[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 4 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1290

       (Purpose: To give fullest possible consideration to asylum 
     applications from Chinese nationals fleeing coercive 
     population control policies)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself, 
     Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Coats, and Mr. Brown, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1290.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 179, after line 6, insert the following:

     SEC.   . CHINESE FLEEING COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL 
                   POLICIES.

       (1) Pursuant to paragraph (42)(A) of section 101(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A)), 
     all adjudicators of asylum or refugee status shall give 
     fullest possible consideration to applications from nationals 
     of the People's Republic of China who express a fear of 
     persecution upon return to that country because they refuse 
     to abort a pregnancy or resist surgical sterilization in 
     violation of Chinese Communist Party directives on 
     population, or who demonstrate that they have experienced 
     persecution on account of such refusal, if such refusal is or 
     was undertaken with full awareness of the urgent priority 
     assigned to such directives by all levels of the Chinese 
     government, and full awareness of the severe consequences 
     which may be imposed for violation of such directives.
       (2) In view of the urgent priority assigned to the ``one 
     couple, one child'' policy by high level Chinese Communist 
     Party officials and local party cadres at all levels, as well 
     as the severe consequences commonly imposed for violations of 
     that policy, which are regarded as ``political dissent,'' 
     refusal to abort or to be sterilized, as described in 
     subsection (a) of this section, shall be viewed as an act of 
     political defiance justifying a ``well-founded fear of 
     persecution'' sufficient to establish refugee status under 
     paragraph (42)(A) of section 101(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A)).
       (3) All other factors which may contribute to a 
     determination of asylum or refugee status in such cases are 
     to be given additional weight by asylum and refugee 
     adjudicators, such factors including, but not limited to, 
     overt political activities while in the United States or 
     third countries, membership in an ethnic or religious 
     minority, family background and history, or suspicion of 
     ``counterrevolutionary'' activities by Chinese Communist 
     Party officials.
       (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     necessitate a grant of asylum or refugee status to any 
     individual who is ineligible for admission to the United 
     States under section 212(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)).
       The Secretary of State and the Attorney General shall, 
     within 30 days of enactment of this section, promulgate 
     regulations and guidelines to carry out the provisions of 
     this section.
       (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as--
       (A) Shifting the burden of providing, in each individual 
     case, facts sufficient to establish a claim of asylum or 
     refugee status as described in subsection (a) of this 
     section, from any person making such claim of asylum or 
     refugee status to the Attorney General; or
       (B) Requiring the Attorney General to disprove such claim 
     in the absence of proof of facts sufficient to establish a 
     claim of refugee or asylum status as described in subsection 
     (a) of this section by any person making such claim.
       (7) The number of persons receiving political status solely 
     because of the provisions of this section shall not exceed 
     1,000 in any fiscal year.
       (8) The Attorney General shall not be obligated to grant 
     political asylum to any person claiming to qualify under 
     subsection (a) if the Attorney General proves by clear and 
     convincing evidence that such person has claimed such status 
     solely for the purposes of evading the immigration laws of 
     the United States.
       (9) The provisions of this section shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and notwithstanding the 
     provisions of subsection (c) of this section or any other 
     provision of law, all adjudicators of asylum or refugee 
     status shall apply the provisions of this section to every 
     case, administrative or judicial proceeding, or appeal that 
     is pending on the date of enactment of this Act, and to any 
     claim that arises on or after such date of enactment.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in 1989--I believe in July--both Houses of 
Congress overwhelmingly agreed to an amendment to the Emergency Chinese 
Refugee Relief Act sponsored by Senator Armstrong and Senator 
DeConcini.
  Senators will probably remember that this legislation was in response 
to the Tiananmen Square crackdown. The amendment required asylum 
adjudicators to give fullest possible consideration to asylum 
applications from Chinese nationals fleeing coercive population control 
policies, specifically the program of forced abortion and coerced 
sterilization.
  The Senate vote was 95 to 0 on that amendment which is virtually 
identical to the one I have just offered. The House vote was 300 in 
favor, 115 opposed. Unfortunately, the amendment never became law 
because the underlying bill was vetoed, and that is why I have offered 
virtually the same amendment that was offered in 1989 by Senators 
Armstrong and DeConcini.
  I am offering the amendment again because--I find this difficult to 
believe--the administration's policy today is to deport individuals 
fleeing the brutal population control program of Communist China. As I 
understand it, this administration does not believe that these people 
are being persecuted.
  President Bush issued an Executive order and interim regulations 
which should have resolved this problem. The Clinton administration 
never rescinded the Bush Executive order, but they have nonetheless 
changed the policy. The pending amendment would not be necessary if the 
Clinton administration had not blocked Attorney General Barr's final 
regulations to implement the Executive order from being printed in the 
Federal Register.
  Some Senators believe that these refugees are already being given 
what they call enhanced consideration, but these refugees are not being 
given any such consideration.
  This is a little confusing since it was candidate Clinton who was so 
critical of President Bush in 1992 for not being tougher on Communist 
China. I remember the campaign rhetoric of the then candidate Mr. 
Clinton, and because I did not agree with Mr. Bush I applauded 
candidate Clinton for his position on this issue. He spoke over and 
over again about the human rights abuses by and in Communist China. I 
thought he was right then, and I still think that is the right 
position, but he has totally reversed it, totally reversed it.
  Senators should understand that since the then Attorney General 
Barr's regulations were never published in the Federal Register, the 
bureaucracy continues to operate under rules and regulations which do 
not grant asylum to Chinese nationals fleeing coercive population 
control policies.
  I go back, and I point out that both Houses of Congress passed this 
amendment, virtually this same amendment. The vote in this Senate was 
95 to zero. The vote in the House was 300 to 115. That is why I feel 
obliged to offer today what I am calling the Armstrong-DeConcini 
amendment of 1989.
  Mr. President, I will not talk about the brutal nature of the Chinese 
population control program unless it becomes necessary. I think every 
Senator agrees that there is ample documentation proving beyond a doubt 
that the persecution is real, that the persecution is brutal, and that 
the persecution is tantamount to political persecution. The past two 
administrations held this view. President Clinton, when he was a 
candidate for the Presidency in 1992, not only embraced the view, he 
said it was not enough; we ought to do more. And he chided a fellow 
named George Bush for not being stronger.
  So what is going on? Mr. President, there is no reason to believe 
that the Chinese policy has changed. There is no evidence whatsoever to 
support any contention that there has been a change. To the contrary, 
on December 22 of last year, 1993, it was reported that China intends 
to require--require--abortions, sterilizations, and marriage bans--you 
cannot even get married--in order to avoid new births of inferior 
quality--get that--and heighten the standards of the whole population.
  What was that fellow's name in Germany back in the thirties? Was it 
Hitler, or somebody like that, who said precisely the same thing? And 
everybody in America and around the world was aghast. Now the 
administration says boys will be boys, nothing going on over there, 
forget it. I cannot forget it.
  Mr. President, this amendment should receive broad bipartisan, and I 
would hope, unanimous support. Again, that is what it had in 1989.
  I think the record will show, and show clearly, that the Senator from 
North Carolina is not a Senator who favors opening the borders of our 
Nation, I do not favor allowing anyone to come to the United States for 
any contrived reason, but I hope Senators will agree that this type of 
case I am describing is not acceptable and we ought to let these people 
in. We ought to give them asylum. We ought to help them avoid the 
brutal persecution in their homeland which is Communist China.
  This amendment will not result in a significant increase of illegal 
Chinese immigrants. During fiscal year 1992, when the more generous 
policy was in place, just about 200 of those given asylum based their 
claims on fear of persecution under Communist China's coercive 
population control policy which I have just described.
  Mr. President, there are just some things that the U.S. Government 
should not do. Surely, we can agree that the administration should not 
send back to Communist China people who will, if returned, have to 
suffer unspeakable torture at the hands of the Chinese population 
control police.
  I am prepared to talk about this for a long time, but I do not think 
it is necessary. I am going to yield the floor in the hopes that my 
colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] will be willing to accept this 
amendment.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it may well be that we will. I am just 
trying to run it through the appropriate channels to make sure that all 
parties who have a concern with respect to this issue are in agreement. 
There is absolutely no question whatsoever on the part of any Senator, 
and I absolutely know on the part of this administration, that we are 
opposed to the Chinese incentive structure with respect to one child, 
one family and the policy of coercion that has forced people either to 
leave the country or to seek extraordinary solutions to the coercion 
that they live under.
  The question, obviously, here is a very difficult one of how you 
measure what we just voted on a few moments ago in the amendment of 
Senator Byrd and Senator Simpson where we talked about how we have to 
get stricter on this issue of asylum and whether or not the language 
that is proposed--I do not know that it does or not; I just want to 
make sure that it does not--but that the language proposed by the 
Senator does not now open up an ability of almost anybody who wants to 
to come in and claim that this is the rationale for their asylum.
  How you balance that is difficult. I was just in China. I spent a 
week there. This is one of the issues that I raised with Chinese 
officials. They have enormous concerns themselves not only about the 
world's view on the policy--I think we are having an impact. I think it 
is important to say that the world's opprobrium that has been cast on 
their policy has been felt and heard. So it is appropriate, indeed, for 
us to take the position.
  At the same time, China is struggling with the reality that they 
already have about 11 people per half an acre or something. They are 
the fastest growing population on the face of this planet. They are 
one-quarter of the world's population, 1.2 billion people. In fact, if 
you want to talk about problems, China, just to keep up with the 
current rate of population, has to create something like 2 million jobs 
a year.
  So this is an enormous problem which they are aware of. Also, I think 
they are beginning to understand that it cannot be dealt with in the 
way that they have in the past.
  We need, obviously, to be much more engaged with China, and in fact 
with the rest of the world, on this question of population growth. It 
is not insignificant. You look at a country like Haiti where already it 
has enormous turmoil. Haiti is a country of 7 million people. In the 
next 18 years it is going to become a country of 14 million people, and 
it already cannot sustain the 7 million that it has. You can go from 
country to country around the world and find this replicated.
  How we are going to deal with this problem in the context of our 
immigration policy that tries to respect the rights of people not to be 
coerced but at the same time balance our own ability to take them in is 
going to be a very, very difficult issue indeed. And that is the issue 
that the Senator is confronting us with in this resolution.
  So I simply want to make certain that a couple of things are 
understood.
  President Clinton is not only 100 percent opposed, as he said he was 
in his campaign, to any kind of family coercion with respect to 
planning, but our Government is working on a number of different fronts 
right now to promote safe and voluntary--I underscore voluntary--access 
to family planning around the world. Voluntarism and informed choice 
and protection of individual reproductive rights are the guiding 
principle of this administration's population policy and this country's 
population policy.
  I might add, as the world's leader in international population 
efforts, we are going to promote vigorously these views at the upcoming 
International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. I have 
personally written to the majority leader already and asked that we put 
together a Senate delegation and a House delegation to formally attend 
this conference because of its importance and because of the very kind 
of issue that the Senator from North Carolina has raised.
  So if the Senator from North Carolina will simply let me make certain 
that those who are most concerned with this area of jurisdiction are 
comfortable with the language he has proposed--I am personally 
comfortable, I do not foresee a problem, and I want to make sure there 
is not one. If there is not, we should be able to accept this 
amendment. If he would forbear until we have done that, we can proceed.
  Mr. HELMS. Very well. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator could not offer a more fair proposition, Mr. 
President. Senator Kerry has already voted for this amendment once at 
the time it was passed, and there have been only two minor changes for 
clarification. The television camera may not be able to focus on this 
amendment because we took out of the Congressional Record the exact 
text that was enacted. All that we have done is to add the words 
``sterilization in violation of Chinese Communist Party directives on 
population, or who demonstrate that they have experienced persecution 
on account of such refusal.''
  I had that put in, Mr. President, to keep out any interlopers or 
anybody who has contrived a reason to come into this country.
  So the Senator's proposition is entirely fair. I might note that I 
have advised that Senator Simpson wants a second degree to this 
amendment which is fair enough because he, too, is a fair man and a 
good friend.
  So what shall we do?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I could just ask my colleague if he is 
prepared to proceed forward, I think we are working to close off some 
en bloc, and hopefully we will be able to proceed to an en bloc 
amendment shortly. If the Senator has any other amendment or any other 
colleagues have an amendment, we could temporarily set this aside until 
Senator Simpson arrives and then proceed.
  Mr. HELMS. Very well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set 
aside so that I may prepare to call up another one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. While I am doing that, 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two 
amendments listed for Senator Boren on the consented amendment list be 
deleted, and I ask that the amendments of Senator Feingold, also listed 
on the prior-approved list, be deleted.
  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. Conrad). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1291

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that certain conditions 
    should be met before the People's Republic of China is accorded 
            nondiscriminatory most-favored-nation treatment)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1291.

  Mr. HELMS. 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:

     SECTION 1. POLICY REGARDING THE CONDITIONS WHICH THE 
                   GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
                   SHOULD MEET TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE 
                   NONDISCRIMINATORY MOST-FAVORED-NATION 
                   TREATMENT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the People's Republic of 
     China should not continue to be accorded nondiscriminatory 
     most-favored-nation treatment by the United States, unless 
     the President reports to the Congress that the government of 
     that country--
       (1) has taken appropriate actions to begin adhering to the 
     provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 
     China and Tibet;
       (2) is allowing unrestricted emigration of the citizens who 
     desire to leave China for reasons of political or religious 
     persecution to join family members abroad, or for other valid 
     reasons;
       (3) has provided an acceptable accounting and release of--
       (A) Chinese citizens detained, accused, or sentenced as a 
     result of the nonviolent expression of their political 
     beliefs in relation to events which occurred during and after 
     the violent repression of demonstrations in Tiananmen Square 
     on June 4, 1989; and
       (B) other citizens detained, accused, or sentenced for the 
     nonviolent expression of their political beliefs or for 
     peacefully exercising their internationally guaranteed rights 
     of freedom of speech, association, and assembly;
       (4) has taken effective, verifiable action to prevent 
     export of products to the United States manufactured wholly 
     or in part by convict, forced, or indentured labor and has 
     complied with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding 
     signed on August 7, 1992, by allowing, without limitation or 
     restriction, United States Customs officials to visit places 
     suspected of producing such goods for export; and
       (5) has made overall significant progress in--
       (A) ceasing religious persecution and lifting restrictions 
     on freedom of religious belief in the People's Republic of 
     China and Tibet;
       (B) releasing leaders and members of religious groups 
     detained, imprisoned, or under house arrest for expression of 
     their religious beliefs;
       (C) ceasing financial and other incentives to encourage 
     non-Tibetans to relocate in Tibet, including development and 
     other projects which bring in substantial numbers of non-
     Tibetan workers;
       (D) ceasing unfair and discriminatory trade practices which 
     restrict and unreasonably burden American business;
       (E) providing United States exporters fair access to 
     Chinese markets, including lowering tariffs, removing 
     nontariff barriers, and increasing the purchase of United 
     States goods and services;
       (F) adhering to the guidelines and parameters of the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime and the controls adopted by 
     the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Australian Group on 
     Chemical and Biological Arms;
       (G) adhering to the Joint Declaration on Hong Kong that was 
     entered into between the United Kingdom and the People's 
     Republic of China;
       (H) cooperating with United States efforts to obtain an 
     acceptable accounting of United States military personnel who 
     are listed as prisoners of war or missing in action as a 
     result of their service in--
       (i) the Korean conflict; or
       (ii) the Vietnam conflict;
       (I) ceasing the jamming of Voice of America broadcasts; and
       (J) providing international human rights and humanitarian 
     groups access to prisoners, trials, and places of detention.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this subject has been, on many occasions, 
on the floor of the Senate. It is the issue of most-favored-nation 
trading status for Communist China. If there ever was a modest 
amendment, this one is. It clearly restates the priorities specified in 
S. 806, which was Senator Mitchell's China MFN legislation, on which I 
am an original cosponsor with Senators Moynihan, Sarbanes, Dodd, Leahy, 
and others.
  The point I am making is that this amendment is by no means a new 
proposal, because the Senate has passed precisely this proposal in the 
past. It does not impose any new statutory conditions. Rather, it is 
intended to send a direct message, and does send a direct message to 
both the Chinese and the administration, that as part of the MFN 
renewal process later this year, the Senate will measure Chinese 
progress on the following concerns:
  Human rights, including adherence to the universal declaration of 
human rights.
  The release of political and religious detainees. That is a fancy 
word for prisoners.
  Freedom of emigration.
  And, most important to me, respect for Tibet. Yes; I confess right 
this minute that I am a great admirer and a friend of the Dalai Lama. I 
meet with him every time he comes to Washington.
  The second measurement is trade, including whether China has 
genuinely stopped the practice of illegal prison labor exports and 
unfair anti-American trade practices in general.
  Nonproliferation, including full adherence to ballistic missile, 
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons control, and other items; for 
example, whether China has stopped jamming the Voice of America, and 
whether China is upholding agreements on the future of Hong Kong.
  If I ever agreed with the distinguished majority leader on anything, 
I agreed with him when he took a respectful stand on this floor on this 
matter. He was eloquent and he was right. I was proud to stand with 
him.
  Let me share a few of the comments of George Mitchell, the 
distinguished majority leader. I remind my colleagues that this 
amendment is by no means binding, and I do not propose that it be, 
which I think makes it all the more appropriate at the present time. In 
any case, Senator Mitchell had this to say--and listen to the clarity 
of this former Federal judge's assessment of the situation. He said:

       This is a reasonable bill. It does not impose arbitrary or 
     unattainable conditions on extending MFN trade status to 
     China. It merely requires that the Communist Chinese leaders 
     live up to the commitments they have made to respect 
     international standards of human rights and fair trade 
     practices and missile, nuclear and chemical weapons 
     agreements. It supports fundamental American principles and 
     values.

  Obviously, no two Senators always agree on everything. And there have 
been times when he and I have strongly disagreed with each other. I 
hope, as it has always been as far as I am concerned, that we agree to 
disagree agreeably. But I completely concur with him on this subject.
  We all know of Communist China's sorry record of continued human 
rights abuses, unfair trade practices and failure to comply with arms 
proliferation agreements. That record has not improved, and I hope no 
Senator with a straight face will get up in this Chamber and say that 
situation has indeed improved. Why, you may ask yourself. In large part 
because China apparently believes that when push comes to shove, the 
United States is all talk and no action. We sent some people over there 
during the Bush administration, and I protested, and they clinked the 
champagne glasses with a bunch of folks who used tanks to run over 
students and pulverize those young Chinese students.
  The Clinton administration is helping foster this perception that 
China has regarding the United States, that we are a paper tiger, et 
cetera. Actions speak louder than words. And despite the 
administration's tough words in the campaign of 1992 and since, the 
appeasing actions sent absolutely the wrong signal, and that is the 
reason I am offering this amendment and asking for it to be considered.
  For example, despite the importance we have rightly attached to 
China's strict adherence to nuclear and ballistic missile technology 
and nonproliferation agreements, the administration has failed to back 
up its impressive rhetoric with effective action.
  Specifically, when China knowingly violated the Missile Technology 
Control Regime yet again by transferring missile technology to 
Pakistan, the administration reluctantly imposed only the minimum--the 
minimum--sanctions required by law. Without the law, I doubt that 
anything at all would have been done.
  Incredibly, the administration is now in the process of waiving the 
sanctions statute by legal reinterpretation and thereby accepting as 
progress--as progress--China's offer merely to talk about 
nonproliferation. What is going on?
  This administration--and I found the same fault and I was just as 
candid when George Bush was sitting in the Oval Office--this 
administration is helping China make a mockery of nonproliferation 
compliance. There are no two ways about it.
  When will it take Chinese violations seriously? When terrorist Iran 
fires a Chinese-designed nuclear missile, will that do it?
  I say, Mr. President, that if the administration will not send a firm 
signal, then the Senate must do so. Again, I emphasize that I said the 
same thing when George Bush was sitting in the Oval Office.
  There are numerous other examples of appeasement in the areas of 
human rights and trade. I think it is truly ironic. When Mr. Clinton, 
the candidate, called George Bush's policy of engagement with China 
``coddling the dictators in Beijing,'' I said, ``Right on, Mr. 
Clinton.'' George Bush was my friend, and I supported him, but I 
disagreed with him on his administration's handling of Communist China. 
Mr. Clinton disagreed with him during the campaign. But the same Mr. 
Clinton today is engaging in a love-fest with China even more amorous 
through his own self-described policy of deeper engagement. I do not 
know what he means by that. He has never defined it.
  Meanwhile, all of this has not been lost on those guys sitting over 
there in Beijing. If you think it has, think again.
  I do not want to say that this administration practices the opposite 
of what it preaches, but I need to be shown with clarity what is going 
to be done. At least we should ask ourselves why should the Chinese 
take the MFN threat seriously?
  They are not. The rubberstamp Chinese Congress recently enacted 
another forced abortion and infanticide law. The inhumanity is 
incredible. I guess the Communist dictators just cannot kill innocent 
babies fast enough over there, Mr. President.
  With much media hype, China released a couple of dissidents, just a 
token gesture to impress some high-level American businessmen. Maybe 
some Senators were over there bowing and scraping. I do not know.
  Now, I thank the dictators of Red China for small blessings, I 
suppose, but these detainees, as they call them--they were political 
prisoners; that is the word to call them--these political prisoners 
were simply replaced by other people whom the government in Beijing 
arrested and imprisoned to keep its political gulags full and 
operating, many of them manufacturing goods to be exported into the 
United States. One small step forward for three big giant steps 
backwards is no way to have a relationship, and we should not put up 
with it.
  I am encouraged that some in the administration appear to be waking 
up to this problem and warning the Chinese about MFN renewal 
conditions. It is about time.
  This amendment will help. It will help reinforce and provide 
credibility to these few and late warnings because it will remind the 
Chinese that regardless of what mixed signals they may receive from the 
executive branch, the legislative branch, the Congress of the United 
States, does have the final say, after all, in the matter of MFN 
renewal. I want our message to be crystal clear. I do not want it to be 
watered down, and I do not want it to be haggled over.
  We have taken this stand before, and let us have the courage to take 
it again. Let us say and mean that Congress expects genuine progress, 
demonstrable progress, and that is a heck of a lot more than a couple 
steps forward and steps backwards, and all that sort of thing.
  I am well aware that the Chinese are sensitive to the perception that 
they are being pressured to change. That does not bother me at all. It 
should not bother anybody in this Congress. Oh, yes; they pretend to 
get all excited and huffy about proving no American can tell them what 
to do. And China apologists erroneously claim that amendments like this 
one at the desk right now harden Chinese resistance to change. Baloney.
  What are we--a bunch of squirming earthworms? China always looks 
after China's best interests. Go back and look in history. And China 
knows that MFN renewal is very much in its best self-interest. They 
want it. They need it.
  If the threat of MFN denial is credible, they will react. I repeat, 
they will react.
  So this amendment at the desk, which restates our concerns 5 months 
before the final decision on MFN, gives the Chinese the time to make 
measurable progress, not imaginary progress, not contrived progress; it 
gives the Chinese time to gain the flexibility to justify positive 
changes any way they like.
  For example, if they want to euphemistically call real compliance 
with the nonproliferation agreements Deng Xiaoping's new national 
security initiative, that suits me fine. They can call it anything they 
want to. But let us make them put up or shut up.
  Similarly, it gives business interests time to both increase their 
own lobbying with the Chinese Government for change and make 
contingency plans should MFN not be renewed by this Congress. Everyone 
is forearmed and forewarned about what to expect and what might happen. 
But let us stand up and have character about this Government's position 
because, Mr. President, there is no right way to do a wrong thing.
  I am delighted with the stand that the distinguished majority leader 
has taken in the past and I assume in the present.
  This makes it a fully bipartisan approach which has been strongly 
supported by leaders of the majority and Cabinet officers alike.
  Senator Mitchell said it well. He said, ``This is a modest, limited 
and carefully crafted bill.''
  This amendment is a nonbinding version of his bill. The Senator from 
Maine has been quite emphatic about this point, stating:

       I repeat: The conditions in the bill are conditions which 
     the Chinese Government itself has said that it can meet. Why 
     should we object to asking the Chinese to do what they have 
     said they are prepared to do?

  Why? Are we a bunch of namby-pamby earthworms trying to find an easy 
way out of every problem that comes up?
  Listen to what Senator Mitchell had to say about President Bush's 
policy of ``engagement.'' And I, at the time said, ``Hooray. You are 
exactly right.'' And George Bush, I reiterate, was my friend and I 
supported him both times he ran for the Presidency.
  Senator Mitchell said, ``The administration's policy,'' meaning the 
Bush administration policy, ``has rested on a hope, a hope that the 
Chinese regime would improve its behavior. That hope has not been 
realized. It is time to replace personal hope with national incentives 
for change.''
  And to George Mitchell, I say, ``Amen, brother. You were right then, 
and what you said then is right now.''
  Our distinguished former colleague from Texas, Mr. Bentsen, now a 
member of the President's Cabinet, as a Senator said the following 
about the language of this amendment now pending in the U.S. Senate: 
The conditions set forth in this legislation are reasonable. They are 
not extreme, as some would claim. They are the minimum that we ought to 
ask a country which is enjoying a highly profitable trade relationship 
with this country,'' meaning the United States.
  And Secretary Bentsen is not the only current high administration 
official who supported this approach. As Senator Bentsen told this 
Chamber in 1992, ``In August, we heard testimony in the Finance 
Committee from President Reagan's last Ambassador to China, Winston 
Lord.'' Mr. President, this is the same Winston Lord who is now in 
charge of policy for China as Assistant Secretary of State for East 
Asia. Senator Bentsen continued describing Winston Lord's position 
saying:

       He counseled us to forge a China policy that both conducts 
     requisite business and honors our ideals.

  That is a seesaw. We have to keep it level.
  ``He counseled us to pass the bill before the Senate today.''
  The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, stated 
in 1992, ``These are not onerous commitments. We are not asking China 
to do what others are not asked. These are international commitments to 
which most states have acceded. They are the brick and mortar of the 
world order.''
  And I remind my friend, Senator Kerry, that he, too, provided his 
endorsement, stating, ``American interests and ideals are clearly 
served by this legislation.''
  And, again, I agree with my friend John Kerry, of Massachusetts. I 
hope he has not changed his mind.
  The other Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, got in his 
opinion. He said, ``As long as the Chinese Government pursues its 
repressive and irresponsible policies, China should be a least-favored 
nation, not a most-favored nation. Enacting this legislation will place 
America on the side of human rights, economic reform, and ending the 
arms race.''
  And then my friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, with his usual 
eloquence, said, ``In the case of China, we have simply run out of 
options. We have held out the carrot; now is the time for the stick.''
  A pretty good statement Chris Dodd made. But he said more. He said, 
``The alternative is a policy that coddles a repressive and inhumane 
leadership in Beijing.''
  Amen, Chris Dodd. You are exactly right.
  And then he said about the language which is now before the Senate in 
the pending amendment, ``The legislation before us represents an effort 
by Congress to set United States-China relations on a wiser course.''
  Now those are just a few statements by a few people, all of whom I 
respect. I do not agree with them all of the time, just as I did not 
agree with President Bush on everything. I agreed with the 
distinguished majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Mr. Mitchell, and 
disagreed with my President. I still agree with the majority leader.
  In any case, Mr. President, it is clear that China needs a strong 
bipartisan signal from Congress and the pending amendment does just 
that in a most measured and reasonable way.
  I urge its approval. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I hope my friend from North Carolina is not 
going to totally take off from this debate. He has asked some 
interesting questions and he certainly deserves answers to them.
  I trust he wants the answers and not just to ask the questions for 
the sake of the politics of the situation. But that is really what you 
are looking at here. I think we ought to just stop and pay tribute to a 
significant figure in the Senate who knows how to sort of raise the 
political rubes, if you will.
  But when you really look at the policy and when you really examine 
what President Clinton is doing, there is no relationship between that 
and what the Senator from North Carolina was just talking about.
  What the Senator from North Carolina is doing is pretty transparent--
quoting a lot of Democrats, turning to now Secretary Bentsen, turning 
to the majority leader, Senator Mitchell, pulling their words out from 
the debate several years ago; and even turning, in his good wisdom, to 
the comments from the two Senators from Massachusetts in an effort 
somehow, I suppose, to put us on the spot and to suggest that perhaps 
there is something we ought to be embarrassed about.
  Let me say, point blank to the Senator from North Carolina, not only 
is there nothing to be embarrassed about, but the policy that is in 
place today is tougher than the policy that was in place with President 
Bush and it is precisely the same policy that is reflected in the very 
document that he reads from, from 1992, that was offered by Senator 
Mitchell. Except that rather than be a policy that is pushed 
exclusively under the banner of MFN, this administration has wisely 
chosen to highlight human rights under the banner of MFN, and work on 
the issues of proliferation and trade on separate tracks.
  I ask my colleague from North Carolina to measure what this 
administration has done in 1 year, on those separate tracks, versus 
what President Bush or President Reagan did in 12 years, on MFN. Year 
after year after year, President Bush was vetoing, President Reagan was 
vetoing.
  This administration has taken sanctions which the Bush administration 
never was willing to take, on trade and on missiles. On the missile 
transfer it was President Clinton who put in the sanctions on the sale 
of satellites. And on trade most recently, we went to the brink of a 
trade war because we were willing to be tough on unfair trade practices 
of the Chinese in the transshipment of textiles through Hong Kong and 
other countries to the United States. And we got something out of the 
Chinese through that separate track.
  We did not have to wait for a June annual process of MFN. We did it 
now. We did it in the last month.
  So, in point of fact, President Clinton has a tougher policy, a 
working policy, a successful policy and a policy that, just because it 
does not fit under this one banner of what Senator Mitchell and many of 
us supported 2 years ago, does not mean you are not pushing those same 
issues in 1994.
  Let me be very, very precise about this so we understand the game 
that is being offered here by the Senator from North Carolina. The 
Senator comes to the floor and he quotes Senator Mitchell and says, 
``Gee, whiz, if it was good enough for George Bush it ought to be good 
enough for President Clinton.''
  The fact is, what President Clinton has is better than what was 
offered to George Bush. And the Senator from North Carolina ought to 
understand the distinction of what has happened now versus what 
happened then.
  Let me not rely on my statements and my rhetoric. Let me read 
directly from the President's Executive order which is the judgment of 
today. And let us compare it to the language that the Senator from 
North Carolina relies on.
  In the language that the Senator from North Carolina has now offered 
the Senate, saying why are we not doing this tough stuff now, in that 
language we were required to take appropriate actions to deal with 
universal declaration of human rights in China and Tibet.
  I read from the President's Executive order saying that 
Secretary of State cannot--cannot--recommend that China has 
sufficiently adhered--again, MFN--unless it takes steps to adhere to 
the universal declaration of human rights. And that it protects Tibet's 
distinctive religious and cultural heritage.
  So we have the very thing in the Executive order today on human 
rights singled out at a higher order of priority than you had in the 
bill that the Senator from North Carolina is pointing to.
  Then the bill says, ``is allowing unrestricted immigration of 
citizens who desire to leave China for reasons of religious or 
political persecution.''
  You look to the Executive order and it says, ``Extension will 
substantially promote the freedom of emigration objectives of section 
402 of the act.''
  So you have the precise requirements of emigration. Then you look 
further and it has requirements regarding an accounting and release of 
people who were in Tiananmen.
  We have been getting that accounting. It is almost irrelevant now 
because we know. We have gotten the accounting. The accounting is 
ongoing and we forced that process. In fact most of them are now out of 
jail. Not all of them. There are some serving sentences, and we are 
still struggling on these who are serving sentences. But their release 
and visitation is one of the conditions of the Executive order.
  If you look at the Executive order it says, ``The Secretary shall 
also determine whether China has made progress with respect to 
releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for Chinese citizens 
imprisoned or detained for the nonviolent expression of their political 
and religious beliefs, including such expression of beliefs in 
connection with the democracy wall in Tiananmen Square.''
  So not only is Tiananmen Square but all freedom of expression and 
democracy efforts and rights to assemble, et cetera, taken account in 
the Executive order just as they were in the language that is held up 
by Senator Helms.
  Next, adhering to the guidelines and parameters of missile 
technology. OK, that is one of the items that is taken out and treated 
separately; but which our administration, the Clinton administration, 
has taken sanctions on. Contrary to anything that the Bush 
administration did.
  Then you point to the joint declaration on Hong Kong. That is also 
something that we have asserted in the U.S. Senate by now making part 
of our law. It is already part of our law. We have asserted it in all 
of our discussions with the Chinese. In fact in Secretary Bentsen's 
recent visit to China it was front and center as one of the points of 
discussion.
  Then you have cooperating with the United States to obtain an 
accounting of U.S. military personnel in Korea and Vietnam.
  I might point out that China has just permitted a dig to take place, 
an excavation and exploration on the Chinese border near Vietnam. And 
they have further permitted us to have cooperation with respect to the 
issue of Americans missing from that war.
  The next item is ceasing the jamming of Voice of America broadcasts. 
That is the item in the Helms bill.
  If you turn to the Executive order it says ``Permitting international 
radio and television broadcasts into China.'' So that item is contained 
in the bill.
  That is it. That is the Helms bill, entirely accounted for within the 
Executive order and within the two tracks which we are operating on, on 
trade and on the issue of missile technology transfer.
  As I mentioned earlier, Mr. President, I just came back from a week 
in China--a couple of days in Hong Kong, in Kwangtung Province, the 
south provinces, and several days in Beijing.
  I met with dissidents, I met with business people, I met with Hong 
Kong officials, I met with Chris Patten, the Governor of Hong Kong for 
Great Britain, I met with ministers of defense and foreign ministry 
personnel and others in China, I met with officials in Kwangtung and so 
forth.
  I will say to my friend from North Carolina, I and others--Secretary 
Bentsen was there, Congressman Gephardt was there, Senator Johnston and 
the delegation were there--they have had an enormous transmission of 
message in the last month of the seriousness of the United States 
present administration's position on human rights, which is fully 
embracing all of the components of what he is complaining Senator 
Mitchell put on the floor 2 years ago but which somehow is in a 
different standard today.
  We are making enormous progress on that. In certain portions. Not 
enough progress in other portions. Emigration is not fundamentally a 
problem today. They are allowing people to leave China and to come to 
the United States. That is being served.
  On the issue of prison labor we believe we have made enormous 
progress, and that is now part of a memorandum of understanding and of 
a joint process.
  On intellectual property rights we are making enormous progress, and 
there is now a memorandum of understanding and they are promulgating 
new laws and rules in China with transparency within the process, so we 
will have an ability to enforce the law and protect our rights.
  We are now with respect to the visits to the prisons still discussing 
that issue and pushing it. But I believe we are going to make progress 
on that within the next few months. While I was there they told me that 
they are planning to release certain political prisoners. Indeed, the 
very next day after the meetings I had, they released people in Tibet. 
It is not enough yet, but it is a process that is working.
  So to suggest that somehow President Clinton and this administration, 
which I think have put human rights into a far more significant bubble, 
if you will, as a consequence of putting it into a single Executive 
order package, while not only promising to follow through on the 
missile track and the trade track but, in fact, demonstratedly having 
followed through on that track far more than President Bush and 
President Reagan did--it is really hard to understand where the Senator 
from North Carolina is coming from except to try to create some kind of 
moment of embarrassment.
  It does not work. It is not there. There is nothing to be embarrassed 
about. This administration is proceeding forward with far greater 
vigor, with far more focus, and with far more follow through than 
either administration of the last 12 years. I think the Senator from 
North Carolina ought to be here congratulating him. He may come back 
and suggest, ``Well, if they are doing so well, why don't they put it 
all into this one message?'' That is not the way diplomacy ought to be 
carried out, and the United States Senate should not sit here and undo 
the new initiative of the President and his Secretary of State which 
they engaged in last fall with the Chinese. We should not just stand 
here and suddenly undo something that is working.
  Last fall, they initiated, at some risk, a new dialog with the 
Chinese in an effort to try to recognize the fact that you cannot just 
always be in confrontation status with large nations in the world. That 
is one of the most important impressions that I think I came back with 
from that part of the world, Mr. President.
  The Senator from North Carolina said something very important. He 
said China looks after China's interests, just as we look after our 
interests in the United States. Those words are true. China will look 
after China's interest. The question is how far you can push one 
interest of the United States, or the rest of the world, up against 
China's real bottom-line interests, and how much leverage do we in 
truth have or believe we have to be able to do that.
  One of the things that I have learned in 20 years now of dealing with 
different countries in Asia--and I was deeply involved in the efforts 
in the Philippines; I have been deeply involved in Cambodia, Thailand, 
and Vietnam and now more recently have begun to focus more attention on 
the issue of China and Indonesia--we should recognize that we are all 
in a different position today than we were yesterday and in a different 
position yesterday than we were a month ago and a year ago and 2 years 
ago.
  A remarkable process of change is going on in China. There is no 
turning back for China. This huge country with a population one-quarter 
of the globe, 1.2 billion people and growing at a rate that exceeds the 
imagination, has the fastest economic growth of any nation on the face 
of this planet, growing at 20 percent in some provinces, growing at 11 
or 12 percent as a nation.
  In those provinces where they are growing and where there are now 
businesses from all over the world, their people are beginning to think 
differently, behave differently, and enjoy a different set of rights.
  I met with American businesses and foreign businesses there. I asked 
them what happens to the Chinese person who comes into the company. Do 
they get paid differently? Do they work under different rules? Do they 
have different opportunities? And the answers to those questions in 
every case is, yes, not only that but because of this transition, 
people who used to have to get the permission of their so-called work 
unit to be able to leave one place of business and go work somewhere 
else are today able just to quit a job and go out and find a job 
somewhere else and work somewhere else.
  A lot of fancy cars are turning up in Kwangtung Province and in other 
provinces on the coast. A lot of people are making money. In fact, the 
Peoples Liberation Army, the PLA, is busily involved today in making a 
lot of money. They are investing. In point of fact, the Army has been 
told by the central government they do not have enough money to 
fundamentally pay for a lot of stuff; they have to go out and earn 
money to support themselves. Only 7 percent of their budget goes into 
the military. They are trying to modernize in some regards.
  But much is changing in China. Every person I talked to in every part 
of Asia indicated to me that they cannot turn back without some 
wrenching, extraordinary, convoluted confrontation that would rip the 
country apart and have enormous implications for the rest of the world.
  I have personally come to question--while I voted for MFN many, many, 
many times and it was the right policy all the way along and it is the 
right policy this year, now, it is still correct--I can see a point 
soon where we should recognize that China is in a post-Tiananmen 
period. The transition has already begun from Deng Xiaoping. We should 
understand that in the future it may be that we need to begin to think 
about dealing with different issues in a different way.
  I am not going to go into that now or make that speech now, but I am 
going to suggest respectfully to the Senator from North Carolina that 
our administration is on a sensible course that is sensitive to this 
change in the region, sensitive to other decisions that other countries 
are making.
  Let me give an example of one.
  The Prime Minister of France just recently decided that he is not 
only visiting China but that they made a new decision on the sale of 
weapons to Taiwan, and they are going into China. What you see is raw 
economic power speaking. You are going to see that, I suggest, more and 
more in the relationships of countries in that region as they emerge as 
huge producers and suppliers for the rest of the world and as a major 
market for infrastructure, for communications, for enormous 
opportunities to change.
  I am not sure the United States can go it alone, if you will, with 
unilateral, sort of gun-at-the-head policies that open up the 
opportunities for a whole lot of other countries to go do what they 
want to do while we sit here tying things to certain standards of 
behavior that others are not willing to necessarily stand up for and 
which raise serious questions about the international community's 
resolve on these issues. That, too, is another issue.
  The fact is the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina 
fundamentally makes mischief with the current policy of this 
administration that is stronger than the policy of the prior two 
administrations and that is working. We in the Senate should not send 
China a mixed message that somehow suggests that the track the 
administration is on does not have the support of the Congress or has 
not been working. That would be contrary to reality, and it would also 
be contrary to common sense in terms of the course that we are on.
  The bottom line is, and I say this with great respect to the Senator 
from North Carolina because he and I have worked on human rights issues 
with respect to Latin America and other parts of the world and I agree 
with him on his concern for it, but his concern is being met by this 
administration, which has cleverly focused on human rights within the 
context of MFN, heightened the visibility on those issues, achieved 
already some measure of progress toward meeting it, and has proven its 
willingness to follow through on the two other areas of trade and of 
missile proliferation.
  I respectfully suggest to the Senator that his amendment is 
unnecessary if his goal is truly to send a strong message to China, and 
his amendment is certainly unnecessary if its goal is simply to try to 
prove a political point that is both inappropriate and unjustifiable.
  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. 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. HELMS. Madam President, before I begin, let me make it clear to 
the Chair and anybody else that might be listening, including the folks 
watching on television, that John Kerry and I are very, very good 
friends. We do not belong to the same party. We do not have exactly the 
same philosophy. But as far as I know, we have always agreed to 
disagree agreeably. I sat in the cloakroom and listened to a good part 
of his rebuttal to my comments about the pending amendment. Then I went 
down, and got a bowl of clam chowder. I recommend it, if you have not 
had lunch. It is not Boston clam chowder, but it is very good.
  But it sort of surprised me when the Senator from Massachusetts said 
that I was transparent, whatever that means, in offering this 
amendment.
  I guess what I am saying is we ought to have truth in advertising. 
But that is neither here nor there. I would say to my friend that if 
the administration is doing all of the fine things he said it is doing 
with reference to relations with China, then he ought to welcome this 
amendment and be just as enthusiastic for it now as he was when George 
Mitchell, the distinguished majority leader, offered his legislation 
back during the Bush administration.
  I do not see why it is a matter of such sensitivity for the 
administration to be differed with on this matter, because I differed 
with my administration. I did it publicly, and I did it on this floor, 
when George Bush was President. And I am still doing it. I would do it 
right now.
  If I offended the Senator by criticizing the Clinton administration, 
I am sorry.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, will the Senator simply yield for a 
dialog on this?
  Mr. HELMS. Sure.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator asks a good question. Why would you not, if 
the administration is doing all these good things, want to accept the 
amendment that the Senator has offered? The answer to that is that the 
Senator's amendment--I do not disagree with anything the Senator has in 
the amendment in terms of substance, as I just described.
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator from Massachussetts voted for it.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator is correct, Madam President. I did indeed vote 
for it. I pressed for each of these items today. The reason I say to 
the Senator that I would not want to embrace it in the form the Senator 
has it here is that it conditions MFN on all of those items, and the 
President has chosen to condition MFN on the human rights but push the 
other two items separately.
  That is the distinction. It is an approach.
  Mr. HELMS. I have the floor. We are just talking in a friendly 
fashion.
  Mr. KERRY. I agree.
  Mr. HELMS. That is not what the current President said, Madam 
President, when he was campaigning in 1992. He just lambasted Bush. And 
as I said in my remarks, I applauded what he said. Did I not say that?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the Senator from North Carolina certainly 
did say that. He probably said a lot of things in his own campaign that 
he might not want to be held accountable for today if they were 
absolutely followed through on.
  All I am saying to the Senator from North Carolina is if the 
President is achieving what the Senator from North Carolina wants, is 
it more important to simply go back to the campaign and try to 
formulate a policy around that, or is it important to embrace the fact 
that he is accomplishing what the Senator wants?
  Mr. HELMS. If my friend will yield, I am not suggesting we go back to 
the campaign at all. I am just pointing out that the President took a 
stronger position then. If he wants to get some others, including the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who are 
especially interested in this China/MFN matter, and privately tell us 
what he is doing that is so great, I will keep it a secret. I will not 
discuss it with the media or anybody else.
  But I am just operating on what I am able to see, just as we operated 
when George Bush was President.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I will both 
answer him and ask him a question. He has asked me what the President 
is doing that is so great. I have listed precisely how every component, 
the Senator's human rights components, of this is embraced in the 
Executive order. So the President is doing nothing differently from 
what the Senator proposed in his amendment. He is doing nothing 
differently in his Executive order.
  The only other two items in the Senator's amendment pertain to 
missile technology which he is addressing in the same track with 
sanctions. The question of the missile technology is one side, and the 
trade issue is being dealt with on a separate track. The trade issue, 
as the Senator knows, we just had this very significant clash over the 
textiles. They are prepared to bring extremely strong sanctions against 
China. They had emergency meetings, and before the January 15 deadline 
China backed down.
  So each of the concerns expressed by the Senator from North Carolina 
are in fact not only being addressed but are embraced in the current 
policy.
  Mr. HELMS. Then the Senator from Massachussetts ought to have no 
objection to the amendment. Let us just pass it over a voice vote and 
be done with it.
  Mr. KERRY. If I may say to the Senator, clearly what the Senator is 
doing is trying to change the administration's approach as it is stated 
to the Chinese and as it is, indeed.
  The Senator shakes his head. But the Senator is taking back trade and 
taking back missile technology and conditioning MFN specifically on 
both of those. That is the language here.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I beg my friend's pardon. Maybe, like the 
three blind men from Hindustan who were trying to describe an elephant, 
each of us is seeing it our way.
  But China is sitting back laughing at us. They are sitting back 
laughing at us, and they are going to continue to do things that this 
amendment addresses.
  Let me say that I applaud thus far the position that the 
administration has taken with respect to textiles. But that hand has 
not been played out yet, I say to the Senator. And there is nothing 
wrong with saying, and this Senate said, ``Just a minute here, Red 
China. This is the way we still feel.''
  The former Federal Judge and the distinguished majority leader said 
it right. I think we ought to just keep on saying it until they do.
  Mr. KERRY. If my friend from North Carolina will stay with me for a 
moment here--
  Mr. HELMS. I will stay with my friend as long as I am in the Senate.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator for that.
  Madam President, the first sentence of the Senator's amendment--and I 
know he knows it, but I want to put it in the Record--says:

       Policy regarding the conditions which the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China should meet to continue to receive 
     nondiscriminatory most-favored-nation treatment.

  In other words, that follows; in the Senator's amendment are 
conditions which China must meet to get MFN. What the Senator is saying 
is that missile technology behavior and trade policy behavior are part 
of whether or not they get MFN.
  President Clinton has distinctly separated those three tracts. He has 
conditioned MFN on the human rights record.
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will defer a moment, I want to be sure the 
Chair knows who has the floor. Will the Chair state it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. I will not abuse the Senator's time.
  Mr. HELMS. No, No. I just wanted that clear.
  Mr. KERRY. So when the Senator says to me: Why should we not just 
pass this? Why should we not accept this? Why would the President not 
want to embrace this? It is because the President has personally 
decided he thinks he can get more out of China and progress further by 
tying MFN to human rights and by proceeding in two other forums, to 
discuss the issue of the missile technology and the issue of the trade 
labor violations.
  I respectfully say to my colleague that is working. And to now change 
it in one fell swoop in the U.S. Senate and try to send a contrary 
message would, No. 1, be an inappropriate and a wrongful intrusion by 
the Senate in the prerogatives of the President. No. 2, it would be 
contrary to good, common sense, in view of the fact that what the 
President is doing is working.
  So if the Senator really wants to achieve what is in here, I would 
like to join with him. I suggest that we try to construct a message to 
China and let us see if we can join jointly now on the floor to put 
together a message that embraces all of what the Senator is trying to 
say here, which is that China must improve in these areas. I agree with 
the Senator. Let us contain each of the sections of human rights, which 
we know to be of importance to us, which the President has set forward 
in the Executive order; but let us respect the right of the President 
to proceed in these two other courses, while simultaneously saying to 
China, as we ought to, that we expect improvement in this area of 
missile technology, transfer, and in proliferation, and we expect 
improvement with respect to the section of trade violations.
  If we did that, I think we would wind up sending the very message he 
is seeking to send to China without being disruptive to the policy of 
the administration. That would be constructive for the Senate.
  Mr. HELMS. Is the Senator finished?
  Mr. KERRY. I ask the Senator if he would be interested in pursuing 
that?
  Mr. HELMS. I will entertain anything the Senator would bring to me. 
He is a very bright, young man, and I enjoy working with him, but----
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator has been extremely gracious, and I appreciate 
the time.
  Mr. HELMS. What we are talking about is an Executive order which can 
be changed tomorrow. By the way, I am not among those who would 
abdicate this matter to the executive branch, because we have a 
responsibility. Otherwise, we would not be called upon to vote on MFN. 
So we do have a stake in this thing, and we do have a responsibility. I 
am not prepared to surrender my responsibilities.
  The Executive order requires only a ``no'' recommendation if China 
does not adhere to the 1992 labor agreement and if China cannot meet 
the Jackson-Vanik waiver. That is it. Everything else is merely 
something to be considered. If China does nothing, under this Executive 
order, the Secretary of State is not required to issue a ``no'' 
recommendation. So where does that leave the Senate of the United 
States? Out in left field, if we do nothing. I think we ought to take a 
stand. If the President wants to say to the hierarchy over in Beijing 
that you have these fellows like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate 
requiring this, that is fine. You and I are going to work this out--and 
nobody will applaud louder than I when we are done. But in the 
meantime, I do not think we ought to relinquish our stand one iota. The 
Executive order, by the way--we researched that a little bit--is 
substantially weaker than S. 806.
  My amendment is only a sense of the Senate. The Senator is correct, 
and I intended that; but even though most senses of the Senate are like 
kissing your sister, they do not mean anything, in this case it means 
something because it is conveyed to the people who need it conveyed to, 
that we are watching, in addition to the State Department and the 
executive branch in general. Does the Senator want my amendment to be 
stronger than it is?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this Senator would enjoy working with the 
Senator from North Carolina to try to see if we cannot construct a 
message. And I think we ought to send a message. I do not think we 
ought to have the MFN debate now. I do not think that we ought to 
construct a new MFN policy now. I think we ought to try to find a way 
to constructively bolster the efforts of the administration, 
recognizing that this debate is going to occur in 3 or 4 months. We are 
going to have this debate on the floor of the Senate. The 
administration is going to have to make this judgment. This is not yet 
the time for it.
  Mr. HELMS. And we are going to have to make this judgment.
  Mr. KERRY. Yes. I recommend respectfully, Madam President, to my 
colleague that we try to construct now a message that is less 
confrontational internally between us and more constructive externally 
toward the Chinese, that all Senators could join together on this bill, 
which is not really the appropriate moment to have the MFN debate. I 
think that would be a constructive effort, and I would like to work 
with the Senator to do that.
  Mr. HELMS. Does the Senator----
  Mr. KERRY. I do not want to diminish any of the concepts that are 
contained within the bill that I once voted for, and that is the 
essence of our approach. It is just a question of the formulation and 
structure of it.
  Mr. HELMS. Does the Senator contemplate having that ready for us to 
examine by maybe Monday morning?
  Mr. KERRY. I think that would be appropriate.
  Mr. HELMS. Let me say again that I am always interested in hearing 
what the Senator has to say and what he has to propose. It would be 
foolish for me to take any other position. But I do not quite 
understand, nor do I share the Senator's position that we ought not to 
be confrontational with the Communist Chinese.
  Mr. KERRY. No. I beg to differ. It is not a question of--I am talking 
about confrontational between ourselves and our administration.
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator is suggesting that I am being confrontational 
with whom?
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator is suggesting that the policy contained within 
the Senator's amendment is, by definition, confrontational with current 
policy, because the Senator is proposing a different approach than the 
administration, a different approach only in structure, not in 
substance.
  Mr. HELMS. I have the floor. But I will say to the Senator that I do 
not quite understand his position on that because this is a very fine 
document written by and introduced by a distinguished majority leader 
of the Senate in April 1993. True enough it was first introduced during 
a different set of circumstances with a different President. But as I 
have said ad nauseam so many times, I disagreed with President Bush. He 
had gone over to China and he had certain attitudes which I understood, 
and I am not trying to say yea, yea, yea, you said so and so.
  I just thought George Mitchell was right then, and I think what he 
said then is right now. I do not see where it is unacceptably 
confrontational.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS. I have the floor. I am glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. I was about to ask the Senator to do that.
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. If I could simply say, George Mitchell was right then and 
he is right now. These are indeed strong sentiments that we ought to be 
expressing.
  The problem, and I say again, is the administration has appropriately 
chosen, appropriately in the sense that it is their right and they 
initiate foreign policy, and has appropriately chosen to try a new 
initiative with the Chinese, a new dialog. That new dialog is 
predicated on the notion that they separate out the missile 
proliferation questions and the labor standards trade questions, they 
will separate them from the human rights, but all of the same concepts 
contained in Senator Mitchell's original bill, which I voted for, the 
Senator from North Carolina voted for, we voted for, all of those 
concepts are contained in the current policy. They are simply being 
offered in a different framework.
  The amendment of the Senator tries to bring them back into one 
framework, and that is the bone of contention. That is what is creating 
the confrontation.
  The administration does not want to put them in one House. They think 
they can be more successful in achieving what the Senator wants by 
proceeding down the two tracks.
  I am merely saying let us try to see if we can embrace the goals that 
we want to achieve, send a strong message to the Chinese, but do it in 
a way that emboldens the administration and frankly empowers them to be 
able to achieve what we want, rather than send a decisive note. I think 
we can do that, and I would like to try.
  Mr. HELMS. I hope we can. Nothing would suit me better than to take 
an honorable position against what is going on in Red China. Do not 
pussyfoot around as happened during the Bush administration when those 
guys went over there and drank the champaign. I did not like that at 
all. They ground that student under that tank, made mush out of him, 
and all other sorts of things.
  And the latest--do we have the latest human rights report somewhere? 
They are not doing a thing on human rights, nothing. Freedom House 
ranked Communist China as 1 of the terrible 20 human rights abusers 
along with North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, among 
others.
  If the Senator is going to try to share with me and encourage me to 
join him in a draft that does not offend some of the people in Beijing, 
I do not believe I can accept that, but let us look at what you have.
  Now, I looked at the parliamentary situation after I read for the 
first time that we were not going to have any votes after the two we 
had earlier. I had not been notified about that until I saw it over 
there and over there. I do not know whether the Senator knew that. I 
thought we could have a vote this afternoon on this. But you have a 
right to second degree whether I go along or not.
  But if the Senator is suggesting to me that he and I work together 
and our respective staffs work together and try to come up with 
something that is meaningful, I accept his offer with gratitude.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, may I say to the Senator I appreciate his 
willingness to try to do that. I think that is an important way for us 
to proceed and if we cannot have a meeting of the minds, obviously, as 
the Senator said, I do have a right to second degree.
  Mr. HELMS. Sure.
  Mr. KERRY. I would want to protect that right, but I hope it is not 
necessary. I think it would be good for us to send a message. My own 
opinion is, and I can tell you this from having come back and met with 
the Chinese, what is in the Executive order offends them.
  Mr. HELMS. I am glad.
  Mr. KERRY. And the Senator should be glad.
  So I am saying that there is plenty already on the table that they 
could find offensive, and it seems to me that there is a way for us to 
put together an approach here that ought to recommend the best 
intentions of the Senate without undoing the next 3 or 4 months of 
effort of this administration. That is not a long time, I think, for 
the Senator to wait to make the measurement that we are all going to 
make. This issue is going to be joined in in a short period of time. I 
would hate to see us get hung up over it here today.
  Mr. HELMS. I do not propose that we do. Now, my folks are passing me 
notes just as the Senator's folks are passing him notes.
  Mr. KERRY. I did not have a chance to read my notes.
  Mr. HELMS. I confess a lot of what I know is in their heads.
  But the point that they suggest that I make to the Senator at this 
moment is that the President's Executive order and the President's 
report to Congress that follows that order reflect all of the 
provisions in the pending amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. I beg pardon.
  Mr. HELMS. That is what they say.
  Mr. KERRY. I apologize to the Senator. I did not quite hear all of 
that.
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator is saying we are just packing all the things 
in and the President is trying to work to this aspect and this aspect 
and that aspect separately.
  That is not the way I am advised that the President's Executive order 
and his report to Congress are comprised.
  Mr. KERRY. I may say respectfully to the Senator in all of the 
conversations that I had when I was in China I met with our entire 
staff of field team and I had conversations with their ministry, with 
various of their ministers. They understand that Executive order to 
contain all seven of those items. They are, in fact, hearing us 
reiterate on a consistent, basis because they understand that the 
Senate is not going to make a judgment based on one or two. The Senate 
is going to make a judgment on all of those items.
  In fact, a great concern was expressed by a number of us who were 
there about the question of progress in those areas.
  So I do not think if you listen to people in Hong Kong who are 
concerned about the loss on MFN, or you listen to the Chinese officials 
or to others, there is no question at this point in time that they have 
the message that they have not sufficiently responded yet and that 
there is going to be a high standard applied.
  Mr. HELMS. There is no question in my mind that they sought to 
persuade the Senator of that.
  The Senator cannot go into their heads and know what he really is 
thinking. I think they are smirking behind their hands.
  But I repeat, it is not valid to say that the President's Executive 
order and report to Congress depart in any way from the substance of 
the pending amendment, and I will say again what I said earlier that 
the Executive order requires only a no recommendation if China fails to 
comply with the 1992 prison labor agreement, for example, or the 
Jackson-Vanik waiver.
  There is no binding human rights requirement. The Executive order is 
just an Executive order, and the President can withdraw it, change it, 
do whatever he wants to.
  But what this Congress does when it approves a resolution, even a 
resolution which is the sense of the Senate, then that is a matter of 
record, and that is the way the Senate will be on record.
  I will tell the Senator to let us see what can be worked out over the 
weekend. At least as far as I am concerned, I think that I have been 
stimulated by this conversation with the Senator. I promise the Senator 
we will take serious note of whatever recommendation the Senator 
provides to us.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise to support the Helms amendment on 
Chinese refugees. I commend Senator Helms for taking action to correct 
this flaw in U.S. policy.
  We cannot ignore this particular abuse of its citizens by the Chinese 
Government when we have the power to help. As we have seen, the Chinese 
Government has stepped up its repression of their people through 
policies which force families to limit their children to one. They do 
this by forcing women to undergo abortions, and both men and women to 
be sterilized. Many women are even cruelly forced to have abortions 
often late in term in order to prosecute this one-child policy.
  Earlier this year we heard reports of another new horror taking place 
in China. In order to ensure the births of only perfect babies, a new 
Chinese law would require mothers to undergo genetic testing of their 
fetuses. This is a requirement, not a voluntary personal choice as in 
the United States. Even more horrible is the fact that, should the 
results of these test reveal that the child might be born with a 
disability, the mother is forced to terminate the pregnancy.
  I don't think anyone will disagree that these measures are 
abominable. While we may have no power to dictate Chinese policy, we 
can acknowledge the fear which moves them to escape such oppressive 
policies by helping them enter the United States.
  This amendment would grant asylum to those Chinese who come to the 
United States because they fear persecution by China for refusing to 
abort a pregnancy or undergo sterilization. It gives this group of 
refugees equivalent status as those fleeing for political dissent.
  Madam President, in 1989, Members may recall an amendment dealing 
with this same subject we voted on in this body which passed 95 to 0. 
The language of the Helms amendment is identical to that language. 
Although the 1989 vote followed closely after the Chinese massacre of 
students at Tiananmen Square, we should be no less willing today to 
take action to assist people on whom an enormous injustice is being 
perpetrated.
  Until a year ago it was a matter of Justice Department Policy to 
grant favorable immigration status to Chinese coming to the United 
States under these circumstances. However, President Clinton chose to 
reverse this decision, and rescinded a directive issued by Attorney 
General William Barr shortly before he left office which laid out the 
implementing regulations.
  For a year now it has been United States policy to deport Chinese who 
fled China's coercive one-child per family policy. I frankly couldn't 
understand why President Clinton made such a decision. Although a 
recent case involving a Chinese man who left China revealed his 
reasoning. The Clinton Justice Department wrote in its brief that 
involuntary sterilization was not a manifestation of Communist 
Doctrine, a punishment for Chinese dissidents, or a form of persecution 
on the basis of political opinion because Mr. Guo had not be singled 
out for persecution. China's population policies, the administration 
reasoned, were applied equally to all citizens and therefore he could 
not be viewed as a political dissenter.
  Fortunately, the Federal judge in Alexandria ruled against the 
administration in a decision handed down on January 20. He declared 
that ``Political opinion encompasses an individual's views regarding 
procreation.'' He called China's policy of involuntary sterilization an 
egregious infringement on the fundamental right to procreate. 
Accordingly, the judge ruled that Mr. Guo's opposition to Chinese 
practice equals political opinion.
  Madam President, I don't think we needed a Federal judge to tell us 
that opposing China policy on forced abortions and sterilization is 
akin to political dissent.
  I know that many of my colleagues are concerned that such a policy 
would open the doors to thousands of Chinese immigrants entering the 
United States But the facts do not bear this out. According to 
statistics from 1992, 4,803 refugees from China were apprehended by the 
INS. Of this number, 654 were given grants of asylum by immigration 
judges. Although the INS did not keep strict statistics on the asylum 
claims, rough estimates indicate that only about 100 applied for asylum 
based on fear of the forced abortion policies. Even if the numbers were 
double that or more it would hardly be an overwhelming number to bring 
such concern. In any event, this amendment limits the numbers who can 
apply for asylum on this claim to 1,000 a year.
  Madam President, the issue at stake is not one of whether one 
supports or opposes abortion, but rather one of respect for human 
rights. It is time we recognized the horror of these programs of 
coercion in China, and took a stand on behalf of people willing to risk 
everything to evade this type of oppression. I hope Members will once 
again be willing to cast a vote, as 95 Members did in 1989, and extend 
to these Chinese a preferential immigration status.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would ask by way of video whether or 
not there are any collegues prepared to bring any amendments to the 
floor at this time. We may have an en bloc amendment that we are 
prepared to proceed forward on.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I have some remarks on the amendment 
concerning Senator Helms, if I may speak for a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, Senator Helms and I have stood together 
over the years in our condemnation of China's noncompliance with 
international weapons treaties, to their horrific human rights record 
in Tibet and against their own people, to their use of forced labor and 
unfair trade practices and so on.
  We share a deep regard and affection for His Holiness the Dalai Lama 
and together have welcomed him on several occasions to the Foreign 
Relations Committee. We have cosponsored legislation providing for VOA 
broadcasts, Fulbright scholarships, and sense-of-the-Senate resolutions 
expressing our support to those suffering under oppressive Chinese rule 
and urging a United States policy that would put some teeth in our 
commitment to back them up.
  However, I do not support Senator Helm's amendment to increase the 
conditions China must meet before MFN can be renewed this spring. Every 
provision in this amendment is a good one, and China should comply with 
them all. But we should not build United States-China relations solely 
around MFN.
  President Clinton, in consultation with the Congress, carefully 
crafted last year's MFN renewal to be an effective tool for improving 
China's human rights performance. We have seen some incremental 
improvements and have good reason to believe that we will see more.
  We are now 6 months into the 1-year conditional MFN extension, I do 
not believe we would be operating in good faith to up the ante at the 
half way point and still permit us to up the ante at some future date, 
if we so choose.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I inquire of the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts where we stand with respect to the en bloc 
amendments?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we are prepared to proceed forward on the 
en bloc amendments, if we want to do that.
  Mr. HELMS. I would like to get that out of the way.


               amendments nos. 1292 through 1314, en bloc

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to send to the desk en bloc 23 amendments. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to their immediate consideration en 
bloc; that the amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; and that explanatory 
statements regarding these amendments be printed in the Record as if 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I will simply observe, lest anybody wants 
to know what is going on with 23 amendments being adopted en bloc, 
these are technical amendments and they do not address any substantive 
areas of the bill.
  Mr. PELL. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  Have we voted on those amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments have been agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1292 through 1314), en bloc, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1292

                    Technical Amendments to S. 1281

     SEC. 101(b). LIMITATIONS.

       In subsection 101(b)(1)(A), page 8, line 8, strike 
     ``available'' and insert ``appropriated'';
       In subsection 101(b)(1)(B), page 8, line 13, strike 
     ``available'' and insert ``appropriated'';
       In subsection 101(b)(2), page 8, line 20, strike 
     ``available'' and insert ``appropriated''; and
       In subsection 101(b)(3), page 9, line 1, strike 
     ``available'', and insert ``appropriated''.

     SEC. 104. MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE.

       In subsection (A)(1)(B), page 12, line 13, strike 
     ``available'' and insert ``appropriated''.

     SEC. 114. INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION FUND.

       Strike the two sentences starting on page 18, line 3 and 
     ending on page 18, line 7 (viz., ``The ILF shall be available 
     to such extent and in such amounts as may be provided in 
     advance in appropriations Acts. Amounts so provided are 
     authorized to remain available without fiscal year 
     limitation.'') and insert the following:
       ``The ILF may be available without fiscal year limitation. 
     Funds otherwise available to the Department for the purposes 
     of this paragraph may be credited to the ILF.''.

     SEC. 115. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATORY CONTRACTS.

       In subsection (b), on page 21, line 4, strike ``on'' and 
     insert ``of''; and
       In subsection (d), on page 23, line 1, strike ``OF'' and 
     insert ``AND''.

     SEC. 116. EMERGENCIES IN THE DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE.

       Insert after ``striking'' the following: ````and the 
     Foreign Service''; and by striking''.

     SEC. 118. VISAS.

       In section 118(a)(3), on page 25, line 10, strike 
     ``$56,000,000'' and insert ``$107,500,000''; and
       At the end of subsection (a), on page 25, after line 10, 
     add the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The provisions of the Act of August 18, 1856 (Revised 
     Statutes 1726-28; 22 U.S.C. 2212-14) concerning accounting 
     for consular fees shall not apply to fees collected under 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 119. ROLE OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE.

       Strike everything after the section title and insert the 
     following:
       Chapter 7 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 is amended--
       (1) in the chapter title, by sriking ``Foreign Service 
     Institute,'';
       (2) in section 701 (22 U.S.C. 4021)--
       (A) by striking the section title and inserting 
     ``Institution for Training.'';
       (B) in subsection 701(a)--
       (i) by striking ``the Foreign Service Institute 
     (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 
     ``Institute'')'' and inserting ``an institution or center for 
     training (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 
     ``institution'')''; and
       (ii) by striking ``Institute'' and inserting 
     ``institution'';
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary of State is authorized to provide 
     for special professional foreign affairs training and 
     instruction of employees of foreign governments through the 
     institution.
       ``(2) Training and instruction under paragraph (1) shall be 
     on a reimbursable or advance-of-funds basis. Such 
     reimbursements or advances to the Department of State may be 
     provided by an agency of the United States Government or by a 
     foreign government and shall be credited to the currently 
     available applicable appropriation account.
       ``(3) Training should be made available in the first 
     instance to officials from newly emerging democratic nations, 
     and then to other nations as deemed to be in the national 
     interest of the United States.
       ``(4) The authorities of section 704 shall apply to 
     training and instruction provided under this section.'';
       (3) in subsection 701(b) and sections 702, 704, 705, and 
     707, by striking ``Foreign Service Institute'' and 
     ``Institute'' wherever they appear and inserting 
     ``institution''.

     SEC. 131. UNDER SECRETARY AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSITIONS.

       In subsection (b), on page 32, line 24, insert ``of'' 
     before ``title''; and
       In subsection (e), on page 35, line 5, strike, ``of new 
     office''.

     SEC. 133. REDESIGNATION OF POSITION AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
                   FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR.

       Strike subsection (b) on page 38;
       Redesignate subsection (c) on page 38 as ``(b)''; and
       In the newly redesignated subsection (b), strike ``of new 
     office''.

     SEC. 142. WAIVER OF LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.

       In subsection (a), page 48, line 16, strike ``arise from'' 
     and insert ``in circumstances where there is in effect''.

     SEC. 147. EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS STUDYING 
                   ABROAD.

       In subsection (b), page 52, line 6, insert the following 
     after ``enrolled'': ``, with the allowable travel expense not 
     to exceed the cost of travel to and from the school in the 
     United States''.

     SEC. 154. FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATOR AND INTERPRETER CAREER 
                   SERVICE PROGRAM.

       In subsection (e), on page 64, line 2, strike ``(1)'';
       In subsection (e), on page 64, line 9, strike the entire 
     line and insert ``(f) Use of Funds.--''; Funds collected 
     under the authority of subsections (d) and'';
       In newly designated subsection (f), on page 64, line 16, 
     add the following at the end: ``Such funds may remain 
     available until expended.''; and
       On page 64, lines 17-19, strike subsection (f).

     SEC. 169. REPORT ON UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       At the beginning of the section, on page 76, line 11, 
     strike ``Not'' and insert the following:
       ``(a) Except as modified by subsection (b), not'';
       On page 76, line 19, insert before the period ``for the 
     previous fiscal year'';
       On page 76, line 22, strike ``as of the date of'' and 
     insert ``covered by'';
       On page 76, line 23, insert ``such'' before 
     ``peacekeeping''; and
       On page 77, insert the following new subsection at the end 
     of section 169:
       ``(b) The first report submitted pursuant to this section 
     shall cover all United Nations peacekeeping operations up to 
     the date of the report.''

     SEC. 170. UNITED STATES PERSONNEL AND MATERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   TO PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

       Strike section 170 in its entirety.

     SEC. 214. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATORY CONTRACTS.

       In subsection (b), on page 110, line 10, strike ``on'' and 
     insert ``of''; and
       In subsection (d), on page 112, line 9, strike ``OF'' and 
     insert ``AND''.

     SEC. 704. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO CAPTIVE NATIONS RESOLUTION.

       Strike section 704 in its entirety.

     SEC. 710. ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS AGAINST NORTH KOREA.

       Strike subsection (b) on page 176 and insert the following:
       ``(b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of 
     subsection (a) if the President determines that such a waiver 
     would serve the national interest.''.
       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC.  . PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

       Section 112a of title 1 of the United States Code is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' immediately before ``The Secretary 
     of State''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(b) The Secretary of State may determine that publication 
     of certain categories of agreements is not required, provided 
     that the following criteria are met:
       ``(1) such agreements are not treaties which have been 
     brought into force for the United States after having 
     received Senate advice and consent pursuant to section 2(2) 
     of Article II of the Constitution of the United States;
       ``(2) the public interest in such agreements is 
     insufficient to justify their publication, in that (i) as of 
     the date of enactment of this legislation,the agreements are 
     no longer in force, (ii) the agreements do not create private 
     rights or duties, nor establish standards intended to govern 
     government action in the treatment of private individuals; 
     (iii) in view of the limited or specialized nature of the 
     public interest in such agreements, such interest can 
     adequately be satisfied by an alternative means; or (iv) the 
     public disclosure of the text of the agreement would, in the 
     opinion of the President, be prejudicial to the national 
     security of the United States; and
       ``(3) copies of such agreements (other than those in 
     subsection (2)(b)(iv)), including certified copies where 
     necessary for litigation or similar purposes, can be made 
     available by the Department of State union reasonable 
     request.
       ``(c) Any determination pursuant to subsection (b) shall be 
     published in the Federal Register.''.
       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.   . Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe.--The President is authorized to implement, for the 
     United States, the provisions of Annex 1 of the Decision 
     concerning Legal Capacity and Privileges and Immunities, 
     issued by the Council of Ministers of the Conference on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe on December 1, 1993, in 
     accordance with the terms of that Annex.''
       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.   . Agreement on State and Local Taxation.--The 
     President is authorized to bring into force for the United 
     States the Agreement on State and Local Taxation of Foreign 
     Employees of Public International Organizations, which was 
     signed by the United States on April 21, 1992: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1.B of such 
     Agreement, such Agreement shall not require any refunds of 
     monies paid with respect to tax years ending on or before 
     December 31, 1993.''

     SEC. XX. FEES FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES.

       Title I of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669 et seq.) is amended by adding the 
     following new section at the end:

     ``SEC. 52. FEES FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES.

       ``(a) Authority To Charge Fee.--(1) Subject to paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary of State is authorized to charge a fee to 
     cover the actual or estimated cost of providing any person, 
     firm or organization (other than agencies of the United 
     States Government) with commercial services at posts abroad 
     on matters within the authority of the Department of State.
       ``(2) The authority of this section may be exercised only 
     in countries where the Department of Commerce does not 
     perform commercial services for which it collects fees.
       ``(b) use of Fees.--Funds collected under the authority of 
     subsection (a) shall be deposited as an offsetting collection 
     to any Department of State appropriation to recover the costs 
     of providing commercial services.''

     ``SEC.   . PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS ABROAD.

       ``Section 2(c) of the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669(c)) is amended by inserting the 
     following before the period: ``; and such contracts are 
     authorized to be negotiated, the terms of the contracts to be 
     prescribed, and the work to be performed, where necessary, 
     without regard to such statutory provisions as relate to the 
     negotiation, making, and performance of contracts and 
     performance of work in the United States''.
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC.   . UNITED STATES MEMBERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL 
                   COPPER STUDY GROUP.

       (a) United States Membership.--The President is authorized 
     to accept the Terms of Reference of and maintain membership 
     of the United States in the International Copper Study Group 
     (ICSG).
       (b) Payments of Assessed Contributions.--For fiscal year 
     1995 and thereafter the United States assessed contributions 
     to the ICSG may be paid from funds appropriated for 
     ``Contributions to International Organizations''.
       Amendment to section 154, Foreign Language Translator and 
     Interpreter Career Service Program.
       In subsection (e), on page 64, lines 6-9, strike ``for 
     which the Secretary of State has determined for purposes of 
     subsection (b)(2) there is a shortage of qualified Government 
     personnel'';
       On page 64, lines 12-14, strike ``for which the Secretary 
     has determined there is a shortage of qualified Government 
     personnel''.


                           amendment no. 1293

    (Purpose: To update the PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989)

       On page 179, after line 6, add the following:

     SEC.   . AMENDMENTS TO THE PLO COMMITMENTS COMPLIANCE ACT.

       The PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989 (title VIII of 
     Public Law 101-246) is amended--
       (1) in section 804(b), by striking ``Beginning 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 120 days 
     thereafter in which the dialogue between the United States 
     and the PLO has not been discontinued'', and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``In conjunction with each written policy 
     justification required under section (3)(b)(1) of the Middle 
     East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 or every 180 days,'';
       (2) in section 804(b)(1), by striking ``regarding the 
     cessation of terrorism and recognition of Israel's right to 
     exist'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and each of the 
     commitments described in section (4)(A) of the Middle East 
     Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 (Oslo commitments)'';
       (3) in section 804(b)(2), by inserting ``and Oslo'' after 
     ``Geneva'';
       (4) by striking paragraphs (3) and (8) of section 804(b);
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), 
     and (10) of section 804(b) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), 
     (7), and (8), respectively of that section;
       (6) in section 802(8), by inserting ``and on September 9, 
     1993'' after ``1998'';
       (7) in section 802, by redesignating paragraph (8) as 
     paragraph (10);
       (8) by striking ``and'' at the end of section 802(7); and
       (9) by inserting after section 802(7) the following:
       ``(8) the President, following an attempted terrorist 
     attack upon a Tel Aviv beach on May 30, 1990, suspended the 
     United States dialogue with the PLO;
       ``(9) the President resumed the United States dialogue with 
     the PLO in response to the commitments made by the PLO in 
     letters to the Prime Minister of Israel and the Foreign 
     Minister of Norway of September 9, 1993; and''.

  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend 
from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to offer this amendment updating 
the PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989. All of us were moved by the 
historic ceremony on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993. None 
of us ever thought we would see the day that the Prime Minister of 
Israel and the head of the PLO shaking hands and their representatives 
signing the same document.
  Today, 4 months later, the euphoria that many felt at that moment has 
dimmed, but we knew in our hearts that it would. We knew that it would 
be a long road to true peace and security for the tiny State of Israel. 
We knew that we would have to be vigilant and make sure that the 
commitments made by Yasser Arafat be kept, or the peace process would 
collapse in another wave of violence.
  We also remembered that almost 5 years before, at a press conference 
in Geneva on December 14, 1988, Yasser Arafat made some of the same 
commitments he made this September. At that time he committed to end 
terror, recognize Israel, and accept U.N. Security Council Resolutions 
242 and 338. In response, the Secretary of State George Shultz opened 
the first official U.S.-PLO dialog. A few months later the U.S. 
Congress, skeptical that Arafat would in fact keep his commitments, 
passed the PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989. That bill, also 
known as the Mack/Lieberman bill, required the State Department to 
submit a detailed report to Congress three times a year regarding the 
PLO's compliance with the Geneva commitments.
  In the following months, the State Department did submit reports that 
tended to gloss over numerous terrorist attacks against Israel, on the 
grounds that PLO responsibility for those attacks could not be proven. 
Then, on May 30, 1990, came a massive attempted terrorist attack 
against the beaches of Tel Aviv. The attack was thwarted, but clearly 
would have been deadly and clearly was carried out by mainstream PLO 
elements. Since the State Department could not report to Congress that 
the PLO was abiding by its commitments, President Bush ended the U.S./
PLO dialog.
  This brings us to today. On September 9, 1993, Yasser Arafat signed 
two letters, one to the Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin, the 
other to the late Foreign Minister of Norway Johan Holst. In those 
letters the PLO committed to:
  First, recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace 
and security; second, accept United Nations Security Council 
Resolutions 242 and 338; third, renounce the use of terrorism and other 
acts of violence; fourth, assume responsibility over all PLO elements 
and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations 
and discipline violators; fifth, call upon the Palestinian people in 
the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the 
normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, and 
contributing to peace and stability; and sixth, submit amendments in 
the Palestine National Council [PNC] to the Palestinian Covenant 
deleting provisions inconsistent with Israel's right to exist.
  The first three commitments were also made just 5 years ago in Geneva 
by the same person, Yasser Arafat. The last three commitments--to take 
responsibility over all PLO elements, to call for an end to the 
``intifada'' against Israel, and to amend the PLO covenant--are new, 
but are in effect measures to implement and give reality to the first 
three commitments.
  This time, the PLO's commitments were not made in a vacuum, but in 
the context of the Israel/PLO Declaration of Principles and the 
handshake on the White House lawn. This time, we have higher hopes that 
the PLO's commitments will be kept. But we must be no less vigilant.
  The day after the Arafat letters were signed outlining the six 
commitments, Senator Lieberman and I spoke with and wrote to Secretary 
Christopher to urge the administration to renew reporting under the PLO 
Commitments Compliance Act of 1989. Secretary Christopher agreed that 
the reporting, which ended when the U.S./PLO dialogue was suspended in 
1990, should be resumed.
  On January 11, 1994, the State Department sent to Congress the first 
report since the reopening of the U.S. dialogue with the PLO. While it 
was a serious report, Senator Lieberman and I were concerned that it 
did not deal frankly enough with serious deficiencies in the PLO's 
compliance over the past few months. Further, the report suffered from 
the fact that it was not explicitly tied to the six commitments made in 
September, but to the less explicit 1988 Geneva commitments.
  Madam President, the Congress and the administration must monitor and 
demand that the PLO abide by all its commitments, particularly those 
that go to the heart of recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace 
and security. If the PLO is truly committed to living side by side with 
Israel and end terrorism, then why has it not amended its covenant, 
which repeatedly calls for Israel's utter destruction? Why does the PLO 
symbol on stationery signed by Arafat picture a map of ``Palestine'' 
that encompasses all of Israel? Why does Arafat refuse to consistently 
condemn all terrorism by Hamas and rejectionist PLO elements? Most 
importantly, if we don't frankly take the PLO to task for less than 
full compliance, why should the PLO improve its behavior?
  The purpose of this amendment is to update the PLO Commitments 
Compliance Act by requiring the State Department to report on PLO 
compliance with all six September 1993 commitments. With the law so 
amended, I hope the next State Department report will report on PLO 
behavior with more specificity and frankness, which will in turn help 
ensure better PLO compliance with its commitments.
  This amendment also provides for future reports to be submitted at 
the same time as the written justifications required under the Middle 
East Peace Facilitation Act, but no less than every 6 months if no such 
justification is submitted. The amendment also updates the findings 
section of the law to reflect the suspension and resumption of the 
dialogue since the law passed in 1989.
  I ask for adoption of the amendment and I ask unanimous consent that 
the following documents be included in the Record at this point: First, 
September 9, 1993, letters from Yasser Arafat to Prime Minister Rabin 
and Foreign Minister Holst; second, September 10, 1993, letter from 
Senators Mack and Lieberman to Secretary Christopher; third, January 
10, 1994, State Department Report on PLO Compliance, fourth, January 
24, 1994, letter from Senators Mack and Lieberman to Secretary 
Christopher.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                September 9, 1993.
     Yitzhak Rabin,
     Prime Minister of Israel.
       Mr. Prime Minister: The signing of the Declaration of 
     Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. 
     In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the 
     following PLO commitments:
       The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to 
     exist in peace and security.
       The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 
     242 and 338.
       The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, 
     and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two 
     sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to 
     permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
       The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of 
     Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new 
     epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all 
     other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, 
     the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of 
     violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements 
     and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent 
     violations and discipline violators.
       In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the 
     Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance 
     of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms 
     that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny 
     Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant 
     which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter 
     are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the 
     PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council 
     for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the 
     Palestinian Covenant.
           Sincerely,

                                                Yasser Arafat,

                                           Chairman, the Palestine
                                          Liberation Organization.
                                  ____

                                                September 9, 1993.
     His Excellency Johan Jorgen Holst,
     Foreign Minister of Norway.
       Dear Minister Holst: I would like to confirm to you that, 
     upon the signing of the Declaration of Principles, I will 
     include the following positions in my public statements.
       In light of the new era marked by the signing of the 
     Declaration of Principles, the PLO encourages and calls upon 
     the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to 
     take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, 
     rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and 
     stability and participating actively in shaping 
     reconstruction, economic development and cooperation.
           Sincerely,

                                                Yasser Arafat,

                                           Chairman, The Palestine
                                          Liberation Organization.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 10, 1993.
     Hon. Warren M. Christopher,
     Secretary of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: At this historic moment in the long 
     struggle to attain peace in the Middle East, we are writing 
     you as principal sponsors of the legislation which became the 
     PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989 to express our 
     encouragement over the recent exchanges between Israel and 
     the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In light of the 
     statements in Mr. Arafat's letter of September 9th, we concur 
     that the U.S. conditions for resumption of a dialogue between 
     the United States and the Palestine Liberation Organization 
     have been met and that such a dialogue could contribute to 
     achieving the long-stated goals of the United States in this 
     region. His statements appear consistent with the policy 
     approach in Section 803(a) of the Act.
       With the resumption of the dialogue, we believe that the 
     requirement for periodic reports from your Department to the 
     Congress, as set forth in Section 804 of the Act, concerning 
     PLO policies and actions, including any terrorist incidents, 
     again would come into effect. We are obviously entering an 
     important new period and we believe these reporting 
     provisions can be of assistance in monitoring progress toward 
     a lasting peace.
           Sincerely,
     Joseph I. Lieberman.
     Connie Mack.
                                  ____


Report Pursuant of Title VIII of Public Law 101-246, Foreign Relations 
                  Authorization Act, January 10, 1994


        PLO COMMITMENTS COMPLIANCE ACT--Report on PLO Compliance

                               Background

       The U.S. dialogue with the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization (PLO), initiated in December 1988, was suspended 
     in June 1990 following an attempted terrorist attack on 
     Israel by PLO constituent group. On September 10, 1993, 
     President Clinton announced the United States would resume a 
     dialogue with the PLO on the basis of commitments undertaken 
     in letters of mutual recognition exchanged by Israel and the 
     PLO (attached). President Clinton said the commitments PLO 
     Chairman Arafat set forth in his letter to Israeli Prime 
     Minister Rabin and in a follow up letter to Norwegian Foreign 
     Minister Holst (attached) satisfied the U.S. conditions for 
     resuming the dialogue. President Clinton's September 10 
     statement is also attached.
       On September 13 in Washington, the PLO and Israel signed a 
     Declaration of Principles (DOP) on interim self-government 
     arrangements in which the PLO committed to substantive and 
     wide-ranging negotiations with Israel based on UN Security 
     Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

               PLO involvement in terrorism and violence

                      June 1990--September 9, 1993

       President Bush suspended the U.S.--PLO dialogue in June 
     1990 following an attempted terrorist seaborne raid on a Tel 
     Aviv beach by Abu Abbas's faction of the Palestine Liberation 
     Front (PLF), a PLO constituent group. During the period in 
     which our dialogue with the PLO was suspended (June 1990-
     September 9, 1993) the Popular Front for the Liberation of 
     Palestine (PFLP) and Nayif Hawatmeh's faction of the 
     Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DELP-
     Hawatmeh), PLO constituent groups opposed to Arafat's 
     policies, conducted attacks against Israeli civilians in 
     Israel and the occupied territories, including an October 
     1991 attack by the PFLP on an Israeli bus which killed two 
     Israelis. There are also inconclusive reports that PLO groups 
     loyal to Arafat mounted terrorist operations in Israel and 
     the occupied territories. These include incidents such as a 
     July 1990 pipe bombing in Jerusalem which killed a Canadian 
     national and the February 1992 murder of an Israeli security 
     guard in Eilat.
       PLO member groups conducted military operations against 
     Israeli forces in southern Lebanon during the June 1990-
     September 1993 time frame. PLO elements opposed to the peace 
     process also claimed responsibility for several unsuccessful 
     raids into Israel from Lebanon, including attacks by the PFLP 
     in January 1991 and the DFLP in July 1991. An element of 
     Arafat's Fatah may have perpetrated an attempt seaborne raid 
     in September 1991 which resulted in the death of a Lebanon-
     based Swedish UNIFIL officer. The unidentified assailants 
     never reached Israel and their specific target there is 
     unknown. The Israelis publicly attributed a July 1990 border 
     raid to Fatah and a December 1990 raid to the DFLP-Hawatmeh. 
     PLO groups also fired rockets into Israel on numerous 
     occasions.
       We have no information that the PLO conducted any attacks 
     against U.S. citizens during this time, nor do we have 
     information that any PLO group engaged in acts of 
     international terrorism (i.e., outside Israel, the occupied 
     territories, and Lebanon).

                        Post-September 10, 1993

       In his September 9 letter to Prime Minister Rabin, Arafat 
     affirmed that the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist in 
     peace and security, accepts UN Security Council Resolutions 
     242 and 338, and commits itself to a peaceful resolution of 
     the conflict between the two sides. The PLO also ``renounces 
     the use of terrorism and other acts of violence . . .''
       Arafat publicly reiterated the PLO's renunciation of 
     violence and terrorism on September 20. He instructed Fatah 
     activists in the territories to halt all violent activity 
     against Israeli and Palestinian targets. The activists appear 
     to have complied with these instructions with two exceptions, 
     the murder of Haim Mizhari on October 29, which Arafat 
     denounced, and the December 31 claim by the Fatah Hawks that 
     they murdered two Israelis in Ramallah. Two of the largest of 
     these activist groups, the Fatah Hawks, a Fatah-affiliated 
     street gang, and the Black Panthers, initially announced they 
     would cease activities against Israelis to comply with 
     Arafat's order. On October 24, Fatah issued a leaflet calling 
     for an end to the torture and execution of suspected 
     collaborators in the West Bank and Gaza. However, as the 
     level of violence has increased on both sides in recent 
     weeks, the Fatah Hawks have threatened to attack Israeli 
     targets in retaliation for IDF sweeps against its members. 
     With the exception of the December 31 claim, and to the best 
     of our knowledge, the group has not conducted an anti-Israeli 
     operation since September 10. In addition, Arafat dismissed a 
     senior Fatah military commander in Lebanon who publicly 
     advocated violent opposition to the DOP.
       The level of violence in the occupied territories and the 
     West Bank initially declined following the White House 
     signing of the DOP. Since October, however, the number of 
     violent incidents has risen. All but one Palestinian attack 
     (the Mizrahi murder) has been attributed to groups which 
     reject the DOP and are committed to using violence to 
     undermine it. HAMAS and those factions of the Palestine 
     Islamic Jihad (PIJ) not members of the PLO are responsible 
     for the majority of attacks on Israelis. The PFLP and the 
     Hawatmeh faction of the DFLP are also responsible for some of 
     these attacks. While nominally under the PLO umbrella, the 
     PFLP and the DFLP-Hawatmeh have suspended their participation 
     in the PLO because of their opposition to the DOP. Both the 
     PFLP and the DFLP-Hawatmeh continue to mount military 
     operations against IDF and Southern Lebanon Army (SLA) forces 
     in southern Lebanon.
       Shortly after the signing of the DOP, the PFLP and DFLP 
     resigned their positions on the Executive Committee, the PLO 
     policy organ, and announced they had ``frozen'' their 
     participation in the PLO to express their opposition to the 
     DOP (although they did not formally withdraw). The two groups 
     have aligned themselves with a number of non-PLO rejectionist 
     elements based in Damascus.
       Only two incidents, the murder of Israeli settler Haim 
     Mizrahi and the December 31 claim of responsibility by the 
     Fatah Hawks for the murder of two Israelis, has been 
     attributed to a group under Arafat's control. Mizrahi was 
     killed when he stopped to buy eggs at a farm in the West 
     Bank. An Israeli investigation revealed that five members of 
     Fatah--acting on their own and without the foreknowledge of 
     the PLO headquarters in Tunis--were responsible. The Israeli 
     security service apprehended the suspects.
       Faisal Husseini, the recently-appointed head of Arafat's 
     Fatah in the West Bank, immediately denounced the attack and 
     the individuals responsible. He told journalists that those 
     responsible had violated the PLO's orders and that the PLO 
     would take measures against anyone who violated these orders. 
     Arafat himself responded the following day, saying ``We 
     denounce and condemn the killing of Israeli settler Haim 
     Mizrahi.'' He called on all parties ``to oblige with the 
     agreement and to put an end to all acts of violence for 
     the preservation of peace.''
       Despite his declared intention to assume responsibility 
     over all PLO elements and personnel, Arafat has not denounced 
     the attacks of the PLO groups over which he has no control 
     (specifically, the PFLP and the DFLP-Hawatmeh). The PLO in 
     Tunis does not exercise operational control over these 
     elements and the PLO has not provided funding for them since 
     at least 1991. While calling for the additional denunciations 
     of the violence by the PLO leadership, the Israeli Government 
     has made a distinction between the PLO leadership based in 
     Tunis and rejectionist elements over which Arafat has only 
     nominal control.
       Since September 10, at least 17 Israelis have been killed 
     by Palestinians in the occupied territories and in Israel. Of 
     those killed, 10 were civilians and 7 were military 
     personnel. Approximately 28 Palestinians have been killed in 
     conflicts with IDF forces, and 5 have been killed by settlers 
     during the same period. Following is a chronological 
     description of the incidents of Palestinian violence since 
     September 10.
       Most of these incidents involve Palestinian groups which 
     are not part of the PLO and which reject the DOP and the 
     PLO's recognition of Israel. This list is current as of 
     December 31, 1993.
       September 12: Three Israeli soldiers on a routine patrol 
     near Gaza City were ambushed and killed. Two similar 
     incidents occurred the same day. We have no specific 
     information on other casualties. No one claimed 
     responsibility for any of the incidents.
       September 13: An Israeli civilian was stabbed in the 
     occupied territories. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance) claimed 
     responsibility for the attack.
       September 13: A suicide bomber attacked a police station in 
     the occupied territories. The perpetrator died; no Israelis 
     were killed. HAMAS claimed responsibility for the attack.
       September 14: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) claimed 
     responsibility for a drive-by shooting on an IDF checkpoint 
     in Gaza. No one was killed.
       September 22: An Israeli civilian was killed in the West 
     Bank. HAMAS claimed responsibility for the attack.
       October 1: HAMAS claimed responsibility for a bombing in 
     the West Bank. No one was killed.
       October 3: HAMAS claimed responsibility for a drive-by 
     shooting attack on a civilian in the occupied territories.
       October 4: A suicide car bomber attacked an Israeli bus. 
     Several Israeli civilians and military were wounded. HAMAS 
     claimed responsibility for the attack.
       October 5: PIJ elements attempted to attack a settler camp 
     in the occupied territories.
       October 7: PIJ attempted a cross-border raid from Lebanon 
     into the occupied territories.
       October 9: The PFLP claimed responsibility for a failed 
     seaborne raid on northern Israel.
       October 10: Two Israeli hikers were killed near Jericho. 
     The DFLP, PFLP and HAMAS each claimed responsibility.
       October 15: An Israeli settler was stabbed by an 
     unidentified Palestinian near Hebron.
       October 18: The DFLP claimed responsibility for a grenade 
     attack on an IDF patrol near Nabulus. No one was killed; 
     three Palestinians were wounded.
       October 19: HAMAS claimed responsibility for a shooting 
     attack on an Israeli civilian. No one was killed.
       October 24: Two Palestinians posing as Orthodox Jews 
     kidnapped and killed two IDF reservists in Gaza. HAMAS 
     claimed responsibility for the attack.
       October 25: An unidentified Palestinian attempted a car 
     bomb attack. No one was hurt or killed.
       October 29: Israeli settler Haim Mizrahi was stabbed and 
     killed when he stopped to buy eggs in the West Bank. An 
     Israeli investigation revealed that five members of Fatah, 
     apparently acting independently, were responsible.
       October 31: An unidentified Palestinian stabbed an Israeli 
     civilian in the occupied territories.
       November 2: A HAMAS member was responsible for a failed car 
     bomb attack. The driver was killed.
       November 7: HAMAS and the DFLP each claimed responsibility 
     for a shooting attack on an Israeli settler. The settler was 
     wounded and his Israeli driver was killed. We believe HAMAS 
     is responsible.
       November 12: A Palestinian belonging to the PIJ stabbed and 
     wounded an Israeli in Gaza.
       November 13: The DFLP claimed responsibility for an attack 
     on an IDF camp. No Israeli soldiers were hurt or killed.
       November 15: A settler was attacked by two Palestinians 
     with an ax near the Tomb of Abraham in Hebron. Another 
     settler at the scene shot and killed one of the attackers. 
     The PFLP claimed responsibility for the attack.
       November 16: An unidentified Palestinian stabbed and 
     wounded an Israeli soldier at a Gaza checkpoint. The 
     perpetrator was shot and killed.
       November 18: An IDF officer was killed and another wounded 
     in Gaza. Islamic Jihad (PIJ) claimed responsibility for the 
     attack.
       November 22: Israeli soldiers wounded a suicide bomber 
     belonging to PIJ who attempted to ram a garbage truck into a 
     Civil Administration (CIVAD) car. No Israelis were hurt or 
     killed; the perpetrator later died of his wounds.
       December 1: Two Israelis were killed in the West Bank near 
     Al-Birah when they stopped to change a flat tire and were 
     fired on. Two other Israelis were wounded. HAMAS and the DFLP 
     both claimed responsibility for the attack.
       December 5: A member of the PIJ attempted to hijack a 
     commuter bus near Tel Aviv. An Israeli civilian was killed; 
     off-duty Israeli soldiers later killed the perpetrator.
       December 6: An Israeli father and son were shot and killed 
     in the West Bank. HAMAS claimed responsibility for the 
     attack.
       December 7: A member of the PFLP shot and wounded an 
     Israeli settler near Bethlehem.
       December 10: Three Palestinians attacked and stabbed their 
     Israeli employer in Gaza. The employer was slightly wounded, 
     as was the father of one of the attackers who tried to 
     intervene.
       December 10: Unidentified Palestinians shot at an Israeli 
     police car from their vehicle. An officer was slightly 
     wounded.
       December 10: A guard at the headquarters of the Gaza police 
     was shot and wounded. No one has claimed responsibility.
       December 12: Unidentified Palestinians opened fire on a bus 
     in the West Bank, seriously wounding the driver.
       December 13: PIJ claimed responsibility for a suicide 
     terrorist attack in Gaza in which an individual drove a 
     booby-trapped ambulance into an IDF jeep. The ambulance 
     driver was killed and one Israeli soldier was wounded.
       December 14: A border policeman was slightly injured in an 
     exchange of gunfire in Gaza. One of the attackers was killed. 
     No one has claimed responsibility.
       December 15: A Palestinian with an ax attacked an Israeli 
     soldier in the West Bank. IDF troops shot and killed the 
     attacker. The soldier was unharmed. The perpetrator's 
     affiliation, if any, is unknown.
       December 16: Two IDF targets in Gaza were attacked with 
     explosives. No one was hurt or killed. No one has claimed 
     responsibility for the attack.
       December 22: Two Israeli civilians were shot and killed in 
     a drive by shooting of their vehicle near Ramallah. No one 
     has claimed responsibility for the attack.
       December 23: An Israeli security guard was killed in the 
     occupied territories. HAMAS claimed responsibility.
       December 24: Four Palestinian gunmen opened fire on an IDF 
     jeep, wounding three and killing an officer. No one has 
     claimed responsibility for the attack. One witness claimed 
     the attackers shouted the name of HAMAS.
       December 25: Three Israeli soldiers were wounded by a 
     remotely-detonated explosive device near Hebron. No one has 
     claimed responsibility.
       December 29: Unidentified Palestinians attacked two Israeli 
     sanitation workers near Hebron. One of the two workers was 
     stabbed and is in serious condition.
       December 29: Three terrorists, probably belonging to the 
     Abu Musa group, infiltrated northern Israel from Lebanon. No 
     Israelis were hurt or killed; IDF troops killed the three 
     infiltrators.
       December 31: A man claiming to be from the Fatah Hawks 
     claimed responsibility for the murder of two Israeli 
     civilians. However, Fatah officials in Gaza reportedly denied 
     that they had issued any orders for this action and indicated 
     that any Fatah activist involved was acting on his own.

                     PLO statements on commitments

       Since September 13, Arafat has stressed that the PLO will 
     adhere to UNSCR 242 and 338 in ``all their aspects'' and has 
     actively worked to secure support for the agreement. Some of 
     his statements have acknowledged the provision of the DOP 
     ``guaranteeing security for all.'' Arafat publicly reiterated 
     the PLO's renunciation of violence and terrorism on September 
     20. There have been a number of public statements, by both 
     Israeli and PLO officials, that support the PLO's compliance 
     with the commitments it undertook in September 1993. 
     Following is a chronological list of some examples:
       September 20: In a statement to the official PLO news 
     agency WAFA, Arafat publicly reiterated his opposition to 
     violence. He called for ``the rejection of violence and 
     terror'' and said that ``the establishment of a lasting, 
     comprehensive and just peace is the essential goal which we 
     all seek to accomplish.''
       September 27: Arafat ordered PLO members in refugee camps 
     in Lebanon to turn over their arms to the Lebanese Army.
       September 29: In a meeting with Israeli MAPAM party 
     chairman Erez, Arafat reiterated his adherence to the 
     implementation of all clauses of the DOP. He specifically 
     emphasized his call to end all acts of violence against Arabs 
     and Jews in the occupied territories and in Israel.
       October 24: Fatah issued a leaflet calling for an end to 
     the torture and execution of suspected collaborators in the 
     occupied territories and Gaza.
       October 25: Senior PLO official Nabil Sha'ath condemned the 
     killing of two IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip, as well as all 
     other acts of violence and called for people in the West Bank 
     and Gaza to refrain from violence.
       November 12: Faisal Husseini denounced the Fatah Hawks 
     members responsible for the death of Israeli settler Haim 
     Mizrahi. Husseini told journalists the five had violated the 
     PLO's orders and that the PLO would take measures against 
     anyone who violated these orders.
       November 13: Arafat condemned the Fatah Hawks attack on 
     Mizrahi, saying ``we renounce and condemn the killing of 
     Israeli settler Mizrahi.'' Arafat said the attach was carried 
     out by an individual linked to the PLO who acted without the 
     orders of the leadership. He called on all parties to ``put 
     an end to all acts of violence for the preservation of 
     peace.''
       December 13: The Unified National Leadership of the 
     Uprising (UNLU), which has provided leadership to the 
     uprising known as the ``intifada,'' issued a leaflet 
     expressing support for the peace process and calling on the 
     Palestinians to be patient. The UNLU is not a PLO constituent 
     group, although it is dominated by Fatah.
       These statements, Chairman Arafat's letter recognizing 
     Israel's right to exist, and the PLO's continuing efforts to 
     implement the DOP indicate the PLO is repudiating its 
     ``strategy of stages.''
       In late November, the Fatah Hawks street gang unilaterally 
     declared they would continue the armed struggle in response 
     to Israeli security forces' operations against their members. 
     Fatah officials have denied that they ordered the December 31 
     acts, and we have no other evidence that the Hawks have 
     engaged in any attacks on Israeli military forces or 
     civilians since issuing this statement. In late December, the 
     Fatah Hawks issued a further statement calling for the 
     intifada to be kept at ``high levels'' and urging 
     confrontation with settlers. Arafat has not responded 
     publicly to either statement or to the December 31 claim. We 
     have no evidence that suggests Arafat or the PLO headquarters 
     in Tunis had any involvement with the Fatah Hawks' issuance 
     of such statements or the claimed act nor that Arafat is 
     directing such a policy. Arafat's ability to exercise control 
     over groups like the Fatah Hawks, which are basically street 
     gangs that are loosely affiliated with the PLO, is uncertain.
       On several occasion, senior Israeli officials have made 
     statements indicating that the Israeli Government believes 
     the PLO is upholding its commitments. Prime Minister Rabin 
     and Foreign Minister Peres have both made public distinctions 
     between the PLO, which is upholding the commitments, and 
     rejectionist elements which seek to undermine the DOP.

                              Other issues

       Other issues not related to the Israeli-Palestinian 
     Declaration of Principles have not been central to our 
     discussion with the PLO, and certain issues have become less 
     significant since the date of the enactment of the PLO 
     Commitments Compliance Act. For example, while the U.S. 
     request for the extradition of Muhammad Rashid was denied by 
     the Government of Greece, it did, with U.S. assistance, 
     convict Rashid of the 1982 bombing of a Pan Am jet in which 
     one person was killed. Rashid is currently incarcerated 
     there. We also note that there is no current extradition 
     request for Muhammad Zaydan (Abu Abbas) because there are no 
     pending criminal charges against him.
       The Hawari Group is largely defunct due to the death of its 
     leader and PLO funding cuts. With the exception of a 1992 
     weapons charge in Vienna against a Hawari group member, we 
     have no information of Hawari Group involvement in terrorist 
     activity since 1990. Arafat has provided only limited funding 
     to Force 17, and has transferred some members to other 
     components. According to recent reports, Force 17 may be 
     reconstituted to serve in VIP protection, but would continue 
     to be subject to the orders against participation in violent 
     or terrorist acts.
       The PLO has not yet made any statements of its position on 
     providing compensation to the American victims or the 
     families of American victims of PLO terrorism. With respect 
     to the Arab League Boycott of Israel, we continue to urge the 
     PLO to come out publicly against the boycott and to bring the 
     boycott to an end. It should be noted that in their ongoing 
     talks, Israel and the PLO have been discussing the economic 
     interaction between them, and these talks may promote the 
     eventual elimination of the boycott. On negotiations with 
     other Arab countries, the PLO is directly negotiating with 
     Israel in the context of both direct talks between Israel and 
     Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, and multilateral discussions 
     which involve most other regional states.

                              PLO Covenant

       Only the 500-member Palestine National Council (PNC) can 
     amend the Palestinian National Covenant. In his September 9 
     letter to Prime Minister Rabin, Arafat committed the PLO to 
     ``undertake to submit to the Palestinian National Council for 
     formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the 
     Palestinian Covenant.'' Thus far, Arafat has successively 
     obtained approval for the DOP from the Fatah Central 
     Committee, the PLO Executive Committee, and the Palestinian 
     Central Council (PCC).

                               Conclusion

       We believe that the PLO is complying with the commitments 
     embodied in the Declaration of Principles and in the letters 
     to Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Holst. 
     Rejectionist elements who claim to be under the PLO umbrella 
     continue to commit terrorist acts. At the same time, both the 
     U.S. and the Israeli Government recognize that Arafat has no 
     real ability to exert operational control over these groups. 
     In the single case in which we can confirm that members of an 
     active PLO group were involved in an act of violence, the PLO 
     leadership denounced the attack and reiterated that such 
     attacks should cease. There is no information indicating the 
     PLO leadership either directed or had knowledge of the 
     incident before it occurred.


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 24, 1994.
     Hon. Warren Christopher,
     Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Christopher: We have read the State 
     Department's recent report to Congress pursuant to the PLO 
     Commitments Compliance Act and wish to comment on it. While 
     we appreciate the report's comprehensive nature and agree 
     that the PLO has substantially complied with its commitments, 
     we are concerned that a few critical points the report reads 
     more like a defense of the PLO's lapses than a constructively 
     critical guide to better behavior.
       In his September 9, 1993 letters to Israeli Prime Minister 
     Rabin and Norwegian Foreign Minister Holst, PLO Chairman 
     Yassir Arafat committed to: recognize Israel's right to 
     exist, renounce terrorism and violence, accept UN Security 
     Council Resolutions 242 and 338, assure compliance of all PLO 
     elements and personnel, call for an end to the ``intifada'', 
     and submit amendments to the PLO Covenant to remove 
     provisions inconsistent with Israel's right to exist.
       Taken together, these commitments implied the 
     transformation of the PLO from a terrorist organization 
     committed to Israel's destruction to a political organization 
     representing Palestinians committed to living side by side 
     with Israel. We recognize that such major transformations do 
     not happen overnight. We are concerned, however, that the 
     State Department report glosses over and too easily excuses 
     the occasions when the PLO may be unwilling or incapable of 
     completing such a transformation.
       The report states that, ``Rejectionist elements who claim 
     to be under the PLO umbrella continue to commit terrorist 
     acts. At the same time, both the U.S. and the Israeli 
     governments recognize that Arafat has no real ability to 
     exert operational control over these groups.'' In his 
     September 9 letter, however, Arafat committed to ``assume 
     responsibility over all PLO elements'' in order to ``assure 
     their compliance, prevent violations and discipline 
     violators.''
       By citing without comment Arafat's lack of control over 
     rejectionist elements of the PLO the report implies that 
     Arafat can escape responsibility for terrorism by simply 
     claiming lack of control. If, in fact, Arafat cannot 
     control the ``Fatah Hawks'' who are still within the PLO, 
     let alone Hamas which is clearly outside the PLO, that 
     does not relieve him of the responsibility to condemn 
     their continuing terrorist acts.
       As President Clinton stated, ``leaders who seek peace must 
     speak out in a loud and clear voice against those who would 
     destroy those aspirations for peace.'' Instead, with the 
     exception of one statement after the murder of the Israeli 
     settler Haim Mizrahi by the Fatah Hawks, we have not heard a 
     word from the PLO leadership condemning the terrorism of 
     Hamas and rejectionist elements of the PLO.
       Regarding the ``strategy of stages'' whereby the PLO had 
     declared its intent to create a Palestinian state as a first 
     step to eliminating Israel entirely, the report states that 
     Arafat's letters and the Israel/PLO agreement that the PLO is 
     repudiating'' such a strategy. The report, however, does not 
     question Arafat's refusal to take the most concrete act of 
     repudiation of the ``strategy of stages''--fulfilling his 
     commitment to seek amendment of the PLO Convenant by the 
     Palestine National Council. Nor does the report mention 
     symbolic remnants of the refusal to recognize Israel, such as 
     the letterhead used by the PLO's Permanent Observer Mission 
     to the United Nations which continues to depict ``Palestine'' 
     as including the entirety of Israel.
       What does it say about the PLO's commitment to peace if the 
     Palestine National Council cannot bring itself to endorse 
     Israel's right to exist? The State Department report, rather 
     than accepting these lapses, should frankly describe areas 
     where the United States is seeking the PLO's full compliance 
     with its commitments. We recognize the high level of 
     Administration commitment to achieving this end. This report, 
     however, accepts the PLO's failures without comment and 
     thereby seems to excuse them rather than establishing any 
     benchmark by which to measure progress. This undermines the 
     U.S. effort to improve compliance by implying that no 
     progress is necessary.
       Notwithstanding some of the timid language in this report, 
     we assume that the United States remains committed to the 
     PLO's full compliance with its commitments, including 
     amending the PLO convenant, and that we will hold the PLO and 
     its leadership to President Clinton's appropriate standard of 
     ``a loud and clear voice'' against violence. We would 
     appreciate your reassurance in this regard.
       Again, we appreciate the effort behind this report and look 
     forward to receiving improved reports in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Connie Mack,
                                                      U.S. Senate.
                                              Joseph I. Lieberman,
                                                      U.S. Senate.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I join my distinguished colleague 
Senator Mack in offering this amendment to the State Department 
authorization bill in order to modify an important piece of legislation 
which Senator Mack and I offered in 1989 and saw enacted as the PLO 
Commitments Compliance Act of 1989. With the historic events of 
September 1993 when Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization 
signed the declaration of principles, the search for a lasting peace in 
the Middle East entered a new and hope-filled stage. But the road to 
peace in that troubled region has been a long and rocky one and while 
we hope that peace will at last become a reality, we must continue to 
be realistic about the possibility of problems developing along the 
way. Senator Mack and I believed, as did the Secretary of State, that 
the resumption of a dialogue with the PLO was appropriate and in the 
interests of peace and, thus, the reporting requirements of the PLO 
Commitments Compliance Act were once again relevant. We have recently 
received the first report by the Secretary of State since the 
resumption of the dialogue.
  It was apparent to Senator Mack and I that in light of the 
commitments made by PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat as part of the peace 
process, the PLO Commitments Compliance Act merited revision to update 
its provisions and to take into account the provisions of the Middle 
East Peace Facilitation Act. This amendment which we offer today brings 
the PLO Commitments Compliance Act into harmony with the Middle East 
Peace Facilitation Act in both the timing of the reports and the 
commitments by the PLO which the administration must report on. We 
believe the amendment will enable the Secretary of State to make best 
use of his resources in preparing the reports required to be 
transmitted to us and will give the Congress a fuller explanation of 
the manner in which the PLO has complied with the important commitments 
it has made on the road to peace.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that the events of September 1993 will be 
marked by future generations as the beginning of the end of violence, 
animosity, and war in the Middle East. But at the same time, I remain 
cautious and alert to the possibility that commitments which have been 
made might not be lived up to. It is critical that the Secretary of 
State stay attuned to this possibility and keep the Congress fully 
informed. The amendment which Senator Mack and I offer today will 
ensure that this is done.


                           AMENDMENT No. 1294

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This act may be cited as the ``Middle East Peace 
     Facilitation Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Palestine Liberation Organization has recognized 
     the State of Israel's right to exit in peace and security and 
     to amend its covenant to recognize that fact; accepted United 
     Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338; committed 
     itself to the peace process and peaceful coexistence with 
     Israel, free from violence and all other acts which endanger 
     peace and stability; and assumed responsibility over all 
     Palestine Liberation Organization elements and personnel in 
     order to assure their compliance, prevent violations, and 
     discipline violators;
       (2) Israel has recognized the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people;
       (3) Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed 
     a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government 
     Arrangements on September 13, 1993, at the White House;
       (4) The United States has resumed a bilateral dialogue with 
     the Palestine Liberation Organization; and
       (5) In order to implement the Declaration of Principles on 
     Interim Self-Government Arrangements and facilitate the 
     Middle East peace process, the President has requested 
     flexibility to suspend certain provisions of law pertaining 
     to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), beginning July 
     1, 1994, the President may suspend for a period of not more 
     than 180 days any provision of law specified in subsection 
     (c). The President may continue the suspension for a period 
     or periods of not more than 180 days if, before each such 
     period, the President satisfies the requirements of 
     subsection (b). Any suspension shall cease to be effective 
     after 180 days, or at such earlier date as the President may 
     specify.
       (b) Conditions.--
       (1) Consultation.--Prior to each exercise of the authority 
     provided in subsection (a), the President shall consult with 
     the relevant congressional committees. The President may not 
     exercise that authority until 30 days after a written policy 
     justification is submitted to the relevant Congressional 
     Committees.
       (2) Presidential Certification.--The President may exercise 
     the authority provided in subsection (a) only if the 
     President certifies to the relevant congressional committees 
     each time he exercises such authority that--
       (A) it is in the national interest of the United States to 
     exercise such authority; and
       (B) the Palestine Liberation Organization continues to 
     abide in good faith by all the commitments described in 
     paragraph (4).
       (3) Requirement for Continuing PLO Compliance.--Any 
     suspension under subsection (a) of a provision of law 
     specified in subsection (c) shall cease to be effective if 
     the President certifies to the relevant congressional 
     committees, or if the Congress determines by Joint 
     Resolution, that the Palestine Liberation Organization has 
     not continued to abide in good faith by all the commitments 
     described in paragraph (4).
       (A) Any joint resolution under this subsection shall be 
     considered in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and 
     Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
       (B) For the purpose of expediting the consideration and 
     enactment of joint resolutions under this subsection, a 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of any such joint 
     resolution after it has been reported by the appropriate 
     committee shall be treated as highly privileged in the House 
     of Representatives.
       (4) PLO Commitments Described.--The commitments referred to 
     in paragraphs (2) and (3) are the commitments made by the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization--
       (A) in it letter of September 9, 1993, to the Prime 
     Minister of Israel; in its letter of September 9, 1993, to 
     the Foreign Minister of Norway to--
       (i) recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in 
     peace and security;
       (ii) accept United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 
     and 338;
       (iii) renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of 
     violence;
       (iv) assume responsibility over all PLO elements and 
     personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent 
     violations and discipline violators;
       (v) call upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and 
     Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the 
     normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, and 
     contributing to peace and stability; and
       (iv) submit to the Palestine National Council for formal 
     approval the necessary changes to the Palestinian Covenant 
     regarding recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and 
     security, and
       (B) in, and resulting from the implementation of, the 
     Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government 
     Arrangements signed on September 13, 1993.
       (c) Provisions That May Be Suspended.--The provisions that 
     may be suspended under the authority of subsection (a) are 
     the following:
       (1) Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2227) as it applies with respect to the Palestine 
     Liberation Organization or entities associated with it.
       (2) Section 114 of the Department of State Authorization 
     Act, Fiscal years 1984 and 1985 (22 U.S.C. 287e note) as it 
     applies with respect to the Palestine Liberation Organization 
     or entities associated with it.
       (3) Section 1003 of the Foreign Relations Authorization 
     Act, Fiscal years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 5202).
       (4) Section 37 of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (22 
     U.S.C. 286w) as it applies to the granting to the Palestine 
     Liberation Organization of observer status or other official 
     status at any meeting sponsored by or associated with the 
     International Monetary Fund. As used in this paragraph, the 
     term ``other official status'' does not include membership in 
     the International Monetary Fund.
       (d) Relevant Congressional Committees Defined.--As used in 
     this section, the term ``relevant congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on 
     Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.

  Mr. PELL. Madam President, this amendment will allow the President to 
continue to waive legislative restrictions against the PLO. Under the 
terms of the amendment, the President's authority to waive such 
restrictions can be renewed indefinitely for 6 month periods.
  The net effect of the amendment is to facilitate the Middle East 
peace process by allowing the PLO to open an office in Washington, and 
by enabling the provision of assistance to Palestinians in the West 
Bank and Gaza.
  The amendment builds upon legislation introduced by Senator Helms and 
myself last year, which was passed by the Congress and signed into law.
  This amendment is the product of a great deal of bipartisan 
cooperation, and it has the full support of the State Department.
  I would note for the record that the amendment preserves the 
prerogatives of the Congress on this issue. Like the legislation passed 
last year, the amendment does not erase any restrictions against the 
PLO; it only gives the President authority to waive. The amendment also 
contains strict requirements for the President to consult and notify 
Congress about any use or renewal of the waiver authority.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, this amendment puts the President's right 
to waive certain provisions regarding the PLO into permanent law. The 
State Department assures us these changes are necessary for the peace 
process to move ahead smoothly.
  Senator Pell and I have agreed to submit this amendment, and I 
believe my colleagues on the other side are prepared to accept it. I 
have only one final note: I do not like the PLO, and I don't trust 
them. I pray that the PLO will use any new privileges responsibly and 
that the President will relax U.S. policy on the PLO gradually and very 
carefully.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1295

       On page 25, between lines 10 and 11 insert:
       (4) No fee or surcharge authorized under subsection (a)(1) 
     may be charged to a national of a country that is a signatory 
     to the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, the State Department authorization 
bill includes a provision, requested by the administration, that would 
provide authority to the Department of State to charge a fee or 
surcharge for processing machine-readable nonimmigrant visas, border-
crossing identification cards, and regular nonimmigrant visas. The 
Department intends to exercise this authority, if provided, by imposing 
a $20 application fee for machine readable nonimmigrant visas.
  While this fee will not fall on American citizens, it will have an 
impact on those who cross our borders as either tourists or 
businessmen. Therefore, it could have a negative impact on efforts to 
open our borders to more trade and commerce.
  In addition, the United States recently imposed two increases to user 
fees that affect cross-border traffic; the Customs user fee was 
increased from $5 to $6.50, and the INS international airline fee was 
increased from $5 to $6.
  Now, the income from both these fees goes to support worthy programs; 
indeed, the income from the visa fee will support improved border 
security and monitoring of aliens who enter the United States. However, 
most worthy programs are supported through general tax revenues. To the 
extent these programs are worthy, perhaps they should compete with 
other programs of Government that are not susceptible to user fees.
  Perhaps the biggest concern I have is the possible impact on the 
North American Free-Trade Agreement. The very concept of NAFTA implies 
that we will make commercial and business interchange between Canada, 
Mexico, and the United States easier and less expensive. That is why 
tariffs are being reduced. The imposition of a new user fee is contrary 
to that spirit.
  In addition, and perhaps most importantly, in practice this fee would 
apply to Mexican citizens and not Canadian citizens. Under NAFTA we 
should be treating both countries on an equal basis.
  While I am willing to accept the administration's proposal for a new 
fee program, I believe the signatories to NAFTA should be treated on an 
equal basis and that both Canada and Mexico should be exempt from this 
fee. Therefore, I am offering an amendment which would make this 
change, which the State Department has indicated is acceptable. I urge 
the managers and the Senate to accept it.


                           amendment no. 1296

 (Purpose: To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
 year 1993, to impose sanctions on certain transfers of equipment and 
   technology used in the manufacture or delivery of weapons of mass 
 destruction and to impose additional sanctions for violations of that 
                                  Act)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new title:

          IRAN-IRAQ ARMS NON-PROLIFERATION AMENDMENTS OF 1994

     SEC.  01. SHORT TITLE, REFERENCES IN ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Iran-
     Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Amendments of 1994.''
       (b) Reference in Title.--Except as specifically provided in 
     this title, whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed as an amendment to or repeal of a provision, the 
     reference shall be deemed to be made to the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.

     SEC.  02. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States to halt the 
     proliferation of advanced conventional weapons within Iran 
     and Iraq.

     SEC.  03. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title to impose additional 
     sanctions against those foreign countries and persons that 
     transfer destabilizing numbers and types of advanced 
     conventional weapons, or goods and technology that assist in 
     enhancing the capabilities of Iran and Iraq to manufacture 
     and deliver such weapons.

     SEC.  04. SANCTIONS AGAINST PERSONS.

       Section 1604 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--If the President determines that any 
     person has transferred or retransferred goods or technology 
     so as to contribute knowingly and materially to the efforts 
     by Iran or Iraq (or any agency or instrumentality of either 
     such country) to acquire destabilizing numbers and types of 
     advanced conventional weapons, then--
       ``(1) the sanctions described in subsection (b) shall be 
     imposed; and
       ``(2) the President may apply, in the discretion of the 
     President, the sanctions described in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Mandatory Sanctions.--The sanctions to be imposed 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are as follows:
       ``(1) Procurement sanction.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (d), the United States Government shall not 
     procure directly or indirectly, or enter into any contract 
     for the procurement of, any goods or services from the 
     sanctioned person.
       ``(2) Export sanction.--The United States Government shall 
     not issue any license for any export by or to the sanctioned 
     person.
       ``(c) Discretionary Sanctions.--The sanctions referred to 
     in subsection (a)(2) are as follows:
       ``(1) Transiting united states territory.--
       (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than 
     a treaty or other international agreement), no employee or 
     official of a sanctioned person and no good or technology 
     that is manufactured, produced, sold, or shipped by the 
     sanctioned person may transit by vessel or aircraft any 
     territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 
     The Secretary of Transportation may promulgate regulations, 
     as necessary, to provide for the implementation of this 
     sanction in the most effective manner.
       (B) The Secretary of Transportation may provide for such 
     exceptions from this paragraph as the Secretary considers in 
     the interest of the United States.
       ``(2) Financial institutions.--(A) The President may by 
     order prohibit any depositary institution that is chartered 
     by, or that has its principal place of business within, a 
     State or the United States from making any loan or providing 
     any credit to the sanctioned person, except for loans or 
     credits for the purpose of purchasing food or other 
     agricultural commodities.
       ``(B) As used in this paragraph, the term `depository 
     institution' means a bank or savings association, as defined 
     in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       ``(3) Use of authorities of the international emergency 
     economic powers act.--The President may exercise the 
     authorities of the International Emergency Economic Powers 
     Act to prohibit any transaction involving any property in 
     which the sanctioned person has any interest whatsoever 
     except for transactions involving the provision of 
     humanitarian assistance.
       ``(4) Prohbition on vessels that enter ports of sanctioned 
     countries to engage in trade.--
       ``(A) In General.--Beginning on the 10th day after a 
     sanction is imposed under this Act against a country, a 
     vessel which enters a port or place in the sanctioned country 
     to engage in the trade of goods or services may not if the 
     President so requires within 180 days after departure from 
     such port or place in the sanctioned country, load or unload 
     any freight at any place in the United States.
       ``(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     `vessel' includes every description of water craft or other 
     contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of 
     transportation in water, but does not include aircraft.
       ``(d) Exceptions.--The sanction described in subsection 
     (b)(1) shall not apply--
       ``(1) in the case of procurement of defense articles or 
     defense services--
       ``(A) under existing contracts or subcontracts, including 
     the exercise of options for production quantities to satisfy 
     operational military requirements essential to the national 
     security of the United States;
       ``(B) if the President determines that the person or other 
     entity to which the sanctions would otherwise be applied is a 
     sole source supplier of the defense articles or services, 
     that the defense articles or services are essential, and that 
     alternative sources are not readily or reasonably available; 
     or
       ``(C) if the President determines that such articles or 
     services are essential to the national security under defense 
     coproduction agreements;
       ``(2) to products or services provided under contracts 
     entered into before the date on which the President makes a 
     determination under subsection (a),
       ``(3) in the case of contracts entered into before the date 
     on which the President makes a determination under subsection 
     (a), with respect to--
       ``(A) spare parts which are essential to United States 
     products or production; or
       ``(B) component parts, but not finished products essential 
     to United States products or production; or
       ``(C) routine servicing and maintenance of products, to the 
     extent that alternatives sources are not readily or 
     reasonably available;
       ``(4) to information and technology essential to United 
     States products or production; or
       ``(5) to medical or other humanitarian items.
       ``(e) Consultation With and Actions by Foreign Government 
     of Jurisdiction.--
       ``(1) Consultations.--Whenever the President makes a 
     determination under subsection (a) with respect to a foreign 
     person, the Congress urges the President--
       ``(A) to initiate consultations immediately with the 
     government with primary jurisdiction over that foreign person 
     with respect to the imposition of sanctions pursuant to this 
     section; and, as appropriate,
       ``(B) to take steps in the United Nations and other 
     multilateral groups to negotiate comprehensive multilateral 
     sanctions pursuant to the provisions of chapter 7 of the 
     United Nations Charter, including a partial or complete 
     embargo, against the government of the foreign country of 
     primary jurisdiction over that sanctioned person, as long as 
     that government has not taken specific and effective actions, 
     including appropriate penalties, to terminate the involvement 
     of the sanctioned person or firm in the activities described 
     in section 1604(a).
       ``(2) Actions by Government of Jurisdiction.--In order to 
     pursue such consultations with the government, the President 
     may delay imposition of sanctions pursuant to subsections 
     (b) and (c) for up to 90 days. Following these 
     consultations, the President shall impose sanctions 
     immediately unless the President determines and certifies 
     to the Congress that that government has taken specific 
     and effective actions, including appropriate penalties, to 
     terminate the involvement of the foreign person in the 
     activities described in subsection (a). The President may 
     delay the imposition of sanctions for up to an additional 
     90 days if the President determines and certifies to the 
     Congress that that government is in the process of taking 
     the actions described in the preceding sentence.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     application of sanctions under this section, the President 
     shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 
     a report on the status of consultations with the appropriate 
     government under this subsection, and the basis for any 
     determination under paragraph (2) of this subsection that 
     such government has taken specific corrective action.''

     SEC.  05. SANCTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       Section 1605 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``sanction'' and 
     inserting ``sanctions'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``sanction.--The sanction referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2) is'' and inserting ``sanctions.--The 
     sanctions referred to in subsection (a)(2) are''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) Denial of most-favored-nation status.--
     Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the President 
     may suspend the application of nondiscriminatory trade 
     agreement (most-favored-nation status) to the sanctioned 
     country for such time as the President so determines.
       ``(4) Diplomatic relations.--The President is urged to 
     downgrade or suspend diplomatic relations between the United 
     States and the government of the sanctioned country.
       ``(5) Suspension of special trade privileges.--The 
     President is authorized to suspend special trade privileges 
     which were extended pursuant to the Generalized Systems of 
     Preferences or the Caribbean Basin Initiative.
       ``(6) Suspension of trade agreements.--The President is 
     authorized to suspend any trade agreement with the sanctioned 
     country.
       ``(7) Revocations of licenses for export of nuclear 
     material.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized to 
     revoke any license for the export of nuclear material 
     pursuant to a nuclear cooperation agreement with the 
     sanctioned country.
       ``(8) Presidential action regarding aviation.--
       (A)(i) The President is authorized to notify the government 
     of a sanctioned country of his intention to suspend the 
     authority of foreign air carriers owned or controlled by the 
     government of that country to engage in foreign air 
     transportation to or from the United States.
       ``(ii) The President is authorized to direct the Secretary 
     of Transportation to suspend at the earliest possible date 
     the authority of any foreign air carrier owned or controlled, 
     directly or indirectly, by that government to engage in 
     foreign air transportation to or from the United States, 
     notwithstanding any agreement relating to air services.
       ``(B)(i) The President may direct the Secretary of State to 
     terminate any air service agreement between the United States 
     and a sanctioned country in accordance with the provisions of 
     that agreement.
       ``(ii) Upon termination of an agreement under this 
     subparagraph, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to take such steps as may be necessary to revoke at the 
     earliest possible date the right of any foreign air carrier 
     owned, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the 
     government of that country to engage in foreign air 
     transportation to or from the United States.
       ``(C) The President may direct the Secretary of 
     Transportation to provide for such exceptions from this 
     subsection as the President considers necessary to provide 
     for emergencies in which the safety of an aircraft or its 
     crew or passengers is threatened.
       ``(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the terms `aircraft', 
     `air carrier', `air transportation', and `foreign air 
     carrier' have the meanings given those terms in section 101 
     of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301).
       ``(9) Other sanctions.--The President may apply the 
     sanctions described in section 1605(c) with respect to 
     actions of a foreign government.''

     SEC.  06. WAIVER.

       Section 1606 is amended--
       (1) ``by striking ``waiver'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``modification, and waiver''; and
       (2) by striking ``waive'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``modify or waive''.

     SEC.  07. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

       The Act is amended by inserting after section 1606 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1606A. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

       ``Except as otherwise provided in this title, the sanctions 
     imposed pursuant to the Act shall apply for a period of at 
     least 24 months following the imposition of sanctions and 
     shall cease to apply thereafter only if the President 
     determines and certifies to the Congress that--
       ``(1) reliable information indicates that the government of 
     jurisdiction has taken specific and effective action, 
     including appropriate penalties, to terminate the 
     involvement of the sanctioned person in the sanctionable 
     activity.
       ``(2) The President has received reliable assurances from 
     the sanctioned government that such government will not, in 
     the future, violate this Act.''

     SEC.   08. STAY OF SANCTIONS.

       The Act is amended by inserting after section 1607 the 
     following new section:
       (a) Criterion for Stay.--The President may stay the 
     imposition of any sanction on any entity in order to 
     protect--
       (1) ongoing criminal investigations, or
       (2) sensitive intelligence sources and methods which are 
     being used to acquire further information on the 
     proliferation of advanced conventional weapons, weapons of 
     mass destruction, or missiles that would be comprised by the 
     publication of the sanctioned entity's name.
       (a) Determination.--The President shall exercise the 
     authority described in paragraph (1) only when the President 
     determines that the non-proliferation goals of the Act are 
     better served by delaying the imposition of sanctions rather 
     than by compromising the criminal investigation or 
     intelligence sources and methods at issue.
       (c) Lifting of Stay.--The President shall lift any stay 
     imposed pursuant to this subsection as soon as the basis for 
     the determination made pursuant to paragraph (2) no longer 
     exists.
       (d) Notification and Report to Congress.--Whenever the 
     duration of any stay imposed pursuant to this subsection 
     exceeds 120 days, the President shall promptly report to the 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives the rationale and circumstances that led the 
     President to exercise the stay authority.

     SEC.   09. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

       The Act is amended by inserting after section 1607 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1607A. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

       ``The President is authorized to prescribe such rules and 
     regulations as the President may require to carry out this 
     Act.''

     SEC.   10. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 1608 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) The terms `goods and technology' includes any item of 
     the type that is listed on the Nuclear Referral List under 
     section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, 
     the United States Munitions List (established in section 38 
     of the Arms Export Control Act), or the MTCR Annex (as 
     defined in section 74(4) of the Arms Export Control Act) or 
     any item that is subject to licensing by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission.
       ``(9) The term `United States' includes territories and 
     possessions of the United States and the customs waters of 
     the United States, as defined in section 401 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise today to propose with my 
colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-
Proliferation Amendments of 1994 as an amendment to S. 1281, the State 
Department authorization bill for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. This 
legislation has the support of the administration and the Foreign 
Relations Committee and is similar to a bill introduced last year by 
Senator Lieberman and myself, which was cosponsored by Senators 
Bumpers, Campbell, D'Amato, and Hutchison.
  I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Lieberman and his 
staff, to the staff of the National Security Council, and to the 
members and staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their 
assistance in crafting this final version of the legislation. With this 
amendment, we hope to continue in a bipartisan effort to reduce one of 
the greatest threats to world peace today--the proliferation of weapons 
of mass destruction and advanced conventional weaponry to Iraq and 
Iran.


                        Purpose of the Amendment

  Madam President, both Iraq and Iran have reemerged as continuing 
threats to the peace and stability of the Middle East, and thus pose a 
threat to the stability of the post-cold-war world. The amendment 
offered by Senator Lieberman and myself is intended to halt these 
nations' efforts to build or acquire destabilizing advanced 
conventional weapons.
  Our amendment would fill a gap in existing nonproliferation statutes 
by providing for sanctions against third parties who assist Iran or 
Iraq in their ongoing efforts to build or acquire these weapons.
  This amendment builds on legislation which I cosponsored in 1992 with 
then-Senator Gore and which was subsequently enacted into law as part 
of the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993. That law 
provides for sanctions which may be imposed against United States and 
foreign persons, as well as foreign countries, that provide such 
assistance to Iran and Iraq in acquiring weapons of mass destruction or 
destabilizing advanced conventional weapons. That law also authorizes 
sanctions which may be imposed against Iran or Iraq for their own 
actions.
  However, due to their limited scope, current sanction provisions have 
proven less than effective in deterring third-party violators, whether 
foreign countries or persons. Our amendment recognizes that sanctions 
focused primarily on United States individuals and firms do not affect 
the principal suppliers of weapons to Iran or Iraq. It is these third-
party violations which present the most urgent threat to world 
stability by making available to Iran and Iraq both technology and the 
weapons of mass destruction, means of their delivery, and destabilizing 
advanced conventional weapons.

  This amendment would give the President the authority to impose 
additional discretionary sanctions when violators are identified using 
typical intelligence methods. The legislation is intended to allow the 
President the maximum leeway practical in determining the appropriate 
sanctions.
  The amendment is slightly different from the original bill we 
introduced last year. It does not include a section from the original 
bill which provided for import sanctions against persons found in 
violation of the law. We have removed this section on the advice of the 
staff of the Foreign Relations Committee because import sanctions 
constitute a form of revenue and such measures must originate in the 
House of Representatives.
  Let me be clear, however, that import sanctions would greatly enhance 
the effectiveness of this legislation. Should this bill be returned by 
the conferees with the import sanctions which were included in our 
original bill, I fully expect the Senate would support its adoption.
  We must use every measure to fight the transfer of weapons and 
military technology to Iran and Iraq. International arms control 
agreements and regimes are vital, but they often lack effective 
enforcement mechanisms; some, like the Biological Weapons Convention, 
have no teeth at all. Other nations will be far more likely to support 
and comply with arms control regimes if they know that a failure to do 
so could cost them access to U.S. technology, aid, and markets.
  Strong penalties that affect primarily United States businesses 
ignore the fact that most sales to Iran and Iraq come from foreign 
sources. Thus, U.S.-only sanctions penalize American firms without 
solving the problem. In fact, in my view, they help foreign 
competition.
  It is critical and essential to give our President the authority to 
sanction all violators with sufficient severity to compel compliance 
with the regime. It is critical and essential to sanction those foreign 
entities who would act to help Iran and Iraq acquire menacing, 
destabilizing weapons or technology.


                     The Threat from Iraq and Iran

  As I have said, both Iraq and Iran are nations that will continue to 
pose a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East and the post-
cold war world.
  In the past, Iraq has used poison gas against defenseless Kurdish 
civilians, invaded Iran and Kuwait, and launched missile attacks on 
cities in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Just last year, Iraq blew up relief 
convoys to the Kurds, used its army against the Shiites, supported 
terrorist attacks, carried out terrorist operations in Turkey, 
continued to block U.N. efforts to destroy its weapons of mass 
destruction, and arrested innocent civilians along the Kuwaiti border 
as spies. Iraq even attempted to assassinate President Bush.
  Iraq never had significant supplies of United States weapons or 
technology, but received well over $100 billion of advanced 
conventional arms and $27 billion of technology and supplies for 
weapons of mass destruction from other nations during the Iran-Iraq war 
and in the period just before the Persian Gulf war. Many of these later 
transfers came from Europe, and most came from nations that have signed 
or ratified international arms control agreements.
  Iraq has finally agreed to long-term monitoring of its arms 
potential, which will require intricate monitoring of some 100 critical 
sites in the country and over 1,000 industrial establishments capable 
of producing components for weapons of mass destruction, according to 
the International Atomic Energy Agency. This massive and expensive 
monitoring effort is required because of Iraq's continued efforts to 
rebuild its offensive military capabilities.
  Iran is also a threat to its neighbors and to regional security. In 
the past, it has encouraged terrorism and has seized islands in the 
gulf. Iran continues to steadily expand its military capabilities, 
including acquiring several submarines to patrol the waters of the 
gulf, and is aggressively seeking advanced weapons and related 
technology.
  Unlike Iraq, whose efforts to acquire arms were stymied by their 
defeat in the gulf war, Iran has had access to continuing supplies of 
arms, technology, and supplies for weapons of mass destruction. Since 
1988, some 65 percent of all Iran's arms have come from Russia; 16 
percent have come from China; 8 percent from Europe; and 10 percent 
from other nations. Iran has received 6.7 billion dollars' worth of 
arms since 1988 and well over 1 billion dollars' worth of technology 
and supplies for weapons of mass destruction.


                              key elements

  Let me briefly summarize the four key elements of our amendment.
  First, our amendment clearly sets forth United States policy toward 
destabilizing arms sales to Iran and Iraq, and reinforces 
the importance of rigorously enforcing existing laws, such as the Arms 
Export Control Act.

  Second, our amendment would put needed additional pressure on the 
foreign suppliers to these countries, who have provided most of the 
advanced weapons and technology to Iran and Iraq.
  Third, our amendment builds on existing law that prohibits the 
transfer of equipment or technology that would contribute to the 
efforts by Iran or Iraq to acquire destabilizing numbers and types of 
advanced conventional weapons.
  Fourth and most important, our amendment would strengthen existing 
sanctions for violators and provide the President with the flexibility 
to impose new discretionary sanctions, which would act to deter 
potential violators by confronting them with clear legal and economic 
penalties if they persist in aiding the military buildup in Iran and 
Iraq.


                   mandatory sanctions in current law

  The existing Iran-Iraq nonproliferation legislation provides for the 
following sanctions:
  Against persons--United States or foreign: Prohibition on receiving 
U.S. Government contracts; and prohibition on receiving United States 
export licenses.
  Against foreign countries: Suspension of United States and 
multilateral development bank assistance; and suspension of 
codevelopment, coproduction, and military and dual-use technical 
exchange agreements.
  These mandatory sanctions apply to all offenders, although the 
President may waive them in the event of urgent national security 
needs.


                        discretionary sanctions

  Current law provides for the discretionary use of authorities of the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act to block international 
financial transactions of United States or foreign persons or foreign 
governments that assist Iran or Iraq in their weapons acquisition 
efforts. The McCain-Lieberman amendment provides for the following new 
discretionary sanctions:
  Against persons and countries.--United States or foreign: Prohibition 
against assistance from financial institutions; and suspension of U.S. 
aviation and port rights, and a prohibition on transiting U.S. 
territory.
  Against foreign countries: Denial of most-favored-nation status; 
suspension of diplomatic relations, special trade privileges, and trade 
agreements; and revocations of licenses for nuclear material exports.
  These sanctions would serve as a deterrent to potential violators of 
the law and would allow the President to tailor his actions and impose 
those sanctions that would be most effective in a particular situation.


                  encouraging multilateral cooperation

  Our amendment does not mandate action by the United States when 
foreign governments are willing to take real and decisive action on 
their own. The legislation offers traditional incentives for foreign 
governments to join in international arms control efforts and to pass 
and enforce national legislation that parallels the nonproliferation 
legislation adopted by the United States.
  Our bill is not intended as a substitute for other efforts to control 
arms transfers and proliferation. We believe that every effort should 
be made to reach international and regional agreements and to persuade 
foreign governments to establish sanctions on the actions of their own 
companies and citizens. At the same time, we acknowledge that certain 
nations present a special threat to their neighbors, our allies, and 
American strategic interests. Iran and Iraq are two such nations, and 
our bill reinforces the seriousness we attach to the threat posed by 
Iran and Iraq.


                                urgency

  Madam President, we must enact the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation 
Amendments soon. We must heed the lessons of Desert Storm and stop the 
weapons buildup by Iran and Iraq. We cannot make an ally or a pillar 
out of either country. A look at the Washington Post of January 23, 
1994, makes clear the danger of harboring any illusions about the 
prospects for real change in Iraq.
  An article in that Sunday newspaper raises once again the specter of 
Iraq's aggressive efforts to rebuild its chemical weapons program. If 
true, this is another example of Iraq's duplicitous behavior and its 
refusal to accept international norms prohibiting the use or 
manufacture of chemical weapons. In this instance, our amendment would 
permit the President to impose sanctions not only against Iraq, but 
against the companies or countries that financed, produced, packed, or 
shipped this dangerous material. These extensive sanctions are not 
available under current law.
  In summary, the proposed amendments complement existing legislation 
in the fiscal year 1993 Defense Authorization Act and other U.S. and 
international arms control efforts. Together with rigorous enforcement 
of existing law, this amendment would improve the stability and 
security of the gulf region. It will help protect key friends and 
allies elsewhere in the Middle East, like Israel and Egypt.
  Senator Lieberman and I urge our colleagues to continue to support a 
bipartisan effort to reduce the greatest potential threat to peace in 
the world today, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
advanced conventional weapons in Iran and Iraq. I urge the adoption of 
our amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my distinguished 
colleague, Senator McCain, in sponsoring this amendment, which 
addresses a serious proliferation threat: The transfer of advanced 
conventional weaponry to Iran and Iraq. Senator McCain has already 
described the purpose and principal elements of our amendment, so I 
will not reiterate them here. I do, however, want to emphasize the 
urgency of the proliferation threat we face and the need to address it.
  Iran is engaged in an across-the-board buildup of its military. 
Despite falling oil prices, Iran continues to spend money on its armed 
forces, purchasing weapon systems which will strengthen its ability to 
block shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. In addition to acquiring 
attack submarines from Russia, Iran has recently purchased improved 
mines which can be used against passing ships, and is currently 
negotiating the purchase of advanced antiship missiles. Iraq is 
attempting to reestablish its weapons arsenal, while at the same time 
obstructing United Nations efforts to ensure compliance with 
resolutions aimed at restricting that arsenal. Unless we take decisive 
action now to deal with these two states, we may, by our passivity, 
ensure the success of their endeavors.
  Given the adverse effect such success would have on regional and, 
indeed, on international stability, this amendment is designed to 
discourage foreign persons and countries from providing Iran and Iraq 
with advanced conventional weapons or with technology and equipment 
that would enhance their advanced weapons capabilities. While U.S. law 
generally offers adequate sanctions against abuses by U.S. entities, 
smiliar measures are needed for foreign entities. Such measures could 
prove effective because Iran and Iraq rely on foreign suppliers for 
both weapons and technical assistance. Under this amendment, sanctions 
can now be applied against these suppliers. It is our hope that the 
sanctions which Senator McCain has outlined for you will provide strong 
disincentive to would-be proliferators.
  I want to emphasize this amendment builds upon legislation we agreed 
upon in the fiscal year 1993 National Defense Authorization Act. This 
act mandated certain sanctions against persons and foreign countries 
that contribute goods or technology to help Iran or Iraq acquire 
advanced conventional weapons. Our amendment revises and extends the 
provisions of the act principally by giving the President additional, 
discretionary authority to apply a wide range of sanctions against 
proliferators. I believe such authority is fully consistent with the 
purpose and direction of the existing legislation.
  Madam President, the provisions of this amendment will enhance the 
U.S.'s ability to counter the spread of destabilizing weaponry in two 
particularly dangerous states. These provisions should serve as a 
deterrent to current and potential violators and should slow, or 
hopefully even prevent, Iran and Iraq from achieving their military 
ambitions. I strongly urge my colleagues to join Senator McCain and me 
in supporting this amendment.


                           amendment no. 1297

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert:

     SEC.  . REIMBURSEMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

       Section 208 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Out of funds otherwise available for fiscal year 1994 
     and fiscal year 1995 for ``Protection of Foreign Missions and 
     Officials,'' the Secretary of State is authorized to 
     reimburse the City of Seattle and State of Washington up to a 
     total of $440,000 for fiscal year 1994 and $500,000 for 
     fiscal year 1995 for unexpected extraordinary security costs 
     associated with the change in the level of the participation 
     in the Asian Pacific Cooperation conference held in Seattle 
     in November 1993 from Ministerial to Heads-of-State.


                           amendment no. 1298

    (Purpose: To require a report on the activities of the People's 
                          Mujaheddin of Iran)

       On page   , between lines    and  , insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The People's Mujaheddin of Iran receives material, 
     logistic, and financial support from the Iraq Government.
       (2) The People's Mujaheddin of Iran has been involved in 
     terrorist activities since the inception of the organization 
     in 1963.
       (3) During the past 30 years, terrorist activities of the 
     People's Mujaheddin of Iran have resulted in the deaths of 
     more than 10,000 Iranians.
       (4) The People's Mujaheddin of Iran is responsible for the 
     deaths of several United States military advisers in 1972 and 
     1973, for the deaths of two Air Force officers in 1975, and 
     the deaths of three United States employees of the Rockwell 
     International Corporation in 1976.
       (5) The People's Mujaheddin of Iran actively and vigorously 
     supported the seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran, 
     Iran, in 1979.
       (6) The Department of State informally recognizes the 
     involvement of the People's Mujaheddin of Iran in 
     international terrorist activities and has refused contact 
     with representatives of the organization.
       (7) The annual report of the Secretary of State on 
     terrorist activities does not provide adequate information on 
     the terrorist activities of the People's Mujaheddin of Iran.
       (8) The past activities of the People's Mujaheddin of Iran, 
     and the current policy of the Department of State with 
     respect to the organization, create a presumption that the 
     organization is currently engaged in international terrorist 
     activities.
       (b) Except as provided in subsection (d), the annual report 
     of the Secretary of State that is submitted to Congress on 
     April 30, 1994, under section 140 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Public Law 
     100-204; 22 U.S.C. 2656f) shall include information referred 
     to in subsection (c) on the People's Mujaheddin of Iran.
       (c) The report referred to in subsection (b) shall 
     include--
       (1) an assessment of the activities of the People's 
     Mujaheddin of Iran in accordance with subsection (a)(1) of 
     such section 140; and
       (2) any other relevant information on the People's 
     Mujaheddin of Iran referred to in subsection (a)(2) of such 
     section 140, including a detailed discussion of each of the 
     matters referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (D) of 
     subsection (b)(2) of such section.
       (d) The Secretary may elect not to include the information 
     referred to in subsection (c) in the report referred to in 
     subsection (b). In the event of such an election, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate a justification for such election.
       (e) In the event of an election under subsection (d), not 
     less than sixty days from the submittal of the report 
     referred to in subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit an 
     unclassified report to Congress detailing the structure 
     current activities, external support and history of the 
     People's Mujaheddin of Iran. Such report shall include any 
     connection to organizations operating in the United States.
       (f) In this section, the term ``People's Mujaheddin of 
     Iran'' means the organization also know as the Mujaheddin-e 
     Khalq that is based in Iraq and led by Iranian expatriates 
     Massoud Rajavi or Maryam Rajavi and includes any group or 
     organization associated with such organization, including the 
     Iraqi-based National Liberation Army and the National Council 
     of Resistance of Iran.


                           amendment no. 1299

  (Purpose: To impose notification and waiting requirements regarding 
    certain events involving the Missile Technology Control Regime)

       On page 179, after line 6, add the following:

     SEC. 714. NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS ON CERTAIN EVENT INVOLVING 
                   THE MTCR.

       (a) Export in Support of Space Launch Vehicle (SLV) 
     Programs.--At least 30 days before the export of any item 
     controlled pursuant to United States obligations under the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime and intended to support the 
     design, development, or production of a Category I system, as 
     defined in the MTCR Annex, to be utilized for the launch of 
     satellites into space, the President shall transmit to 
     Congress a report describing the proposed export and the 
     rationale for approving such export, including the 
     consistency of such export with United States missile 
     nonproliferation policy. The President may waive the 30-day 
     waiting period in any case in which the President certifies 
     in the report that the national security interests of the 
     United States necessitate immediate approval of the export or 
     that the export represents the continuation of a long-
     standing relationship with an MTCR partner.
       (b) United States Position Regarding Admission of New MTCR 
     Members.--At least 30 days before the United States takes the 
     position to favor the admission of a particular country into 
     the Missile Technology Control Regime, the President shall 
     transmit to Congress a report describing the rationale for 
     such position together with all relevant information 
     concerning that country's nonproliferation policies, 
     practices,and commitments. The President may waive the 30-day 
     waiting period in any case in which the President certifies 
     in the report that the national security interests of the 
     United States necessitate immediate approval of the new 
     member.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the terms ``Missile Technology Control Regime'' and 
     ``MTCR'' mean the policy statement, 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 the MTCR Annex, and any amendments thereto; and
       (2) the term ``MTCR Annex'' means the Guidelines and 
     Equipment and Technology Annex of the MTCR, and any 
     amendments thereto.


                           amendment no. 1300

  (Purpose: To retain the statutory charter of the Office of Foreign 
Missions to assist with diplomatic reciprocity and counterintelligence 
                               functions)

       On page 43, beginning on line 22, strike section 138 of the 
     bill.
       On page 3, strike from the table of contents of the bill 
     the item relating to section 138.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, the purpose of this amendment is 
simple. It would preserve in law the existing status of the Office of 
Foreign Missions [OFM] within the Department of State.
  That office was created in 1982 by the Department of State 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983--Public Law 97-241. At 
the time Congress was concerned that foreign diplomats in the United 
States were enjoying benefits denied to U.S. diplomats abroad. The 
Office of Foreign Missions, by controlling the privileges of foreign 
diplomats in the United States, gives us the means to improve the 
treatment of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad. Congress also sought to 
ensure that the OFM assisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its 
counterintelligence mission.
  The cold war may have ended, but nothing has happened to alter OFM's 
charter. Indeed, it plays as important a role today as when it was 
created in 1982.
  Section 138 of the bill would, in the interests of streamlining and 
consolidating functions under the Secretary of State, abolish the 
statutory mandate for the OFM, leaving its continued existence a matter 
of discretion for future Secretaries.
  Senator Warner and I believe this is undesirable, inevitably 
weakening the status of the office. Also, by mandating the existence of 
the office in law the State Department is relieved of the burden of 
explaining and justifying to other governments why their diplomats in 
the United States must be regulated. The Department ought to appreciate 
having a congressional enactment to rely on in this regard.
  In short, we believe that the statutory provisions relating to OFM 
should remain intact. That is all our amendment would do.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated August 
3, 1993, which Senator Warner and I sent to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations concerning this amendment be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I understand that this amendment is agreeable to the 
floor managers on both sides and thus I hope that it can be accepted by 
voice vote.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                             Select Committee on Intelligence,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1993.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman,

     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Ranking Republican,
     Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Gentlemen: Section 138 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (S. 1281) would 
     abolish the statutory mandate for the Office of Foreign 
     Missions (OFM). In our judgment, the establishment and 
     operation of the OFM is vital to the effective conduct of 
     U.S. diplomatic and counterintelligence affairs. We fear that 
     both would suffer if OFM's statutory charter is repealed. We 
     respectfully urge, therefore, that appropriate action be 
     taken to remove Section 138 from the bill.
       In 1982, Congress created the OFM in the Department of 
     State Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983 
     (Public Law 97-241). Congress was concerned that foreign 
     diplomats in the U.S. enjoyed benefits denied to U.S. 
     diplomats abroad. The OFM, by controlling the privileges of 
     foreign diplomats in the U.S., gave the U.S. the means to 
     improve the treatment of U.S. personnel abroad. Congress also 
     sought to ensure that the OFM assisted the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation (FBI) in the performance of its 
     counterintelligence mission. Repeal of OFM's charter would 
     likely impair the provision of this crucial support to the 
     FBI.
       It was not clear to us from your Committee's report why the 
     change in the OFM statute was recommended. If, as it appears, 
     the motivation was simply to give the Secretary of State 
     additional organizational flexibility, we urge you to 
     reconsider the matter. In our view, the existence of OFM is 
     of vital importance and should not depend upon the decision 
     of an executive branch official. We would note also that 
     mandating the existence of the office by law relieves the 
     Department of State of the burden of explaining and 
     justifying its existence to foreign countries which 
     undoubtedly would prefer that their diplomats not be 
     regulated.
       We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this 
     matter and we look forward to working with you on it.
           Sincerely,
     Dennis DeConcini,
       Chairman.
     John W. Warner,
       Vice Chairman.


                           amendment no. 1301

(Purpose: To encourage the assignment of Foreign Service officers with 
               advanced proficiency in foreign languages)

       On page 65, after line 12, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 155. ASSIGNMENT OF FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS WITH 
                   ADVANCED PROFICIENCY IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to 
     encourage the assignment of Foreign Service personnel with 
     language proficiency at the S4/R4 level (full professional 
     proficiency, as tested by the Foreign Service Institute) to 
     posts or positions in which their language capabilities are 
     effectively utilized.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Department of State's Office of the Inspector 
     General noted, in its July 1993 report, that existing foreign 
     language proficiency among members of the Foreign Service is 
     not adequately weighed in the assignments process, and that 
     existing skills are not adequately utilized, and
       (2) the Department of State's Office of the Inspector 
     General urged that the Department has legitimate requirements 
     at overseas posts that can only be satisfied through S4/R4 
     level skills, and recommended that certain overseas positions 
     be designated at the S4/R4 competency level.
       (c) Program.--(1) Pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4022), the Secretary of State 
     shall direct the establishment and apportionment of a certain 
     number of overseas positions, at the S4/R4 level, in each of 
     a majority of overseas missions, as follows:
       (A) For missions using world languages with more than 13 
     Foreign Service Officer positions assigned by the Department 
     of State, 8 percent of positions and not less than one 
     position will be established at the S4/R4 level.
       (B) For posts using hard or incentive languages, with more 
     than nine Foreign Service Officer positions assigned by the 
     Department of State, the number of S4/R4-designated positions 
     shall be at least 4 percent of positions, and not less than 
     one position.
       (2) Overseas posts and the Department of State shall retain 
     flexibility to apportion S4/R4 language-designated positions 
     within respective overseas posts.
       (3) Assignment of personnel with full professional 
     proficiency shall be completed not later than September 30, 
     1995.
       (d) Report to the Congress.--The Secretary of State shall 
     report to the Congress not later than September 30, 1994, 
     describing the progress made toward implementation of this 
     section.

  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, we have the world's only Foreign Service 
with no language entry requirement, so it is particularly important 
that we encourage proficiency in languages among Foreign Service 
officers. I've put forward several measures in the authorization bill, 
and others in past years, with the object of raising language 
proficiency in the Foreign Service.
  I now offer another amendment, modestly designed to stimulate the 
assignment to our overseas posts of Foreign Service officers who speak 
and read the local language well.
  S4/R4--speaking:four/reading:four--is the score given to Foreign 
Service officers with so-called full professional proficiency in a 
language. This means real fluency, the ability to appear at a public 
meeting or be interviewed on television. Getting and keeping an S4/R4 
takes hard work and talent. In comparison, S5/R5 is the score for an 
educated native-language speaker.
  Last year I consulted with numerous ambassadorial nominees, Foreign 
Service officers, who stressed the importance of having at least some 
staffers in their Embassies with full professional proficiency.
  But we have never, so far, accepted full professional proficiency as 
a requirement for any job in any of our Embassies overseas. The highest 
current requirement for any job is minimum professional proficiency, 
which is defined as able to speak the language with sufficient 
structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most 
formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and 
professional topics. In other words, able to make yourself understood, 
sort of, most of the time.
  This isn't good enough. My amendment mandates the State Department to 
assign Foreign Service officers with full professional proficiency to 8 
percent of the Foreign Service officer positions in each significantly 
sized mission, with not less than one position per mission.
  We have many fine linguists in our Foreign Service. Often, we aren't 
using their talents as we should.
  Full professional proficiency is what we should increasingly expect 
of our Embassies overseas, and 8 percent seems to me a modest 
beginning. I hope you agree.


                           amendment no. 1302

  (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on encouraging the peace 
                      process in Northern Ireland)

       On page 179, below line 6, add the following new section:

     SEC. 714. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE PEACE PROCESS IN NORTHERN 
                   IRELAND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The people of Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Great 
     Britain earnestly seek a peaceful end to a conflict in the 
     North of Ireland which has caused more than 3,000 deaths 
     since 1969.
       (2) The people of the United States, many of whom share a 
     common ancestry and cultural roots with the people of 
     Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Great Britain, are deeply 
     concerned about the continuing conflict and desire to 
     facilitate an early resolution to the conflict.
       (3) In 1993, John Hume, head of the Social Democratic and 
     Labour Party and Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Fein, 
     conducted talks on the conflict.
       (4) These talks were a significant contribution to a 
     climate encouraging peace in the North of Ireland.
       (5) The Government of the United Kingdom and the Government 
     of Ireland have held talks on Northern Ireland culminating in 
     the Joint Declaration issued by the two governments on 
     December 15, which declaration offers a framework for lasting 
     peace in the region.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the United States should strongly encourage all parties to 
     the conflict in the North of Ireland to renounce violence and 
     to participate in the current search for peace in the region.

  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, I think we all agree that one of the 
most persistent and tragic troublespots in the world is Northern 
Ireland. Recently, there have been encouraging signs that at least some 
of the parties to the dispute there may be prepared to forgo violence 
and turn toward peaceful dialog in an effort to bring the troubles to 
an end. Many of us were encouraged when John Hume, head of the Social 
Democratic and Labor Party, and Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, 
revealed that after months of meetings the two sides had apparently 
conducted serious discussions aimed at bringing peace to Northern 
Ireland.
  In the wake of the Hume-Adams initiative, the Irish and British 
Governments have also undertaken important talks. The Downing Street 
Joint Declaration which resulted is a new milestone in efforts to bring 
the troubles to an end. Many Americans, concerned about the troubles in 
Northern Ireland, are hopeful that this new effort will bear fruit. It 
is on this basis that I have offered this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution encouraging the process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 1303

   (Purpose: To make available funds for the recruitment of Hispanic 
 Americans into the Foreign Service and other careers in international 
                                affairs)

       On page 9, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       (4) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'' under subsection (a)(2), $300,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 1994 and 1995 is authorized to 
     be available for the recruitment by the Department of State 
     of Hispanic American students from United States institutions 
     of higher education (as defined in section 1201(a) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965) with a high percentage 
     enrollment of Hispanic Americans for the purpose of training 
     such individuals for careers in the Foreign Service and 
     international affairs.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I have sent an amendment to the desk to 
authorize $300,000 from the State Department's salaries and expenses 
account for the recruitment and training of Hispanic-Americans in the 
Foreign Service.
  Our diplomats are America's face to the world. They are the people 
who live abroad and represent not only American interests, but America 
itself. For our diplomatic corps properly to represent the United 
States, it must mirror the diversity of American society.
  Indeed, one of our most effective diplomatic tools in this post-cold 
war environment is the power of America's example as a prosperous, 
democratic, multiethnic, multicultural democracy. One of the lessons of 
the recent Russian elections is that people must have a vision of how 
such a democracy can function. Our ability to project that vision by 
our example is undercut by the unrepresentative nature of our current 
Foreign Service.
  In addition, it is essential that all individuals, from all ethnic 
and gender groups, have equal opportunity to pursue a career in the 
diplomatic service. This is the flip side of the American example, 
living by our own principles.
  No one argues against the need for a representative diplomatic corps. 
Where we differ with the administration is in the criterion of success. 
The administration's criterion is process. It argues that it has 
programs in place to ensure that all gender and minority groups are 
represented in appropriate numbers. My criterion is stricter--results. 
And the results are sobering. The administration's programs are not 
working. Hispanic-Americans in particular are badly underrepresented in 
the Foreign Service. Let me cite a few statistics:
  Whereas Hispanic-Americans are America's fastest growing ethnic group 
and in 1990 made up 9 percent of the American population, they made up 
only 4.2 percent of Foreign Service Officers in fiscal year 1993.
  This figure is no improvement over 1992 in percentage terms, and a 
drop of three officers in absolute terms.
  It is also only a small increase over the 1985-91 average of 3.8 
percent.
  At the senior executive level, there are only 10 Hispanic men, 
including 2 ambassadors, and no Hispanic women.
  There clearly is a need for better results. The House has recognized 
this problem by appropriating $500,000 per year in fiscal years 1994 
and 1995 for recruiting and training Hispanic-Americans into our 
Foreign Service. My amendment aims at the same goal by authorizing 
$300,000 per year. In this way, my amendment will put the State 
Department on notice that Hispanic-Americans must have equal 
opportunity to represent their country--our country--in the Foreign 
Service. It will put the State Department on notice that the only 
acceptable criterion is results.


                           amendment no. 1304

  (Purpose: To require restoration of retired pay improperly withheld 
 from any retired member of the uniformed services furnishing military 
                 service to a newly democratic nation)

       On page 179, after line 6, add the following:

     SEC. 714. RESTORATION OF WITHHELD BENEFITS.

       (a) Eligibility.--With respect to any person for which the 
     Secretary of State and the Secretary concerned within the 
     Department of Defense has approved the employment or the 
     holding of a position pursuant to the provisions of section 
     1058, title 10, United States Code, before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the consents, approvals and 
     determinations under that section shall be deemed to be 
     effective as of January 1, 1993.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Subsection (d) of section 1433 
     of Public Law 103-160 is repealed.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, last spring, the Department of Defense 
terminated the military retired pay of Col. Alexander Einseln, an 
American citizen and former active duty Army officer, for accepting the 
position of Commander in Chief of the Estonian Armed Forces. In the 
interest of assisting Colonel Einseln in his vital effort to reform the 
Estonian military, I took action on the 1994 Defense bill to gain 
approval for his employment with the Government of Estonia and restore 
his military retired pay.
  Colonel Einseln's service to the Government of Estonia was approved 
by both the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Army as required by 
Public Law 103-160. Notification was made to the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service and Colonel Einseln has begun to receive his checks.
  Because of a drafting error in the legislation and a difference of 
legal opinion, however, the Department of Defense failed to make 
payment on the pay withheld from Colonel Einseln in the course of 1993. 
The intent of my amendment today is to require the Department of 
Defense to make payment on the portion of his retired pay withheld.
  It is my hope that the Department of Defense will act expeditiously 
to restore retroactively the pay that Colonel Einseln earned with more 
than 30 years of service to our Nation.


                           amendment no. 1305

(Purpose: To extend the auto parts advisory committee to advise United 
States auto parts negotiators in trade negotiations with Japan, and for 
                            other purposes)

       On page 129, after line 6, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . EXTENSION OF THE FAIR TRADE IN AUTO PARTS ACT OF 
                   1988.

       (a) In General.--Section 2125 of the Fair Trade in Auto 
     Parts Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4704) is amended by striking 
     ``1993'' and inserting ``1998''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on December 30, 1993.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am offering an amendment, along with 
Senators Riegle and Wofford, to extend an important industry advisory 
group that advises the administration on auto parts issues.
  My amendment extends the Auto Parts Advisory Committee which advises 
the administration on auto parts trade negotiations. The Auto Parts 
Advisory Committee, known as APAC, is a national advisory committee 
established by the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act included in the Omnibus 
Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. This committee, made up of 
members of the U.S. auto parts industry, advises the Department of 
Commerce on programs to increase sales of United States-made auto parts 
and accessories to Japanese automotive manufacturers world wide. APAC 
members are private sector representatives who devote their time and 
extensive expertise and receive no Government compensation for their 
membership on the committee.
  We are at a critical juncture in the ongoing United States auto parts 
negotiations with Japan, yet APAC authority has expired as of December 
31, 1993. In recognition of APAC's significant contributions to the 
auto parts debate and the U.S. negotiating position, we must quickly 
extend their life.
  The Department of Commerce, the agency taking the lead on auto parts 
negotiations, has urged us to extend APAC authority because of the 
invaluable contributions APAC has made to the process. The Department 
of Commerce continues to need this industry input during the critical 
framework auto-parts negotiations with Japan. President Clinton has 
also urged us to act swiftly to extend APAC. In a letter he sent me on 
this topic President Clinton said of the Auto Parts Advisory Committee:

       During the past 5 years of its existence, the committee has 
     provided, on a continuing basis, sound advice to the 
     administration on the very complex issues involved in 
     automotive trade with Japan. Beginning in the summer of 1992, 
     the Department of Commerce initiated the process to 
     reauthorize the committee for an additional 5 years . . . 
     [we] will appreciate your efforts in ensuring the swift 
     passage of this legislation.

  Let me reiterate that APAC's reauthorization is particularly time 
sensitive because of the need for the administration to continue to 
receive important industry guidance and support during the critical 
weeks of the United States-Japan economic framework negotiations. I ask 
unanimous consent that the President's letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, January 6, 1994.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Carl: Thank you for your thoughtful letter regarding 
     the expiration of the Automotive Parts Advisory Committee to 
     the Department of Commerce.
       During the past five years of its existence, the Committee 
     has provided, on a continuing basis, sound advice to the 
     Administration on the very complex issues involved in 
     automotive trade with Japan. Beginning in the summer of 1992, 
     the Department of Commerce initiated the process to 
     reauthorize the Committee for an additional five years. 
     Proposed legislation was sent to the Congress in October of 
     last year but, unfortunately, it was not enacted before 
     Congress adjourned.
       We intend to re-submit proposed legislation to Congress 
     early in 1994, and will appreciate your efforts in ensuring 
     the swift passage of this legislation. In the interim, I have 
     instructed the Department of Commerce to seek temporary 
     authorization for the Committee to meet so that the 
     Administration may continue to receive important industry 
     guidance and support during the approaching critical weeks of 
     the U.S.-Japan Economic Framework negotiations.
       Thank you for your support of the Administration's efforts 
     on behalf of the U.S. automotive industry.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, APAC has been an important catalyst in 
organizing a diverse auto parts industry that includes over 5,000 U.S.-
owned companies, many of them small businesses, and directly employing 
over 700,000 people. This has led to a more unified industry able to 
make important contributions to the trade debate. APAC has also made 
significant contributions to the wealth of knowledge of our U.S. 
negotiations and bolstered the U.S. negotiating position on auto parts.
  APAC's contributions to the process in the 5 years since the 
enactment of the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act include American 
Government and industry conducted studies on the competitiveness of the 
United States auto parts industry and of the barriers to trade faced in 
selling to Japan. APAC has also issued a number of reports and 
recommendations to the Commerce Department on what steps must be taken 
to open Japan's markets to United States auto parts.
  Both the auto parts industry and the administration strongly support 
a swift extension of APAC so that it can continue to contribute to the 
ongoing United States-Japan auto parts negotiations. APAC's guidance 
and support to the administration bolsters our negotiating hand both in 
providing industry knowledge and presenting a united front to our 
negotiating partners.
  I commend the hardworking members of APAC for their dedicated service 
to the United States and hope that APAC will soon be extended so it can 
continue to provide these invaluable services for an additional 5 
years.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, to reauthorize 
the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act of 1988. I would also like to commend 
Senator Levin for his leadership on this issue and commend the efforts 
of the other members of Congressional Auto Parts caucus.
  This amendment will insure that the Automotive Parts Advisory 
Committee will continue its work. This is especially important as we 
reach a critical state in the United States-Japan economic framework 
negotiations.
  As many of my colleagues know, these negotiations are essentially 
stalled, with a critical deadline approaching. President Clinton and 
the Japanese Prime Minister Hosokawa are scheduled to meet February 11 
to review progress on the United States-Japan framework negotiations--
including progress on negotiations to open the Japanese market and 
Japanese auto transplants in this country to U.S. autos and auto parts. 
Yet, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown is quoted as saying, ``We haven't had 
a lot of luck in negotiations thus far.'' Secretary Brown also said 
that the deficit with Japan could jump 20 percent this year to $60 
billion.
  So far, the administration seems to be holding firm on the 
negotiations. Treasury Secretary Bensten, during his recent trip to 
Japan, said:

       We'd rather have no agreement than have a weak agreement or 
     something that has a cosmetic result where we go home patting 
     each other on the back.

  I believe it is important for the administration to continue to stand 
firm in all aspects of the negotiations--especially specific measurable 
targets and access to Japanese auto transplants. The auto parts deficit 
alone accounted roughly 20 percent of our total trade deficit with 
Japan. Thus, it is easy to understand the importance of the Automotive 
Parts Advisory Committee.
  I also believe that the administration must be prepared to take tough 
action if the negotiations fail. Last year, I introduced S. 1132, the 
Fair Trade in Motor Vehicle Parts of 1993, to extend the existing Fair 
Trade in Auto Parts Act for 5 years and strengthens our ability to deal 
with unfair trade practices in auto parts.
  In addition to reauthorizing the 1988 act, S. 1132 mandates section 
301 actions against countries whose policies effectively limit U.S. 
motor vehicle parts manufacturers' access to their market. It also 
requires the USTR to undertake negotiations to eliminate trade barriers 
that limit the access to U.S. auto parts manufacturers and requires the 
Commerce Secretary to initiate an antidumping investigation for motor 
vehicle parts imports from countries with which the United States has a 
motor vehicle parts deficit of $5 billion or more in each of the 
preceding 3 years.
  The bill also attacks the well documented trade restricting aspects 
of the Japanese keiretsu system head on. If a country's distribution 
system restricts access to their market, that barrier would be 
considered an unfair trade practice.
  These are some of the actions I believe the administration should 
consider if the framework negotiations fail to resolve the problem of 
the trade imbalance in autos and auto parts between the United States 
and Japan.
  We in Congress can take a step toward the resolution of the trade 
imbalance by supporting the amendment by Senator Levin. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Michigan in introducing this legislation to extend the Fair Trade in 
Auto Parts Act.
  Among other things, the act requires the Secretary of Commerce to 
establish an initiative to increase sales of United States-made auto 
parts and accessories to Japanese markets.
  In my State of Pennsylvania, 17,000 workers are employed in auto 
manufacturing related industries. And these workers consistently turn 
out a high-quality, competitively priced product.
  So, for these workers and their families, the current trade imbalance 
with Japan is unfair and unacceptable. During the last 8 years of auto 
parts negotiations, the United States auto parts deficit with Japan has 
grown from $3.3 billion in 1985 to nearly $11 billion in 1993. There's 
been a lot of talk, but no action from the Japanese.
  During the talks leading up to the President's visit to Japan next 
month, the United States needs to obtain definite commitments by 
Japanese auto manufacturers to increase the purchase of United States 
parts. And if we can't achieve a more balanced trade relationship this 
way, the United States should use the available laws to level the 
playing field.
  The legislation we are introducing today will help the United States 
Government keep its focus on improving the trade imbalance with the 
Japanese in the auto parts sector. It should also serve as signal to 
the Japanese Government and auto industry of our resolve to reverse 
that imbalance.


                           amendment no. 1306

  (Purpose: To require a report of the use of Haitian, Iraqi, Iranian 
 frozen or blocked government assets or any other official government 
             assets frozen or blocked by the United States)

       On page 179, after line 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 714. REPORT ON THE USE OF FOREIGN FROZEN OR BLOCKED 
                   ASSETS.

       Not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
     House of Representatives a report containing a detailed 
     accounting analysis and justification for all expenditures 
     made from foreign governments' assets that have been frozen 
     or blocked by the United States Government, including but not 
     limited to those expenditures made from Haitian frozen or 
     blocked assets by the Government of President Jean Bertrand 
     Aristide, and those made from Iranian and Iraqi frozen or 
     blocked assets.


                           amendment no. 1307

       On page 12, line 3, strike ``$14,200,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$16,000,000''.

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, in accordance with President Clinton's 
budget request for fiscal year 1994, S. 1281 authorizes $14.2 million 
for fiscal year 1994 for the International Fisheries Commissions in 
section 103(4) of the bill.
  Because of the critical need for sea lamprey control, Congress 
appropriated $2 million for fiscal year 1994 above the President's 
budget request. This additional amount was designed to help the Great 
Lakes Fisheries Commission pay for the cost of registering the 
lampricide TFM with EPA. Because of this appropriation, the Great Lakes 
Fisheries Commission has announced that it will be able to continue its 
vital lamprey control program during fiscal year 1994.
  My amendment would increase the authorized amount for fiscal year 
1994 for the International Fisheries Commission to $16.2 million in 
order to accommodate this increase in funds which have already been 
appropriated.
  Failure to authorize an additional $2 million for registration of the 
pesticide TFM would not be a cost effective strategy. Sea lamprey 
control is essential to maintaining Great Lakes fisheries. The economic 
value of the Great Lakes sport and commercial fisheries is estimated at 
$2 to $4 billion annually.
  I urge adoption of my amendment.


                           amendment no. 1308

     (Purpose: To promote sustainable development and the American 
                   Environmental Technology Industry)

       At the appropriate place in this Act insert the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that the President has 
     determined that sustainable development is one of the goals 
     of United States foreign policy and therefore, the United 
     States, in conducting bilateral and multilateral 
     negotiations, should to the maximum extent feasible, take 
     into consideration the principles of sustainable development 
     that encourage broad based economic growth, protect the 
     environment, build human capital and knowledge, and promote 
     democratic participation and development.
       It is the further sense of the Senate that domestic 
     producers of environmental goods and services should, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, be notified of any potential 
     business opportunities which result from United States 
     bilateral and multilateral assistance programs and 
     negotiations.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise to introduce an amendment to this 
bill to promote sustainable development as a goal of American foreign 
policy. This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and I believe it has 
been cleared by both sides.
  The amendment notes that the President has declared sustainable 
development a goal of our foreign policy. Given that, it states that in 
our various international and bilateral negotiations and to the extent 
feasible, the United States shall take the principles of sustainable 
development into consideration.
  Sustainable development, of course, is an attempt to promote broad-
based economic growth; but growth that promotes environmental 
protection; stabilizes world population growth; builds human capital 
and knowledge; and promotes democratic participation and development. 
It is a new approach, and President Clinton has made a top priority in 
foreign policy. I hope the Senate will back him up.
  Finally, and to take us from the visionary to the practical, the 
amendment also states the sense of the Senate that domestic producers 
of environmental goods and services shall be notified of the business 
opportunities which result from our negotiations.
  Once again, this amendment has the support of both sides, and the 
administration as well. I urge the Senate to adopt it.


                           amendment no. 1309

       On page 101, line 24, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$1,000,000''.
       On page 102, line 12, strike ``$4,500,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$1,500,000''.


                           amendment no. 1310

 (Purpose: To provide for the coordination of refugee affairs programs 
through officials other than the United States Coordinator for Refugee 
                                Affairs)

       On page 42, strike out lines 5 through 11 and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       (a) Coordination of Refugee Affairs.--Section 301 of the 
     Refugee Act of 1980 (8 U.S.C. 1525) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``Sec. 301. (a) The Secretary of State, together with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney 
     General, shall--
       ``(1) develop overall United States refugee admission and 
     resettlement policy;
       ``(2) coordinate all United States domestic and 
     international refugee admission and resettlement programs in 
     a manner that assures that policy objectives are met in a 
     timely fashion;
       ``(3) develop an effective and responsive liaison between 
     the Federal Government and voluntary organizations, Governors 
     and mayors, and others involved in refugee relief and 
     resettlement work to reflect overall United States Government 
     policy; and
       ``(4) make recommendations to the President and to the 
     Congress with respect to policies for, objectives of, and 
     establishment of priorities for, Federal functions relating 
     to refugee admission and resettlement in the United States.
       ``(b) In the conduct of the duties described in subsection 
     (a), the Secretary of State, together with the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services and the Attorney General, shall 
     consult regularly with States, localities, and private 
     nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship 
     process and the intended distribution of refugees.
       ``(c) The Secretary of State, together with the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General, shall 
     design an overall budget strategy to provide individual 
     agencies with policy guidance on refugee matters in the 
     preparation of their budget requests, and to provide the 
     Office of Management and Budget with an overview of all 
     refugee-related budget requests.''.
       (b) Amendments to the Refugee Act of 1980.--Title III of 
     the Refugee Act of 1980 is amended--
       (1) in the title heading, by striking ``UNITED STATES 
     COORDINATOR FOR REFUGEE AFFAIRS'' and inserting ``UNITED 
     STATES COORDINATION OF REFUGEE AFFAIRS''; and
       (2) in the heading of part A, by striking ``United States 
     Coordinator for Refugee Affairs'' and inserting United States 
     Coordination of Refugee Affairs''.
       On page 43, line 4, before the semicolon, insert ``and 
     inserting `, together with the Secretary of State,'''.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am offering today with my colleague 
on the Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Simpson, a modest amendment to 
ensure coordination between the various agencies of the executive 
branch in developing and implementing U.S. refugee policy.
  Section 137(a) of S. 1281 eliminates the Office of U.S. Coordinator 
for Refugee Affairs. The Coordinator's office was established in the 
Refugee Act of 1980 to ensure coordination between the Department of 
State, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department 
of Justice in planning for refugee entry and resettlement in the United 
States.
  Although many fine people served in the Coordinator role since 1980, 
much of the Coordinator's independent authority eroded over time. 
Therefore, it is perhaps appropriate that Senator Pell's bill 
eliminates that office. The need for coordination between Federal 
agencies on refugee program issues has not abated, however. States and 
localities continue to be concerned about refugee resettlement on their 
communities, highlighting the importance of a coordinated and well-
articulated resettlement policy among Federal agencies.
  The amendment thus does not change S. 1281's elimination of the U.S. 
Coordinator's office. Instead, it provides that the Department of State 
shall coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services and 
the Attorney General on the development of overall refugee resettlement 
policy, accomplishment of refugee policy objectives, and liaison 
between the Federal Government and States and localities. It further 
requires these three agencies to work together in designing an overall 
budget strategy for refugee program matters.


                           amendment no. 1311

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     sections:
       Section 1. Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1255, is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) 
     and (c) of this section, an alien physically present in the 
     United States who (A) entered the United States without 
     inspection; or (B) is within one of the classes enumerated in 
     subsection (c) of this section may apply to the Attorney 
     General for the adjustment of his or her status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The Attorney 
     General may accept such application only if the alien remits 
     with such application a sum equalling five times the fee 
     required for the processing of applications under this 
     section as of the date of receipt of the application. The sum 
     specified herein shall be in addition to the fee normally 
     required for the processing of an application under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Upon receipt of such an application and the sum 
     hereby required, the Attorney General may adjust the status 
     of the alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence if (A) the alien is eligible to receive 
     an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for 
     permanent residence; and (B) an immigrant visa is immediately 
     available to the alien at the time the application is filed.
       ``(3) Sums remitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be disposed 
     of by the Attorney General as provided in sections 286 (m), 
     (n), and (o) of this Title.''
       Section 2. Section 212(a)(9) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9), is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(D) An alien applying for an immigrant visa who has been 
     physically present in the United States within the ninety day 
     period immediately preceding the date of such application is 
     excludable.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague on 
the Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Simpson, in offering this 
amendment to strengthen the capacity of our consular services overseas 
by changing a provision of current immigration law.
  According to both the Department of State and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service about 30 percent of current immigrant visa 
applicants at consular posts abroad have been living in the United 
States prior to their application for an immigrant visa. Because they 
are prohibited by section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) from adjusting their status to that of immigrant 
while they are in the United States, these individuals--including 
children--are required to leave the United States and secure a visa at 
a U.S. consular section so they may reenter as immigrants.
  Designed to dissuade visa overstays and others circumventing normal 
visa requirements, this provision of law has not provided the intended 
deterrent to illegal immigration and its effect as a penalty for 
violation of our immigration laws has been minimal. Further, it has 
become very costly and time-consuming for the Department of State's 
Consular Service to provide visa services for this group of 
individuals.
  In examining the Department of State authorization bill, we have 
found that certain of its provisions could adversely effect the 
Department of State's budgetary capacity to provide consular services 
for our citizens both here in the United States and abroad. These 
provisions, such as freezing the size of the Foreign Service, 
authorizing the collection of application fees for nonimmigrant visas, 
and instituting statutorily mandated sanctions for the erroneous 
issuance of a nonimmigrant visa, have worthy goals. Nevertheless, if 
they are instituted without consideration for funding or personnel 
shifts they will inevitably require, services to U.S. citizens will 
suffer.
  Our proposed amendment to the pending bill, is designed to reduce 
significantly the immigrant visa processing caseload at consular 
offices abroad. If adopted, these changes could eliminate at least 30 
percent of the workload of the immigrant visa sections at our 
consulates. This could free as many as 40 officer positions and over 
200 foreign service national positions to cover the new consular 
requirements.
  Additionally, by moving the immigrant visa processing now done 
overseas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] 
adjudication centers in the United States, we will generate funds to 
meet the costs of those services and provide INS resources to protect 
the integrity of the immigration process. INS has both the capacity and 
willingness to assume these responsibilities with the funds that will 
be made available to it through the additional fees mandated in our 
amendment.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.


                           amendment no. 1312

(Purpose: To include in the Secretary of State's annual country report 
   on terrorism a description of terrorist assets held in the United 
                                States)

       On page 94, strike out lines 3 through 12 and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       (a) In General.--Section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 
     2656f(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by redesignating subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``Terrorism.--
     '';
       (4) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (5) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) the nature and extent of assets held in the United 
     States on behalf of foreign countries and groups responsible 
     for the acts described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(2) In reporting on the information required by paragraph 
     (1)(C), the Secretary of State shall consult with the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and such 
     other heads of relevant departments and agencies of the 
     United States as may be necessary.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 140(b) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection (a)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(A)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(B)''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the amendment before us will require 
the U.S. Government to compile an annual report on assets held by 
terrorist nations and groups in the United States.
  This amendment is similar to one that was adopted as part of the 1992 
State Department reauthorization bill. And, I understand this amendment 
has been accepted on both sides.
  Under the 1992 amendment, the Treasury Department is required to 
compile and issue an annual report on these terrorist assets. 
Unfortunately, the Treasury Department, under both the Bush and Clinton 
administrations, has been derelict in its duty to carry out the law.
  After being nearly a year and a half late in issuing its first 
report, Treasury did finally issue one that was short on information 
and severely lacking in details. Despite the law's direction to compile 
information on both terrorist states and groups or organizations, 
Treasury chose to report only on country assets and ignored its 
responsibility regarding information on group assets. Disregarding its 
mandate, Treasury stated that it ``does not compile information on the 
holdings of private individuals or organizations in the United States 
unless those assets are subject to sanctions * * *.''
  Because the Treasury Department appears to be unable to carry out 
this responsibility, the amendment before us will transfer the 
responsibility to the State Department as part of its already well-
established annual terrorist report. The State Department will consult 
with Treasury and other relevent investigative agencies in order to 
prepare a detailed asset report.
  With the advent of terrorist attacks within the United States in the 
last year, the need for more information on terrorists has become 
imperative. Information on terrorist assets will help law enforcement, 
as well as victims of terrorism, to go after the money and property 
that funds terrorist activities. Without these assets, terrorists will 
not be able to function.
  One of the major purposes of the asset report is to help implement 
the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992, which I sponsored. Under this law, we 
gave victims of terrorism the authority to sue terrorists for civil 
damages. A detailed asset report will help victims locate and satisfy 
any court-awarded damages.
  A detailed terrorist asset report is necessary if we are going to 
carry out a successful overall anti-terrorism strategy. I look forward 
to working with the State Department as it carries out this mandate.


                           AMENDMENT No. 1313

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     ``SEC.  . PASSPORT SECURITY.

       ``(a) It is the Sense of the Congress that the Department 
     of State is strongly urged to assure that any new passport 
     issuances should, to the maximum extent practicable:
       ``(1) be secure against counterfeiting, alteration, 
     duplication or simulation;
       ``(2) be easily verifiable with appropriate inspection by 
     public officials and private and commercial personnel; and,
       ``(3) contain only American-sourced materials and 
     technology.
       ``(b) The Secretary of State shall provide a report to the 
     Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee 
     on Foreign Affairs within 30 days of enactment detailing 
     actions taken by the Department to accomplish the goals set 
     forth in subsection (a).''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1314

 (Purpose: Regarding the safety of United States personnel in Sarajevo)

       On page 179, after line 6, add the following new section:

     SEC.  . SAFETY OF UNITED STATES PERSONNEL IN SARAJEVO.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States has recognized and established 
     diplomatic relations with the Government of Bosnia-
     Hercegovina;
       (2) the United States Ambassador to Bosnia-Hercegovina does 
     not have any secure permanent or semipermanent facilities to 
     conduct United States diplomatic activities in Sarajevo;
       (3) the protracted conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina creates 
     serious physical risks to United States diplomatic personnel 
     serving there;
       (4) the United States Ambassador to Bosina-Hercegovina 
     resides and carries out his duties from Vienna, Austria; and
       (5) an increased and more secure United States diplomatic 
     presence in Sarajevo would enhance United States interests in 
     Bosnia-Hercegovina.
       (b) Policy.--(1) It is, therefore, the sense of the Senate 
     that the Secretary of State should immediately take steps to 
     increase the presence of United States diplomatic personnel 
     in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Hercegovina consistent with the objective 
     of ensuring their physical safety.
       (2) Such steps should include secure facilities, 
     communication capability, ground transportation and other 
     capabilities, as appropriate, to enable United States 
     diplomatic personnel to conduct regular official United 
     States diplomatic activities in Sarajevo.
       (c) Report.--The Secretary of State shall report to the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of 
     the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the steps taken 
     to enhance the security and safety of United States 
     diplomatic personnel not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, this amendment urges the Secretary of 
State to immediately take steps to improve the security and safety of 
our diplomatic personnel in and around Sarajevo, Bosnia and 
Hercegovina.
  The situation in Sarajevo, as it now stands, is dangerous for our 
Ambassador and his staff to function in any semblance of normality. He 
enjoys no secure permanent or semipermanent facility, no secure 
communication capability and very little security in ground 
transportation. This limits the time and the operations of our 
Ambassador and our diplomatic activities in Bosnia and Hercegovina. By 
definition, his ability to promote United States interests in Bosnia 
and Hercegovina is constrained.
  I am informed that the creation of secure diplomatic facilities in 
Sarajevo would not require any substantial increase in funding over and 
above that which is already being spent to protect him there.
  If our Ambassador and his diplomatic staff enjoyed improved security 
and safety by having secure facilities in Sarajevo, they would not only 
be safer, these personnel would be better able to promote and safeguard 
United States interests in that country.
  I urge the Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, it is my understanding that this amendment 
has been cleared on both sides.
  This amendment is very simple. It is a sense-of-the-Senate that the 
Secretary of State should immediately take steps to increase the United 
States diplomatic presence in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
consistent with the objective of ensuring their physical safety--to 
include the provision of secure facilities, communication capability, 
ground transportation and other capabilities.
  At present, the United States Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
Victor Jackovich, carries out his duties from Vienna, Austria. But, 
when he travels to Sarajevo--which is increasingly rare, due to 
limitations placed on his travel by the State Department--he is without 
a facility from which to operate.
  Now we all know that Sarajevo is a dangerous place. But, in my view, 
we need to support our Foreign Service and diplomatic personnel 
wherever they may be because they have an important role to play.
  To date, the State Department has addressed the question of safety in 
Sarajevo by essentially not addressing it. The Department's answer to 
the security question is limiting Ambassador Jackovich's travel to 
Sarajevo--not trying to enhance his security while he is in this war 
zone. While the Ambassador can carry out some of his duties from 
Vienna, he is still the Ambassador to Bosnia and must have the ability 
to represent the United States in Sarajevo on a fairly regular basis.

  I believe that it is in the United States interest to have a presence 
in Sarajevo on a more regular basis consistent with reasonable security 
requirements. The United States recognizes and has established 
diplomatic relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. While administration 
policy has been to push aside the issue of the war in Bosnia as much as 
possible, we cannot let our representation and presence in Bosnia 
suffer the same fate.
  Therefore, I hope that those responsible for this matter in the State 
Department will interpret this amendment as a big hint and move forward 
with providing the Ambassador immediately with armored vehicles, a 
reliable communications capability, and at the very least, a 
semipermanent facility for which he can operate in Sarajevo, and where 
he can take shelter if he gets stuck there during periods of 
intensified fighting. Let's not forget that the situation in Sarajevo 
is unpredictable; the Ambassador may intend to go in for a day, but 
find that the airport is closed only an hour later--we're not talking 
about the Washington-New York shuttle.
  I thank the managers for working with us on language that is 
acceptable to the Foreign Relations Committee.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, if I may just clarify for the record, the 
Senator from North Carolina was absolutely correct that there are 
technical amendments in the group of en bloc amendments. But there are 
also amendments of substance that both sides have agreed on that are in 
these en bloc amendments. So I think, for the record, for anybody 
wondering, all of the amendments are amendments that have been cleared 
on both sides and that would have been passed by voice vote.
  Madam President, with respect to the bill we have been on up until 
now, the State authorization bill, there will be votes Tuesday 
beginning at 10 o'clock in the morning and we will be here to work on 
amendments as of 1 o'clock on Monday. So for those people who are on 
the list who have amendments that need to be disposed of before the 
deadline on Tuesday evening, we will be working Monday at 1 o'clock 
with votes to occur starting at 10 o'clock in the morning on Tuesday.
  Madam President, 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 assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in the morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________