[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.
____________________