[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would note once again that the store is 
open. We are ready to hear and take amendments or debate them or vote 
on them.
  If there are no further amendments, I, of course, would be happy to 
see us just adopt the committee amendments and go to final passage. 
This manager of the bill is ready to go.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I assume the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont does not hold the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is informed that the pending 
question is the first committee amendment.
  Is this intended as an amendment to that?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would prefer to seek the counsel of the 
managers of the bill. This amendment does not seek to amend any 
provision in the committee amendment. It deals with another section of 
the bill.
  Would it be appropriate to set aside the committee amendment for the 
purpose of taking up this amendment? Or I will be glad to withhold this 
until the committee amendment is disposed of, whatever the pleasure of 
the managers would be.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is on the floor now. If it would make life 
easier for him to just go ahead and set it aside, I certainly would 
have no objection. Because I would note, Mr. President, as I noted in 
the past on this particular subject--I think we handled the colloquy in 
report language--that the Senator knows I support him on it, if it is 
what I think it is.
  But, in any event, whether it is the one I think it is or not, the 
Senator is here. He is always cooperative. If it would make life easier 
for him to set aside the committee amendment to go to his amendment, I 
am perfectly willing to do that.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the manager 
of the bill.
  Has the unanimous consent been granted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2111

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment I submitted to 
the desk be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2111.

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

       On page 33, line 3, strike all after ``Provided further'' 
     through ``United Nations Charter'' on line 18.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me advise the Senate that this 
amendment would strike from the bill that portion of page 33 from line 
3 through line 18. These lines contain language prohibiting the use of 
funds under the Arms Export Control Act that would go to Turkey, to the 
extent that none of the equipment purchased under this section could be 
used for any purpose inside the country of Turkey or for any internal 
security purpose.
  And then, further, the language extends to Greece and contains a 
prohibition that funds under this provision going to Greece could not 
be used in violation of U.N. sanctions against Serbia or the U.N. 
Charter.
  It seems to me that this language is unnecessary and provocative in 
the way it is used in the bill. These two countries are being singled 
out for special criticism, it seems to me, with the inclusion of this 
language.
  It is unnecessary and gratuitous and, to me, insulting. It presumes 
that violations of either sanctions against Serbia or the U.N. Charter 
have been committed by Greece, or will be committed by Greece, and to 
me that is presumptuous and has no place in this bill.
  With respect to Turkey, there is a presumption in this language that 
Turkey has or will use funds under this provision in violation of human 
rights or other interests within its own country. To me, again, that is 
unnecessary. It is a gratuitous insult to Turkey.
  So I hope the committee managers can look favorably upon this 
suggested change in the bill. There is also corresponding language in 
the report which seeks to explain why this language is included in the 
bill.
  When I saw that in the report and had it brought to my attention, it 
occurred to me that we should strike that from the report. But having 
consulted with the manager's staff, and having looked at the issue 
carefully, it seems that the most appropriate way to deal with this 
issue is straightforward: simply strike the offensive language from the 
bill. And I hope the Senate will agree to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to suggest the 
absence of a quorum. That will be for just a few minutes.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2112

   (Purpose: To eliminate the appropriations proposed to be made for 
    fiscal year 1995 for the International Development Association)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that there is 
pending at this time an amendment of the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. HELMS. In that case, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi be laid aside 
temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2112.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, strike lines 8 through 13.

  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it would be difficult, if not impossible, 
to imagine a Federal giveaway program more resented by the American 
taxpayers than the so-called foreign aid program. And that is not too 
hard to understand because the American people are aware that Congress 
has run up a debt of $4.6 trillion, and the American people more and 
more are demanding to know how and why billions of their tax dollars 
are being shipped overseas, in their minds at least, in massive 
handouts.
  Year after year, there is an annual ritual in Washington about 
foreign aid reform. They talked about it the first year I was here, and 
that was almost 22 years ago. Nothing has been done of any consequence. 
The bureaucrats down in Foggy Bottom scurry around drafting what they 
call reform proposals. Congressional oversight committees hold endless 
hearings on the topic of reform, and inside-the-beltway magazines 
publish pompous articles about how Congress is finally going to do 
something about foreign aid. But when all the dust has settled, nothing 
changes, and this wasteful program runs on and on like Tennyson's 
brook.
  Now if Congress sincerely wants to reform foreign aid, an excellent 
place to begin is with the World Bank and those other multilateral 
development banks. Year after year, these banks literally chew up 
hundreds of millions of dollars, all the while duping both the Congress 
and the administration--Republican and Democrat--into assuming that 
these wasteful institutions are performing a useful service.
  The President's foreign aid reform proposal expresses no intent 
whatsoever to reform multilateral lending. In fact, none of the reform 
proposals considered by either the House of Representatives or this 
Senate during the past few years have set forth any such reform.
  Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to establish some reform 
in the World Bank operation. Despite the World Bank track record, this 
bill contains a $1.207 billion line item appropriation for a World Bank 
outfit called the International Development Association, hereinafter 
known as IDA. The World Bank and IDA have had 50 years to prove 
themselves to the American people, and have failed miserably.
  In fact, just last year, over the objection of the United States 
Executive Director, the World Bank approved loans of $463,400,000 to, 
guess who, Iran, of all countries.
  Mr. President, according to the most recent World Bank report, in 
1993, the World Bank, including IDA, has lent developing countries more 
than $312 billion since it was created. What has been the track record 
of all that massive spending? Has it led to economic growth? Has it 
reduced global poverty? Has it strengthened the private sectors of the 
recipient countries? Not on your own patootie. No, sir.
  The Cato Institute recently published an extensive report, as a 
matter of fact, on multilateral lending policies providing a clear 
answer to those questions, and the report's title is interesting. 
Listen to what the Cato Institute calls it: ``Perpetuating Poverty: the 
World Bank, the IMF and the Developing World.'' That report stated:

       After providing advice, loans and grants to the governments 
     of the world's poorest countries for 4 decades, the 
     multilaterals can point to few, if any, cases in which their 
     efforts have led to improved living standards and sustained 
     economic prosperity. Instead of growth, the Third World has 
     experienced social disintegration, economic stagnation, debt 
     crises, and in some regions declines in agriculture 
     production and income.

  Now, as I already stated, Mr. President, the pending amendment would 
cut the United States $1.2 billion contribution to IDA. IDA is the 
major lending component of the World Bank. It constitutes more than 
half of the administration's request for all World Bank funding for 
fiscal year 1995. But it is an absolute sham, with a disgraceful record 
of propping up illegitimate and corrupt regimes throughout the Third 
World.
  First of all, the fact that IDA is part of the World Bank is 
misleading. If it were a true bank, we would not have to ``replenish'' 
the funds in it. I am using a Treasury Department term when I say 
``replenish.'' Every 5 years they have to put more and more and more 
money back in. Now, here are the so-called lending terms. I have 
quotation marks around the word ``lending'' described by the Department 
of Treasury in their Congressional presentation for fiscal year 1995. 
Let me quote:

       The terms of new IDA credits--

  Meaning taxpayers' money--

     which are made only to governments, are 10-year grace 
     periods, 35- and 40-year maturities, no interest and a .75 
     percent service charge.

  That is three-quarters of 1 percent.
  Now, I just wonder how many people who may be listening would like to 
borrow money on those terms. I would like to borrow a ton if it were 
available to an average citizen. But, in other words, IDA hands out 
cash--and it is money taken from the American taxpayers--IDA hands out 
this money to the governments of the least developed countries and 
tells them do not bother to begin paying back this money for another 10 
years. And when that 10-year period expires, you have another 35 to 40 
years to complete the payment, all of this with virtually no interest.
  So to be honest about it, these are not really loans. They are 
handouts. And they are handouts to the sectors that deserve the money 
the least--the governments. If we are going to use the taxpayers' money 
for anything, we ought to work with the private sector and not hand it 
to these corrupt governments around the world.
  In many cases it goes to corrupt governments with no track record of 
any attempt at economic reform.
  Now, the administration in its congressional request had this to say:

       IDA plays a pivotal role in supporting efforts to alleviate 
     poverty and encouraging economic reform.

  The administration then continued:

       IDA borrowers confront formidable development challenges in 
     their efforts to promote economic growth and reduce poverty.

  I am not sure exactly who wrote that, and I do not know what he was 
smoking, or she, but nothing could be further from the truth than that. 
It is a sham. It is a waste of the taxpayers' money. It is an insult to 
the taxpayers.
  In short, the administration is operating under the illusion that IDA 
recipient countries are engaged in economic reform, which they are not, 
that they engage in efforts to promote growth, which they are not, but 
look at who is receiving the money.
  Now, the administration in this request this year boasts about IDA's 
contribution to development in sub-Saharan Africa, and the 
administration request had this to say.

       IDA is especially important for its 38 sub-Saharan African 
     borrowing countries.

  I do not know how you define importance in that context, but I know 
how you spell sham, and I know what it means.
  Anyhow, a review of IDA's lending to sub-Saharan Africa shows no 
correlation whatsoever between IDA lending and development in Africa. 
In fact, many of the African countries that have regressed the most 
over the past 10 years share one thing in common, and that is they have 
received generous amounts of money from IDA.
  Mr. President, you can pick any illegitimate regime on the continent 
of Africa, any regime with a track record of repression and human 
rights violations, any regime with centralized control over the 
economy, and then ask the question, did that regime receive handouts 
from IDA? And in almost every case the answer is yes, yes, yes. It is 
well known that the Communist regime in Ethiopia, under its president 
there, was one of the most ruthless on the African Continent. That has 
been documented time and time again on this floor, not to mention in 
the Foreign Relations Committee.
  In 1990, the regime was teetering on the brink of collapse, yet 
according to the World Bank annual report for 1990, the latest 
available, the Government of Ethiopia received $75,200,000 from IDA. 
The previous year the regime received $157 million from IDA. And in 
1985, the time when the world was horrified by that brutal regime's 
indifference to the starvation of tens of thousands of its own people, 
that regime was rewarded with $166 million from IDA.
  And 1990 was also the first full year in power for the repressive 
regime in Sudan, a regime that has been linked by the United States 
Government to international terrorism. Nonetheless, you have got it, 
that regime was rewarded with $82,200,000 in 1990 and according to 
World Bank documents the Sudan received $16 million in 1992.
  And then there is another African country that is very much in the 
news, Somalia. In 1990, the year before Somalia collapsed into anarchy, 
the regime of President Siad Barre received $54,600,000 from IDA. The 
year before that it received $89 million from IDA.
  Zaire is another African nation that has pursued disastrous economic 
policies. According to a 1994 State Department report, the regime in 
Zaire, which had been in power since 1965--now, this is the State 
Department's assessment, the State Department says Zaire is ``highly 
corrupt, heavily indebted,'' and maintains ``ineffective'' economic 
policies.
  That is a quote from the State Department, the same State Department 
that comes up here and says let us give this money away.
  Up until last year, the Government of Zaire continued to receive 
assistance. In fact, in the years since IDA was created--that is, the 
1960's, as I recall--Zaire alone received more than $1 billion in IDA 
loans, IDA credits.
  There is another little country that we hear a whole lot about, if 
you want to talk about repression and horror and brutality. Yes, I am 
talking abut Rwanda, a country that has recently distinguished itself 
by having one of the worst human rights records in the history of the 
world. Did Rwanda receive IDA funding last year? You bet. According to 
the 1993 World Bank Annual Report, Rwanda received $26 billion last 
year, and according to the World Bank's cumulative tables, Rwanda has 
received more than $617 million during the existence of IDA.
  Despite all that, this administration claims that IDA plays a pivotal 
role in encouraging economic reform. A pivotal role.
  P-i-v-o-t-a-l? I had better get my dictionary and see if the 
definition has changed when I was not looking.
  What ``pivotal role'' did IDA play during the Mengistu regime? What 
are the results of this ``pivotal role'' in Sudan? In Somalia? In 
Zaire? In Rwanda?
  Mr. President, I could go on and on. I focus on Africa because that 
is the continent where the administration seems to believe that IDA has 
made the biggest difference. The fact is, many African nations which 
have received massive infusions of IDA assistance have made little to 
no progress in the area of economic reform.
  Let me quickly say in conclusion that wasteful spending is not 
limited to the African Continent. Last year Communist China received 
over $1 billion from IDA. The Communist nation of Laos received $55 
million. India received more than $1.5 billion.
  Let us go to Central America, down to Nicaragua. You know, the place 
where the Government has expropriated, seized property owned by 
hundreds upon hundreds of American citizens. Good old Madam 
``Nicaragua'' Chamorro's government--with the Sandinistas still intact 
insofar as running that country is concerned--received $33 million.
  In most cases, even if the United States attempts to block an IDA 
loan, it is approved over our objection of the United States. Last year 
I asked CRS to prepare a memorandum discussing the effect--if any--of 
United States opposition to IDA lending for China.
  For example, I wanted to know in the wake of the Tiananmen Square 
crackdown if it had any effect.
  What do you reckon the Congressional Research Service replied? It 
said:

       Because the U.S. vote is insufficient to block loans, IDA 
     lending to China has not only resumed, but increased from 
     $515 million, or 10 percent of total IDA loans approved in 
     1989 to $949 million, or 15 percent of IDA loans approved in 
     1992. About $400 million of the almost $950 million in IDA 
     loans approved in 1992 went for projects in [names of cities 
     deleted] the most affluent province and cities in China.

  So not only are the loans which are constituted in large measure by 
the taxpayers of the United States, including North Carolina, being 
approved over the objections of the United States, but they are 
increasing dramatically, and they are going to some of the most 
affluent cities in Red China. This is not a new problem.
  Mr. President, this is not a new problem. Three years ago the Under 
Secretary of Treasury appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee 
to discuss World Bank funding. He acknowledged that in most cases when 
the United States objects to a loan at the World Bank, our objection is 
typically overridden.
  A little over 30 years ago, as the Senate considered a foreign aid 
bill, one of the great Senators in the history of this body, Sam Ervin, 
Jr., made a statement that is as timely today as it was when he made it 
with respect to foreign aid, Senator Ervin stated, and I quote:

       If an individual were to persist in borrowing money for the 
     purpose of giving it away, his family and friends would 
     institute an inquisition in lunacy, and procure the 
     appointment of a guardian to manage his affairs. If an 
     individual were to undertake to give away his property 
     instead of paying his debts, the law would stay his hand and 
     compel him to be just rather than generous. It is high time 
     that Congress should exercise some common sense and put 
     similar restraints on the Federal Government.

  That is the end of the quote of Sam Ervin, Jr., with whom I served 
the first 2 years I was here. He was a brilliant constitutional lawyer, 
a great Senator, and a great friend, whom I miss.
  Mr. President, Sam Ervin's statement has even more resonance today 
because the United States of America is flat broke. As I said at the 
outset, and as I say every day on the floor of this Senate, the U.S. 
Government is $4.6 trillion in debt. How do you imagine all of this 
debt was run up? It was incurred $1 at a time through spending on 
wasteful projects like the World Bank.
  According to Citizens Against Governmental Waste, a stack of $1 bills 
amounting to $4.6 trillion would reach all the way to the moon and 
halfway back. Maybe that is what we ought to do to Senators who vote to 
continue this sham. Spending for projects like the World Bank indicates 
that the stack is going to get higher and higher and higher. If I were 
a Member of the younger generation, I would resent what our generation 
is doing to them and to their future.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I cannot think of anything that is more fun 
than to shout about the so-called foreign aid and say, ``Oh boy, more 
American giveaways.'' And you hear sometimes about these huge debts and 
that if we just do away with foreign aid, we would be done with all our 
debt, our deficits and everything else.
  Of course, the fact of the matter is foreign aid is less than 1 
percent of the overall national budget, and it is done for such things 
as helping our companies export abroad, creating tens of thousands of 
jobs in the United States, so we have a place to export. It fulfills 
the international commitments that we have entered into as a world 
power. It allows us to give humanitarian aid--incidentally, it is far 
less than many other nations do. When we talk about the national debt, 
it is a little less than 2 weeks of the interest that we pay on the 
debt that was run up during the Reagan administration, if you want to 
put that into perspective. We do not do such things as the past 
administration did; that is, giving $1.9 billion in foreign aid to 
Saddam Hussein. Incidentally, that is before the Persian Gulf war.
  This is a bill designed to protect our national security interests. 
Do we get angry at some of the things in the World Bank? Absolutely. 
Nobody has been more angry than I have. Some of the argument that I and 
others have made is one of the reasons they are beginning to do some of 
the things we have asked them to do, like get rid of the lavish 
lifestyles, first-class air travel, and things of that nature.
  But let us keep in mind we ask these international organizations to 
do the lion's share for what we want in the other parts of the world. 
We asked them to do the lion's share in the former Soviet Union because 
we do not want to risk our money, so we ask them to. We ask them to 
help develop a lot of the markets--American markets for American 
goods--worldwide, whether it is Eximbank, World Bank, or whatever else. 
These are things we help them to do. We see them helping out in 
Tajikistan, Georgia, Armenia, Albania, Macedonia, and a number of other 
countries which we are not particularly interested in going into, 
particularly with the amount of moneys we want. In Africa, where we 
have one of our greatest potentials for a new market and where we send 
our least amount of aid in developing those markets, we have asked IDA 
to go in and do it for us. In fact they have commitments in Africa for 
over 3 years. Some think this is something we should not be doing. I 
feel we should. This is a huge continent, and we would like to see it 
stable, economically viable, and we would like to be able to work with 
them.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  The yeas and nays having been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--66

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--0

  So the amendment (No. 2112) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Sasser Provision

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to thank 
Senator Leahy for including a provision in the bill which will allow 
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC] to continue to 
provide much-needed support to the American export community this year.
  Section 573 of the reported bill allows the immediate transfer of $12 
million to OPIC from the Export-Import Bank, allowing OPIC to keep 
their lending programs active through the end of this fiscal year. It 
will also allow $1 million to be transferred to the Trade and 
Development Agency [TDA] to support their operations.
  We are able to make these resources available due to the fine work of 
Ken Brody and his staff at the Export-Import Bank. I am pleased to be 
able to report that this provision enjoys the support of the 
administration.
  The provision will also allow a degree of future flexibility to 
transfer resources among the various agencies which support U.S. 
exporters. This has been a goal of the Trade Promotion Coordinating 
Committee and fully in keeping with Congress' goal of providing 
vigorous support to U.S. exporters.
  Again, I would like to thank the chairman and Senator McConnell for 
including this provision in their mark. I would also like to thank 
their fine staffs--and officials of OPIC and Eximbank--for all their 
help in this matter.


                           Amendment No. 2111

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Vermont and 
the Chamber that the question occurs now on the Cochran amendment, No. 
2111.
  The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy].
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand what the Senator from 
Mississippi wishes to do. We have been trying, during some of these 
votes and other matters, to work out an area of agreement. I believe we 
do now agree.
  I have prepared language which I have shown to the Senator from 
Mississippi. I am wondering if he is willing to accept this language, 
or to modify his amendment with the language I have shown him? If he 
would, I will send that language to the desk.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have had a chance to look at the 
suggested language the managers have proffered and I am willing to 
accept that as an amendment to the amendment I had previously sent to 
the desk.
  So I appreciate very much the cooperation of the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Kentucky on this issue.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will send this language as a modification 
to the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. President, if I might clarify that, as the amendment of the 
Senator from Mississippi was a strike of the committee amendment, then 
I would offer mine as an amendment. I believe parliamentarily that is 
what we have to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment 
previously offered by the Senator from Mississippi will be withdrawn 
and the clerk will now report the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Vermont.
  Hearing no objection, that will be the order.
  The amendment (No. 2111) was withdrawn.


   Amendment No. 2113 to the Committee Amendment on Page 32, Line 12

(Purpose: To amend the committee amendment regarding FMF for Greece and 
                                Turkey)

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

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2113.

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

       On page 33, line 3, of the Committee reported bill, strike 
     ``Provided further, That'' and all that follows through 
     ``Charter'' on line 18, and insert: ``Provided further, That 
     any agreement for the sale or provision of any defense 
     article on the United States Munitions List (established 
     pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act) to 
     Turkey utilizing funds made available under this heading that 
     is entered into by the United States during fiscal year 1995 
     shall expressly state that the article will not be used in 
     violation of international law, and any grant of any excess 
     defense article under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     during fiscal year 1995 shall be subject to the same 
     condition: Provided further, That in any case in which a 
     report to the Congress is required under section 3(c)(2) of 
     the Arms Export Control Act regarding such a violation, such 
     report shall also be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall 
     submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations by 
     February 1, 1995, describing how United States assistance to 
     Greece is promoting respect for principles and obligations 
     under the United Nations sanctions against Serbia, the United 
     Nations Charter and the Helsinki Accords.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator from 
Mississippi how much we appreciate his effort with regard to Turkey. We 
do not have a better ally anywhere in the World than Turkey. I think 
the Senator from Mississippi was correct in concluding that some of the 
language in the bill might well have gone too far. I commend him for 
his leadership on this issue and I also thank the chairman for working 
with the Senator from Mississippi and working the matter out.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might, I wish to echo those words 
commending the Senator from Mississippi. I note that this is following 
initiative, trying to improve the bill.
  By parliamentary form I offered this amendment, but it was the 
initiative of the Senator from Mississippi that brought us forward and 
I commend him for his work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2113) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 objection, the committee 
amendment, as amended, is also agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished managers 
of the bill also for their cooperation on the issue. I appreciate their 
looking at the suggestion to delete this language and then agreeing to 
modify the language with this new amendment.
  I think this would certainly work to the advantage of all concerned, 
both Turkey and Greece, to whom the language applied. I appreciate, 
again, the good cooperation from the Senators.


            The First Committee Amendment on Page 2, Line 12

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on the first committee 
amendment on page 2, line 12 of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman, 
Senator Leahy, and Senator McConnell, the ranking member, for their 
work in attempting to put this bill together. This bill includes many 
areas. I do not agree with them all but indeed there are many things 
that are very positive in the foreign operations appropriation.
  Included in some of the things Senators Leahy and McConnell have 
done, they have advanced human rights around the world by some of the 
programs they have promoted and funded here. They have promoted 
democracy in Africa by supporting the Microenterprise Lending Program 
and ensuring that the amount and manner in which aid is delivered to 
Russia and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union is 
appropriate and has some controls.
  I here question the amount of aid we are going to distribute to 
Russia and the former Soviet Union, the republics. Nevertheless, it is 
done as well can do with so much diversity of opinion as to where the 
emphasis should be.
  Another program under which Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell have 
been leaders are the Child Survival Programs. With relatively small 
amounts of funds, these programs have been successful in addressing the 
tragedy that goes unreported every day; tens of thousands of children 
die every day from diseases which most Americans do not realize can 
even be fatal. Senator McConnell and I both offered amendments during 
the subcommittee markup to earmark funds for these particular programs.
  I am pleased the chairman accepted an amendment to earmark funds in 
the bill for child survival, basic education, and micronutrition 
programs. I strongly hope, Mr. President, this earmark will be retained 
in conference. I understand the House bill did not have earmarks, and 
the great constraints which the chairman faces in meeting the budget 
allocations for this bill. But clearly there are a few programs that 
are important, and this particular program of child survival is one of 
those programs.
  While we certainly cannot afford to fund all the programs, I believe 
we must do all we can to provide this modest but vital funding to these 
programs which literally meet the most basic needs of children. These 
programs are what I consider smart spending. They help end the downward 
spiral of poverty and needless death and malnutrition of children in 
the developing world. The Child Survival Programs are far less costly 
than allowing famines of catastrophic proportions to develop which 
require responses far more costly in lives and resources than support 
for these programs that are in this bill.
  I think what happened in Somalia is a perfect example of how much we 
put in to saving children there after the fact, how much more it cost 
than if we had a good child survival program in that part of the world.
  Certainly the death of 35,000 children everyday from preventable 
diseases is nothing short of catastrophic. Indeed, just think and dwell 
on 35,000 children who are alive today will die tomorrow. This program, 
Mr. President, makes a difference and we know it makes a difference.
  So, again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support 
and hope that they will keep this earmarked in the conference.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the pending business the Lautenberg 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, the Lautenberg 
amendment is pending.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment 
be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2114

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2114.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the section entitled ``Assistance for the New 
     Independent States of the Former Soviet Union,'' add the 
     following new subsection:
       ``Not less than $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be spent to support and expand the 
     hospital partnerships program conducted throughout the NIS.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the past year, a very worthwhile 
hospital partnership program has been established involving 21 
hospitals. For every dollar AID invests, the private sector invests 
three. This has proved to be a remarkable exchange program which has 
improved the quality of services, strengthened medical training and 
know-how and made basic equipment available the Russians could not 
afford. Nearly $24 million in time, equipment, and supplies have been 
contributed since the program began.
  There have been 1,138 exchanges since July 1992. So, obviously, AID 
wants to end the program because it is working. After considerable 
debate, AID has agreed to briefly continue the program. I might note 
that five of the nine partnerships in Russia are with hospitals with 
members on our subcommittee.
  I want to assure this important program continues and has the 
opportunity to expand. I understand there is an application pending 
from a Vermont hospital as well as one in Arkansas. Meaningful 
services, expertise and funds from the private sector are just the kind 
of programs we should be expanding.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to note that I certainly support the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky on this issue, and I appreciate his 
reference to Vermont. I know from our own experience in Vermont how 
helpful it is. I also know from the dedicated professionals in Vermont 
who have worked with this how valuable it is. So I certainly support 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.
  The amendment (No. 2114) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________