[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1281, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1281) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     years 1994 and 1995 for the Department of State, the U.S. 
     Information Agency, and related agencies, to provide for the 
     consolidation of international broadcasting activities, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       (1) Helms Amendment No. 1290, to give fullest possible 
     consideration to asylum applications from Chinese nationals 
     fleeing coercive population control policies.
       (2) Helms Amendment No. 1291, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that certain conditions should be met before the 
     People's Republic of China is accorded nondiscriminatory 
     most-favored-nation treatment.
       (3) Lott/Helms Amendment No. 1315, to establish a 
     prohibition on security assistance for countries that 
     consistently oppose the United States position in the United 
     Nations General Assembly.
       (4) Helms Amendment No. 1316 (to Amendment No. 1315), in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       (5) Cohen Amendment No. 1317, to require a report on 
     Russian military operations in the independent states of the 
     former Soviet Union.
       (6) Cohen Amendment No. 1318, to encourage Germany to 
     assume full and active participation in international 
     peacekeeping activities.
       (7) Helms Amendment No. 1320, to maintain the current 
     number of Assistant Secretaries of State and State Department 
     officials compensated at level IV of the Executive Schedule.
       (8) Dole Amendment No. 1323, to facilitate coordination 
     between the executive and legislative branches of Government 
     regarding United States participation in, or the use of 
     United States funds for, United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities.
       (9) Kerry (for Mitchell) Amendment No. 1324 (to Amendment 
     No. 1323), to express the sense of the Congress regarding 
     United States participation in United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities.


                       vote on amendment no. 1318

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to vote on the Cohen amendment, No. 1318.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-
Braun] and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     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
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--1

       
     Danforth
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Moseley-Braun
     Shelby
  So, the amendment (No. 1318) was agreed to.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Helms], is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. Kerry addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order with 
respect to recognition of Senator Helms be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me explain the parliamentary situation 
to colleagues while the Senator from New Jersey is preparing to offer 
an amendment.
  We have about five amendments that are currently stacked, several of 
which will need a vote. It is our intention to begin the process of 
ordering them for votes somewhere after the caucuses, approximately 
2:15 in the afternoon. It is hoped that a few of those amendments will 
be worked out without votes, so we are proceeding to try to do that. We 
currently have only Senator Lautenberg and Senator Helms backed up 
waiting to offer amendments.
  There are still a number of other Senators who have amendments on the 
list, and amendments must be offered by 6 p.m. tonight or they will be 
cut off, according to the previous unanimous consent agreement. So this 
is a good time for Senators to come to the floor and, hopefully, we can 
proceed expeditiously to move through a good many of these amendments.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HELMS. Did the Senator contemplate, with his unanimous consent 
request to recognize Senator Lautenberg instead of me, as the previous 
order was, that my recognition will automatically become the pending 
business?
  Mr. KERRY. I will be happy to do it in any way that accommodates the 
Senator. Is that the Senator's preference?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, after the 
amendment of the Senator from New Jersey is disposed of or set aside 
temporarily, the Senator from North Carolina be recognized for the 
purpose of offering his amendment which is on the list.
  Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object, and, of course, I shall not 
object, what I want us to do, I will say to the distinguished Senator, 
is to have my amendment ready to go, provided no Senator wants to offer 
one.
  Mr. KERRY. I understand that.
  Mr. HELMS. I want to encourage Senators on my side, and I know the 
Senator from Massachusetts feels the same way about his side, to come 
to the floor and offer their amendments so we can get through with this 
bill.
  Mr. KERRY. I understand the Senator is prepared to set his amendment 
aside at any moment any other Senator is here, so we are inviting the 
process to move forward as rapidly as possible. We are ready to go 
forward with that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the unanimous consent 
request is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1326

          (Purpose: To extend certain adjudication provisions)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send, on behalf of Senator Lautenberg and 
myself, an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself and Mr. 
     Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 1326.

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

     SEC. 714. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATION PROVISIONS.

       The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 (Public Law 101-167), is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 599D (8 U.S.C. 1157 note)--
       (A) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``1993 and 1994'' and 
     inserting ``1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996''; and
       (B) in subsection (e), by striking out ``October 1, 1994'' 
     each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 
     1, 1996''; and
       (2) in section 599E (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) in subsection 
     (b)(2), by striking out ``September 30, 1994'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1997''.


                amendment no. 1327 to amendment no. 1326

          (Purpose: To extend certain adjudication provisions)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to 
the desk offered by myself, Senator Simon, Senator Feinstein, and 
Senator Bingaman and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] for himself, 
     Mr. Simon, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1327.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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:

       In the pending amendment, strike all after ``SEC'' and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 714. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATION PROVISIONS.

       The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 (Public Law 101-167), is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 599D (8 U.S.C. 1157 note)--
       (A) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``1993 and 1994'' and 
     inserting ``1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996''; and
       (B) in subsection (e), by striking out ``October 1, 1994'' 
     each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 
     1, 1996''; and
       (2) in section 599E (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) in subsection 
     (b)(2), by striking out ``September 30, 1994'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1996''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment extends for 2 years a 
provision in current law which facilitates the granting of refugee 
status for certain historically persecuted groups.
  The existing law formally recognizes that the historic experience of 
certain persecuted religious minorities in the Soviet Union and 
Indochina, and a pattern of arbitrary denials of refugee status to 
members of these minorities, entitles them to a relaxed standard of 
proof in determinations about whether they are refugees.
  The law, which now is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year, 
lowers the evidentiary standard required to qualify for refugee status 
for Jews and Evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union, 
certain Ukrainians, and certain categories of Vietnamese, Laotians, or 
Cambodians. Once a refugee applicant proves he or she is a member of 
one of these groups, he or she only has to provide a ``credible basis 
for concern'' about the possibility of persecution. Refugee applicants 
normally must prove a ``well-founded fear of persecution.''
  The law has had a real and positive impact on refugee adjudication. 
This liberalized standard is still necessary because conditions for the 
persecuted groups in the former Soviet Union and Indochina still exist, 
and in some cases, have worsened.
  The strong showing of Zhirinovsky--who received 23 percent of the 
popular vote in the recent elections--has heightened concern about the 
safety and well-being of historically persecuted groups in the former 
Soviet Union.
  There is nothing ambiguous about the themes Zhirinovsky espouses and 
which he rode to victory: virulent xenophobia, ethnic hatred and 
contempt for democratic norms. During the campaign, the 
ultranationalist candidate blamed the Jews themselves for providing a 
higher level of antisemitism. On the stump and on his recent swing 
through Europe, Zhirinovsky repeated Nazi themes and openly proclaimed 
his ties with German and Austrian neo-Nazis.
  Recent events back up Zhirinovsky's admission of a new antisemitism 
in the country. In a 2-week period following the mid-December election, 
fires damaged two Jewish buildings in Moscow. The second fire gutted an 
historic Moscow synagogue. A week before that conflagration, and 
antisemitic slogan appeared on one of its walls. During 1993, Jewish 
graves in St. Petersburg have been desecrated, vandals have attacked 
Moscow's main synagogue, and the hardline newspaper Pravda has accused 
Jews of ritual murder.
  It is now only Jews in Russia who are fearful; Jews throughout the 
former Soviet Union are worried. Given the current climate, Jews in the 
former Soviet Union have good reason to fear that they it will be 
scapegoated if economic conditions worsen, as Jews have historically 
been singled out for that role.
  Evangelical Christians have legitimate fears as well. There are 
reports of growing harassment of Evangelical Christians in the Islamic 
republics of the former Soviet Union. Evangelical Christians remain 
concerned about religious freedom; a law approved last year by the 
Parliament, which Yeltsin ultimately vetoed, would have placed 
restrictions on all religious groups other than Russian Orthodox.
  This law is working as intended in the former Soviet Union. It has 
replaced an arbitrary and slow process of refugee adjudication in the 
former Soviet Union with a stable, consistent, and fair process. It has 
meant that people already terrorized by longstanding hatred and 
persecution in their native lands are not further traumatized by a 
system that does not recognize their historical suffering, or makes 
arbitrary distinctions among people who have suffered similar fates.
  In light of the current election and nagging questions about 
stability in the republics of the former Soviet Union, it would be 
unwise to let the law expire at this time.
  Uncertainty pervades the lives of the historically persecuted in the 
republics of the former Soviet Union. An extension is also necessary to 
facilitate the processing of refugee applicants from Vietnam, Cambodia, 
and Laos. Conditions have improved somewhat in these countries, but 
certain groups continue to suffer as a result of their previous 
association with the United States, their political actions in opposing 
hard-line Marxist governments which permit no political dissent or 
freedom of expression, and for their religious beliefs.
  This law was originally approved by the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0 
in 1989 and became law as part of the fiscal year 1990 Foreign Aid 
Appropriations Act. It was extended in the fiscal year 1991 Foreign Aid 
Appropriations Act and in the fiscal year 1992 Foreign Aid 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. President, this provision has no impact on the number of refugees 
entering the United States annually. We are not going to allow any more 
as a result of this amendment. The number of refugees we accept is 
determined annually through a consultation process between the 
administration and the Congress. What this provision does is simply 
facilitate the refugee designation. It facilitates their ability to 
come to this country and get out of the realm in which they live, 
persecution and harassment.
  This amendment has been endorsed by several organizations: The Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society; the Council of Jewish Federations; the National 
Conference on Soviet Jewry; and the Union of Councils of Soviet Jewry.
  It has been endorsed by the United States Catholic Conference and the 
Ukrainian National Association.
  It has also been endorsed by the Institute on Religion and Democracy 
and the Baptist Joint Committee on behalf of the Alliance of Baptists, 
the American Baptist Churches in the USA, Baptist General Conference, 
the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the National Baptist Convention of 
America, the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc., National Missionary 
Baptist Convention, North American Baptist Conference, Progressive 
National Baptist Convention, Religious Liberty Council, Seventh Day 
Baptist General Conference, and the Southern Baptist State Conventions 
and Churches.
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of their endorsement letters be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Migration and Refugee


                                    Services, National Office,

                                 Washington, DC, January 28, 1994.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express the 
     support of the U.S. Catholic Conference's Migration and 
     Refugee Services for your efforts to extend the Lautenberg 
     Amendment, facilitating the granting of refugee status for 
     certain historically persecuted groups. Two refugee 
     populations which have, for humanitarian and historical 
     reasons, long been of particular importance in the United 
     States refugee program continue to experience special 
     difficulties which call for the emphasis provided by the 
     language of this legislation.
       In the case of the Soviet Jews and other persecuted 
     minorities in the former Soviet Union, the changed situation 
     clearly offers hope of democratic governments, and greater 
     ethnic tolerance in Russia and the newly independent 
     republics. However, there continue to be worrisome 
     indications of renewed anti-semitism and lingering 
     intolerance and suspicions of Evangelical Christians and 
     Ukrainian Catholics. Additionally, the outcome of the recent 
     elections in Russia inevitably raise fears of renewed 
     nationalism with a strong bias towards anti-semitism and 
     ethnic intolerance. These factors make it imperative that 
     current programs continue undiminished.
       The screening of Vietnamese asylum applicants for refugee 
     status under the terms of the Comprehensive Plan of Action 
     (CPA) has been so restrictive at locations in Southeast Asia 
     that it has called down the criticism of numerous human 
     rights and refugee advocacy groups, such as Amnesty 
     International and the Lawers Committee for Human Rights. 
     Former re-education camp prisoners, after years of brutal 
     confinement in forced labor camps, have been rejected, as 
     well as numerous other well qualified cases, including 
     religious and community leaders. Despite such rigid screening 
     in which only about 10 percent of the applicants are now 
     being found qualified as refugees, many of those who survived 
     such screening have been rejected by INS officers as not 
     political refugees.
       Reports of such economic liberalization in Vietnam should 
     not mislead anyone to think that there is no longer 
     repression in Vietnam. The Communist Party has repeatedly 
     reaffirmed its role as the only legitimate political party 
     and treats extremely harshly any who dare to question this 
     policy. Many persons continue to be arrested for expressing 
     opposition to policies or actions. Numerous religious leaders 
     remain in prison or under house arrest. The Catholic 
     Church is denied the right to act in many matters 
     necessary to the proper functioning of the Church, such as 
     the naming of seminarians, assignment of Bishops, and the 
     like. The Buddhist Church and the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao 
     sects are even more restricted in their actions and many 
     members of all three have been arrested or rearrested over 
     the past year. Clearly, Vietnam remains a place where the 
     attempts to live one's own life and enjoy respect for his 
     human rights, free of the dictates of the government and 
     party, carries with it severe penalties.
       As the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) for dealing with 
     the Vietnamese boat refugee problem comes to an end and the 
     remaining asylum seekers in camps in Southeast Asia are 
     increasingly pressured to return home, we have a growing 
     concern for those persons whom we believe have been denied 
     refugee status unfairly. A quite limited number of such cases 
     are so compelling that we believe their situation has to be 
     reviewed and they need to be given resettlement prior to 
     their return to Vietnam.
       There are a larger number of cases, less urgent perhaps, 
     but which we believe have been unfairly decided, which might 
     safely return temporarily to Vietnam. We believe these cases, 
     which the voluntary agencies can call to the attention of the 
     Department of State, should be given access to the Orderly 
     Departure Program. If this were done, the application of the 
     Lautenberg Amendment to such cases could be particularly 
     appropriate.
       I would wish to call to your attention one serious concern 
     which we have. It is our strong impression, shared by many of 
     our colleagues in the voluntary agency community, that 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officers are not 
     applying the Lautenberg Amendment properly in Southeast Asia 
     and, in fact, in many cases, appear to be ignoring it. In 
     fact, it seems clear that the Amendment has never been 
     applied with respect to Orderly Departure Program (ODP) cases 
     leaving Vietnam which would amount to a veto of the Amendment 
     by the bureaucracy. This should not be permitted to continue.
       In the extension of the Amendment, either the legislation 
     or the report language should make clear its application to 
     ODP cases. INS officers should be required to review rejected 
     cases falling within Lautenberg categories to assure those 
     unjustly rejected are received into the program as intended. 
     We believe that the use of Public Interest Parole, which only 
     this month was halted with respect to the ODP, should be 
     continued at least in former political prisoner cases.
       Your assistance in assuring that this provision of law, now 
     scheduled to expire on October 1, 1992, is further extended 
     for two years will be greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                     Rev. Richard Ryscavage, S.J.,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                         Ukrainian National Association, Inc.,

                                 Washington, DC, January 27, 1994.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg:  Your leadership on the issue of 
     refugees in the former Soviet Union is to be commended. The 
     passage of the ``Lautenberg Amendment'' addressing the plight 
     of Soviet Jews, Pentecostals, Ukrainian Catholics, and 
     Ukrainian Orthodox has provided a haven to individuals with a 
     well-founded fear of persecution.
       It is our understanding that the law will be expiring this 
     year. With the demise of the Soviet Union there have been 
     tremendous changes since the original passage of the 
     ``Lautenberg Amendment.'' Many of the nations which replaced 
     the Soviet Union are striving to establish democratic 
     institutions and policies to protect human rights and 
     minorities. However, the region is still in transition and 
     there remains a great deal of instability in the area.
       In Ukraine, the government has pursued an exemplary policy 
     toward minorities. There is no evidence of persecution of any 
     ethnic or religious minority. However, we reamin concerned 
     about those Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox 
     believers living in other nations which emerged from the 
     Soviet Union and which have not adopted the same protection 
     of minorities which Ukraine has. For this reason, we support 
     any effort to extend the provisions of the ``Lautenberg 
     Amendment'' until such time as the institutions required to 
     guarantee religious and minority rights are firmly 
     established in all the newly independent nations of the 
     former Soviet Union.
           Sincerely,
                                                Eugene M. Iwanciw.
                                  ____



                             The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society,

                                   New York, NY, January 26, 1994.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: We are writing on behalf of the 
     Council of Jewish Federations, The Hebrew Immigrant Aid 
     Society and the National Conference of Soviet Jewry in 
     support of your efforts to reintroduce the ``Lautenberg/
     Morrison/Berman Amendment'' to achieve a two year extension 
     of the policy that facilitates the granting of refugee status 
     to certain historically persecuted groups, including Jews and 
     Evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union, Ukranian 
     Catholics and certain classes of Indochinese.
       The post-cold war era in the former Soviet Union is 
     characterized by precarious economic, social and political 
     instability, lack of effective authority and social order and 
     the backlash unleashed toward the non-native populations. The 
     recent elections in Russia are an example of the negative 
     trends in the region where people are seeking solutions by 
     turning to the extremes of the right and the left. Anti-
     Semitism has surfaced to the point where it is now an 
     accepted form of political rhetoric. We are concerned that 
     the social grievances that led to this outcome in Russia are 
     even more profound in Ukraine. Experts predict further 
     division and civil conflict and the deepening of ultra-
     nationalist sentiment in addition to the actual and ongoing 
     civil conflicts that are existent in many areas of the 
     region.
       It is an extraordinary irony, but not altogether 
     surprising, that the demise of the Soviet regime should be 
     followed by regional turbulence that inspires comparison to 
     the Welmar Republic or the pre-1917 era in imperial Russia. 
     The volatility of the current situation makes it all the more 
     imperative that historical context continue to be a factor in 
     the evaluation of the current well founded fears of 
     persecution experienced by applicants to the U.S. refugee 
     program.
       We now have a consistent and fair process in place to 
     thwart arbitrary denials and to address the adverse 
     conditions that continue to exist for persecuted groups, 
     especially in the former Soviet Union. Renewal of the 
     legislation would signal the United States' continued 
     interest in the human rights of minority groups at this 
     crucial time of uncertainty and discouraging developments in 
     the former Soviet Union.
       Thank you for your leadership and your continuing efforts 
     on this important issue. We fully support your initiative, 
     and we will work with you to ensure its passage.
           Sincerely,
     Martin Kesselhaut,
       President, HIAS.
     Maynard I. Wishner,
       President, Council of Jewish Federations.
     Richard L. Wexler,
       Chairman, National Conference on Soviet Jewry.
     Martin A. Wenick,
       Executive Vice President.
     Martin S. Kraar,
       Executive Vice President.
     Mark B. Levin,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                            Union of Councils,

                                  Washington, DC, January 3, 1994.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     Senate Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: In the struggle to protect and 
     rescue the Jewish community of the former Soviet Union, the 
     Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment stands as one of the most 
     important contributions of the United States Congress. This 
     vital legislation would not have been possible without your 
     insightful leadership.
       While the provisions are not scheduled to expire until the 
     end of September 1994, we urge you to consider an early 
     campaign to renew the Amendment in light of the recent 
     election victories of the fascist and communist movements in 
     Russia. The 23 percent of the vote received by Vladimir 
     Zhirinovsky's ``Liberal Democratic'' Party is a grave threat 
     to political and economic reform, to international stability 
     and particularly to ethnic minorities in Russia.
       We would like to propose that the Morrison-Lautenberg 
     Amendment be renewed for three years, through September 1997. 
     By extending the Amendment through 1997 the United States 
     would 1) provide a strong statement in support of refugees 
     from the former Soviet Union at a particularly dangerous 
     moment, and 2) offer protection to these refugees through the 
     end of the first year of the next Russian Presidential term, 
     an office that Vladimir Zhirinovsky has pledged to win.
       We understand that the State Department Authorization bill 
     will be on the Senate floor on January 25, and suggest that 
     this bill may be a good vehicle for a Morrison-Lautenberg 
     extension. While this legislation does not provide much time 
     to prepare a campaign, we cannot count on any other available 
     foreign policy vehicle later in the year. Additionally, if we 
     wait too long, we may lose the boost provided by the Russian 
     election and be restricted by domestic election concerns.
       Due to the limited time before Congress reconvenes, we hope 
     we can schedule a time within the next week or two to discuss 
     this crucial legislation. Your staff can contact one of us, 
     or Gideon Aronoff, our Assistant Director for Government 
     Relations.
       Once again we are grateful for your long-standing support 
     of the Soviet Jewry movement, and of human rights in the 
     former Soviet Union.
           Respectfully,
     Pamela B. Cohen,
                                               National President.
     Micah H. Naftaim,
                                                National Director.
                                  ____



                                      Baptist Joint Committee,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 1994.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: This is to affirm and endorse the 
     extension for another two years of the Lautenberg Amendment, 
     legislation which facilitates the granting of refugee status 
     for certain historically persecuted groups.
       The Baptist Joint Committee came into existence in 1936 to 
     support the religious freedom and human rights of persecuted 
     Baptists and other evangelicals in Eastern Europe. We have 
     been steadfast in that advocacy and in seeing our role as a 
     consistent biblical witness.
       The Baptist bodies listed on this letterhead stand for 
     maximum religious pluralism. We also stand for those whose 
     basic freedoms are violated.
       The Helsinki Commission says that although churches are no 
     longer forced to operate underground, the central government 
     has taken sides with one of the three Orthodox factions 
     against the other two. Interdenominational violence has 
     become common and in some cases supported by the state. 
     Catholics, for instance, have been unable to secure 
     government permission to build a church after repeated 
     applications.
       We believe that under these changing circumstances, it 
     would be a serious blunder to lift the Lautenberg guidelines.
       Thank you for considering our perspective.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James M. Dunn.
                                  ____

                                         The Institute on Religion


                                                and Democracy,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 1994.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express our strong 
     support for your efforts to extend for another two years the 
     Lautenberg Amendment, legislation which facilitates the 
     granting of refugee status for certain historically 
     persecuted groups.
       There are growing reports of increased harassment of 
     evangelical Christians in the Islamic Republics of the Newly 
     Independent States (with the exception of Kazakhstan). Our 
     organization has received substantial reports of physical 
     abuse to the point of murder in Kirghizia, Tajikistan and 
     Uzbekistan. Furthermore, in the ``orthodox'' countries of 
     Ukraine and even Russia, harassment of evangelical Christians 
     is increasing. As represented in the proposed legislation 
     last summer of the now dissolved People's Congress of 
     Deputies of the Russian Federation, evangelical Christians--
     as well as other protestant Christian groups--were very 
     nearly targets of government sanctioned discrimination. While 
     the legislation remains dormant for the immediate present, 
     the spirit of the threat remains.
       Our organization is dedicated to furthering the cause of 
     human rights and religious liberty for all people throughout 
     the world. We have had a long history of involvement in the 
     countries of the former Soviet Union. We have recently 
     increased our efforts to promote religious freedom in the 
     Islamic world.
       We also have great concern regarding the safety of 
     Christians in China and Vietnam. At present, Church relations 
     with Hanoi are virtually non-existent, as the state continues 
     to disavow the presence of religion in its society. We also 
     recently hosted a government delegation from the People's 
     Republic of China, who ignored our questions about the 
     corroborated reports of persecuted Christians in China.
       Again, please know of our support of the Lautenberg 
     Amendment. It offers hope to those who are persecuted for 
     their religious beliefs through U.S. recognition of their 
     victimized circumstances.
       Sincerely,
                                                  J. Patrick Gray.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will approve 
this amendment. I surrender the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] is 
recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg has summarized this 
well, but let me just add a word or two.
  First of all, all we are doing is asking for the extension of 
existing law. We are not increasing numbers; we are not changing 
anything like that. Both the State Department and INS have indicated 
informally they have no objection to this extension of the law.
  I wish there were no problem with anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. 
The reality is there is a problem. There is also a problem, a less 
severe problem, but no less severe for some of the people involved, for 
some Evangelical Christians. The Eastern part of Europe is not 
accustomed to the kind of religious diversity that is part of our 
country and part of the culture of so many countries.
  What adds a fear factor is Vladimir Zhirinovsky's emergence. My hope 
is that he will be like this fellow who ran against Lech Walesa who, 
all of a sudden was out there for a few weeks and months and then he 
just kind of disappeared from the scene. Frankly, I hope Zhirinovsky 
will be a similar phenomenon, that people will recognize that he is 
just bad medicine for Russia, for everybody. You cannot have that kind 
of poison out there without harming everyone.
  It seems to me what our colleague from New Jersey--and I am pleased 
to join him in sponsoring this--what we are asking for is just to keep 
that door open because there may be problems arising. There are some 
problems now. Those problems could get more serious. We are just asking 
for an extension of the present law. I am pleased to join him in 
supporting this extension.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we were prepared to accept this amendment. 
I think it is the current law and we have no objection, obviously, to 
continuing it. In fact, we think it has salutary rationale and are 
prepared to accept it as I say. However, I understand Senator Simpson 
wants to speak in opposition to it and is on his way to the floor now.
  I see the Senator from California. Mr. President, I ask the Senator 
if she is waiting to speak on this bill or to offer a different 
amendment?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of 
this amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] 
is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Lautenberg amendment to extend for 2 years an existing law that allows 
greater opportunities for historically persecuted groups to enter the 
United States. I am happy to cosponsor this important amendment.
  The existing law, which will expire later this year, lowers the 
evidentiary standard required to qualify for U.S. refugee status. 
Specific groups include Soviet Jews, Soviet Evangelical Christians, 
religiously active Ukrainian Catholics, and certain categories of 
Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians.
  I believe that it is very important that this law be extended for an 
additional 2 years. Though the end of the cold war has greatly reduced 
tensions between East and West, it has also given rise to fierce 
regional conflicts, ultranationalism, and old hatreds.
  As was evidenced by the Russian elections last December, Communists 
and ultranationalists fared surprisingly well. The now infamous 
Vladimir Zhirinovsky--and his ironically named Liberal Democratic 
Party--scored a major victory, receiving 23 percent of the popular 
vote. Together with the Communists, the hard-liners in Russia almost 
took control of the parliament, with a total of 43 percent of the vote.
  Zhirinovsky, who some dub ``the Russian Hitler,'' has aspirations of 
becoming president of Russia. He has talked about sending 300,000 
troops into Germany, blockading Japan, and taking back Alaska. All this 
on top of his antisemitic rhetoric.
  The Lautenberg amendment is important because it will provide an 
extension of existing law through the next Russian elections in 1996. 
We must all remember that Hitler was first elected with only 18 percent 
of the vote, and then rose to power a few years later.
  In addition to Soviet Jews and other historically persecuted groups 
in the New Independent States, many refugee applicants from Indo-China 
still suffer as a result of their previous associations with the United 
States, their political actions against the hard-line Marxist 
government, and for their religious beliefs. It is also important that 
existing law be extended to apply to these groups of persecuted people 
as well.
  The Lautenberg amendment has no impact on the number of refugees 
entering the United States annually. These numbers are still determined 
every year through consultations between the administration and 
Congress. Nor will this amendment confer automatic refugee status on 
any applicant who falls within its designated groups.
  The Lautenberg amendment simply establishes guidelines for the 
adjudication of refugee status. It allows an individual from a specific 
group of historically-persecuted peoples to provide a credible basis 
for concern about the possibility of persecution.
  Mr. President, in summary and just briefly, I associate myself with 
the remarks of both Senator Lautenberg and Senator Simon. This 
amendment asks for nothing new. What it simply does is extend a status 
beyond the next Russian election. The impact of this should be obvious. 
I think it is very clear in the minds of historically persecuted people 
that there is reason for fear, with the ascension of Vladimir 
Zhirinovsky in the Soviet Union and the fact that his rather ironically 
named Liberal Democratic Party scored a major victory, receiving 23 
percent of the popular vote. Now, together with the Communists, the 
hardliners received that was a total of 43 percent of the vote in the 
last Russian election.
  What is reverberating throughout historically persecuted people is 
that if there is a change of vote in the next election in 1996, the 
people who have been persecuted may not be able to leave once again. 
That is not an unfounded fear. It is a fear that has been founded in 
the reality of totalitarianism, in the reality of ultranationalism. If 
both of these combine in an election, it bodes ill for people who fear 
for their individuality, their ability to worship as they please, 
whether they be Evangelical Christian or whether they be Jews.
  The purpose of this amendment is simply to extend that deadline 
beyond this next election and, therefore, give these people the right 
to leave and the ability to have the status that is necessary for 
protection. With this in mind, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment and to support both statements of my colleagues, Senator 
Lautenberg and Senator Simon.
  Let us not forget history. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the endorsement by the 
Senator from California. Her support is deeply appreciated, as is the 
support of my colleague from Illinois.
  We have worked on matters dealing with refugee admissions for some 
time now. Both of my colleagues have amply described what might take 
place if support for Mr. Zhirinovsky grows. There is a certain madness 
that accompanies his rhetoric that, frankly, scares all of us, not just 
those who might be subject to the repression that he would bring into 
the Russian Republic. Simply put, he espouses hatred.
  I think it is important for the United States to stand up in this 
significant way and say we will continue to accept refugees. If you 
continue to harass them, if you continue to persecute them, we want it 
to be known that the United States will accept these people.
  As clearly indicated by my own comments and by the Senator from 
Illinois, this amendment does not increase the numbers of people who 
will be permitted to come to this country. What we want to do is 
facilitate the process for those who live in constant fear of 
persecution, harassment and sometimes violent assault.
  So, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and I thank the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, the manager of this bill, for 
permitting me to bring this up at this time.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in 1989, I joined with my colleague, 
Senator Lautenberg, in support of the retention of the standard of 
proof long required for certain categories of Soviet and Indochinese 
refugees who have faced continuing persecution. The so-called 
Lautenberg amendment, which passed the Senate unanimously in 1989, 
allowed Soviet Jews, Evangelical Christians, and certain categories of 
Southeast Asians--Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians--to qualify for 
refugee status by asserting a fear of persecution and presenting a 
``credible basis for concern about the possibility of such 
persecution,'' rather than a ``well-founded fear of persecution.''
  The need for the enactment of the Lautenberg legislation emerged 
after the Immigration and Naturalization Service changed its 
longstanding screening practice of presuming these groups had a well-
founded fear of persecution. After the change in policy, the denial 
rate of these groups soared dramatically upward. Within a 3 month 
period in 1988, the denial rate for the Vietnamese Orderly Departure 
Program rose from under 10 percent to a denial rate of 80 percent. This 
change occurred even though conditions in Southeast Asia had not 
changed.
  I am pleased to support the amendment before us to extend this 
provision for an additional 2 years. It is likely to be argued in the 
Senate today that world conditions have changed and the Lautenberg 
provisions are no longer necessary or applicable. I disagree.
  I'd like to explain why it is important for us to continue to include 
Indochinese in this law. The individuals awaiting resettlement 
interviews have been waiting years for their interviews. They continue 
to suffer the possibility of persecution in their countries because of 
their associations with the United States during the Vietnam war, their 
religious beliefs, and their involvement in political activities in 
opposition to repressive Marxist governments in power in their 
countries.
  In particular, Vietnam continues to repress freedom of speech, 
expression, and religious beliefs. It was recently reported in the 
State Department's ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 
1992'' released in 1993 that ``a number of * * * Buddhist clergy 
arrested soon after the 1975 Communist victory remained in prison or 
under house arrest, throughout 1992.'' Religious repression does not 
affect only Buddhists, but extends to Catholics and Protestants as 
well. In addition, Vietnamese citizens can be sent to reeducation camps 
at any time, where they face inadequate medical care, nutrition and 
severe punishments for minor infractions. While Vietnam is moving 
toward economic liberalization and normalization of relations with the 
United States--and I supported the steps the Senate took last week to 
encourage normalization with Vietnam--it is unfortunately true that 
many groups continue to face persecution at the hands of their 
government.
  It is important to remember that extending the Lautenberg amendment 
will not increase the number of refugees allowed from the countries 
included in the law. Refugee admissions are set each year by the 
administration in consultation with Congress. The credible basis 
standard is not irrefutable, and it is still up to the INS interviewer 
to make the decision of whether or not to grant refugee status to these 
individuals.
  I urge my colleagues to support the extension of the Lautenberg 
Amendment for an additional 2 years. The groups that are protected 
under this legislation continue to face persecution despite changes in 
world affairs. The Lautenberg amendment has proven successful. Under 
the Lautenberg provision, processing time is shortened and refugees are 
judged by a more consistent standard. Therefore, we must continue in 
our commitment to these refugees by extending the Lautenberg amendment 
for another 2 years while the liberalizations in the former Soviet 
Union and Vietnam are assessed.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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. I ask the Chair what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending second-degree amendment is Simon-
Lautenberg.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent to lay that amendment aside most 
temporarily so that I can lay down an amendment. If Senator Simpson or 
anybody else who wants to speak on the pending amendment comes, I will, 
of course, yield and permit that to happen. So I do ask unanimous 
consent to lay this amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered. The Senator is recognized.


                           amendment no. 1328

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

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1328.

  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. 
today, the Senate return to the Lautenberg amendment No. 1327 and 
without intervening action or debate, the Senate vote on or in relation 
to amendment No. 1327.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from North 
Carolina had temporarily set aside the amendment No. 1327. I would ask 
for----
  Mr. HELMS. Call for regular order.
  Mr. KERRY. Regular order at this time. Regular order.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed now and the 
Senate return to amendment No. 1327, the amendment of the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1327

  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe we are in the order of business 
speaking on the Lautenberg amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are currently dealing with 1327, the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the amendment. 
This is an extension of a measure first introduced in 1989. It is 
something that declares entire groups in the former Soviet Union and in 
Southeast Asia as subject to persecution and thus entitled to refugee 
status under our laws. I have been on this one a long time, as I say, 
and I know people are tired of it. You cannot pick an issue more 
fraught with emotion, fear, guilt, and racism than when you are in the 
area of refugees and immigration.
  I know there will be smatterings of that in this debate. It never is 
ever far removed.
  Debate about who is a political refugee and who is an economic 
migrant has proceeded vigorously in recent years, but very little is 
said about the slide of U.S. refugee policy into pure politics, just as 
illustrated by this amendment by my friend from New Jersey. And I 
respect Frank Lautenberg thoroughly. He and I have worked together on 
many issues. The pressures he has on this amendment are total. I have 
watched it over the years.
  Under our Refugee Act and under the United Nations Convention and 
Protocol, a refugee is a person with a well-founded fear of persecution 
on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 
social group, or political opinion. That is a refugee. The way we 
determine refugees is on a case-by-case basis, which is the only sane 
and sensible way to determine who is a refugee. That is why Senator 
Kennedy did yeoman's work in 1980 on the Refugee Act, new legislation, 
with which I assisted. But under this amendment, any member of a group 
or category covered can establish eligibility as a refugee just by 
being a member of the group without any case-by-case 
determination. They do that by ``asserting''--that is the word, 
asserting--a well-founded fear of persecution and asserting a credible 
basis for concern about the possibility of persecution.

  In other words, admission to the United States as a refugee is made 
then on the basis of two assertions that do not in themselves involve 
any test of credibility at all. Every other refugee applicant to this 
country is required to establish his or her eligibility. But those who 
benefit from this amendment need only ``assert'' a claim. Accordingly, 
once an individual is asserting that he or she is a member of a covered 
class and asserts that he or she has been persecuted or has a fear of 
persecution, then that person is deemed to be a refugee.
  Special categories of aliens from the former Soviet Union who are 
entitled to refugee status under this amendment are Jews and 
Evangelical Christians, for the most part. About 80 percent of the 
refugee admissions go to Jewish applicants, and most of the balance are 
awarded to Evangelicals. Not surprisingly, a wave of dubious 
conversions have been reported in the latter group.
  In the last human rights report submitted to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, the State Department, in reviewing the situation in Russia, 
noted that there was some ``unofficial discrimination against Jews.'' I 
do not dispute that ghastly and unfortunate fact, not one bit.
  It is also a fact that there is unofficial discrimination against 
groups in this country. I do not dispute that one bit, and I do not see 
how anyone can. But it does not make that person here, or in the Soviet 
Union, a refugee. Refugees are persons fleeing official political 
persecution and not discrimination. I have often said, if you want to 
change the definition of a ``refugee,'' let us do that in open debate, 
but not like this.
  All applicants for refugee status, excepting only those covered by 
this amendment, go through a case-by-case interview process to 
determine whether or not a well-founded fear of persecution exists. The 
applicant has the burden of establishing that well-founded fear of 
persecution, as it should be. This is not a new thing here.
  The categories were established by Senator Lautenberg in his original 
amendment in 1989, and there was no way to stop that then, nor would we 
have perhaps wanted to do anything with that debate, because in 1989 
there was a clear history of persecution under the Communist Soviet 
state apparatus.
  Happily, I think to all concerned, that apparatus no longer exists. 
Russia is our friend of friends, the one we support with our money and 
our words and our deeds. That is who we are dealing with here. This is 
not the Soviet Union; this is Russia and the Ukraine. These are our 
allies, our friends. How can you possibly call 50,000 of those people 
refugees? It is impossible to do that. It is a leap of all logic.
  It is now anomalous, to say the least, to include such category 
groups as current members of the Ukrainian Catholic or Ukrainian 
Orthodox Church. The 1994 Human Rights World Watch Report does not even 
include an entry on the Ukraine. The 1993 Amnesty International report 
mentions only ``one known prisoner of conscience, a conscientious 
objector to military service.'' The Amnesty International report said, 
``A civilian alternative to military service was open only to religious 
beliefs.'' In other words, the only prisoner of conscience in the 
Ukraine is in prison because of a lack of religious affiliation. I 
point all this out only to show how unnecessary this amendment is and 
the violence that it does to the integrity of the Refugee Act of 1980, 
where we would do these things on a case-by-case basis.
  The Southeast Asian category groups established by the Lautenberg 
amendment were devised back in 1983--11 years ago. Has anyone inquired 
to check to see whether any conditions may have changed since then? Of 
course, they have. That is what the refugee designation is all about, 
changing conditions in a country. That is why the State Department is 
involved, along with the Justice Department.
  Is every Catholic in Vietnam a refugee? Is every Vietnamese of 
Chinese origin a refugee? Of course not. It is done on a case-by-case 
basis.
  What this well-intended amendment does is it creates a bottleneck in 
refugee processing for the former Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands 
of persons from the Lautenberg category groups have joined the queue 
for the 40,000 to 50,000 resettlement places per year from the former 
Soviet Union. This has caused a backup in processing. It makes it 
extremely difficult for these noncategory members, persons who do not 
get this special treatment provided by the Lautenberg amendment, to be 
considered for U.S. resettlement. An Armenian/Azerbaijani family of 
mixed ethnicity, for example, is at a great disadvantage here, without 
question.
  This amendment causes us to lock ourselves in to act on behalf of 
specified groups--powerful specified groups--resulting in multiyear 
commitments on their behalf, creating what is known as a ``pipeline.'' 
This effectively restricts our refugee program in its ability to 
respond flexibly to the fast-changing patterns of human rights 
violations in Eastern and Central Europe.
  Is there really a justification for designating some groups and not 
others as category groups? Should certain categories of Bosnians be 
included? Certain categories of Haitians? Why should we designate some 
groups and not others? The answer is we should not designate any 
groups. That is why, with Senator Kennedy's good tutelage and efforts 
and skill--and he will not be able to participate in this debate; that 
is the way this works, too, when you get to an issue like this--we 
changed our refugees laws in 1980, to take the politics, the pressure, 
the ideology, the parole use, which was so misused, to take it out of 
the refugee program so that we can offer refuge to those persons truly 
fleeing political persecution and who are of special humanitarian 
concern to the United States.
  The sad part of it is--and this amendment will pass like a dose of 
salts; that is the way it works in this place--this amendment has 
essentially turned a very fine refugee program into an immigrant 
program, an immigration program, with one important exception, and do 
not miss this: The beneficiaries under this program are then resettled 
in the United States at taxpayers' expense, although they come to join 
family members in the United States, for the most part, they are not 
subject to the ``public charge exclusion.''
  Mr. President, no one, no sensible, compassionate, caring person 
would deny that there are persons suffering political persecution in 
the former Soviet Union. I do not deny in any way that some of them are 
in the categories covered by the Lautenberg amendment. And I deeply 
believe we must always maintain a generous refugee quota for those true 
refugees in the former Soviet Union.
  We should keep a functioning, supportive refugee processing team in 
Moscow. Please hear this. I am not in any way saying cut back on what 
we are doing there. But we should keep this very able, supportive, 
functioning refugee processing team in Moscow to handle the admission 
of those determined to be refugees, but only on a case-by-case basis.
  To do otherwise is absurd. This is what the Refugee Act of 1980 was 
all about. I know my good friend from New Jersey is aware that many of 
these people who are admitted as refugees solely as a result of this 
amendment continue to live in the former Soviet Union for months, in 
some cases even years, after they have been approved for admission to 
the United States. Hear that. On the one hand, these folks are 
asserting a fear of persecution, while on the other hand they stay for 
months or years to wind up their affairs, or to remain with a relative, 
or some such reason.
  It just does not make sense. If there was a well-founded fear of 
persecution, I tell you what you would do. You would get out. You would 
get out in a minute. And the minute you set your foot in another 
country you are home free. You have found refuge. You cannot stay in 
the country 6 months or a year to wind up your affairs and yet claim to 
be fleeing persecution.
  Gertrude Stein said it best, if I may paraphrase, a refugee is a 
refugee is a refugee.
  You get out as swiftly as you can to save your hide. That is what you 
do when you are a refugee. And the sad part of it is we will now 
categorize and continue to do it with a country we are totally at peace 
with who we fund and support and is our friendliest of allies. We are 
courting, cooperating with, and supporting Russia at every turn, a 
country that has made tremendous strides as it struggles toward an open 
society, and here we are.
  There may be 16 million or more people waiting in the real world who 
are refugees, and we should deal with them and accept our fair share on 
a case-by-case basis; but not on some blanket proposal that may have 
been at least more valid several years ago, but is certainly not valid 
with what we know of the former Soviet Union today.
  So I am ready again to take my lumps on this one. I have had knots on 
my head from speaking on these subjects for some time. But I hope you 
will all understand that this is not 1989 in any sense, and it is a 
totally different situation. You are using precious numbers for groups 
presumed to be refugees, and it will be paid for by the United States 
of America, and many of these people are simply immigrants and should 
come under our existing immigration laws.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, first, I want to praise our colleague 
from Wyoming. The Immigration and Refugee Subcommittee has three 
members, and both Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy have just done 
yeoman service, and it is a subcommittee where you have to say no to a 
lot of people. Senator Simpson has been willing to stand up, and I 
applaud him for it. He gets no votes in Wyoming for being on this 
subcommittee, let me tell you. He is doing a service to this body and 
to this Nation.
  He is correct when he says specialized groups get preference. I think 
the question we face is, Do these specialized groups face special 
problems that justifies this? And I think the answer is yes.
  There is, in addition to the anti-Semitism and the anti-evangelical 
Christian thrust that is part historically of some of these areas, this 
fear of this new leader who is emerging that is causing a lot of 
anxiety out there. In terms of those who assert their fear and then get 
that ticket for admission and stay there for months, and according to 
Senator Simpson for years, and I do not question that, I think you have 
to recognize there are people who would prefer to stay in Russia or 
some other country, but as long as things do not get too bad they are 
going to stay there, but they want that ticket to the United States if 
things disintegrate.
  What we are saying to people is if you are being persecuted because 
of the situation that you face you have a possibility of coming to the 
United States, and the Lautenberg amendment just extends the present 
law.
  I would finally point out that neither INS nor the State Department 
oppose the Lautenberg amendment. So my hope is that we will adopt it.
  Again, Senator Simpson has been superb on this subcommittee, but I 
think in this instance the judgment of our friend from New Jersey is 
correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I was made aware of the objection of 
the Senator from Wyoming to this amendment, and I would like to point 
out from the beginning that I do not believe that he is anti any 
persons, anti any group. In this case, I think it is fair to say anti-
Semitism does not rank at all in the thoughts of the Senator from 
Wyoming. He is not that kind of a person.
  I think in this case he may--if the Senator from Wyoming would do me 
the courtesy of listening--be antisemantic in this question in terms of 
the phraseology that we are using. Certainly, this is intended to be 
somewhat humorous.
  We are kind of an odd couple. We are good friends, but we disagree on 
lots of things, and in this case we decidedly disagree. The fact is 
that there is not a presumption that if you belong to group A, group B, 
or group C, you are automatically entitled to refugee status. The fact 
of the matter is that in the statute it is very clear. It says 
applicants must prove, and I here quote, ``a credible basis for 
concern,'' in various ways, including the assertion of, No. 1, actual 
past persecution or discriminatory or prejudicial actions taken against 
the individual personally, No. 2, acts of persecution committed against 
similarly situated individuals in the applicant's geographical locale, 
or No. 3, instances of mistreatment or prejudicial actions based on the 
individual's request to depart the countries covered by this law. In 
the case of applicants citing discriminatory or prejudicial action 
taken against them personally, INS guidance requires the applicant to 
assert a cumulation of such actions.
  So, Madam President, I disagree with my friend from Wyoming. 
Applicants must have a credible basis of fear and persuade the INS.
  We have a well-founded basis for assuming some of the worst coming 
out of one of the regions we are discussing, the former Soviet Union. 
And I must tell you that I found it somewhat perplexing when the 
Senator from Wyoming described Russia as our good friend, perhaps the 
friend of most attention at this point. There is considerable 
trepidation about stability in the former Soviet Union and no one knows 
it better than the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. The fact is we 
do not know which way the countries of the former Soviet Union are 
going to go. They could go up in smoke. We dare not let down our guard, 
because no one knows what is going to happen.
  Still, we want to help. I, for one, have pledged to support the 
President in his quest to help the present Government continue with the 
reform process. However, we are more anxious since we have heard from 
Mr. Zhirinovsky, because the madness that he espouses is familiar. It 
is the kind of hatred that was espoused before the United States 
entered earlier wars, the last one being World War II. It is that kind 
of maniacal view that gets us in the position that we know we have to 
guard against.
  The people who have been constantly the scapegoats, the subject of 
persecution, the subject of harassment with unrelenting pace are some 
of the Catholic groups, the Ukrainian Catholics. The Evangelicals are 
harassed constantly. So are the Jews and certain Indochinese. We are 
asking for a 2-year extension of the law that facilitates the 
designation of refugee status for these people. We are not making 
permanent law.
  The committee on which the distinguished Senator from Wyoming sits is 
the committee that helps shape the decision about the overall number of 
refugees our country accepts. So I hear what my friend says, but I 
sharply disagree. This is no time to change law which facilitates the 
process for historically persecuted groups.
  I do want to respond to one other thing the Senator from Wyoming made 
mention of, because, in a very friendly letter to me describing his 
disagreement with my position, he made some of the points that he has 
just made on the floor. He talks about people, almost describing them 
as languishing, if you will, in the former Soviet Union, in Russia, and 
just awaiting a convenient time to depart.
  Madam President, I sharply disagree. There is a process that goes on. 
It takes months, as much as 5 months, to clear our own books and 
records to permit these people to leave once we designate them as 
refugees. These are requirements imposed by the U.S. Government.
  Anyone who has ever been to Russia, in either its former condition or 
present condition, knows very well that things do not happen fast. If 
you think our bureaucracy is a little slow in moving, the bureaucracies 
there do not move at all. It takes months and months to clear the 
papers with which one has to comply with the rules in order to leave.
  So, Madam President, the 2-year extension that our amendment proposes 
will carry through the Russian Presidential elections in 1996. In the 
meantime, there is more and more concern that Mr. Zhirinovsky and his 
group will continue to gain power and strength. Allowing this amendment 
to expire this year would simply play into the politics of hatred 
Zhirinovsky propounds.
  Madam President, I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will 
continue to support this fairminded, equitable program that facilitates 
designation as refugees for people who have long been--and continue to 
be--subject to persecution. I think we have to continue to be the good 
guys and to hold out our hand, as we so often have, to people who want 
to come.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I believe this to be a good amendment, and 
I support it. I agree that it should be part of the bill.
  With the unsettled situation in Russia, the Ukraine, and other parts 
of the former Soviet Union, this is not the time to change the rules to 
make it harder for Jewish residents to qualify for refugee status. The 
same continues to be true for Vietnam and other parts of Indochina.
  No one is denied refugee admission to the United States because of 
this bill. Rather it states the obvious. Certain groups deserve special 
recognition for refugee purposes. In the Russian area, you have the 
question of anti-Semitism. In my own experience, having lived in that 
part of the world, anti-Semitism in Slav countries is more prevalent 
than it is in other parts of the world. In view of that, I think this 
provision should remain.
  When it comes to Southeast Asia, in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos, 
people suffer because they oppose the regimes. I think we deserve to 
give them a special little push. It does not mean there will be a 
larger number of refugees. It just means we recognize that certain 
groups of refugees should be recognized as such. That is what this 
amendment accomplishes.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, there is a reason why the groups do not 
wish this to get to the floor and to debate it like we are just doing. 
The reason is the word ``anti-Semitism.'' I will not have any part of 
that, in humor or not. That is personally very offensive to me. This is 
not anti-Semitism.
  I know that my good friend was not indicating in any sense any 
activity on my part, and he was saying that in good humor. But I am 
saying that is what is underlying this tremendous pressure that gets 
this to this point because no other group in the world receives this 
special treatment.
  If it were the Soviet Union of 1989, I would not be here. In fact, I 
have sat, while my friend from New Jersey has gone forward, and I have 
visited in my office with people from the groups who press this. They 
say, ``Couldn't you just accept this, please, so we do not have to go 
through a debate?''
  I said, ``What's wrong with going through a debate?''
  ``Well, you know, it could get into things about anti-Semitism.''
  ``Well,'' I said, ``if we are limited in our debate about things that 
go and find avenues and vents that are unknown, then we would not get 
anything done.''
  It goes back to what I have said 3,000 times. You either pass or kill 
a bill on this floor with the use of emotion, fear, guilt, or racism. 
That is the only reason I stay in this issue, not because I am totally 
perverse and ornery.
  But this is not the Soviet Union of 1989. This is the former Soviet 
Union of 1994. Does anyone doubt who our friends are in that part of 
the world as we curry the favor of every one of the Independent States, 
and our citizens are there doing business and working and taking visas? 
There is anti-Semitism in Russia. There is anti-Semitism in the 
Ukraine. There is anti-Semitism in Vietnam. There is anti-Semitism in 
the United States of America. Where do you not find it?
  Now, if every time we are going to be frozen in place and give up 
50,000 numbers on a powerhouse play, when there are 60 million people 
waiting to get into the United States on a case-by-case basis, if they 
could stand face to face with one of our consular people and one of our 
people in the United States, they would hear what is a true refugee--a 
true refugee--not someone who is just covered by a blanket and, when 
covered by the blanket, decides to stay in this place of hideous 
persecution for a year or 6 months.
  I did not say they were languishing there. I am saying they are 
there. I say change the definition of refugee and get it done as soon 
as you can so that you can remove the phrase ``fleeing persecution,'' 
because you cannot be fleeing persecution and stay in the country that 
is persecuting you to get your affairs together.
  If you are a refugee, you are running. I think most people think of a 
refugee as ``the hounds of hell are after you.'' And once you get to 
the country of first asylum, once you get to that precious land, you 
are no longer a refugee. You have sanctuary. You have refuge. That is 
what it is about.
  So just know that when you do this--and as I say it will pass pretty 
well, but I am going to have a rollcall vote. And by God, if I find 
somebody running up a list when it is all done that those who voted 
against this somehow had a smattering of anti-Semitism, I will hit the 
road and I will go find the forums and I will be very pleased to debate 
the issue with reasonable, responsible people.
  I think our friend from Illinois--and there is no one tracking the 
issue better, as he sits on the committee with Ted Kennedy as chairman 
and me as ranking member--stepped into the hornets nest. It is the only 
three-member subcommittee in the U.S. Senate because nobody else will 
get on it, so the three of us labor. But I think it was very 
interesting what my friend from Illinois said. What he says is exactly 
right, because he is saying the persons benefiting from this amendment 
are looking for and receiving a ``ticket to the United States.'' A 
ticket to be used at any time. This is not about having a ``ticket to 
the United States,'' because that is what the Refugee Act was all 
about. It is about giving the precious right of a refuge, or sanctuary, 
if you will, that follows, to persons who are fleeing persecution. It 
is not about providing insurance policies or alternates or tickets to 
the United States. That is not what it is about.
  So, I know the Senator from New Jersey acts from the best of motives, 
and I do enjoy him. He is a delightful friend. And he is not 
considering--I think he really believes, and I can say this because he 
is here, that is the joy of the debate--he may not consider his 
legislation to provide a presumption for persons in the former Soviet 
Union or Vietnam, but remember that all that is necessary here is 
something totally out of the mainstream of what we do. You do not have 
to establish any refugee status. You just simply ``assert a well-
founded fear of persecution,'' and then you ``assert a credible 
basis.''
  You can go on all you want to, but I prefer to stick with the English 
language and that is what it says. Asserting a well-founded fear of 
persecution and asserting--and there is no other group in the world, 
whether it is Evangelicals or Ukrainian Catholics or Jews, or whoever, 
who have this special, special status that uses up other precious 
numbers that are not used by the people you see in the nightly news, 
who are really refugees: People from Yugoslavia, people from Somalia. 
How many people would like to leave there? We do not give them enough 
numbers. We should give them more numbers.
  How do we get more numbers when we have this pipeline clogged with 
50,000--and do not think they will not fill it. It will be filled. It 
will be filled.
  I must say, I have nothing more than sheer puzzlement when my friend 
speaks of friendship. Do we have friendship with Russia? I think we 
must, when we stood by and approved when they lobbed shells into their 
own White House and never said anything. I think that is an act of true 
friendship. You cannot be any friendlier than that, than to watch your 
ally lob shells into his house of government, and not say much about 
it--Republicans and Democrats alike. That is not a partisan statement. 
Boy, that is friendship. There is an old song about that one. You could 
do a tap dance.
  So let us remember what we are doing. Things have changed and so has 
this amendment, and the purpose of it. That is why I am here.
  In 1989 I was not here. In 1994 I am here. You are using precious 
numbers that are given to a country that is our friend, as far as I 
know--unless I am missing something--and using a number of someone that 
preciously needs to be determined as a refugee on a case-by-case basis. 
And we have effectively turned our back on case-by-case designation, 
turned our back on the Refugee Act of 1980, and gone into a presumptive 
status based on nothing more than an assertion.
  I think that is wrong. I think we should have a rollcall vote. I 
think the vote will be 85 to 15, and I think we will move on. But there 
will be something on the Record to show that this is not right, it is 
not sense, and it takes away precious numbers from pathetic, truly 
pathetic people, not on a basis of a presumption of refugee status but 
a hard, gut, sinew-tough, case-by-case real knowledge that they are 
refugees. We use 150,000--numbers, and 50,000 of them go here on a 
presumption. It is wrong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, at the peril of prolonging this 
debate, I will just respond to my colleague from Wyoming. I want to 
make sure the Record is absolutely clear in terms of what it was that I 
said a few minutes ago, when I confirmed or affirmed my belief that the 
Senator from Wyoming does not harbor the kind of ``anti'' feeling 
suggested by anti-Semitism or anti-any other group. I know him well. I 
have talked to him in private moments and I have never heard any kind 
of a racial or religious slur come from him.
  So when I tried some humor--which apparently passed by--and I accused 
him of being against the ``semantics'' of the bill, that is strictly 
what I was talking about, a word game, and in no way his feelings about 
any groups or individuals. So I hope the Record reflects that clearly.
  But I do want to discuss the issue because I think he is wrong on the 
issue. The fact that he declares that our buddies in the Soviet Union, 
or former Soviet Union, Russia, are OK because we did not intervene 
when they were shooting shells at one another, we did not intervene in 
Armenia when Azerbaijanis threatened to cut off their fuel supplies in 
the middle of this winter, we did not intervene in Georgia when they 
tried to take down the government there in their civil war play, or 
Tadzhikistan, or many of the other republics where tensions are almost 
at a boiling point--and heaven forbid that the war in former Yugoslavia 
expands, it could go like a tinderbox--we are not talking about any of 
those things.
  What we are talking about is an amendment that was passed in this 
body 97 to 0. Apparently the Senator has already gotten a body count 
and he is at 85-15. But we are going to have the vote. And I do not 
want it to be suggested in any way that there is some surreptitious 
program underway where people are coming in the office and the blame is 
going to say you are an anti-Semite because you voted against it. That 
is nonsense. We discuss lots of issues here and, yes of course there is 
emotion. I am shocked that the Senator from Wyoming would suggest that 
emotion, fear--or there was another adjective--noun that he used to 
describe it, I am not sure what the other one was-- but fear, 
constantly.
  We are continually talking about crime and the fear that permeates 
our society and the phone calls that come and the letters that come and 
the pleas that we have from people who feel helpless out there because 
they are afraid. But we respond in here because we are afraid if we do 
not pay attention to those voters there is going to be something to pay 
out there.
  So, let us dismiss that kind of rhetoric. We are discussing an issue 
that has to be decided on the merits of the issue. There have been 
people persecuted in this condition, in this area, this region, for 
almost centuries. I know it because my grandmother and grandfather were 
chased out of there. This is not a new discovery. We are talking about 
using numbers that have been said--if the Senator from Wyoming wants to 
reset the numbers, he is a ranking member of the important subcommittee 
that makes decisions on this issue, then go to the subcommittee and 
expand it. And if he wants my endorsement to let people in from Bosnia 
while we stand on the side and see that slaughter and do not do a damn 
thing, it might--he has my cosponsorship.
  We are not talking about those things at all. We are not expanding 
the caps. We are not increasing the numbers. We are talking about 
people who have been subject to persecution and harassment for years, 
who carry name plates or tags that identify them as a Jew or another 
part of the religious community.
  This is not some pipedream. We are not talking to people who can 
otherwise live without fear, free to practice their religion. They are 
desecrating cemeteries; they are trying to destroy objects that relate 
to the practice of one's religion. That is scary.
  Let it happen here in this country--I know when a swastika is painted 
on a synagogue or a cross is burned on someone's lawn that we respond; 
we are outraged and we are fearful and we do not let it go unnoticed. 
We ought not let this go unnoticed. We ought to move off this.
  I respect the Senator from Wyoming. He just happens to be wrong. 
Thank you very much, Madam President.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I realize that our colleagues are waiting 
with more amendments because the deadline is 6 o'clock tonight, but I 
cannot resist. In response to the Senator from Wyoming, he would agree 
there are two kinds of refugees: Economic and political. The general 
understanding is we are talking about political refugees, not economic 
ones. More of the numbers will go to political refugees.
  Is that not the purpose of it, as opposed to having them all go for 
immigration purposes?
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, indeed, there is great confusion in the 
land sometimes between political refugees, refugees under the United 
Nations and United States, and economic refugees. But remember that a 
political refugee in every other country of the world and all other 
applicants throughout the world must establish a well-founded fear of 
political persecution, if you will, on a case-by-case basis. That is 
all the Senator from Wyoming is saying. Nothing more. Do not read much 
more into it.
  This you can call an assertion or a presumption or whatever, but it 
means that simply by being a member of one of these groups--they have 
added enough groups to make it more palatable--then you are 
automatically presumed to be a refugee, even if you have no fear of 
political persecution. Hear that. You may live in a community in the 
former Soviet Union where you have no fear. I do not know that. I am 
sure that would be unique, but I do know this: That we have taken a 
huge number, and I have helped do it right here on this floor. I want 
the number--I will get it for the Record--of how many Soviet Jews we 
have brought to the United States. I have traveled there with my 
friends to bring them here, and we have brought a huge number. I was 
right at the forefront of that. I am still there.
  Now I am saying continue to do it on a case-by-case basis and not 
enter into this exercise where we give a presumption of refugee status. 
Remember, there are political refugees and economic refugees and then 
there are immigrants. No one knows that better than my friend from 
Rhode Island. Most of the persons entering under this amendment are 
like immigrants: They are coming to join people in the United States. 
Let us find out on a case-by-case basis.
  The rich heritage of persecution of the relatives and family and 
loved ones of Frank Lautenberg I could not even imagine, but that is 
not what this is about. Again, I have been here too long. I am not 
jaded. The issue is not about racism or the past or the Holocaust. The 
issue is about 1994 and refugees to the United States.
  I say to my friend that the White House sets the figures on refugee 
numbers. Whatever they set, they know that will carry in the U.S. 
Senate. So we just sit and kind of twaddle our thumbs. Even Senator 
Kennedy and I have sent letters to the Reagan White House and to the 
Bush White House and I think to the Clinton White House saying: Your 
numbers do not fit anymore with the reality of life.
  The original normal flow of refugees was 50,000, and now this single 
amendment takes 50,000. It needs to be brought to the attention of the 
American people. They will not hear it today. It will pass big, but 
maybe someday they will go back and look at the debate. Even some of 
the voluntary agencies who do God's work on the ground say this is 
absurd, and ``You will not get to first base, Simpson,'' and they are 
right.
  But this is about 1994 and Russia and the Ukraine and Vietnam, for 
whom we just the other day urged the President, I guess--I voted for 
it--to normalize relations with Vietnam, and yet that is listed here. 
This does not fit--it will fit today by a nice vote, but it will not 
fit. That is why I think we needed this debate.
  I appreciate the courtesies of my friend from New Jersey, a splendid 
friend, and the courtesies of the managers of the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote taken will be by yeas and nays.
  The Senator from North Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 1329

    (Purpose: To instruct U.S. Executive Directors to international 
   financial institutions to vote against financing countries whose 
                 governments expropriate U.S. property)

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending 
amendments are set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1329.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam 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:
       On page 179, after line 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 714. OPPOSITION TO FINANCING BY INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL 
                   INSTITUTIONS FOR COUNTRIES EXPROPRIATING UNITED 
                   STATES PROPERTY.

       (a) Prohibition.--The President shall instruct the United 
     States Executive Director of the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development, the International Development 
     Association, the International Finance Corporation, the 
     Inter-American Development Bank, the African Development 
     Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development 
     Bank, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 
     and the International Monetary Fund to vote against any loan 
     or other utilization of the funds of the bank for benefit of 
     any country which--
       (1) has before, on, or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act--
       (A) nationalized or expropriated the property of any United 
     States person,
       (B) repudiated or nullified any contract or agreement with 
     any United States person, or
       (C) taken any other action (such as the imposition of 
     discriminatory taxes or other exactions) which has the effect 
     of seizing ownership or control of the property of any United 
     States person, and
       (2) has not, within a period of 3 years (or where 
     applicable, the period described in subsection (b)), returned 
     the property or provided adequate and effective compensation 
     for such property in convertible foreign exchange equivalent 
     to the full value thereof, as required by international law.
       (b) Extended Period for Compensation in the Case of Newly 
     Democratic Government.--In the case of a democratically 
     elected foreign government that had been a totalitarian or 
     authoritarian government at the time of the action described 
     in subsection (a)(1), the 3-year period described in 
     subsection (a)(2) shall be deemed to have begun as of the 
     date of the installation of the democratically elected 
     government.
       (c) Excepted Countries and Territories.--This section shall 
     not apply to any country established by international mandate 
     through the United Nations or to any territory recognized by 
     the United States Government to be in dispute.
       (d) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and every 180 days 
     thereafter, the President shall transmit to the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate, a report containing the following:
       (1) A list of all countries against which United States 
     persons have outstanding expropriation claims.
       (2) The total number of outstanding expropriation claims 
     made by United States persons against any foreign country.
       (3) The period of time in which each claim has been 
     outstanding.
       (4) A description on a case-by-case basis of each effort 
     made by the United States Government, or the country in which 
     the expropriation claim has been made, to return the property 
     or provide adequate and effective compensation for such 
     property.
       (5) Each project a United States Executive Director voted 
     against as a result of the action described in subsection 
     (a).
       (e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``United States person'' means a United States citizen or 
     corporation, partnership, or association at least 50 percent 
     beneficially owned by United States citizens.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I yield to the Senator for a unanimous 
consent request we have agreed to.
  Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator from North Carolina.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of 
amendment 1327 and without intervening action or debate, the Senate 
proceed to vote on amendment 1326, as amended, if amended.
  I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Simon 
amendment No. 1326 to be considered, notwithstanding the unanimous-
consent agreement governing this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I now ask unanimous-consent that the 
previous unanimous consent agreement regarding the 2:15 vote on the 
Lautenberg amendment No. 1327 be changed to reflect the vote occurring 
at 2:30 p.m. today, and the previously ordered recess for the party 
conference luncheons extend until 2:30 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, the pending amendment which, by the way, 
is essentially a rewrite of the so-called Gonzalez amendment, tracks 
the improved Hickenlooper amendment, as it has come to be known down 
through the years. The Senate adopted the Hickenlooper amendment 
yesterday, as modified. I will discuss various aspects as I go along.
  For those not familiar with the Gonzalez amendment, it requires the 
United States to vote against certain multilateral bank loans to any 
country which confiscates without compensation the property of a U.S. 
citizen, unless the President of the United States determines that 
progress is being made to resolve the claim and so notifies the 
Congress.
  The problem is that the President almost never makes such a 
determination regarding the lack of progress in the resolution of such 
property claims. To my knowledge, and I have become a little bit of an 
expert on it, the issue of confiscated American properties hardly ever 
comes up when the State Department and the Treasury Department decide 
how to vote on a proposed loan to a country. All too often, these 
property claims are viewed as insignificant little problems which do 
not merit the serious attention of the State Department or the Treasury 
Department officials.
  The point is that years of experience have demonstrated that, as with 
the Hickenlooper amendment, the concept of progress has been abused and 
obfuscated. It has become a loophole allowing foreign countries 
receiving the foreign aid money furnished by American taxpayers to 
deceive the bureaucrats at the State Department and the Treasury 
Department into taking little or no action to help U.S. citizens whose 
property has been confiscated.
  It is an arrogant situation. I will get into that in just a little 
bit.
  Making progress and resolving these claims often appears as one small 
step forward when actually it turns out to be two big steps backward. 
Here is what happens. A foreign government forms a new commission to 
study the problem or the foreign country invents new forms for the 
American citizens to fill out if they want to be considered for 
compensation for their property. Or these foreign countries send 
American citizens on wild goose chases throughout the bureaucracy of 
the offending country.
  That is what American citizens are putting up with all over the 
world. I have sort of a compilation here.
  Nicaragua alone has 1,200 instances of seized property owned by 
American citizens, meanwhile, the United States has supported 
$142,400,000 in loans to Nicaragua through the Inter-American 
Development Bank. Honduras has 50 such instances. Panama has a couple, 
Venzuela has a couple, Brazil has a couple, Costa Rica has 17, and so 
on. Everybody sits on their thumbs at the State Department and says, 
``Well, we will get to that tomorrow. It's really not important.''
  You try to get information or you try to get some movement out of the 
State Department. It is not going to happen unless the Congress of the 
United States says to the State Department ``make it happen.''
  Madam President, the long and short of it is that both the State 
Department and the Treasury Department refused to obey the law when 
they refused to implement the Gonzalez amendment. The Gonzalez 
amendment has been used against only two countries--two instances--from 
1976 to 1987, once against the Congo and 17 times against Ethiopia. All 
the rest have gone scot-free. They have kept the property and they have 
thumbed their nose at the American citizen. I resent it, and I am 
sympathetic with the American citizens who are caught in such a trap.
  I am not aware that the Gonzalez amendment has been implemented even 
one time since 1987, and we have searched the records very carefully. I 
find it incredible, considering the hundreds of cases that my office 
has handled from Central and South America, that the Gonzalez amendment 
has not been used even once against an arrogant country begging for our 
foreign aid, a country that has seized property clearly owned by 
American citizens. Yet these offending countries seek loans at the 
Inter-American Development Bank, and they are getting them. My position 
and my amendment says cut it out, cut off the loans, vote against the 
loans.
  If the pending amendment becomes law, this will change. You will see 
a toning down of that arrogance, and it ought to have been toned down a 
long time ago. This amendment will require the United States to vote 
against loans by all of the multilateral banks to any country that has 
appropriated property of a U.S. citizen or citizens and has not 
returned that property or fairly compensated the legitimate owner 
within 3 years--3 years.
  It allows for the transition of a new democratically elected 
government in a country which was previously ruled by a totalitarian 
dictatorship. A newly elected government will have a period of 3 years 
upon the date of the installation of the new government to settle the 
property claims of American citizens. Furthermore, it will not affect 
nations internationally mandated by the United Nations or territories 
recognized to be disputed by the U.S. Government. This amendment is 
fair.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I share the Senator's concern over the 
expropriation of U.S. citizens' properties.
  I believe current law already adequately addresses this issue by 
requiring the United States to vote against loans to countries that 
have nationalized or expropriated the property of U.S. citizens without 
prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. I fear that this 
amendment goes too far in trying to address this issue.
  The only multilateral development bank that does not currently have 
such a requirement is the EBRD. The Foreign Relations Committee has 
attempted to rectify this and accepted a Helms amendment in the fiscal 
year 1994 foreign assistance authorization bill to extend the same 
expropriation requirements to the EBRD as all the other banks. I 
supported this amendment and I hope it will eventually become law.
  Unlike current law, the amendment being offered by the Senator from 
North Carolina today requires the United States to vote against a loan 
to countries that have not provided adequate compensation within a 
period of 3 years. Resolving expropriation cases is an extremely 
complicated and lengthy process that could involve local courts and 
international arbitration. Just as in the United States, these judicial 
proceedings often take far more than 3 years to resolve.
  This amendment would also require the United States to vote against a 
loan regardless of whether the U.S. citizen has a valid claim, 
regardless of whether the claim has been resolved, regardless of 
whether the country is taking steps to resolve outstanding 
expropriation cases, or regardless of whether a claim is currently in 
the courts. It would require the United States to vote against a loan 
even if there is only one outstanding claim by a U.S. citizen, 
regardless of its value or validity.
  The amendment includes a provision that would give a newly democratic 
government a period of 3 years from the date that government was 
installed. In the case of Russia, that period would expire in June. 
Certainly, it is unrealistic to expect that Russia would have resolved 
all outstanding claims, which could go back as far as 70 years ago, by 
that time.
  Many of these loans are to support economic reforms and 
privatization--important steps in establishing private property rights 
and turning around a country's economy so that it can compensate 
expropriation claims. Denying a country of those loans would only 
defeat our goal of helping all U.S. citizens receive compensation.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.


                amendment no. 1330 to amendment no. 1329

    (Purpose: To instruct U.S. Executive Directors to multilateral 
     development banks to vote against financing to countries that 
  expropriate property of U.S. citizens, except for basic human needs)

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, under the unanimous consent it is in 
order for me to offer a second-degree amendment to the pending 
amendment
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. I send it to the desk and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1330 to amendment No. 1329:
       At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the 
     following:
       (f) Waiver.--The President may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if he so notifies Congress twenty-one days in 
     advance of any vote that a loan or other utilization of the 
     funds of the bank under consideration is directed only to 
     programs which serve the basic human needs of the citizens of 
     such country.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, bear with me just a moment.
  Madam President, we have had so much confusion here this morning, and 
as the Chair will recall I offered the underlying amendment earlier, 
and then we had the interruption and I was trying to accommodate the 
Senator from New Jersey and others, so I laid it aside.
  The point is, I have offered the same amendment twice, and I ask 
unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1328 be eliminated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Without 
objection, Amendment No. 1328 will be eliminated.
  The amendment (No. 1328) was withdrawn.
  Mr. HELMS. Now we are straight again. I ask the Chair, are we all in 
sync?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. HELMS. Very well. I thank the Chair.
  Now, the second-degree amendment to the underlying amendment is 
obviously a Presidential waiver. This waiver allows U.S. executive 
directors to the banks to support financing only for basic human needs 
projects to countries which have confiscated without compensation the 
property of U.S. citizens.
  Now, I do not want to stand in the way of financing for basic human 
needs, people who are hungry or sick or whatever, projects that will 
feed hungry children or care for expectant mothers, and the waiver 
amendment, in the second degree, takes care of that.
  Let me say this: I am not being picky about this subject, but I am 
reaching the point of obsession about it. I asked the U.S. State 
Department months ago for a list of all the confiscation claims by 
American citizens in this hemisphere. I was told by the administration 
that a review of this issue is underway and that I would be informed 
about the review. Since that time, the Senate has overwhelmingly 
approved a Helms amendment to the foreign operations appropriations 
bill which was intended to close the loopholes in the Hickenlooper 
amendment which was adopted. The Senate adopted virtually the same 
amendment yesterday. Just the same, I still received no information 
whatsoever from the State Department.
  (Mr. BREAUX assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HELMS. So I must take the position that since the State 
Department will not honor a request for a review of the problem, I have 
added a reporting requirement to this amendment. And this, I hope, will 
force the bureaucracy to find out and report to Congress, not just to 
me, precisely which countries have expropriated U.S. citizens' 
property, how many claims are outstanding, how long the claims have 
been outstanding, what efforts have been made to return the property or 
provide compensation, and each project a U.S. executive director at a 
bank voted against as a result of this amendment. That is only fair to 
the American citizens, and it is only information that the Congress 
ought to be furnished as a matter of course. That is all this amendment 
does.

  By now, I think Senators have discovered that my associates and my 
office are continually working on the expropriation claims of hundreds 
of American citizens in many countries. They are not just North 
Carolinians; they are from all over the country and various parts of 
the world. People come to us because time and time again I have 
signaled my interest in this matter. We are glad to help anybody we 
can, but I think the Senate ought to insist, and the House ought to 
join us, on making sure that the State Department gets off the dime and 
does what it is supposed to do.
  I say again that very few of these citizens are from North Carolina. 
I have done everything in my power to resolve these cases, but the 
State Department always jumps to the defense of the offending foreign 
governments, and I resent it. And as long as I am in the Senate, I am 
going to urge the State Department to do what is right and be attentive 
to the needs of American citizens.
  I cannot make any progress on these cases unless and until pressure 
is brought to bear on the offending governments--I just identified some 
of them--by the State Department and the Treasury Department, which, up 
to now, have been talking in seven languages when the travail of 
American citizens comes to the forefront. And in my book, bringing 
pressure to bear means hitting them where it counts--in their wallet. 
If these countries learn that they are not going to get the loans, if 
they learn they are not going to get the U.S. foreign aid, except for 
compassionate aid, then they will begin to try to do something that 
they ought to have been doing a long time ago.
  I mentioned yesterday that I have not forgotten Secretary 
Christopher's pledge at his confirmation hearing to have an ``American 
desk'' at the U.S. State Department. Well, I am still waiting, and a 
lot of Americans are still waiting. It is high time for the interests 
of American citizens to come first, and this amendment will require the 
State Department and the Treasury Department to put those interests of 
the American people first.
  I imagine that some Senators might wonder which countries will be 
affected by this amendment. Well, I can tell you what the folks in 
North Carolina would say to that. They would say ``who cares.'' And I 
agree with the folks back home. Given the choice between financing 
foreign governments and helping an American citizen in need, I side 
with helping the American every time. My first duty is to protect the 
rights of American citizens.
  Furthermore, those who are worried about the implications of blocking 
loans to a certain country should consider what happens when these 
countries have no respect for private property rights. Governments 
which do not respect property rights do not gain foreign investment, or 
any investment for that matter. No amount of money from the 
multilateral banks will purchase economic stability for these 
countries.
  Mr. President, we were each elected to the U.S. Senate to defend and 
protect American citizens. Bureaucrats at the State and Treasury 
Departments ought to defend and protect American citizens as well. All 
too often they do not.
  If this amendment becomes law, the administration will no longer be 
able to make excuses for foreign governments as to why those 
governments have not settled thousands of property claims by U.S. 
citizens. The U.S. Executive Directors at the multilateral banks, in 
consultation with the State Department, will have to start defending 
and protecting the rights of Americans.
  Countries which depend on U.S. support at the multilateral banks will 
know that their loans may be in jeopardy until all American claims are 
settled. They can give the property back, fairly compensate for it, or 
risk not getting their loan. It is that simple, and since the U.S. 
contributes the largest share to these banks, it is fair to American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. President, Americans are sick and tired of foreign aid. They have 
always considered it a waste of their tax dollars--whether the money 
was funneled through AID or the multilateral banks. At the very least, 
Congress should insist that countries which receive foreign aid respect 
the rights of U.S. citizens. If they abuse the rights of Americans, 
then they should not receive one dime from the taxpayers.
  Mr. President, the fact is that the American people are sick and 
tired of this whole foreign aid concept anyhow. I find myself wishing 
that somehow we could put it on a national ballot and say: What do you 
think of this? Do you want to continue? It began in 1946 and, since 
that time, if you figure all of the money that has been distributed 
under the foreign aid program since 1946 and you rolled over the 
interest year after year, you would come to $2 trillion or $3 trillion 
that this program is costing the American taxpayers.
  In conclusion, let me say that yesterday the Senate adopted a Helms 
amendment which strengthened the Hickenlooper provision as it applies 
to bilateral foreign aid. Passage of the pending amendment and second-
degree amendment would strengthen the Gonzalez provision and should 
force the bureaucracy to use U.S. leverage at the multilateral banks to 
help Americans in need of protection abroad.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I share the concern of the Senator from 
North Carolina concerning the expropriation of the properties of U.S. 
citizens. Personally, I believe that the current law already adequately 
addresses this issue by requiring the United States to vote against 
loans to countries that have nationalized or expropriated the property 
of U.S. citizens without prompt, adequate and effective compensation.
  I fear this amendment goes a bit too far in trying to address this 
issue. The only multilateral development bank that does not currently 
have such a requirement is the EBRD, European Bank for Reconstruction 
and Development. The Foreign Relations Committee has attempted to 
rectify this and actually accepted the Helms amendment in the fiscal 
year 1994 foreign assistance authorization bill to extend the same 
expropriation requirements to the EBRD, as all the other banks. I 
supported this amendment and hope it will become law.
  Unlike current law, the amendment being offered by the Senator from 
North Carolina today requires the United States to vote against a loan 
to countries that have not provided adequate compensation within a 
period of 3 years. Resolving expropriation cases is an extremely 
complicated and lengthy process that could involve local courts and 
international arbitration. Just as in the United States, these judicial 
proceedings often take far more than 3 years to resolve. This amendment 
would also require the United States to vote against a loan regardless 
of whether the United States citizen has a valid claim, regardless 
whether the claim is being resolved, regardless of whether the country 
has taken steps to resolve outstanding expropriation cases, or 
regardless of whether a claim is currently in the courts.
  It would require the United States to vote against a loan even if 
there is only one outstanding claim by a United States citizen, 
regardless of its value or its validity. The amendment includes a 
provision that would give a newly democratic government a period of 3 
years from the date that government was installed. In the case of 
Russia, that period would expire in June. Certainly it is unrealistic 
to expect that Russia would have resolved more outstanding claims, some 
of which can go back as far as 70 years ago by that time.
  Many of these loans are to support economic reform and privatization, 
important steps in establishing private property rights and turning 
around a country's economy so that it can compensate expropriate 
claims. Denying a country those loans would only defeat our goal of 
helping all U.S. citizens receive compensation.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  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. 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 sure Senator Pell feels as I do. I 
hope Senators with amendments will come onto the floor and offer them 
or let us know if they are not going to offer the amendments that are 
on the list.
  Mr. PELL. That is right. Here we are ready for business, but we do 
recess for the mutual caucuses at 12:30.
  Mr. HELMS. I will stay here and I know the Senator will also and 
allow Senators to call up their amendments, and we will lay amendments 
aside in order. I would like to keep this ball rolling; otherwise, we 
are going to have a legislative traffic jam here around 4 or 5 o'clock.
  Mr. PELL. It is already predictable. It is a question of how big a 
traffic jam.
  Mr. HELMS. Exactly.
  I hope staff members and/or Senators who may be listening on the 
television in their offices will look at what they have reserved on the 
list that is covered by the unanimous consent request and, if they 
really wish to offer their amendments, let us know and we will 
cooperate in any way we can.
  Mr. PELL. Absolutely.
  Mr. HELMS. Very well.
  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. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1324

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
majority leader's second degree amendment to the Dole amendment No. 
1323, which deals with several aspects of United States participation 
in United Nations peacekeeping operations.
  As Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am one of several 
committee chairmen who were asked by the majority leader last October 
22 to look at possible revisions to the War Powers Act. It would be the 
purpose of this review, as I understand it, to consider what the 
involvement of the Congress should be in decisions to deploy U.S. 
Military Forces into hostile situations abroad, whether as part of U.N. 
peacekeeping forces or as ordered by the President of the United 
States.
  This is an extremely important issue; very complicated. It is one 
that has to be dealt with in a very, very thoughtful way. It is not 
something that should be decided here by an amendment on the floor, 
certainly as far-reaching as the amendment by the minority leader. 
Rather, it is something that we need to hold some hearings on in the 
Intelligence Committee, as well as others, to be careful and to be 
certain, if we can, that what we put forward is workable and gets us 
where we want to get.
  So I support the sense of the Senate amendment of the majority leader 
setting a time certain for the Senate to consider these important 
issues in a more deliberate way.
  I have a particular problem with section 815 of Senator Dole's 
amendment which deals with intelligence sharing with the United Nations 
and if the majority leader's second degree amendment were defeated, it 
would be my intention to offer a second degree amendment of your own to 
strike this particular section.
  Section 815 would prohibit the U.S. Government from sharing 
intelligence with the United Nations except pursuant to an annual 
agreement entered into between the President and U.N. Secretary 
General, specifying precisely what types of information may be shared. 
Such agreements must be referred to the Congressional Intelligence 
Committees for a period of 30 days before they may go into effect. 
Section 815 would exempt from this requirement information pertinent to 
protect American citizens serving with the United Nations and United 
States Nationals whose safety is threatened.

  Mr. President, the administration is opposed to this provision on the 
grounds that it infringes upon the President's constitutional power and 
because it simply is unworkable. I share some of these apprehensions. 
But I believe that we need to address this matter--and I know the 
minority leader's amendment is to do just that--to be sure that 
Congress plays a meaningful role in this so-called war powers 
discussion.
  I am not interested in just opposing it because the administration 
may feel it is a separation of powers. I think there is a workable 
solution.
  A fundamental problem is also apt to be getting any Secretary General 
of the United Nations to enter into any agreement with the United 
States or any member state which makes the United Nations a partner in 
intelligence-sharing per se. While the United Nations is interested in 
obtaining information from its members to support its peacekeeping 
operations, I think it would clearly shy away from any sort of 
agreement that pertained specifically to the sharing of intelligence 
which made distinctions among who had access to what intelligence. So 
if this provision were enacted, and the Secretary General refused to 
enter into any such agreement, as I read section 815, the United States 
would be precluded from sharing any information to support U.N. 
peacekeeping forces.
  I have other reservations. To begin with, this legislation is 
squarely within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence, which I am privileged to chair.
  I appreciate the minority leader's interest in addressing this War 
Powers Act, trying to find a resolution that involves Congress. But I 
have to say that the committee would like to hold some hearings on it.
  And we will do that, as I said to begin with, under the request of my 
majority leader.
  It is unnecessary, in my judgment, to proceed now with this 
particular amendment. Among other things, these arrangements ensure 
careful screening of all information furnished to the United Nations. 
The United States goes to great lengths, in fact, to protect the 
sources and the methods of its intelligence gathering. Unless the 
Senator from Kansas has information to the contrary, I am told the 
United Nations has done a very good job of protecting information 
provided by the United States. Sensitive United States information has 
not gotten to countries like Libya or Iran, at least to this Senator's 
knowledge.
  The provision also may be dangerous and could be ill advised for a 
number of reasons:
  First, it would impose a cumbersome, I believe unworkable framework, 
of control over what intelligence might be shared with the United 
Nations. There is no way that such a framework could accommodate 
emergency situations where it became necessary to share intelligence on 
an urgent basis which did not meet the terms of the agreement, 
something that was left out of the agreement or unforeseen when the 
agreement was entered into. Lives could depend upon such information 
getting through. Perhaps not United States lives, which are exempt from 
that control of it, but lives of other allied and friendly nations.
  Let me just provide a hypothetical situation of a U.N. peacekeeping 
operation and how this provision would--could--result in very dangerous 
situations. Suppose the United States, Canadian, and Polish soldiers 
are jointly involved in a peacekeeping operation. Suppose the U.S. 
obtains information that a terrorist attack on these forces is being 
planned. Suppose the release of this information is not covered by the 
agreement because the agreement had not foreseen this--with the United 
Nations. Then, under the Dole provision, the information can only be 
shared with U.S. forces. It could not be shared with the Poles or the 
Canadian forces because they were not specifically covered by the 
agreement.
  I cannot believe that is what we want to achieve here, but I could 
see how that might happen if we do not do a thoughtful preparation as 
we enact war power legislation.
  The framework created by this section would, in my estimation, 
require a minimum of several months to change. Unanticipated 
deployments of U.N. peacekeeping forces to meet emergency situations 
would have to wait months before the United States could, under these 
provisions, support them with information that might save their lives 
or spell the success or nonsuccess of a particular operation. This 
makes no sense to me at this time.
  The United Nations has no intelligence apparatus of its own. It is 
dependent upon public media and information it receives from member 
nations to support its peacekeeping operations. The United States has a 
great deal to offer in support of these operations, short of giving 
away the so-called ``family jewels'' of important intelligence sources; 
for example, tactical information, information about opposing military 
forces, about civilian infrastructures in the countries of concern. As 
a practical matter, section 815 of the Dole amendment could preclude 
the United States from sharing even this type of logistical information 
unless the annual agreement were amended and allowed for such sharing. 
So, in my view, this could leave us in a helpless, ineffective position 
at precisely the time when our assistance is most needed.
  What might happen, too, is they would just go ahead and share it, 
particularly if lives were at stake. That, of course, would then be in 
violation of the agreement. I do not think we want to walk into that 
area.
  I am also concerned about some other aspects of the amendment. I urge 
we put this off for a little bit and do what we can to have hearings 
and to proceed, as the majority leader has suggested, on the basis of 
having the committees who have any jurisdiction over this matter 
proceed with hearings and make suggestions, and have the ranking 
members involved in that.
  Hopefully, we can develop real legislation that would put Congress 
back clearly in this process, which is something I want, and I am sure 
that is what the minority leader has in mind in this particular 
amendment he has offered. So that is why I rise in support of the 
majority leader's second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Republican leader 
yield for a unanimous consent request at this point?
  Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.


                           amendment no. 1315

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for 
me to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment offered yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to assure the Senator from Arizona, 
who certainly has a direct interest in this, I think in this case 
hearings may be helpful. We do not want anything to rush through here--
particularly in the intelligence area--without a careful consideration.
  So I think we will not have any problem with the Senator's request 
and the concerns he has expressed.

                          ____________________