[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 2294

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Simon). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2294 offered by Mr. Bumpers. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the call.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is 
absent on official business.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Smith
     Stevens
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--38

     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Rockefeller
     Simpson
     Specter
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Boren
     Wallop
       
  So the amendment (No. 2294) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2297

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 2297 
offered by Mr. McConnell for Senator Dole.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a number of statements, and I ask 
unanimous consent that they be placed in the Record at the appropriate 
place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have Members on both sides of the aisle 
who are asking legitimate questions, of course, as we progress with the 
Dracula rule of legislation, voting at this hour. I know we have a 
number of amendments pending. A number of Senators have said they 
wanted rollcall votes. I am concerned at the numbers we are hearing 
about. We can go on for the next 2 or 3 hours, and vote all day 
tomorrow, and we would still be at this time tomorrow night voting. I 
understand some have flights at 6 or 7 tomorrow night that they would 
like to get.
  I suggest this. We have one amendment pending, and we are going to 
have others, and obviously a tabling motion is in order at any time. 
But we have tried--Senator McConnell and I--to make sure everybody has 
had a chance to be heard on whatever their amendments are. My guess is 
that the best way to proceed would be to have a number of amendments 
and vote on them tonight. A number of those are requiring rollcalls, 
and we will try to do it in as short a period of time as we can to get 
some of the rollcalls out of the way.
  Another possibility, I say to my colleagues and the distinguished 
ranking member, is that I think some of these amendments would compress 
if we knew that we had a time certain for completion of the bill. I 
know of nobody on either side who wants to stop this bill from 
eventually being voted on, either for or against it, but completed. So 
that even if we had that time, we could then work back from it. Tonight 
when we had two votes back-to-back, in the hour leading up to that, the 
Senator from Kentucky and I were able to dispose of 15 amendments. We 
had a time we knew that everybody was going to have to be voting. We 
got rid of 15 amendments during that time. These were amendments that, 
originally, people said would take some time. It is possible to move 
forward just as Members have by the 6 o'clock cutoff this evening for 
the admission of amendments. People have been cooperative on both sides 
of the aisle.
  I ask my friend from Kentucky, is there a possibility that we could 
have a time certain to finish this bill?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Vermont that we are discussing 
that matter.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, might I do this, because there are those 
seeking recognition so that nobody would be at a disadvantage. I am 
going to suggest the absence of a quorum so we can discuss this and 
hope that we can call it off within 5 or 6 minutes.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HELMS. How do you get the quorum call called off?
  Mr. LEAHY. I did not hear the request.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. HELMS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, first, I have a brief item. It has been 
agreed to on all sides. If we may have order in the Senate, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken. The Senate will be in 
order. The Senator from North Carolina is entitled to be heard.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2282

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe amendment number 2282 is at the 
desk, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself, 
     Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Mack, Mr. Brown, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lautenberg, 
     Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Hatch 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2284.

  Mr. HELMS. 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 in the Committee amendment, insert 
     the following:

     SEC.   . RESTRICTION ON U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICES U.S. OFFICIAL 
                   MEETINGS IN JERUSALEM.

       (1) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     may be obligated or expended to create in any part of 
     Jerusalem a new office of any department or agency of the 
     United States government for the purpose of conducting 
     official United States government business with the 
     Palestinian Authority over Gaza and Jericho or any successor 
     Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO 
     Declaration of Principles; and
       (2) No officer or employee of the United States government 
     and no agent or other individual acting on behalf of the 
     United States government shall meet in any part of Jerusalem 
     with any official of the Palestinian Authority over Gaza and 
     Jericho or any successor Palestinian Authority over Gaza and 
     Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing entity 
     provided for in the Israel-PLO Delcaration of Principles for 
     the purpose of conducting official United States government 
     business with such Palestinian Authority.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment--I have sent this amendment 
to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Moynihan, Senator Mack, 
Senator Brown, Senator Robb, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Bond, Senator 
Gorton, Senator Gramm, Senator Levin, and Senator Hatch.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken. Can we take the 
conversations off the floor, please?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senators are supposed to stand and address 
the Chair and not sit in their chairs. I have seen some sitting on both 
sides of the aisle while objecting and making statements. I hope 
Senators will abide by the rules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think the predominant view about 
Jerusalem is that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel. It 
is a unified city and it must remain a unified city.
  So, you can imagine my surprise when I heard that the Agency for 
International Development was considering opening an office in the 
eastern part of Jerusalem to funnel money directly to the Palestinians. 
The Israelis have agreed to give the Palestinians a measure of autonomy 
over Gaza and Jericho, not, I repeat, not Jerusalem.
  Allowing U.S. Government officials to conduct business in any part of 
Jerusalem with members of the Palestinian authority--aka the PLO--flies 
in the face of stated U.S. policy. Having a U.S. Government office in 
Jerusalem dedicated to the Palestinian authority is tantamount to 
having an embassy to a non-existent State. These are the kind of things 
that bolster the Palestinians' baseless claims to Jerusalem and bring 
the status of Jerusalem into question.
  First of all, Jerusalem is an issue to be decided years from now 
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is not to be decided by 
AID and the State Department. Second, it is the oft-expressed view of 
the United States Congress that united Jerusalem is the capital of the 
State of Israel.
  I understand that AID has backed off somewhat from its idea of a 
Jerusalem office. Frankly, I don't care. I am horrified they had such 
an idea in the first place. This amendment bars any funding to open in 
any part of Jerusalem any office of the U.S. Government dealing with 
the Palestinian governing authority. It also bars meetings between U.S. 
Government officials and agents and officials of the Palestinian 
authority in any part of Jerusalem.
  Mr. President, let me make this perfectly clear. This amendment will 
not stop the consulate in Jerusalem from talking to Palestinians or 
from conducting business with the Palestinian authority outside 
Jerusalem. It will stop AID or the State Department from opening or 
creating a de facto embassy to the Palestinians in Jerusalem.
  Mr. President, I understand that this amendment has been accepted by 
both sides. I am certain that my colleagues recognize that were I to 
have requested a roll call vote on this amendment, it would have had 
less than a handful of dissenters. This amendment has the support of 
the pro-Israel community and the Israeli Government. I ask that my 
distinguished colleagues on the Appropriations Committee keep that in 
mind when they go to conference.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment offered 
by Senators Helms and Moynihan and I rise to support it. The purpose of 
the amendment is to prevent United States officials from undermining 
the future status of Jerusalem. The amendment would prohibit official 
meetings in Jerusalem between United States officials and officials of 
the new Palestinian authority.
  For 19 years, between 1948 and 1967, the city of Jerusalem was 
divided. An ugly scar, filled with barbed wire, mines, and tank 
barriers, split the city in two. The western half was Israel's capital, 
the eastern half was occupied by Jordan.
  Throughout those 19 years, no Israeli or Jew was allowed to even 
visit the holiest site to the Jewish people--the Western Wall. The 
ancient Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's old city, including dozens of 
synagogues, was completely destroyed, and a hotel was built in the 
ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
  In the Six Day War of 1967, Jerusalem was reunited. Since then, 
Jerusalem has flourished as a united city open to all faiths. Since 
then the people of Israel have vowed that Jerusalem would forever 
remain the undivided capital of Israel.
  Mr. President, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat has repeatedly stated that 
his objective is a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital. In 
his infamous speech in Johannesburg he even called for a ``jihad'', 
holy war for Jerusalem. Whether such a Palestinian State would be a 
stepping stone toward an attempt to destroy Israel entirely is a matter 
for debate. What should not be debatable is that the United States must 
do nothing to encourage or support any attempt to redivide Jerusalem.
  If the Government of Israel wishes to change the status of Jerusalem 
in the context of a peace agreement that is certainly her right. 
Jerusalem will be a matter for negotiation between the parties. What is 
not acceptable is for the United States to Pressure Israel to make 
concessions on Jerusalem.
  The goals of freedom, peace, and justice are thwarted, not served, by 
any step that weakens the State of Israel in her lifelong struggle for 
existence. The willingness of the Arab world to accept Israeli 
sovereignty over Jerusalem, and to recognize Israel within secure 
borders, will be the ultimate test of their willingness to forever end 
their war against Israel's existence.
  The best way for the United States to promote a lasting, just, and 
secure peace is to support Israel's position that Jerusalem is and must 
remain the undivided capital of Israel. Unfortunately, current United 
States policy is to scrupulously refrain from supporting Israeli's 
position.
  It is wrong for the United States to pretend on official maps that 
Israel has no capital. It is wrong that the United States maintains its 
embassy in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. And it is wrong that the United 
States officials will not meet with Israel officials in their own 
offices in the eastern portion of Jerusalem.
  This amendment does not address these deficiencies in current U.S. 
policy. This amendment would, however, help ensure that the United 
States does not, deliberately or inadvertently, give weight to 
Palestinian claims on Jerusalem by holding official meetings with 
Palestinians in Jerusalem. It is a modest but important amendment, and 
I urge its adoption.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment 
being offered by the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee concerning Jerusalem. Four years ago, I introduced 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 which said that uncertainly about the 
status of Jerusalem was harmful to the peace process. It was adopted 
overwhelmingly by both Houses of Congress. Last fall, shortly after the 
signing of the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn, Prime 
Minister Rabin wrote: ``In 1990 Senator Moynihan sponsored Senate 
Resolution 106, which recognized Jerusalem as Israel's united Capital, 
never to be divided again, and called upon Israel and the Palestinians 
to undertake negotiations to resolve their differences. The resolution, 
which passed both houses of Congress * * * I believe, helped our 
neighbors reach the negotiating table.''
  The amendment which we are offering this evening attempts to support 
the peace process in the same way--by removing uncertainties and fears 
about Jerusalem which make it more difficult for the parties to move 
forward. The amendment makes two important statements. First, that the 
United States will not create a new office of Jerusalem for the purpose 
of conducting business with the newly created Palestinian authority for 
Gaza and Jericho. Second, that the United States will not participate 
in meetings in Jerusalem for the purpose of conducting business with 
the Palestinian authority.
  Simply put, there must be no uncertainly about U.S. conduct toward 
Jerusalem. For nearly two decades the city was divided. Israeli 
citizens of all faiths and Jews around the world were prohibited from 
having access to their holy sites. Now, for more than a quarter century 
Jerusalem has been united and the religious rights of all faiths have 
been respected.
  Our officials have labored mightily to assist in bringing about a 
permanent peace in the Middle East. I applaud them. And on the specific 
issue of Jerusalem, they have already stated publicly that they do not 
intend to open any new office in Jerusalem to deal with the Palestinian 
authority and that they will not conduct business with the Palestinian 
authority in Jerusalem.
  Despite these statements, however, there has been considerable 
uncertainty and concern on this issue. It must be put to rest and that 
is what this amendment does. It is not helpful to the peace process for 
there to be any legitimate question about whether our officials might 
take steps which create damaging precedents or lend any weight to 
Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. This amendment is intended to end that 
uncertainly.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  This amendment has been agreed to.
  I would have requested a rollcall vote, except that the managers of 
the bill said that they would take it, and that is satisfactory.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if we are going to stay here tonight, I 
would just as soon have a rollcall vote on this amendment. If we are 
going to go home, then I think we ought not to have a rollcall vote on 
it. But if we are going to stay here, I would like to have an 
opportunity to vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a request for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  The amendment (No. 2282) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 2254

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, beginning 40 years ago, in 1954, the 
taxpayers of America have been forced to provide tax funds to give away 
billions for foreign aid which has benefited dictators intend on 
damaging the national security of the United States. While the GAO and 
other Government auditing agencies can review American bilateral aid 
programs, the American taxpayers' money given every year to the United 
Nations for so-called voluntary programs is rarely ever monitored by 
anyone outside of Foggy Bottom. International bureaucrats at the U.N. 
have kept a tight lid on the fact that the American taxpayers are 
required to furnish the money to entrench some of the most brutal 
dictatorship in the world.
  For example, most Americans are aware that North Korea, Libya, Syria, 
Cuba, Iran, and Sudan are identified by the United States as terrorist 
nations. What many Americans do not know is that all of these countries 
are recipients of millions of dollars of U.S.-subsidized foreign aid 
from the United Nations.
  The State Department claims that U.S. law prohibits U.S. foreign aid 
from directly funding programs in terrorist nations. Well, that is the 
same excuse used by President Clinton to pour millions of dollars into 
the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, which subsidizes Red 
China's forced abortion programs. But the State Department refuses to 
consider that this money is fungible. Every penny that the United 
States gives to the U.N. frees up other resources which are then 
funneled through the U.N. to terrorist regimes.
  One of the lesser known United Nations agencies--but one of the most 
damaging to American national security--is the United Nations 
Development Programme. The UNDP as it is called, claims to be ``The 
world's largest multilateral program of grant technical cooperation.'' 
That is U.N.-gobbledy gook for a program which, in reality, has served 
as a pipeline from which American aid flows freely to some of the worst 
enemies of the United States.
  President Clinton has asked Congress to provide $121 million for UNDP 
for fiscal year 1995, once again making the United States UNDP's 
largest benefactor. It is time to tell the United Nations: ``Enough is 
enough.'' The pending amendment proposes to prohibit all U.S. funding 
for UNDP.

  Senators may find interesting some examples of how the American 
funding of UNDP works against the national security interests of our 
country. I am sure that most Americans, when they understand exactly 
who UNDP's clients are, will agree that every penny of their foreign 
aid is being wasted by the UNDP.
  For the past decade, UNDP has served to prop up the dictatorship in 
North Korea as it quietly developed nuclear weapons. With United States 
help, UNDP expects to spend more than $26 million between 1992 and 1996 
in North Korea, and part of this funding will be used to help North 
Korea install a sophisticated, underground fiber-optic communications 
system.
  Consider the following: Our State Department calls North Korea, ``one 
of the most repressive countries in the world,'' where in a most 
frightening, Orwellian manner, big brother Kim has encouraged children 
to spy and report on their own parents and siblings. Private telephones 
are virtually nonexistent and those few that are operative are 
monitored continuously. Clearly, North Korea's paranoid leadership does 
not intend to provide civilian access to a new fiber-optic system it 
cannot monitor effectively.
  In reality, the UNDP fiber-optic project is being used by North Korea 
to provide its aggressive military machine with secure, reliable 
communications. Insofar as North Korea's highly centralized military is 
dependent at the present time on obsolete wireless communications that 
are vulnerable to American interception and jamming, it makes 
absolutely no sense for the United States to subsidize North Korea's 
efforts to eliminate their communications achilles heel. It is 
outrageous that through the UNDP the American taxpayer is further 
jeopardizing the lives of 37,000 American troops stationed in South 
Korea by enhancing North Korea's already frightening war-fighting 
capabilities. Have we lost our minds?
  A second major UNDP program is designed to enhance energy efficiency 
in North Korea. Despite abundant coal reserves, North Korea continues 
to face chronic energy shortages and is extremely vulnerable to energy 
sanctions. Why? Because instead of investing in new coal-fired 
powerplants, North Korea has bankrupted its treasury to build a nuclear 
reactor designed to produce offensive atomic weapons, not electricity.
  But, thanks to the UNDP and its support for North Korea's energy 
sector, this madness can continue to divert scarce resources into 
nuclear weapons proliferation without worrying about any further 
degradation of North Korea's energy supply.
  Some other ways that UNDP is strengthening the stranglehold on North 
Korea? Well, the UNDP's ``Third Country Programme for the Democratic 
People's Republic of North Korea,'' dated November 21, 1991, stated 
that UNDP has proposed other programs to improve the quality of life 
for North Koreans.
  But, sad to say, North Korea is not an isolated example. Libya is 
slated to receive more than 40 million worth of technical assistance 
from UNDP between January 1993 and December 1996. In its justification, 
UNDP laments America and other countries' refusal to give foreign aid 
to Libya. Has the UNDP forgotten that it was Libyan terrorists--working 
directly from the orders of Colonel Qadhafi--who blew up Pan Am flight 
103, killing 270 innocent people? Surely no Senator needs to be 
reminded how brutal Libya's military regime can be.

  According to the State Department's ``Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices for 1993,'' horrifying acts of torture by the Libyan 
Government are commonplace:

       Methods of torture reportedly include: chaining to a wall 
     for hours, clubbing, electric shock, corkscrews in the back, 
     lemon juice in open wounds, breaking fingers and allowing the 
     joints to heal without medical care, suffocation using 
     plastic bags, deprivation of food and water, and beatings on 
     the soles of the feet.

  Yet, while Qadhafi continues to torture and murder innocent 
civilians, UNDP increases its aid program to Libya, which according to 
a March 1993 UNDP document, is designed to ``increase human resource 
development.''
  Not only does the U.S. foreign aid program help the UNDP operate in 
nearly every terrorist nation in the world--it continues to prop up the 
only Communist dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.
  UNDP plans to give Cuba nearly $11 million through 1996 in part to 
increase industrial production. And what does the UNDP believe are 
cause for the economic problems in Communist Cuba? According to a May 
13, 1991, UNDP document, ``Cuba has been seriously affected by a 
succession of climatic problems such as cyclone Kate.'' Well, I have 
got news for the United Nations: It is not the weather that is causing 
economic hardship in Cuba, it is Fidel and his dangerously confused 
policies. No amount of foreign aid will help Cuba as long as Castro 
remains in power.
  The United States is subsidizing UNDP projects that are 180 degrees 
opposite United States policy toward Cuba. According to a UNDP document 
from May 13, 1991, development of ``traditional exportable products, 
especially cane sugar, citrus fruits, minerals, tobacco, and marine 
products.'' So, American foreign aid is being used--indirectly, of 
course--to increase Cuban export while our own State Department is 
responsible for enforcing a trade embargo against Cuba.
  North Korea, Libya, and Cuba are only a few examples of the wasteful, 
misguided UNDP programs which work against American national security 
interests. UNDP also intends to give the Communist regime's in Vietnam 
and China more than $200 million over 4 years. UNDP hopes to give 
Syria--a terrorist training ground which the State Department has said: 
``torture and abuse remains widespread and systematic''--$20 million 
over the next 4 years.
  If the UNDP is so flush with money that has more than $440 million to 
hand out to some of the world's most despicable regimes--regimes that 
have actively worked to destabilize America and our allies--then it 
does not need U.S. help. The United Nations has defined the UNDP as a 
voluntary program--and America should volunteer not to participate.
  As I have already mentioned, included among the beneficiaries of the 
United Nations Development Program are these nations identified as 
terrorist nations by the United States State Department--Sudan, Libya, 
North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Cuba. China received $212.5 million; 
Vietnam has received $86.6 million; Sudan, $45.7 million; Libya, $40.4 
million; North Korea, $26.1 million; Syria $20.6 million; Iran, $11 
million; and Cuba, $10.9 million.
  For North Korea alone, there are $26 million in projects planned from 
now until 1996, 25 percent of which is for underground fiber optic 
communications to be used against the United States of America.
  This amendment proposes to cut off the funds for this organization 
unless and until the State Department can get its act together and stop 
throwing away money in that order.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, neither I, nor, I suspect, anybody in this 
body wants United States tax dollars to go in aid to North Korea, 
Libya, Syria, countries of that nature. But let us not assume that this 
amendment has anything whatsoever to do with our tax dollars going to 
such countries.
  Under the law today, our contributions to U.N. agencies that operate 
in countries like North Korea is fenced. In other words, if they have 
$100 to spend, they are getting $100 from us. But if they are spending 
$30 in North Korea, places like that, $30 of ours is held back. This is 
U.S. law now. A portion of the U.S. contribution is fenced in 
proportion to the amount the agencies spend in these countries. UNDP 
cannot spend it.
  But what UNDP can do, because of the American contribution, is it can 
have an American director. And, in fact, the UNDP has always had an 
American as its director.
  UNDP is designed to help those countries and those people in the 
greatest need. The way it does it, it bypasses the government. In some 
of these countries--it operates in countries like Africa--they have 
governments that are basically corrupt governments. It bypasses them 
and gets the money directly to the poorest of the poor.
  It gets it to those children who might be facing such things as river 
blindness. It gets it to the mother who needs nutrition while 
pregnant. It gets it to the elderly person who needs medicine. It gets 
it to the children who need schooling. And it gets it there because it 
has an American as its director, because we do contribute to it.

  It focuses on reducing poverty. It creates jobs. It cleans up 
pollution. It protects forests, improves agriculture, nutrition, basic 
education. It fights malaria and AIDS, builds low-cost housing, has 
drug education, prevention.
  This is money that goes directly to people and helps them. If the 
UNDP, being a voluntary organization, spends money in countries that 
are on a list that we do not approve of, then our contribution is 
fenced in direct proportion--in direct proportion, so American tax 
dollars do not go to North Korea or Burma or places like that.
  What I am concerned about is that, if we withdraw from this--and that 
is what this amendment would do--not only do we not have our American 
director there, but we are saying we are not going to give money to 
orphans. That is seriously what it comes down to. We are not going to 
give it to a child stricken with malaria. We are not going to give it 
to a poor pregnant woman who needs the nutrition. We are not going to 
give it to a handicapped parent, in some countries the poorest of the 
poor. And we are not going to have this ability to go and do an end run 
around corrupt government officials who steal the money.
  I share the sense of antipathy the Senator from North Carolina feels 
toward North Korea and Syria and Libya and countries like that. I 
stated this many times on the floor and I have worked very much to make 
sure that aid does not go to such countries. But I am afraid that we 
are going to be put in a position where poor children, poor people, the 
poorest of the poor, are not going to be helped. Nor are we going to 
have the input into helping them if we withdrew from this program.
  So I will oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment, No. 2254.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is 
absent on official business.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rockefeller). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--59

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Boren
     Wallop
       
  So the amendment (No. 2254) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. 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.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2275

    (Purpose: To increase the amount appropriated for international 
    narcotics control and to decrease the amounts appropriated for 
contribution to the Global Environmental Facility and for contribution 
             to the International Development Association)

  Mr. NICKLES. I call up amendment No. 2275 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself, Mr. 
     Brown, and Mr. D'Amato, proposes an amendment numbered 2275.

  Mr. NICKLES. 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 end of the pending committee amendment, add the 
     following: ``Provided further, the amount on page 3, line 6, 
     is deemed to read $50,000,000; provided further, the amount 
     on page 3, line 12, is deemed to read $1,097,000,000; 
     provided further, the amount on page 25, line 22, is deemed 
     to read $152,400,000.''

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, could we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
  There are a variety of conversations taking place in the Chamber, and 
the Chair will patiently wait until the Chamber is quiet.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the right to object.
  Mr. LEAHY. At least for the next 2 or 3 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a Senator can not reserve the right----
  Mr. LEAHY. I object.
  Mr. BYRD [continuing]. To object to calling off the quorum.
  Mr. LEAHY. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of 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 addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand from the distinguished ranking 
member that he has a list of amendments which he wishes to have 
withdrawn. I would ask to be able to yield to him for that purpose and 
for other purposes which he may have without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be withdrawn: Amendments numbered 2267, 2268, 
2271, 2285, and 2280.
  The amendments (Nos. 2267, 2268, 2271, 2285 and 2280) were withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw the 
amendments.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I further ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment, and call up amendment 2270, which has been cleared 
on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2270

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2270.

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 end of section entitled ``Assistance to the New 
     Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' add the 
     following new subsection:
       ``Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less 
     than 50 percent shall be made available for country specific 
     activities within bilateral, regional, or multilateral 
     programs, excepts as provided through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committee on Appropriations.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Kentucky.
  The amendment (No. 2270) 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 addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. And the Senator from 
Vermont retains the floor under the previous order.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have tried to go back and forth, not by 
order, but by simple comity with amendments, first on the Republican 
side, and then on the Democratic side, and then the Republican side, 
and so on. The last two or three were on the Republican side. We hope 
the next one might be on this side of the aisle.
  We tried to accommodate the distinguished Senator from North Carolina 
who had a series of amendments which did not follow the normal order, 
and put more on the Republican side.
  I also understand in conversations from the distinguished ranking 
member and the distinguished Republican leader that it may be possible 
to reach a time agreement for the remaining amendments, and a time 
certain for final passage.
  I ask my friend from Kentucky if that might be so.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. Obviously that is so. We have already given to my 
friend and colleague from Vermont the agreement that we are willing to 
reach, and it is being looked at on this side of the aisle. So it is a 
definite possibility to have a time certain for a final vote, and it is 
awaiting clearance on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. LEAHY. I might suggest--I see the Senator from Florida on the 
floor and the Senator from Oklahoma. They both have amendments.
  I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. Again I would suggest 
in doing so, that it probably will not last for more than 3 or 4 
minutes. It may save us, as these things often do, several hours.
  So with that, 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. 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.

                          ____________________