[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

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Roth 
be added as a cosponsor to the pending Specter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have heard a great deal about the 
foreign policy and finance implications of this amendment. Senator 
Kerry has raised some very good points. But the fact is, its passage 
would also threaten American jobs and the global environment. It would 
hurt Russian reform, it would hurt the American economy, it would 
cripple our antidumping efforts and it will cost jobs across America. 
While the Senator from Pennsylvania has the best of intentions, this is 
a bad amendment and I hope the Senate will not accept it.


                       Threat to Jobs in America

  The most basic effect of the Specter Amendment would be to encourage 
Russia to churn out vast amounts of commodities. Russia will create 
mountainous stockpiles of goods--in the amendment's words, it will have 
to create ``reserves of petroleum products, minerals, or other 
commodities.'' That is, it will create mountains of just about anything 
Russia can produce at all.
  These stockpiles are not just going to lie still. No way. Sooner or 
later they will topple down upon the international markets and crush 
them. They will flood the markets in aluminum, energy, wood, copper, 
steel, petroleum, and many other goods.
  In fact, if we pass this amendment, we would encourage Russia to 
pursue a policy of dumping in almost every industry.
  The result will be to depress the price of these goods on the 
international and American markets, close plants, and throw Americans 
out of work. If you have worried, say, about what dumping of steel does 
to U.S. jobs, think about what will happen when you have a teetering, 
toppling Mount Everest of stockpiled steel in Russia.
  The aluminum industry is another example, and one as important to 
Montana as steel is to Pennsylvania. It has already lost about 7,000 
jobs due to the existing flood of dumped aluminum from Russia.
  The administration has worked very hard and very effectively to 
address this problem. And just last week we got an agreement in 
Brussels to reduce Russian aluminum production by 500,000 a year. It is 
the American aluminum industry's guarantee of survival. Nothing less. 
This amendment would destroy that agreement and encourage a vast new 
flood of aluminum. The same will be true in many other industries. In 
short, this is a killer amendment--it might not kill the bill, but it 
sure will kill American jobs.


                       threat to reform in russia

  Ironically, the Specter amendment would threaten reform in Russia as 
much as it threatens jobs in America.
  The Soviet Union's economic policy involved subsidizing inefficient, 
outdated, and environmentally destructive factories; unlimited 
production without regard to cost; and emphasis on heavy industry at 
the expense of consumers.
  These policies are what caused Russia's economic problems. The 
Specter amendment would be a huge incentive to the Russian Government 
to go right back to them. With economic reform already in trouble, that 
is the last thing we want to do.
  It is disastrous foreign policy. If you want to support Russian 
reform, you would be better off doing nothing at all--no aid, no 
diplomatic support, just stick your head in the sand and do nothing--
than to support this amendment. As Senator Kerry says, you give a blow 
to President Yeltsin; you encourage Russian neofascists--and you also 
give a huge boost to opponents of economic reform and environmental 
protection.
  Finally, this is a bad way to decide an important policy question. 
This amendment has appeared without hearings, without forethought and, 
I might say, without much of anything. Suddenly, it is here. There are 
not many staff here today because of the bad weather conditions. Nobody 
has had a chance to look at this and think it through more than any of 
us already have.
  I think Senator Kerry has made some very good points as to why this 
should not be adopted and whether it could even be enforced. I am sure 
if we consider it through hearings, many more questions would indicate 
more problems that we have not already thought of.
  In sum, I think this amendment should not be passed. It is dangerous 
to American jobs, dangerous to Russian reforms, and undermines American 
antidumping laws in the world commodity markets. I urge the Senate to 
oppose it.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, let me disagree strenuously with the 
assertion of the Senator from Montana that this amendment has been 
offered without forethought or without notice. This amendment has had 
considerable thought, analysis, and research by more than this Senator 
and is very similar to an amendment which was offered on July 2, 1992. 
In addition, this issue was raised directly with Ambassador Lawrence 
Strobe Talbott on Monday of this week, 4 days ago, and was discussed at 
the Foreign Operations hearing.
  Beyond that, there has been notice to the managers of this amendment, 
and the amendment was filed 2 days ago. So it hardly is a surprise this 
morning at 9:30 that I have arrived to offer this amendment. By way of 
further reply to what the Senator from Montana has had to say, the U.S. 
aluminum smelters, an industry very important to the Senator from 
Montana, as he articulates, has been in deep distress.
  I ask unanimous consent that this material be printed as an exhibit 
at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. This graph shows the tremendous impact on aluminum 
manufacturing around the country, including Columbia Falls in Montana, 
of massive Russian sales of aluminum, in what I think would be 
accurately categorized as dumping. There is no reason to expect that 
there will be any additional production or stockpiling of metals as a 
result of this amendment because the collateral would come from metals 
that are already being dumped or stockpiled.
  This amendment has the long-range effect of guaranteeing, to every 
extent possible, that loans will be repaid by having these resources 
serve as collateral for new bilateral and multilateral loans.
  So when the Senator from Montana cries wolf, I think there is no 
basis for it. In fact, the existing practices have resulted in 
tremendous dislocation and loss of employment all across this country 
in the aluminum industry, including the plant in Columbia Falls, MT. 
This amendment will help to remove some of aluminum from the market.
  I thank the Chair.

                               Exhibit 1

 United States Aluminum Smelters Company, Location, Capacity in Tonnes 
                                Per Year

       Alumax, Eastalco Frederick, 174,000.
       Stanwich, Ravenswood, 165,000
       ALCAN, Sebree, 180,000.
       ALCOA, Badin, 115,000.
       ALCOA, Alcoa, Tenn., 205,000.
       Consolidated Aluminum, New Johnsonville, 146,000 (closed).
       Alumax, Mt. Holley, 182,000.
       Revere, Scotsboro, 117,000 (closed).
       Reynolds, Listerhill, 183,000 (closed).
       Kaiser, Chalmette, 260,000 (closed).
       Reynolds, Corpus Christi, 114,000 (closed).
       ALCOA, Pt. Comfort, 159,000 (closed).
       Reynolds, Lake Charles, 36,000 (closed).
       ALCOA, Rockdale, 320,000.
       ALCOA, Anderson County, 15,000 (closed).
       Reynolds, Arkadelphia, 68,000 (closed).
       Reynolds, Jones Mill, 125,000 (closed).
       Noranda, New Madrid, 204,000.
       Northwest Al, The Dalles, 62,000.
       Reynolds, Troutdale, 121,000 (idled).
       Vanalco, Vancouver, 115,000.
       Reynolds, Longview, 204,000.
       Columbia Alum, Goldendale, 168,000.
       Alumax Intalco, Ferndale, 272,000.
       ALCOA, Wenatchee, 220,000.
       Kaiser Maxxam, Mead, 200,000.
       Columbia Falls Alum, Columbia Falls, 168,000.
       ALCOA, Warrick, 300,000.
       National Southwire, Hawesville, 185,000.
       Reynolds, Massena, 123,000.
       ORMET, Hannibal, 250,000.
       ALCOA, Massena, 125,000.
       SUMMARY: 4,031,000 MT Operating 75%, 22 Smelters.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  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.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania be temporarily set aside 
merely to permit the Senator from Delaware to lay down his amendment, 
begin to speak on it, and I would ask the Senator from Delaware if at 
the appropriate moment we know that Senators are more or less here, we 
would then interrupt and proceed to a vote on the amendment of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. If my colleague will yield, I do not know if he heard my 
statement earlier. The distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina 
[Mr. Helms] wishes to present an argument in support of the amendment, 
so we ought to arrange our schedule to give Senator Helms opportunity 
to do that.
  Mr. KERRY. I did not hear that. I apologize to the Senator.
  In that case, I ask unanimous consent that we simply set aside 
temporarily the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 1288

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate concerning Japan and Germany 
       becoming permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.)

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1288.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate point, insert the following:
       The Senate finds that in the post-Cold War period, the 
     international community expects the United Nations to play a 
     larger role, particularly in peacekeeping operations that 
     may, on occasion, require the use of force against determined 
     aggressors;
       That in the past five years the United Nations has engaged 
     in more peacekeeping operations than the preceding forty,
       That the Security Council is the U.N. body chiefly 
     responsible for matters of peace and security;
       That the United Nations structure and the Security 
     Council's roster of permanent members have remained largely 
     unchanged since the United Nations was founded almost half a 
     century ago;
       That Japan and Germany, as the world's second and third 
     largest economies, respectively, have attained levels of 
     global reach and influence equal to or surpassing current 
     permanent members of the Security Council;
       That both Japan and Germany have announced their desire to 
     gain permanent membership in the Security Council;
       That any country accorded permanent membership must be 
     capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of such status, 
     including participation in any U.N. military operations;
       That according permanent membership to nations not capable 
     of carrying out these responsibilities will allow those 
     countries to play a central role in shaping U.N. peacekeeping 
     opertions which could endanger the lives of American and 
     other troops, but in which their own forces could play no 
     part;
       That, currently, in both Japan and Germany the prevailing 
     view is that each country is prohibited from carrying out all 
     the responsibilities that permanent membership entails and 
     appears reluctant to make the changes necessary to gain those 
     capabilities;
       That in Japan's case, further reconciliation with its Asian 
     neighbors who suffered during the World War II period is 
     recommended
       Now, therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that:
       (1) In principle, the United States should support both 
     Japan and Germany in their wish to gain permanent membership 
     in the United Nations Security Council; but
       (2) Neither Japan nor Germany should be admitted as 
     permanent members until they are capable of discharging the 
     full range of responsibilities accepted by all current 
     permanent members of the Security Council.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk an amendment 
concerning Germany and Japan and their quest for permanent membership 
in the U.N. Security Council.
  My amendment states that, in principle, the U.S. should support this 
initiative, but it also states that these countries should not be 
admitted as permanent members until these nations have rendered 
themselves capable of discharging the responsibilities consonant with 
permanent Security Council membership.
  It is undeniable that, in the 1990's, Germany and Japan enjoy greater 
global economic influence than some current permanent Security Council 
members, and it is fitting that Security Council membership should 
reflect the global distribution of economic and political influence, 
particularly if we are supportive of enhancing the United Nations 
overall effectiveness.
  But other circumstances need to be considered in addition to Germany 
and Japan's economic potency. In particular, we need to consider the 
unique domestic positions of both governments. I draw the attention of 
my colleagues to the fact that, under current circumstances, neither 
Germany nor Japan is capable of carrying out all of the obligations 
that permanent Security Council membership entails and neither country 
appears willing to confront this fundamental problem in order to obtain 
that membership.
  Neither the Japanese constitution nor the German basic law 
specifically prohibits the participation of German and Japanese forces 
in U.N. peacekeeping operations. In fact, the framers of the Japanese 
constitution have said specifically that it was not their intention to 
preclude the Japanese from participating in U.N. defense arrangements. 
However, both nations, both Germany and Japan, have traditionally 
interpreted their constitutions as, indeed, containing such 
prohibitions. Consequently, both nations assert that they cannot 
participate fully in so-called U.N. ``blue helmet'' noncombat 
peacekeeping operations, let alone in the more muscular peacemaking 
type of operations against determined aggressors which, for better or 
worse, may become more typical of future U.N. operations.
  Obviously, a sovereign nation has every right to interpret its 
constitution as it wishes. But if that interpretation effectively 
prevents the nation in question from carrying out major 
responsibilities of permanent Security Council membership, then I 
question whether under these circumstances the United States should 
support its elevation to permanent member status.
  I put it to my colleagues: Should the United States assist Germany 
and Japan to become permanent Security Council members when this will 
enable them to cast vital votes in favor of U.N. military operations, 
operations which could easily endanger the lives of United States 
servicemen, when neither the Japanese nor German armed forces can take 
part in those operations under the current interpretation of their 
respective constitutions? Personally, I can imagine few speedier ways 
to damage our relations with both countries and to tear the Security 
Council apart.
  For their part, Germany and Japan should recognize how their own 
positions would be undermined under such circumstances. One need only 
recall the outcry which arose in response to both nations' failures to 
supply personnel for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm to 
understand the depth of feeling that would arise in this and other 
nations under these circumstances. With power and influence must come 
responsibility. Any Japanese or German attempt to sidestep this 
fundamental truth will place them in a most undesirable position.
  I am convinced that neither Tokyo nor Bonn, as yet, fully comprehends 
this indissoluble link between global power and influence on the one 
hand and responsibility on the other. Otherwise, why are they pressing 
for permanent Security Council membership before rendering themselves 
capable of fulfilling the responsibilities attendant upon that 
membership?
  For example, Prime Minister Hosokawa has informed the Japanese Diet 
that his government will never authorize the nation's self-defense 
forces to join the military phase of any peacekeeping operation. 
Likewise, German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel told the General 
Assembly that Bonn's contribution to the United Nations ``will continue 
to be of a mainly political and economic nature,'' even on the 
occasions when the United Nations must resort to force.
  I believe that this body must make its position clear to Germany and 
Japan and delineate precisely what we expect of each if they are to 
merit our support in their quest for permanent Security Council 
membership. That is what this sense-of-the-Senate amendment does.
  I also believe that the Japanese and German Governments must begin to 
examine the implications of their actual elevation to permanent 
Security Council membership status and they must explain those 
implications to their electorates. In an era in which the United 
Nations is assuming a larger role in global affairs, it is crucial we 
all understand, and openly discuss, how the United Nations core 
authorities over peace and security may be affected by changes in the 
Security Council. And in the case of Japan, which is only now coming to 
terms with its behavior in World War II, that discussion must take into 
account the very serious concerns of its Asian neighbors.
  I stress again, Mr. President, I have long favored the principle of 
making Germany and Japan permanent Security Council members. Their 
inclusion will increase the council's effectiveness by making it more 
reflective of the real global distribution of economic power. But 
before the two nations can enter into permanent membership, Tokyo and 
Bonn must first eliminate the self-imposed barriers which prevent them 
from meeting all of the responsibilities of that membership. Once 
Germany and Japan have removed those barriers, both nations will 
deserve our full support in their efforts to secure permanent seats in 
the United nations Security Council.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this may not be the time to fully debate 
this and it may be that we do not need an enormous debate. I would just 
like to perhaps enter into a colloquy with my colleague to further 
explore a little bit where we are going.
  I appreciate his cooperation with respect to a couple of the phrases 
in this amendment. I want to make sure that in this amendment we send 
the correct message, not the wrong message, to our friends, both the 
Japanese and the Germans. I think we are in sync, but I want to make 
sure that we are.
  It is my understanding of the amendment of the Senator from Delaware 
that it is made with the full understanding that, No. 1, you do not 
have to be a member of the Security Council to participate in a 
peacekeeping operation nor, in fact, does a member of the Security 
Council automatically have to participate in a peacekeeping operation.
  The Senator approaches this amendment with that understanding and 
view; correct?
  Mr. ROTH. Absolutely; that is my understanding.
  Mr. KERRY. And the Senator also is both aware and I know grateful for 
the fact that both Japan and Germany have recently sent troops to 
participate in peacekeeping operations--Germany in Somalia with 1,500 
troops, and Japan in Cambodia where they provided significant 
assistance.
  Mr. ROTH. That is correct. I would point out, of course, in a very 
limited sense. The Japanese participated in road building and other 
matters which were supportive of that effort, but not in the front-line 
area.
  Mr. KERRY. However, two Japanese were killed in Cambodia in this 
effort. There was considerable concern in Japan about this and the 
Japanese were steadfast and in fact are owed great gratitude for their 
significant efforts in helping to bring about that peace effort.
  Mr. ROTH. I looked upon their actions in Cambodia as a very important 
step forward, severely circumscribed by the legislation that made it 
possible but, nevertheless, a step in the right direction.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me clarify my own comments so the record is clear. The 
Japanese sent police to Cambodia, not troops, so we are clear on the 
distinction.
  Mr. ROTH. That is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator is directing, I think, an appropriate 
question, important question, about what kind of larger role both of 
these countries are willing to play and could play within the context 
of a larger world responsibility.
  I know the Senator is extremely mindful of the sensitivity of 
questions with other allies in Europe about what kind of force might 
emerge in Germany. So I want to make it clear, or at least elicit for 
the record an understanding, that the Senator is not oblivious to that 
sensitivity but rather feels that Germany's responsibility ought to be 
its capacity to fully participate in peacekeeping but not necessarily 
to emerge in a way that somehow disturbs other relationships in either 
the NATO alliance or even the European Community.
  Mr. ROTH. I would say to the distinguished chairman, you have the 
same sensitivity in Germany in respect to her neighbors--in the case of 
Germany, as I said--that we do in respect to Japan and its neighbors. 
What we are really talking about here, and all we are talking about, is 
the capability of those two countries participating in U.N. efforts. 
Nothing more; nothing less.
  Mr. KERRY. I think that clarification is an important clarification 
and I appreciate it. With that in mind, Mr. President, we are prepared 
to accept the amendment with the changes made by the Senator. I 
appreciate the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daschle). Is there further debate? Hearing 
none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The amendment (No. 1288) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1287

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senate that the 
question now recurs on the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania No. 1287.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from North Carolina 
would like to address that amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that, after the comments of the Senator from 
North Carolina, I be permitted 3 minutes to respond, at which point a 
vote would occur on that amendment to be followed by a vote--I withdraw 
that unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the able Senator from 
Pennsylvania for offering this amendment. I am honored to be a 
cosponsor of it.
  In fact, the Senator from North Carolina offered a very similar 
amendment during the May 13, 1992 Foreign Relations Committee markup of 
the Freedom Support Act. My amendment, at that time, was defeated. But 
I suspect that, given recent events in Russia, the Senate may want to 
take a second look at requiring collateral for loans made by the United 
States Government using American taxpayers' money to the former Soviet 
Union.
  Senator Specter's proposal is just plain common sense. I must say in 
all candor that I have never understood why the American taxpayers must 
provide collateral in order to secure their loans to buy their houses 
or their automobiles but that it is not necessary for Russia with its 
vast resources to put up any collateral at all.
  I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania that I have been fussing about 
this for a long time. I had a conversation about it with Mr. Yeltsin 
when he was here, and I did not detect that he disagreed with me 
because it was translated that he understood exactly what I was saying 
to him. So I, for the life of me, cannot understand why our Government 
or this Senate or any Senator can oppose the amendment of the Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  The United States has provided billions--billions--of dollars in 
loans to the former Soviet Republics in the last couple of years. Yet 
the American taxpayers have received nothing more than promises and 
handshakes as collateral. There is no excuse for this. I would like 
anybody who opposes the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania to 
go with me to North Carolina and let me hear him try to explain it to 
the taxpayers down there; or to Massachusetts, for that matter. I will 
be glad to go with the Senator from Massachusetts to his State and hear 
any explanation of opposition to the amendment.
  The former Soviet Republics have the richest reserves of minerals and 
oil and gas in the entire world. This is an incontrovertible fact. 
Nobody can contest it. The Specter amendment may cause some wailing and 
gnashing of teeth down at Foggy Bottom and perhaps at the Treasury 
Department by the bureaucrats who are not interested in protecting the 
American taxpayers. But Senator Specter is proposing that our 
Government treat foreign countries, in this case Russia, just like the 
economic system in this country treats the American taxpayers who 
furnish the money that is given away or loaned to the Soviet Union and 
other countries around the world. In any case, the Specter amendment 
gives the American taxpayers a better chance of getting paid back for 
the billions of dollars they have lent to the former Soviet Republics.
  I personally wish the Specter amendment had been in effect since 1946 
when the foreign aid program began. This Government would be in far 
better shape and would be in a far better negotiating position with 
nations which took the money furnished by the American taxpayers. This 
money was borrowed from, and the debt was placed on, the American 
taxpayers. In so many cases these nations turned their backs on the 
United States after having received billions upon billions of dollars 
from the U.S. Treasury.
  I will recite a story that I have recited on the floor a number of 
times. About 10 or 12 years ago, I had an inquiry from a friend of mine 
in North Carolina about foreign aid. He, first of all, wanted to know 
how long it had been going on.
  I could answer that quickly--it started in 1946.
  He asked me if these countries that receive foreign aid ever pay it 
back.
  And I said, in one or two or three rare instances, yes. But in the 
main, no.
  Then he asked the devastating question. He asked me how much the 
foreign aid program had cost me and the other American taxpayers.
  I could not answer the question.
  I said, I am going to call down to the State Department. I am going 
to call to the Agency for International Development. I will get the 
figure and maybe I can call you right back.
  I called down there. What do you know, they do not know--or at least 
they said they do not know. Nowhere in this Government is there a 
total, a specific total, of how much the foreign aid programs cost the 
American taxpayers, particularly when asked on the basis that I asked 
them. Since we have been running a deficit every year for decades 
except one or two, I assumed that we were giving away money that we had 
in fact borrowed.
  So I asked my staff. I called them in and I said, I want you to do 
whatever is necessary to get some sort of total on what the foreign aid 
bill has cost. And I want you to start off with the interest rate the 
first year and factor that in with the amount of money that was given 
away. And then the next year, get the interest rate and factor that in, 
and roll it over, and do that up to the present time.
  That was 10 or 12 years ago. We did not have a computer. We had no 
way to handle all of that arithmetic. So the Library of Congress agreed 
to do it for us.
  I never will forget when my staff came in with the computer printout, 
about so thick. I looked at the total down there, and it was in excess 
of $2 trillion, when you factor in the interest of the borrowed money. 
I said, this cannot be. I said, go back and ask the Library of Congress 
to run those figures again. They ran the figures again and it still 
came out to over $2 trillion.
  So that is what Senator Specter is talking about. This is a modest 
beginning when you think about it. But it ought to be a policy. When we 
make a loan we ought to have collateral, except in rare instances where 
the President makes certification and the Congress is satisfied with 
some other arrangement.
  Again, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania. I support his 
amendment. And I inquire, has he asked for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment?
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will respond very quickly and then 
proceed to move to table, according to the agreement between us here.
  I appreciate the Senator's offer to come to Massachusetts and talk to 
folks there. If he is going to make that offer to me, I am afraid my 
good friend is going to be very busy traveling to about 50 States in 
the country, because most of our colleagues in the Senate, at least one 
from each State, have a strong feeling this would be a mistake.
  Why is this a mistake? I do not disagree with my friend at all that 
we must be deeply concerned about the deficit. And all of us are. I 
think we are today.
  But if in fact we ought to be doing this as a policy, we certainly 
should not be singling out one country at a critical juncture in its 
developmental stage into democracy against all other countries. If this 
is indeed good policy and it is something we ought to be doing, then we 
ought to embrace this as the policy and do it simultaneously for all 
countries with some understanding about the multilateral impact of 
doing it on the international lending institutions and on other 
countries. But to single out Russia at this particular moment, with all 
of the volatility of Zhirinovsky and nationalism and the ingredients of 
that most recent election and the difficulties that the democracy 
effort faces, would be to send not just a bad message, but a damaging, 
negative, dangerous message.
  It is just one more chink that plays into the Zhirinovsky box of 
arguments. More importantly, it is unenforceable; it cannot make a 
difference if the Government fails. If this Government that is working 
to set up a market that will repay these loans that has strong 
democratic institutions, strong private institutions and they get their 
market reforms, that is your best shot at getting repaid.
  But if you do things that undermine this Government, then you are 
going to guarantee that there is an alternative government there and 
your pieces of paper are going to be just that, pieces of paper. You 
are never going to be able to collect the collateral. A government that 
cannot repay these loans is a government that also cannot give you the 
collateral. This is a step that almost helps make that a self-
fulfilling prophecy. It is bad foreign policy; it is bad international 
economic policy. I strongly commend to my colleagues that we reject it, 
as we have previously.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator resist for just 2 or 3 minutes?
  Mr. KERRY. If I can ask my colleague--we have an agreement with 
colleagues who have planes to meet that we are going to start a vote. 
If we can tighten it--I do not want to deprive him because I just said 
something.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will conclude in 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold the motion?
  Mr. KERRY. Could the Senator make it 2 minutes?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. I withhold my motion.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the final comments I want to add to the 
Record are that there was a question as to the citation of article 5, 
section 4 that I had referred to earlier. That comes from the articles 
of agreement to the International Monetary Fund which says: ``Funds 
shall also take into consideration a member's willingness to pledge as 
collateral security assets acceptable,'' and so forth.
  That demonstrates that there is nothing new; that it has been 
accepted international monetary policy for a long time.
  By further reference to the arguments made by the Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Baucus, I refer to an article from the Financial Times by 
Mr. Kenneth Gooding, of January 6, 1994 saying:

       Support is growing for an ingenious potential solution to 
     the world aluminum supply crisis that would involve surplus 
     metal from the Commonwealth of Independent States being used 
     as collateral for U.S. Government-guaranteed loans to the 
     CIS.

  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record to 
save time.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Financial Times, Jan. 6, 1994]

            Collateral Plan May Solve CIS Aluminium Problem

                          (By Kenneth Gooding)

       Support is growing for an ingenious potential solution to 
     the world aluminium supply crisis that would involve surplus 
     metal from the Commonwealth of Independent States being used 
     as collateral for US government-guaranteed loans to the CIS.
       ``This would remove the excess supply from the market, 
     provide hard currency to the CIS, and, with the stipulation 
     that a portion of the funds be used to upgrade CIS smelters, 
     would improve the physical environment surrounding the 
     smelters, which has been devastated by years of neglect,'' 
     suggests Mr. Eli Epstein, chief executive of Calcined Coke 
     Corporation, the New York-based concern that formulated the 
     proposals.
       It would also do away with the need for the world-wide 
     smelter production cuts now under consideration--and the 
     associated unemployment--or restrictions on imports from the 
     CIS of the kind at present in force in the European Union.
       Calco, a big supplier to the international aluminium 
     industry, has discussed its ideas with members of the US 
     Congress and representatives of the US Export-Import Bank as 
     well as other industry members and the response has been 
     ``encouraging,'' says Mr. Epstein.
       He hopes that the Calco proposals will be on the agenda 
     when trade representatives from the world's main aluminum-
     producing countries and the industry meet in Brussels on 
     January 18 and 19 for a third round of talks about the crisis 
     arising from the sudden surge in CIS exports following the 
     collapse of the former Soviet Union. This has pushed up 
     aluminum stocks and driven down prices to a level where most 
     smelters are suffering operating losses.
       Calco estimates that the present value of the CIS surplus 
     aluminum stocks, about 700,000 tonnes, is roughly $700m. It 
     suggests that the entire surplus be securely warehoused and 
     becomes collateral for the US government guarantee of loans 
     made to the CIS by financial institutions. Loans provided to 
     the CIS would substantially exceed the value of the stocks 
     but the collateral would reduce the risk attached to these 
     loans and support the US commitment to helping the CIS 
     economically.
       Surplus stock would be held off the market until it could 
     comfortably be absorbed. After a time, aluminum demand, which 
     is growing at an annual 1.5 to 2.5 percent, should catch up 
     with supply and allow for the release of stocks into the 
     market in a controlled fashion.
       ``The substantial influx of capital to the CIS will trigger 
     economic development which should increase its domestic 
     demand for primary aluminum,'' Mr. Epstein points out. If 
     loans were repaid the aluminum would be returned to the CIS 
     at planned intervals and if there was a default the metal 
     would be sold gradually at predetermined price levels.
       Mr. Epstein suggests that if the scheme is implemented, 
     ``the aluminum industry worldwide would benefit from stable 
     pricing and employment. The CIS would have a source of hard 
     currency and be able to reduce the environmental impact of 
     its inefficient smelters. Using the inventory as collateral 
     would reduce the risk of default on the loans and, with 
     import restrictions unnecessary, free trade relationships are 
     maintained.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the final matter is that this boils down 
to a very simple proposition, that is, whether we ought to take a step 
which is reasonably calculated to guarantee repayment of billions of 
dollars in loans from the United States to Russia. It may not work, but 
it may work.
  I believe that because our constituents, the taxpayers of America who 
have to give security when they borrow money and who are ultimately 
going to be burdened with whatever debts the United States undertakes 
which are not repaid by the former Soviet Republics, that this is an 
amendment which ought to be adopted.
  I thank the Chair and yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 1287. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the 
Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 
Reid] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Cochran], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] 
are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--33

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Mack
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cochran
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     McCain
     Murray
     Pressler
     Reid
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1287) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1286

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the 
Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 
Reid] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Cochran], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain] would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--0

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cochran
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     McCain
     Murray
     Pressler
     Reid
  So the amendment (No. 1286) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to colleagues that we are going 
to proceed. Now we are open for business on amendments, and we are here 
prepared to do amendments today for as long as there are Senators 
prepared to come forward. This is a good time to do it.
  The majority leader has announced that whatever votes are set aside 
will begin at 10 o'clock in the morning on Tuesday, and we are prepared 
to proceed forward between now and 10 o'clock in the morning on Tuesday 
to take amendments and stack those votes for Tuesday. We will be here 
available for amendments on Monday at 1 o'clock through the rest of the 
day as long as there are amendments to come forward.
  I remind colleagues that under the unanimous-consent agreement all 
amendments must be offered by 6 p.m. on Tuesday evening. So, we are 
anxious obviously to try to move through the number of amendments that 
we have between now and then and hope that by 6 p.m. on Tuesday we are 
in a position to actually vote final passage of the bill.
  I believe the distinguished Senator from Kansas has an amendment on 
behalf of herself, Senator Simpson and the distinguished President pro 
tempore, who is prepared to move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1289

(Purpose: To encourage asylum reforms that would prevent current abuse 
                              of the law)

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Simpson in offering this amendment to encourage asylum reforms that 
would prevent current abuse of the law. Senator Robert Byrd is an 
original cosponsor of this amendment.
  This amendment was adopted by the Senate on November 10, 1993, during 
consideration of the crime bill. The Department of State is generally 
supportive of the amendment.
  This amendment expresses concern about the backlog of asylum cases 
which has now reached 355,000. To put this in perspective, last March 
the total backlog of cases was less than 200,000. By this March, the 
case backlog could well be twice as much as it was 1 year ago. The 
current abuse of asylum causes this extraordinary backlog and distorts 
the original intent of the Refugee Act of 1980.
  As a result, the whole asylum process is in disarray. The logical 
solution to this problem is to return to the original intent of the 
Refugee Act of 1980.
  This is a sense of the Congress amendment that:
  First, declares our asylum policy today should be what the law 
originally intended. When the Refugee Act of 1980 was written, the 
intent was to protect aliens who, because of events occurring after 
their arrival here, could not safely return home. That is why we 
provided an annual allotment of only 5,000 asylum slots when we passed 
the Refugee Act of 1980.
  Second, declares further that persons outside their country of 
nationality who have a wellfounded fear of persecution if they return 
should apply for refugee status with the local U.N. High Commissioner 
for Refugees, or other international organization, office or at one of 
our refugee processing, offices abroad, and
  Third, in conclusion, calls for reform of our immigration, refugee, 
and asylum laws to correct the current problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished President pro tempore is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall shortly propose an amendment at the 
request of the distinguished junior Senator from Kansas [Mrs. 
Kassebaum], an amendment offered by her and cosponsored by the 
distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Simpson, and which I shall also join 
in as a cosponsor.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment being offered 
by Senators Kassebaum and Simpson. Even though a similar amendment was 
adopted by the Senate in November, I think we should take every 
opportunity to reiterate the critical need for swift reform of U.S. 
immigration, refugee and asylum laws. I applaud Senators Kassebaum and 
Simpson for calling attention to the well-documented abuses that exist 
in the area of asylum claims. Senator Simpson has introduced 
legislation to try to correct some of the shortcomings in this area, 
including S. 667 which he introduced last March and which I 
cosponsored. But I particularly want to congratulate Senator Kassebaum 
for including a call for broad reform of all of areas--all areas--of 
immigration policy.
  Dramatic changes around the world have forced us to rethink many 
areas of public policy. The demise of the Soviet Union has led to a 
complete overhaul of the U.S. defense establishment and a retooling of 
our foreign policy. The ever increasing economic interdependence of 
nations has prompted major changes in trade policy, including passage 
of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the formation of a single 
market in Europe, and the completion of the latest round of talks on 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Advances in transportation 
and communications have made travel easier for people all over the 
world. These things, plus developments such as the rise of nationalism 
and interethnic violence and a deep worldwide recession, have prompted 
the movement of large numbers of people in many regions of the world. 
In the face of all this change, our immigration laws still reflect an 
earlier time.
  When the Congress first codified U.S. asylum laws in 1980, we did so 
because America has always had a tradition of compassion for oppressed 
and persecuted peoples. Unfortunately, in our desire to provide a safe 
haven for those who legitimately fear for their lives, we have made it 
too easy for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of our good 
will by using asylum procedures to circumvent the regular immigration 
process. Asylum and refugee laws should apply to individuals who have a 
legitimate fear of personal persecution in their home country, and not 
those who are fleeing from areas of general unrest or poverty.
  The United States does not have the resources it once had to help all 
those around the world who live in substandard conditions, or to accept 
all those who wish to come here for a better life.
  We have many people in our own country who are living in substandard 
conditions; many people in our own country who dream of having a better 
life. We do not have the resources. We simply do not have the resources 
and we are going to find that out more and more as the days of this 
Congress come and go. We do not have the resources to eliminate poverty 
and unemployment for our own population, much less--much less--the 
population of the rest of the world. Yet the current lax U.S. asylum 
procedures allow anyone to gain entry to the United States and become 
immediately eligible to work here and eligible to benefits that costs 
the American taxpayers money. All one needs to do is to show up at a 
U.S. port-of-entry, request asylum, and relate some vague story of 
persecution to the Immigration and Naturalization Service agent. The 
individual then receives the much-coveted work authorization documents 
and is asked to show up later for a hearing on the asylum claim. Many 
do not show up later. The system has become so backlogged that the 
hearing will most likely be more than a year later. And, as I said, not 
surprisingly, fewer than half of the asylum seekers ever appear for 
their hearing. The current backlog stands at 355,000 cases with 15,000 
of those claims coming since November 10, 1993, the last time this 
amendment was before the Senate.
  But as I have said, I am concerned with more than just the asylum 
procedures. All aspects of U.S. immigration law must be reviewed. The 
American people want them to be reviewed. For two centuries America has 
graciously accepted immigrants. Many immigrant groups have played 
important roles in the history of this great Nation. Nobody doubts 
that. We are all, most of us are, descendants of immigrants. I am. I am 
the ninth-generation descendant of an immigrant from England and 
immigrants from Scotland. We are all immigrants, except those American 
Indians, and some of us have a little bit of that in our blood.
  For two centuries, we have accepted immigrants. They have added to 
our way of life. Their talents, their strengths, their skills, have 
contributed to America.
  I grew up in the coal fields where we had Polish, Czechoslovakian, 
Hungarian, English, Scotsmen, Irishmen. They worked on the railroads. 
They worked in the coal mines. They worked in the factories. They have 
helped to build this great country.

  But we cannot continue to absorb the levels of immigrants that we 
have experienced over the past few years. In a time of global political 
uncertainty and economic turmoil, the stability and relative prosperity 
of the United States become an irresistible magnet for those less well-
off then ourselves. At time in our history, America gladly welcomed all 
those who sought refuge here, but that time is in the past. We no 
longer have limitless resources or vast open areas ripe for settlement. 
We place ever-increasing demands on an already overburdened 
environment.
  The time has come to look inward and start to take care of our own 
problems. I hope that, in addition to the many other items on the 
Senate's agenda, it will be possible to enact comprehensive immigration 
reform. Again I thank Senators Kassebaum and Simpson for keeping 
attention focused on this issue.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mrs. 
     Kassebaum, for herself, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Byrd, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1289.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) in the last decade applications for asylum have greatly 
     exceeded the original 5,000 annual limit provided in the 
     Refugee Act of 1980, with more than 150,000 asylum 
     applications filed in FY 93, and the backlog of cases growing 
     to the current level of 355,000;
       (2) this flood of asylum claims has swamped the system, 
     creating delays in the processing of applications of up to 
     several years;
       (3) the delay in processing asylum claims due to the 
     overwhelming numbers has contributed to numerous problems, 
     including:
       (A) an abuse of the asylum laws by fraudulent applicants 
     whose primary interest is obtaining work authority in the 
     United States while their claim languishes in the backlogged 
     asylum processing system;
       (B) the growth of alien smuggling operations, often 
     involving organized crime;
       (C) a drain on limited resources resulting from the high 
     cost of processing frivolous asylum claims through our multi-
     layered system; and
       (D) an erosion of public support for asylum;
       (4) Asylum, a safe haven protection for aliens abroad who 
     cannot return home, has been perverted by some aliens who use 
     asylum claims to circumvent our immigration and refugee laws 
     and procedures;
       (5) a comprehensive revision of our asylum law and 
     procedures is required to address these problems.
       (b) Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) asylum is a process intended to protect certain aliens 
     in the United States who, because of events occurring after 
     their arrival here, cannot safely return home;
       (2) persons outside their country of nationality who have a 
     well-founded fear of persecution if they return should apply 
     for refugee status with the local UNHCR, or other relevant 
     international organization, office or at one of our refugee 
     processing centers abroad, if possible;
       (3) the immigration, refugee and asylum laws of the United 
     States should be reformed to provide:
       (A) a procedure for the expeditious exclusion of asylum 
     applicants who arrive at a port-of-entry with fraudulent 
     documents, or no documents, and make a non-credible claim of 
     asylum; and
       (B) the immigration, refugee, and asylum laws of the United 
     States should be reformed to provide for a streamlined 
     affirmative asylum processing system for asylum applicants 
     who make their application after they have entered the United 
     States.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
distinguished managers of the bill are familiar with this amendment and 
that it is their intention, I am informed, to accept the amendment and 
recommend its adoption by the Senate.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the President pro tempore is indeed 
correct. I know the distinguished assistant minority leader is waiting 
to speak. He is a cosponsor.
  I will just say very quickly, this is an excellent amendment. In a 
sense, I almost feel as if it is generous in the fact that it is only a 
sense-of-the-Senate. This is a review that is long overdue. Asylum is 
being grossly abused for any number of reasons, ranging from economic 
discontent, to simply seeking work in this country or finding some way 
around the rules.
  A lot of people come into this country under the guise of ``asylum'' 
and, while it is being processed, they go out, find work, and disappear 
in the system.
  We need to prevent that abuse and it is wholly appropriate that the 
exhortations that are set forth in this amendment be adopted. We are 
prepared to accept it after the distinguished assistant minority leader 
has had a chance to speak.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, my remarks will be very brief. One could 
not have a more remarkable ally in immigration and refugee matters than 
the remarkable senior Senator from West Virginia. He took me under his 
wing. He was a member of the Judiciary Committee when I came to the 
Judiciary Committee. When he saw my interest in immigration reform, he 
came to me and said, ``How may I best help?'' And he did everything 
possible to help me.
  He cosponsored every measure, stuck with me through every type of 
situation, through Senate procedures, through conference committees, 
through final approvals, through veto threats. Senator Robert Byrd of 
West Virginia was at my side as an absolutely unfailing compatriot.
  When I produce the immigration bill that I have been working on for 
many months, I proudly will have his name as a cosponsor.
  So let me just thank him once again for the consistency and the 
passion which he puts in this issue. I think it is most appropriate 
that he presents this on behalf of Senator Kassebaum, because certainly 
he has been a leader.
  Certainly our asylum system has been turned on its head in recent 
years by use and misuse--mostly misuse. Would-be immigrants have found 
it more attractive to come to the United States to claim asylum than to 
apply for either refugee status or to come through the regular 
immigration process.
  It is more attractive because once they get to the United States, 
they become entitled to all of the due process that our Constitution 
gives to American citizens. These people who are in this country 
illegally and misusing asylum get all of the due process that we have. 
If they apply for refugee status while they are overseas, and they are 
found not to have a well-founded fear of persecution, they are denied 
refugee status. And that is the end of it.
  There is no difference in the standard by which refugees and asylees 
are adjudicated, except that asylees are here in the United States and 
refugees are outside of the United States. Originally, you could not 
even be a refugee until you have left your own country.
  Now people wait in their own country and are designated as refugees 
to come here. Others come here and say: I am here seeking asylum. Once 
in the United States they are entitled to appeal after appeal, with the 
final decision made maybe months or years later. They have the right to 
work. They walk out of JFK Airport, or from whatever port they have 
come, and they simply disappear into society. And we wonder about that. 
We ought to wonder.
  The process can take years. In the meantime, as I say, the alien has 
the opportunity to live and work in the U.S., which was the original 
objective. Yet the original purpose of this marvelous grace of asylum 
was to provide a refuge for people who were in the United States when 
conditions changed in their home country. When the situation at home 
was once again safe, asylees would go home. They would no longer be 
fleeing persecution in their country. They were here as asylees only 
because it is unsafe for them to return. And that is the grace and 
nobility of the law, as it was originally intended. That is why we 
provided only 5,000 slots for that when we passed the Refugee Act of 
1980.
  Now it is so abused. I will not even go into the anecdotal material. 
Senator Byrd has done so, as has Senator Kassebaum in her statement. We 
have a separate refugee policy to enable people who are outside of 
their countries of nationality, and who do honestly have a well-founded 
fear of persecution. Our refugee policy allows people to apply for 
refugee status at refugee processing centers, U.S. embassies and 
consulates abroad. We should not make it more attractive for aliens to 
enter the United States, legally or illegally, to apply for asylum than 
it is for them to apply for refugee status abroad. So I certainly 
support the findings of the Kassebaum amendment and the policy it 
proposes.
  I pay tribute to Senator Byrd, who deserves the total award and honor 
for consistency throughout. Whether it had to do with refugees or 
illegal immigration or legal immigration or parole, or all the various 
distinctions, he has followed that through his entire career.
  So, Senator Kennedy, Senator Simon, and I, working with the 
administration and the Attorney General, have reached a bipartisan 
agreement on expedited asylum procedures for those aliens attempting to 
enter with fraudulent documents, or with no documents. I am also 
drafting major legislation to provide a more streamlined asylum process 
for those people who are already in the United States, or who come to 
the United States to claim asylum.
  I know in the course of that, I will have Senator Robert Byrd--and 
Senator Nancy Kassebaum; I pay tribute to her, too--as consistent and 
loyal colleagues as we grapple with this issue--a dandy one to play 
with because it is filled with emotion, fear, guilt, and racism.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for his 
felicitous remarks in my regard. I also thank the distinguished manager 
of the bill, Mr. Kerry, for his support of the amendment. His support 
means a great deal. I am indebted to him, as several people are.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1289) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to simply return the 
compliments and thank both the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, who 
has been one of our strongest and most articulate spokespersons on the 
subject of immigration, and of course the distinguished President pro 
tempore, without whose support an awful lot does not happen around 
here.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________