THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
So a Western European law that has nothing to do with getting drugs to Africa , which has nothing to do with dealing with the crisis in Africa , but which is designed to discriminate against U.S.-made pharmaceuticals or medical technologies, the USTR would be prohibited from focusing on it if it did not violate TRIPS.
I think that it may overreach in that regard, and that is why I have some concerns about this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT NO. 76 OFFERED BY MR. VITTER
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 76 offered by Mr. Vitter:
Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:
SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for participation by United States delegates to the Standing Consultative Commission in any activity of the Commission to implement the Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, entered into in New York on September 26, 1997, by the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would block the implementation of unratified limitation on missile defense. Precisely the same amendment, word for word, passed the House last year by voice vote and the previous year before that by a significant margin. And so, this amendment would merely continue that status quo in the law and not change present law.
Mr. Chairman, on September 26, 1997, the Clinton administration entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and related treaties with Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine. If ratified, these treaties would strengthen the 1972 ABM Treaty with the former Soviet Union and impose new and severe restrictions on America's ability to develop and deploy missile defense systems.
But these agreements have not been submitted to the Senate and they have not been ratified. And that is why this amendment should pass, so that they are not implemented unless and until the U.S. Senate considers and ratifies those agreements.
Mr. Chairman, these agreements, the MOU and related documents, essentially do two things. First of all, they change the parties to the 1972 ABM Treaty, substituting for the USSR: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine. Secondly, and more importantly, they really expand the Treaty and expand the scope to disallow more theatre and missile defense systems.
The original 1972 Treaty places no limitations on theater missile defense. These new demarcation agreements would prohibit the U.S. from being able to fully develop our theatre missile defense systems. And that is, of course, why these agreements are so important.
Now, the Clinton administration has frankly admitted there is no debate, and this House has voted many times that this is a new treaty and, therefore, must be put before the United States Senate and ratified by the United States Senate. This has never happened. And that is why we should pass this amendment to prevent implementation unless and until the Senate takes up and ratifies these new treaties.
As I said, this passed last year by a voice vote. It passed the year before that by a substantial margin. I would certainly implore the House to pass it again this year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I seek the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because this issue has come up in previous years. The State Department has opposed it.
In the past, the State Department, during conference, has been able to get language added, making it subject to a presidential certification. And that language is not in the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER) today.
This amendment is unnecessary because the administration has already said that it will not implement the September 1997 Memorandum of Understanding on secession to the ABM Treaty prior to its ratification by the Senate.
In a letter and report provided to the chairman of the Senate and House Committee on Appropriations dated February 9, 1999, the President certified and affirmed that the United States Government is not implementing the Memorandum of Understanding. The way it is currently worded, without the President's certification language, the State Department would be prevented from sending representatives to meetings because it would prohibit money for any participation. The State Department wants to be able to participate in meetings even though it is not implementing the agreement. If the prohibition is on implementation but the State Department is not implementing, they can attend meetings with the presidential certification.
In our view, Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to obstruct the arms control dialogue. It is unnecessary and it is unjustified.
What we are saying is simply that the way this amendment is worded at this particular time will hamper ongoing discussions about arms control unnecessarily.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Time: 21:45]
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, with regard to the issue of the certification, if the certification language were in this amendment, it would then be subject to a point of order. So for that very simple parliamentary reason, that certification language cannot be put in this amendment on the House floor. Should the process, as in previous years, yield that certification language, I would not object; and I would suggest we should move the process along by passing this amendment as it has evolved in previous years.
Also, if, as the gentleman on the other side said in opposition, this amendment is not necessary, then neither he nor the administration should
[Page: H5154] GPO's PDF
The administration has agreed that if it is a new treaty, it must be submitted to the Senate. So this amendment is merely a very wise, precautionary measure and may, in fact, yield the certification language as this appropriation bill moves through the process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we simply disagree on this issue. Without the language concerning a presidential certification, we continue to object.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying that, in fact, we are talking about brand new agreements, treaties, which have never been submitted to the Senate, never been debated or ratified by the Senate. So clearly this is an appropriate, a wise, a conservative and cautionary amendment. It has been adopted the last 2 years. I would not object to the certification language if it is included as it moves through the process. So in that vein, I urge the House to adopt this amendment as it has the previous two years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. OSE) to engage in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. OSE).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to make note of a particular issue. On October 25, 1980, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction established reciprocal rights and duty to expedite the return of children to their state of habitual residence, as well as ensure that rights of custody and of access under the laws of one contracting State are respected in other contracting States.
Subsequent to this convention, over 50 countries have become signatory members. Yet, egregious cases abound. A critical step to protecting our American children is making sure that U.S. Federal and State courts are aware of international parental abduction issues and The Hague Convention. Current law requires that the State Department prepare an annual report on the status of this Hague Convention. Unfortunately, the State Department has been reluctant to distribute their report to our courts. By providing State and Federal courts access to this document, judges will be better equipped to render decisions in custody cases that are in the best interest of the child.
Mr. Chairman, on May 23 of this year, every single Member of this distinguished body who was present voted to support passage of a resolution, the purpose of which was to highlight our interest in making sure that American children and parents remain in this country. Every single Member of this House voted for H. Con. Res. 293 to urge the Secretary of State, in part, to disseminate to all Federal and State courts the Department of State's annual report to Congress on Hague Convention compliance.
As the chairman takes this bill to conference, I ask him to keep this issue in mind and endeavor to ensure that the State Department complies with the guidance in H. Con. Res. 293.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue to our attention. I would be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill proceeds to conference to see if we can address the gentleman's concerns and congratulate him on the work that he has done on the issue.
AMENDMENT NO. 13 OFFERED BY MR. ALLEN
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. ALLEN:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section:
SEC. 624. Of the funds appropriated in title II under the heading ``Administration of Foreign Affairs -- Diplomatic and Consular Programs'', $200,000 shall be available only for bilateral and multilateral diplomatic activities designed to promote the termination of the North Korean ballistic missile program.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS) reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2000, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. ALLEN) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. ALLEN).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering designates a small amount, $200,000, of the State Department's diplomatic account for bilateral and multilateral activities designed to promote the termination of the North Korean ballistic missile program. Everyone agrees we must address the potential threat of a ballistic missile attack by Korea. The question is, what is the most effective and economical way to deal with the threat? Some argue the best way, the only way, to deal with North Korea is to build a defensive shield and then hope that it can shoot down a missile after it is launched.
This approach assumes, of course, that a national missile defense would work as advertised, which has not been proven and could not be fooled by decoy technology, which we may never be sure of.
We must continue to research and test national missile defense more rigorously than we are now, but given the technological uncertainties, NMD remains a risky and expensive option to deal with the North Korean threat. It is safer and cheaper to deal with a missile that has never been built than to gamble that it can be hit after its launch.
Last year, the administration conducted a comprehensive North Korea policy review led by former Defense Secretary William Perry. It concluded that the urgent focus of U.S. policy toward North Korea must be to end its nuclear weapons and long range missile-related activities for which the U.S. should be prepared to establish more normal diplomatic relations with North Korea and join in South Korea's policy of engagement and peaceful coexistence.
We have already seen progress. Last year North Korea pledged to suspend tests of its long range missile in exchange for easing of U.S. sanctions. North Korea reaffirmed the pledge last week. Skeptics say trust their deeds, not their words, and I agree; but the fact is North Korea has not tested its Taepo Dong 1 missile in the 2 years since the first provocative test. Some may scoff at the notion of negotiating with a Stalinist state, but it is worth exploring.
In the June edition of Arms Control Today, Leon Sigal, an expert on North Korea and security issues, presents a cogent case that based on past experience cooperation with Pyongyang can work. He finds that the best strategy for ending North Korea's nuclear and missile programs and ensuring peace in northeast Asia is cooperative threat reduction.
The historic North-South Korea summit offers the chance to foster improved security conditions in the region. The Perry review found that South Korea and Japan and even China share our interests in reducing the North Korean threat. We should take advantage of the opportunity.
This amendment sends a congressional signal of support for continued diplomatic efforts to reduce the North Korean missile threat. This not only makes security sense; it makes fiscal sense. Diplomatic efforts to end the threat can be done at pennies on the national missile defense dollar, which is a $60 billion program. The funding in this amendment is one-hundredth of 1 percent of the amount we will spend next year, $2 billion on national missile defense. There is more than one way to
[Page: H5155] GPO's PDF
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to micromanage and tie the State Department's hands, so I will, at an appropriate time, withdraw the amendment; but I think it is important to indicate Congress' support for diplomatic avenues to end the North Korean missile threat.
Subject to any comments on the other side, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maine?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
AMENDMENT NO. 77 OFFERED BY MR. VITTER
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 77 offered by Mr. VITTER:
Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:
SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be available to the Department of State to approve the purchase of property in Arlington, Virginia by the Xinhua News Agency.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this bill that will send a strong signal to the State Department that this body insists that they enforce the law. This amendment lets State know that we want them to require the Chinese Communist Government to request approval for their purchase of an apartment building overlooking the Pentagon, and that this body wants State to deny that approval.
At issue is the purchase of an Arlington apartment building by the Xinhua News Agency. The Chinese Government owns Xinhua and the Foreign Missions Act of 1985 requires foreign embassies to obtain prior authorization from our State Department for the purchase of U.S. property, and it explicitly covers operations like Xinhua.
Furthermore, the authoritative Chinese intelligence operations, published by the Naval Institute Press, reports that in a number of publicized spy scandals intelligence officers used Xinhua to provide operations cover. The Foreign Missions Act clearly is applicable to the purchase of this building by Xinhua. The name of the complex, Pentagon Ridge Apartments, vividly describes its strategic location. Occupancy of this building will allow Chinese intelligence operatives to gather information using a variety of means. These include direct observation via telescope of documents being viewed in outside offices, the collection of electronic impulses emanated by computer screens in the building and the use of laser microphones to eavesdrop on conversations.
In short, this building is an ideally suited spy tower designed to capture our military secrets.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents