CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
August 24, 1967
Page 23869
IMPACT OF BYRD AMENDMENT TO EXPORT-IMPORT BANK BILL
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on August 10, 1967, the Senate was involved in the consideration of the Byrd amendment to the Export-Import Bank bill. It was the objective of the amendment to prohibit the use of the Bank's credit resources "in connection with the purchase of any product by any nation the government of which is furnishing goods or supplies" to North Vietnam.
In the discussion as to the possible impact of the amendment, the question arose as to which free world countries are engaged in trade with North Vietnam.
As the floor manager of the bill, I pointed out that the last calendar year for which we have complete information was 1966. Excerpts from my remarks at that time are as follows:
First of all, we ought to have some idea of what countries we are talking about, because the Byrd amendment proposes that we do something that could restrict, if not eliminate, our trade with many free world countries.
What are the possible countries that we are talking about? The last calendar year for which we have complete information is the calendar year 1966. The free world countries exporting goods to North Vietnam in 1966 were some 20 in number, and I will read them into the RECORD.
They were: Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United Arab Republic, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, Mexico, and India.
If these countries were to be covered by the Byrd amendment by reason of the trade that they engaged in in 1966 with North Vietnam, then the Byrd amendment would have some impact upon our trade with those countries from now on.
The list of countries to which I referred, Mr. President, was based on information supplied by the International Red Cross. To the best of my information, it is an accurate list for calendar year 1966. As I pointed out in the debate, I did not have information for 1967, and I suggested that we should not adopt the Byrd amendment in the absence of a full understanding of its implications.
I also pointed out that free world countries were reducing their trade with North Vietnam.
Under date of August 16, 1967, I received a letter from the Honorable Frank Corner, Ambassador to the United States from New Zealand, one of the countries included in the 1966 list.
Ambassador Corner points out that there has been an embargo on trade between New Zealand and North Vietnam since March 17, 1966 and that trade prior to that date in 1964, 1965, and 1966 was minimal.
I am happy, Mr. President, to fill out the record with respect to this stanch ally of the United States; and I regret that the incomplete information to which I have referred did not disclose the fact of the embargo at the time of the debate. I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Corner's letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NEW ZEALAND EMBASSY,
Washington, D.C.,
August 16, 1967.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I was very concerned to read a report in the New York Times of 11 August alleging that you had stated during a debate in the Senate on the Export-Import Bank Act Amendment of 1967 that New Zealand is one of the countries which carries on trade with North Vietnam.
New Zealand is a staunch ally of the United States and we have men (admittedly a small number compared with those sent by the United States) fighting and dying for principles we believe in strongly.
The fact is that there has been an embargo on trade between New Zealand and North Vietnam since 17 March 1966 and there has been no trade whatsoever between the two countries since that date.
Prior to the embargo there had been a very small amount of trade, limited mainly to the sale of tallow from New Zealand valued at £4,877 in 1964/65 and £16,550 in 1965/66. Imports for these two years were practically negligible, totaling some £26 and £3 respectively.
Do you think it would be possible to find some way to draw attention to the misconception which may have been created in the minds of Senators and the general public by your reported remarks? This would be valued by all of us who value our happy relations with the United States.
Yours sincerely,
FRANK CORNER, Ambassador.