what should happen. I know this is a big,
big issue in the State of Florida. I know in the State of Florida, they
are very concerned about more and more and more immigrants coming to
Florida and the burden it places on the State of Florida.
I hope that the President will see this effort as an effort to be of
assistance, to remove this from what has become, at least as I view it,
as sort of a partisan effort and it ought to be a nonpartisan effort or
a bipartisan effort.
There has been very little consultation by the White House. I
understand there may be some consultation later today. But the best
way, in my view, to support whatever the President may decide to do is
to have some bipartisan congressional group. Congress has a role to
play in foreign policy. Congress has a role to play in Haiti. And
Congress ought to be given that responsibility. I think they are
willing to take it.
I would be very happy, if everything else failed, if the majority
leader and the minority leader sat down and said, ``OK, we are going to
appoint this special group to find facts.'' Maybe we do not need the
legislation. I think we can accomplish the same without it. But there
would be certain advantages to having Congress approve the commission.
This is a very important concern. I listened to Congressman Rangel
last night on television. Obviously, he is very concerned about Haiti
and has every right to be concerned about Haiti. I have great respect
for Congressman Rangel. I think he has not clearly decided which course
to follow, though he may at this point favor intervention.
I do not believe anybody, regardless of their position today, would
not be willing to give us 45 days or 60 days to take a look at the
facts, bring back the facts, give those facts to our colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans alike, and then let us make a judgment at
that time, working with this administration.
That is the basis for the amendment, and I hope that my colleagues
will see some merit to the amendment. I am not certain whether there
will be a vote on this amendment. I know there is another amendment
pending. I know some of my colleagues on this side may wish to speak on
the amendment, and I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the USA Today, July 13, 1994]
Invade Haiti? We've done it Before--and Failed
Temptation to invade Haiti swells with each new outrage by
the military gangsters running the show there. Especially for
President Clinton.
He's up to his ears in Haitian refugees, he's suffering a
foreign policy flop a week, and his Haiti policy spins
chaotically from one questionable tactic to another.
Small wonder he threatens invasion, particularly with
Haiti's thugs now booting out international human rights
monitors in defiance of the international community.
After all, conquering this Caribbean nation the size of
Maryland is almost a nobrainer. Overwhelming 7,500 poorly
equipped Haitian troops with the full bore of the world's
most sophisticated fighting force could take just hours,
maybe days. Casualties, though painful, would be few, perhaps
on a par with the 1983 Grenada invasion that killed 19
Americans.
Just one problem: That's where the good news ends. So
before we send in the Marines, take a moment to look at what
could happen next. History suggests an outcome far less
satisfying than we might wish.
The last time U.S. troops tried to rescue Haiti, they
stayed 19 years.
That was in 1915. Haiti had gone through seven presidents
in eight years, and President Woodrow Wilson concluded that
Marines could teach Haitians how ``to elect good men.'' U.S.
forces took over Haiti's finances, imposed their idea of
order, dissolved the Congress and mandated a new
constitution. An uneasy peace resulted, but riots and strikes
erupted just before forces pulled out in 1934. Marine
officers left convinced that Haiti could only be run by
dictators.
Many Haitians still blame the USA for humiliating the
world's first black republic with that ``white-man''
occupation. And they blame the USA for later support of
despot Jean-Claude ``Baby Doc'' Duvalier.
Another invasion certainly won't change that attitude. More
likely, it will be resented by the very people we aim to
help.
Even Haitians fed up with the violent military junta that
overthrew popularly elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide
in 1991 are unlikely to welcome lingering occupation forces.
And not just because of bad, old memories.
When Duvalier fled in 1986, his brutal followers were
hunted, tortured and killed. In the wake of this invasion,
U.S. forces could easily find themselves with the unsavory
task of protecting anti-Aristide forces.
Then there's the daunting challenge of establishing
democracy in a nation that is a political, economic and
environmental basket case.
President Clinton painted himself into this corner by
imposing severe economic sanctions that drove Haitians from
their homeland by the thousands.
Before he blasts his way out of this dilemma with U.S.
firepower, the president should consider long-term costs of
U.S. intervention, not just short-term rewards.
____
[From the New York Times National, July 13, 1994]
No Good Reason to Invade Haiti
If the Clinton Administration is looking for a pretext to
invade Haiti--a distinct possibility--it has just been handed
a dandy one.
The army-backed Government's abrupt expulsion of foreign
human rights monitors is a defiant slap at the United Nations
and the Organization of American States. By threatening the
safety of these international civil servants, Gen. Raoul
Cedras and his crew have conveniently internationalized what
has been essentially a domestic political crisis, finessing
the objection that an invasion would violate Haitian
sovereignty.
It is a conscious provocation, daring Washington to
override domestic skepticism and invade. But unless force is
literally needed to protect the monitors' lives, the
Administration should sit tight and settle down to a policy
of sanctions, sanctuary and intensified international
diplomacy.
An invasion will not create a workable Haitian political
system, win regional respect or set a constructive precedent
for the use of force in post-cold war foreign policy. There
is no guarantee of a quick exit or acclaim from the Haitian
population, even the pro-Aristide majority. And it is not
supported by Congress or American public opinion.
Nevertheless invasion is a seductive idea to some in the
White House and the State Department because of frustration
with the insolent behavior of Haiti's generals, a desire to
refute doubts that this Administration is prepared to use
force and fear of the political consequences of the continued
massive exodus of Haitian refugees.
The better, if less dramatic, policy is to let recently
tightened international sanctions do their work, pressuring
countries like France to suspend commercial flights and
cooperate in arranging refugee resettlement; and to find
enough safe haven sites, including some in the U.S., to
assure that no fleeing Haitian is forced to return home.
Force is a blunt instrument. It cannot solve political
problems. It kills people, including American troops, who
should only be asked to die when vital national interests are
involved. It punches holes in the international legal order.
It is sometimes necessary but must be used only as a last
resort.
Democracy and human rights are national interests for the
U.S. But except for refugees, what is going on in Haiti
affects only Haiti. Fear of the political consequences of
admitting legally qualified but politically unpopular
refugees is not a very good reason for invading a country.
____
[From the Washington Post, July 7, 1994]
Alternative to Invasion
Port Au Prince.--It would be ironic--as well as tragic--if
the United States, in the name of democracy, were to
intervene militarily to achieve the return of President Jean-
Bertrand Aristide to Haiti. It is hard to think of anything
that would do more damage to democracy.
No reputable political leader or party in all of Haiti--
including Aristide--welcomes the use of military force to
achieve his return. Haiti is one of the poorest nations in
the world. The only dignity left to us is our sovereignty and
our independence. For the United States to strip that away
would be taking away the last vestige of our self-respect.
Such a forcible intervention would only generate entrenched
and rigid opposition from all political classes of Haiti--
including Aristide's supporters. And those supporters could
be expected to be among the first to criticize the United
States for conducting such an operation--even if the return
of Aristide is the reason.
Everyone in the international community knows that the
military of Haiti is unwilling to abide by the will of the
majority as expressed in democratic elections. But the
military is only one part of the problem. The weakness of
democratic political institutions and the absence of a
democratic culture are other parts. While the U.S. military
is most certainly able to drive the Haitian military from
power, it is less certain that the U.S. military would be
able to build the political institutions or culture necessary
for democracy to succeed. That remains for Haitians. I
believe a U.S. invasion would damage Haitians' ability to
build those institutions in the future.
Aristide's return to Haiti depends on his skill as a
politician and, above all, his capacity to become a truly
national leader. If he were a great force for national unity
and reconciliation--as Nelson Mandela has been for South
Africa--he would have returned to Haiti long ago. Those who
know South Africa know that Mandela compromised at every turn
to achieve truly democratic elections.
Today Aristide is also being tested on his willingness and
ability to arrive at a compromise that will result in the
departure of the high command. In the past, whenever his
political skills have been most needed, he has stumbled and
made it possible for the high command to find arguments to
remain in power.
Aristide and his advisers have been unable to build
precisely the kind of grand consensus that would make his
return a political triumph for all of Haiti. His failure to
achieve that victory threatens to produce a national
disgrace: his return to Haiti on the shoulders of the U.S.
Marine Corps.
In the past, the power of a grand national movement has
worked to advance democracy in Haiti against difficult odds.
In 1990 the political classes, in partnership with the
economic elite and government employees, overthrew another
ruthless dictator, Prosper Avril. Avril was much stronger
than Gen. Raoul Cedras has ever been, but the national
consensus against him was ever more powerful.
With political skill and vision, Aristide could still build
that consensus. Sadly, however, he is a force for disunity
and division. He has played the role of conflict seeker
rather than consensus builder. Every time Haitians have come
together over the past two years to try to build a broad-
based consensus for democracy, Aristide--just as much as the
high command--has been a reluctant if not recalcitrant
participant.
It is instructive to look at his three different
appearances before the United Nations at times when, without
his personal participation, there would have been
international consensus on Haiti. In 1991 Aristide denounced
President Joaquin Balaguer of the Dominican Republic as a
racist and called on the United States to lift its economic
embargo against Cuba. In 1992, after he had been removed from
office by coup, Aristide denounced the pope as racist. Most
recently, in 1993, he called for diplomatic recognition of
Taiwan.
Political consensus in Haiti is difficult if not impossible
without political consensus in the United States. Congress
should create a bipartisan commission on Haiti to listen to
all the actors and make recommendations to the president.
Such an approach would contribute to the emergence of a
dialogue and a real national consensus in Haiti. Nelson
Mandela, with his legendary popularity added to his
legitimacy as a democratic leader, achieved a consensus that
has allowed formation of his new government. That search for
consensus should guide American and Haitian political leaders
as well.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Republican
leader, and I join him as a cosponsor on this amendment.
Yesterday afternoon, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted an
extensive and indepth hearing, with administration officials, primarily
from the intelligence community, concerning the very complex issue of
Haiti.
While I am not at liberty to go into the details of that hearing, I
wish to assure the Senate that these details can be made available to
each Member and that they deserve the closest scrutiny at this critical
time.
I have joined the Republican leader on this amendment because I think
he has come up with the most viable approach to this problem that I
have seen put forward by anyone to date. In reaching this conclusion to
support the leader, I have undertaken an in-depth study of the history
of the United States and its relations with Haiti. I urge each
colleague to go back to 1915, when the President decided to send the
U.S. Marines into Haiti to try to bring about some order, some
stability and to lessen human suffering. At that time it was expected
that the Marines would be in Haiti for a short period of time.
That short period soon evolved into many years. As a matter of fact,
it was not until 1934 that the Marines were withdrawn.
Those who advocate using U.S. military forces to invade Haiti claim
that it would only take a matter of hours for U.S. forces to achieve
their initial objectives. But I have not seen the analysis that I feel
is absolutely essential concerning what happens after the Haitian
military leaders are removed from power. Have those persons advocating
this invasion gone back and studied, as I and other Members of this
body have, the history of the last time the United States sent forces
into Haiti? I think it is essential for every Member of the Senate,
indeed of the Congress, to study that chapter of our history and know
full well the consequences which might follow an initial use of our
military in Haiti.
Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent at this time to place in
the Record an editorial from today's New York Times, which questions
the wisdom of those who argue for military action by this country; as
well as an article from the Wall Street Journal. And I hope to receive
from the Department of Defense today in time to incorporate in the
Record, some material about that critical chapter of 1915 to 1934 when
the U.S. Marines were called on to perform a task not dissimilar to the
one that is being contemplated today.
There being no objection, the editorial were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, July 13, 1994]
No Good Reason To Invade Haiti
If the Clinton Administration is looking for a pretext to
invade Haiti--a distinct possibility--it has just been handed
a dandy one.
The army-backed Government's abrupt expulsion of foreign
human rights monitors is a defiant slap at the United Nations
and the Organization of American States. By threatening the
safety of these international civil servants, Gen. Raoul
Cedras and his crew have conveniently internationalized what
has been essentially a domestic political crisis, finessing
the objection that an invasion would violate Haitian
sovereignty.
It is a conscious provocation, daring Washington to
override domestic skepticism and invade. But unless force is
literally needed to protect the monitors' lives, the
Administration should sit tight and settle down to a policy
of sanctions, sanctuary and intensified international
diplomacy.
An invasion will not create a workable Haitian political
system, win regional respect or set a constructive precedent
for the use of force in post-cold war foreign policy. There
is no guarantee of a quick exit or acclaim from the Haitian
population, even the pro-Aristide majority. And it is not
supported by Congress or American public opinion.
Nevertheless invasion is a seductive idea to some in the
White House and the State Department because of frustration
with the insolent behavior of Haiti's generals, a desire to
refute doubts that this Administration is prepared to use
force and fear of the political consequences of the continued
massive exodus of Haitian refugees.
The better, if less dramatic, policy is to let recently
tightened international sanctions do their work, pressuring
countries like France to suspend commercial flights and
cooperate in arranging refugee resettlement; and to find
enough safe haven sites, including some in the U.S., to
assure that no fleeing Haitian is forced to return home.
Force is a blunt instrument. It cannot solve political
problems. It kills people, including American troops, who
should only be asked to die when vital national interests are
involved. It punches holes in the international legal order.
It is sometimes necessary but must be used only as a last
resort.
Democracy and human rights are national interests for the
U.S. But except for refugees, what is going on in Haiti
affects only Haiti. Fear of the political consequences of
admitting legally qualified but politically unpopular
refugees is not a very good reason for invading a country.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 1994]
Haiti--No Grenada
(By William Perry)
The debate over the merits of U.S. military intervention in
Haiti has many curious facets. One of the most obvious is
that the liberal doves of yesteryear now seem to have
recanted their prejudice that Washington can do no good in
the world (especially through military means), as well as
their attachments to the principle of nonintervention. And
they now invoke precedents, like Grenada, to make their case.
Unfortunately for this line of argument, the situations
within Haiti and Grenada are not comparable. The wider
international context has been completely transformed since
1983.
The nominal purposes of a U.S. military intervention in
Haiti would be to ``restore'' democracy to that country and
to stanch the flow of refugees from there to our shores. But
the fact is that the use of U.S. forces to oust the current
regime in Port-au-Prince and substitute a government headed
by Jean-Bertrand Aristide is unlikely to produce these
results. And any effort to secure them would involve America
in a complicated, long-term commitment for which even the
most fervent advocates of intervention are not prepared.
The first thing to appreciate about Haiti is that it is the
least developed country--both economically and politically--
in the Western Hemisphere. To speak more bluntly: At its
present state of development, Haitian society may be
incapable of sustaining an authentic and functional
democratic political system by itself. And the messianic,
problematical personality of Mr. Aristide will not make this
inherently difficult task any easier. Such judgments are not
based on ideology--much less on racism. In fact, the example
of Grenada demonstrates that what truly matters is a
country's political culture and its level of economic
development.
Thus, in Grenada we were confronted with a group of
malefactors who could be surgically removed--in short order
and at low cost--gratifying the local population and allowing
that country's naturally democratic institutions to resume
their normal function. But with regard to Haiti, we would
either install Mr. Aristide and promptly leave--in which case
he would soon find himself involved in grave difficulties
(probably requiring another intervention)--or we would have
to stay on for a long time.
a difficult partner
Even if the United Nations could be induced to join us in a
longer-term effort, the heart of an occupation force would be
American--and seen that way in Haiti and abroad. We would be
functioning, in effect, as the security force of an Aristide
government. Inevitably, he would prove a difficult partner,
while his opponents would blame us for whatever policies he
pursues. More fundamentally, we would face the task of
transforming Haiti's political culture in the teeth of that
nation's fierce and somewhat paranoid nationalism. Ugly
incidents would be bound to occur and substantial obligations
undertaken, both to sustain the occupation and to refloat the
Haitian economy with further financial aid. Frankly, it is
doubtful whether U.S. public opinion has the stomach for all
this.
The other major difference between Haiti in 1994 and
Grenada in 1983 is the international context. The early 1980s
were characterized by an effort on the part of the Reagan
administration to contain and reverse the Soviet expansionism
that was evident during President Carter's tenure--and to
make the ``evil empire'' pay the highest possible price for
the aggressive course that it has been pursuing.
In this high-stakes global game, the very future of the
U.S. was seen to hang in the balance. The Western Hemisphere,
where the Soviet-Cuban axis was operating in Central America
and the Caribbean, had emerged as a significant area in that
competition. Grenada had become the third ally of Moscow in
the arena (along with Cuba and Nicaragua). Thus, the bloody
internal struggle that tore apart the Marxist New Jewel
movement in Grenada presented dangers of even greater
extremism there--and, alternatively, opportunities for the
U.S. containment of Soviet designs--that could not be
ignored.
Haiti in 1994 does not fit into any such strategy to
protect vital U.S. interests. The Clinton administration has
as yet been unable to articulate any grand design to meet the
challenges of the new post-Cold War world. In fact, its
vacillating course on the international scene, combined with
a painful ambivalence about the use of force that weakens its
credibility, has contributed a great deal to the situation we
now face in Haiti. As a result, the protagonists in the local
struggle have scant respect for the views of the Clinton
government. Of equal importance, little in the way of support
from the American people can be expected.
Undoubtedly the U.S. would have to use its military forces
if the situation in Haiti exploded to the point that the
lives of our citizens and those of other foreign nationals
were seriously threatened. But armed intervention to install
Mr. Aristide and to halt the tide of refugees would be a
serious mistake--in no way justified by our previous
experience in places like Grenada.
Mr. WARNER. A second subject that we covered at some length
yesterday--and again I am handicapped, understandably, by the
classification level at that hearing, but I pressed at length about
whether or not the administration has examined all of the options
regarding policy toward Haiti. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be in the
Senate today consulting with the leadership on this and other issues.
But I question whether we have fully looked at all of the options which
may be available to us, other than the use of U.S. military force.
Second, I question the degree to which the United Nations will or
will not participate in a military mission in Haiti. It is very easy to
say we should go in under the auspices of the United Nations. Time and
time again here in this Chamber, primarily in connection with Somalia
and to some extent Bosnia, my colleagues have quite justifiably
questioned command and control of military operations under the
auspices of the United Nations. I would like to see such arrangements
spelled out with great clarity if, indeed, the United Nations is to be
involved in a Haiti operation.
This Senator has been informed that if the military leadership in
Haiti is removed, there is a question as to whether or not such a move
would precipitate civil war throughout the country. We should consider
this possibility and other possible consequences of a U.S. military
invasion. This is a decision not to be taken lightly.
Furthermore, this Senator would want to know exactly what role, if
any, other nations in the hemisphere are going to play. Is this going
to be solely a U.S. operation or is it to be a multilateral venture?
Will other nations help with the problem of restoring some stability to
Haiti and providing the economic assistance that would be necessary in
the aftermath of any military action?
Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee will soon be
completing a report on Somalia. It has been my privilege to work on
that report with my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin. We have taken
extensive testimony, interviewed almost everyone that played a key
role. The experience of developing that report on Somalia directly
relates to my concerns in the case of Haiti. We have not as yet fully
documented lessons learned in Somalia. I hope that we could do that
before, once again, we send our troops forward from these shores in the
cause of trying to lessen the hardship of other citizens of the world.
I question whether the United States has national security interests
in Haiti which would justify the use of the U.S. military. Yes, it is
but a short distance from our shores as compared to Bosnia and Somalia.
But that fact alone, to this Senator, does not justify an immediate
conclusion that there are security interests involved. Humanitarian
interests, yes. That is apparent; but that is not enough to justify a
military invasion.
In the course of the deliberations on the Senate Armed Services
authorization bill, I produced a chart prepared by the Defense
Intelligence Agency showing that as of today there are no less than 60
areas of the world in which hostilities are occurring, resulting in
human suffering of varying degrees.
That compared with an analysis using the same parameters 7 years ago
showing 30-plus areas of the world in which there were hostilities and
human suffering. This is a very troubled world. We have to be very
careful as a nation to determine the criteria we use to send our men
and women in the Armed Forces beyond our shores to try to lessen the
hardship in the world.
Mr. President, I urge all colleagues to take a close look at this
amendment and, hopefully, join with the distinguished Republican leader
in this effort. I urge that we take the steps outlined in this
amendment, in this real view of leadership taken by Senator Dole in
relation to this serious problem in Haiti.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Hampshire, [Mr. Gregg].
Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise to comment also on the proposal of the senior Senator from
Kansas, the Republican leader. I think it is a very constructive effort
to try to address the Haitian situation. A week and a half ago, I
offered an amendment on this floor to ask that the President be
required to come to this Congress, this Senate, and explain and report
the purposes which he was pursuing in Haiti before he used any military
force in Haiti.
The Senate decided that, rather than pursue it in a manner which
would require that it occur relative to funding to be available, to
rather make it a sense of the Senate to call on the President to come
to this Congress and explain his purposes relative to Haiti.
Yet, we have not heard that explanation. Today, it is fairly clear
that this administration has positioned itself to use military force in
Haiti. There is no question about that. In fact, one of the national
channels, CNN, was reporting yesterday the date on which the invasion
would occur. They said it was going to occur within 10 days. They said
the reason it was not going to occur today or in the next few days was
because the President was out of the country and the Secretary of
Defense was going to be out of the country. So they were specifically
reporting, from the Pentagon I might add, that the invasion would occur
within 10 days.
When we have reached that point of intensity of threat for the use of
American forces, we need to know why. The American people need to know
why. The fundamental question has to be when an American soldier is in
the streets fighting for his or her life, whether it is in the streets
of Port-au-Prince or in the streets of Somalia, that American soldier
has to know why he or she is there putting his or her life at risk, and
the American people need to know why that is occurring. The national
interest has to have been defined, a national interest significant
enough to be willing to put at risk an American life, and to be willing
to put at stake the American military prestige. This President has not
defined that national interest.
Is the national interest the failure of his policy and sanctions
which has created the immigration issue? Is the national interest the
fact that you have a thuggery running the country? Is the national
interest the fact that the country is impoverished? I do not happen to
think that the threshold question of national interest is met by any of
those issues.
This Presidency has not been able to make the case that the refugee
issue from Haiti involving Haitians represents a clear national
interest which requires us to use military intervention there. In fact,
the refugee issue is a self-created event, self-inflicted wound
generated by the policies of this administration as they pursue the
sanction policy which has impoverished the people of Haiti while
enriching the thugs who run Haiti, and then at the same time taking a
bumper car approach of how they deal with refugees, one day saying they
will give them political asylum and the next saying they will not give
them political asylum and encouraging Haitians to leave their country
in hopes of a better life when in fact we are not going to be able to
accept them here.
So it is their own policies that have created this exodus, and the
numbers involved in this exodus, although large and compelling,
certainly do not impact us as a nation as much as, for example, the
numbers of people who are illegally immigrating here from other nations
in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, they are only a small fraction of
the people coming into our country from, for example, Mexico.
So the case for national interest for invasion cannot be made on the
basis of illegal immigrants or the refugees. It cannot be made on the
basis of fact that there are a bunch of thugs running the country that
have taken over that country from an elected democracy for elected
leaders. That has occurred in other parts of this hemisphere, and is in
fact the case in a nation even closer to our shores than that, and the
people have been repressed. But it does not justify military
intervention.
It cannot be made for the reason that this is a very impoverished
country because, regrettably, there are a number of impoverished
countries in this world, and that does not justify military
intervention.
So this administration simply has not made the case for why we should
initiate military intervention. Until it makes that case and makes it
to the American people, it would be a tremendous mistake to pursue such
a policy.
Thus, I rise to support the proposal put forward by Senator Dole,
which makes the very reasonable suggestion that, if the President is
not going to lay out the justifications for American policy relative to
Haiti or if that policy is going to change basically on an hourly basis
by this administration, that the Congress needs to step in and at least
find out what is going on and give some definition to American policy.
That is what the Dole amendment basically proposes: that we as a Senate
and we as a Congress fulfill our role in the area of giving advice and
consent in the area of foreign policy and design and assist this
administration, which really needs a tremendous amount of assistance,
in giving some definition to what is the American purpose relative to
Haiti.
Clearly, at a minimum, at an absolute minimum, this should be done
before we put American lives at risk. What Senator in this body is
going to want to go to the loved one of a soldier who has been wounded,
or maybe even lost his or her life as a result of being put into the
streets of Port-au-Prince in a military action? What Senator is going
to want to go to that mother or that father or that spouse, that
husband, that son, that daughter and try to explain to them what it was
that their son or their daughter or their husband or their wife went to
war for? What was the American interest? I could not do it. I would not
want to be put in that position.
I do not think we should ask our American soldiers to go into Port-
au-Prince or into Haiti unless they know what they are going in for.
That is a basic element of a democracy that you do not ask your people
to fight unless you know and tell them what they are fighting for. This
administration has not done that. It continues to fail on that account.
Therefore, the Dole amendment is an attempt to try to clarify the
situation.
So I strongly support it.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Kentucky, [Mr. McConnell].
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me briefly commend the Senator from
New Hampshire for his comments and the particular leadership he
exhibited when we discussed a different approach to the Haiti question.
I suspect that the President thinks that many of us are trying to
embarrass him on Haiti. We are not. We are clearly trying to force the
administration to come to grips and define an appropriate policy, Mr.
President.
I am not going to read them all, but I have a list here of quotes on
Haiti policy by people who are friendly to the President. The chairman
of the Black Caucus in the House said the other day: ``It is a policy
of anarchy.'' An adviser to Aristide said just 3 days ago: ``I am
simply lost. Once again, there has been policy derailment.''
Carl Rowan, a columnist we are all familiar with and frequently read,
who is certainly not hostile to the Clinton administration, said 2 days
ago: ``He is about to invade because he hasn't the foggiest notion of
anything else to do.''
This is not the Senator from New Hampshire or the Senator from
Arizona or the Senator from Kentucky making these remarks. This is Carl
Rowan, a prominent columnist that we all admire and read frequently.
So the point we are trying to make to the President in a variety of
different ways is define and stick with a policy on Haiti. The
Republican leader has come up with a good suggestion on this
congressional commission because, clearly, before you do anything in
Haiti, we are all going to have to be participants in it. The message
we have been trying to send to the President of the United States is
there is no way, practically speaking that he can politically, or
should strategically, or for any other reason, invade Haiti without
coming to us for some consultation.
So we are not here having this debate because we are trying to
embarrass the President of the United States. We are having this
discussion because, Mr. President, we do not understand the policy and
cannot comprehend how he can justify an invasion of this tiny island.
As numerous speakers have pointed out, the last time the United States
did it, it did not work out too well. So we are trying to send a
message--hopefully not in a confrontational way--to the President, that
if he has any notions of invasion, let us not do that. So the
Republican leader has suggested this congressional commission, with a
very limited lifespan of 45 days, composed of people who represent the
body that he will have to consult--the Congress--in order to make any
kind of invasion fly with the American public.
So I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for his continuing
involvement in this issue. The Senator from Arizona is about to speak
as well. We have come at this issue with amendments in a little
different way. Some of us have had problems with them if they intended
to restrict the President's involvement in advance; but, fundamentally,
we are all in the same place. I think we are saying in a rather unified
chorus: Do not invade, Mr. President. And do, by the way, try to figure
out what the policy ought to be.
There were 15,000 new refugees created in the last few weeks because
of what they think the current policy is. People are leaving the
country, scrambling to get out. Obviously, what we are doing now is not
working. Maybe some of us up here may be able to offer some good advice
to the President as he seeks to formulate a policy that will work.
I am certain that the invasion option is an inviting thing. I mean,
most military advisers would think that the initial invasion would be a
piece of cake. But then we all know--as it has been frequently
discussed as we have debated Haiti on other occasions--what happens
then. So you topple the Government and what do you have? Then you have
the responsibility--a highly questionable option.
I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for his most important
contribution to this debate and join the chorus of those saying to the
President: Please do not invade; it is not a good idea. I know it is
tempting, and it might be doubly tempting if we are out of here during
the August recess.
Mr. President, we should say to the President of the United States
that there will be an uproar across America if there is an invasion of
Haiti, particularly if it is not conducted after careful consultation
with the Congress. And just because there may be some Americans in
Haiti that will be a strained way to justify such an invasion, because
there is no evidence that any of them are under a threat of bodily harm
or would welcome such action.
So I think the Republican leader has certainly crafted an interesting
and appropriate approach so that Congress might speak on this Haiti
issue. We have been trying to. We have been working at it in different
ways. The amendments may not be clear, or the pattern may not be clear
of the amendments, but the message should be clear and unambiguous, Mr.
President.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I would advise the Senator that there is a
rollcall vote scheduled for 3:30 p.m., at which time the Chair will
have to interrupt the Senator, but then he will immediately regain the
floor following the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole amendment. I want to
associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire and
the Senator from Kentucky, who I think make very important points.
There are several reasons why this amendment--although perhaps
unusual--is very important and compelling. One is that, in my view,
with a caveat, this country is headed toward an invasion of Haiti. The
embargo policy which starves children and women and poor and elderly
and prevents rich people from flying to Miami ratchets up in a most
distressing way the poverty and deprivation of the Haitian people. This
in turn drives them into boats and drives them into either safe havens,
or Florida, to be returned after some period of time.
The caveat I have to the likelihood of this invasion is that the
President of the United States like all Presidents, pays close
attention to the polls, and the overwhelming majority of the American
people are in opposition to a military invasion of Haiti. The
overwhelming majority of the military leadership in this country,
uniformed military leadership, is also opposed, not because, as the
Senator from Kentucky stated, it would be a difficult military
operation initially, but because once we are enmeshed in this very
difficult and complex situation, we would sooner or later face very
fierce resistance on the part of the Haitian people who, for whatever
reason, do not want to be invaded and occupied by a foreign country or
countries.
So we are headed toward an invasion, and perhaps, as my friend from
Florida, who I see on the floor, very articulately argued, there is a
reason for an invasion. But if there is going to be one, there should
be consensus in the Congress and among the American people before we do
so.
Unfortunately, this administration has not--I repeat, has not--
consulted in a bipartisan fashion with Members of Congress--not on this
issue or practically any other issue. I regret it, and I strongly urge
this administration to do what previous administrations have done, both
Republican and Democrat, and that is start consulting with Members of
the opposite party. It has not happened, and they could probably spare
themselves a lot of grief and criticism if they would begin to do that.
There are some of us that still believe that partisanship ends at the
water's edge, but when not consulted, we have to draw our own
conclusions and reach the American people in the most effective
fashion.
The other reason, Mr. President, why there is a need for this
bipartisan commission is because of the incredible confusion which has
characterized the conduct of the United States' policy in Haiti.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be delayed for
an additional 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I want to accommodate the
Senator from Arizona. I am thinking of the two hearings that are going
on. We can delay the vote 5 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I understand. I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator wants 5 minutes, all right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the vote will then occur at
3:35 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there have been in my view five Clinton
policies on Haiti.
The first policy was that of candidate Clinton, who called the Bush
policy of forcibly returning fleeing Haitians immoral. Candidate
Clinton said, ``I am appalled by the decision of the Bush
administration to pick up fleeing Haitians on the high seas and
forcibly returning them to Haiti.''
The second policy was that of a President just beginning to
understand that being a candidate and being President are vastly
different things. He announced just before the inauguration a policy
identical to the Bush policy--that he would continue to intercept
fleeing Haitians and retain them. The intention was to prevent the
massive outflow of refugees that may have accompanied his inauguration.
The third policy was policy by hunger strike. The change came on May
8 under pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and Randall
Robinson. The new policy proposed to process refugees on ships off the
coast of Haiti and in third countries. The new policy took effect on
June 16, 1994, and then began the new flood of refugees, exactly what
Clinton had sought to avoid before his inauguration. Between June 16,
when the policy changed, and July 7, roughly 14,000 Haitians were
picked up at sea. This is a massive number if compared to the more than
45,000 between the coup in September 1991 and June 16, 1994.
The fourth policy came this last Tuesday, 3 weeks after the second
policy. This was a policy once again designed to stem the flow of
refugees. Refugees would be taken to out-of-country processing centers.
If they were found to have a legitimate claim to persecution, they
would have been allowed to stay in the refugee camp. If not, they would
be returned to Haiti. This was backed up by statements from the
administration such as William Gray, ``Those who take to the boats will
not have resettlement possibilities in the United States.''
The fifth policy came a day later, apparently under pressure from the
Black Caucus and others. Once again a tough policy designed to stem the
flow of refugees was overturned for political reasons. Refugees would
not have to prove a fear of persecution to stay in the third country
refugee camps, although they would still be barred from coming to the
United States.
We are telling the refugees ``come'' and ``do not come.'' The nuances
of the policies may be lost on them. The constant flip-flops are
causing tragedy off the coast of Haiti every day.
There have also been changes in Clinton's policies on military
intervention. Last fall the President said that he was only
contemplating military involvement as part of a peaceful U.N. brokered
settlement.
Later he said military force to restore Aristide could not be ruled
out. October 13, 1993:
I have no intention of asking our young people in uniform *
* * to go in there and do anything other than implement a
peace agreement* * *
May 13, 1994:
I think that we cannot afford to discount the prospect of a
military option in Haiti.
Mr. President, we have to have consistent policy, as said by
Congressman Mfume just a couple days ago. We have got to have a
consistent policy even one that this Senator may disagree with. We are
confusing our allies, encouraging our enemies, and the response of the
military leadership in Haiti is only one group that has been
encouraged.
Questions need to be answered, Mr. President. What basis under
international law would justify the United States invading at this
time?
If United States troops occupy Haiti, they will become the police
power there. What will American forces do if Haitian citizens take mob
action in the street against their purported enemies? Will they shoot
Haitians if necessary to prevent violence by Haitians against Haitians,
or will they stand by and permit mob action including necklacing to
occur?
What strategy do we have to remove American forces once they are
committed to Haiti? Will we remove our troops if President Aristide
requests that we do so within weeks after an invasion? What assurances
do we have that the United Nations, or another international
institution, will deploy a force to relieve American forces? How
quickly would they do so? If we do not have such assurances, what is
our exit strategy for the United States?
Mr. President, I note that the hour has almost arrived. I will save
the remainder of remarks until after the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator from Arizona.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 2240
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs now under the previous
order on amendment No. 2240 offered by the Senator from Kentucky. The
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.
Chafee] and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]
YEAS--89
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--8
Boren
Ford
Glenn
Hollings
Metzenbaum
Pell
Pryor
Simon
NOT VOTING--3
Chafee
Coverdell
Nunn
So the amendment (No. 2240) was agreed to.
Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator
McConnell's amendment that would condition Russian aid upon a
commitment to withdrawal of all Russian troops from the Baltics. I
would like to commend the Senator from Kentucky for offering this
amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.
It is very important for Russia to understand that the colonial
legacy of the Soviet Union is over. Russian policy vis-a-vis its
neighbors leaves much to be desired. The insistence that Russia be
allowed to settle disputes along its borders, smacks of imperialism and
a rightist tendency that must be stopped. Having said this, I am very
disturbed that President Yeltsin has refused to withdraw its 2,500
troops from Estonia by August 31, 1994.
The United States is providing $839,000,000 to Russia. This is no
small amount of money. While it most certainly needs this assistance,
it must also realize that it must follow a norm of behavior consistent
with the rest of the civilized world. As long as Russia refuses to
commit to the withdrawal of its troops from Estonia and the other
sovereign Baltic States, then we must condition our aid to them on this
issue.
The Baltics are free and independent States and Russia must recognize
this. The presence of Russian troops represents a Russian dispute with
this fact. The message that this amendment sends is an important one
and one that must be clearly understood by Russia. I hope that my
colleagues will support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2245
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate now returns to the pending
amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, No. 2245.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment by
the Senator from Kansas be temporarily laid aside.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it was
my understanding that Senator McCain was to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the Senator from
Arizona did indicate that after the vote we just concluded he would
seek recognition to extend his remarks.
Mr. McCONNELL. That was my understanding, Mr. President.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Illinois is only
going to need 2 or 3 minutes while we are waiting for the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I therefore do not object. I do not see
the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment, No.
2245, is set aside.
Amendment No. 2246
(Purpose : To allocate assistance that has as its objective the
improvement of the lives of the poor)
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration. I think it is agreed to by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself and Mr.
Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 2246.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
poverty reduction emphasis for development assistance
Sec. . (a) Of the total amount of funds appropriated by
this Act to carry out chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, a substantial percentage of
the funds shall be available only to finance programs,
projects, and activities that directly improve the lives of
the poor, with special emphasis on those individuals living
in absolute poverty.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that the President, in
carrying out this section, should--
(1) promulgate appropriate standards for identifying those
populations living in poverty;
(2) establish a program performance, monitoring, and
evaluation capacity within the Agency for International
Development that will develop and prepare, in consultation
with both local and international nongovernmental
organizations, appropriate indicators and criteria for
monitoring and evaluation of progress toward poverty
reduction; and
(3) take steps necessary to increase the direct involvement
of the poor in project design, implementation and evaluation,
including increasing opportunities for direct funding of
local nongovernmental organizations serving these
populations, and other local capacity-building measures.
(c) The Congress urges the President, not later than April
1, 1995, to submit to the Congress a report setting forth the
progress made in carrying out this section.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I believe this is acceptable to both sides.
What this is, is a sense of the Senate that a substantial amount of our
foreign aid has to go to those who are the poor in various countries.
Many people say that is happening already. Unfortunately, frequently
in foreign aid programs we end up with consultant fees and all kinds of
other things and they do not get the priority. Back some years ago,
when I was in the House, I got an amendment on saying that 50 percent
ought to go, at least, to those who are poor within the countries that
receive foreign aid, with the exception of the Middle East situation,
which is special. That was accepted in conference at 40 percent.
Then a few years ago, unbeknownst to me, that was quietly slipped
off.
I think this sense of the Senate, with the requirement that we get a
report back on what is happening, is acceptable to everyone. I think it
moves our aid program just a little more in the direction that we ought
to be going.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment. I
believe it has been cleared.
Mr. McCONNELL. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Illinois.
The amendment (No. 2246) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know there are a number of people who
will speak on the Dole amendment when it recurs. I understand the
distinguished Republican leader anticipates a vote tomorrow, as opposed
to today, on that amendment. So I suggest, Mr. President, if there are
others who have amendments that have either been cleared or could go
quickly to a vote or otherwise--let me ask the Presiding Officer, what
now is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has now returned to amendment No.
2245 offered by the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. LEAHY. And that is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. Is my understanding correct that the yeas and nays have
been ordered on that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered on
that amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. I am not requesting them. I leave that to the Senator from
Kansas. I just wanted to know the situation.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on the Dole
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There does not appear to be a sufficient second.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Helms and McCain be added as cosponsors to the Dole amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment Nos. 2247, 2248, 2249, 2250, 2251, and 2252, En bloc
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if the Senator from North Carolina will
withhold briefly, under the unanimous-consent agreement under which we
are operating, it is permissible for me to send to the desk some
amendments on behalf of one of our colleagues to protect his
opportunity to offer them.
So I have a series of amendments that Senator Brown intends to offer.
I send them to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be temporarily set aside for the purpose of receiving the amendments
offered by the Senator from Kentucky.
Does the Senator seek unanimous consent to offer these en bloc?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that they be offered en
bloc and then laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Brown,
proposes amendments numbered 2247 through 2252, en bloc.
Amendment No. 2247
(Purpose: To reduce appropriations under the account ``International
Organizations and Programs'' which are available for the United Nations
Development Program in order to bring the bill into compliance with the
Budget Enforcement Act)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2247 for Mr. Brown.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 7, lines 7 and 8, strike ``$382,000,000:
Provided,'' and insert ``$273,000,000: Provided, That not to
exceed $12,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be made available for the United Nations
Development Program: Provided further,''.
____
amendment no. 2248 to the committee amendment on page 2
(Purpose: To make Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic eligible for
allied defense cooperation with NATO countries, and for other purposes)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2248 for Mr. Brown, for himself,
Mr. Simon, Mr. Roth, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Domenici.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the Committee amendment which ends on line 21
of page 2 of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. . ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR PARTICIPATION IN
ALLIED DEFENSE COOPERATION.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``NATO
Participation Act''.
(b) Transfer of Excess Defense Articles.--The President may
transfer excess defense articles under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or under the Arms Export
Control Act to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
(c) Leases and Loans of Major Defense Equipment and Other
Defense Articles.--Section 63(a)(2) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796(b) is amended by striking ``or
New Zealand'' and inserting ``New Zealand, Poland, Hungary,
or the Czech Republic''.
(d) Loan Materials, Supplies, and Equipment for Research
and Development Purposes.--Section 65(d) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796d(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' after ``United States)'' and
inserting a comma; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic''.
(e) Cooperative Military Airlift Agreements.--Section
2350c(e)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``and the Republic of Korea'' and inserting ``the
Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic''.
(f) Procurement of Communications Support and Related
Supplies and Services.--Section 2350f(d)(1)(B) is amended by
striking ``or the Republic of Korea'' and inserting ``the
Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic''.
(g) Standardization of Equipment With North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Members.--Section 2457 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(g) It is the sense of the Congress that in the interest
of maintaining stability and promoting democracy in Eastern
Europe, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, those
countries should, on and after the date of enactment of this
subsection, be included in all activities under this section
related to the increased standardization and enhanced
interoperability of equipment and weapons systems, through
coordinated training and procurement activities, as well as
other means, undertaken by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization members and other allied countries.''.
(h) Inclusion of Other European Countries Emerging From
Communist domination.--The President should recommend
legislation to the Congress making eligible under the
provisions of law amended by this section such other European
countries emerging from communist domination as the President
may determine if such countries--
(1) have made significant progress toward establishing
democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian
control of their armed forces, and the rule of law; and
(2) are likely, within 5 years of such determination, to be
in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic
Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North
Atlantic area.
____
amendment no. 2249
(Purpose: To freeze contributions to the International Development
Association [IDA])
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2249 for Mr. Brown.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 12 strike ``$1,207,750,000'' and insert
``$1,024,332,000.''
____
amendment no. 2250
(Purpose: To maintain funding for the Global Environment Facility at FY
1994 level and to make the funds available pending certain reform
measures)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2250 for Mr. Brown.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 6, strike $98,800,000, insert $30,000,000
and on page 105, line 16, insert the following:
(c) Funds appropriated by Title I of the Act under the
heading ``Limitation on Callable Capital Subscriptions''
shall be available for payment to the IBRD for the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) as follows:
(1) 50 percent of the funds appropriated under such heading
shall be made available prior to April 1, 1995 only if the
Secretary of the Treasury makes the determination and so
reports to the Committee on Appropriations as described in
paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(2) 50 percent of the funds appropriated under such heading
shall be made available on or after April 1, 1995 only if the
Secretary of the Treasury makes the determination and so
reports to the Committee on Appropriations as described in
paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(3) The determinations referred to in paragraphs (1) and
(2) are determinations that the GEF has
(i) established clear procedures ensuring public
availability of documentary information on all GEF projects
and associated projects of the GEF implementing agencies.
(ii) established clear procedures ensuring that affected
peoples in recipient countries are consulted on
identification, preparation and implementation of GEF
projects.
____
amendment no. 2251
(Purpose: To establish an independent commission to study the salaries
and benefits of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2251 for Mr. Brown.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill insert the following:
SEC. 576. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE
ENHANCED STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FACILITY.
(a) Limitation.--Not more than $20,000,000 of the amount
appropriated under Title I under the heading ``CONTRIBUTION
TO THE ENHANCED STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FACILITY OF THE
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND'' shall be available until the
Bipartisan Commission described in subsection (b) submits the
report described in subsection (c).
(b) Bipartisan Commission.--There shall be established a
bipartisan Commission whose members shall be appointed within
two months of enactment of this Act to conduct a complete
review of the salaries and benefits of World Bank and
International Monetary Fund employees and their families. The
Commission shall be composed of:
(i) 1 member appointed by the President;
(ii) 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives;
(iii) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives;
(iv) 1 member appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate;
(v) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate;
(vi) Staff members.--The U.S. Agency for International
Development shall provide funding for the hire of outside
experts and shall provide expert AID staff members to the
Commission as necessary.
(c) Covered Report.--Within six months after appointment,
the Commission shall submit a report to the President, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which includes the
following:
(i) a review of the existing salary paid and benefits
received by the employees of the World Bank and the IMF;
(ii) a review of all benefits paid by the World Bank and
the IMF to family members and dependents of the employees of
the World Bank and the IMF;
(iii) a review of all salary and benefits paid to employees
and dependents of the World Bank and the IMF as compared to
all salary and benefits paid to comparable positions for
employees of U.S. banks.
____
amendment no. 2252 to the committee amendment on page 2
(Purpose: To make Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic eligible for
allied defense cooperation with NATO countries, and for other purposes)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2252 for Mr. Brown, for himself,
Mr. Simon, Mr. Roth, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Dole.
The amendment is as follows:
On Page 2, line 21, after the period insert the following:
SEC. . ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR PARTICIPATION IN
ALLIED DEFENSE COOPERATION.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``NATO
Participation Act''.
(b) Transfer of Excess Defense Articles.--The President may
transfer excess defense articles under the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act to Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
(c) Leases and Loans of Major Defense Equipment and Other
Defense Articles.--Section 63(a)(2) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796b) is amended by striking ``or New
Zealand'' and inserting ``New Zealand, Poland, Hungary, or
the Czech Republic''.
(d) Loan Materials, Supplies, and Equipment for Research
and Development Purposes.--Section 65(d) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796d(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' after ``United States)'' and
inserting a comma; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic''.
(e) Cooperative Military Airlift Agreements.--Section
2350c(e)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``and the Republic of Korea'' and inserting ``the
Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic''.
(f) Procurement of Communications Support and Related
Supplies and Services. Section 2350f(d)(1)(B) is amended by
striking ``or the Republic of Korea'' and inserting ``the
Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic''.
(g) Standardization of Equipment With North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Members.--Section 2457 of title 10, United
States code, is amended by adding at the end of the following
new subsection:
``(g) It is the sense of the Congress that in the interest
of maintaining stability and promoting democracy in Eastern
Europe, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, those
countries should, on and after the date of enactment of this
subsection, be included in all activities under this section
related to the increased standardization and enhanced
interoperability of equipment and weapons systems, through
coordinated training and procurement activities, as well as
other means, undertaken by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization members and other allied countries.''.
(h) Inclusion of Other European Countries Emerging From
Communist Domination.--The President should recommend
legislation to the Congress making eligible under the
provisions of law amended by this section such other European
countries emerging from communist domination as the President
may determine if such countries--
(1) have made significant progress toward establishing
democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian
control of their armed forces, and the rule of law; and
(2) are likely, within 5 years of such determination, to be
in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic
Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North
Atlantic area.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are received
en bloc and the amendments have been set aside.
The business before the Senate is the amendment offered by the
Senator from Kansas, Senator Dole, and the Senator from Virginia,
Senator Warner.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. The amendments sent
up en bloc, am I correct in understanding these are sent to protect the
rights of the Senator as related to the 6 p.m. Thursday deadline under
the unanimous-consent agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. That was the intention of the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. LEAHY. Also, further parliamentary inquiry, each one would have
to be brought up and voted on individually in whatever fashion we do,
either by voice vote, division, yeas and nays, or however they are
voted on; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is correct.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to
send to the desk nine amendments and that these nine amendments be
deemed to have been offered en bloc; that each of the amendments be
deemed to be a second-degree amendment to a committee amendment and
that the nine amendments then be set aside; and further, that it be in
order for me to call up each of them upon my having been duly
recognized by the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, am I
correct, Mr. President, this also fulfills the unanimous-consent
agreement of prior to 6 p.m. Thursday?
Mr. HELMS. That is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. And further reserving the right to object, and I shall
not, am I also correct in understanding even though these are nine
amendments, the Senator from North Carolina would have to be recognized
to speak in the normal course? In other words, it does not mean that he
would automatically hold the floor through nine amendments but would
have to be recognized in the normal course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator from North Carolina restate
the unanimous consent request?
Mr. HELMS. Certainly. But, first, Mr. President, if I may, let me
respond to the question raised--and it is a good question--by the
distinguished Senator from Vermont.
We are in a situation where we have a good faith gentleman's/lady's
agreement that nobody will be cut off. I am trying to conform to the
specific language of the unanimous-consent agreement that precipitated
the problem. I think this unanimous-consent request, when I restate it,
will take care of that. I may not call up these amendments, and I
pledge to the managers of the bill that when I decide not to call up an
amendment, if I decide not to call up an amendment, I will let you
know.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will further yield, as the Senator knows,
as having experience as a manager, I always try to protect Senators.
Mr. LEAHY. I just wanted to make sure if, as we are going along on
this, we are enabled to do other business in between these amendments.
I do not want in any way to cut off the ability of the Senator from
North Carolina or any other Senator to be able to bring up amendments
and have them disposed of by the Senate if those amendments are filed
prior to 6 o'clock tomorrow evening.
Mr. HELMS. I think I agree to that. I am not sure exactly what the
Senator said.
Mr. LEAHY. I think the Senator will agree. I think we are both saying
the same thing.
Mr. HELMS. I think so.
Mr. LEAHY. We just want to make sure we have room for everyone else
to come in here also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would make the following
parliamentary observation, that the amendments as offered would have to
be considered or, if withdrawn, withdrawn under a unanimous-consent
agreement.
Mr. LEAHY. I understand.
Mr. HELMS. Correct. Correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent
request as stated by the Senator from North Carolina? The Chair would
ask again----
Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object, does the Presiding Officer
want me to state it again?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Will the Senator from North Carolina
restate his unanimous-consent request.
Mr. HELMS. Once more, slowly and with not much of a Southern accent,
if I can manage that, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for
me to send to the desk nine amendments and that these nine amendments
be deemed to have been offered en bloc; that each of the amendments be
deemed to be a second-degree amendment to a committee amendment, and
that the nine amendments then be set aside and, further, that it be in
order for me to call up each of these amendments upon my having been
recognized by the Chair to do so.
Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 2253 to first committee amendment on page 2, line 12
(Purpose: To prohibit U.S. government intervention with respect to
abortion laws or policies in foreign countries)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from North Carolina send his
amendments to the desk.
Mr. HELMS. What was the question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from North Carolina send his
amendments to the desk.
Mr. HELMS. I am going to send the first one up, and then I will send
the other eight during the time of consideration of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 2253 to the first committee amendment on
page 2, line 12:
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the first committee amendment, add the
following:
SEC. . NON-INTERVENTION CONCERNING ABORTION.
(a) Congressional declaration.--The Congress recognizes
that countries adhere to a diversity of cultural, religious,
and legal traditions regarding the deliberate abortion of the
human fetus.
(b) Prohibited Activities.--Therefore, none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be used by any agency of the
United States or any officer of the Executive Branch to--
(1) engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or
policies in effect in any foreign country concerning the
circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated,
or prohibited;
(2) support any resolution or participate in any activity
of a multilateral organization which seeks to alter such laws
or policies in foreign countries; or
(3) permit any multilateral organization or private
organization to use U.S. government funds for such purposes.
(c) Rule of Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this
section may be construed to prevent--
(1) U.S. funds from being used to pay for treatment of
injuries or illness caused by legal or illegal abortions; or
(2) agencies or offices of the United States from engaging
in activities in opposition to policies of coercive abortion
or involuntary sterilization.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I had the amendment read in its entirety--
--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would withhold, the pending
business before the Senate is the amendments offered by the Senator
from Kansas and the Senator from Virginia. Does the Senator from North
Carolina wish to ask unanimous consent----
Mr. HELMS. I thought those amendments had already been laid aside.
Please forgive me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments be laid aside?
Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be laid
aside temporarily so that these amendments can be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. As I was saying, I asked the distinguished clerk to read
the entire amendment because I think if ever an amendment spoke for
itself, this one does. But let me elaborate just a little bit in terms
of explaining the intent.
The pending amendment forbids the use of the taxpayers' money by any
U.S. Government employee or by employees of multilateral organizations
or by any private organization to lobby or otherwise engage in efforts
to change any law regarding abortion in any foreign country.
Now, this means that no U.S. funds under this act can be used in an
effort to make laws in foreign countries either more permissive or more
restrictive. In other words, the United States should not be permitted
to meddle in the affairs of other countries one way or another when it
comes to abortions.
This amendment does not--let me repeat, does not--propose to prevent
the use of funds to pay for treatment of injuries or illnesses caused
by abortions, nor does it prohibit the United States from engaging in
activities in opposition to policies of coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization. And, of course, I am in fact talking about
Red China. The amendment merely prohibits the U.S. Government from
using taxpayers' money to lobby foreign countries to change their laws
on this subject, the subject of abortion.
Now, I am prompted to offer this amendment because I believe that
most Americans are not aware of the hundreds of millions of dollars
currently being spent by the United States on the so-called population
control programs. Oftentimes, these programs do little more than
browbeat countries into adopting policies which can be described only
as social engineering.
So the pending amendment addresses an area where the administration
has gone too far in its worldwide effort to pressure foreign countries
into changing their abortion laws.
Now, bear in mind, Mr. President, that the United States gives away
more foreign aid than most other countries combined. The U.S.
Government pays the largest portion of any country to the United
Nations. The United States is a key member of the U.N. Security
Council. U.S. representatives cast deciding votes at multilateral banks
and other international institutions. Not surprisingly, small countries
fear reprisals from and by the United States if they do not comply with
the proabortion policies of the present administration in Washington,
DC.
My point is that foreign aid should never be used as either a carrot
or a stick by this or any other administration, by any multilateral
bank or by any international organization in an effort to promote
worldwide legalization of abortion on demand. The President's policy of
supporting abortion on demand is unpopular enough here at home without
taking it overseas.
Mr. President, the American people will not, in my judgment, support
a policy of pressuring foreign countries into changing their abortion
laws one way or the other. It is wrong on its face. But this
administration will hear the loudest complaints from the citizens of
foreign countries. Take Egypt for example. Egypt is critically
important to the United States. Ensuring that Egypt remains stable is
vitally important to the United States, and we have spent billions of
dollars to that end. Now, Egypt, as all Senators know, I assume, is a
Moslem country with a large Coptic Christian population and it has laws
protecting unborn children.
Egypt must also maintain relations with Islamic fundamentalists
within its borders, and pressuring Egypt under those circumstances to
liberalize its abortion laws is certainly a recipe for internal strife.
Such an effort by this administration, Mr. President, is just plain
bad foreign policy. It makes no sense to undermine important U.S.
interests around the world in order to satisfy the radical proabortion
lobby in the United States. Mr. President, there is evidence that the
administration is, indeed, engaged in a policy of pressuring countries
to change their abortion laws. On March 16 of this year, Secretary
Christopher sent a cable to all U.S. Embassies directing U.S. diplomats
to pressure those countries to liberalize their abortion laws. And here
is what the cable sent by Warren Christopher said:
The Department [meaning the U.S. State Department] wishes
to reiterate that the Clinton administration views
international population policy as a major issue in U.S.
foreign policy. Accordingly, the advancement of U.S.
population policy interests will require senior level
diplomatic intervention to complement the more technical
interventions which are conducted between assistance
agencies.
So that there will be absolutely no doubt about the administration's
policy, Secretary Christopher's cable went on to say--this cable was
sent on March 16 of this year. The cable says:
A comprehensive strategy begins with the need to ensure
universal access to family planning and related reproductive
health services, including access to safe abortions. The
United States believes that access to safe, legal and
voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women. The
United States delegation to the U.S. Population Conference in
Cairo will also be working for stronger language on the
importance of access to abortion services.
That was Warren Christopher in the cable that he sent on March 16.
If those statements by Secretary of State Christopher do not make it
sufficiently clear that a proabortion agenda is being pursued, then
consider that on April 1, 1993--that happened to be April Fool's Day--
White House spokesman Dee Dee Myers said that the administration
regards abortion as ``part of the overall approach to population
control.'' I do not think it can be made more clear than that, Mr.
President.
In any case, the administration plans to use the upcoming Conference
on Population and Development in Cairo to pressure foreign countries
into liberalizing their abortion laws. It is outrageous for the U.S.
Government to demand that foreign governments at the conference change
their abortion laws.
Citizens of Argentina, Egypt, Namibia have never elected Bill Clinton
to anything. And U.S. officials have no right to demand that these
countries change their laws regarding the most sensitive of issues in
their own countries.
After Mr. Clinton visited with the Pope on June 2, he stated:
The United States does not, and will not, support abortion
as a means of birth control or population control.
Those are the direct words from Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton said that in
one breath and yet at the same time his State Department is right now
pursuing a policy to promote abortion as part of--here I am quoting
directly from the cable--``the advancement of U.S. population policy
interests.''
Unfortunately, to date there is little or nor correlation between the
President's rhetoric and the direction his administration has taken on
international abortion advocacy. I hate to say this, but the President
tries to be all things to all people. But it is evident that he has
aligned himself with the most radical elements of the proabortion
movement in the United States of America, which brings to mind Mother
Teresa's eloquent speech condemning abortion at this year's National
Prayer Breakfast, with President Clinton sitting no more than 6 feet to
her right. That marvelous lady, let me quote her--
The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion. Any
country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to
love but to use violence to get what they want.
That is the end of the quote of Mother Teresa.
In the face of enthusiastic policy supporting Mother Teresa's brave
statement, President Clinton sat on his hands. He did not applaud.
I also find it difficult to forget that one of the first things Mr.
Clinton did after his inauguration was to obliterate many of the
protections that the pro-life movement had won for unborn children
during the past several years. It is demonstrable that the President is
in the corner of the proabortion crowd. Just the same, Mr. President,
it makes no sense for the U.S. Government using the American taxpayers'
money to entangle itself in such a sensitive issue in foreign countries
where the governments and the people do not agree with Bill Clinton.
If a sovereign nation has a greater respect for unborn babies than
Mr. Clinton does, and if a foreign nation chooses to enact laws to
protect the rights of the unborn, is it not morally indefensible, is it
not atrocious foreign policy, is it not obviously arrogant for this
administration to pressure these countries to change their laws to suit
Mr. Clinton and his administration on this sensitive subject?
Mr. President, I have a bunch of letters here that I want to have
printed in the Record.
I ask unanimous consent that letters opposing President Clinton's
advocacy of worldwide abortion on demand be printed in the Record.
The first is signed by the following Protestant leaders: Chuck
Colson, chairman of the Prison Fellowship; James Dobson, of the Focus
on the Family; Joseph Stowell, of Moody Bible Institute; Charles
Swindoll, president of Insight for Living; Edwin Young, of the Southern
Baptist Convention; Paul Cedar, of the Evangelical Free Church of
America; Billy Melvin, executive director of the National Association
of Evangelicals; Dr. James Kennedy, pastor of the Coral Ridge
Presbyterian Church; Dr. Brandt Gustavson, president of the National
Religious Broadcasters; Dr. William Bright, of the Campus Crusade for
Christ; and Rev. John Perkins, president of the John Perkins Foundation
for Reconciliation and Development.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
April 22, 1994.
President William J. Clinton,
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are sending you this open letter to
express our deep concern over the State Department's cable
last month to all diplomatic and consular posts asking them
to pressure foreign governments to support greater abortion
availability in the United Nations population-stabilization
plan. The cable described access to legal abortion as a
``fundamental right of all women.''
Mr. President, this is an unprecedented misuse of our
diplomatic corps for political ends. We can think of no other
time in history when American embassies were used to promote
a domestic social agenda--particularly one that has bitterly
divided our own people for more than two decades. The
majority of Americans do not accept abortion as a
``fundamental right.''
Moreover, the countries that the State Department is
pressuring to embrace liberalized abortion policies, often in
violation of their own laws, deeply resent what they rightly
regard as cultural imperialism. The citizens of Africa, Asia,
Central America, and South America are offended that the
United States would urge them to refashion their own social
policies to ``look like America.''
Apart from the moral issue, which we consider paramount,
how can we urge greater access to abortion in countries that
often do not have antibiotics, ultrasound machines, or even
sterile operating rooms? At a press conference on Capitol
Hill, Dr. Margaret Ogola from Kenya pointed out that in
remote regions of her country, clinics often lack life-saving
medications, such as penicillin. If a surgical procedure like
abortion were introduced into these regions, the result would
be massive infections and death. Surely the United Nation's
plan to slow population growth does not include mothers dying
on unsafe operating tables.
Mr. President, we remind you of the words of Mother Teresa
that you yourself heard a few weeks ago at the National
Prayer Breakfast. This tiny woman has spent her life working
among the world's poor and understands their needs far better
than any of us do. She said: ``the greatest destroyer of
peace today is abortion. . . . Any country that accepts
abortion is not teaching the people to love but to use any
violence to get what they want.''
In a recent interview with Peggy Wehmeyer of ABC News, you
stated, ``I think there are too many abortions in America. I
think there should be more adoptions in America.'' During
your campaign you proclaimed that abortions should be ``safe,
legal and rare.'' How can these statements be reconciled with
your cable to our embassies, directing them to promote
abortions world wide? How do they square with your allocation
of federal dollars to agencies that perform or support
abortions internationally? A chasm exists between your public
pronouncements and the quieter actions of your
Administration. We plead with you, Mr. President, not to make
the United States an exporter of violence and death. Instead,
we urge you to maintain our heritage as a beacon of morality
and hope to the poor and suffering of the world.
We respectfully ask that you direct the State Department to
rescind last month's directive pressuring foreign governments
to accept abortion on demand. America is at its best when we
respect other nations' desire to nurture life, not destroy
life.
Respectfully,
Charles W. Colson, Dr. Charles Swindoll, Dr. Billy A.
Melvin, Dr. William R. Bright, Dr. James C. Dobson, Dr.
Edwin Young, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Rev. John M.
Perkins, Dr. Joseph M. Stowell, Dr. Paul A. Cedar, Dr.
Brandt Gustavson.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the second letter to which I referred a
moment ago is signed by the following leaders of the Catholic Church:
the Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Hickey; the Archbishop of
Chicago, Cardinal Berenardin; the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Law;
the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal O'Connor; the Archbishop of
Philadelphia, Cardinal Bevilacqua; the Archbishop of Los Angeles,
Cardinal Mahony; the Archbishop of Baltimore and the president of the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Most Reverend William
Keeler.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Archdiocese of Washington,
Washington, DC, May 28, 1994.
The President of the United States,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As plans proceed for the International
Conference on Population and Development at Cairo in
September, we write with great urgency as leaders of the
Catholic Church in our nation concerning your
Administration's promotion of abortion, contraception,
sterilization and the re-definition of the family.
We speak, Mr. President, not only for Catholics throughout
the United States but also for many other people of good
will. We are looking for leadership that truly respects the
dignity of innocent human life and recognizes the fundamental
importance of the family for the development of nations and
individual persons. We are calling for policies which promote
sound economic and social development throughout the world
precisely because they recognize the indispensable role of
the family and respect the innate dignity and rights of each
person.
There is a broad consensus in our country that abortion on
demand is morally repugnant. With millions of people
representing all faiths, we recognize that abortion destroys
not only the child in the womb but also creates untold
conflict in the lives of millions of women. Abortion cheapens
human life, tears apart families and contributes to the
violence that plagues our culture. However cleverly the
current Cairo document may be crafted, in fact it continues
to advocate abortion as a way of controlling population
growth and promiscuity.
Mr. President, we urge you to shun the advice of those who
would apply pressure on developing nations to mandate
abortion as a condition for receiving aid from other
countries. Do not allow our country to participate in
trampling the rights and religious values of people around
the world. Please recognize that abortion is not a legitimate
way to control population and that it does not improve
women's lives. There is no such thing as a ``safe'' abortion;
whether legal or not, abortion is lethal for the child and
destructive of the mother and society.
The Draft Final Document of the Cairo Conference, with the
support of the United States, also advocates the world-wide
distribution of artificial contraceptives and the increased
practice of sterilization which will have the effect of
promoting a self-centered and casual view of human sexuality,
an approach so destructive of family life and the moral fiber
of society. When the United States supports such measures for
unmarried adolescents as well as adults, what ideals are we
holding up to young people? How are we helping them
develop authentic values and that mastery of self which is
the calling of every human being? As we prepare for
tomorrow, we dare not take the course of least resistance
today!
So also, when our government advocates population control
through abortion, contraception and sterilization, it is not
a force for freedom but an agent of coercion. Sadly it
appears that the United States is urging developing countries
to adopt population control programs that will interfere with
the rights of couples to make responsible and moral family
planning decisions. Couples in poor countries will find
themselves at the mercy of government officials and programs
that have no real regard for the dignity of the human person.
They will face the prospect of government agencies providing
abortion and contraceptives for their adolescent children
with utterly no regard for parental authority and
responsibility. At the same time, such policies could be
insensitive to the existing realities of strong family life
in many of those countries. As you have stated, Mr.
President, ``families raise children, not governments.''
Even if such coercive population control measures would
lead to economic growth and development, they would still be
morally objectionable. In fact, however, there is no proof
that enforced population control will bring about economic
development in the Third World. What will help poor nations
develop their full potential is not pressure from the First
World for population control but rather a greater commitment
on the part of wealthy nations to foster sustainable economic
growth in Third World countries. That is the kind of
constructive leadership we should expect from our country!
The Cairo Conference represents a golden opportunity for
nations to come together to improve the lives of people
throughout the world. That improvement will come only if the
participants have the vision and moral courage to recognize
that the future of humanity lies in strong, stable families.
Time and time again, the bishops of the United States have
shared with you our alarm over Administration policies and
statements that place non-marital sexual relationships on a
par with marriage and family. Archbishop Keeler, President of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, has pointed out
the dangers in such positions in a personal letter to
Secretary of State Christopher. Sadly, however, the United
States' participation in the preparatory meeting of the Cario
Conference mirrored Administration policies and positions by
advocating ``a plurality of family forms.''
The United States is doing the world no favor by exporting
a false ideology which claims that any type of union,
permanent or temporary, is as good as the traditional family.
There is mounting evidence that being part of an intact,
traditional family or an extended family helps children grow
into emotionally well-adjusted and productive citizens. While
it is true that many single parents do an admirable job of
raising their children, nonetheless we owe it to the children
of our country and of the world to encourage stable, intact
two-parent families. Mr. President, we wholeheartedly agree
with what you said in your 1994 State of the Union address:
``we cannot renew our country when, within a decade, more
than half of the children will be born into families where
there is no marriage.'' We hasten to add that we will never
develop and renew our world by encouraging substitutes for
marriage and family life.
Mr. President, the United States' delegation to the Cairo
Conference will have enormous influence; it will represent
the power, prestige and influence of the United States among
the family of nations. We ask you, as the leader of our
country, to steer our nation away from promoting an agenda so
destructive of our own society and of the nations of the
world. We thank you for your attention to the pressing
concerns we have shared with you in loyalty to our country
and to the many citizens whom we serve.
I sign, Mr. President, for myself and for the following
Cardinal-Archbishops of the United States listed below, who,
together with the President of the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops, have explicitly authorized this letter.
Sincerely,
James Cardinal Hickey, Archbishop of Washington; Joseph
Cardinal Dernardin, Archbishop of Chicago; Bernard
Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston; John Cardinal
O'Connor, Archbishop of New York; Anthony Cardinal
Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia; Roger Cardinal
Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles; Most Rev. William H.
Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, President, National
Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in very brief summary, this amendment now
pending prohibits using foreign aid money provided by the U.S.
taxpayers to lobby foreign countries to change their abortion laws. It
does not--I repeat, does not--prohibit funds from being used to pay for
treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by abortion. And it does not
prohibit funds from being used to oppose policies of coercive abortion
or sterilization, such as is going on in Communist China.
Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask for the yeas and nays
on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. When my unanimous-consent request was agreed to, I
mentioned nine amendments. One is pending, and there are eight others,
one of which I will not be able to offer until tomorrow.
Amendments No. 2254, 2255, 2256, 2257, 2258, 2259 and 2260, en bloc
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send seven amendments to the desk, en
bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes
amendments numbered 2254, 2255, 2256, 2257, 2258, 2259, and
2260, en bloc.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2254
(Purpose: To prohibit the availability of funds for the U.N.
Development Program)
On page 8, line 22, before the period insert the following:
``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under
this heading shall be made available for the United Nations
Development Program''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2255
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the foreign governments
engaged in espionage against the United States)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ENGAGED IN ESPIONAGE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
Sec. . (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
(other than for humanitarian assistance or assistance for
refugees) may be provided to any foreign government which the
President determines is engaged in intelligence activities
within the United States harmful to the national security of
the United States.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2256
(Purpose: To prohibit funds for Russia while that country is not in
compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention, and for other
purposes)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . RUSSIAN CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION.
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under this Act may be made available in any fiscal year for
Russia (other than humanitarian assistance) unless the
President has certified to the Congress not more than 6
months in advance of the obligation or expenditure of such
funds that Russia is in compliance with the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their
Destruction, and has disclosed the existence of its binary
chemical weapons program (as required under the memorandum of
understanding regarding a bilateral verification experiment
and data exchange related to prohibition of chemical weapons)
and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on
Their Destruction.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2257
(Purpose: To limit the provision of assistance to Nicaragua)
At the appropriate place in the first Committee amendment
add the following: On page 93, between lines 13 and 14,
insert the following:
(1) a full and independent investigation conducted relating
to issues raised by the discovery, after the May 23 explosion
in Managua, of weapons caches, false passports, identity
papers and other documents, suggesting the existence of a
terrorist/kidnapping ring;
On page 93, line 22, strike out ``(2)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(3)''.
On page 93, line 24, strike out ``(3)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(4)''.
On page 94, line 4, strike out ``(4)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(5)''.
On page 94, line 8, strike out ``(5)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(6)''.
On page 94, line 11, strike out ``(6)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(7)''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2258
(Purpose: To limit the authority to reduce U.S. government debt to
certain countries)
On page 98, line 24 strike out ``and'' and all that follows
through page 99, line 3, and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
(4) (including its military or other security forces) does
not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights; and
(5) has not nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise seized
ownership or control of property owned by any United States
person and has not either--
(A) returned the property;
(B) provided adequate and effective compensation for such
property in convertible foreign exchange or other mutually
accepted compensation equivalent to the full value thereof,
as required by international law;
(C) offered a domestic procedure providing prompt, adequate
and effective compensation in accordance with international
law; or
(D) submitted the dispute to arbitration under the rules of
the Convention for the Settlement of Investment disputes or
other mutually agreeable binding international arbitration
procedure.
____
amendment no. 2259
(Purpose: To provide conditions for renewing nondiscriminatory (most-
favored-nation) treatment for the People's Republic of China)
At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert:
TITLE VI--MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``United States-China Act of
1994''.
SEC. 602. FINDINGS AND POLICY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In Executive Order 12850, dated May 28, 1993, the
President established conditions for renewing most-favored-
nation treatment for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
(2) The Executive order requires that in recommending the
extension of most-favored-nation trade status to the People's
Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning July 3,
1994, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension
unless the Secretary determines that such extension
substantially promotes the freedom of emigration objectives
contained in section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2432) and that China is complying with the 1992 bilateral
agreement between the United States and China concerning
export to the United States of products made with prison
labor.
(3) The Executive order further requires that in making the
recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine if
China has made overall significant progress with respect to--
(A) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights;
(B) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for
Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the nonviolent
expression of their political and religious beliefs,
including such expressions of beliefs in connection with the
Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
(C) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, and allowing
access to prisons by international humanitarian and human
rights organizations;
(D protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural
heritage; and
(E) permitting international radio and television
broadcasts into China.
(4) The Executive order requires the executive branch to
resolutely pursue all legislative and executive actions to
ensure that China abides by its commitments to follow fair,
nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing with United
States businesses and adheres to the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines and
parameters, and other nonproliferation commitments.
(5) The Government of the People's Republic of China, a
member of the United Nations Security Council obligated to
respect and uphold the United Nations charter and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, has over the past year made less
than significant progress on human rights. The People's
Republic of China has released only a few prominent political
prisoners and continues to violate internationally recognized
standards of human rights by arbitrary arrests and detention
of persons for the nonviolent expression of their political
and religious beliefs.
(6) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
not allowed humanitarian and human rights organizations
access to prisons.
(7) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, or his representative,
to discuss the protection of Tibet's distinctive religious
and cultural heritage.
(8) It continues to be the policy and practice of the
Government of the People's Republic of China to control all
trade unions and suppress and harass members of the
independent labor union movement.
(9) The Government of the People's Republic of China
continues to restrict the activities of accredited
journalists and Voice of America broadcasts.
(10) The People's Republic of China's defense industrial
trading companies and the People's Liberation Army engage in
lucrative trade relations with the United States and operate
lucrative commercial businesses within the United States.
Trade with and investments in the defense industrial trading
companies and the People's Liberation Army are contrary to
the national security interests of the United States.
(11) The President has conducted an intensive high-level
dialogue with the Government of the People's Republic of
China, including meeting with the President of China, in an
effort to encourage that government to make significant
progress toward meeting the standards contained in the
Executive order for continuation of most-favored-nation
treatment.
(12) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
not made overall significant progress with respect to the
standards contained in the President's Executive Order 12850,
dated May 28, 1993.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Congress that, since
the President has recommended the continuation of the waiver
under section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the
People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning
July 3, 1994, such waiver shall not provide for extension of
nondiscriminatory trade treatment to goods that are produced,
manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army or
Chinese defense industrial trading companies or to
nonqualified goods that are produced, manufactured, or
exported by state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic
of China.
SEC. 603. LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY
TREATMENT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) if nondiscriminatory treatment is not granted to the
People's Republic of China by reason of the enactment into
law of a disapproval resolution described in subsection
(b)(1), nondiscriminatory treatment shall--
(A) continue to apply to any good that is produced or
manufactured by a person that is not a state-owned enterprise
of the People's Republic of China, but
(B) not apply to any good that is produced, manufactured,
or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China,
(2) if nondiscriminatory treatment is granted to the
People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning
on July 3, 1994, such nondiscriminatory treatment shall not
apply to--
(A) any good that is produced, manufactured, or exported by
the People's Liberation Army or a Chinese defense industrial
trading company, or
(B) any nonqualified good that is produced, manufactured,
or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China, and
(3) if nondiscriminatory treatment is or is not granted to
the People's Republic of China, the Secretary of the Treasury
should consult with leaders of American businesses having
significant trade with or investment in the People's Republic
of China, to encourage them to adopt a voluntary code of
conduct that--
(A) follows internationally recognized human rights
principles,
(B) ensures that the employment of Chinese citizens is not
discriminatory in terms of sex, ethnic origin, or political
belief,
(C) ensures that no convict, forced, or indentured labor is
knowingly used,
(D) recognizes the rights of workers to freely organize and
bargain collectively, and
(E) discourages mandatory political indoctrination on
business premises.
(b) Disapproval Resolution.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
``resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the two
Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of
which is as follows: ``That the Congress does not approve the
extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the
Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the
Congress on ______________________ with respect to the
People's Republic of China because the Congress does not
agree that the People's Republic of China has met the
standards described in the President's Executive Order 12850,
dated May 28, 1993.'', with the blank space being filled with
the appropriate date.
(2) Applicable rules.--The provisions of sections 153
(other than paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b)) and
402(d)(2) (as modified by this subsection) of the Trade Act
of 1974 shall apply to a resolution described in paragraph
(1).
(c) Determination of State-Owned Enterprises and Chinese
Defense Industrial Trading Companies.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine which
persons are state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic
of China and which persons are Chinese defense industrial
trading companies for purposes of this title. The Secretary
shall publish a list of such persons in the Federal Register.
(2) Public hearing.--
(A) General rule.--Before making the determination and
publishing the list required by paragraph (1), the Secretary
of the Treasury shall hold a public hearing for the purpose
of receiving oral and written testimony regarding the persons
to be included on the list.
(B) Additions and deletions.--The Secretary of the Treasury
may add or delete persons from the list based on information
available to the Secretary or upon receipt of a request
containing sufficient information to take such action.
(3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of making
the determination required by paragraph (1), the following
definitions apply:
(A) Chinese defense industrial trading company.--The term
``Chinese defense industrial trading company''--
(i) means a person that is--
(I) engaged in manufacturing, producing, or exporting, and
(II) affiliated with or owned, controlled, or subsidized by
the People's Liberation Army, and
(ii) includes any person identified in the United States
Defense Intelligence Agency publication numbered VP-1920-271-
90, dated September 1990.
(B) People's liberation army.--The term ``People's
Liberation Army'' means any branch or division of the land,
naval, or air military service or the police of the
Government of the People's Republic of China.
(C) State-owned enterprise of the people's republic of
china.--(i) The term ``state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China'' means a person who is affiliated with or
wholly owned, controlled, or subsidized by the Government of
the People's Republic of China and whose means of production,
products, and revenues are owned or controlled by a central
or provincial government authority. A person shall be
considered to be state-owned if--
(I) the person's assets are primarily owned by a central or
provincial government authority;
(II) a substantial proportion of the person's profits are
required to be submitted to a central or provincial
government authority;
(III) the person's production, purchases of inputs, and
sales of output, in whole or in part, are subject to state,
sectoral, or regional plans; or
(IV) a license issued by a government authority classifies
the person as state-owned.
(ii) Any person that--
(I) is a qualified foreign joint venture or is licensed by
a governmental authority as a collective, cooperative, or
private enterprise; or
(II) is wholly owned by a foreign person,
shall not be considered to be state-owned.
(D) Qualified foreign joint venture.--The term ``qualified
foreign joint venture'' means any person--
(i) which is registered and licensed in the agency or
department of the Government of the People's Republic of
China concerned with foreign economic relations and trade as
an equity, cooperative, contractual joint venture, or joint
stock company with foreign investment;
(ii) in which the foreign investor partner and a person of
the People's republic of China share profits and losses and
jointly manage the venture;
(iii) in which the foreign investor partner holds or
controls at least 25 percent of the investment and the
foreign investor partner is not substantially owned or
controlled by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China;
(iv) in which the foreign investor partner is not a person
of a country the government of which the Secretary of State
has determined under section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) to have
repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism; and
(v) which does not use state-owned enterprises of the
People's Republic of China to export its goods or services.
(E) Person.--The term ``person'' means a natural person,
corporation, partnership, enterprise, instrumentality,
agency, or other entity.
(F) Foreign investor partner.--The term ``foreign investor
partner'' means--
(i) a natural person who is not a citizen of the People's
Republic of China; and
(ii) a corporation, partnership, instrumentality,
enterprise, agency, or other entity that is organized under
the laws of a country other than the People's Republic of
China and 50 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock
or beneficial interest of such entity is owned (directly or
indirectly) by natural persons who are not citizens of the
People's Republic of China.
(G) Nonqualified good.--The term ``nonqualified good''
means a good to which chapter 39, 44, 48, 61, 62, 64, 70, 73,
84, 93, or 94 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States applies.
(H) Convict, forced, or indentured labor.--The term
``convict, forced, or indentured labor'' has the meaning
given such term by section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1307).
(I) Violations of internationally recognized standards of
human rights.--The term ``violations of internationally
recognized standards of human rights'' includes but is not
limited to, torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial,
causing the disappearance of persons by abduction and
clandestine detention of those persons, secret judicial
proceedings, and other flagrant denial of the right to life,
liberty, or the security of any person.
(J) Missile technology control regime.--The term ``Missile
Technology Control Regime'' means the agreement, as amended,
between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal
Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan,
announced on April 16, 1987, to restrict sensitive missile-
relevant transfers based on an annex of missile equipment and
technology.
(d) Semiannual Reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and the end of each 6-month period
occurring thereafter, report to the Congress on the efforts
of the executive branch to carry out subsection (c). The
Secretary may include in the report a request for additional
authority, if necessary, to carry out subsection (c). In
addition, the report shall include information regarding the
efforts of the executive branch to carry out subsection
(a)(3).
SEC. 604. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
The President may waive the application of any condition or
prohibition imposed on any person pursuant to this title, if
the President determines and reports to the Congress that the
continued imposition of the condition or prohibition would
have a serious adverse effect on the vital national security
interests of the United States.
SEC. 605. REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT.
If the President recommends in 1995 that the waiver
referred to in section 602 be continued for the People's
Republic of China, the President shall state in the document
required to be submitted to the Congress by section 402(d) of
the Trade Act of 1974, the extent to which the Government of
the People's Republic of China has made progress during the
period covered by the document, with respect to--
(1) adhering to the provisions of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights,
(2) ceasing the exportation to the United States of
products made with convict, force, or indentured labor,
(3) ceasing unfair and discriminatory trade practices which
restrict and unreasonably burden American business, and
(4) adhering to the guidelines and parameters of the
Missile Technology Control Regime, the controls adopted by
the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the controls adopted by the
Australia Group.
SEC. 606. SANCTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.
If the President decides not to seek a continuation of a
waiver in 1995 for the People's Republic of China under
section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, the President shall,
during the 30-day period beginning on the date that the
President would have recommended to the Congress that such a
waiver be continued, undertake efforts to ensure that members
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade take a similar
action with respect to the People's Republic of China.
____
amendment no. 2260
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . AMBASSADORIAL RANK FOR HEAD OF UNITED STATES
DELEGATION TO THE CSCE.
The United States delegation to the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe shall be headed by an individual
who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and who shall have the rank
of ambassador.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Carolina seek
further unanimous consent to submit his ninth amendment at a later
time, prior to 6 p.m. tomorrow?
Mr. HELMS. Let me have a few moments. First, I will suggest the
absence----
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will withhold that, I will chat about the
pending amendment. I think I know what the Senator wants to do, and I
am going to be in agreement with him on it. I just say this about the
amendment now pending, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered, it
is one of those amendments that looks harmless enough on the surface.
But it is so broadly written that it can be construed to prevent the
United States from even participating in the world population
conference in Cairo in September.
I understand that some probably feel that should be our policy. I am
not one who feels that way. It is a conference that we ought to be able
to participate in. If they had the Cairo conference and they came out
with a resolution that called for a reduction in unsafe abortions
worldwide, technically, under this amendment, the United States could
not even join that, join in an effort to cut the number of unsafe
abortions. Obviously, we do not want to do that. We do want, however,
to be able to at least talk about the question of population.
I look at the foreign aid legislation before us, and in many parts of
the world it is but a drop in the bucket because of unchecked
population. From the time I was born, the world population has almost
tripled. Can you imagine that? For thousands and thousands of years the
world population was at a certain level. It went from 2.5 to 5.7
billion. In the middle of the next century, it can double again. We
know what this means--the kind of pressures brought on areas with
tragic ecosystems, and pressure on the environment, and the ability to
raise food in this world.
We have 19 million refugees in the world today. That is almost 35
times the population of my own State of Vermont. What is going to
happen is, there is going to be twice the mouths to feed in the world
by the middle of the next century. Can you imagine the number of
refugees we will have?
Today, there are half a million women who die each year of pregnancy-
related causes, and many are in the developing world. Up to one-third
are from septic or incomplete abortions. We have to find better ways of
population control than abortion. Certainly, concerning the world
population, for instance, the conference in Cairo can look at such
issues.
But this amendment would stop the administration from calling for a
reduction in unsafe abortions, or if the administration wanted to sign
on to agreements to cut the number of unsafe abortions, it could not do
it under this amendment. In fact, it could not contribute to any
multilateral organization that wanted to do that. We would be precluded
from reproductive health services for women.
The President has said time and again that the administration does
not support abortion as a method of family planning. We have carefully
crafted our legislation in the past to keep from doing that. He has
said that abortion should be safe and legal and rare. If it does exist,
it should be safe. One of the central goals in Cairo is to promote
alternatives to abortion.
No one is telling any other country to change their laws. We could
not do that. Sometimes what goes on is, in resolutions we ask other
countries to change their laws. This is not one of them. We cannot do
that and will not do that. Every country has to decide ultimately what
its laws should be. The Cairo document says just that. But what you do
by a resolution like this is you so tie the United States hands that we
cannot even go out and explore alternatives to abortion. We cannot
explore ways of getting rid of the unsafe abortions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has a parliamentary inquiry of the
Senator from North Carolina as to whether he wishes to modify his
unanimous-consent request to incorporate the fact that the amendment
that would be offered to complete his en bloc nine amendments at a
later date, prior to 6 p.m. on Thursday?
Mr. HELMS. I thought we had said that. If I am mistaken----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The inquiry was made earlier, but there was
not a response as to whether that was the Senator's intention.
Mr. HELMS. Sure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it gives me no pleasure to disagree with my
friend from Vermont, but I simply do not understand what amendment he
was talking about in his comments just now. He was not talking about
the pending amendment, because the amendment speaks for itself, and I
will be glad to read it to him. But I hope that will not be necessary.
If he is really defending the use of the American taxpayers' money to
force or to pressure any foreign country, such as Egypt and many other
countries that have strict religious rules against the deliberate
destruction of innocent human life--which is what abortion is--then we
part company.
The amendment does not say anything about the nicety of population
control, even though population control has taken on sort of a gruesome
meaning in later years. But I will say to the Senator from Vermont that
this amendment says what it says. It says that the taxpayers' money
shall not be used in any attempt to force a foreign country to change
its position or its laws relative to abortion one way or another, to
liberalize it, or to restrict it.
That is all the amendment says.
I think it is indefensible for the administration to try to do
otherwise with the taxpayers' money.
I understand that the Clinton administration is all gung-ho for
abortion. Kill them all. Get rid of them. That is the way to control
population.
That is not what Mother Tereas said, and that is not what a number of
the rest of us have said far less eloquently than the way Mother Teresa
said it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold.
Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it seems we are talking a little at cross-
purposes here.
But, one, I will not accept the fact that the Clinton administration
has said let us go kill them all. I do not know of any administration--
I have served here with five administrations, Republican and
Democratic--that has taken that attitude. I certainly do not attribute
it to the Clinton administration any more than I would the Bush,
Reagan, Carter, or Ford administrations, the administrations that I
have served with.
What I am concerned about is this would stop any participation in the
world population conference in Cairo this September. That may or may
not have been the intention of the proponent of the amendment. It is
certainly the position of some who support it.
It says that the United States cannot support any resolution or
participation in any activity of a multilateral organization that seeks
to alter such laws or policies in foreign countries.
In other words, should a multilateral organization try to get
countries to stop abortion as a means of birth control, we could not
join in that. The U.S. policy is and always has been that abortion is
not a method of birth control. We have also tried to make it clear that
where abortion is legal that abortion be safe.
That is the policy of the United States. It is not a policy of
killing them all, by any means, nor do I accept that. Nor would I
support any legislation that would carry out such a policy.
This legislation basically says do not go to Cairo. Whether it was
intended to do that or not, that is the sum effect of it.
And because of that, I will oppose it. I have made it very clear that
my support of population money or family planning money in this bill is
limited in this fashion, that no money, no U.S. tax dollars should ever
go to a country that uses abortion as a method of family planning, or
uses or pays for enforced abortion.
I suspect that is a known fact. That is the position of the Clinton
administration. To suggest otherwise is wrong. To suggest that this
bill or the position of the administration is different than that
states by the President in his meeting in the Vatican City with the
pontiff is also erroneous.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I still have difficulty understanding the
meaning of the opposition to this amendment of the distinguished
Senator from Vermont. Maybe the acoustics are not good in the Senate,
but I understood him to say that this means that we cannot go to the
population conference in Cairo. I want him to point out anywhere in the
amendment that that is even suggested or implied.
All it says and what it says is that you cannot use American
taxpayers' money to compel or to try to compel another country, such as
Egypt, to change its laws regarding abortion.
There are all sorts of religions in the world and many religions
forbid the deliberate destruction on innocent human life. They used to
be forbidden in this country until things changed for the worse in 1972
when the U.S. Supreme Court wrote the Roe versus Wade decision.
But I do not understand what the Senator is saying in opposition to
my amendment.
I hope the Record will reflect that I am asking him to be more
specific and point out precisely in the amendment where it implies what
he said it provides.
It simply does not do that. It was not intended to do it, and I
regret that the amendment is not being characterized properly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have high regard and respect for my
friend from North Carolina. I mean that. Senator Helms is a splendid
friend. He has been very helpful to me in my activities as assistant
leader of our party, and I have come to know him in a way I did not
when I came to this body, and I have the highest regard for him.
But I must in this instance resist and speak in strong opposition to
the amendment of my friend from North Carolina because I have been
involved in these population issues for many years, as was my father. I
think the Senator from North Carolina will recall that my father,
Senator Milward Simpson, was deeply involved in population issues. For
it is here that everything we do in the world, literally--and I am not
being overly dramatic--will depend upon how many footprints will fit
upon the face of the Earth.
Our mission to Cairo is not about abortion--and I knew that that
would eventually come--but it is not about abortion. We are talking
about education. We are talking about women's rights. We are talking
about men's responsibilities. We are talking about things that have to
do with fertility rates and families. And we are not talking about
abortion.
But as I interpret the amendment in reading it, it would prohibit the
United States from participating in or endorsing the world consensus
document that is to be negotiated and ratified at the upcoming
population conference in Cairo. It would prohibit the United States
from endorsing any international agreements that acknowledge the high
rates of maternal mortality associated with unsafe abortions throughout
the developing world and the call for reducing reliance on unsafe
abortions. In essence, then, this amendment goes to the heart of the
International Conference on Population and Development [ICPD] that will
be held in Cairo in September.
Delegates from 110 nations from around the world will gather in Cairo
to assess the current state of global population. How many human beings
can the Earth sustain? We are presented with figures that show that the
population will double from 5\1/2\ to 11 billion in the year 2047, if I
recall, and then go on up exponentially into the year 2150 when the
population reaches a figure of 694 billion. That is beyond my
comprehension.
I am not a mathematician, but I do know the issues that concern the
Senator from North Carolina and concern me, issues like immigration,
illegal immigration, population, how much food is to be presented to
the world for its billions. What are we going to do when in a society
of food gatherers and wanderers--when they take the last bird, kill the
last animal, drink the last water, and move on in nomadic ways with a
sack of grain over their shoulders looking for a place to live.
Now that is pretty dramatic, but these are the things that we are
going to discuss in Cairo to determine its impact on human development,
and to try to produce an action plan for the next decade and the next
century.
And the United States will play a very significant role at that
Conference because of the current administration's complete reversal of
the position then stated at the 1984 Mexico City Conference. Over the
past decade, the United States, in a sense, has had its hands tied in
terms of acting on the challenge of increasing population growth, and
its impact on the environment, impact on the global economy, and the
international standards of living. And I must say I am heartened to see
the administration's renewed interest in these serious issues and the
leadership role it has embraced in the past year.
But when the United States travels to Cairo this September--and I
plan to be a part of our delegation--I strongly believe the United
States should be leading the international community in a unified
effort to meet the severest of challenges involved with these issues of
global population, economic opportunity, and sustainable development.
That is why this amendment troubles me so. Because every time we
bring up the issue of global population here in the Congress, we
suddenly find ourselves embroiled in a debate over abortion--that is a
political reality--and it is most unfortunate. This is not about
abortion.
I respectfully say that my colleague from North Carolina or his able
staff is misinterpreting the goals of the draft document that is
currently being edited for discussion in Cairo. This draft document
addresses a comprehensive array of population and development issues,
including, as I say, environmental concerns, sustained economic growth,
child survival and health, international migration, and maternal
health, which includes a call for the elimination of all deaths
associated with unsafe abortion.
Hear that. It calls for the elimination of all deaths associated with
unsafe abortion.
This draft document is not calling for the legalization of abortion.
Let us be absolutely clear. It does not call for the legalization of
abortion where it is currently illegal. No one is forced. There is no
coercion. The document recognizes abortion as a women's health issue
because of the current crisis of maternal mortality resulting from
unsafe abortion.
Accordingly, governments are urged--and this is from the document--
``to deal openly and forthrightly with unsafe abortion as a major
public health concern.'' And then the document also calls for the
prevention of abortion and urges countries to avoid promoting abortion
as a method of family planning. Very important.
This amendment, unfortunately, mischaracterizes or misunderstands the
U.S. position on abortion and the U.S. role at the Cairo Conference.
The administration, led by our former colleague, now Vice-President
Al Gore--and he and I had some spirited debates in opposition to each
other here--and Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth--who was another
former colleague--we have had serious discussions with on this issue--
has articulated its view on abortion numerous times and they say
abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I uphold that. I think that
is an important distinction. And the U.S. will continue to articulate
that very clear position at the Cairo Conference.
In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development, AID, has
a longstanding policy based on the efforts and good work of Senator
Helms with an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 stating
that AID ``does not advocate the use of abortion as a method of family
planning.'' That is in the law. U.S. AID also recognizes that unsafe
abortion is a major cause of mortality and morbidity for women, leading
to as many as 200,000 deaths of women every year in the developing
world.
The U.S. position on population that will be expressed at the Cairo
Conference is not just about abortion policy. It is about ensuring
access to high quality family planning and related reproductive health
services, increasing child survival programs, addressing migration and
environmental degradation--I am being repetitive--strengthening
families, and addressing the needs of adolescents.
The document that comes out of the Cairo Conference never calls for
legalization of abortion where it is currently illegal. It is so
important to hear that, and I share that with my friend from North
Carolina. Our negotiations taking place at the International Conference
will result in an international consensus document on all of the very
serious issues of which I have spoken today. In addition, this document
will--or hopefully will--be endorsed by 110 member nations of the
United Nations.
I think it would surely be a shame, a real shame, if the United
States could not resume its position of moral leadership and global
efforts to reach responsible and sustainable population levels, and to
back that leadership up with specific commitments to population
planning activities--without seeing the debate slide into the numbing
and vexing issue of abortion, where never a vote is changed on this
floor, ever--never is a vote changed on the issue of abortion on this
floor.
This amendment would prohibit the United States from playing a key
role, its important key role, in this international Conference, and we
simply cannot stand by and let this occur.
I urge my colleagues to assist me in that outcome.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Wyoming, for whom
I have the greatest affection, and he knows that; he has indicated the
same with respect to me and I return it twofold to him because he has
been so helpful to me through the years, even when we disagree.
I do not know how the Cairo Conference got into this debate. This
amendment says nothing about the Cairo Conference.
I would ask the Senator, first of all, if he has read the amendment?
And would he be good enough, if he has read it, to point out to me
where even inferentially the Cairo Conference is mentioned?
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there is no mention of the Cairo
Conference. But the Cairo Conference will take place in September. I
have read the amendment and it ``recognizes that countries adhere to a
diversity of cultural, religious, and legal traditions regarding the
deliberate abortion of the human fetus. Therefore, none of the funds
appropriated by this act may be used by any agency of the United
States''--that is any agency of the United States; I assume that means
anything we do in the international field, including all our activities
with regard to AID, with regard to our mission to Cairo--will not
``engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or policies in
effect in any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which
abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited; support any resolution
or participate in any activity of a multilateral organization''--that
is where we are going is the U.N. operation--``which seeks to alter
such laws or policies in foreign countries; or permit any multilateral
organization''--that is the United Nations--``or private organization
to use U.S. Government funds.''
Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will permit me, would you explain----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wyoming yield to the
Senator from North Carolina?
Mr. HELMS. I would like to know how it ties into the Cairo
Conference.
Mr. SIMPSON. I do yield to my friend from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. I see that the leader of the delegation to the Cairo
Conference--or one of the participants, it is a bipartisan delegation--
is here on the floor. He has been much more active in this than I.
My simple reason for participating in the beginning, and I do think
this does impact--I am going to yield to my friend from Massachusetts--
--
Mr. HELMS. You cannot yield because I have the floor, is that
correct?
Mr. SIMPSON. Then I shall not yield. It is not my opportunity to
yield.
Did the Senator have a further question?
Mr. HELMS. Yes, I do. How does the Senator, even if he infers
something that is not even implied in the amendment--how does he assume
it is going to prevent our participation in the Cairo Conference? When
is the Cairo Conference?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. The Cairo Conference is in September. The dates I
believe are----
Mr. HELMS. The third of September?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, this September.
Mr. HELMS. This bill is effective for the spending of the taxpayers'
money beginning when?
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment of Senator
Helms is to prohibit U.S. Government intervention with respect to
abortion laws or policies in foreign countries. This was the Mexico
City proposal, which I thought was very restrictive and strained. Now
this administration has chosen to proceed in a different way. I think
it is an important way.
All I am doing is looking at the amendment. I am using the term
``Cairo Conference'' because that is the next issue that will come
before this country in any significant way with regard to dealing with
population and family planning and the future of children and
discussion of women and legalization of abortion and not allowing
unsafe, illegal abortions. And all of this has to do with that. I do
not see how it could be said that this would escape what we are going
to be talking about in Cairo.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I would like to differ with my friend
from Wyoming, because he is my friend and we work together so often.
But let me say to him that part (b)(3) of the amendment is not like
President Reagan's Mexico City policy--not at all.
Mexico City said that an organization could not use any funds, no
matter where those funds came from, to promote abortion. Therefore, if
an organization spent 1 dime raised from private sources to promote
abortion, it was ineligible to receive funds provided by the U.S.
Government.
This amendment pending says nothing of the sort. Part (b)(3) of the
pending amendment says that funds provided by the U.S. Government
cannot be used to lobby countries to change their abortion laws based
on their religious principles, based on whatever. We have no right to
do that.
The amendment allows organizations to do whatever they please, even
if they receive U.S. funds. The language of the amendment simply
prohibits an organization from using U.S. funds to lobby for abortion.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HELMS. No, no, not yet. Not yet. I say that respectfully.
Furthermore, the funds involved in this amendment do not begin to
flow until October 1 of this year. And the Cairo Conference is in early
September.
This amendment does not mention the Cairo Conference. So I think that
some of the opponents of the amendment--and I say this as respectfully
as I can--sort of kneejerk whenever one of us who believes in prolife
gets up, that they have to oppose an amendment without even reading it
or knowing what it says, let alone what it implies. I regret that.
We cannot discuss dispassionately this business of the deliberate
destruction of millions of innocent human lives. That goes beyond any
friendship, certainly that I have.
Certainly it bothers me. It worries me. And I cannot countenance the
suggestion that trying to do the minimum, that is to prevent the U.S.
Government from using taxpayer funds to lobby other countries one way
or another on the abortion question--that is all the amendment does,
that is all the amendment says. It does not mention the Cairo
Conference.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HELMS. I am going to yield the floor. You can have at me.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the observations
of my friend from North Carolina. First of all, I do not observe any
knees jerking over here. I do not think this is a reaction that is not
in keeping with what this amendment does. I am not sure the Senator
from North Carolina intends this amendment to do what it does. I would
say to him respectfully, it may well be that the language in his
amendment is more overreaching than perhaps the Senator intends.
Let me say respectfully to the Senator from North Carolina, Mr.
President, that, for example, in paragraph (b)(2) of this amendment
there is a policy statement, not an expenditure. And a policy statement
takes effect upon enactment. So, in effect, upon enactment this
amendment seeks to say that the United States is not able ``to support
any resolution or participate in any activity of a multilateral
organization which seeks to alter such laws or policies in foreign
countries.''
I know my friend from North Carolina does not intend to say that the
United States could not go to the Cairo conference and argue against
unsafe abortions. I know my friend from North Carolina does not intend
to say that the United States should not be taking efforts to prevent
abortions. And there is nothing that better prevents abortions than
offering women alternative choices which are part of the voluntary
family planning practices of the United States.
The language that the Senator offers in his amendment would, in fact,
prohibit us from doing that because it says you cannot do anything to
alter a law, even if you were trying to alter the law to the positive
effect of the Senator from North Carolina.
I would say when you measure this amendment against the larger
objectives, not only in Cairo but in the United States policy, I do not
think the U.S. Senate wants to do this.
Population is a significant issue for foreign policy and the United
States has a responsibility to fully participate in these international
debates. Rapid population growth is closely linked with poverty and
environmental degradation. The population of the world has gone from 2
to 5.7 billion during the course of this century. Unfortunately, this
trend is expected to continue. The great issue facing us when we go to
International Conference on Population and Development [ICPD] in Cairo
this September is whether or not we can develop strategies to level
growth to 11 billion and not have it explode to 20 billion.
The President of the United States has said very clearly this
conference is not about abortion, nor is U.S. policy about abortion. In
fact, the President said very clearly that he is seeking to make sure
that abortion is legal, safe, and rare.
I cannot imagine that the Senator does not want to permit the United
States to engage in a policy that reaches out to people to empower them
to be able to make abortion more rare; 173 of the 190 countries have
some form of legalized abortion today; and many if not all of those 173
countries have abortions that are very unsafe. Some are so unsafe that
the purpose of the U.S. delegation is to try to save lives.
But the Senator from North Carolina, in his amendment, just broadly,
sweepingly says ``you cannot support any resolution or participate in
any activity of a multilateral organization (that is, the United
Nations) which seeks to alter such laws or policies in foreign
countries.''
So, among other activities, we would be prohibited from going to
Cairo to attempt to change the policy of a country, other than coercive
abortion, which this amendment allows. But there are other issues in
addition to coercive abortion; for example, unsafe abortion practices
which must be dealt with. The World Health Organization estimates that
over 150,000 deaths and injuries to women each year are a direct result
of unsafe abortion practices. We would not be allowed to talk about
this critical health issue under the amendment of the Senator from
North Carolina.
This amendment would be a formal statutory codification of the
abdication of U.S. responsibility. It would also be a prohibition on
our involvement in this activity as a matter of policy, whether or not
American funds were expended. Therefore, Mr. President, I respectfully
suggest that I cannot imagine why the Members of the Senate would want
to ratify this amendment.
Furthermore, the Senator from North Carolina should be fully aware
that the United States' policy does not--in any way--attempt to dictate
to other countries on the issue of abortion. In fact, President
Clinton, in a speech he delivered just 2 weeks ago reiterated his
administration's policy, and I quote:
Contrary to some assertions, we do not support abortion as
a method of family planning. We respect, however, the
diversity of national laws, except we do oppose coercion
wherever it exists. Our own policy in the United States is
that this should be a matter of personal choice, not public
dictation and, as I have said many times, abortion should be
safe and legal and rare. In other countries where it does
exist, we believe safety is an important issue * * * we also
believe that providing women with the means to prevent
unwanted pregnancy will do more than anything else to reduce
abortion.
Under the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, regretfully,
we would not be able to pursue that policy of the President of the
United States.
In addition to participation in the U.N.-sponsored ICPD, this
amendment would prohibit U.S. endorsement of international agreements
that promote safe abortion services and could prohibit research and
educational programs focused on the incidence and health consequences
of unsafe abortion by any organization, such as the World Health
Organization, U.N. Population Fund or the International Planned
Parenthood Federation. So the scope of this amendment goes far beyond
the upcoming Cairo Conference.
The effect of this amendment is that we would not be able to save
lives. We would not be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and I
think it would have a contrary effect to the very thing that the
Senator from North Carolina is trying to set out to do.
It is imperative that the United States be a leader in the population
debate. As President Clinton has stated, the overriding objective of
his administration and of its participation at the ICPD meeting in
Cairo is to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. We cannot
achieve this goal with this amendment and I urge my colleagues to
oppose it.
Several Senators addressed the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Does the Senator yield the
floor?
Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will yield in a moment to my friend
from Maryland.
I think that was a very excellent review of that, but I would ask my
friend from North Carolina--because he does care, he is a caring person
on these issues and he talks of millions of human babies--but now we
are at a point in the world's history where there will be millions of
human babies. If we do nothing, they will simply die. They will die of
starvation; they will die of dehydration; they will die of disease
because there is no way this Earth, this planet home of ours, can
sustain the growth that is coming. That is who will die. They will die
first. They are the babies and those who are not able to sustain
themselves, and that is a very serious issue.
I respect my friend from North Carolina and know what he is trying to
do. But even if it does not take effect until October, after October,
we are all done if this amendment is adopted because there are no funds
to use after October. And that, I am sure, was not the intent. If we
are going to get a good start in September, we do not want to see the
funds gone in October.
I thank the Chair.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from
North Carolina a question, if I might, if he would consider adding
language that would clearly state that this does not apply to funds for
the Cairo Conference or, I would suggest, any other followup
conferences?
I think the Senator from Massachusetts and I think the Senator from
North Carolina himself would believe that it is important for us to
participate for the very reasons that we do need to be there, to
express a sensitivity to the cultures and the concerns of other
nations. And yet, population is an important issue, sustainable
development, children in the African countries, the Third World
countries where population is such a major problem.
I personally feel that we need to be there at the table in a
constructive way, recognizing that we cannot nor should we force other
countries into positions with which they would have trouble. But we
need to discuss them and be cognizant of those problems.
I myself have some real difficulties with language that was part of
the International Women's Health Conference in Rio de Janeiro in
January 1994 in preparation for the Cairo Conference. I have some
problems with the language that was expressed in this.
But I also believe very strongly that we need to be part of the Cairo
Conference. I wonder if the Senator would be willing to look at some
language that would clarify our participation.
Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. HELMS. That is the easiest question I received all day. Of
course, I have stood here and said a dozen times it does not apply to
the Cairo Conference. To answer your question specifically, I say to
the distinguished Senator from Kansas, certainly I will be glad to
accept any language that she may wish to draft in that regard.
Now as far as going into the future, I think sufficient unto the day
the evil thereof. I would rather leave that alone. I did not introduce
the Cairo Conference. I did not even imply it in the amendment. But to
answer, again, the Senator's question, certainly I will accept that
language as a modification. It will require unanimous consent, of
course.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will work on some language and work
with others who are concerned about this, because I think there would
be a question, even though it might not have been intended. And maybe
if we could just clarify that, that would be useful.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator. I thank her very much.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. I yield the
floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Helms
amendment. I believe there is much that the Senator from North Carolina
and I would agree on. I believe we would agree that neither of us would
support involuntary sterilizations; neither of us would support
coercive abortions. However, I believe that the amendment, as is
currently drafted, would prevent the United States of America from
fully participating in the International Conference on Population and
Development in Cairo. It would weaken the United States as we seek to
provide world leadership on population issues and also women's health
issues. And I believe it would result in untold suffering for hundreds
of thousands of men, women and children worldwide.
The Helms amendment does have the effect of preventing the United
States from endorsing the world consensus document to be negotiated and
ratified in Cairo in September by most of the countries at this world
conference.
The draft document addresses many issues. It addresses many
development issues as well as population concerns. It does include a
call for the elimination of all deaths associated with unsafe
abortions.
Some opponents of abortion believe that calling for safe motherhood
initiatives and a reduced level of unsafe abortions is the same as
altering laws or policies involving abortion. This is a shortsighted
and flawed evaluation of what the Cairo Conference is all about.
If the Helms amendment is adopted, it will prevent our Government
from sending a delegation to the Cairo Conference or participating in
diplomatic negotiations in advance of the Conference, or afterward.
Mr. President, this would be a terrible loss for women and children
in developing countries who run the risk, first of all, of going to
unsafe and unsanitary conditions in health facilities.
This is about public health initiatives.
For years, the United Nations, with our country's support, has sought
to improve global health standards, including the reduction in
hazardous abortion practices. The Cairo Conference is not an effort to
promote a prochoice agenda. The Conference is an opportunity for the
nations of the world to address and seek solutions to the wide range of
common problems concerning population and development, issues such as
children's survival; access to family planning; women's education; the
needs of adolescents; the improvement of the status of women worldwide,
because we know as the status of women improves and the legal status of
women is ratified, the birth rate goes down; the encouragement also of
responsible sexual behavior; the strengthening of families, as well as
issues related to migration and environmental degradation.
The supporters of the Helms amendment would have us believe the Cairo
Conference is to force countries which do not permit abortion because
of their cultural, religious, or legal traditions to change their laws.
This just is not so. The Cairo Conference document currently states
that all population and development policies are to be formulated and
implemented as the sovereign responsibility of each country. We will
continue to acknowledge the sovereignty of nations.
Nothing about the Cairo Conference will alter the sovereignty of
nations to make their own laws based on the economic, social, cultural
and political conditions in their country.
Supporters of the Helms amendment claim that the United States will
lobby to forward a prochoice agenda, and to pressure countries to
liberalize their abortion laws.
The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said what the
President's position was before the National Academy of Sciences:
We do not support abortion as a method of family planning.
We respect the diversity of national laws, except we do
oppose coercion wherever it exists.
That is what the President says, and I support what the President
says.
I do, however, oppose the Helms amendment because it keeps the United
States from exerting its leadership to alleviate human suffering.
Population in the world, in our lifetime, has nearly tripled. We are
seeing with increasing frequency the link between overpopulation,
poverty, and environmental degradation.
Five hundred thousand women die each year from pregnancy-related
causes. Many suffer from acute or chronic complications related to
pregnancy-related complications.
Why? Because abortions in many countries are illegal and are done in
filthy, dirty circumstances. And if the Helms amendment is passed, the
United States will be effectively barred from participating in seeking
solutions to these pressing problems. It will also be prohibited from
contributing constructively to the deliberations leading to up to
Cairo, and after Cairo.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the Helms amendment,
an amendment the purpose of which is to hinder the participation of the
United States in this important conference. I hope that when we
ultimately vote, the amendment will be defeated.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I also note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the
distinguished Senator from North Carolina and the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky.
I ask unanimous consent that we vote on or in relation to the pending
Helms amendment at 11 a.m. tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________