[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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry].
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are now trying to begin to schedule the 
final amendments.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 6 o'clock, the Senate 
proceed to vote on or in relation to the Helms amendment No. 1320, with 
no second-degree amendments being permitted thereto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to colleagues that if we could 
get cooperation with those who have amendments already laid down, we 
may be able to make a determination to have a series of votes following 
that 6 o'clock vote and, if so, we would obviously try to make those 10 
minutes votes. But we do need to try to resolve some issues regarding 
those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield the 
floor?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from New York, I believe, 
wanted to address some of the questions raised by the amendment of 
Senator Lott.
  I ask unanimous consent, subject to the next business that the 
Senator from North Carolina wishes to raise, that the Senate return to 
the Lott-Helms amendment No. 1316 on the United Nations for the purpose 
of permitting the Senator from New York to speak thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
York would be recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me be clear. After the next 
intervention by the Senator from North Carolina, the Senator from New 
York will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms].
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me be sure I understand what the 
Senator from Massachusetts has proposed. As of now, we have only one 
vote in place at 6 o'clock, or the first vote after 6 o'clock; is that 
right?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. And that is amendment No. 1320?
  Mr. KERRY. On or in relation to.
  Mr. HELMS. Right.
  I thank the Senator.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Pressler, Mr. D'Amato, 
and Mr. Thurmond be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1320.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Have the yeas and nays been obtained on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered for 
amendment No. 1320.
  Mr. HELMS. Very well. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  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 legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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. 1316

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, our long-suffering, able manager of this 
legislation asked me if I would come to the floor to speak to the 
amendment offered by our friend, the Senator from Mississippi, that 
prohibits the provision of certain foreign programs, such as the 
Military Education Training Program, to countries which consistently 
vote against us in the U.N. General Assembly. In this particular case, 
voting with the United States less than a quarter of the time.
  Mr. President, I would like to start by saying that the Senator from 
Mississippi has a point to make. There is still a large number of 
countries in the world which have a reflexive anti-Americanism which 
they acquired, one, in the cold war; or, two, in an early, independent, 
anticolonial mode that carried over somehow to the United States. In 
the case of the Philippines, it was direct anticolonialism, inasmuch as 
the Philippines was for a half a century a colony of the United States.
  I was once our permanent representative to the United Nations. Let me 
say to you that few have had a greater sense of this pattern of anti-
Americanism than I did at that last moment of Soviet assertion in the 
world. It resulted in propositions such as the obscene resolution 
equating Zionism with racism.
  To get ahead of my argument a bit, let me say that resolution was 
repelled, Resolution 3379 of 1975. It was a Soviet initiative, carried 
out by the Third World in a so-called non-aligned movement, which was 
effectively an instrument of Soviet foreign policy.
  The cold war, as I said, is over. There are a great many countries 
that have not yet absorbed that. There are countries where the news may 
not yet have reached, such is the backwardness of their political 
system and their political sensibilities. I am quite serious in that 
regard.
  I can look down the list and I see my friends from Cape Verde and the 
Congo. The Congo may change. The Congo is a good example of what we are 
dealing with in so much of the world.
  The People's Republic of Congo, as it was until 2 years ago, was an 
ugly, Leninist state run along the lines of those former people's 
republics of Eastern Europe and the current People's Republic of China.
  That regime has been overthrown, only to be replaced by fierce ethnic 
warfare. A pattern so often observed. When the suppressive force of an 
international ideology disappears, ethnic tensions, long suppressed are 
quickly ignited, often resulting in fierce ethnic battles, as we have 
seen in this era and will see in the eras to come. For the longest 
while the United States did not make any real connection between the 
voting at the United Nations and bilateral relations. We are not 
accustomed to thinking in terms of multilateral relations. There is 
only one other nation on Earth which existed, in 1800, and has not had 
its form of government changed by force since, and that is the United 
Kingdom. Our idea of diplomacy frequently has been shaped by figures 
such as Benjamin Franklin and his efforts at the court of Louis XVI. 
Indeed, in our Embassy in Paris you will find on a bench a wonderful 
sculpture of Dr. Franklin sitting there. Multilateral diplomacy is new 
to us, in the sense that bilateral is so old. Most nations of the world 
never knew anything about bilateral diplomacy. They went from colonial 
status to the Non-Aligned Movement and the United Nations and various 
organizations in Geneva.
  When I became the U.N. Ambassador, having been the Ambassador to 
India, I had dinner with the very distinguished Ambassador from Egypt 
at that time, who later became the Foreign Minister. I was talking 
about the 1973 war, that awful war between Israel and surrounding 
enemies, which led to the oil embargo, a huge increase in the price of 
oil, and disrupted the economies of the world. Our median family income 
has still not got back to the 1973 levels.
  I was asking the Ambassador, what led to the war? Certainly it did no 
one any good.
  He said, ``Well, you know, it never would have happened if it had not 
been for the Indian measure in the Security Council.''
  I said ``What?''
  I said to myself, ``What Indian resolution?'' I mean, I had been 
sitting out there with the Ambassador in New Delhi and the Indians were 
involved in a matter which, had I been informed, we might have headed 
off. Possibly this would have prevented the 1973 war which in turn led 
to the oil embargo. By carefully ``walking the cat back,'' as they say, 
``across the river,'' I learned that no one in Washington had ever 
bothered to tell us in New Delhi about this United Nations resolution. 
Our bilateral relations just did not seem to be relevant to what was 
going on in the Security Council?
  Well, it had a lot to do with it. We soon learned and we established 
a bureau because before that we had no voting records. We found a 
professor at the Naval Academy who had put the voting records on a 
computer for teaching a course in international relations and we were 
delighted by that. Thus began a small bureau in the State Department, 
the object of which is to connect our bilateral diplomacy with the 
multilateral international agencies, inasmuch as for three quarters of 
the nations in the world, our most important contact is at the General 
Assembly, or the International Labor Organization, or the World Health 
Organization, and other international organizations. Our actual 
bilateral relations are very small.
  Yet, the pattern of the General Assembly voting against us, which 
reached its crest in the 1970's, is now gradually receding. The habits 
of the nonaligned, will change very slowly, but they will change 
implacably, as nations learn their interest in associating themselves 
with what generally speaking are the Western democracies.
  The point to make, however, is that we do not want to limit our 
capacity to decide what relations we will have with these countries. 
Military education is going to continue to be a hugely important issue. 
Half the countries in the world are governed by their military and will 
be into the next century. And few of them have in recent years any 
experience of a military which is responsive to an elected government. 
And nothing could be more important than for these military governments 
to have contact with such responsive counterparts, and the United 
States should have something to contribute to that experience.
  In the Congos, in the Cape Verdes, in the Madagascars, even in 
Thailand, we do not want to tell ourselves what we cannot do. If it is 
in our interest to do these things, we ought--the President ought--to 
be free to do so. But those are the marginal cases. We want to ask 
ourselves what about the large states that would be on Senator Lott's 
list? Many of whom we have in fact very friendly relations but which 
for tactical purposes at home, be they dealing with a political 
opposition of a democratic nature--as for example India, the world's 
most populous democracy--oppose us at the United Nations and therefore 
are on this list.
  I do not know why--India chooses to vote with us so little. But it is 
not because it is arrayed against us in international affairs. It is 
because there is a parliament and there is the reality that in the 
Indian Parliament you can improve your situation from time to time by 
not choosing to support the Western democracies even though you are 
yourself an Eastern democracy, the most populous of them all.
  There are countries such as Egypt. We are just now seeing, in the 
Near East, an extraordinary decision by Egypt to enter into a peaceful 
relationship with Israel.
  Anwar Sadat traveled to Jerusalem, and not 6 months ago, Yasser 
Arafat was on the White House lawn. There was a price paid by Sadat. He 
paid the price of his life. Egypt was expelled from the Arab League. 
The headquarters of the Arab League were moved out of Cairo.
  So, obviously, Egypt has been following a somewhat defensive position 
of voting in the General Assembly where no vote is binding, no law is 
made, no commitment is entered into.
  Morocco. The first nation on Earth to recognize the United States as 
a new independent nation was Morocco. We have had the finest relations 
with Morocco and with King Hassan, and not unlike the Egyptian 
experience.
  King Hassan arranged for the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of 
Israel to visit on their way back from the White House signing 
ceremonies for the Israel-PLO accord. More recently, the Israelis have 
sent a large economic mission to Rabat where they met with their 
Moroccan counterparts.
  So go to Morocco, if you can get Dorothy to go with you, Dorothy 
Lamour.
  If you go to Morocco, one of the things you will see in Tangiers is a 
major relay station for the United States Voice of America. We asked 
for use of Moroccan territory to place an installation of that kind, 
and the answer was yes. That is the kind of friend you need in the 
world. When you have a friend like that, you will often find them 
making symbolic votes in the General Assembly that protect them with 
another part of the world.
  I make the point, Mr. President, that only in the Security Council is 
a vote cast that has the effect of law, of commitment, of consequence. 
General Assembly votes are statements of opinion, and a government such 
as Morocco will often find it useful to distance themselves from the 
West for purposes of placating the sub-Sahara. Morocco has an ongoing 
problem with Algeria about the former Spanish Sahara. This reverberates 
into the whole organization of African unity.
  They are in no sense arrayed against the United States, and we ought 
not to prohibit our President from making decisions to enter certain 
relationships with them which the President deems to be in the best 
interest of the United States. That is what this amendment would 
prevent.
  This amendment would tell us that Mexico is in some way an adversary 
because of its voting patterns in the General Assembly. In this Chamber 
not 3 months ago we agreed to the North American Free-Trade Agreement. 
There is a history here, Mr. President. I do not want to go on too 
long, but in that strange set of accommodations which the Mexicans made 
with one another to calm down and bring order or relative order to a 
country that had been tumultuous and fratricidal in the extreme. In the 
early part of the century, one of the things that happened--and I will 
put it as bluntly as need be--is they gave foreign policy to the left.
  Foreign policy does not matter much to Mexico. It has no overseas 
interests of a military kind or an ideological kind. But all through 
the fifties and sixties, the seventies and I assume in the eighties, 
the left was allowed to vote with Castro in Cuba. It did not mean a 
thing, it did not change a thing, but that is part of their 
accommodations. If I were the left, I would have chosen more valuable 
properties than foreign policy, but there you are.
  So here we have ourselves saying, having entered a free-trade 
agreement with Mexico, we cannot offer them military education 
training. A military in a struggling democracy--and let us give the 
present administration credit for trying--needs that association with 
the United States. I do not say it always works--but an association 
with a military that is subordinate to an elected government can 
instill important values. And if the President decides that is in the 
interest of the United States to have such programs, he ought to be 
allowed to do it.
  We make a distinction, of course, in publishing U.N. voting records, 
between important votes and votes of small consequence. Morocco votes 
with us a majority of the time on important votes. Mexico votes with us 
half the time. Now those are the votes where the United States 
Representative calls his counterpart in New York and says, ``Will you 
be with us on this vote?'' And the answer from Mexico and Morocco is 
``yes.''
  Is there a Senator in this Chamber who has not gone to a friend and 
said, ``I really need you on this vote,'' and have a friend who might 
go one way or the other say, ``Well, I can be with you on this vote''? 
It is a normal practice of an assembly of the kind the General Assembly 
is and of the kind the Senate is.
  So, Mr. President, I say why offer this affront to India, a 
democracy, an enormous achievement? For 1 year we have not sent an 
Ambassador to India. Mary McGrory had a very powerful column on that in 
this morning's Washington Post.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1994]

                    Treating India Undiplomatically

                           (By Mary McGrory)

       India is fuming at the Clinton administration. The world's 
     largest democracy has been without a U.S. ambassador for the 
     better part of a year and the prospects for getting one soon 
     are not brilliant.
       The Indian ambassador to the United States, Siddhartha 
     Shankar Ray, points out that his country thought it had 
     become what the Clinton foreign policy was all about, a 
     democracy with a free market. Relations between the United 
     States and India were strained throughout the Cold War, when 
     Washington found New Delhi's self-righteous neutrality 
     maddening and its state-run economy hard to deal with.
       But India has changed. In July 1991 it opened it markets. 
     More than 600 U.S.-Indian corporate joint ventures are in 
     progress. We have become India's largest trading partner. 
     India admitted error in human rights, established a 
     commissioner for human rights and, in the United Nations, has 
     sponsored with us a resolution for a worldwide commissioner 
     for human rights. Once, the United States was resigned to 
     lectures from the Indians in the United Nations. Now they 
     vote with us almost all the time, but Washington seems not to 
     have noticed.
       ``We expected the greatest democracy would look at our 
     country with different eyes,'' said Ray.
       Instead, the Indians are finding out the George Bush 
     treated them better. At least he sent his trade 
     representative, Carla Hills, to visit New Delhi.
       Under President Clinton, Washington has so far declined to 
     add to the procession of notable shepherding high-level trade 
     delegations to India. British Prime Minister John Major led 
     off with a large group of businessmen last January; Boris 
     Yeltsin of Russia, Helmut Kohl of Germany and Mary Robinson, 
     president of Ireland, followed. China, Spain and France all 
     showed up with stars. We never got higher than an assistant 
     secretary of state.
       Commerce Secretary Ron Brown observed last week that we 
     should pay ``much more attention'' to India.
       India was delighted when Bush chose Thomas R. Pickering as 
     ambassador. A high-profile career diplomat, he served for 
     several months before Clinton yanked him off to our Moscow 
     embassy. The Indians regard this as squandering because of 
     the general opinion that Strobe Talbott, the expert on Russia 
     who has been nominated to be deputy secretary of state, is 
     the de facto ambassador to Russia anyway.
       Clinton's next choice was Stephen J. Solarz, who for years 
     dreamed of being secretary of state. He is a former 
     Democratic congressman from New York noted for his brains and 
     his withering comments on those less endowed. Many colleagues 
     were awed by his grasp of foreign affairs; others found him 
     too clever by half and hated his noisy pro-gulf war stand in 
     the face of Democratic opposition.
       Clinton designated Solarz last March. He owed him. Solarz 
     was an early Clinton fan; on the darkest day of the 
     presidential primary campaign, the day of the Gennifer 
     Flowers news conference, Solarz called campaign headquarters 
     and announced he was having a news conference in New York to 
     defend Clinton.
       Solarz had his own problems. He was one of the top 10 
     writers of checking account overdrafts at the House Bank. He 
     also helped a Hong Kong businessman who had criminal ties. 
     Reportedly he was cleared of all allegations and can now be 
     formally nominated, but no paper on him ever went to the 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has been trying to 
     rally support.
       The Indians would be perfectly happy to have Solarz. They 
     just want the administration to acknowledge their existence, 
     to counter the impression, stated by embassy spokesman 
     Nirupama Rao, ``that India has dropped off the map.''
       That feeling has been exacerbated by two letters recently 
     emanating from Clinton that revealed considerable ignorance 
     of recent developments and caused a furor in the Indian press 
     and complaints about ``meddling.''
       The first was addressed to a paid lobbyist for a Kashmiri 
     separatist group. Ray wrote a stiff letter to the State 
     Department: ``It is disconcerting to see that an individual 
     who is in the forefront of the campaign for dismembering 
     India should seemingly receive recognition and encouragement 
     from the highest political authority in the U.S.''
       The second was to a California congressman complaining 
     about conditions in Punjab, which, thanks to several local 
     elections, have improved to the point where the Sikh police 
     Chief, K.P.S. Gill, defended the government's treatment of 
     the Sikhs. This letter particularly irritated Ray, who was 
     governor of Punjab for four years.
       These misunderstandings, he said, leave Indians feeling 
     ``hurt, bewildered and worried,'' and make the naming of a 
     U.S. envoy ``absolutely imperative.''

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Government of India, which has 
provided asylum this whole generation to the Dalai Lama and the 
Tibetans, the Government of India which stands alone as a democracy in 
South Asia with great trials; do this to India? Slap Egypt in the face? 
Tell Morocco, the country that was the first to recognize us going back 
to the 18th century and has been very supportive throughout the postwar 
era, ``Nope, not satisfied?'' Tell Mexico we obviously do not know what 
we are doing up here? No, Mr. President.
  Having stated that, I understand the frustrations that the Senator 
from Mississippi may well feel, even so, this does not in any way 
affect the countries that are to be on this list. The only country 
whose freedom of action will be limited by this amendment is that of 
the United States of America. This is no time for that, no reason for 
it, and I do hope that the distinguished manager will move to table 
this measure because I see nothing but mischief. There will be 
consequences abroad with countries that we are in active, close, 
friendly, supportive, instructive relations. There will be deleterious 
consequences. We will do ourselves harm. There is no need nor occasion 
to limit ourselves in this way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator 
from New York for a most important and articulate historical analysis 
and, frankly, a practical analysis of the impact that this amendment 
would have on our relationships with a number of different countries.
  I could not agree with him more, that to come in with an arbitrary 
cutoff point on the basis of a whole number of votes which have no true 
relationship to the real relationship of our country and those people 
who voted is not the way to make judgments about military education 
training, which is in fact the very kind of training that they want to 
have go to countries which need that kind of assistance and help, who 
might not be 100 percent with us.
  So in a sense the policy is truly cutting off our noses to spite our 
faces and can have dramatic negative consequences with respect to 
countries that are enormously important to us in very delicate 
relationships, for instance, Cyprus.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, Cyprus.
  Mr. KERRY. To suddenly say that Cyprus is not going to receive this 
assistance would upset a relationship that is critical to us in that 
part of the world, and already delicate enough given the balance 
between Turkey, Greece, and so forth.
  So my colleague, who has the most experienced voice in the Senate on 
the subject of the United Nations, as a former President of the 
Security Council, I think has served as good notice about the dangers 
of the Lott amendment, and I thank him for that.
  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the Cohen amendment No. 1317. I do not believe the yeas and 
nays have been requested. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do not believe there is further debate on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Maine, amendment No. 1317.
  The amendment (No. 1317) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerry). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1333

(Purpose: To urge the President to prepare to reintroduce United States 
tactical nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula, in full coordination 
with United States allies in the region, should North Korea not return 
   to, and fully comply with, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
                            Nuclear Weapons)

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be temporarily laid aside so that I might send an amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1333:

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

     SEC. 714. POLICY ON PREPARING TO REINTRODUCE TACTICAL NUCLEAR 
                   WEAPONS TO THE KOREAN PENINSULA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) It was announced by South Korean President Roh Tae Woo 
     on December 18, 1991, that all tactical nuclear weapons had 
     been removed from the Korean peninsula.
       (2) On December 31, 1991, North Korea agreed to a 
     denuclearization agreement with South Korea pledging not to 
     possess, manufacture, or use nuclear weapons, not to possess 
     plutonium reprocessing facilities, and to negotiate the 
     establishment of a nuclear inspection system.
       (3) On January 30, 1992, North Korea signed a nuclear 
     safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency (IAEA), allowing for IAEA regular inspections of 
     nuclear facilities designated by North Korea.
       (4) Negotiations between North and South Korea over 
     implementation of the bilateral denuclearization agreement 
     have stalled.
       (5) North Korea stated its intention on March 12, 1993, to 
     withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 
     Weapons (NPT), done on July 1, 1968.
       (6) North Korea said it would ``suspend as long as it 
     considers necessary'' its withdrawal from the Treaty on June 
     11, 1993, but continues to refuse to fully comply with Treaty 
     provisions requiring regular inspections of declared 
     nuclear facilities and allowing special inspections of 
     undeclared sites.
       (7) North Korea is the only country to ever formally 
     threaten to withdraw from the Treaty, and effectively remains 
     in a state of noncompliance with the Treaty.
       (8) President Clinton has stated that the United States 
     objective is a Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons, and 
     reaffirmed the United States security commitment to South 
     Korea during a visit there on July 10-11, 1993.
       (9) On November 7, 1993, President Clinton stated that 
     ``North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.''.
       (10) North Korea has reportedly rejected IAEA inspection 
     procedures of seven declared nuclear sites after agreeing, in 
     principle, with United States officials to allow IAEA 
     investigators to visit each of those sites.
       (11) In a statement issued on January 21, 1994, to IAEA 
     authorities, North Korea reportedly declared that ``routine 
     or ad hoc'' inspections, otherwise known as regular or 
     special inspections, would not be allowed, and an IAEA 
     spokesman stated that ``we are not in agreement'' about the 
     inspections.
       (b) Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that if North 
     Korea continues to resist the efforts of the international 
     community to allow the IAEA to conduct regular and special 
     inspections of its declared and undeclared nuclear sites and 
     facilities, and refuses to return to, and fully comply with, 
     the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the 
     President should--
       (1) fully coordinate with United States allies in the 
     region regarding the military posture of North Korea and the 
     ability of the United States to deter any future nuclear 
     attack against South Korea or Japan; and
       (2) in conjunction with United States allies, act to defend 
     United States security interests on the Korean peninsula and 
     enhance the defense capability of United States forces by 
     preparing to reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons in South 
     Korea.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``IAEA'' means the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I asked that the entire amendment be read 
because I do not believe that many of the Members have had an 
opportunity to consider precisely the proposal that I am making at this 
time.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is designed to send 
a strong and clear message to North Korea.
  Since last March, Pyongyang stated its intention to withdraw from the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has engaged in a dangerous game of 
nuclear poker.
  The stakes involve nothing less than the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons in the modern age.
  In the case of this recalcitrant nation, I fully supported President 
Clinton, when he declared last November, that ``North Korea cannot be 
allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.''
  This sense-of-Congress amendment, provides an incentive for North 
Korea to agree to a compromise with the United States, South Korea, and 
the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  The measure urges the President, (after full coordination with our 
allies in the region) to prepare to reintroduce United States tactical 
nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula should North Korea not return 
to, and fully comply with, the NPT treaty.
  In simple terms, the amendment lays out a marker.
  Should North Korea choose to continue to defy the nonproliferation 
regime, great leader Kim II Sung and dear leader Kim Chong-Il should 
understand that they will not be gaining a nuclear advantage on the 
peninsula.
  The announcement on December 18, 1991, by the then President of South 
Korea, No Tae Woo, that United States tactical nuclear weapons had been 
removed from the Korean Peninsula, encouraged just that speculation.
  Active consideration of the reintroduction of United States tactical 
nuclear weapons could serve as an active deterrent to a nuclear armed 
North Korea.
  We thought that our good faith effort of withdrawing tactical nuclear 
weapons might contribute to the security of South Korean and United 
States interests in the region.
  We now need to make clear to North Korea that their continued 
intransigence on this issue leaves us with no choice but to prepare to 
``restore'' that security by other means.
  This brings me to the Sense-of-Congress language I am offering today.
  North Korea may well go its own way and seek to divert more nuclear 
fuel from its operational reactor at Yongbyon, denying IAEA 
investigators the opportunity to analyze whether fissile material is 
being created.
  If North Korea has indeed produced enough weapons grade plutonium, it 
is fair to assume they are only months, if not weeks, away from 
constructing a nuclear device if they so choose.
  The weaponization technology is rather easy to procure.
  If we reach such a point, I believe it makes little sense to allow 
North Korea to operate with such a nuclear advantage.
  One reason United States tactical nuclear weapons were removed from 
the peninsula in 1991 was to boost negotiations with the North on 
proliferation issues. The North Korean Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs 
stated in April 1991 that North Korea's decision to sign the NPT in 
1985, ``was aimed at creating a condition for the withdrawal of United 
States nuclear arms in the South.''
  There seems to be little doubt about the linkage of these issues. A 
newspaper report in late 1991 stated that, ``though both Washington and 
Seoul insist formally that nuclear weapons policy regarding South Korea 
should not be linked to North Korea's nuclear program, there is little 
doubt that North Korea's stand on international inspection has brought 
the two issues together.''
  A Korea expert at Australian National University, Mr. Peter Hayes, 
commented at the time that:

       * * * the United States has made its move * * * This puts 
     the responsibility on the North to go the same way, and give 
     [South Korean President] Roh the political credit for moving 
     toward a nuclear-free Korea.

  Unfortunately, North Korea has not fulfilled its end of the bargain, 
throwing back into question whether the peninsula is nuclear-free after 
all. And now, given North Korea's noncompliance to the NPT for the past 
10 months, it becomes increasingly reasonable to assume that Pyongyang 
aims to fully develop an indigenous weapons program.
  I believe it is important to send this signal to Pyongyang now, in 
the midst of these talks, while it believes it is negotiating from a 
position of strength, and believes it has nothing to lose by ignoring 
the international community.
  Over time, through external pressure and isolation, I believe we can 
join with our Asian allies to reduce the threat of nuclear 
proliferation in the region. That threat comes from an oppressive 
totalitarian state regime that, in some ways, represents the last 
bastion of pure, unadulterated communism.
  We did not win the cold war standing down to communism, nor should we 
tolerate it here.
  Of late, a diplomatic resolution to the current impasse over regular 
inspections appears to be close at hand. I applaud the administration 
for its recent efforts to begin to fashion an interim solution in 
principle allowing for periodic inspections, thereby assuring that the 
continuity of safeguards have been maintained. Unfortunately, the devil 
is in the details.
  Withn the last 2 weeks, North Korea has rejected a series of IAEA 
inspection procedures for seven designated facilities that would 
determine if nuclear weapons are under development. The gulf between 
the Atomic Energy Agency and North Korea is wide.
  The scope and detail of the inspections are nonnegotiable, according 
to the IAEA, and the State Department has bluntly expressed its 
concern: ``If the IAEA is unhappy, we are unhappy,'' stated the 
official spokesman for the Department 2 weeks ago. I support the IAEA 
in its efforts to hold North Korea to the letter and spirit of the 
treaty and the nuclear safeguards agreement it signed in January 1992.

  In the last 8 months, the Senate's Asia Subcommittee, which I chair, 
has met four times with the key State Department official heading the 
negotiations with the North Koreans, Assistant Secretary for Political-
Military Affairs Bob Gallucci. The subcommittee called him as a primary 
witness early on in the crisis last May, and has engaged him in three 
classified question and answer sessions since then.
  In discussing the ebb and flow of the negotiations with Assistant 
Secretary Gallucci, I have been struck by our hesitancy to use the 
stick, or even threaten to use the stick, in lieu of the carrot. How a 
country postures itself in negotiations can often be as or more 
important than the actual give and take itself, and I believe we have 
created the perception that we are militarily, politically, and 
diplomatically impotent in this situation. Let me explain.
  The administration has ruled out a military strike against the 
Yongbyon nuclear facility, the President has indicated he has real 
doubts about the effectiveness of economic sanctions, it is difficult 
to find any positive return from cancellation of Team Spirit, and we 
seem less insistent on exchanging high level envoys between North and 
South Korea, as previously planned, as a condition for a third round of 
talks at the Assistant Secretary level. Meanwhile, two other atomic 
reactors continue under construction at Yongbyon--in addition to the 5 
megawatt reactor already in operation--and a facility fitting the 
description of a plutonium reprocessing plant appears near to 
completion as well.
  Without the lever of the U.S. tactical nuclear presence, our 
negotiating posture may be untenable. Indeed, from a North Korean 
perspective, the scenario appears to be risk-free. The construction of 
their nuclear facilities continues uninterrupted, enough time has 
passed to reprocess nuclear fuel into weapons grade plutonium to 
produce one nuclear device or more, and a deft diplomatic campaign to 
create uncertainty about the overall program at Yongbyon has generated 
the fear they may have the bomb, which is perceived as almost as 
valuable as having the bomb itself.
  I urge the administration to immediately change the tenor of these 
talks by negotiating from the position of strength that this country 
has rightfully earned as the remaining superpower.
  This is not a call to arms; it is a call for more forceful diplomatic 
tactics to help Pyongyang better understand the weakness of its 
position.
  For example, I hope President Clinton will publicly describe how we 
might implement economic sanctions, by cutting off foreign remittances 
from North Koreans living in Japan, rather than estimating they have a 
slim chance of working.
  State Department officials could convene a meeting to discuss the 
particulars of cutting off the flow of hard currency to the North. No 
harm is done by such meetings and talk and they offer powerful 
persuasion to leaders in Pyongyang to think again about the defiant 
course they are undertaking.
  In addition, I would encourage the administration to discuss when and 
how to implement Team Spirit exercises, not that they are prepared to 
shut then down in exchange for a mere glimpse of the Yongbyon facility. 
We could reinforce this message by sending Secretaries Christopher--
and, I hope, Perry--to view Team Spirit exercises when they're 
conducted later this year.
  Again, the message sent to Pyongyang is unmistakable: We have no 
intention of provoking a military conflict, but we will respond to your 
transgressions.
  Finally, I have privately raised the issue with Assistant Secretary 
Gallucci that the Chinese be directly involved in negotiations with the 
North Koreans.
  Officially, sitting on the sidelines, the leadership in Beijing has 
nothing at stake right now. But asking for their direct participation 
in talks raises the ante.
  Their credibility and oft-stated hope that the peninsula be free of 
nuclear weapons becomes an issue.
  Extraordinary diplomatic problems require extraordinary diplomacy, 
and I urge the administration to work directly with China to address 
the problems at hand.
  Is mere public vetting of sanctions, and following through on Team 
Spirit exercises beating a drum for war?
  Absolutely not.
  Do these and other steps suggest that we will not be cowed by threats 
and rhetoric from Pyongyang?
  Yes.
  Should North Korea ultimately fail to abide by the NPT and safeguards 
agreement, I believe the United States should act to defend its 
security interests in the region and soldiers on the peninsula by 
reintroducing tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea to serve as an 
active deterrent to any North Korean consideration of attack.
  In the event of a full-scale military barrage against the South, the 
Communist leadership might hope that the North would prove to be a 
sanctuary from nuclear war.
  That is simply not the case.
  While our long-range strategic nuclear systems could respond to such 
an event, having these powerful weapons of mass destruction on the 
ground and ready to use at a moment's notice effectively conveys the 
seriousness of purpose we bring to defending South Korea.
  My point with this amendment, and the other ideas I have raised 
today, is to encourage the administration to negotiate from a position 
of strength, not weakness.
  Other countries; namely Iran are watching with great interest how we 
handle this nuclear renegade in Asia without compromising our nuclear 
proliferation policy.
  It is time to ratchet up the diplomatic pressure, and this amendment 
represents a step in that direction.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from North Carolina
  Mr. HELMS. We are prepared to accept the amendment as well on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1333) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1291

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed now to Helms amendment No. 1291.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, 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. PELL. Madam 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. 1334

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

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1334.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:
       Section 1.--Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) The international boundaries between the independent 
     countries of the former Yugoslavia are the same as the 
     internal borders among the constituent republics of the 
     former Yugoslavia as specified in the 1974 Yugoslav Federal 
     Constitution (except with regard to the border between Serbia 
     and Montenegro) and cannot be altered without the consent of 
     all countries concerned.
       (2) The Government of Croatia is violating the sovereignty 
     of Bosnia-Hercegovina by sending thousands of Croatian troops 
     to Hercegovina, ostensibly to counter an offensive against 
     ethnic Croatian civilians by Bosnian Government forces.
       (3) Croatian forces are interfering with U.N. peacekeeping 
     operations, including the delivery of humanitarian aid to 
     Bosnia-Hercegovina.
       Sec. 2.--Sanctions Against Croatia.--The President shall 
     take any or all of the following actions--
       (1) Instruct the United States Executive Director or 
     representative at all international financial institutions of 
     which the United States is a member to vote against all loans 
     to Croatia;
       (2) Provide no assistance to Croatia (except for 
     humanitarian assistance);
       (3) Make no sales to Croatia of any kind of military 
     equipment;
       (4) Prohibit the licensing of commercial military sales to 
     Croatia;
       (5) Provide no credits, and provide no guarantees of any 
     credits to Croatia;
       (6) Prohibit the sale or transfer to Croatia of any item 
     subject to export controls by any agency of the United 
     States;
       (7) Direct the Secretary of Transportation to revoke the 
     right of any air carrier designated by the Government of 
     Croatia to provide service to the United States; or
       (8) Negotiate comprehensive multilateral sanctions pursuant 
     to the provisions of Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.
       Sec. 3.--Waiver.--The President may waive the sanctions 
     contained in section 2 if he determines and so certifies in 
     writing to the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations 
     of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     that--
       (1) Croatia is not waging a war of military aggression 
     against any other country;
       (2) Croatia is not supporting directly or indirectly, any 
     military unit, militia, or paramilitary organization in any 
     other country;
       (3) Croatia is not occupying any territory of another 
     country and is not assisting forces occupying the territory 
     of another country;
       (4) Croatia recognizes the borders of Bosnia-Hercegovina as 
     specified in the 1974 Yugoslav Federal Constitution;
       (5) Croatia or forces loyal to or controlled by Croatia are 
     not interfering with United Nations peacekeeping operations 
     or with international humanitarian relief efforts; or
       (6) It is in the national interest of the United States to 
     do so.

  Mr. PELL. I look forward to completing action on the amendment at the 
appropriate time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the current business before the Senate is 
the MFN; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island just called up 
an amendment, and he is going to pursue it at another time.


                           amendment no. 1291

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to amendment No. 1291.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 1291 be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe the Senator from Texas would 
like to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


               Vitiation of Action on Amendment No. 1285

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I offered amendment No. 1285 last 
Thursday based on a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate on 
the annual savings generated by the amendment.
  Since that time, the amendment did pass, but it has come to my 
attention that the estimate of savings that I was provided may have 
been in error.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that action on amendment No. 1285 
be vitiated.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado reserves the right 
to object.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I will not object. I simply want to make 
the point that the estimate was not in error at all. What happened was 
the Congressional Budget Office changed that estimate after the 
amendment passed.
  I certainly will not object and do not object and commend the Senator 
for her forthrightness in bringing this important issue before the 
Senate and her willingness to have the issue examined again with the 
changes by the Congressional Budget Office.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor back to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 1291

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to Senator Helms' amendment No. 1291.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this is the amendment which the Senator 
proposed last week referring to MFN and China. We did have a debate on 
it last week during which time the Senator from North Carolina pointed 
out that the language that he was offering was, in effect, the language 
offered by Senator Mitchell 2 years ago during the time that President 
Bush was President.
  On behalf of Senator Mitchell, I offered a second-degree amendment 
which reflects the current policy of the Clinton administration.
  It was my hope that the Senator and I would be able to get together 
on this amendment in order to permit the Senate to send a unified and, 
hopefully, strong message to China with respect to this issue.
  I am informed now that the Senator still I think has some difference 
with respect to the second-degree amendment.
  So I will let the Senator, who more than adequately can speak for 
himself on this, define those differences, and hopefully we can proceed 
to a vote at some time shortly on this issue if it needs a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  I even thank the distinguished majority leader. I would prefer to 
have his measure of 9 months ago rather than the one that we have now. 
But I understand that we change Presidents and the shoe is on the other 
foot, and all the other cliches that come to mind.
  This second-degree amendment I have examined carefully, and I do not 
want to overstate the case, but it is scarcely more than a legislative 
toothless tiger, an attempt to gum the Chinese into submission. I am 
sure there is going to be great merriment in Beijing tonight. I can see 
them giving each other the high five and other Oriental practices and 
hoisting glasses of Kaoliang.
  I continue to believe that my original amendment, which was the 
position of the distinguished majority leader during the Bush 
administration, and is a sense of the Senate based on the conditional 
MFN renewal legislation offered by the distinguished majority leader, 
Mr. Mitchell, just a few months ago in April of last year is far 
superior. I believe my original amendment sends the strong, clear 
message that the butchers in Beijing need to hear.
  What is in the President's Executive order that seems to turn a lot 
of people around?
  With all charity, all I can see is a little bit of political 
machinations going on. It is that toothless tiger, the Executive order, 
which at best is only a first cousin of Senator Mitchell's legislation 
of some months back. It attempts to whitewash the blood stains in 
Tiananmen Square, and I do not like that. I cannot agree to that. It 
attempts to conceal Chinese proliferation violations that threaten 
American national security. I cannot go along with that. The dictators 
in Beijing will be high-fiving it all over the place when they learn 
that this amendment has put the United States Senate on record as 
endorsing the Clinton administration's patty-cake game with China's 
Communist emperors.
  The Executive order is scarcely more than a mirage, only an illusion 
of toughness. There is nothing really there to grab on to. It is sort 
of a ghost of important human rights, trade, and proliferation 
principles that have been crushed under the Communist tanks along with 
the sacrifices and aspirations of the brave Chinese freedom advocates.
  The President can change or rescind his Executive order at any time 
that it suits his fancy to do so. By the way, the Executive order 
requires a ``no'' MFN renewal recommendation only if China cannot meet 
the Jackson-Vanik waiver and if China is not adhering to the 1992 
prison labor agreement. That is it. If you doubt what I am saying, read 
the Executive order. As a matter of fact, I want to have printed the 
Executive order in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, and I so 
ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. But the second-degree amendment, which is now the pending 
amendment, does not even uphold President Clinton's standard. It is 
merely a sense-of-the-Senate piece of legislation. At a minimum, this 
Senate, in my judgment, should incorporate the binding language of the 
President's Executive order.
  The Executive order is a sort of sell-out. Already, the 
administration has cleverly crafted the weak justifications it needs to 
renew China's MFN under the Executive order. Secretary Bentsen went to 
Beijing and persuaded China to agree to comply with the prison labor 
agreement China made 2 years ago. Wow--China finally agreed to do--
now--what it promised to do 2 years ago. That is progress? But, that is 
all that is technically needed to fulfill the Executive order.
  What penalty has Clinton imposed on China for breaking its agreements 
with us in the first place? What price does China have to pay for 
flooding our markets with illegal slave-made goods and stealing hard-
working American jobs? Absolutely nothing. Why do Bill Clinton and 
other China apologists place the American worker--whose job they let 
China steal--and his suffering family behind the Communist dictators in 
China?
  What about all the other important issues this Senate has repeatedly 
raised--human rights, nonproliferation and trade?
  While President Clinton's Executive order references human rights, 
the dictators in Beijing could lock up and torture half of Tibet and 
China and nothing is required under the Executive order.
  According to the State Department's 1993 Human Rights report on 
China, issued yesterday--and I quote:

       ``The Government's overall human rights record in 1993 fell 
     far short of internationally accepted norms as it continued 
     to repress domestic critics and failed to control abuses by 
     its own security forces. * * * In 1993 hundreds, perhaps 
     thousands, of political prisoners remained under detention or 
     in prison. Estimates by some foreign researchers of the 
     number of political prisoners are much higher. * * * Physical 
     abuse, including torture by police and prison officials 
     persisted, especially in regions with minority populations 
     like Tibet. * * * There were accounts of extrajudicial 
     killings by government officials.''

  And, it goes on and on and on for 34 pages detailing arbitrary 
arrests; denial of due process of law; extensive violations of privacy; 
forced abortions; severe political and religious persecution--
especially in occupied Tibet; racial and ethnic discrimination; and 
widespread denial of basic labor rights among other serious abuses.
  And, while the Clinton administration has tried to down-play these 
horrendous abuses in the new Human Rights report through classic State 
Department understatements and diplomatic-speak, the message between 
the lines is crystal clear. China is, as the internationally-recognized 
Freedom House organization proclaimed just a month and a half ago, one 
of the ``terrible 20'' worst human rights abusers in the world. It 
shares company with North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Iran.
  And, what does the Clinton Executive order and the pending amendment 
do about this? Nothing. The Executive order has no binding requirements 
for human rights. At least the Mitchell bill and Helms amendment make 
significant overall progress in human rights a condition for MFN 
renewal.
  I know what is going to happen. This administration and its 
apologists are going to tout the release of a couple of high-profile 
political prisoners as progress. While I welcome the release of every 
innocent spokesman for freedom in China and occupied Tibet, this 
administration is setting the stage to accept a less than the minimum 
passing grade on human rights. The pending amendment endorses this 
charade. What kind of standard is this Senate setting when it accepts 
China's ``F'' as a passing grade?
  What if the murderous regime in Beijing expands China's new forced 
abortion law to authorize euthanasia for millions of disabled children 
as is being discussed in the current session of China's rubber-stamp 
Congress? Clinton's Executive order and this amendment do nothing. This 
Senate should oppose--not endorse--Chinese infanticide.
  What about nonproliferation? As with the Executive order itself, this 
amendment says nothing about the serious and dangerous problem of 
continued Chinese violations of non-proliferation agreements.

  In complete contempt for this Senate and this country, Red China sold 
missile technology to Pakistan--the only country this Congress has 
sanctioned by name because of nuclear proliferation. That happened just 
5 months ago. Yet, on Friday, Senator Kerry argued this Senate should 
not even consider China's proliferation record as part of the MFN 
renewal process because President Clinton had a separate, but tough, 
nonproliferation policy.
  Where is the tough stand Senator Kerry claimed on Friday? For China's 
missile proliferation violations, Beijing received only the minimal 
sanctions required by law. Through questionable legal reinterpretation, 
the so-called tough Clinton administration is in the process of waiving 
the heart of those sanctions and giving China important dual-use space 
technology that can be used to modernize and improve Communist China's 
offensive nuclear missile arsenal. This administration will be 
rewarding--yes, rewarding, the blood-stained Chinese military for 
proliferation violations. That sends a strong message?
  And what, for example, if China sells nuclear missiles to terrorist 
Iran? Nothing. The Executive order's silence on proliferation is almost 
deafening.
  So, Madam President, I simply cannot, as much as I wish I could, put 
my imprimatur on the second-degree amendment which will replace my 
amendment.
  Mr. President, what is MFN? It is a special, favorable trade status. 
It allows a country, like China, to sell goods to the United States at 
very low, concessionary tariff rates making foreign goods highly 
competitive against American products. Therefore, most Americans would 
assume that how China conducts trade should be central to the question 
of MFN renewal. But, not in Clinton's Executive order or the pending 
amendment. They do not even mention trade.
  So, what if Communist China continues to discriminate against 
American businesses and steal the jobs of hard-working Americans by 
illegally dumping subsidized goods here? Under Clinton's Executive 
order and the pending amendment, nothing. Explain that to John Q. 
Citizen--why protecting Chinese jobs in Shanghai is more important than 
protecting American jobs in Boston, New York, or Raleigh. Under the 
original Helms amendment, unfair trade practices that hurt Americans 
must be addressed. What is wrong with that?
  Mr. President, there is a far superior alternative pending in the 
Senate. It is the original Helms amendment which is a sense of the 
Senate reminding both the administration and Communist China of the MFN 
renewal conditions laid out by the distinguished majority leader well 
after Bill Clinton was sworn into office.
  I want to emphasize that. On Friday, Senator Kerry tried to paint the 
original amendment as an out-of-date, Bush-era measure. It is not. Nine 
months ago, I reiterate, on April 19, 1993, the distinguished Majority 
Leader, Senator George Mitchell, introduced S. 806, legislation that 
would statutorily condition China's MFN renewal. Along with 19 other 
Democrats, the majority leader introduced this bill because of 
legitimate fears that President Bill Clinton would sell out on the 
earlier promises made by candidate Bill Clinton to get tough with 
China.
  And how right the majority leader was then. With all due respect to 
him--and he is my friend--I wish he had stuck by his guns. He did not.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                           [Executive Order]

 Conditions for Renewal of Most-Favored-Nation Status for the People's 
                       Republic of China in 1994

       Whereas, the Congress and the American people have 
     expressed deep concern about the appropriateness of 
     unconditional most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status for 
     the People's Republic of China (China);
       Whereas, I share the concerns of the Congress and the 
     American people regarding this important issue, particularly 
     with respect to China's record on human rights, nuclear 
     nonproliferation, and trade;
       Whereas, I have carefully weighed the advisability of 
     conditioning China's MFN status as a means of achieving 
     progress in these areas;
       Whereas, I have concluded that the public interest would be 
     served by a continuation of the waiver of the application of 
     sections 402 (a) and (b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2432(a) and 2432(b)) (Act) on China's MFN status for an 
     additional 12 months with renewal thereafter subject to the 
     condition below;
       Now, therefore, by the authority vested in me as President 
     by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
     America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
       Section 1. The Secretary of State (Secretary) shall make a 
     recommendation to the President to extend or not to extend 
     MFN status to China for the 12-month period beginning July 3, 
     1994.
       (a) In making this recommendation the Secretary shall not 
     recommend extension unless he determines that:
       Extension will substantially promote the freedom of 
     emigration objectives of section 402 of the Act; and
       China is complying with the 1992 bilateral agreement 
     between the United States and China concerning prison labor.
       (b) In making this recommendation the Secretary shall also 
     determine whether China has made overall, significant 
     progress with respect to the following:
       Taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal Declaration 
     of Human Rights;
       Releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for 
     Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the non-violent 
     expression of their political and religious beliefs, 
     including such expression of beliefs in connection with the 
     Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
       Ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, such as by allowing 
     access to prisons by international humanitarian and human 
     rights organizations;
       Protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural 
     heritage; and
       Permitting international radio and television broadcasts 
     into China.
       Sec. 2. The Secretary shall submit his recommendation to 
     the President before June 3, 1994.
       Sec. 3. The Secretary, and other appropriate officials of 
     the United States, shall pursue resolutely all legislative 
     and executive actions to ensure that China abides by its 
     commitments to follow fair, nondiscriminatory trade practices 
     in dealing with U.S. businesses, and adheres to the Nuclear 
     Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology Control 
     Regime guidelines and parameters, and other nonproliferation 
     commitments.
       Sec. 4. This order does not create any right or benefit, 
     substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person or 
     entity against the United States, its officers or employees.
                                               William J. Clinton.
       The White House, May 28, 1993.

  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will yield just one moment, I ask for the 
yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?


                AMENDMENT NO. 1335 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1291

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

  Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will withhold for one moment, I send to the 
desk a second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator withholding his request?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes. I was under the impression, with all the confusion, 
that the second-degree amendment had already been submitted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1335 to amendment No. 1291.

  Mr. KERRY. 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:

       In the Amendment, strike all after the first word and 
     insert the following:
       The Congress finds that:
       (a) In an Executive Order of May 28, 1993, the President 
     established conditions for renewal of most-favored-nation 
     (MFN) status for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
       (b) This Executive Order requires that in making a 
     recommendation about the further extension of MFN status to 
     China, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension 
     unless he determines that--
       (1) extension will substantially promote the freedom of 
     emigration objectives of Section 402 of the Trade Act of 
     1974; and
       (2) China is complying with the 1992 bilateral agreement 
     between the United States and China concerning prison labor.
       (c) The Executive Order further required that in making his 
     recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine 
     whether China has made overall, significant progress with 
     respect to:
       (1) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights;
       (2) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for 
     Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the non-violent 
     expression of their political and religious beliefs, 
     including such expression of religious beliefs in connection 
     with the Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
       (3) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, such as by 
     allowing access to prisons by international humanitarian and 
     human rights organizations;
       (4) protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural 
     heritage; and
       (5) permitting international radio and television 
     broadcasts into China.
       (d) The Executive Order further requires the Executive 
     Branch to resolutely pursue all legislative and executive 
     actions to ensure that China abides by its commitments to 
     follow fair, nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing 
     with U.S. businesses, and adheres to the Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology Control 
     Regime guidelines and parameters, and other nonproliferation 
     commitments.
       (e) The Chinese government should cooperate with 
     international efforts to obtain North Korea's full, 
     unconditional compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty.
       (f) The President has initiated an intensive high-level 
     dialogue with the Chinese government which began last year 
     with a meeting between the Secretary of State and the Chinese 
     Foreign Minister, included a meeting in Seattle between the 
     President and the President of China, meetings in Beijing 
     with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Assistant Secretary 
     for Human Rights and others, a recent meeting in Paris 
     between the Secretary of State and the Chinese Foreign 
     Minister, and recent meetings in Washington with several 
     Under Secretaries and their Chinese counterparts.
       (g) The President's efforts have led to some recent 
     progress on some issues of concern to the United States.
       (h) Notwithstanding this, substantially more progress is 
     needed to meet the standards in the President's Executive 
     Order.
       (i) The Chinese government's overall human rights record in 
     1993 fell far short of internationally accepted norms as it 
     continued to repress critics and failed to control abuses by 
     its own security forces.

     Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that:
       The President of the United States should use all 
     appropriate opportunities, in particular more high-level 
     exchanges with the Chinese government, to press for further 
     concrete progress towards meeting the standards for 
     continuation of MFN status as contained in the Executive 
     Order.

  Mr. KERRY. 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. KERRY. Madam President, the Senator has described a China that we 
have all come to understand and to have very strong feelings about with 
respect to the abuses of human rights and the problems that exist. We 
know that in this Senate because we voted on it again and again.
  The Senator from North Carolina has described some of the worst of 
those abuses. I do not know one U.S. Senator who could fairly be 
accused of supporting any of the abuses in any way that have been 
described by the Senator from North Carolina. That is not the issue 
here.
  The issue that we need to keep our eyes focused on, and our minds, is 
to not undo a policy that is working or send to the Chinese a message 
that works against the interests that the Senator has expressed.
  The second-degree amendment that Senator Mitchell has sent to the 
desk, or I have sent to the desk on his behalf, contains in it every 
single component that is in the amendment of the Senator from North 
Carolina and that was in Senator Mitchell's original amendment.
  There is not one item--Tibet, prison labor, inspection of prisons, 
the question of access to information from the flow of outside radio 
transmissions being sent into China--there is not one issue raised by 
the Senator from North Carolina that is not contained in the amendment 
of Senator Mitchell. The difference is in how it is being approached.
  The Senator from North Carolina wraps each and every one of these 
items up into conditionality for MFN. But President Clinton, which is 
his prerogative, has separated MFN and some of the issues raised by the 
Senator from North Carolina, separated them only as to MFN.
  That does not mean that they are not on the table in the negotiating 
process. That does not mean that the administration is not pressing 
them with greater vigor than they have been pressed previously. It 
simply means that, unlike the Senator from North Carolina, the 
President of the United States and the amendment of Senator Mitchell 
are not linking all of those items to the conditionality of MFN.
  I think the vast majority of colleagues in the U.S. Senate accept 
that concept; that, in fact, we want MFN to be linked separately. And 
some are even extremely apprehensive about linking MFN. There are many 
Senators who do not think it ought to be linked, but that you can make 
great headway on human rights and on these other issues through other 
avenues of diplomacy.
  In point of fact, for years after President Nixon made his overtures 
to China, all the way through the process with President Carter and 
Zbigniew Brzezinski in moving toward normalization, we did not have a 
conditioning of MFN. And that was a China more brutal than the China 
today.
  It was Tiananmen Square that brought about the conditioning of MFN. 
And I think most people who have been observing what is happening in 
China today would agree that a certain road has been traveled from that 
moment and that we might even describe ourselves as today in a 
different period of time, a different transitional period, if you will, 
from the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen Square events.
  But the fact is--and this is what I think colleagues should focus 
on--every single item that was in the original amendment of Senator 
Mitchell is contained in the amendment at the desk. And, in fact, every 
item that is in the Executive order--the immigration objectives; the 
objectives with respect to prison labor; the objectives with respect to 
adherence to the universal declaration of human rights; the objectives 
with respect to releasing Chinese citizens who are imprisoned and 
having the process of accountability, particularly with regard to 
Tiananmen Square; the process of ensuring human treatment of prisoners; 
the process of protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural 
heritage; the process of permitting international radio and television 
broadcasts into China; the legislative and executive actions that will 
guarantee that China abides by fair, nondiscriminatory trade practices; 
and the efforts to keep China adhering to Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty and Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines.
  All of those items, all of those items which were in Senator 
Mitchell's original amendment and contained in the Helms amendment, are 
in the Executive order and are embraced in the amendment which Senator 
Mitchell sends to the desk.
  Moreover, there is additional language not in Senator Helms' 
amendment which exhorts China to provide assistance with respect to the 
North Korean nuclear problem. In addition to that, there is very 
distinct and tough language with respect to the trade practices and the 
question of missile technology proliferation.
  So I say to my colleagues that if you want to keep the process on 
track, if you want to send a strong message to China, if you want to 
send a message that is sensitive to the new dialog that the President 
has initiated with respect to China, and if we do not want to mix the 
process and confuse the Chinese, then we should support the second-
degree amendment of Senator Mitchell.
  But if you want to undo the process and send confusion and, in fact, 
not even be as strong, then we can proceed down a road that will in 
fact set back our China policy.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of the 
Senator from Maine.
  The President, with wide support in Congress, signed an Executive 
order last spring which will govern his decision on renewing China's 
most-favored-nation tariff status next June. It cited seven conditions: 
Freedom of emigration; living up to the Memorandum of Understanding on 
Prison Labor Products; moving toward meeting the obligations of the 
International Declaration on Human Rights; release and accounting for 
political prisoners; ensuring humane prison conditions, for example 
through allowing the International Committee on the Red Cross to 
inspect jails; protecting the religious and cultural heritage of Tibet; 
and ending the jamming of foreign radio broadcasts.
  Last spring, like many other Members of the Senate, I endorsed this 
Executive order. We are operating under it today, and are working very 
hard to get China to meet its seven conditions. I personally visited 
Beijing, Chengdu, Lhasa, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen last summer in large 
part to urge China to meet them.
  By substituting a much longer list of conditions including trade 
barriers and weapons proliferation, this amendment seeks to undo the 
President's policy and move the goalposts back many yards. That would 
be a serious mistake. If China believes we intend to change policy in 
midcourse, and find an excuse to revoke MFN regardless of their 
actions, they will not take the necessary steps on human rights. That 
would mean fewer jobs here and more suffering in China.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has made the point very well. Congress 
and the administration have been united in urging China to meet the 
conditions in the Executive order, and we should remain united. When we 
consider renewing MFN status for China this spring, we should do so on 
the basis of the Executive order. I support the second degree amendment 
and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we have only one-half hour before all 
amendments have to be laid down. I do not want to be the person 
responsible for preventing that from happening.
  So before we proceed forward and before I yield the floor, let me ask 
the distinguished minority leader if he wishes to lay down an amendment 
or proceed from where we were with respect to the amendment that he has 
already submitted.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, it is my understanding, if the manager 
will yield, that our amendment is being compromised to the satisfaction 
of both myself and Senator Mitchell and that it should be completed 
before 6 o'clock. So there would be a modified amendment. If not, we 
would hope to get unanimous consent, since we are working on it with 
the majority leader. But I think there are other amendments that need 
to be laid down.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished minority leader and yield the 
floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
current amendment on the floor of the body be set aside so I may 
proceed to an amendment that is on the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1336

(Purpose: To authorize the International Boundary and Water Commission 
to negotiate agreements with Mexico on the financing, construction and 
 operation of sewage treatment and other pollution control works along 
                   the United States-Mexico border.)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1336.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. 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:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SEWAGE TREATMENT ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO 
                   BORDER.

       (a) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     United States Commissioner of the International Boundary and 
     Water Commission.
       (2) Construction.--The term ``construction'' has the 
     meaning provided the term under section 212(1) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)).
       (3) Treatment Works.--The term ``treatment works'' has the 
     meaning provided the term under section 212(2) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)).
       (b) Agreements To Correct Pollution.--
       (1)  In general.--The Secretary of State, acting through 
     the Commissioner, may enter into an agreement with the 
     appropriate representative of the Ministry of Foreign 
     Relations of Mexico to address the international problems 
     related to pollution caused by the discharge of raw and 
     inadequately treated sewage originating in the Republic of 
     Mexico to waters which form or cross the boundary between the 
     United States and Mexico.
       (2) Contents of agreements.--An agreement entered into 
     under paragraph (1) shall consist of recommendations to the 
     appropriate officials of the Federal Government and the 
     Government of Mexico concerning measures to protect the 
     health and welfare of individuals from adverse effects of the 
     pollution referred to in paragraph (1), including 
     recommendations concerning--
       (A) whether treatment works should be constructed, 
     operated, and maintained in Mexico or the United States;
       (B) estimates of the cost of the planning, construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the treatment works referred to 
     in subparagraph (A);
       (C) formulas for the initial allocation of costs between 
     the United States and Mexico with respect to the planning, 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of the treatment 
     works referred to in subparagraph (A);
       (D) a method for the review and adjustments of the formulas 
     recommended under subparagraph (C), not later than 5 years 
     after the date of issuance of the formulas, and every 5 years 
     thereafter, that recognizes that the initial formulas 
     should not be used as a precedent with respect to a 
     subsequent review and adjustment carried out pursuant to 
     this subparagraph; and
       (E) an estimated time period for the construction of a 
     treatment works referred to in subparagraph (A).
       (c) Authority of Secretary of State to Plan, Construct, 
     Operate, and Maintain Facilities.--The Secretary of State, 
     acting through the Commissioner, may act jointly with the 
     appropriate representative of the Government of Mexico to 
     supervise--
       (1) the planning of; and
       (2) the construction, operation, and maintenance of, the 
     treatment works recommended in an agreement entered into 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(1).
       (d) Consultation With The Administrator and Other 
     Officials.--In carrying out subsection (b), the Secretary 
     shall consult with the Administrator and other appropriate 
     officials of the Federal Government, and appropriate 
     officials of the governments of States and political 
     subdivisions of States.
       (e) Annual Report.--
       (1) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary of State, 
     acting through the Commissioner, shall prepare and submit to 
     the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Majority Leader of the Senate an annual report 
     concerning the activities of the International Boundary and 
     Water Commission in carrying out the responsibilities of the 
     Secretary of State pursuant to this section.
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) a summary of the activities of the Commission during 
     the fiscal year;
       (B) a review of the problems related to pollution caused by 
     the discharge of raw and inadequately treated sewage from the 
     Republic of Mexico to the waters which form or cross the 
     boundary between the United States and Mexico;
       (C) a summary of the progress made by the Commissioner 
     during the fiscal year in entering into an agreement pursuant 
     to subsection (b)(1);
       (D) a summary of the progress made toward fulfilling the 
     recommendations included in an agreement referred to in 
     subparagraph (C);
       (E) a summary of any actions taken by the Commissioner to 
     plan, construct, operate, and maintain treatment works 
     pursuant to this section;
       (F) a summary of the consultations made by the Commissioner 
     pursuant to subsection (e);
       (G) recommendations that the Commissioner determines will 
     be beneficial in correcting pollution caused by the discharge 
     of raw and inadequately treated sewage from the Republic of 
     Mexico to waters which form or cross the boundary between the 
     United States and Mexico; and
       (H) such other information as the Commissioner determines 
     is necessary or appropriate.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     of State such sums as may be necessary to support agreements 
     concluded pursuant to subsection (b).
       (2) nothing in this section authorizes funds appropriated 
     pursuant to the fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies (Public Law 103-124).

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, the amendment I am proposing 
clarifies and expands the present authority of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC] to negotiate agreements with 
Mexico to jointly finance the construction and operation of sewage 
treatment facilities along the United States-Mexico border to treat raw 
sewage entering this country from Mexico.
  The IBWC already believes it has the authority to enter into this 
type of agreement with Mexico but this amendment sets it forth in 
specific terms so that there can be no question.
  This is an appropriate role for the IBWC and the State Department and 
is not precedent setting. This same authority already exists for the 
IBWC along the water boundary of the Rio Grande in the Rio Grande 
Pollution Correction Act of 1987, Public Law 100-465.
  This amendment would extend that authorization to the land boundary 
of the United States-Mexico border, as well as the Rio Grande.
  It is my understanding that the IBWC does not have a problem with 
this amendment. As a matter of fact, I believe it would welcome the 
clarification of this authority.
  This amendment specifically states that this authority is not meant 
to be used to tap into the $500 million set aside for hardship 
communities in the fiscal year 1994 VA, HUD appropriations bill, which 
I had something to do with it getting there for the purpose of dealing 
with some border communities in my States.
  Hopefully, those funds will be authorized for the EPA in the upcoming 
Clean Water Act.
  I also want to make it clear that this does not preclude border 
communities from securing EPA funding for pollution problems on the 
border. This amendment deals only with preventing raw sewage from 
flowing from Mexico into the United States.
  This amendment is extremely critical to protect the public health and 
environment of my State and to all of the Southwest border States. The 
conditions in many border communities are deplorable and rectifying the 
dangerous pollution problems on our border should be one of our highest 
priorities.
  In my State, Nogales, AZ is a community in desperate need of Federal 
assistance to meet its wastewater treatment needs. This city is located 
immediately downhill and downstream from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico. 
Because of the topography of the area, the treatment facility is on the 
U.S. side of the border and services the communities in both countries.
  Until the recent expansion of the Nogales International Wastewater 
Treatment Plant, raw sewage from Mexico community flowed unmitigated 
into the Santa Cruz River, washes and even the streets into Nogales, 
AZ.
  The existing treatment facility was designed to satisfy the treatment 
needs of both communities for the next 20 years. Because of a 
population explosion in Nogales, Sonora, the inability of Mexico to 
pretreat its industrial waste and increased sewer link-ups in Mexico, 
the facility has already reached 75 percent of its operating capacity.
  By April 1994, the facility is estimated to reach 100 percent of its 
capacity and a moratorium will have to be placed on new sewer linkups 
in Nogales, AZ. Thus, one of Arizona's fastest growing border 
communities will be penalized because of problems beyond its control 
across the border--very disturbing with the ongoing NAFTA 
implementation.
  Right now there is a cancer cluster in Nogales, AZ. The specific 
cause is unknown at this time, but evidence points to chemical and 
heavy metal contaminants used in Mexican factories that flow down 
Nogales Wash from Mexico into Arizona. Mexico does not pretreat its 
industrial waste and the existing facility is unable to handle the 
amount of inflow. Citizens of Nogales are facing a cancer epidemic.
  A study by the University of Arizona Cancer Center found that Nogales 
has 4.8 times the expected average of my-low-ma (myeloma) cases, 1.6 
times the leukemia cases and 4.5 times the lupus cases--the highest 
rate of lupus in the world. The exact cause of lupus is unknown, but 
one of the probable causes is exposure to toxic chemicals.
  I am sad to say that I could continue citing birth defect and disease 
statistics for the Southwest border region and even specific cases. 
These are horrible cases and horrifying statistics.
  Negotiations for the present Nogales facility required specific 
authorization for the IBWC for Nogales. Between securing this site-
specific authorization and conducting these difficult negotiations, the 
process took 12 years. We do not have 12 years of leeway this time--not 
with Nogales and not with other border communities.
  Authorizing the IBWC to negotiate and enter into agreements with 
Mexico along the land border, will allow the IBWC to work with Mexico 
to plan, finance and construct desperately needed wastewater treatment 
facilities.
  Hopefully, in the Clean Water Act we will authorize EPA to use funds 
for wastewater treatment on the border and in other hardship 
communities. But to remedy the problem on the United States side of the 
border, it is also necessary to deal with the sewage problem in 
neighboring Mexican communities.
  I hope that my colleagues see the necessity of this amendment, and I 
urge them to approve it.
  I hope the committee will accept the amendment and try to keep it in 
conference.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1336) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished 
Senators from Massachusetts and North Carolina and their staffs for 
their cooperation and for accepting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I might use 5 
minutes of my leader time not to be charged against the time between 
now and 6 o'clock, so in effect it would extend it to 6:05 because it 
is not an amendment to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dole pertaining to the introduction of S. 1815 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 1337

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting Malaysia's 
continued participation in the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP])

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

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1337,
       At the end of the bill add the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MALAYSIA'S GSP STATUS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the President should 
     maintain Malaysia's benefits under the Generalized System of 
     Preferences (GSP) unless it is determined that, under the 
     terms of 19 U.S.C. sec. 2462(c)(2), Malaysia has developed 
     economically beyond the goals of the GSP.

  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I will only take a moment to outline the 
basic thrust of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. There are a number 
of other Members who would like to offer amendments before the cutoff 
time of 6:05. I will, therefore, defer any lengthy debate at this 
particular point. Malaysia is a country that has been extended benefits 
under the generalized system of preferences, or GSP, program. A 
petition has been filed, the fourth in nearly as many years, to 
withdraw that status. The basis is that Malaysia prohibits the 
formation of national unions in its electronics industry. However, the 
fact is that Malaysia allows each company to be unionized, but does not 
allow national unions.
  I must say to an administration that is interested in opening up 
trade to Asia that Malaysia is one of our more important trading 
countries. They have made tremendous progress, and we ought not 
punitively withdraw GSP benefits at this time. They are improving the 
nature of their work force, their education level, and their 
compensation level, having made what I think is quite marked 
advancement in recent years. So I will reserve further debate.
  I do have a letter that I will be submitting to Ambassador Kantor 
which now contains some 36 signatures of Members of the Senate from 
both sides of the aisle. I think we have to have a very strong message 
to the administration that GSP status ought to continue until such time 
as Malaysia graduates from the GSP Program as a result of its continued 
economic development.
  I yield back the remainder of any time I might have so we can 
consider other amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, indeed there is, and this is not 
acceptable on this side of the fence. So we need to wait. I am trying 
to see where the Finance Committee is on it. I, personally, have some 
problems with it. I first want to see where they are and hopefully we 
can proceed later. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set it 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina was seeking 
recognition.
  Mr. HELMS. Did the Chair recognize me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Let me see if I can propound a 
unanimous-consent request that makes sense that takes care of the 
problem we have.
  Mr. KERRY. Could I ask my colleague if he will withhold. We can get 
rid of one piece of business quickly.


                Amendment No. 1249, As Further Modified

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that relative to 
amendment No. 1249, previously adopted, that a modification in the 
language, a technical correction, be made, and I send it to the desk. I 
ask unanimous consent that that be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:
       On page 179, line 6, after the language added by amendment 
     No. 1249 (as modified) add the following: ``entered into 
     after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Act of 1978.''.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I suggest to the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts that we ask unanimous consent jointly, that each of 
us send identification of amendments that we have from Senators from 
our respective sides, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered 
offered for the purpose of the unanimous consent agreement about 6:05.
  Mr. KERRY. To be honest with you, it does not appeal to me 
tremendously, but we may have to do it.
  Mr. HELMS. We are going to have to do something.
  Mr. KERRY. I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum for a 
moment. I want to confer with my colleague. I withhold the request for 
a quorum call and I think there is an amendment that can be offered 
quickly.


                           Amendment No. 1338

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of State to report to Congress 
                  within 60 days on Bosnian refugees)

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1338.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       A. The Senate finds that:
       1. In Bosnia-Hercegovina the civilian population has been 
     subject to egregious violations of basic human rights, 
     including wide-spread willful killing, the torture of 
     prisoners, deliberate attacks on non-combatants, the 
     intentional impeding of the delivery of food and medical 
     supplies to the civilian population, mass forcible expulsion 
     and deportation of civilians, the abuse of civilians in 
     detention centers, and the wanton devastation and destruction 
     of property.
       2. Ethnic cleansing, the systematic persecution of 
     minorities, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, violations 
     of internationally-held humanitarian principles, and the 
     deliberate targeting of aid workers has been and continues to 
     be common events in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
       B. The Department of State shall within 60 days after the 
     enactment of this law brief the Committees of Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate on the steps 
     being taken by the United States to assure that all 
     appropriate efforts are being made to expeditiously identify 
     and assist all cases of Bosnian individuals and families who 
     are requesting third country resettlement and who are 
     eligible to seek refugee status in the United States and who 
     are seeking such refugee status.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the civilian population in Bosnia has 
been subjected to egregious violations of humans rights. Many of them 
are eligible for resettlement in third countries, including this 
country. There have been a number of bottlenecks, however, to that 
resettlement, even for those who are eligible for resettlement in this 
country.
  Having not come to their direct military assistance, and having not 
even lifted the arms embargo so they can defend themselves, the least 
we can do, it seems to me, is eliminate bottlenecks and roadblocks to 
the resettlement of those refugees where they are eligible for 
resettlement here.
  This amendment simply would require the Department of State, within 
60 days after the enactment of this law, to brief the Judiciary 
committees of the House and the Senate on the steps being taken by the 
United States to assure that all appropriate efforts are being made to 
expeditiously identify and assist all cases of Bosnian individuals and 
families who request third-party resettlement here and who are eligible 
to seek that status and refugee status in the United States.
  I understand this has been cleared by the Senator from Massachusetts 
and the Senator from North Carolina. Based on that assumption, I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this is a good amendment. We want to 
accept it. I congratulate the Senator for bringing it forward.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friends from North Carolina and Massachusetts.
  Mr. HELMS. The amendment is satisfactory on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1338) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum all be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1291

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
Helms amendment relative to China MFN. I would like to say at the 
outset that I feel very strongly, as I think every Senator in this 
Chamber feels, that human rights is the hallmark of this country. It is 
that which gives us legitimacy, it is that which distinguishes this 
country from virtually every country on the face of the Earth. There 
are others that celebrate human rights to the extent that we do, but 
very few. Certainly, no superpower does. We should insist at every turn 
on promoting and promulgating our human rights agenda across the world.
  Where I differ with the Helms amendment is in the fact that MFN 
should not be used, is not an appropriate way to either maximize the 
influence of this country or to promote human rights.
  I perceive from, I think, the very clear fact that the one thing that 
has promoted human rights more than any other single thing in China is 
trade. At the end of the Cultural Revolution, China was coming off a 
period of isolation in which there were no public human rights or 
private human rights. By public human rights, I mean the ability to 
demonstrate in Tiananmen Square, the ability to form a political party, 
to make a political speech, to communicate publicly your opposition to 
the government. There were no public human rights.
  There were also no private human rights. By private human rights, I 
mean not only freedom from hunger, but freedom to take a job anywhere 
you wished, freedom to speak to your neighbor, freedom to have a fax 
machine, to listen to television, to listen to a radio, to buy at a 
market, to live where you want to. There were no private human rights 
coming off the Cultural Revolution. That has drastically changed in 
China.
  Today, private human rights are, if not perfect, if not perfect 
certainly by American standards, light years away from where they were. 
Private human rights in China, to those who go there and see for 
themselves, are rather extensive. There are about 150 million Chinese 
today who travel around China and seek and receive jobs in various 
endeavors. In coming off the old cultural revolution, jobs were 
assigned by the old danwei or unit system. The block captain assigned 
the jobs, gave the place to live, gave the ration cards, and controlled 
every aspect of life.
  Today, Madam President, those 150 million-odd people who move about 
China seek and secure their own jobs, make their own money, are not 
subject to rationing, can buy their own goods, can get their fax 
machine, can buy the color television, and by the millions they buy 
color televisions and listen to Hong Kong TV and listen to all kinds of 
outside influences.
  Madam President, we are propagating American values and American 
culture through trade, and it would be unthinkable to stop that flow of 
ideas, that flow of Western influence. It is changing the landscape, 
the economic, the cultural, the political, the human rights landscape 
in China right before your very eyes. And so the threat of removing MFN 
is not a credible threat, Madam President, just not credible.
  The second aspect of this is that the United States, in order to have 
stability in the Far East, in order to maximize its influence, needs to 
have China as a good friend. The most obvious example is Korea and 
Northern Korea and their atomic bomb. We are dependent on China and its 
influence with North Korea. More than that, Madam President, as long as 
we are friendly with China, the two of us standing together promote 
stability throughout Asia and the Asian economy. As long as we are 
together, Japan is reassured, Indonesia feels better; Vietnam, which 
has been a traditional enemy of China, is much reassured that we have 
influence with China. Now, if we should revoke MFN, our influence with 
China would go to zero. There would undoubtedly be retaliation against 
American companies, and we could see a deterioration in our situation, 
in our influence, in our relationship with China.
  Madam President, the best thing we can do is to do as our Ambassador 
in China, Winston Lord, has stated, and move beyond MFN as an annual 
exercise. I believe there are ways to do that. I believe we could form 
a bilateral relationship formalized with China under which we would set 
goals. We would discuss them publicly. We would have a staff in place. 
We would have the ability to investigate all kinds of complaints, 
whether from Amnesty International or Asia Watch or any of those 
groups.
  I believe the Chinese would be willing to form that kind of group 
with us and pledge their cooperation to it--perhaps not pledge to dance 
the tune exactly that America calls, but at least to discuss and to 
bring human rights up as a discussion point and take it seriously.
  Li Peng, the Premier of China, has stated that he wished to pursue 
human rights but not as an annual MFN exercise. Madam President, I 
believe all over Asia this country should quit treating trade as if it 
is a favor which we bestow upon our friends for good behavior. Trade is 
the key that promulgates America's influence throughout Asia. It is the 
key that allows us the dialog that will promote human rights. Without 
trade, we, as we say, shoot ourselves in the foot, and it is simply not 
credible to do that. We need to do as Assistant Secretary of State 
Winston Lord says and move beyond MFN as an annual exercise.
  Now, having said that, I can report that when we had our meeting, 
seven Senators strong, with the Premier of China, we asked that he 
improve human rights and he indicated he was; and I hope the State 
Department is going to be satisfied and find the facts upon which to 
base a record of progress on human rights.
  Madam President, I see my colleague needs to reclaim the floor. Let 
me close by saying we should defeat the Helms amendment. We should 
allow the administration to continue to pursue its policy, which is a 
flexible one, which I believe will lead us beyond an annual exercise on 
human rights and MFN.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 1339

       (Purpose: To eliminate the proposed repeal of a provision 
     of law relating to burdensharing)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be laid aside so that I could introduce an amendment 
which I would like to send to the desk at this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself, 
     Mr. Byrd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1339.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 47, strike out lines 1 through 3.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the version of the State Department 
authorization bill reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
eliminates the position of Ambassador at Large for burdensharing which 
was created by the Congress in the fiscal year 1989 Defense Department 
Appropriations Act.
  Our amendment would restore the position.
  Eliminating this ambassadorial-level position would send our allies 
exactly the wrong signal at exactly the wrong time. It would 
undoubtedly be viewed as a sign of a reduced U.S. commitment, a 
declining level of American concern. It could even be viewed as a sign 
that our Government is satisfied with the progress our allies are 
making.
  That, Mr. President, would be a mistake.
  I believe this administration is committed to securing greater 
contributions from the allies. For example, when I proposed a 
burdensharing amendment to the Defense authorization bill last fall, 
Secretaries Aspin and Christopher assured us that they ``share the 
Congress' concern about equitable burdensharing, and this remains a 
primary administration policy. We will continue to negotiate vigorously 
arrangements with our allies that seek to be more beneficial to the 
United States.''
  Eliminating or downgrading the position of ambassador at large for 
burdensharing will not advance the administration's policy. It will not 
help us achieve our goals. It will not give us any leverage in 
negotiation. Indeed, eliminating the individual with sole 
responsibility for burdensharing negotiations, will do just the 
opposite.
  Mr. President, I guess some say that eliminating or downgrading the 
position would save money. The CBO, however, has made no such claim.
  And I understand why. What I have been told is that the State 
Department, instead of having a burdensharing ambassador at large, 
would designate a special coordinator on burdensharing. Like a 
burdensharing ambassador at large, this special coordinator would still 
be paid a salary--but he or she wouldn't have as much institutional 
clout.
  So, in addition to downgrading the level of importance America places 
on this issue, we do not get any meaningful savings.
  In fact, this proposal might actually end up costing us money.
  Since 1989, the Ambassador at large, with a two-person staff, has 
cost the State Department less than a million dollars. In the same 
time, burdensharing agreements have been negotiated with Japan in which 
they agreed to pay 75 percent of our overseas basing costs. Some 
estimate that burdensharing negotiations with Japan and the Republic of 
Korea have brought $2.77 billion to the U.S. Treasury. We may be able 
to get even more.
  An effective burdensharing ambassador could help bring down the tab 
the American taxpayers currently pay operating military installations 
outside of Asia as well. In 1993, the American taxpayers spent $10 
billion on the cost of operating military installations in foreign 
countries. Our burdensharing ambassador should be working to bring 
those costs down.
  Additionally, an aggressive and effective burdensharing ambassador 
could work to ensure that the allies pay us for the value of the 
investments--buildings, roads, sewers and such--we are leaving behind 
as we withdraw from Europe.
  The Pentagon has announced plans to close or reduce our presence at 
854 military sites overseas, a large majority of which are in Europe. 
America has already closed 427 military sites in Europe.
  The facilities we leave behind represent a significant investment of 
American taxpayer dollars--about $6.5 billion, according to the Defense 
Department--in the collective security of the West. An estimated $3.89 
billion of that investment is in Germany, where we have already left 
over 60 percent of the military sites slated for closure.
  Through a series of residual value agreements, some allies have 
agreed to repay us for the value of what we leave behind.
  We ought to turn those commitments into cash. But so far we haven't.
  Over the past few years, we have collected less than $50 million out 
of the $6.5 billion the facilities are worth.
  We should be encouraging our burdensharing Ambassador at Large to get 
the allies to make good on these commitments. We shouldn't be 
downgrading the position. We should be strengthening it and getting 
some real results.
  Clearly our allies can do better. And to get them to do better, we 
need to convince them we mean business. To convince them we mean 
business, we need at least an Ambassador at Large whose sole portfolio 
is producing fair agreements with our allies.
  Mr. President, the task of soliciting greater contributions for the 
collective defense is a daunting one. It is difficult enough even to 
hold the line when the world economy is dragging.
  I hope my colleagues share my view that we should not make it more 
difficult by eliminating--or even downgrading--this position at a time 
when his job is hardest--and more important than ever.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the past several years the Congress has 
become increasingly interested in the distribution of costs for the 
collective defense of the United States and its allies. Much of that 
interest has been generated by the efforts of the distinguished Senator 
from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], and he deserves credit for keeping 
our attention on this issue. I am happy to cosponsor this amendment to 
retain the office of Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing.
  For most of the Cold War, the U.S. occupied a position of both 
military and economic supremacy within the Western alliance. During 
this time, America shouldered the largest share of the burden for the 
common defense of Western Europe, Japan, Korea, and other allies. We 
all know that after World War II the United States stood as the only 
Western nation with the industrial and economic might to carry this 
responsibility. It is a role which we played well and one of which we 
should be proud.
  But as our allies have grown and prospered over the years, and as the 
threats to them have receded, the share of the costs borne by the 
United States has become unreasonably high. In recent years, the 
Congress has enacted legislation to try to remedy this situation. Each 
of the last three Defense Authorization Acts required the President to 
work for more favorable agreements with countries where the U.S. bases 
troops. In some cases, notably Japan, the Executive branch has 
succeeded. But in many other countries negotiations continue.
  The organization charged with carrying on these negotiations is the 
Office of the Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing, a position created 
by the Fiscal Year 1989 Defense Appropriations Act. From October of 
1989 until his appointment as Assistant Secretary of Defense last 
November, Ambassador Henry Allen Holmes filled this statutorily-created 
post. During his tenure, Ambassador Holmes successfully negotiated 
agreements with Japan and South Korea. These agreements will result in 
billions of dollars flowing to the U.S. Treasury either in direct 
payments from the host nations or in savings to the Defense Department. 
The Office of the Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing estimates that 
the U.S. has already realized $2.77 billion in incremental savings as a 
result of these agreements, with larger savings projected. When one 
stops to realize that these savings were achieved by a three-person 
office at the State Department, the favorable cost-benefit outcome is 
obvious.
  This office will be renegotiating the agreements with Japan and South 
Korea in 1995 and is currently negotiating burdensharing issues with 
several NATO allies, including Germany and the United Kingdom. Yet, 
despite the success of Ambassador Holmes, and the clear need for 
continued attention to these negotiations, the Administration has asked 
that the Congress repeal the legislative requirement for the position 
of Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing. I understand that the 
Secretary of State plans to keep the office in place for one year, 
after which time the Under Secretary of State for International 
Security Affairs would determine whether to retain the office or fold 
its functions into another bureau of the State Department.
  I find it unfortunate, and somewhat troubling, that the State 
Department would consider eliminating or downgrading one of the few 
offices anywhere in the government that actually brings money into the 
U.S. Treasury. I understand that the Secretary of State wants the 
flexibility to organize the State Department in an efficient manner, 
and I realize that no final decision has been made as to the future of 
this office, but this position exists because of serious Congressional 
concern over inattention to the question of burdensharing. To suggest 
eliminating the statutory requirement for this position at a time when 
important negotiations are pending, or on the horizon, seems odd 
indeed.
  The Congress created this office at the level of ambassador in order 
to give this issue visibility within the bureaucracy, but more 
importantly as a signal to U.S. allies that we are serious about 
achieving more equitable burden-sharing arrangements. To now repeal the 
requirement would have the opposite effect, and would tell our allies, 
all of whom carefully scrutinize Congressional actions, that the 
pressure is off and they can stop worrying about making further 
concessions. That is certainly not the case and we should make that 
abundantly clear by striking Section 140(b) of this bill.
  Once again, I commend Senator Lautenberg for his efforts on this 
issue.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I simply sent the amendment to the 
desk so that we can take it up at a later time.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
after the vote on the Helms amendment No. 1320, the Senate proceed 
without intervening business to vote on the second-degree amendment to 
the Helms amendment No. 1291, the second-degree amendment of Senator 
Mitchell sent to the table by Senator Kerry, and that that vote would 
occur and be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe the Senator from North Carolina 
and I would like to join together in a unanimous-consent request to 
send to the desk a series of amendments to be considered as offered, 
each amendment qualifying to be offered by virtue of being on the list 
under the previous order.
  Madam President, is it necessary for the Senator to name each of the 
amendments or should we simply send them to the desk?
  We will name the amendments. There is an amendment from Senator Brown 
and Senator Simon, which is one of the relevant amendments; a second 
amendment from Senator Brown, which is relevant; an amendment from 
Senator Bingaman, which is his reserved position on the list; and that 
is all the amendments from this side that are being sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I believe the Senator referred to the 
Brown amendments?
  Mr. KERRY. That is correct. I had two of the Brown amendments. Those 
obviously properly belonged on the Senator's side.
  Mr. HELMS. There will be a total of three Brown amendments, all 
relevant; one Pressler amendment, relevant; three Helms amendments, 
relevant; Mr. McConnell has one amendment, relevant; and Mr. Dole has 
three amendments, relevant. I am advised there is another amendment of 
Senator Dole on Vietnam, and one relevant amendment by Mr. D'Amato.
  I send these amendments to the desk.
  Madam President, I may say for the record that I realize that we are 
sort of jamming the machinery for the gentleman at the desk. But they, 
in short order, will give us the numbers for each one of these 
amendments as we proceed.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, let me also say that the vast majority of 
these amendments are probably going to be acceptable. We have had a 
chance to look at most of them. So while there are a number coming to 
the desk at the last minute, it is not assumed that we are suddenly 
looking at a huge number of rollcall votes.
  However, we are looking at several rollcall votes and, hopefully, in 
the intervening time while we are voting now or shortly it will be 
possible for us to try to work out a schedule with time agreements and 
understand exactly what we are looking at.
  I believe that we can shortly have a vote after the two votes to come 
on the Helms amendment--on the Lott-Helms amendments for the United 
Nations. But the Senator has indicated that he would like to say a few 
more words. Senator Lott has indicated he would like a few more words 
with respect to that. The Dole peacekeeping amendment has been worked 
out. So we now have a series of amendments which will be acceptable. 
That will not require, I believe, a rollcall vote.
  So I think notwithstanding the number of amendments, we are closing 
the door and coming down to the final vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note that the amendments have 
been received, qualified, and will be numbered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I send one other amendment to the desk 
under my name.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received, and will be 
qualified and numbered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask for regular order.


                       vote on amendment no. 1320

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a rollcall vote will 
now occur with respect to amendment 1320.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I move to table amendment 1320, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments in 
opposition to Senator Helms' amendment which limits the number of State 
Department Assistant Secretaries.
  As chairman of the appropriations bill that funds the State 
Department, I have inspected many embassies overseas and discussed 
management and policy issues with Secretary Warren Christopher and 
Under Secretary for Management Dick Moose.
  Now, I think that most Senators would agree that the position of 
Secretary of State is regarded as the most prestigious Cabinet position 
in the U.S. Government. That is because of the diplomatic 
responsibilities that the position carries with it--like nuclear arms 
negotiations, Russian aid, and the Middle East peace process. It is not 
because of the operations of the Department itself. It is no secret 
that it has been hard to find Secretaries of State who take time to 
care about the management of the Department. To worry about everyday 
``nuts and bolts'' issues--like personnel, real property management, 
and the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I have chaired the State Department appropriations bill 
since 1977, and I have met with a lot of Secretaries of State--
appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. And I can say that this 
team is the first in a long time that has focused on management. Warren 
Christopher's first act was to reorganize the Department of State to 
reduce duplication, make his span of control manageable by having five 
Under Secretaries, and to reduce the overseas post structure that the 
budget can no longer afford to finance. He closed 20 overseas posts--
with little help from Congress. He inherited 105 deputy assistant 
secretary positions and has cut that down to 78 positions.
  And for Under Secretary for Management he has chosen the best--Dick 
Moose. Dick came from the private sector--from investment banking. He 
started his career as a foreign service officer, and served with 
President Johnson--and he was a professional staff member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee. And, he also has worked on the policy side 
of the House--having served as Assistant Secretary for African Affairs. 
I have traveled with him to several State Department posts. He gets 
down in the trenches and conducts in depth reviews of how each embassy 
is staffed and how they are using their resources. He takes time to 
meet with all embassy employees--not only the senior staff--but also 
the junior officers and the foreign national employees.
  And Secretary Christopher's team has been thrown into the ``deep end 
of the pool'' with this budget--they have been forced to pay close 
attention to the day to day issues at out of necessity. That is because 
the ``fire walls'' in the budget agreement are off. And the Clinton 
administration submitted a freeze budget--no inflation, and no 
increases. Congress took that budget and cut $89 million below that 
level in the appropriations process.
  I can say with some pride that in the fiscal year 1994 appropriations 
bill we have not done any of this ``micro-management.'' We have not put 
in limitations or earmarks. There is no language regarding number of 
secretaries or about maintaining offices that the Secretary has 
proposed to close. We have been trying to let Secretary Christopher do 
his job. And we approved his reorganization months ago through the 
reprogramming process, the very reorganization being debated today.
  Frankly, I am not happy that the Foreign Relations Committee's bill 
felt it necessary to legislate that the Secretary maintain in law a 
number of bureaus and I hope that the managers will allow him more 
flexibility in conference. Furthermore, I have heard that there are 
additional amendments requiring retention of positions that Secretary 
Christopher has proposed consolidating.
  Now the senior Senator from North Carolina is proposing something 
more drastic. He is accepting the mandated positions in this bill and 
then forcing the Secretary to operate with fewer assistant secretaries 
than necessary to implement his reorganization.
  Secretary Christopher is trying to reorganize the Department of State 
to react and plan for changing world events--to fight nuclear 
proliferation, to tighten up on immigration, to promote U.S. industry. 
So let's not tie the Secretary's hands. Let's give him some flexibility 
and the ability to do his job. Let's stop micromanaging.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Massachusetts to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from North Carolina.
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Mikulski). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--49

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
  So, the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay 
on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 1335

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to Amendment 
No. 1335. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wallop
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--39

     Bond
     Brown
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 1335) was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, then the 
question is on agreeing to Helms amendment 1291, as amended.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, are the yeas and nays requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not been.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I suggest we vote.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1291), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, the manager of 
the bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, if I can just say to my colleagues, I 
know there is a lot of interest in where we are going, whether or not 
we can finish and what the schedule will be. Senator Helms and I 
believe that we could wrap this up this evening. Obviously we would 
like to.
  There are only a few amendments that may require record votes. There 
are a number of amendments at the desk, a good many of which we have 
already been able to determine we will accept. What we are prepared to 
do--a couple of Members have mentioned they would yet like to debate 
one or two of the amendments that were laid down earlier. We are, 
therefore, prepared to try to bundle up those amendments that we could 
agree to and do so over the course of the next hour or so, set up for 
votes in sequence those amendments which cannot be disposed of 
otherwise, and hopefully be able to proceed in that fashion seriatim in 
votes in a way that would allow Senators to have a gap, now, for 1\1/2\ 
or 2 hours, go eat, do whatever, and then hopefully come back and 
finish up. Unless somebody has a belief that there is an amendment 
which would take longer? But I think we could probably do that.
  Mr. HELMS. I concur. I think we should move along rapidly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from North Carolina withhold? 
The Senate is not in order.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say to colleagues we have made 
terrific progress in the course of the last 10 minutes. I thank my 
colleague. We are really narrowing down. We have now almost a finite 
list of the amendments that we are able to accept. We are down to a 
very few possibilities of rollcall votes.
  So if colleagues will bear with us just a little bit longer, we will 
come up with the final number of rollcall votes, and hopefully it will 
happen sooner than later this evening.
  So I think that is encouraging. I know the Senator from Maine wants 
to address one of the amendments which will be withdrawn. He wants to 
make some comments prior to that.
  Why do we not proceed with that? Meanwhile we will proceed with our 
process.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           amendment no. 1337

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, during the break I have had an opportunity 
to talk with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. As a result 
of our discussions, I have agreed to withdraw the amendment that I was 
prepared to offer; namely, a sense of the Senate that the President 
ought to maintain Malaysia's benefits under the Generalized System of 
Preferences unless it is determined that Malaysia has developed 
economically beyond the goals of GSP.
  Let me just take a few moments to explain the situation as I see it.
  I have a letter signed by 41 Members of the Senate directed to our 
Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor. It is bipartisan in nature. We 
have Senators Nunn, Robb, Johnston, Bumpers, Boren, and others who have 
joined a number of Republicans totalling some 41 Members of the Senate 
to indicate our concern regarding Malaysia's continued participation in 
the GSP program.
  I am pursuing this matter this evening because Malaysia, I think, is 
one of those success stories that has been building in Southeast Asia 
as a result of the trade relationship that we have established with 
that country. We are enjoying Malaysia's rising standard of living in 
this country, as Malaysia engages in more trade with the United States, 
and is able to purchase our goods and services. It has become quite a 
remarkable country.
  Much of that region has become prosperous. From Taiwan, Tunisia, 
Thailand, China and now even Vietnam, that entire region is really 
booming economically.
  In Malaysia the question has arisen as to whether GSP status should 
be withdrawn because its laws do not permit nationwide unionization of 
its electronics industry. However, Malaysia does allow individual 
companies to unionize.
  There has been pressure to withdraw its status from GSP. I think it 
would be a terrible mistake. This is a country which has developed 
tremendously economically. It is providing better and better jobs for 
its citizens. Its electronics industry in particular pays among the 
highest wages in that nation. They are making tremendous progress from 
any human rights point of view. Denying GSP privileges would 
significantly raise tariffs on Malaysian products and undermine our 
growing bilateral trade with Malaysia.
  Withdrawing GSP treatment would hurt the very people that the makers 
of the petition are trying to help, Malaysian workers. Denying GSP 
would cost many Malaysian workers their jobs. It also, I think, would 
deal blows to various States that now are enjoying a positive trade 
relationship with Malaysia, Maine being one of them. I was surprised 
this year to learn that Malaysia is our largest overseas trading 
partner.
  I have made two trips to Malaysia to visit with their Prime Minister, 
Finance Minister, and Defense Minister. Based on those meetings, I am 
convinced that this Nation, like the others in that region, want 
desperately to establish a good, solid trade relationship with the 
United States and are making progress in virtually every facet of their 
society.
  I had intended to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I am told 
it would not at all have interfered with the ability of this bill to 
move in the House. There was some suggestion that perhaps it might be 
``blue-slipped'' because it might have an impact on the revenue. I hope 
that does not come about if the administration ever decides to withdraw 
GSP from Malaysia. I have been advised that a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution does not amount to jeopardizing this particular bill.
  Nonetheless, in the interest of moving forward this evening, I am 
prepared to withdraw my amendment. But let me say to those who may be 
watching down at the White House or the Trade Representative's office 
we are coming rapidly, I think, to the conclusion, whether we are 
talking about China, whether we are talking about any of the nations in 
that region, that we want to establish solid trading relationships and 
not interfere, unless there is great cause to do so, in the internal 
affairs of another nation.
  Obviously, if there are violent or egregious human rights abuses, we 
must take that into account. But we ought not to be constantly using 
GSP as a club to be whacking the heads of our trading partners. I think 
that we can establish our respective positions relative to human 
rights, and certainly we can take note of the development taking place 
in these countries. If those who are here in this Chamber were to 
travel to that part of the world, they would see enormous progress in 
terms of economic growth and savings rates. In Malaysia, the savings 
rate is 35 percent. In Singapore, it is 40 percent.
  Both Malaysia and Singapore are now sustaining growth rates of 
roughly 8 percent. The same is true with respect to Indonesia. These 
countries are starting to prosper. When they prosper, they are going to 
be positioned to start buying our goods, as well.
  Malaysia recently decided to purchase some F-18 aircraft, as I 
recall. They are interested in purchasing the goods and services. In 
fact, I will be leading a trade mission to Malaysia in late March. By 
opening up the eyes of the people in my State to the opportunities 
available in that country, hopefully, we can stimulate the creation of 
more jobs in my own State of Maine.
  There are unique opportunities for us to take advantage of, and we 
ought to explore those opportunities without trying to, once again, 
micromanage the internal affairs of other countries. If we have a 
legitimate complaint, we can voice it. We can try to negotiate our way 
through those particular obstacles. But to withdraw this preferential 
treatment from Malaysia, I think would be really detrimental to our 
emerging relations with that country.
  We have not always had such a positive relationship in recent years 
with Malaysia. That has improved in large part due to the efforts of 
John Wolf, our Ambassador there. He has been active, aggressive, and 
dynamic. He is young and he is promoting business, and he is making 
tremendous inroads in that society and others, promoting U.S. interests 
abroad.
  So I think that we ought to really expand upon his work and the work 
of his staff, and our other ambassadors in the region, to really tell 
these nations that we want to do business; we want to maintain our high 
standards and our concerns about human rights and worker rights and, 
hopefully, to work with those countries to improve their domestic 
situation.
  I would hope that Mr. Kantor and those in the administration will 
take into account that we have 41 Senators now on record supporting a 
continuation of GSP for Malaysia until that country does, in fact, 
develop beyond the goals of the GSP.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1337) was withdrawn.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues for their 
patience here. It has paid off. We have now reduced some 24 amendments 
to an en bloc amendment which we will accept and to two votes, both of 
which votes, pending the action we are about to take, will be able to 
occur tomorrow morning. One of those votes will be on the Lott 
amendment on the United Nations, and a second vote will be a final 
passage vote--again pending the action we are about to take.


 Amendment Nos. 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 
                             1350, and 1354

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc: Amendment Nos. 1339, 
1340, 1341, 1342, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, and 1354; that 
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; and that the 
consideration of these amendments appear separately in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment No. 1339

       On page 47, strike out lines 1 through 3.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1340

  (Purpose: To require reports every 6 months by the President on the 
              implementation of the Partnership for Peace)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section--

     SEC.   . IMPLEMENTATION OF PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE.

       Report.--The President shall submit every six months, 
     beginning six months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     a detailed report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
     the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the House and the 
     Senate Armed Services Committees on the implementation of the 
     ``Partnership for Peace'' initiative, including an assessment 
     of the progress made by former members of the Warsaw Treaty 
     Organization in meeting the criteria for full membership 
     articulated in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, 
     wherein any other European state may, by unanimous agreement, 
     be invited to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty if it is in 
     a position to further the principles of the treaty and to 
     contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1341

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . In addition to the other matters to be reviewed by 
     the commission established by this Act to study the 
     effectiveness of democracy programs funded by the United 
     States, the commission shall also undertake a review of the 
     feasibility and desirability of mandating non-U.S. government 
     funding, including matching funds and in-kind support, for 
     democracy promotion programs. If the commission determines 
     that mandating such non-government funding is feasible and 
     desirable it shall make recommendations regarding goals and 
     procedures for implementation.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1342

(Purpose: To provide for limitations on the transfer of excess defense 
                               articles)

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

     SEC. 714. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER EXCESS DEFENSE 
                   ARTICLES.

       (a) Transfers to Countries on the Southern and Southeastern 
     Flank of NATO.--Section 516(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph.
       ``(4) the President first considers the effects of the 
     transfer of the excess defense articles on the national 
     technology and industrial base, particularly the extent, if 
     any, to which the transfer reduces the opportunities of 
     entities in the national technology and industrial base to 
     sell new equipment to the country or countries to which the 
     excess defense articles are transferred.''
       (b) Transfers to Countries Participating in a Comprehensive 
     National Antinarcotics Program.--Section 517(f) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321k(f)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) the President first considers the effects of the 
     transfer of the excess defense articles on the national 
     technology and industrial base, particularly the extent, if 
     any, to which the transfer reduces the opportunities of 
     entities in the national technology and industrial base to 
     sell new equipment to the country or countries to which the 
     excess defense articles are transferred.''.
       (c) Transfers to Countries Eligible To Participate in a 
     Foreign Military Financing Program.--Section 519(b) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321m(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (4) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) the President first considers the effects of the 
     transfer of the excess defense articles on the national 
     technology and industrial base, particularly the extent, if 
     any, to which the transfer reduces the opportunities of 
     entities in the national technology and industrial base to 
     sell new equipment to the country or countries to which the 
     excess defense articles are transferred.''.
       (d) Sales from Stock Under Arms Export Control Act.--
     Section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Before entering into the sale under this Act of 
     defense articles that are excess to the stocks of the 
     Department of Defense, the President shall first consider the 
     effects of the sale of the articles on the national 
     technology and industrial base, particularly the extent, if 
     any, to which the sale reduces the opportunities of entities 
     in the national technology and industrial base to sell new 
     equipment to the country or countries to which the excess 
     defense articles are sold.''.
       (e) Leases under Arms Export Control Act.--
       Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2796(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph (3):
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1345

       On page 74, line 5, strike ``agencies.'' and insert: 
     agencies.

     SEC. 166A. AMERICAN PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT OF UNITED 
                   NATIONS.

       (a) Funds authorized in section 102(a) of this Act for 
     fiscal year 1995 for the assessed contribution of the United 
     States to the United Nations are authorized to be 
     appropriated only upon a certification by the Secretary of 
     State to the appropriate committees of the Congress that the 
     position of Under Secretary-General of the United Nations for 
     Administration and Management is being held by a citizen of 
     the United States as of October 1, 1994.
       (b) Subsection (a) may be waived by the Secretary of State 
     only upon a certification to the appropriate committees of 
     the Congress that--
       (1) such waiver is in the national interest of the United 
     States, including the reason or reasons it is in our 
     interest; and
       (2) the Secretary of State has confidence the individual 
     holding the position of Under Secretary-General of the United 
     Nations for Administration and Management is committed to 
     efficient management practices and restrained budgets for the 
     United Nations.
       (c) If a waiver and certification is made pursuant to 
     subsection (b), such certification shall include a 
     justification why a citizen of the United States does not 
     hold said position, since the United States is the largest 
     single contributor to the United Nations.
       (d) Sense-of-the-Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the position of Under Secretary-General of the United 
     Nations for Administration and Management should be held by a 
     citizen of the United States.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1346

 (Purpose: To require notification of Congress of billing requests for 
United States contributions to United Nations peacekeeping activities, 
                        and for other purposes)

       On page 82, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 170B. TRANSMITTALS OF UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS.

       (a) Transmittal to Congress of United Nations Resolutions 
     and Reports.--Section 4 of the United Nations Participation 
     Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287b), as amended by subsection (a), 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       (c)(1) Not later than 72 hours after adoption by the 
     Security Council of a resolution authorizing United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities or any other action under the Charter 
     of the United Nations (including any extension, modification, 
     suspension, or termination of any previously authorized 
     United Nations peacekeeping activity or other action) which 
     would involve the use of United States Armed Forces or the 
     expenditure of United States funds, the Permanent 
     Representative shall transmit the text of such resolution and 
     any supporting documentation to the appropriate congressional 
     committees.
       ``(2) The Permanent Representative shall promptly transmit 
     to the appropriate congressional committees any report 
     prepared by the United Nations distributed to the members of 
     Security Council assessments of any proposed, ongoing, or 
     concluded United Nations peacekeeping activity.''.
       (c) Definitions.--The United Nations Participation Act of 
     1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:
       ``Sec. 10. For purposes of this Act--
       ``(1) the term `appropriate congressional committees' means 
     the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
     House of Representatives;
       ``(2) the term `Permanent Representative' means the 
     Permanent Representative of the United States to the United 
     Nations appointed by the President pursuant to section 2 of 
     this Act; and
       ``(3) the term `United Nations peacekeeping activities' 
     means any international peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace-
     enforcing, or similar activity involving the use of nationals 
     of member countries of the United Nations that is authorized 
     by the Security Council under chapter VI or VII of the United 
     Nations Charter.''.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. 
It simply requires: notice to Congress and transmittal to Congress of 
U.N. peacekeeping resolutions and reports. I know of no opposition to 
this amendment. I understand that with recent changes just completed 
there is no opposition.
  The Congress and the American people do not know what is going on up 
at U.N. headquarters in New York. We have to rely on the good will of 
State Department or U.N. bureaucrats to share what they want and when 
they want. We cannot afford to do business like that any longer.
  Every peacekeeping operation is preceded by a detailed U.N. report. 
Every peacekeeping operation is authorized--and regularly extended--
with resolutions in the Security Council. My amendment simply makes 
sure Congress has access to that information.
  I cannot imagine any argument against this amendment--especially from 
a Congress that has enacted hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign 
policy reporting requirements on Republican administrations. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.


                           amendment no. 1347

   (Purpose: To strengthen controls on missile technology exports to 
countries the governments of which have repeatedly provided support for 
                    acts of international terrorism)

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

     SEC.   . MISSILE TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS TO CERTAIN MIDDLE EASTERN 
                   AND ASIAN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Exports by United States Persons.--Section 72 of the 
     Arms Export Council Act (22 U.S.C. 2797a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Presumption.--In determining whether to apply 
     sanctions under subsection (a) to a United States person 
     involved in the export, transfer, or trade of an item on the 
     MTCR Annex, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that such 
     item is designed for use in a missile listed under the MTCR 
     Annex if the President determines that the final destination 
     of the item is a country the government of which the 
     Secretary of State determines, for purposes of 6(j)(1)(A) of 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, has repeatedly 
     provided support for acts of international terrorism.''.
       (b) Exports by Foreign Persons.--Section 73 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b) is amended--
       (1) be redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Presumption.--In determining whether to apply 
     sanctions under subsection (a) to a foreign person involved 
     in the export, transfer, or trade of an item on the MTCR 
     Annex, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that such item is 
     designed for use in a missile listed under the MTCR Annex if 
     the President determines that the final destination of the 
     item is a country the government of which the Secretary of 
     State determines, for purposes of 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979, has repeatedly provided support 
     for acts international terrorism.''.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, it is not often that Members on both 
sides of the aisle find themselves in agreement. However, curbing the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is an issue upon which I 
think we can all agree. In his State of the Union Address, President 
Clinton spoke of the dangers of ``rampant arms proliferation.'' Several 
of my colleagues have spoken on the issue during debate on this bill.
  The most horrifying kind of arms proliferation occuring in the world 
today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The greater 
part of this despicable trade in instruments of death is carried out 
among antidemocratic regimes. Indeed, by regimes which, under the terms 
of the Export Administration Act, are labeled as terrorist countries. 
We all know who these ``bad actors'' are: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, 
North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
  Today, I offer an amendment designed to give the administration new 
authority to deal with this serious problem. Specifically, it is 
enhanced authority to impose sanctions on countries trading in the 
equipment and technology necessary to make long-range ballistic 
missiles. As a nation of laws, we do not impose sanctions, even on non-
U.S. citizens, without cause.

  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is largely an 
illicit trade--modern-day smuggling with extremely high stakes. The 
difficulty is that information on the final destination of equipment 
and technology that can be used to produce long-range ballistic 
missiles, even from our excellent intelligence services, is difficult 
to obtain.
  For instance, in the case of ballistic missile trade, our 
intelligence services often learn that some equipment or material is 
going to a missile program in the Middle East. What they are unable to 
determine is whether the items in question are destined for a missile 
program covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime [MTCR] or for 
a different program. The MTCR covers only large, long-range missiles--
those with more than 300 kilometers in range or 500 kilograms in 
payload. Typically, a country starting a missile program begins small. 
Only later will it move to an MTCR-class missile program. Because we 
usually cannot determine precisely for which missile program this 
illicit trade is intended, the administration is reluctant to impose 
sanctions on the exporter.
  My amendment is designed to give the administration new authority by 
creating a legal presumption that anything listed on the MTCR annexes 
and destined for countries of particular proliferation concern--those 
countries listed in section 6(J) of the Export Administration Act--is, 
in fact destined for an MTCR-class missile program and therefore 
subject to U.S. sanctions. Let me repeat the countries we currently are 
talking about: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
  The presumption is specifically rebuttable. This means the sanctioned 
firm or individual may show that the materials or equipment are 
destined for an innocent purpose. if the presumption is rebutted, 
sanctions will be lifted immediately.
  Mr. President, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is 
the most serious national security issue facing the United States and 
its allies. All one need do is contemplate a nuclear weapon in the 
hands of a terrorist country to understand the grave implications of 
allowing this trade to continue. My amendment gives this country an 
enhanced ability to deal with proliferation. It is simple to 
understand. It will put suppliers on notice that their illicit actions 
will have consequences. I urge its adoption.


                           amendment no. 1348

   (Purpose: To place limitations on United States funding of United 
                    Nations peacekeeping activities)

       On page 82, after line 23, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 170B. LIMITATIONS ON UNITED STATES FUNDING OF UNITED 
                   NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       (a) It is the sense of the Senate that beginning October 1, 
     1995, funds made available to the Department of Defense 
     (including funds for ``Operation and Maintenance'') shall be 
     available for--
       (1) United States assessed or voluntary contributions for 
     United Nations peacekeeping activities, or
       (2) the incremental costs associated with the participation 
     of United States Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities,

     only to the extent that the Congress has authorized, 
     appropriate or otherwise approved funds for such purposes.
       (b) Assessed Contributions for United Nations Peacekeeping 
     Activities.--
       (1) Reassessment of contribution percentages.--The 
     Permanent Representative should make every effort to ensure 
     that the United Nations completes an overall review and 
     reassessment of each nation's assessed contributions for 
     United Nations peacekeeping activities. As part of the 
     overall review and assessment, the Permanent Representative 
     should make every effort to advance the concept that host 
     governments and other governments in the region where a 
     United Nations peacekeeping activity is carried out should 
     bear a greater burden of its financial cost.
       (2) United States contributions.--(A) The Permanent 
     Representatives should make every effort to obtain agreement 
     by the United Nations to a United States assessed 
     contribution for United Nations peacekeeping activities that 
     is no greater a percentage of such contributions by all 
     countries than the United States percentage share of assessed 
     contributions for other United Nations activities.
       (B) The Congress declares that, effective for fiscal year 
     1996, it does not intend to make available funds for payment 
     of United States assessed or voluntary contributions for 
     United Nations peacekeeping activities that exceed 25 percent 
     of the total amount of the assessed and voluntary 
     contributions of all countries for such activities unless, 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Congress enacts 
     a statute specifically authorizing a greater percentage 
     contribution.
       (C) The Permanent Representative shall inform the Secretary 
     General of the congressional intent expressed in paragraph 
     (2).
       (c) United States Contributions to United Nations 
     Peacekeeping Activities.--Section 4 of the United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287b) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The President''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) The President shall, at the time of submission of 
     his annual budget request to the Congress, submit a report to 
     the Congress on the anticipated budget for the fiscal year 
     for United States participation in United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities.
       ``(2) The report required by paragraph (a) shall state--
       ``(A) the aggregate amount of funds available to the United 
     Nations for that fiscal year, including assessed and 
     voluntary contributions, which may be made available for 
     United Nations peacekeeping activities; and
       ``(B) the aggregate amount of funds (from all accounts) and 
     the aggregate costs of in-kind contributions that the United 
     States proposes to make available to the United Nations for 
     that fiscal year for United Nations peacekeeping activities.
       ``(3) The President shall include in his budget submission 
     for fiscal year 1996 a projection of all United States costs 
     for United Nations peacekeeping activities during each of 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, including costs of in-kind 
     contributions and assessed and voluntary contributions.''.
       (d) Definitions.--
       (1) Amendment.--The United Nations Participation Act of 
     1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:
       ``Sec. 10. For purposes of this Act--
       ``(1) the term `appropriate congressional committees' means 
     the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
     House of Representatives;
       ``(2) the term `Permanent Representative' means the 
     Permanent Representative of the United States to the United 
     Nations appointed by the President pursuant to section 2 of 
     this Act;

                           amendment no. 1349

  (Purpose: To withhold contributions for United Nations peacekeeping 
 activities unless certain budget and management reforms in the United 
                           Nations are made)

       On page 82, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 170B. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING BUDGETARY AND 
                   MANAGEMENT REFORM.

       (A) Withholding of Contributions for United Nations 
     Peacekeeping.--(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year 
     (beginning with fiscal year 1995), 20 percent of the amounts 
     of funds made available for United States assessed 
     contributions for United Nations peacekeeping activities 
     shall be withheld from obligation and expenditure unless a 
     certification has been made under subsection (b).
       (2) For each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 1995), 
     the United States may not pay any voluntary contribution for 
     international peacekeeping activities unless a certification 
     has been made under subsection (b).
       (b) Certification.--The certification referred to in 
     subsection (a) is a certification by the President to the 
     Congress that--
       (1) the United Nations has established an independent and 
     objective Office of Inspector General to conduct and 
     supervise audits, inspections, and investigations relating to 
     the United Nations peacekeeping activities carried out by the 
     United Nations;
       (2) the Secretary General of the United Nations has 
     appointed an Inspector General, with the consent of the 
     General Assembly, solely the basis of integrity and 
     demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial 
     analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or 
     investigations;
       (3) the United Nations Office of Inspector General is 
     authorized to--
       (A) make investigations and reports relating to the 
     administration of the United Nations peacekeeping activities 
     carried out by the United Nations;
       (B) have access to all records and documents or other 
     material available which relate to those activities; and
       (C) have direct and prompt access to relevant officials of 
     the United Nations, including any official of the United 
     Nations Secretariat;
       (4) the United Nations Office of Inspector General is 
     keeping the Secretary General and the members of the Security 
     Council fully informed about problems, deficiencies, and the 
     necessity for, and progress of, corrective action;
       (5) the United Nations has established measures to protect 
     the identity of, and to prevent reprisals against, any staff 
     member making a complaint or disclosing information to, or 
     cooperating in any investigation or inspection by the Office 
     of the Inspector General; and
       (6) the United Nations has enacted procedures to ensure 
     compliance with Inspector General recommendations.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means 
     the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (2) the term ``Permanent Representative'' means the 
     Permanent Representative of the United States to the United 
     Nations appointed by the President pursuant to section 2 of 
     this Act; and

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment--
adopted by this body by a vote of 93-6--designed to put pressure on the 
United Nations [U.N.] to appoint a permanent, independent inspector 
general. Today I seek to enhance our leverage with the U.N. on this 
point.
  As I said last week, this is an issue I have struggled with for 
years. It concerns the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse at the U.N. The 
examples are innumerable. I presented a litany during consideration of 
my earlier amendment. I will not reiterate them all here. However, let 
me touch upon the highlights. The U.N. has no system to monitor its 
cash flow. No U.N. official can tell us how many people are on the U.N. 
payroll. Millions of dollars are spent on equipment that is not needed 
or does not work. There is absolutely no accountability.
  Some will say that the U.S. Congress suffers from the same sorts of 
problems. The difference is that we have independent inspectors general 
to investigate and recommend punishment for those guilty of misconduct. 
U.S. attorneys can indict any one of us here in Congress for violating 
the law. Not one U.N. official has that kind of authority. The U.N. 
needs a permanent, independent inspector general.
  My amendment which passed last week requires that, beginning in 
fiscal year 1994, 10 percent of our assessed contributions to 
nonpeacekeeping operations of the U.N. be withheld until the President 
certifies the U.N. has established a permanent, independent inspector 
general. Beginning in fiscal year 1995, the President must make this 
certification or 20 percent of our assessed contributions for 
nonpeacekeeping operations will be withheld.
  The amendment I offer today would--beginning in 1995--withhold 20 
percent of the funds made available for U.S. assessed contributions for 
peacekeeping operations unless the President makes the certification. 
In other words, I simply seek to extend--after this year--the terms of 
the amendment adopted by a large margin last week to peacekeeping as 
well as nonpeacekeeping U.N. activities.
  I proposed this measure not because I have lost faith in the U.N. as 
an institution, but because I have lost faith in the ability and 
willingness of the U.N. leadership to police its own organization. It 
is time we take serious steps to insist the U.N. police itself with the 
same vigor and commitment with which it polices the world. Last week's 
amendment was a serious step. This is another. It also is the right 
step. It is designed to force the U.N. to reform its ways. At the very 
least, it will ensure the U.S. taxpayer that Congress refuses to write 
a blank check to an institution which is out of control.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.


                           amendment no. 1350

  (Purpose: To require reports involving the status of prisoners and 
  human rights observance during multilateral peacekeeping activities)

       On page 82, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 170B. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS INVOLVING MULTILATERAL 
                   PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       (a) United States Personnel Taken Prisoner While Serving in 
     Multilateral Peacekeeping Forces.--
       (1) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (A) until recent years United States military personnel 
     rarely served as part of multilateral forces under the United 
     Nations or regional international organizations;
       (B) despite infrequent service as part of multilateral 
     forces, United States personnel, such as Colonel William 
     Higgins in Lebanon, have been captured, tortured, and 
     murdered;
       (C) in recent years, United States military personnel have 
     served much more frequently as part of multilateral forces;
       (D) the capture and torture of Chief Warrant Officer 
     Michael Durant in Somalia in October 1993 was a horrendous 
     and recent example of the risk to United States personnel in 
     multilateral forces;
       (E) continued multilateral service increases the 
     probability that United States military personnel will be 
     captured, and subject to mistreatment;
       (F) United States military personnel captured while serving 
     as part of multilateral forces have not been treated as 
     prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other 
     international agreements intended to protect prisoners of 
     war; and
       (G) failure of United States military personnel serving as 
     part of a multilateral force to receive protection under 
     international law increases the risk to personnel while 
     serving in multinational forces.
       (2) Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (A) the President should take immediate steps, unilaterally 
     and in appropriate international bodies, to assure that any 
     United States military personnel serving as part of a 
     multilateral force who are captured are accorded the 
     protection accorded to prisoners of war; and
       (B) the President should also take all necessary steps to 
     bring to justice all individuals responsible for any 
     mistreatment, torture, or death of United States military 
     personnel who are captured while serving in a multilateral 
     force.
       (3) Report.--Each report submitted pursuant to section 169 
     of this Act shall include a separate section setting forth--
       (A) the status under international law of members of 
     multilateral peacekeeping forces, including the legal status 
     of such personnel if captured, missing, or detained,
       (B) the extent of the risk for United States military 
     personnel who are captured while participating in 
     multinational peacekeeping forces in cases where their 
     captors fail to respect the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other 
     international agreements intended to protect prisoners of 
     war, and
       (C) the specific steps that have been taken to protect 
     United States military personnel participating in 
     multinational peacekeeping forces, together (if necessary) 
     with any recommendations for the enactment of legislation to 
     achieve that objective.
       (b) Human Rights Observance in United Nations Peacekeeping 
     Activities.--(1) Section 1769 of the bill is amended to 
     include the following at the end:
       ``(5) a description of respect for internationally 
     recognized human rights in countries or territories where a 
     United Nations peacekeeping activity has taken place during 
     the preceding year by UN Forces, including a description of 
     United Nations' efforts to investigate and take appropriate 
     action in cases of alleged human rights violations.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1354

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.   . It is the sense of the Senate that the President 
     should not restrict informational, educational, religious, or 
     humanitarian exchanges, or exchanges for public performances 
     or exhibitions, or travel for any such informational, 
     eucational, religious, performance, or exhibition exchanges, 
     or travel for furtherance of humanitarian activities, between 
     the United States and any other country.''


                    amendment no. 1334, as modified

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 1334.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1334 be 
modified with the language that I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1334), as modified, reads as follows:

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (A) The international boundaries between the independent 
     countries of the former Yugoslavia are the same as the 
     internal borders among the constituent republics of the 
     former Yugoslavia as specified in the 1974 Yugoslav Federal 
     Constitution (except with regard to the border between Serbia 
     and Montenegro) and cannot be altered without the consent of 
     all countries concerned.
       (B) The Government of Croatia is violating the sovereignty 
     of Bosnia-Hercegovina by sending thousands of Croatian troops 
     to Hercegovina, ostensibly to counter an offensive against 
     ethnic Croatian civilians by Bosnian Government forces.
       (C) Croatian forces are interfering with U.N. peacekeeping 
     operations, including the delivery of humanitarian aid to 
     Bosnia-Hercegovina.

     SEC. 2. POLICY TOWARD CROATIA.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that the President should 
     consider taking the following actions--
       (A) Instruct the United States Executive Director or 
     representative at all international financial institutions of 
     which the United States is a member to vote against all loans 
     except for loans directed at programs which serve basic human 
     needs to Croatia;
       (B) Provide no assistance to Croatia (except for 
     humanitarian and refugee assistance);
       (C) Make no sales to Croatia of any kind of military 
     equipment;
       (D) Prohibit the licensing of commercial military sales to 
     Croatia;
       (E) Provide no credits, and provide no guarantees of any 
     credits to Croatia;
       (F) Prohibit the sale or transfer to Croatia of any item 
     subject to export controls by any agency of the United 
     States;
       (G) Direct the Secretary of Transportation to revoke the 
     right of any air carrier designated by the Government of 
     Croatia to provide service to the United States; and
       (H) Negotiate comprehensive multilateral sanctions pursuant 
     to the provisions of Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the President should impose sanctions on Croatia. The 
government of Croatia has sent several thousand troops into Bosnia and 
Herzegovina ostensibly to counter a Bosnian Government offensive in 
Herzegovina, where there is an overwhelming ethnic Croatian minority. 
While Croatia's short-term goal may indeed be to protect the ethnic 
Croats, many believe that Croatia's longer term purpose is to change 
borders by force.
  Even if Croatia's goals are limited to protecting ethnic Croats, that 
is an unacceptable excuse for unilaterally sending troops into Bosnia. 
To let Croatia off the hook would be a dangerous signal to other 
governments throughout the world who could use protection of ethnic 
groups to justify naked aggression. The Iraqis, for instance, could 
invade Kurdistan based on a dubious Iraqi claim to be protecting ethnic 
Arabs that inhabit Kurdistan. The Russians, too, could use a similar 
claim to keep their troops in the Baltic countries indefinitely.
  For many months, Croatian forces have been uncooperative at best, 
obstructionist at worst, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to 
Bosnia. Bosnian Croat forces, with the backing of Croatian Government 
forces, have carried out vicious atrocities in the Bosnian war. I ask 
unanimous consent that a recent Washington Post article that chronicles 
the increased Croatian presence in Bosnia be printed in the Record at 
the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PELL. Given Croatia's stepped-up involvement in the war, I 
believe that we have little choice but to sanction Croatia. 
Accordingly, I am offering an amendment that states that the President 
should begin imposing sanctions on Croatia. I would add that the 
amendment offers the President broad flexibility in choosing which 
tools to use in responding to Croatia's blatant violation of 
international borders.
  In May 1992, the Senate passed, by a vote of 99 to 0, an original 
Foreign Relations Committee bill to impose sanctions on Serbia because 
of the aggressive actions that it was--and continues to take--in 
Bosnia. Subsequently, a strict international sanctions regime has been 
imposed on Serbia. The Senate bill also set standards for imposing 
sanctions against the other former Yugoslav republics.
  Had the Senate bill become law, Croatia's current activities would 
have resulted in sanctions. That bill instructed the President to apply 
sanctions ``to any other independent country of the Former Yugoslavia 
which he determines is engaged, directly or indirectly, in military 
aggression against a neighbor for the purpose of changing its 
boundaries.''
  In essence, the Senate is already on record as endorsing some of the 
sanctions encompassed in my amendment. Indeed, my amendment holds 
Croatia to the same standards to which we are holding Serbia. It states 
that unless the President can certify, among other things, that Croatia 
is not occupying the territory of another country, sanctions should be 
imposed. Accordingly, I would urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Finally, I would note that although this amendment addresses Croatia, 
we cannot ignore the actions of Bosnian Government forces which 
ostensibly precipitated the Croatian Government decision to send troops 
into Herzegovina. As I mentioned, ethnic Croats make up the vast 
majority of the population in the Herzegovina area, which until now, 
has been relatively untouched by the vicious fighting that is gripping 
Bosnia. The Bosnian Government should be told unequivocally that 
offensive actions in Herzegovina--particularly against innocent 
civilians--are unacceptable. The United States should take the lead in 
sending this message to Bosnia.

                               Exhibit 1

                  Croatia Sends Its Troops Into Bosnia

                         (By David B. Ottaway)

       Posusje, Bosnia.--Croatian President Franjo Tudjman has 
     sent several thousand Croatian army regulars into Bosnia to 
     help Bosnian Croat forces counter an expected offensive by 
     the Muslim-led Bosnian army, according to Croatian, U.N. and 
     diplomatic sources.
       A senior officer of the U.N. Protection Force in Zagreb, 
     the Croatian capital, said Croatia is now far more openly 
     involved in the three-sided Bosnian war than neighboring 
     Serbia, which from the other side of Bosnia has backed the 
     Bosnian Serbs as they captured 70 percent of Bosnia over the 
     last 21 months from the Muslim-dominated government in 
     Sarajevo.
       Although there have been previous reports of Croatian army 
     regulars fighting in Bosnia, U.N. confirmation of the army's 
     direct involvement raises the question of whether the U.N. 
     Security Council will now impose sanctions on Croatia.
       The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine K. 
     Albright, warned Jan. 5 during a visit to Zagreb that 
     Tudjman's government risked such sanctions if it stepped up 
     involvement in the Bosnian war.
       The council decreed a series of devastating economic and 
     financial sanctions against Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia in 
     1992-93 because of the Serb-run regular Yugoslav army's 
     support for Bosnian Serb forces.
       The U.N. officer said, however, that the U.N. peacekeeping 
     force has no evidence so for to confirm reports this week 
     from Belgrade that regular Yugoslav army units, plus hundreds 
     of Serbian ``volunteers,'' have recently gone again into 
     Bosnia to help Bosnian Serb forces.
       Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic called yesterday for 
     an emergency session of the Security Council ``to condemn 
     this * * * open military intervention by the republic of 
     Croatia'' and take measures to stop it, the Reuter news 
     agency reported from Sarajevo.
       Silajdzic put the number of Croatian army regulars at 
     12,000 and said they were fighting alongside the Bosnian 
     Croat militia near the central Bosnian towns of Prozor, Gorni 
     Vakuf and Jablanica.
       The reason for the direct engagement of the Croatian army 
     in the Bosnian conflict, according to U.N. and other sources, 
     is Tudjman's mounting fear that the Bosnian army will seek to 
     push the remaining Croat population out of central Bosnia and 
     then move to establish a corridor through Croat-held 
     territory to the Adriatic Sea.
       But the Croatian army's involvement seems to be part of a 
     larger process in which Tudjman is accelerating the 
     incorporation of Herzegovina, the Croat-populated lands of 
     southwestern Bosnia, into Croatia. Tudjman has long dreamed 
     of creating a ``Greater Croatia,'' just as the Serbian 
     leader, Slobodan Milosevic, has sought a ``Greater Serbia'' 
     to be formed by eventually annexing Serb-held lands in Bosnia 
     and Croatia.
       Another sign of Croatia's progressive takeover of 
     Herzegovina, according to various sources is Tudjman's 
     decision to oust from power Mate Boban, the controversial 
     Bosnian Croat leader whom he personally installed in 1992. 
     Tudjman now sees Boban as a huge liability, because his 
     ruthless policies against Bosnian Muslims may lead to his 
     indictment and prosecution as a war criminal, according to 
     Croatian and diplomatic sources.
       The efforts of U.N. and European Union mediators to end the 
     war, the bloodiest in Europe since World War II, by 
     partitioning Bosnia into separate Serb, Croat and Muslim 
     republics have reached an impasse, with the government in 
     Sarajevo demanding more territory for a Muslim-majority 
     republic in central Bosnia.
       Croatia, one of the six republics of the prewar Yugoslav 
     federation, broke away to become independent in 1991 and 
     fought a six-month war against Croatian Serb militias backed 
     by the Serb-led Yugoslav national army. More than one-fourth 
     of Croatia is still occupied by a self-proclaimed Serb state.
       Tudjman faces the prospect of seeing fellow Croats lose 
     part of Herzegovina, the strategic area behind Croatia's 
     narrow Dalmatian coast, to the Bosnian Muslim army, which has 
     already pushed Bosnian Croat forces out of large parts of 
     central Bosnia.
       Tudjman is under considerable pressure from the 
     ``Herzegovina lobby,'' as members of his government born 
     there are called, to make sure the region is held, no matter 
     the political cost or the risk of U.N. sanctions being 
     imposed on Croatia.
       In December, Tudjman named the head of the Croatian army's 
     special forces, French Foreign Legion veterans Ante Roso, to 
     take over the Bosnian Croat militia.
       In addition, Croatia has sent into Bosnia between 3,000 and 
     5,000 regular troops from six army brigades, including the 
     112th, 113th and 116th according to U.N. military and other 
     sources. The army is also rounding up and sending thousands 
     of Bosnian-born Croatians to fight as ``volunteers'' for the 
     Bosnian Croats.
       The Croatian army's growing involvement was underlined here 
     in Posusje on Tuesday when Croatian Defense Minister Gojko 
     Susak came to this small Bosnian Croat town, 70 miles east of 
     the Croatian Adriatic port of Split, to review the military 
     situation with Roso. Apparently, anxious to avoid answering 
     questions, Susak ran past waiting reporters outside Roso's 
     headquarters here after their two-hour meeting.
       In addition to asserting more direct control over the 
     Bosnian Croat militia, Tudjman has virtually taken over 
     negotiating the terms of a peace settlement with the Bosnian 
     Serbs and the Sarajevo government.
       Boban was absent from both the latest round of peace talks 
     in Geneva and from a meeting in Bona on Jan. 10 where Tudjman 
     and Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic tried to end the 
     fighting between Bosnian Muslims and Croats.
       A Boban aide said he was no longer participating in the 
     peace talks because ``the Muslims said they can't reach an 
     agreement if Boban is present, that he's an obstacle to 
     one.''
       The aide insisted Boban is still president of the self-
     proclaimed Bosnian Croat state in Herzegovina. But diplomatic 
     sources said he is awaiting a visa to go into exile abroad. 
     He reportedly has run into difficulties finding a country 
     willing to accept him, because he could be indicted and 
     called before the U.N. war crimes tribunal being set up in 
     The Hague, according to these sources.
       Boban, 53, owed his entire political career to Tudjman. He 
     was chosen by the Croatian president to take over in February 
     1992 from Stjepan Kljuic as head of the Bosnian branch of the 
     Croatian Democratic Union, Tudjman's ruling party. Kljuic, 
     now a member of the Bosnian government's presidency, 
     supported a united Bosnia, while Tudjman and Boban sought its 
     partition.
       Boban, who was convicted by a Yugoslav court of economic 
     crimes and served more than two years in jail in the early 
     1980s, is blamed by the U.S. Embassy in Zagreb--and now the 
     Croatian government as well--for some of the worst excesses 
     perpetrated by Bosnian Croat forces against the Bosnian 
     Muslims.
       These included a massacre of civilians and razing of the 
     village of Stupni Do in central Bosnia last October, the 
     detention of thousands of Muslim prisoners in concentration 
     camp-like conditions and the destruction in mid-November of 
     the 16th-century stone bridge in Mostar, a jewel of Bosnian 
     Muslim civilization.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1334), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    amendment no. 1296, as modified

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
numbered 1296, adopted earlier, be modified with the language that I 
now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1296), as modified, reads as follows:

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

          IRAN-IRAQ ARMS NON-PROLIFERATION AMENDMENTS OF 1994

     SEC.  01. SHORT TITLE REFERENCES IN ACT.

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

     SEC.  02. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

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

     SEC.  03. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

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

     SEC.  04. SANCTIONS AGAINST PERSONS.

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

     SEC.  05. SANCTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       Section 1605 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``sanction'' and 
     inserting ``sanctions'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``sanction.--The sanction referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2) is'' and inserting ``sanctions.--The 
     sanctions referred to in subsection (a)(2) are''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) Diplomatic relations.--The President is urged to 
     downgrade or suspend diplomatic relations between the United 
     States and the government of the sanctioned country.
       ``(4) Suspension of trade agreements.--The President may 
     exercise the authorities of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act to suspend any trade agreement with the 
     sanctioned country, except those affecting imports into the 
     United States from the sanctioned country.
       ``(7) Revocations of licenses for export of nuclear 
     material.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized to 
     revoke any license for the export of nuclear material 
     pursuant to a nuclear cooperation agreement with the 
     sanctioned country.
       ``(8) Presidential action regarding aviation.--
       (A)(1) The President is authorized to notify the government 
     of a sanctioned country of his intention to suspend the 
     authority of foreign air carriers owned or controlled by the 
     government of that country to engage in foreign air 
     transportation to or from the United States.
       ``(ii) The President is authorized to direct the Secretary 
     of Transportation to suspend at the earliest possible date 
     the authority of any foreign air carrier owned or controlled, 
     directly or indirectly, by that government to engage in 
     foreign air transportation to or from the United States, 
     notwithstanding any agreement relating to air services.
       ``(B)(i) The President may direct the Secretary of State to 
     terminate any air service agreement between the United States 
     and a sanctioned country in accordance with the provisions of 
     that agreement.
       ``(ii) Upon termination of an agreement under this 
     subparagraph, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to take such steps as may be necessary to revoke at the 
     earliest possible date the right of any foreign air carrier 
     owned, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the 
     government of that country to engage in foreign air 
     transportation to or from the United States.
       ``(C) The President may direct the Secretary of 
     Transportation to provide for such exceptions from this 
     subsection as the President considers necessary to provide 
     for emergencies in which the safety of an aircraft or its 
     crew or passengers is threatened.
       ``(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the terms `aircraft', 
     `air carrier', `air transportation', and `foreign air 
     carrier' have the meanings given those terms in section 101 
     of the Federal Aviation Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. 1301).
       ``(9) Other sanctions.--The President may apply the 
     sanctions described in section 1606(c) with respect to 
     actions of a foreign government.''

     SEC.   06. WAIVER.

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

     SEC.   07. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

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

     ``SEC. 1006A. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

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

     SEC.   08. STAY OF SANCTIONS.

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

     SEC.   09. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

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

     ``SEC. 1607A. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

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

     SEC.   10. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 1608 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) The terms `goods and technology' includes any item of 
     the type that is listed on the Nuclear Referral List under 
     section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, 
     the United States Munitions List (established in section 36 
     of the Arms Export Control Act), or the MTCR Annex (as 
     defined in section 74(4) of the Arms Export Control Act) or 
     any item that is subject to licensing by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission.
       ``(9) The term `United States' includes territories and 
     possessions of the United States and the customs waters of 
     the United States, as defined in section 401 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

     SEC.   011. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       Whereas both Iran and Iraq have re-emerged as continuing 
     threats to the peace and stability of the Middle East and 
     thus pose a threat to the stability of the post-Cold War 
     world, it is the sense of the Senate that the conference 
     agreement on S. 1281 should include as additional 
     discretionary sanctions under Section   05 of this Title 
     denial of Most Favored Nation status to a sanctioned country 
     and suspension of special trade privileges for a sanctioned 
     country which were extended pursuant to the Generalized 
     System of Preferences or the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on Friday, January 28, 1994, the Senate 
unanimously adopted an amendment which gave the President the authority 
to impose additional sanctions on persons or countries that assisted 
Iran or Iraq in their efforts to acquire destabilizing numbers and 
types of advanced conventional weapons. This amendment recognized the 
reemergent threat posed by these two nations to the peace and stability 
of the Middle East, and thus the future stability of the post-cold-war 
world.
  Unfortunately, because of certain arcane jurisdictional restrictions 
concerning import sanctions, I am advised that certain of the 
provisions of that amendment would cause the entire State Department 
authorization bill to be ``blue-slipped'' in the House of 
Representative. The State Department authorization bill is an important 
piece of legislation which includes a number of very important foreign 
policy provisions. Therefore, I have agreed to modify my amendment as 
follows:
  Remove the provision which would allow the President to suspend most-
favored-nation status for a sanctioned country.
  Delete the provision which would permit the President to suspend 
special trade privileges for a sanctioned country which were extended 
pursuant to the Caribbean Basin Initiative or the General System or 
Preferences.
  Modify the provision giving the President broad authority to suspend 
any trade agreements with a sanctioned country, by restricting that 
authority only to agreements which do not affect imports into the 
United States from that country.
  Add a section expressing the sense of the Senate that the sanctions 
stricken from the original amendment be restored in conference on this 
bill.
  Mr. President, but for the anticipated objections from the House Ways 
and means Committee concerning the origin of these import sanctions, I 
would insist that the President be authorized to impose these sanctions 
in order to deter any foreign country from assisting Iran or Iraq in 
their efforts to acquire destabilizing advanced conventional weapons.
  The danger of proliferation of advanced conventional weapons, as well 
as weapons of mass destruction, to countries such as Iran and Iraq is 
so great that we must bring to bear all available pressure on persons 
or countries who assist these nations. Import sanctions are a very 
effective means of demonstrating to a potential proliferator 
the disincentives which accompany such dangerous actions.
  Mr. President, I hope the wisdom of the Senate in adopting the full 
text of this amendment last Friday will prevail in conference with the 
House. I strongly urge my colleagues in conference with the House to 
insist on the reinstatement of these provisions.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1324, AS MODIFIED

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1324, the Kerry-
Mitchell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that is the pending 
question.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a 
modification of amendment No. 1324 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1324), as modified, reads as follows:

       In the amendment, on page 2, line 4, strike all after 
     `TITLE' and insert the following:

     SEC. 167. COST ASSESSMENT REPORT REGARDING ANY UNITED STATES 
                   PARTICIPATION IN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 42 OF THE 
                   UNITED NATIONS CHARTER.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), at 
     least 15 days before--
       (1) any obligation of funds for United States participation 
     in international peace operations, or
       (2) any vote by the Security Council to take action under 
     Article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations which would 
     involve the use of United States Armed Forces,

     the President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report 
     containing a cost assessment of the participation of the 
     United States Armed Forces in those operations.
       (b) Exception.--The period for submission of the report 
     specified in subsection (a) shall not apply if the President 
     determines that an emergency exists which prevents submission 
     of the report in a timely manner.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``United States participation in international peace 
     operations'' means the use of the United States Armed 
     Forces--
       (1) pursuant to, or consistent with, action taken by the 
     Security Council under Article 42 of the Charter of the 
     United Nations; or
       (2) consistent with the United Nations Participation Act of 
     1945.

     SEC. 168. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION REGARDING ANY UNITED 
                   STATES IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 43 OF THE 
                   UNITED NATIONS CHARTER.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), at 
     least 15 days before any agency or entity of the United 
     States Government makes available armed forces, assistance, 
     or facilities to the United Nations under Article 43 of the 
     United Nations Charter, the President shall so notify the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (b) Exception.--The period for notifying Congress in 
     subsection (a) shall not apply if the President determines 
     that an emergency exists which prevents making a notification 
     in a timely manner.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``assistance'' means assistance of any kind, including the 
     provision of logistical support and the grant of rights of 
     passage.

     SEC. 169. REPORT ON UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and each year thereafter at the time of the President's 
     budget submission to Congress, the Secretary of State, after 
     consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal 
     agencies (including the Department of Defense), shall submit 
     to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate a report on United States contributions to United 
     Nations peacekeeping activities. Such report shall include--
       (1) the overall cost of all peacekeeping operations as of 
     the date of the report;
       (2) the costs of each peacekeeping operation;
       (3) the amount of United States contributions (assessed and 
     voluntary) on an operation-by-operation basis; and
       (4) an assessment of the effectiveness of ongoing 
     peacekeeping operations, their relevance to United States 
     national interests, the efforts by the United Nations to 
     resolve the relevant armed conflicts, and the projected 
     termination dates for such operations.

     SEC.   . UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN UNITED NATIONS 
                   PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) the President of the United States has asserted that 
     reform of United Nations peacekeeping operations is to be of 
     the highest national priority in furtherance of United States 
     national security objectives;
       (2) at the direction of the President of the United States 
     the National Security Council is coordinating a comprehensive 
     review of United States policy towards United Nations 
     peacekeeping operations on which the Congress of the United 
     States is to be consulted;
       (3) in cooperation with the Congress of the United States, 
     the purpose of the National Security Council review is to 
     reform policies and programs governing United States 
     participation in United Nations operations;
       (4) in conjunction with the President's review, the 
     Majority Leader of the United States Senate has requested the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to 
     examine thoroughly the proper role of U.S. troops in the 
     post-Cold War world and the implications for U.S. foreign 
     policy with the intent of enacting legislation, in 
     cooperation with the President, regarding U.S. policy toward 
     post-Cold War conflicts, United States involvement in 
     peacekeeping operations, and of establishing a process to 
     ensure proper accommodations of Legislative and Executive 
     Branch prerogatives in addressing such issues;
       (5) such a process will embody sound constitutional 
     principles and reflect the appropriate roles of the President 
     and the Congress relating to the use of United States Armed 
     Forces both in unilateral and multilateral operations in 
     order for such operations to enjoy the support of both the 
     Executive and Legislative Branches and the American people; 
     and
       (6) the concerned committees of jurisdiction have initiated 
     a process of examination of the appropriate use of United 
     States Forces.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Therefore, it is the Sense of the 
     Congress that--
       (1) the primacy of United States national security 
     interests with respect to United States participation in and 
     support for United Nations peacekeeping activities must be 
     maintained;
       (2) congressional oversight of United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities and other United Nations activities must be 
     strengthened;
       (3) coordination between the executive and legislative 
     branches of Government regarding United States participation 
     in and support for United Nations peacekeeping operations 
     must be improved and communication between the two branches 
     prompt;
       (4) the Congress should be notified in advance of the 
     intent to approve United Nations peacekeeping operations;
       (5) for United Nations peacekeeping operations that would 
     involve the participation of United States combat forces, 
     such notification should include detailed information 
     concerning command and control arrangements for such forces, 
     their military mission and objectives, and their rules of 
     engagement, and
       (6) United States contributions to United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities must be fair and equitable.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for approval of the amendment, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 1324), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1323) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1351, As Modified

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1351.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be approved as modified, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1351), as modified, is as follows:

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

     SEC.  . REPORT ON SANCTIONS ON VIETNAM.

       Not later than 30 days after any action to modify or 
     terminate any prohibition, restriction, condition or 
     limitation on transaction involving commercial sale of any 
     good or technology to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, or 
     involving the importation into the United States of goods or 
     services of Vietnamese origin, in effect as of January 27, 
     1994 under the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411 et seq.) 
     as amended, the President shall submit a report, taking into 
     account information available to the U.S. government, to the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives on achieving the 
     fullest possible accounting of U.S. personnel unaccounted for 
     from the Vietnam War, including:
       (1) Progress on recovering and repatriating American 
     remains from Vietnam;
       (2) progress on resolution of discrepancy cases;
       (3) the status of Vietnamese cooperation in implementing 
     trilateral investigations with Laos; and
       (4) progress on accelerated efforts to obtain all POW/MIA 
     related documents from Vietnam.

  The amendment (No. 1351), as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment Nos. 1344 And 1316 Withdrawn

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
Helms amendment No. 1344, and amendment No. 1316, currently pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments (No. 1344) and (No. 1316) were withdrawn.


                    Amendment no. 1352, As Modified

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1352 be modified by adding the following language, that I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1352), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.  . COORDINATOR FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM.

       (a) Establishment.--There shall be within the Department of 
     State a Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as the ``Coordinator'') who shall be 
     appointed by the President,
       (b) Responsibilities.--(1) The Coordinator shall perform 
     such duties and exercise such power as the Secretary of State 
     shall prescribe.
       (2) The Coordinator shall have as his principal duty the 
     overall supervision (including oversight of policy and 
     resources) of counter-terrorism activities of the Department 
     of State. The Coordinator shall be the principal advisor to 
     the Secretary of State on counter-terrorism matters and 
     (after the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the appropriate 
     Under Secretary) shall be the principal counter-terrorism 
     official within the senior management of the Department of 
     State.
       (c) Rank and Status.--The Coordinator shall have the rank 
     and status of an Assistant Secretary. The Coordinator shall 
     be compensated at the annual rate of basic pay in effect for 
     a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       (d) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that there shall be in the Department of State a Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary of State with the rank of ambassador 
     whose sole responsibility shall be the day-to-day management 
     of counter-terrorism activities in the Department of State.

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1352), as modified, was agreed to.


   Yeas and Nays Vitiated--Amendment No. 1329 and Amendment No. 1330

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas 
and nays on both Amendments No. 1329 and No. 1330.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1330, As Modified

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk to 
Amendment No. 1330.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is modified.
  The Amendment (No. 1330), as modified, is as follows:

       The pending amendment is modified to read as follows:
       ``(F) Waiver.--The president may waive the prohibition in 
     section (a) if he determined and so notifies Congress that--
       (1) it is in the national interest to do so and such 
     determination must be made on a country by country basis 
     every 180 days; or
       (2) the parties have submitted the dispute to arbitration 
     under rules of the Convention for the Settlement of 
     Investment Disputes.

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1330), as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 1329, as amended

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the underlying amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1329), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1290

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
to modify amendment 1290.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1290, modified as follows.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment as modified be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

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

     SEC.   . CHINESE FLEEING COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL 
                   POLICIES.

       (1) In numbers not to exceed those specified in subsection 
     (5), the Attorney General shall protect from deportation or 
     exclusion to the People's Republic of China nationals of the 
     People's Republic of China who demonstrate a reasonable 
     likelihood that they will be forced to abort a pregnancy or 
     will be subjected to forced sterilization under Chinese 
     Communist Party directives and/or government directives of 
     the People's Republic of China on population or will suffer 
     other severe harm for refusal to comply with such directives, 
     or who demonstrate that they have experienced severe harm on 
     account of their refusal to comply with such directives.
       (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude 
     the Attorney General from deporting or excluding any national 
     of the People's Republic of China to the People's Republic of 
     China if the Attorney General determines that such national 
     is inadmissible to the United States under Section 212(a)(2), 
     (3), (6)(E) (if such action were taken knowingly and for 
     gain), or (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (3) The Attorney General shall, within 90 days of enactment 
     of this section, promulgate regulations and guidelines to 
     carry out the provisions of this section.
       (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as--
       (A) Shifting the burden of providing, in each individual 
     case, facts sufficient to establish a claim within the scope 
     of subsection (1) of this section from any person making such 
     claim to the Attorney General; or
       (B) Requiring the Attorney General to disprove such claim 
     in the absence of proof of facts sufficient to establish a 
     claim described in subsection (1) of this section by any 
     person making such claim.
       (5) The number of persons receiving the benefit of this 
     section shall not exceed 2,000 applicants in any fiscal year.
       (6) The provisions of this section shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and relief under this section 
     shall be available, in numbers not to exceed those specified 
     in subsection (5), to any national of the People's Republic 
     of China who is entitled to such relief under the provisions 
     of this section notwithstanding the pendency of 
     administrative or judicial proceedings or appeals on the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and to any such national whose 
     claim arises on or after the date of enactment.
       (7) A person who is not deported or excluded to the 
     People's Republic of China pursuant to subsection (1) of this 
     section shall be entitled to the same associated benefits as 
     a person granted asylum under Section 208 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act.
       (8) This section does not apply to an alien who has 
     received a final conviction of an aggravated felony or who 
     has claimed the benefit of subsection (1) solely for the 
     purposes of evading the immigration laws of the United 
     States.
       (9) This section shall remain in effect for a period of 
     three years from its date of enactment.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to provide 
relief from exclusion and/or deportation, beyond whatever relief may be 
afforded under the refugee and asylum provisions of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, to persons who can show that they have a well founded 
fear of persecution for refusal to submit to forced abortion or 
sterilization under the coercive population control program now in 
force in the People's Republic of China, or that they have actually 
undergone such persecution or been forced to undergo such a procedure.
  As originally drafted, our amendment would have accomplished this 
purpose by clarifying the statutory definition of refugee. There are, 
however, sincere people who have expressed reservations about 
cluttering up the basic definition of refugee with references to 
particular types of cases. So we have agreed to a substitute amendment 
which does not say anything one way or the other about whether these 
people are refugees but which provides separate and additional 
protection under a different provision of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
  There is an extremely strong case that people facing persecution for 
resistance to the coercive population control program are refugees 
within the definition of the act. The PRC regime treats these people 
not as ordinary lawbreakers but as its political and ideological 
enemies. The immediate former general counsel of INS issued a legal 
opinion to the effect that such persons are refugees on the ground of 
political opinion imputed to them by the persecutors. The three 
immediate former Attorneys General have officially ordered that these 
people be protected under the asylum law, and the present Attorney 
General has specifically declined to recede from this position. Forced 
abortion and forced sterilization under a program such as that of the 
PRC has recently been held to be persecution on account of political 
opinion in an excellent decision by Judge Ellis of the U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The present amendment does 
not subtract anything from these arguments. Rather, it simply provides 
additional protection for a specified number of persons, beyond those 
who my be granted asylum or refugee status.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is no intention to 
make the burden of proof under this section either higher or lower than 
the current standard for asylum and refugee applicants. That is, in 
order to get such persecution the applicant must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence both that he or she subjectively fears 
such persecution, and that there is an objective basis for the fear--
that is, that a reasonable person in the applicant's situation would 
have such a fear.
  The statute provides a numerical limit for persons who may be 
afforded protection under this section. There is no reason to expect 
that this will present a practical problem. Despite wildly inaccurate 
news reports of many thousands of people being granted asylum because 
they fear the coercive population control program, the number has never 
been more than a few hundred per year. Of course, people who are 
granted asylum or refugee status under existing law are not included in 
the numerical limit under this section. Mr. President, I am not one to 
believe in opening the floodgates to anyone who wants to come live in 
the United States for any reason, but there are some things Americans 
just will not do. One of these things is to force people back to places 
where they reasonably fear that they will face gruesome tortures. If 
the number of valid claimants should ever exceed the numerical limit, I 
would hope and expect that our Government would not forcibly repatriate 
these valid claimants, but would find some other solution, such as 
resettlement in safe countries other than the United States.

  Finally, Mr. President, news reports from China indicate that the 118 
people we sent back a few days ago, despite assurance that they would 
not be imprisoned, are now in prison and that many of them face 
indefinite terms of incarceration. The reports also cite evidence of 
beatings and various other kinds of harsh treatment. These people have 
committed no crime except to escape from China and to seek asylum in 
the United States. Our asylum regulations provide that asylum officers 
and immigration judges give due consideration to evidence that the 
government of the applicant's country of nationality or last habitual 
residence persecutes its nationals or residents if they leave the 
country without authorization or seek asylum in another country. 8 CFR 
208.13(b)(2)(B)(ii). I trust that this dramatic new evidence will be 
taken into account.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following materials 
be inserted in the Record:
  First, an article from the Washington Post, December 22, 1993.
  Second, a letter from Grover Joseph Rees, the immediate former 
general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Third, a document entitled ``Resistance to the PRC Population Control 
Policy as Political Dissent.''
  Fourth, a document entitled ``Disproportionately Severe Punishment.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 22, 1993]

   China Plans to Restrict `Inferior' Births--Compulsory Abortions, 
              Sterilization Aim at `Heightening Standards'

                           (By Steven Mufson)

       Beijing, Dec. 21--China will use abortions, sterilization 
     and marriage bans to ``avoid new births of inferior quality 
     and heighten the standards of the whole population,'' the 
     official New China News Agency said Monday.
       The measures will be aimed at restricting reproduction by 
     people likely to pass on congenital illnesses or defects to 
     their children, the agency said. It added that the births of 
     more than 10 million people with such defects could have been 
     prevented.
       China's population policy has drawn extensive international 
     criticism with its one-child-per-family rule and allegations 
     of coercion in enforcing it. But the new measures appear to 
     go far beyond normal family planning standards.
       In New York, a spokesman for the U.N. Population Fund said 
     the agency had only heard of the measure from Chinese news 
     reports and could not comment on it directly. But spokesman 
     Alex Marshall said: ``In principle we are against any form of 
     compulsion with respect to family planning. Family planning 
     must be voluntary, and that has no qualifying clauses to 
     it.''
       In Washington, State Department observers said they had 
     seen no indication China was contemplating such a program. 
     Abortion in China is a sensitive issue for the Clinton 
     administration, which is keeping a close eye on human rights 
     issues. ``We would take a very dim view of this kind of 
     abortion program, if it comes into being,'' a State 
     Department official said.
       Under draft legislation titled ``On Eugenics and Health 
     Protection'' submitted to the National People's Congress, 
     people with hepatitis, venereal disease or mental illness 
     will be barred from marrying, the news agency said.
       Pregnant women diagnosed as having certain infectious 
     diseases or abnormal fetuses ``will be advised to halt the 
     pregnancy,'' the agency said. The draft bill says married 
     couples with those illnesses or mental disabilities ``should 
     have themselves sterilized,'' it added.
       Once legislation reaches the draft stage and is submitted 
     to the National People's Congress, approval is usually 
     automatic.
       In the United States and many other countries, prospective 
     parents may test for congenital defects and they often abort 
     fetuses as a result of those tests, but such decisions are 
     left to individuals and are not matters of government policy.
       The Public Health Ministry did not spell out how the 
     measures would be implemented, but the impact could be 
     widespread. A large portion of the population carries the 
     hepatitis virus, often contracted from eating contaminated 
     food or using contaminated needles. In addition, there are 
     10.2 million mentally disabled people in China, the 
     government-run People's Daily reported today.
       Citing the annual birth of 300,000 to 460,000 congenitally 
     disabled children yearly, Public Health Minister Chen Min 
     Zhang told the National People's Congress standing committee 
     that there is an urgent need to reduce abnormal births.
       ``If this situation continues, it will be a very heavy 
     burden to Chinese economic construction and a big burden to 
     the state as well as bring disaster to thousands and millions 
     of families and result in a drop in the quality standards of 
     the population,'' Chen said, according to the People's Daily.
       In the poor northwestern province of Gansu, there already 
     is a mandatory sterilization law for the mentally retarded. 
     Local officials have said their goal is to quickly sterilize 
     most of the 260,000 mentally retarded residents there.
       China has come under international criticism for its strict 
     policy limiting most families to one child. That policy, 
     pursued since 1979, has lowered the birthrate below levels 
     needed to replace the population. The rate fell to 18.24 
     births per thousand people in 1992, about half the 1970 
     level.
       China has insisted that stringent measures are needed in a 
     country of nearly 1.2 billion people so that population 
     growth does not outstrip the nation's economy. The government 
     has noted that China has 22 percent of the world's population 
     but only 7 percent of its arable land.
       Many family planning and human rights groups have raised 
     concerns over the coercion used to enforce the policy, citing 
     reports of forced abortions, sterilizations and infanticide.
       The Chinese news agency said the draft bill ``does not 
     state whether China will adopt euthanasia to eliminate 
     congenitally abnormal children, saying that the international 
     community has not come to a conclusion on that issue.''
                                  ____



                                        St. Mary's University,

                                                 January 27, 1994.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: This is in response to an inquiry from 
     your staff about concerns that have been raised respecting 
     refugee status for persons fleeing forced abortions and 
     sterilizations.
       First, with respect to the 6500 PRC nationals who are said 
     to have applied for asylum status during 1993: I had not 
     heard this statistic, but it is hardly the ``floodgate'' that 
     opponents of refugee status were predicting earlier in the 
     year. It is a tiny fraction of the many thousands of asylum 
     applications received during the year, although a country 
     with about 20% of the world's population and one of its most 
     repressive governments might be expected to generate a 
     substantial percentage of such applications.
       It is also important to remember that several thousand 
     applications during a year typically result in only a few 
     hundred actual grants of asylum during the year. For 
     instance, in 1992 there were 1911 applications from illegal 
     immigrants in deportation and exclusion proceedings and 
     another 3464 ``affirmative'' applications to INS Asylum 
     Officers from persons who were not in proceedings, presumably 
     because they were living here legally. Yet the total number 
     of grants in both categories was only 654--even though INS 
     was then treating credible claims of persecution based on 
     resistance to the population control program as giving rise 
     to eligibility for asylum.
       In response to the argument that no legislation is 
     necessary because the Executive Order is still being enforced 
     so as to protect valid claims based on the PRC population 
     control policy, this is simply untrue. The Board of 
     Immigration Appeals has stated in several decisions that 
     neither the Executive Order nor the interim regulations 
     require it to reverse its Chang decision, which treated the 
     population control program as just another routine law 
     enforcement measure which will not give rise to valid refugee 
     claims except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Both 
     the Board and many immigration judges continue to cite the 
     Chang rationale as a basis for routinely denying asylum 
     claims based on forced abortion or sterilization, even when 
     the applicant's testimony is found credible.
       Finally, it is shocking to hear the PRC population control 
     program--in which women are sometimes dragged kicking and 
     screaming to undergo late-term abortions, and in which more 
     routine punishments include fines of several times the per 
     capita annual income and destruction of the family home--
     compared to family planning programs in India and 
     Singapore. If I recall correctly, India experimented 
     briefly and sporadically with forced sterilizations 
     (although never with forced abortions) about fifteen years 
     ago, before learning that popular resistance to such 
     measures made then untenable for a government that is not 
     prepared to rule by terror. The argument about Singapore 
     is apparently that if you have too many children you will 
     not be able to get a large enough apartment. Although 
     there is no telling what people will argue, I cannot 
     imagine as asylum claim on this basis ever being granted.
       Similarly, it is certainly true that single young men have 
     applied for asylum on the ground that they may someday want 
     to marry and have children. At least during my tenure as 
     General Counsel of INS, however, we routinely opposed such 
     claims as too speculative, and I am unaware of any such claim 
     having been granted.
       The only case I know in which an unmarried man had a 
     meritorious asylum claim based on resistance to the 
     population control program was the case of a young man who 
     had been living with his financee in the equivalent of a 
     common-law marriage. They had announced their wedding 
     banquet, and she had become pregnant. She was ordered to have 
     a late abortion. When she refused, she was physically forced 
     to undergo the operation--during which she died. The asylum 
     applicant, overcome with grief and anger, confronted the 
     government official who had ordered the abortion. This 
     confrontation resulted in various forms of persecution, as a 
     result of which the applicant fled China. The immigration 
     judge who heard his asylum case found his testimony to be 
     credible and expressed great sympathy, but denied asylum on 
     the case of Chang. In one of my last official acts as INS 
     General Counsel, I filed a brief supporting his appeal and 
     urging the Board to overrule Chang. I left the government 
     soon thereafter and never learned the result of the appeal, 
     but I do know that the Board reaffirmed Chang instead of 
     overruling it, so my guess is that this young man has been 
     denied asylum
       I hope this information is helpful.
           Sincerely,

                                       Grover Joseph Rees III,

                                       Visiting Scholar Center for
                                      International Legal Studies.
                                  ____


  Resistance to the PRC Population Control Policy as Political Dissent

       ``An applicant must show that he has a fear of persecution 
     for holding [political] opinions. This presupposes that the 
     applicant holds opinions not tolerated by the authorities, 
     which are critical of their policies or methods. It also 
     presupposes that such opinions have come to the notice of the 
     authorities or are attributed by them to the applicant.'' 
     United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on 
     Procedures for Determining Refugee Status 80 (1992 ed.) 
     (emphasis supplied).
       ``Whether political opinion is actually held or implied 
     makes little difference where the alien's life is equally at 
     risk.'' Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 729 (9th Cir. 1988). 
     ``[I]t is irrelevant whether a victim actually possesses any 
     of these opinions as long as the government believes that he 
     does.'' Hernandez-Ortiz v. INS, 777 F.2d 509, 517 (9th Cir. 
     1985).
       ``To refuse to control fertility or to encourage others to 
     refuse is sometimes treated as a crime against the state. * * 
     * Most married people of reproductive age in China must 
     control their fertility to avoid being guilty of an 
     ideological offense in the eyes of the government. Those who 
     would rather not practice birth control find that they must 
     do so, or at least pretend to, in order to avoid political 
     reprisals.'' Judith Banister, China's Changing Population 200 
     (Stanford 1987) (hereinafter ``Banister'').
       ``Chinese officials view this opposition [to forced 
     abortion and sterilization] as political dissent and are 
     determined to suppress it even if it means violating 
     fundamental human rights.'' Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers 
     Committee for Human Rights, Matter of M-, #A28 760 748 (BIA 
     1989) at 4.
       ``Planned parenthood work, like other work, also suffered 
     from interference and sabotage by Lin Piao and the `gang of 
     four.' Lin Piao, the `gang of four,' and their followers 
     incited anarchism in marriage and childbirth.'' Foreign 
     Broadcast Information Service Daily Report--People's Republic 
     of China, Vol. I., 239 (July 13, 1978): E 10. ``We must 
     expose and deal resolute blows at class enemies who sabotage 
     planned parenthood.'' Id. at 135 (August 7, 1978): G4.
       ``[F]amily planning must be understood as the 
     implementation of party discipline and state law.'' Director 
     of State Family Planning Commission, quoted in Jiankang Bao 
     (Health Gazette, Beijing), Feb. 27, 1983: 1
       ``Recently, [Secretary-General of the Chinese Communist 
     Party] Comrade Hu Yaobang pointed out that the work of 
     population control should `rely first on political 
     mobilization, second on law, and third on technical 
     measures.'' ``Hebei Provincial Telephone Meeting on Family 
     Planning,'' Department of Commerce, Joint Publications 
     Research Service 83105 (Mar. 21, 1983). [``Technical 
     measures'' is a euphemism for required sterilization, 
     abortion, and IUD insertion. Banister, supra, at 201.]
                                  ____


                  DISPROPORTIONATELY SEVERE PUNISHMENT

       ``Disciplinary measures against those who violate the 
     policy include stiff fines (up to the equivalent of $4,000 in 
     some parts of China), withholding of social services, 
     demotion, and other administrative punishments, including 
     loss of employment. Unpaid fines have sometimes resulted in 
     confiscation or destruction of personal property.'' 
     Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights 
     Practices for 1992; 544 (1993).
       ``[U]nder China's complex quote sytem for births, local 
     family planning officials wanted Ms. Li to give birth in 1992 
     rather than 1993. So on Dec. 30, when she was seven months 
     pregnant, they took her to an unsantiary first aid station 
     and ordered the doctor to induce early labor. Ms. Li's family 
     pleaded, the doctor protested, but the family planning 
     workers insisted. The result: the baby died after nine hours, 
     and 23-year-old Ms. Li is incapaciated.'' Kristof, ``China's 
     Crackdown on Births: A Stunning, and Harsh, Success,'' N.Y. 
     Times, April 25, 1993: A1 (hereinafter ``China's 
     Crackdown'').
       ``Typically, local cadres swoop down on each village once 
     or twice a year, taking all the women who have already had 
     children to a nearby clinic. There they are fitted with IUDs 
     or else undergo sterilization. Some women manage to get 
     pregnant again before they are sterilized; others flee the 
     village on the day they are supposed to go to the clinic. 
     When the authorities discover an unauthorized pregnancy, they 
     normally apply a daily dose of threats and brow-beating.
       ``Some women buckle and accept an abortion, while many 
     others simply flee to a relative's village, returning only 
     after the child is born. In such cases, fines equivalent to 
     hundreds or even thousands of dollars--per capita income in 
     the countryside last year was $135--are imposed. Peasants in 
     many different provinces say homes are routinely knocked down 
     if the fine is not paid.'' China's Crackdown, N.Y. Times, 
     Apr. 25, 1993: A12
       ``[A]fter the baby came, a brigade from the township 
     knocked down his house. The team also confiscated his wooden 
     thrasher, used to prepare the rice after it is harvested. Mr. 
     Luo said his family had to live in the hills until they could 
     borrow straw to rebuild the house. `They often take things, 
     your furniture, your cow, your pig, your chickens, your 
     preserved meat,' said a 35-year-old woman in another Guizho 
     Province village. `If you get sterilized, they take your 
     stuff, and if you don't get sterilized, they beat you. Some 
     people have been beaten badly, family members and women,' she 
     added. `They take electric batons and they hit whomever they 
     see.''' WuDunn, ``Births Punished by Fines, Beating, or 
     Ruined Home,'' N.Y. Times, Apr. 25, 1993; A12.
       ``I have been allowed to accompany 10 Chinese government 
     employees who make up one of the `task forces' that have been 
     dispatched to hundreds of villages in a northern county. 
     Their purpose is to make all the women who are expecting a 
     second or later baby have abortions, and then be 
     sterilized.'' Liu Yin, ``China's Wanted Children,'' London 
     Independent, Sept. 11, 1991 (hereinafter ``China's Wanted 
     Children'').
       ``The families whose women escaped the raid were warned 
     that if they did not go to the abortion centre within a week, 
     their houses would be pulled down. This was no bluff. On the 
     way back from the raid, I saw six collapsed houses. No family 
     in the village is allowed to provide shelter for the people 
     whose houses have been destroyed.'' China's Wanted Children, 
     supra.
       ``Security officers in a Chinese province [Hunan] forced at 
     least 21 women to have abortions last month to meet family 
     planning quotas, [``Hong Kong's Ming Pao, a leading Chinese 
     language newspaper''] reported yesterday.'' San Francisco 
     Chronicle, Nov. 14, 1991: A15.
       From 1979 to 1982 any second or higher order births that 
     happened in spite of government pressure were met with 
     escalating punishments designed to impoverish the offending 
     couple for at least fourteen years if not for life. This 
     repression continued to mount, until in mid-1982 official, 
     statements clarified that local government officials must not 
     permit a couple to have a second or third birth and then 
     impose the economic sanctions. Rather, local officials must 
     prevent conceptions of second or higher order children, and 
     when that fails are required to see to it that women have 
     abortions.'' Judith Banister, China's Changing Population 200 
     (Stanford 1987) (hereinafter ``Banister'').
       ``Forced abortion at late pregnancy was the worst of all. 
     One time we caught a pregnant woman with her baby due in only 
     one week. Right after she was pulled into the car, she was 
     held by several men and a lethal injection was given to kill 
     the unborn baby before abortion.'' Jian-Hua Lin, ```Poverty 
     Relief Team' to Catch Women in Countryside: A Story from a 
     Birth Control Officer,'' Chi-Am Daily News, Sept. 11-12, 
     1992.
       ``Rural family planning committees wield awesome powers. 
     Not only do they decide the year when a couple may have a 
     child within the annual birth quota, but they can impose 
     fines equivalent to two to three years' wages for those who 
     flout the regulations. Parents who violate the one-child 
     policy automatically lose their rights to free education, 
     state subsidies, and other privileges.'' Schmetzer, ``Chinese 
     Beat Men Who Flout Abortion Laws,'' San Francisco Examiner, 
     Mar. 29, 1991.
       ``[T]he husbands were marched one by one into an empty 
     room, ordered to strip naked and lie face down on the floor. 
     `They were then beaten on their bare buttocks with a cane as 
     many times as the number of days their wives had been 
     pregnant.' . . . A woman whose husband was out of town also 
     consented to an abortion after being threatened with a 
     flogging.'' Schmetzer, supra, (quoting Chinese news 
     accounts).
       ``Nowhere is this dark side of family planning more evident 
     than in Dongguan, [in Guandong Province]. Here, abortion 
     posses scoured the countryside in the spring of 1981, 
     rounding up women in rice paddies and thatched roof houses. 
     Expectant mothers, including many in their last trimester, 
     were trussed, handcuffed, herded into hog cages and delivered 
     by the truckload to the operating tables of rural clinics, 
     according to eyewitness accounts.'' Weisskopf, ``One Couple, 
     One Child,'' Washington Post, Jan. 7, 1985: A1 (hereinafter 
     ``One Couple, One Child'').
       ``Party chief Huang Zhigao of Double Bridge Village in the 
     southwestern province of Sichuan acknowledged the practice of 
     `helping' pregnant women to the clinic if they refuse to go 
     on their own. As an example, he cited the story of a 32-year-
     old woman named Li who had a baby girl and became pregnant 
     again in the hope of having a boy. After numerous visits to 
     her home by `persuasion groups' proved unsuccessful, eight 
     activists appeared at her doorstep one morning and told Li, 
     then four months pregnant, `you don't go to the clinic 
     willingly, we'll take you,' according to Huang. `The woman 
     struggled and started crying when they started taking her by 
     the arms,' recalled Huang, `She was dragged about 50 yards 
     and finally gave in.''' One Couple, One Child, supra.
       ``In the Inner Mongolian capital of Hohhot . . . hospital 
     doctors practice what amounts to infanticide by a different 
     name, according to a Hohhot surgeon who would not allow his 
     name to be used for fear of reprisals. After inducing labor, 
     he said, doctors routinely smash the baby's skull with 
     forceps as it emerges from the womb. In some cases, he added, 
     newborns are killed by injecting formaldehyde into the soft 
     spot of the head.'' One Couple, One Child, supra.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the sponsors' modification to this 
amendment greatly improves it, in my view.
  The original amendment would have modified the Refugee Act to provide 
special treatment to a particular group. For all the reasons I 
expressed this morning as we debated the Lautenberg amendment, I 
strongly oppose changing the definition of ``refugee'' as it is stated 
in the Refugee Act of 1980.
  That is the U.N. definition. It is the international definition that 
most refugee receiving companies use. I don't believe it should be 
tampered with solely in order to provide special benefits for 
particular groups.
  This modification does not do that. Rather, it forbids the 
deportation or exclusion of persons who can demonstrate that they will 
be severely punished for refusal to comply with China's population 
control policies.
  This modification also will provide for the sunset of these special 
provisions in 3 years and it limits the number who may receive the 
benefit to 2,000 per year.
  I continue to oppose ``special'' treatment for ``special'' groups, 
even when it does not modify the refugee definition. The whole purpose 
and ideal of the Refugee Act of 1980 was to get us away from providing 
special treatment to special groups. Our refugee policy should be 
evenhanded. It should provide equal protection to those who qualify.
  As I said, this modification is a substantial improvement and I thank 
the sponsors for the changes.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1290), as modified, was agreed to.


                Amendment Withdrawn--Amendment No. 1353

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1353 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________