[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 92 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        CHANGE IN COSPONSORSHIP

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday Senator McCain sought to be 
added as a cosponsor to the Helms amendment No. 2257, to limit the 
provision of assistance to Nicaragua. He was inadvertently added to the 
Helms amendment No. 2258, to limit the authority to reduce U.S. 
Government debt to certain countries, and was not added to amendment 
No. 2257.
  I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the Record be corrected to 
withdraw Senator McCain's name from amendment No. 2258 and add his name 
as a cosponsor to amendment No. 2257, as intended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from New Mexico is to be 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. We have not completed yet, Mr. President. I will yield the 
remainder of my time on the pending Graham amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield the remainder of my time on the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back on the 
Graham amendment, the question occurs on amendment No. 2290, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2290), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from New Mexico is recognized 
for the purposes of offering an amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have? Is it 15 minutes on each side 
on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator could identify the number of 
the amendment he is propounding, the Chair will be happy to respond.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Amendment No. 2284.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from New Mexico 
it is 30 minutes, equally divided.


                    Amendment No. 2284, As Modified

(Purpose: To allow the President to use Russian aid funds in this bill 
        for the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and 
     Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 2284.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 20, line 13, delete the period, and add the 
     following new proviso:

     : Provided further, That the President may transfer such 
     funds allocated to the Russian Federation to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense and other agencies of 
     the United States Government for the purposes of cooperative 
     threat reduction and countering the proliferation of weapons 
     of mass destruction under the provisions of title XII of 
     Public Law 103-160 and section 575 of Public Law 103-87: 
     Provided further, That the amounts transferred shall be 
     available subject to the same terms and conditions as the 
     appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     the authority to make transfers pursuant to this provision is 
     in addition to any other transfer authority of the President: 
     Provided further, That the total amount of any transfer 
     authority utilized shall not exceed the amount transferred by 
     the Department of Defense to the Department of State and 
     their agencies under title VI of Public Law 103-87.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I could speak for 30 seconds on this 
amendment and just let the Senate decide, but I think I will go into 
more detail. But let me begin with the purpose of this amendment.
  This amendment permits the President of the United States--does not 
order him or force him, but permits him--to transfer money that we have 
in this bill for foreign aid to Russia or Ukraine, to transfer as much 
of that as he might think is necessary to carry out an American program 
of assisted dismantling of Russian and Ukrainian nuclear and chemical 
weapons systems.
  That is the essence of it. It is very simple: Do we want to let the 
President of the United States work with President Yeltsin to 
dismantle, jointly, nuclear and chemical weapons? This task clearly is 
the first order of business between our two great nations. Presidents 
Clinton and Bush, the Senate, the House, and everyone who has seriously 
looked at our relationship with the former Soviet Union states that 
this is our first order of business.
  Frankly, I cannot understand why the President of the United States 
would not welcome this authority. For some strange reason, another 
Senator is going to stand up shortly and say the President does not 
think we need this now.
  I think we needed it last year. I think we needed it last month. And 
I think we need it for all of fiscal 1995. We need to let the President 
of the United States use as much money as we are allocating and 
appropriating for aid to Russia for the dismantlement program which is 
finally reaching the point where it really needs some dollars to 
accomplish its mission.
  Having said that, I am positive that the objection to this amendment 
is going to be that the program has not been working very well. The 
opponents will ask, ``why do we want to put more money into the Nunn-
Lugar program?''
  The truth of the matter is we do not yet know if it is working well 
or not. We have not been able to spend money for one reason or another 
on this program, such that even though the Nunn-Lugar cumulative 
appropriation is about $1.2 billion. Some of the delay has to do with 
the way we have appropriated the money by putting strings on it and 
requiring that it come out of Defense readiness accounts.
  Another legitimate cause of delay has been the difficulty of reaching 
agreements on highly technical and sensitive subjects with the 
governments of Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. Some think it is 
malfeasance or negligence on the part of the Department of Defense. You 
will hear that argument, although Dr. Perry would dispute it. For all 
of these reasons, we have not been able to get the money into the 
field.
  In a moment I will seek consent to place in the Record a recent 
letter from Dr. Perry to Vice President Gore explaining the legitimate 
causes for the delay in getting the Nunn-Lugar program underway. Our 
Secretary of Defense, a genuine expert in most of these matters, says 
his people are ready to go, but they have run into a lot of stumbling 
blocks, not the least of which is that they attempted to transfer 
moneys within the Department in ways that Congress can not agree to.
  I am not suggesting that we not spend whatever money is in the 
pipeline from the Defense budget. I am merely saying this program 
tackles the most serious problem for Americans and for the world, that 
is, the dismantling in the most expeditious way with the cooperation of 
the Russians, most of their nuclear weapons. That is the most important 
function we can accomplish in our aid for Russia and Ukraine.
  And if the President needs any money from this Foreign Aid 
Subcommittee earmark for these countries, he should be able to do it. 
This is a very simple amendment. It says he may use it. That is all. It 
does not mandate it. It does not take it away from foreign aid, it sets 
priorities for foreign aid. It says if he needs it, he can use it up to 
this year's appropriated amount. I do not believe he is going to use it 
at this time.
  But, frankly, if I were in the President's shoes, I would welcome it 
because in 1\1/2\ years or so, I would like to be able to give a report 
to the Congress that this program is working and that every penny that 
was needed was made available and that we got on with the most serious 
of programs of assistance to the Soviet Union.
  I could go into the history of what happened to this money, but I 
would like to conclude for now by saying there is no doubt that a 
couple years ago, even more, 3 years ago, when the Nunn-Lugar threat 
reduction program came into existence, many people still thought the 
Defense Department was a milk cow. For anything that would come along, 
we would say, ``let us pay for it out of Defense.'' So we gave the 
Penatagon a function that I do not believe was purely a Defense 
Department function, the joint dismantling of nuclear and chemical 
weapons systems.
  There is nothing ironclad or written in stone that the Defense 
Department ought to do that. In fact, maybe the Department of Energy 
should have done that, as its national laboratories do for the Pentagon 
as subcontactors. That is where all the expertise is. Back in 1992-93, 
we used the fact that some thought that we had a lot of money in 
Defense to appropriate the first batch of money for Nunn-Lugar out of 
Defense. It was done with the full concurrence of Senator Nunn and 
Senator Lugar and I believe Senators Warner and Thurmond, who have been 
the ranking members of the Armed Services Committee.
  The truth of the matter is that back then no one anticipated Bosnia, 
Korea, Haiti, and continuing problems with Iraq. Frankly, the Defense 
Department should no longer be looked to implement more activities that 
are not directly related to the functioning of the military of the 
United States.
  Our Defense budget is no longer a big bank that we ought to rely on 
every time we turn around for some kind of nondefense function. That is 
the opinion of President Clinton and the senior House and Senate 
appropriators.
  In rebuttal, I will go into a few more details, but I would just say 
to the Senate now that I believe everybody here believes that we ought 
to dismantle the Soviet chemical and nuclear weapons as the number one 
priority between our Nation and Russia.
  Second, speaking only for myself, I have supported foreign aid for 
the former Soviet Union. I came down here to the Senate floor to help 
when Senator Nunn first brought the matter to our attention, and some 
people thought he was rushing things. I told this President that I 
would support his first package. I helped him with budget matters on 
it, and it was passed last September.
  But I do not believe we ought to hold back one bit on money needed 
for dismantling.
  I want to close by saying that I have the greatest respect for the 
chairman of this subcommittee and clearly for my friend and fellow 
Republican who is the ranking member. I am not sure where he is going 
to come down on this. But none of this is an aspersion on anybody or 
anybody's jurisdiction. It is just a bona fide concern by this Senator 
that we ought not in any way tie the hands of our President when he 
needs to put money into dismantling of nuclear weapons. We ought to 
loosen his hands and give him authority to use some of the foreign aid 
money if he so desires.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter from the 
Secretary of Defense to Vice President Gore, dated 14 May.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Secretary of Defense,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 1994.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In accordance with responsibilities 
     delegated to me by the President on January 29, 1994, I am 
     transmitting the Semi-Annual Report on Program Activities for 
     Facilitation of Weapons Destruction and Non-proliferation in 
     the Former Soviet Union. The enclosed report is submitted in 
     accordance with Section 1207 of the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act of FY 1994,'' Public Law No. 103-160, and 
     the ``Department of Defense Appropriations Act of FY 1994,'' 
     Public Law No. 103-139. The report covers activities from 
     October 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994, and cumulatively.
       Progress in the Cooperative Threat Reduction program during 
     this period has been significant. Congress has authorized 
     $1.2 billion for this program in FY 1992-FY 1994, although 
     $212 million of this authority has expired. From the 
     remaining $988 million, the report reflects an increase in 
     notifications to Congress of proposed obligations for 
     specific projects from $790 million at the end of FY 1993 to 
     $961 million as of March 31, 1994. Of these funds, $897 
     million has been committed in 38 international agreements 
     with the four eligible former Soviet Union (FSU) states of 
     Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine.
       Most importantly, the threat to the US from the arsenal of 
     weapons of mass destruction left from the FSU is being 
     reduced. Supported politically and materially by CTR 
     assistance, missiles containing nearly 600 nuclear warheads 
     from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have been deactivated, 
     dismantled, and/or shipped to Russia; comprehensive planning 
     has been initiated to dispose of the 40,000 tons of declared 
     chemical agents on Russian territory; improvements are being 
     made to enhance non-proliferation capabilities; and efforts 
     to convert weapons of mass destruction production 
     capabilities to peaceful uses have been initiated.
       Total FY 1994 obligations through March 1994 are $12 
     million, bringing total program obligations to $117 million. 
     This pace of obligations reflects the time lag inherent in 
     the CTR certification, negotiation and funding process. 
     Negotiations which began nearly two years ago, in many cases, 
     have just resulted in signed agreements during the past six 
     months. Moreover, nearly $522 million for programs which had 
     been initiated under signed international agreements in FY 
     1992 ($212 million) and FY 1993 ($310 million) could not be 
     obligated until Congressional notification and reprogramming 
     requirements were met.
       To ensure that the Department of Defense could meet the 
     commitments made under these authorities, $208 million for 
     programs initiated under the FY 1992 transfer authority were 
     re-notified as proposed obligations on February 16, 1994, 
     from the FY 1994 direct appropriation. Up to $310 million for 
     programs initiated under the FY 1993 transfer authority 
     remain on hold until Congressional approval of the FY 1993 
     Reprogramming request submitted March 17, 1994.
       Program implementation and actual obligations are expected 
     to pick up dramatically in the last half of this fiscal year. 
     Since the end of March, obligations have increased by $13 
     million to total $130 million.
       The Department of Defense continues to focus on the 
     objectives established by Congress in the legislation, 
     specifically: weapons destruction and dismantlement, safe and 
     secure transport and storage of nuclear weapons and 
     materials, non-proliferation, defense conversion and 
     demilitarization, and defense and military contact 
     activities. The report reflects advances in each of these 
     areas to reduce the threat of nuclear and other weapons of 
     mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. The report also 
     provides details of each project, describes the participation 
     of other departments and agencies in the implementation of 
     the program, and addresses events which have occurred since 
     the beginning of the fiscal year.
       An identical letter has been provided to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William J. Perry.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is $931 million in this bill for 
aid to Russia, Ukraine, and the other new States of the former Soviet 
Union. Another $2.5 billion was provided in this bill last year.
  Over 2 years, then, we have provided $3.4 billion from this 
subcommittee, most of which is going to Russia. I support this effort 
by Congress and the President to help America by helping Russia and 
Ukraine. I applaud the efforts of the managers, especially my friend 
from Kentucky, to reserve a greater percentage of the funds for Ukraine 
and other republics.
  But I want to make sure that the programs in Russia and Ukraine that 
are most critical to United States national security do not starve for 
funds while lower priority projects are awash with money.
  On Wednesday, the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Perry, came before the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to appeal for continuing support 
for our cooperative threat reduction program. That is also known as the 
Nunn-Lugar program.
  The Nunn-Lugar program is vital. It is our way of working with the 
new Russian and Ukrainian Governments toward our mutual objectives of 
reducing the threat from nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons left 
behind by when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
  Together with the much smaller partnership program funded by section 
575 of last year's foreign aid appropriations, this program is the best 
hope we have to prevent Soviet weapons of mass destruction from getting 
into the hands of rogue nations and terrorists.
  Mr. President, it has taken over 2 years to get the Russians to the 
point where they are convinced that this threat reduction program is in 
their own interest. There was a lot of suspicion about our motives.
  It has taken 2 years and more to negotiate the detailed agreements to 
begin safeguarding and destroying nuclear warheads and chemical weapons 
in Russia. Finally, the Nunn-Lugar program is ready to roll. 
Unfortunately it is broke.


                     history of nunn-lugar funding

  What happened? After all, Congress made available some $1.2 billion 
over the 1992 to 1994 period for the Nunn-Lugar threat reduction 
program. Only $50 million has been spent to date.
  Well, this is what happened. The first $800 million of those funds 
were not direct, new appropriations. They were transfer authority from 
other Defense Department funds. Two years ago, there was the perception 
that the Defense Department was a milk cow for foreign aid and domestic 
programs. In fact, last year, in this bill, we agreed to appropriate 
almost a billion dollars for defense, and then to transfer almost all 
of it to AID's program in Russian and Ukraine.
  Today, the President and most of us realize that we need every dollar 
of our defense funds to pay for a deteriorating defense structure that 
faces deployment in Haiti, Bosnia, and Korea--a structure that will 
have to call up the Reserves to fulfill its growing number of missions 
abroad.
  As a result of the financial squeeze on defense, the Defense 
appropriators have drawn the line. Last year, the transfer authority 
for the 1992 Nunn-Lugar $400 million was canceled. Only about $200 
million had been used for Nunn-Lugar, so the program lost half of its 
1992 funding. That is one of the things that happened.
  In the same Defense appropriations bill, last year, the appropriators 
put very strict conditions on the transfer of Nunn-Lugar funds under 
the 1993 authority. As a result, some $318 million in requests for 
essential Nunn-Lugar programs have been frozen since March 17, 1994, 
because there is no agreement among the relevant committees on where to 
find the money.

  Finally, a few weeks ago, the House passed a 1995 Defense 
appropriations bill that denied the President's request for a fourth 
annual installment of $400 million for the Nunn-Lugar program.
  I went through so much detail on the recent history of the Nunn-Lugar 
program to make the point that the Nunn-Lugar program is starved for 
funds. Of the $2 billion that has been made available or requested over 
the 4-year period, the total amount that has been spent or remains 
available for obligation is less than $700 million.


                        why this is needed now?

  We already have legal agreements to spend $1 billion to reduce the 
threat from excess nuclear and chemical stocks. Negotiations are 
approaching completion on the remaining $1 billion in Ukraine, Russia, 
and Belarus. But, we do not have the resources in the Defense budget to 
pay for these programs--unless we reduce readiness, pull back from the 
protection of Korea, or end participation in international 
peacekeeping.
  Mr. President, I do not know whether President Clinton wants to use 
the transfer authority I am proposing. If I were in his shoes, or those 
or Dr. Perry at the Pentagon, I would welcome this authority as a fall-
back.
  In 2 months there will be another summit meeting between President 
Clinton and President Yeltsin. The mutual security and proliferation 
issues that are covered by the Nunn-Lugar program will be on the top of 
their agenda. My amendment gives the President some flexibility to 
determine his own priorities in our program of assistance to Russia.
  In the interests of equity between the Defense Department and AID, I 
have modified my amendment to limit the President's transfer authority 
to the amounts transferred from the Defense Department to the Agency 
for International Development during the fiscal 1994.
  This amendment sets no precedents on transfers among different 
subcommittees. It is precisely modeled on the language shifting funds 
from the Defense Department last year. If the President uses this 
authority to fully fund the Nunn-Lugar program, it would follow the 
transfer of funds earlier this year to the State Department and AID.
  Let me summarize. My amendment gives the President the flexibility to 
transfer Russian AID funds in this bill--under the control of the 
Agency for International Development--to the Nunn-Lugar nuclear threat 
reduction program in the Department of Defense.
  This transfer authority is discretionary; the President does not have 
to use it, and probably will not, unless he is convinced that the Nunn-
Lugar program is in trouble because it is broke. The amount of any 
transfer would be limited to the $919 million transferred this year in 
the other direction--from the Pentagon to AID.
  I am asking the Senate to go on record that dismantlement of excess 
nuclear and all chemical weapons systems is the top priority in our 
Russian AID program.
  Those who disagree, those who consider AID high-price consultants and 
high school student exchanges to be the top priority should vote 
against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to my 
colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator yielding himself time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am yielding myself time in opposition.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may use.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I listened carefully to my friend from 
New Mexico. As he knows, I have consistently voted with him on a 
variety of different measures because of my concern that the defense 
budget was being raided. However, I cannot join him today.
  The defense budget is over $250 billion. The foreign operations 
budget is under $14 billion.
  I think it is also important to understand exactly what this 
amendment would give the President the discretion to do. This bill 
before us is not just about Russian aid. It is also about Ukraine. It 
is about Armenia. It is about Georgia. So this is bigger than just 
Russian aid, Mr. President. This is also about other countries of the 
New Independent States.
  There are many Americans whose roots originated in that area of the 
world who care deeply about this foreign aid bill.
  We used to think that the only domestic constituency for the foreign 
aid bill was the American Jewish community which cared a great deal, 
obviously, about Israel. But that has changed, Mr. President. There are 
a lot of Eastern Europeans, a lot of Americans who came from that part 
of the world who care keenly about this bill. This bill has a domestic 
constituency.
  So what my friend from New Mexico is saying is we ought to give the 
President the discretion to reach in and take this money earmarked by 
this bill for Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia away and give it in effect 
to a program which we have already allocated $1.2 billion to and has 
only been able to spend $36 million.
  Let me repeat. We have appropriated more than $1.2 billion in Nunn-
Lugar money with the concurrence and support of the Armed Services 
Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. They willingly 
supported giving up this money for this purpose. We have given them 
$1.2 billion. The people in charge of this program have only been able 
to spend $36 million, and the Senator from New Mexico says we need to 
give the authority to give them more, to give them more and take money 
away from Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia.
  In fact, I am told the Pentagon lost $200 million because of 
mismanagement of this program.
  Mr. President, why would we want to give more money to a program 
which nearly everyone agrees, at least to this point, has been very 
poorly run? Indeed, it is so poorly run that I think it makes the State 
Department and aid management look good, and that is pretty hard to do.
  But I rest my case by saying this Russian aid bill is not just about 
Russia. It is not just about Russia. It is about Ukraine. It is about 
Armenia. It is about Georgia. And the broader bill is about the Baltics 
and Eastern Europe. And there are a great many Americans who came from 
that section of the world who support this bill.
  So I understand what my friend from New Mexico is searching for here.
  He does not like these constant raids, if you will, on the Defense 
Department. I have voted with him, I suspect, on every single effort he 
and others may have made in this regard in the past. Maybe this 
particular effort has been around a long time. I have only known about 
it this morning, maybe yesterday at the staff level. Here we are, an 
hour and a half from voting on the bill, and we may be able to finish 
sooner.
  I hope the Senator from New Mexico will not insist on pushing this 
today. If he does, I hope it would not be approved. Maybe we ought to 
sit down and talk about it before taking such a dramatic departure from 
the way we are about to operate under this bill, a bill that a great 
many Americans care about. Even though it is called a foreign aid bill, 
there is a growing American constituency for this bill and particularly 
the way this current bill for next year is crafted.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will send my friends on the other side of the aisle a 
thesaurus.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, nobody has been--if I could have the Senator from New 
Mexico's attention--nobody has worked harder and been more responsible 
in trying to get a Russian aid package through than he has. The meeting 
Senator McConnell and I had with him and others, the Secretary of 
State, dealing with the President and everybody else to get this 
through. I appreciate that and it means a great deal to me.
  I concur in the desire. In fact, I cannot imagine any Member of the 
Senate, Republican or Democrat, who does not want to get rid of 
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. 
There are few things that might unite all 100 Senators, but that one 
certainly does.
  But we have appropriated $988 million in so-called Nunn-Lugar money 
since 1992. Only $40 million of that has been expended. Four percent, 
slightly over 4 percent, of the money appropriated has been expended. 
The rest, the 95 to 96 percent of the funds, are sitting there waiting 
to be expended.
  And as the Senator from Kentucky pointed out, we have in this foreign 
aid bill a very small amount of money with demands that greatly exceed 
the amount that is already there.
  We have heard debate for the past several days about a lot of places 
around the world where America's vital interests--economic interests, 
security interests, and humanitarian interests--are not being met 
because we do not have the funds to do it.
  To take more money out and to put it into an account that already has 
substantial amounts of money is, I believe, shortsighted. It means that 
we will not have money to go into programs that will help create 
exports in the United States, will help create jobs here in the United 
States, and our export market will not have money to help corporations 
that want to invest in the former Soviet Union. We will not have money 
for humanitarian programs that most of us here support.
  So I hope that we would not transfer such scarce amounts of money. In 
fact, this would allow the entire $840 million in this bill for the New 
Independent States in the former U.S.S.R. to be transferred to the 
Defense Department. I would hate to think that we are going to tell not 
only Russia but Ukraine and Georgia, Latvia, Estonia, and all these 
other places we may want to help, that, ``Sorry, the money is gone, 
basically, to our Defense Department.''
  We will have funds for this need. I will work with the Senator from 
New Mexico and any other Senator to make sure we always have adequate 
amounts of money to help in the cleaning up of nuclear and chemical 
weapons in Russia. It only makes good security sense for us. But this 
is robbing Peter to pay Paul. And the worst part about robbing Peter to 
pay Paul is Paul has a pretty fat wallet to begin with.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes and twenty seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have the right to modify my amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thought the yeas and nays had been ordered.
  Mr. President, reserving the right to object, because the amendment 
is under the unanimous-consent agreement and I do not want to object.
  Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time 
not to run against either side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me tell the Senator what it is. Maybe neither of 
you will object. All this is on my time.
  My good friend from Kentucky said that there are other countries 
affected besides Russia and that they will be concerned. This 
modification merely limits the transfer authority to funds that are 
allocated to Russia. Funds allocated to Russia from this heading in the 
bill are all that the President would have flexible authority over. I 
think that is a fair amendment. It responds to a concern he had and I 
offer it hoping that the managers would accept it.
  I ask unanimous consent that my modification be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2284), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 20, line 13, delete the period, and add the 
     following new proviso:
        ``: Provided further, That the President may transfer such 
     funds allocated to the Russian Federation to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense and other agencies of 
     the United States Government for the purposes of cooperative 
     threat reduction and countering the proliferation of weapons 
     of mass destruction under the provisions of title XII of 
     Public Law 103-160 and Section 575 of Public Law 103-87: 
     Provided further, That the amounts transferred shall be 
     available subject to the same terms and conditions as the 
     appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     the authority to make transfers pursuant to this provision is 
     in addition to any other transfer authority of the President: 
     Provided further, that the total amount of any transfer 
     authority utilized shall not exceed the amount transferred by 
     the Department of Defense to the Department of State and 
     other agencies under Title VI of Public Law 103-87.''

  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this makes it even worse, because the 
amount of money available to Russia is extremely limited. These are the 
amounts of money we use to help our export industry, our educational 
groups, and others that are trying to work with Russia.
  Basically, what we have said is we could just take all of that money 
away immediately and put it into a huge fund otherwise designated. If 
anything, it heightens my opposition. I would note, incidentally, the 
State Department also opposes this.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would take note of the $2.6 billion 
heretofore appropriated for Russian aid and the New Independent States 
last September. Less than half of that $2.6 billion has been put under 
contract. None of it is now available for dismantlement of chemical or 
nuclear weapons systems.
  I remind the Senate that the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico 
does not spend any Russian aid money. I am giving the President 
authority, the flexibility he seeks in his foreign aid authorization, 
in the events there are insufficient funds to carry on a program of 
dismantling nuclear and chemical weapons. He can use some or all of the 
funds that are going to Russia for this purpose.
  Now I believe that is a fair statement of the amendment. I do not 
think it is a very profound situation in terms of understanding. It is 
very, very simple. I believe the Senators ought to decide whether they 
want to give our President this kind of flexibility.
  Frankly, this is what the administration is saying in its circular to 
the floor. It says:

       This authority is ``not now necessary'' since the 
     cooperative threat reduction program is now getting its 
     program implementation underway.
  It then says, ``It is possible that at some time in the future the 
President could want to transfer funds from either Nunn-Lugar to 
Freedom Support, or vice versa, as allowed by the Domenici amendment.''
  Frankly, we are appropriating clear through September 30, 1995--that 
is the future. Why we would not just give President Clinton this 
flexibility with the full knowledge that, in fact, if things are going 
well, he will not use it, but if things are not going well and it is 
needed, that he would use some of it? I believe the Senate ought to 
make a decision on this. But I would like to talk with the managers 
about whether a rollcall vote is needed, so I yield the floor and 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time 
to run equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time is divided 
equally. 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 am prepared to yield back time in 
opposition, and I do so yield it back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask consent Senator Helms be added as 
a cosponsor and that it be left open for additional cosponsors who 
might want to join.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from New Mexico yielding back 
the remainder of his time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield it right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question now occurs on amendment No. 2284, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I wish to inquire from the managers of the 
bill what amendment will be considered after this amendment is disposed 
of?
  Mr. LEAHY. Under the unanimous consent agreement which allowed the 
Senator from New Mexico to come in with his, it reverts to the Senator 
from Florida, who has one amendment with 20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. HELMS. Would you repeat the time involved?
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Florida has one amendment remaining with 
20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. HELMS. Then after that, is there----
  Mr. LEAHY. I tell the Senator from North Carolina what we have been 
trying to do is go back and forth and go back to this side. The Senator 
may be the only person with an amendment left.
  Mr. HELMS. Just to be safe, will the Senator include me in the 
unanimous consent following the Senator from Florida?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course. I ask unanimous consent following the 
disposition of the Graham amendment it then be in order to recognize 
the Senator from North Carolina for his amendment, under the previously 
agreed-to unanimous-consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous-consent 
agreement, as modified, is agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.


                vote on amendment no. 2284, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 2284, 
as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the 
Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] and the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Campbell], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] 
and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] are necessarily absent.
  I also 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. Pryor). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--38

     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boren
     Bradley
     Campbell
     Coverdell
     Lott
     Wallop
  So the amendment (No. 2284), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent 
agreement, the Senator from Florida would be next recognized.
  With the Senator from Florida in the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent 
that I now be recognized to move to withdraw amendment No. 2291, the 
amendment by the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. What is the amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I now ask to withdraw amendment No. 2291, 
the Graham amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2291) was withdrawn.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida, again, as 
I said earlier, one of the leading experts on counternarcotics in this 
body, for his efforts in working this out. Also, I give him the thanks 
of colleagues who are watching the clock and were concerned about 
going, and that has made it possible to move forward.
  Now, Mr. President, as I had indicated before, the floor should 
revert to the Senator from North Carolina, and I yield the floor so he 
can obtain it in his own right.


                           Amendment No. 2256

  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have two amendments--one of which has been accepted 
by the managers and the other I think they are willing to accept, but I 
desire a rollcall vote on that one. I call up amendment No. 2256, and I 
ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Senate, the clerk 
will now report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2256.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator, that is the 
chemical and biological weapons amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk. Since the yeas 
and nays have not been obtained, that would be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The modification is as follows:
       At the end of the first committee amendment add the 
     following:

     SEC.   . RUSSIAN CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act may be made available for Russia (other than 
     humanitarian assistance) unless the President has certified 
     annually to the Congress in advance of the obligation or 
     expenditure of such funds that Russia has demonstrated a 
     commitment to comply with the Convention on the Prohibition 
     of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of 
     Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and, upon 
     Russian ratification and entry into force, the Convention on 
     the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling 
     and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, and the 
     Wyoming ``Memorandum of Understanding Regarding a Bilateral 
     Verification Experiment and Data Exchange Related to 
     Prohibition of Chemical Weapons'' (including the disclosure 
     of the existence of its binary chemical weapons activities).

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment prohibits the provision of 
certain categories of foreign aid to Russia unless the President 
certifies that: First, Russia has demonstrated a commitment to comply 
with the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; and second, that Russia 
has disclosed the existence of its binary chemical weapons program.
  The amendment will not affect humanitarian aid, or assistance under 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act--also known as Nunn-Lugar funds--
which provide for the dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction.
  The Foreign Relations Committee is currently considering the Chemical 
Weapons Convention [CWC], which is supposed to ban chemical weapons 
from the face of the earth. But, the committee shouldn't approve, and 
Senate should not ratify the CWC until two things happen: First, Russia 
complies with the Biological Weapons Convention, which they signed 24 
years ago; and second, Russia comes clean about their binary chemical 
weapons program. Mr. President, that is exactly what this amendment 
aims to accomplish.
  At a June 23 Foreign Relations Committee hearing, CIA Director James 
Woolsey expressed deep concern regarding the nature of Russia's 
chemical weapons program. While the United States is in the process of 
destroying virtually all of its chemical weapons, highly credible 
reports indicate that Russia may actually be developing new, more 
sophisticated binary chemical weapons. These are reports that the CIA 
Director and the intelligence community take very seriously. But that 
concern is not being heard at the White House and the State Department.
  And, guess what, Mr. President? It appears that the Russians are 
lying to the United States about the existence of these weapons. 
Director Woolsey went on to tell the committee that he has ``serious 
concerns over apparent incompleteness, inconsistency and contradictory 
aspects of the data'' Russia has provided to the United States on their 
chemical weapons program, as they agreed to do in various agreements 
with the United States. That's a diplomatic way of saying that he 
thinks the Russians may be covering up something.
  Director Woolsey also told the committee that, and I quote, ``we do 
not have high confidence in our ability to detect noncompliance'' with 
the Chemical Weapons Convention. In other words, the United States 
cannot verify that Russia will destroy their weapons and not develop 
new chemical weapons in accordance with the Chemical Weapons 
Convention.
  The fact that the former Soviet Union may be cheating on an arms 
control treaty shouldn't surprise anyone. I have repeatedly asked 
Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and other administration 
officials if the former Soviet Union--now Russia--is in compliance with 
the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. They have admitted candidly 
that Russia is not in compliance.
  For more than a year, highly credible Russian authorities have 
accused the Russian military of pursuing a vigorous chemical weapons 
program. The most damaging revelations come from Vil Mirzayanov, a 
former high-ranking official at the Soviet State Scientific Research 
Institute for Organic Chemistry. This individual had 26 years of 
experience in the research of chemical weapons for the Soviet Union. He 
is intimately acquainted with the negotiations of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention.
  He alleges that Russia intends to test and produce binary chemical 
weapons after ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I asked 
administration officials whether these allegations were true, and they 
have told me on several occasions that they take these allegations very 
seriously. And in classified briefings they have told me why they take 
these allegations so seriously. Now, I cannot reveal what these 
officials said, but I can say that the information is sufficiently 
disturbing to merit more attention than it has received to date.
  It's important, in my judgment, that Senators understand fully what's 
at stake. First, it is believed that Russia has invented sophisticated 
and very potent binary chemical weapons. Mr. President, binary chemical 
weapons are made of two harmless chemicals which are lethal when 
combined. Alone, these harmless chemicals are commonly used in the 
agricultural and manufacturing industries and are therefore not listed 
by the Chemical Weapons Convention as a prohibited toxin.
  Second, it is believed that Russia has already produced 15,000 tons 
of one such binary agent known as ``substance 33.'' But, Russia hasn't 
disclosed any binary chemical weapons, as they were required to do. 
They have disclosed only 40,000 tons in stockpiles of more common types 
of chemical weapons.
  Finally, I take very seriously the allegations that Russia may be 
using United States foreign aid to destroy old chemical weapons 
stockpiles on the one hand while developing new weapons on the other. I 
hope sincerely that U.S. foreign aid is not being siphoned off to pay 
for the development of new chemical weapons.
  Mr. President, this amendment is necessary because of the 
possibility--perhaps the probability--that Russia has developed and 
produced deadly binary chemical weapons after it signed the 
Chemical Weapons Convention in January 1993. I reiterate, Mr. 
President, that during this same period of time, the United States has 
been destroying its chemical weapons stockpiles. The United States is 
not developing new chemical weapons.

  Some Senators may worry about the affect this amendment could have on 
President Yeltsin. I understand that concern. I like President Yeltsin. 
I have met with him every time he has visited Washington. I want to do 
everything I can to help President Yeltsin achieve a genuine democracy 
in Russia, and, in my judgment, this amendment will help.
  I would not be surprised if President Yeltsin would secretly welcome 
this amendment. I do not think he's the problem. The problem lies, in 
my judgment, with the Russian military, the intelligence services and 
the old chemical weapons bureaucracy. They ignore too often responsible 
Russian leaders as well as their treaty commitments. This amendment 
could serve as a wake-up call to these rogue elements to get with the 
democratic program and start living up to treaty obligations.
  To conclude, Mr. President, the amendment is in the same spirit as 
section 502 of the Freedom Support Act, or the Russia aid bill. Section 
502 allows nonproliferation and disarmament assistance only to 
countries that are complying with treaty obligations to destroy weapons 
of mass destruction, and are forgoing any military modernization 
programs that exceed legitimate defense requirements.
  If Russia is not complying with the Biological Weapons Convention, 
and if they are developing sophisticated binary chemical weapons while 
the United States is destroying its stockpiles, why should Russia be 
trusted to live up to commitments made when they signed the Chemical 
Weapons Convention? The Senate deserves to be told whether Russia is 
complying with arms control commitments before consideration of the 
Chemical Weapons Convention. Clearly, United States foreign aid should 
be used to encourage Russia to live up to those commitments, and that 
is what this amendment intends to achieve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section 502 of the 
Freedom Support Act be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY.

       Funds may be obligated for a fiscal year for assistance or 
     other programs or activities for an independent state of the 
     former Soviet Union under sections 503 and 504 only if the 
     President has certified to the Congress, during that fiscal 
     year, that such independent state is committed to--
       (1) making a substantial investment of its resources for 
     dismantling or destroying such weapons of mass destruction, 
     if that independent state has an obligation under a treaty or 
     other agreement to destroy or dismantle any such weapons;
       (2) forgoing any military modernization program that 
     exceeds legitimate defense requirements and forgoing the 
     replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction;
       (3) forgoing any use in new nuclear weapons of fissionable 
     or other components of destroyed nuclear weapons; and
       (4) facilitating United States verification of any weapons 
     destruction carried out under section 503(a) or 504(a) of 
     this Act or section 212 of the Soviet Nuclear Threat 
     Reduction Act of 1991 (title II of Public Law 102-228; 22 
     U.S.C. 2551 note).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Carolina yield 
back his time?
  Mr. HELMS. I certainly do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has yielded 
back his time on the amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. On this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back any time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, all time being 
yielded back, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2256 offered 
by the Senator from North Carolina.
  So the amendment (No. 2256), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. 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.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, would the Chair advise me of the amendment 
number on the Colombia narcotics certification amendment that I have at 
the desk?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might, I believe it is 2281.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is correct. The 
amendment is 2281.


                           Amendment No. 2281

(Purpose: To limit assistance to the Government of Colombia unless the 
 President certifies that it is fully cooperating in counternarcotics 
                                efforts)

  Mr. HELMS. I call up that amendment, and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2281.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the first Committee amendment, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF 
                   COLOMBIA.

       (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended for the Government of Colombia 
     unless the President determines and certifies that the 
     Government of Colombia is taking actions to--
       (1) fully investigate accusations of corruption by the 
     narcotics cartels involving senior officials of the 
     Government of Colombia;
       (2) implement the legal and law enforcement steps necessary 
     to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, bribery and 
     other forms of public corruption;
       (3) reduce illicit drug production to the maximum extent 
     which were determined to be achievable during the fiscal 
     year;
       (4) significantly disrupt the operations of the narcotics 
     cartels; and
       (5) investigate all cases in which any senior Colombian 
     official is accused or implicated in engaging in, 
     encouraging, or facilitating the illicit production or 
     distribution of narcotic and psychotropic drugs to other 
     controlled substances.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to state to the Senator 
from North Carolina that there is 30 minutes, equally divided, on this 
particular amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. That is correct. I assure the Chair that I will not use my 
half of that unless I surprise myself.
  Let me give you a statement, Mr. President, made back in April by the 
President of the United States: ``Colombia is the world's leading 
supplier of cocaine hydrochloride to international markets.''
  President Clinton said those exact words back in April when he 
certified that Colombia was fully cooperating with the United States in 
counternarcotics programs. Bear in mind, Mr. President, that the 
Colombian drug cartels control 80 percent of the world's cocaine trade, 
and most of that, I am sad to say, is destined for the United States.
  Unfortunately, after the President's certification back in April, the 
news from Colombia has seriously worsened in terms of whether the 
Colombian Government is doing anything to stem the flow of cocaine into 
the United States. There are credible and disturbing accusations that 
the President-elect of Colombia, Ernesto Samper, received large 
campaign contributions from the Cali Cartel. To make it clear how big 
this cartel is, let us describe it as the world's 800-pound guerrilla 
in cocaine trafficking. They do most of the cocaine trafficking in this 
world.
  I have become accustomed down through the years to our State 
Department dismissing any criticism of foreign heads of state. But, in 
this instance, the State Department has not attempted to deny or 
downplay the charges against the Government of Colombia. Instead, our 
State Department says that they are investigating the accusations.
  In a June hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the 
Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters, 
Ambassador Bob Gelbard, did nothing whatsoever to avoid or deflect 
questions about President-elect Samper's having received campaign funds 
from the drug cartel.
  In fact, when Ambassador Gelbard testified before the House 
committee, he was asked about the amount of campaign funds that the 
candidate for President--who is now the President-elect of Colombia--
received. How much did the candidate receive from the cocaine cartel in 
Colombia? Ambassador Gelbard told the House committee that the figure 
was in excess of $4 million--a pretty hefty day's work for a 
presidential candidate receiving campaign funds.
  Mr. President, the State Department is very wisely taking these 
allegations seriously. Colombia's President-elect, Mr. Samper, has been 
fingered by the Cali Cartel leaders themselves. This is almost like a 
Max Sennett ``bump them in the hallway'' comedy.
  They discussed in detail in several telephone conversations among 
themselves about their having provided money to the Samper campaign. In 
one case, a Cali leader spoke boastfully of his having given $4 million 
to Samper with the expectation that the then-Presidential candidate--
and now the President-elect--will, of course, respond with favors to 
the drug cartel.
  I expect it takes a minimum of logic to understand that anybody who 
takes $4 million from one crowd in a political campaign is going to be 
obliged to do whatever he can to be helpful to the contributor.
  In any case, a senior U.S. official told the Associated Press that 
the tapes were part of a ``long chain of highly credible reports'' 
connecting the Cali cartel and the Samper campaign.
  Another piece of evidence, according to the Miami Herald, comes from 
the firsthand experience of an informant trusted by the U.S. Drug 
Enforcement Administration. The confidential informant claims to have 
arranged a meeting in 1990 between Samper and two Cali leaders in which 
Samper was given some $800,000 in cash. I am beginning to wonder, Mr. 
President, what that candidate is doing with or has done with all the 
money he has collected.
  The accusations against the President-elect of Colombia alone are 
serious enough to make imperative the Senate's approval of the pending 
amendment. But these revelations come on top of other bad news from 
Colombia, including rampant evidence of drug corruption in the 
Colombian Congress. The situation is so bad that Colombia has been 
described as a ``narco-democracy''. I will tell you where that 
description originated. It originated with a distinguished Member of 
the U.S. Senate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Senator Kerry did 
an op-ed piece for the Washington Post back in April in which the 
Senator from Massachusetts wrote, let me quote it:

       Recently, a former employee of the cocaine cartel described 
     Colombia to me as a ``narco-democracy.'' ``The drug 
     traffickers,'' he said, ``do not own everyone in the 
     Colombian legislature or law enforcement. But,'' he 
     explained, ``they do control just enough people in each 
     organization to get Cali's job done.''

  Cali, of course, is the drug cartel, Mr. President.

       ``We have the illusion of a democracy,'' he told me, ``but 
     the super-cartel controls it.''

  That former ``cartel employee'' was presumably credible enough to be 
quoted by the Senator from Massachusetts. But what was not known then 
is that the Cali cartel is aiming not only to exert influence in the 
Colombian Congress, but is seeking to control the presidency as well.
  The accusations against President-elect Samper come on the heels of a 
year in which: The Colombian constitutional court declared it legal to 
possess and use drugs; the Colombian official responsible for 
prosecuting drug traffickers advocated drug legalization; this same 
official, after cutting a deal with one of the most notorious and 
bloody traffickers, attempted to cut plea bargains with some 200 other 
drug traffickers; and the United States suspended its evidence-sharing 
arrangement with Colombia, both as an expression of our disapproval of 
the plea bargains and because the United States could not assure 
protection for informants who provide the necessary information to 
indict and convict these international criminals.
  Mr. President, a senior U.S. official was quoted the other day as 
saying: ``The drug war in Colombia is in very, very sad shape. It's 
probably never been worse. The [drug] kingpins are not being attacked, 
and their power is only increasing with nothing to stop it.'' Mr. 
President, this official has accurately characterized the situation.
  Mr. President, the Foreign Assistance Act currently contains a 
certification process which requires the President to determine and 
certify that countries which are deemed to be major drug producers or 
transhipment points must be fully cooperating in order to receive U.S. 
assistance. This certification process is an important instrument in 
ensuring continued cooperation.

  However, given the seriousness of the accusations against the 
President-elect of Colombia, a heightened review process must be in 
place before we release $1 of United States taxpayers' money to that 
country. In this instance, the existing statutory standard is 
inadequate in my judgment.
  Let me summarize the rest of my remarks, in the interest of time, 
because I know Senators want to depart Washington this afternoon. The 
pending amendment is very, very simple. It prohibits the expenditure of 
funds to the Government of Colombia, until such time as the President 
of the United States determines and certifies that the Colombian 
Government is investigating the corruption charges against senior 
officials and is continuing:
  To cooperate fully in counternarcotics efforts,
  To eliminate bribery and other forms of public corruption,
  To reduce illicit drug production, and
  To disrupt significantly the illegal and immoral operations the drug 
cartel.
  The amendment does not say that these conditions have to be fully 
implemented, because that would be a virtual impossibility to do. It 
does say that the Government of Colombia must be doing something about 
the narcotics problem and the corruption associated with it, if it is 
going to receive the largess of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles referred to 
in my remarks be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Scandal Taints Colombia's new Leader--U.S. Says Cartel Gave Millions to 
                                Campaign

               [By Christopher Marquis and Gerardo Reyes]

       Washington.--The Clinton administration has independently 
     confirmed stunning allegations that Colombia's president-
     elect, Ernesto Samper, received millions of dollars in 
     campaign donations from Cali Cartel cocaine traffickers, top 
     U.S. officials said Wednesday.
       Robert Gelbard, director of the State Department's Office 
     of International Narcotics Matters, in fact confronted Samper 
     eight months ago with the U.S. intelligence that he had 
     received millions of dollars from the cartel, the officials 
     added.
       A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration informer meanwhile 
     made a separate allegation against Samper, charging that he 
     personally took cash from Cali Cartel members in 1990 in 
     exchange for a vow to make it easier for traffickers to avoid 
     U.S. extradition orders.
       In a statement released Wednesday in Bogota, officials of 
     the campaign that carried Samper to electoral victory Sunday 
     said ``categorically that the treasury did not take in any 
     resources of dubious origin.''
       Drug trafficking was barely mentioned in the electoral 
     campaign, although Colombia controls about 80 percent of the 
     cocaine reaching the United States.
       But Tuesday night, television newscasts in Bogota began 
     broadcasting tape recordings of conversations reportedly 
     involving two of the Cali Cartel's top leaders indicating 
     that they gave Samper's campaign $3.7 million. The recordings 
     were made public by defeated challenger Andres Pastrana, who 
     said he was handed the tape by an unidentified person a week 
     earlier during a campaign visit to Cali.
       ``It's true, all of it,'' a top U.S. official said when 
     asked about the charges in Bogota, which have stirred a 
     scandal, cast a pall over Samper's narrow victory and further 
     strained relations between Bogota and Washington.
       The charges, which could ultimately undermine the 
     cornerstone of U.S. anti-narcotics efforts in Latin America, 
     were presented as fact by CIA officials in a briefing to 
     Congress last week, said one Congressional source who 
     attended the briefing.
       The CIA reported that ``[Samper] not only received the 
     money, he solicited it,'' the source added.
       It was not clear whether the U.S. evidence against Samper 
     refers to the same event related to The Herald by a Colombian 
     citizen described by DEA officials as a highly trusted 
     informant who once worked for the Cali Cartel.
       The informant, who asked to be identified only as Maria, 
     claimed that she arranged a 1990 meeting at Samper's request 
     between him and two Cali Cartel leaders--Miguel Rodriguez 
     Orejuela and Jose Santacruz Londono--in which Samper received 
     six briefcases containing $800,000 in cash.
       ``In exchange for the money they give me for the campaign, 
     I promise that . . . I will see to it that my people in 
     Congress defeat the extradition treaty,''' Maria said Samper 
     told her.
       Samper, a lawyer and economist, lost the 1990 campaign for 
     the Liberal Party's presidential nomination to President 
     Cesar Gaviria, but he immediately began collecting money for 
     the 1994 campaign. In 1990, Congress weakened a law that 
     would have made it easier for the Colombian government to 
     extradite wanted drug traffickers to the United States.
       Spokesmen for the Samper campaign flatly denied the DEA 
     informant's charges.
       ``If any campaign has concerned itself in an exemplary 
     manner with checking and watching over the origin of the 
     money that reached our national treasury, it was our 
     campaign,'' Samper said Monday.
       It was not the first time Samper has been involved in 
     controversy over politics and drug money.
       In 1983, Colombian news reports quoted a top boss of the 
     Medellin Cartel, Carlos Lehder, as saying that he and cartel 
     leader Pablo Escobar had met Samper while he was in charge of 
     the victorious election campaign of President Alfonso Lopez 
     Michelsen. Lehder said he had given Samper a big check for 
     the campaign.
       Asked about that charge on Monday, Samper said that a 
     committee made up of members of all major parties checked the 
     allegations at the time and could not prove them.
       Far more serious are the comments in the tape recording 
     made public this week, containing a conversation between 
     three men identified as brothers Miguel and Gilberto 
     Rodriguez Orejuela, and a journalist linked to the cartel, 
     Alberto Giraldo.
       Gaviria, whose tough stance against drug traffickers broke 
     the back of the violent Medellin Cartel, immediately ordered 
     a probe to verify whether the voices on the tape were 
     properly identified.
       In the tapes, the three men discuss Samper's need for 
     campaign funds. A man identified by the newscasts as Giraldo 
     tells the others that Samper's campaign needs five billion 
     pesos--roughly $6.2 million--but had only two billion pesos. 
     A voice said to belong to Gilberto Rodriguez replies: ``Done. 
     We have that.''
       Elsewhere in the recordings, a man identified as one of the 
     Rodriguez brothers tells Giraldo: ``Yeah, well, you can't 
     help us . . . That fine day when you are a presidential 
     candidate, and you have 47 percent in the opinion polls, you 
     won't get just money, you'll have our lives in your hands.''
       Giraldo issued a statement Tuesday in Colombia. ``I 
     suggested to the Rodriguez Orejuela gentlemen that I could 
     intermediate with the candidates' advisers to see if it were 
     possible . . . to deliver economic donations to the 
     campaigns,'' he said.
       But ``my efforts were useless,'' Giraldo said, adding that 
     advisers for both Samper and Pastrana rejected the offer.
       Gelbard, who testified on drug policy before the U.S. 
     Congress on Wednesday, was cautious in his public comments 
     when asked about the charges, saying the Clinton 
     administration was not prepared to publicly comment on the 
     veracity of the charges.
       The administration is ``investigating this very intensively 
     right now,'' he said.
       ``Obviously, this is the worst kind of information that we 
     could receive,'' Gelbard told the lawmakers. ``This, if true, 
     would obviously have the most serious effect on not only any 
     kind of bilateral relationship with that government, but 
     obviously would create the most serious problems in terms of 
     fighting counternarcotics.''
                                  ____


               [From the Associated Press, June 25, 1994]

     U.S. Confronted Colombian Candidate Last Fall About Links to 
                              Traffickers

                           (By George Gedda)

       Washington.--The Clinton administration heard as long ago 
     as last fall that Colombian drug traffickers were arranging 
     for large donations to the campaign of Ernesto Samper, newly 
     elected Colombian president, U.S. officials say.
       Assistant Secretary of State Robert Gelbard met alone with 
     Samper in Washington last October and asked him about 
     evidence suggesting a link between him and the 
     narcotraffickers. U.S. officials, speaking only on grounds of 
     anonymity, said Samper categorically denied the allegation.
       This past week, the alleged donations by the Cali cocaine 
     cartel exploded onto Colombia's political landscape with the 
     release of an audiotape that further confirms the long-held 
     U.S. suspicions.
       The audiotape indicates the Samper campaign sought money 
     from the cartel and that the traffickers were trying to 
     ``buy'' five Cabinet positions, including that of defense 
     minister.
       Colombia's defense minister traditionally has played a key 
     role in implementing strategies for curbing drug trafficking.
       A senior U.S. official, asking not to be identified, said 
     the tape is part of a ``long chain of highly credible 
     reports'' connecting the cartel and the Samper campaign.
       Samper has continued to deny any wrongdoing. He met late 
     last week with U.S. Ambassador Morris Busby, but officials 
     declined to characterize the meeting.
       State Department spokesman Mike McCurry had said earlier 
     that ``it's not my understanding that we have confirmed'' the 
     link between Samper and the Cali cartel. But he also said, 
     ``That's something we're looking into.''
       The taped conversations were discussed during the Samper-
     Busby meeting, McCurry said Friday.
       ``Ambassador Busby reiterated that the United States 
     remains seriously concerned over these alleged links,'' he 
     said.
       Congressional sources, also speaking on grounds of 
     anonymity, said administration officials told them the 
     traffickers contributed $6 million to the Samper campaign.
       Colombia is the world's largest source of cocaine, and U.S. 
     Cooperation with Colombian President Carlos Gaviria in 
     combating the traffickers generally has been good.
       Under Gaviria's leadership, the Medellin cartel has been 
     debilitated, highlighted by the death of Pablo Escobar last 
     Dec. 2 in a shootout with police and military forces.
       Government forces also have attacked the Cali 
     infrastructure, with raids on processing laboratories. 
     However, arrests of Cali drug chieftains have been rare, 
     officials say.
       The officials say they are extremely apprehensive about the 
     implications of the disclosures concerning potential drug 
     trafficking influence at the highest levels of government.
       They note that in addition to being the major supply 
     source, Colombian traffickers virtually control cocaine 
     processing as well as international wholesale distribution 
     chains and markets.
       The disclosures came as the United States has been 
     attempting to reach an interim agreement with Colombia and 
     Peru to revive the operation of a radar system designed to 
     track narcotics flights in the Andes.
       On May 1, the Defense Department shut down the operation 
     out of concern about the legal implications of U.S. 
     complicity in the shooting down of civilian aircraft.
                                  ____


        Official Says Drug Cooperation With Colombia May Decline

                           (By George Gedda)

       Washington.--U.S.-Colombian cooperation in fighting drug 
     trafficking could be set back if reports are verified that 
     the campaign of Colombia's president-elect received drug 
     money, a senior State Department official said Thursday.
       Cooperation between the two countries already had been 
     undermined with the U.S. decision last month to suspend a 
     program that provided Columbia and Peru with radar data for 
     tracking U.S.-bound cocaine flights.
       The uncertainty about future cooperation sharpened 
     Wednesday when Colombian news media aired a tape suggesting 
     that the campaign of President-elect Ernesto Samper had 
     accepted drug money.
       If the allegations turn out to be true, the capacity of the 
     Colombian government to continue its anti-drug collaboration 
     with the United States ``would be affected negatively,'' and 
     Alexander Watson, the assistant secretary of state for inter-
     American affairs.
       According to published reports, members of Congress have 
     been told by administration officials that Samper not only 
     received the money, he solicited it.
       Samper's campaign organization said Wednesday that no 
     donations of ``dubious origin'' were accepted. Samper is a 
     lawyer and an economist who once held a cabinet post.
       Watson said, ``We remain very seriously concerned. We would 
     hope Colombian authorities would investigate thoroughly. It 
     is a matter of great concern to us.''
       Well before the tapes were made public, Watson said, U.S. 
     officials had heard reports of drug money being funneled into 
     Samper's campaign. Campaign officials denied the reports, he 
     said.
       Until recently, U.S. officials and outgoing Colombian 
     President Carlos Gaviria Collaborated closely in combating 
     drug traffickers. Under Gaviria's leadership, the Medellin 
     cartel has been considerably weakened. The city of Cali has 
     become the drug-trafficking headquarters.
       Watson said he was unaware of any official contact on the 
     subject with Gaviria, who was in California for the World Cup 
     soccer tournament.
       But signs that Colombia has been wavering in the anti-drug 
     campaign prompted the administration earlier this year to 
     suspend an evidence-sharing program with Colombian 
     authorities.
       Then, on May 1, the Defense Department shut down without 
     notice a radar system designed to track narcotics flights in 
     the Andes. The action was taken out of concern about the 
     legal implications of U.S. complicity in the shooting down of 
     civilian aircraft.
       On Tuesday, Clinton asked Congress to approve legislation 
     that would allow the United States to provide tracking data 
     in a way that would spare American military personnel 
     involved in the operation from being prosecuted.
                                  ____


                    Image versus Reality in Colombia

                          (By Tracy Wilkinson)

 (A soccer star's slaying is the latest blow to a drug-besieged nation 
    struggling to redefine itself. The identity conflict creates a 
 schizophrenic society and fuels tensions with U.S. over how to fight 
                             narcotics war)

       Bogota, Colombia--Just hours after he was chosen president 
     of this country of contradictions, an exasperated Ernesto 
     Samper was tackling his first post-election meeting with 
     international reporters.
       ``There have been 17 questions in this press conference, 
     and 14 have been about drug trafficking,'' he complained to 
     the assembled journalists.
       ``That,'' he said, ``is Colombia's problem.''
       It seemed as though Samper was less bothered by the fact 
     that his country is the world's largest cocaine producer than 
     by the fact that the foreign press was focusing on it.
       The undeniable influence of the multibillion-dollar drug 
     business at so many levels of Colombian life has created a 
     society in conflict with itself. Appearance and image often 
     take precedence over a dirty reality.
       It is a society that cleaves to formal niceties and 
     politeness, yet has one of the highest homicide rates on the 
     planet--approximately 85 per 100,000 people. It is an 
     extremely legalistic society, yet one where fewer than 5% of 
     its murderers are ever brought to justice.
       Colombia is the center of the international cocaine trade, 
     yet Colombians are increasingly tired of that single label. 
     Many Colombians bridle at hearing their country described as 
     a ``narco-democracy,'' but they are constantly confronted 
     with reports of drug money infiltrating political campaigns, 
     law enforcement agencies and even their beloved soccer teams. 
     The shocking slaying last Saturday of soccer star Andres 
     Escobar, for example, may be linked to angry traffickers who 
     lost money on Colombia's elimination from the World Cup.
       The concern for image, combined with a volatile sense of 
     nationalism, has created a deep ambivalence about the drug 
     war among many Colombians, who say they would like to clean 
     up their government and institutions but who resist and 
     resent pressure from Washington to fight the traffickers more 
     forcefully. Increasingly, Colombians speak of legalizing 
     drugs and accommodating traffickers as an alternative to the 
     head-on, violent confrontation that has claimed hundreds of 
     lives.
       And if Colombia seems schizophrenic about the war on drugs, 
     Washington too has been sending mixed signals to the 
     Colombians. The confusion only compounds frustration and 
     suspicion at both ends and ultimately weakens efforts to 
     staunch the flow of illegal narcotics at a crucial time--just 
     as the Clinton Administration is reviewing its Andean drug 
     strategy.
       ``Colombia is a strangely paradoxical country,'' said 
     anthropologist and drug expert Alfredo Molane. ``A great 
     portion of public opinion, and the government, is against 
     drug trafficking from a legal point of view, and from a moral 
     point of view.
       ``But economically, it fills the pockets of many people--
     not just the rich but the poor too. In spite of everything, 
     the cultivation and trafficking [of narcotics] has provided 
     the country with certain economic stability. Therein lies the 
     ambivalence.''
       Samper, who narrowly won Colombia's presidential election 
     June 19, has been dogged ever since by new drug scandals that 
     once again pose a dilemma for Colombians. To accept that the 
     allegations are true would be to accept the worst about the 
     Colombian system.
       Two cassettes of taped telephone conversations, sent 
     surreptitiously to journalists days after the election reveal 
     overtures made to Samper's campaign by the Cali cartel, the 
     sophisticated operation that U.S. officials say controls an 
     estimated 80% of the world's cocaine trade.
       One tape, the authenticity of which was verified by 
     Colombian officials, contains three conversations between the 
     heads of the Cali cartel, brothers Gilberto and Miguel Angel 
     Rodriguez Orejuela, and a journalist who has worked as their 
     go-between. They are heard matter-of-factly planning to offer 
     at least $3.75 million to Samper's campaign.
       In a second tape, the authenticity of which has not been 
     verified, Gilberto Rodriguez says that he has already 
     deposited about $4 million in Samper's coffers and expects 
     the future president to respond with unspecified favors.
       Outgoing President Cesar Faviria, who is from the same 
     political party as Samper, attempted to quash the second tape 
     by prohibiting television from airing it, saying it violated 
     a new law that bans broadcast of statements by criminals. 
     Gaviria knew of the first tape before the election but kept 
     it secret.
       Samper acknowledged that the Cali bosses repeatedly offered 
     contibutions, but he denied accepting them. He said his own 
     code of ethics plus legalistic mechanisms set up with 
     accountants prevented the entry of directly money into his 
     campaign. But Samper did not address the fact that most such 
     money is laundered or passes through third parties before 
     reaching its destination.
       In many countries, a scandal of this ilk would sink a 
     politician, but Samper went on vacation and is expected to 
     weather the storm. Similar accusations have arisen in past 
     campaigns and faded away. Samper, as head of the presidential 
     campaign of Alfonso Lopez Michelsen in the early 1980s, was 
     alleged to have accepted money from the Medelin cartel; a 
     committee of Colombian politicians cleared Samper of the 
     charge then.
       Despite great consternation among American officials, who 
     demanded an explanation from Samper, domestic reaction to the 
     latest scandal was mild.
       Newspaper and radio headlines concentrated on how the story 
     was playing abroad, and on the damage that was being done to 
     Colombia's reputation. Some blamed the messenger--one of the 
     tapes was publicized by the man Samper defeated in the 
     election, Andres Pastrana.
       ``What is bothersome in all of this is not whether or not 
     there is ``hot money'' in the campaigns, which is an 
     undeniable reality in this country,'' Maria Jimena Duzan, a 
     leading columnist and author, wrote in the newspaper El 
     Espectador. ``It's the opportunistic and low way that 
     Pastrana manipulated the information on the cassette.
       ``In one day, [Pastrana] returned us to those dark days 
     when, to prove that we were not in league with the narco-
     traffickers, we had to offer our lives and submit to all U.S. 
     pressures.''
       Enrique Santos Calderon, a columnist with Bogota's largest 
     daily, El Tiempo, said: ``This scandal again places narcotics 
     trafficking at the center of all that occurs in this country. 
     . . . I can imagine the delight of Sen. Kerry and all the 
     things that the gringo and international press are going to 
     speculate.''
       John Kerry, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, has 
     become a favorite target of Colombian criticism since April, 
     when he publicly quoted a drug trafficker labeling the 
     country a ``narco-de-mocracy.'' His comments came amid an 
     escalating dispute between officials in Washington and Bogota 
     over the tactics used to go after traffickers. The dispute, 
     in the opinion of many experts, has eroded the working 
     relationship between the countries and fueled Colombian 
     ambivalence and American mistrust, while giving a break to 
     the bad guys.
       ``The drug war in Colombia is in very, very sad shape.'' 
     said a senior U.S. official. ``It's probably never been 
     worse. The kingpins are not being attacked, and their power 
     is only increasing with nothing to stop it.''
       Colombia began changing tack on the drug war in 1991, 
     during Gaviria's first year in office and following the 
     assassination of three presidential candidates and a justice 
     minister. Bowing to a demand from master criminals such as 
     Pablo Escobar, the government rescinded its extradition 
     treaty with the United States, sparing narcos the possibility 
     of appearing before a U.S. court.
       In the years that followed, Gaviria's government began a 
     policy of plea-bargaining with traffickers who turned 
     themselves in confessed and gave up part of their business. 
     But as the policy seemed to offer increasingly lenient 
     sentences to brutal thugs. American support faded.
       Much of the controversy in the past year has centered on 
     Colombia's principal law enforcement official, Gustavo de 
     Greiff, who is in charge of bringing traffickers to justice. 
     He has repeatedly angered American officials by advocating 
     the legalization of drugs and by openly declaring the drug 
     war a lost cause.
       His most egregious sin in the eyes of American officials is 
     his willingness to negotiate with the Cali cartel bosses. 
     Under the plea-bargaining policy, the Rodriguez brothers and 
     other leaders would spend little time in jail, and their 
     fortunes would remain largely intact.
       Such accommodation outrages U.S. law enforcement agents, 
     yet De Greiff and other Colombians see it as the only 
     practical way to put a dent in a business conducted by men 
     who can pay millions of dollars and kill with ease to protect 
     themselves. A military offensive would exact too high a toll, 
     they argue.
       ``Colombia has no other way out, unless it has a suicidal 
     calling to conduct a fundamentalist religious war, exposing 
     itself to all forms of destruction,'' said political 
     scientist Alejandro Reyes, an expert in Colombia's endemic 
     violence. ``There is no other possible solution. Kill all 
     drug traffickers? [The offensive against drug czar] Escobar 
     cost us 500 to 800 lives. . . . A civilized country cannot 
     sacrifice the lives of 500 people, and how many police? How 
     many judges? Just to give us the pleasure of seeing the fall 
     of Rodriguez Orejuela? If we can do it with negotiation--he 
     goes to jail, stops killing, stops trafficking, pays a huge 
     fine--that would be a great deal for the country.''
       Whereas the Medellin cartel attacked the government head-on 
     with car bombs and terrorism, the Cali bosses have more 
     subtly damaged the government and economy through bribes and 
     a complex system of shell companies and middlemen.
       In retaliation for De Greiff's policies, Washington last 
     year suspended a longstanding practice of sharing evidence 
     with Colombian judicial officials, paralyzing an estimated 
     50 drug-trafficking cases. The tensions between Washington 
     and Bogota were inflamed further in May, when the Pentagon 
     abruptly halted the use of American military radar and spy 
     planes to track suspected drug flights.
       Pinpointing the flights as they made their way from Peru 
     and Bolivia, where the raw material for cocaine is grown, to 
     Colombia, where the drug is produced, and on to the United 
     States, had been a pillar of the international interdiction 
     effort. But the Pentagon said it feared legal liability if 
     Colombia or Peru began shooting down planes.
       Radar operated by U.S. military personnel in Colombia's 
     Amazonian jungle led to the interception in the past two 
     years of more than 400 illegal flights carrying 300 tons of 
     cocaine, Colombian and U.S. officials say.
       Given the relative success. Colombian officials were 
     shocked and baffled by the sudden suspension of the 
     intelligence-gathering effort. Gaviria's government had taken 
     the political heat that came with allowing American military 
     personnel to operate in national territory because a greater 
     good--the stopping of drug flights--was served. The 
     Colombians felt as if they had cooperated only to have the 
     rug pulled out from under them.
       The loud, clear signal to the Colombians was that the 
     United States was withdrawing from the front lines of the 
     drug war. And if that was the case, why should Colombia make 
     greater sacrifices?
       ``This [the suspension] is not something that is done among 
     friends,'' said Maj. Gen. Alfonso Abondano Alzamora, 
     commander of the Colombian air force.
       In fact, the Pentagon's action apparently stunned and 
     angered U.S. Congress and State Department officials as well. 
     President Clinton last month asked for legislation that would 
     restore the radar and the spy flights, and a law that 
     accomplishes that is before the House.
       The Colombians had a right to be angry, said Rep. Robert G. 
     Torricelli (D-N.J.), who chairs the House Subcommittee on 
     Western Hemisphere Affairs and follows narcotics issues. 
     ``The Colombian government had been challenged to take a 
     stand and interdict the narco-traficantes,'' he said, ``and 
     no sooner had they begun [than] the United States government 
     withdrew its cooperation . . . It put all of us in an 
     embarrassing position.''
       Torricelli, citing intelligence from the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, said drug flights jumped 20% after the radar 
     was turned off.
       While this particular issue may be resolved, it became 
     symbolic of the deterioration of a cooperation that once 
     existed between the United States and Colombia.
       A growing movement among intellectuals such as Nobel 
     laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez to legalize drugs as a way to 
     make the trade less profitable, and a Colombian high court's 
     recent decision to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana 
     and cocaine, raised further questions.
       Gaviria, who opposes legalization, argues that his 
     government has fought the good fight, pointing to the killing 
     by police of Pablo Escobar last December and the dismantling 
     of the Medellin cartel. But some wonder if the more insidious 
     Cali cartel has not been allowed to operate virtually 
     unchecked.
       ``A good number of Escobar's henchmen are in jail, and 
     people feel, finally, a sense of relief,'' said political 
     scientist Rodrigo Losada, an expert in drug violence. ``But 
     if you look below the appearances, you see the business of 
     narcotics trafficking is as powerful as ever. There have been 
     symbolic cases that bring tranquility to people, but it does 
     not change things deep down.''

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, who is controlling time?
  Mr. LEAHY. I believe I am controlling half of the time. I will yield 
whatever time the Senator from Florida wishes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Vermont 
yielding me time. I will not use much.
  I want to point out that there is a certain schizophrenia that flows 
from this amendment. Let me tell you about my first visit to Colombia 
in 1979 at the request of the United States Ambassador to Colombia, and 
with the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. We were having a crisis 
with Colombia at that time relative to the commitment of Colombia to 
play its role in the drug war. What was the case in 1979? The crisis 
was that the United States had encouraged Colombia to engage in an 
extensive eradication effort relative to marijuana. They agreed to do 
that. They purchased from the United States a U.S.-produced product 
called Paraquat. Paraquat had proven to be an effective eradication 
agent against marijuana.
  Paraquat was under assault in the United States because it was 
determined that persons who utilized an illegal substance--marijuana--
which had been sprayed with Paraquat might be subject to some further 
health damage. So the United States had told the Colombian Government 
that if it continued to use a United States-produced product to 
eradicate a product--marijuana--that the United States wanted to cause 
not to be able to come into this country, that Colombia would face the 
same types of prohibitions that the amendment that the Senator from 
North Carolina suggested--a cutoff to United States funds to Colombia.
  The Colombians found that to be a ludicrous position by the United 
States. We are asking them to participate in a war on drugs, and they 
are committing hundreds, if not thousands of their military to this 
eradication effort; they are using a U.S. product which has been proven 
effective in eradication, but because that product had an adverse 
health effect on those persons who used this substance, we are telling 
them they cannot use it, and we are going to cut off their funds for 
other activities if they continue to do that. That is an example of the 
schizophrenia that the United States has portrayed to the Colombian 
Government and its people.
  But that was in 1979. Let me roll this forward to the current period. 
The Colombian Government has committed a substantial amount of its 
resources to assist in the war on drugs, including the utilization of 
its Air Force to track and interdict illicit planes which are flying 
from Bolivia and Peru to Colombia.
  As a brief background, the way the system operates is that most of 
the coca is grown not in Colombia, but in Peru and Bolivia. It is then 
processed into what is called coca paste, which has about the 
consistency of toothpaste, and it is shipped in small planes up to 
Colombia along the routes that are shown on this map, into an area in 
the jungle of Colombia which has many small airstrips where 
laboratories are located, which take this paste and convert it into the 
crystalline substance which is then taken to the United States and to 
Europe.
  The United States has been assisting the Colombian Government in this 
effort by locating a series of radar installations established by the 
United States military to provide intelligence to the Colombians so 
that they can better identify these illicit airplanes and use their 
small air force for interdiction purposes. That system is relatively 
new but seemed to show some promise of being an effective part of the 
overall effort to repress drug supply within Colombia. About 60 days 
ago, we shut that down. Why did we shut it down? Because we were 
concerned that the Colombians, as well as the Bolivians and Peruvians 
might be using some of the intelligence information that we provided to 
them through these radar stations for the purposes of shooting down the 
illegal planes that were carrying the illegal substance into Colombia 
for processing so it could then become a highly potent illegal 
substance in the United States.
  Do you think the Colombians did not find that to be a rather daffy 
position of the United States? We are supposed to be partners in a very 
dangerous undertaking to suppress these drug cartels and, yet, because 
of our sensitivity that some of those illegal airplanes might be 
physically encountered, we are no longer going to be providing them 
with the intelligence information which made the whole system function.
  Mr. President, the amendment that the Senator from North Carolina has 
suggested is a very difficult one to oppose. There are problems in 
Colombia that need to be addressed. But I suggest that before we become 
too sanctimonious, we need to understand that the reason for the large 
drug trade in Colombia is primarily because of the enormous demand for 
drugs in the United States of America. The Colombians will tell you in 
your face that ``If you can get control of your consumption, we would 
immediately get control of our supply.''
  Second, that we are in a partnership with Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru 
and with other countries that are afflicted with this scourge to try to 
suppress it, and we need to treat our partners with some degree of 
respect or we are not likely to get the kind of cooperation that we 
want.
  Third, in this very bill that we are voting on here today we have 
prohibited the United States from making military equipment for the 
counternarcotics effort available to the country of Peru, and we are 
requiring, even with the amendment that was recently adopted, some very 
targeted reporting requirements on making military equipment available 
for counternarcotics activity in Bolivia and Colombia.
  What do you think those countries feel about the sincerity of our 
commitment to a war on drugs when we then put all of these restrictions 
on our ability to be a credible partner and their ability, even with 
their own money, to pay for spare parts for their airplanes and boats, 
most of which are U.S. manufactured, that they have to have in order to 
do an effective interdiction job?
  So, Mr. President, let there be no question as to what is about to 
occur as a result of actions that are taking place on this legislation. 
We are going to deny to some critical partners in the war on drugs 
access to the equipment and information that they require in order to 
effectively carry out a war on drugs.
  We are sending a highly offensive message of disrespect to these 
countries. In the case of Colombia, the President of Colombia, who 
assumedly had been presiding over these misdeeds, President Gaviria, 
has been one of America's very best allies in the war on drugs and a 
whole set of other hemispheric issues, so much so that he was the 
United States' favorite candidate and successful candidate to become 
the next Secretary General of the Organization of American States, 
Colombian Gaviria.
  This is the man that we supported and who was successful in his quest 
to become the head of the Organization of American States, and now we 
are essentially saying under his administration all these bad things 
have gone on and, unless the new administration takes action to correct 
them, we are going to shut down any United States assistance to the 
Colombian Government, including the assistance for the war on drugs.
  That is, Mr. President, part of why I think we are engaged in a 
schizophrenic activity here in which we say on the one hand that we 
want to have a very strong war on drugs, we want to focus on the source 
countries, we want those things that are likely to be most effective in 
suppressing the flow of illegal substances into our country. Yet, on 
the other hand, we are putting handcuffs on our ability to be a good 
partner with these countries.
  Let me just say two points in conclusion. These countries have a lot 
of reasons why they might be reticent to be so involved in this war on 
drugs. In Colombia alone every year there are hundreds of murders and 
abductions as a result of internecine conflict among drug cartels. It 
is a very dangerous and violent activity in which not the U.S. law 
enforcement nor military is being shot at but Colombians. I think that 
we ought to show some recognition of the sacrifices they are making.
  Also, Mr. President, in the case of particularly Peru, the request 
that we have made of them, and which they are increasingly willing to 
accept, to eradicate is causing tens of thousands of people to be 
unemployed with no alternative agriculture to take its place. I think 
it is a request that we should make and hope to get a response, but, 
again, I underscore we are asking these countries to pay the price in 
large part for a war for which we will be the principal beneficiaries 
by reducing the supply of illegal substances into the youth of the 
United States of America.
  In conclusion, I would say, Mr. President, that I think we need--and 
we need to do it now--to reexamine our whole shift of emphasis on the 
international suppression of drug supply.
  For a number of years our basic policy has been a transit zone 
interdiction policy. We have put U.S. naval ships in the area of the 
Caribbean. We have put border patrols across the Mexican-United States 
border. We used the U.S. Defense Department satellite intelligence, all 
designed to protect our border against a flow of drugs.
  We are shutting that down. We are going to be spending $150 million 
less next year through the Department of Defense, as an example, than 
we did just 2 years ago in its efforts to suppress drug trafficking. We 
are putting all of our emphasis on source countries, particularly 
Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia.
  Yet we are now saying that we have limited confidence in their 
abilities, commitments, the basic structure of their government and, 
therefore, we are putting all of these restraints on their ability to 
do something which we very much want them to do for which we will be 
the principal beneficiary. Schizophrenic.
  I believe, therefore, Mr. President, that as additional 
appropriations bills come before this Senate in the next few weeks we 
need to be asking the question--maybe we need to go back to the old 
policy of having some kind of effective border protection if we are 
putting all these restraints and essentially saying that we do not have 
any confidence in the new policy of source country eradication and 
interdiction.
  That, Mr. President, is the debate that I would anticipate that the 
Senate will need to engage in in the weeks ahead.
  I think it is very important that these countries move toward the 
kinds of world standards of democracy, human rights, and governments 
that deserve the confidence of their people because of their absence of 
corruption. But we also need to be sensitive to what we are doing in a 
very practical level in terms of those countries' abilities to protect 
our citizens from the enormous flow of illegal drugs that are having a 
devastating effect on the people of this country and particularly on 
the youth of America.
  Mr. President, I make those comments to put in context what we are 
doing with this amendment and with similar provisions that have already 
been incorporated in the legislation before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has control of 
4 minutes 7 seconds.
  Mr. HELMS. And the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 53 seconds.
  Mr. HELMS. Let me say to my friend from Florida that I listened 
intently to what he said, which was very persuasive, but he did not 
really talk about the amendment before us.
  Of course, we should--and I do--recognize Colombia's long democratic 
tradition and past cooperation with the United States in 
counternarcotics efforts. Colombia's contributions in lives and 
resources should not be diminished--and I appreciate the sacrifices 
made by the Colombian people. But the situation has changed. As the 
saying goes, that was then and this is now.
  In any case, that is why the current situation is so tragic, Mr. 
President. And it is my hope--and I am sure it is the hope of every 
Senator--that the United States and Colombia can continue in a 
cooperative relationship in fighting the evils of the narcotics trade.
  This amendment is meant in that spirit; I think it is drafted in that 
spirit. I think it says exactly what it is intended to say. It says to 
Colombia that the burden is on Colombia, particularly the President-
elect, to show that we remain good partners.
  In fact, Mr. President, my amendment does nothing more than what the 
Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Alexander 
Watson, told the Associated Press not long ago. He said, ``We remain 
very seriously concerned [about the allegations against Samper]. We 
would hope Colombian authorities would investigate thoroughly. It is a 
matter of great concern to us.''
  Let me reserve the remainder of my time momentarily because the 
distinguished Republican leader is tied up in a meeting for a few more 
minutes and I do not want him to miss this vote.


                amendment no. 2282, as further modified

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask 
the distinguished managers of the bill if we can temporarily lay this 
aside and let me handle another matter that has been agreed upon. I 
will tell the Senator what it is. Substitute amendment No. 2282, as 
modified by unanimous consent yesterday, the wrong text was 
inadvertently included in the Record.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from North Carolina, I 
have no objection to that. If we could then get to a vote on this, we 
will actually be almost exactly at the 2 o'clock vote that we had 
agreed to.
  If the Senator propounds the unanimous-consent request, I have no 
objection whatsoever.
  Mr. HELMS. I do make that request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment 
No. 2282 as modified by unanimous consent yesterday be considered as 
adopted in lieu of the original, amendment No. 2282.
  Mr. President, a version of this amendment which was not the agreed 
upon substitute was inadvertently published in the Record of July 14, 
1994, on page S9023 as the correct version of the amendment adopted. I 
wish to correct the Record so as to reflect the actual language of the 
modified amendment intended to be adopted.
  I sent a copy of the correct amendment to the desk so that all 
Members can be clear as to which text was intended to be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 2282 
is further modified.
  The amendment (No. 2282), as further modified, reads 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) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     may be obligated or expended for any officer of employee of 
     the United States government to meet in any part of Jerusalem 
     with any official of the Palestinian Authority over Gaza and 
     Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing entity 
     provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles for 
     the purpose of conducting official United States government 
     business with such Palestinian Authority.

  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2281

  Mr. HELMS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry. Are we now back on the amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Then I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment number 
2281.
  Mr. HELMS. The yeas and nays have been ordered?
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Evidently there is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  I just want to make sure. I thought the Senator from North Carolina 
had requested the yeas and nays. It is my mistake, obviously. But I 
just want to make sure what we are doing.
  The yeas and nays are now ordered on the amendment we have been 
debating the last 20 minutes or so, is that correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2281, offered by 
the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The assistant 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 ask unanimous consent that the rollcall 
vote ordered on the Helms amendment occur at 5 minutes of 2, with the 
final passage vote then to occur immediately afterward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The vote, therefore, on the Helms amendment will occur at 1:55 and, 
immediately following, the vote on final passage will occur immediately 
thereafter.
  If there is no objection, it is so ordered.
  (Mr. BUMPERS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are at the conclusion of a major foreign 
operations bill. It has gone through some difficult debates, as I have 
stated before, debates that do not necessarily reflect an 
appropriations bill. We have had lengthy, and at times contentious, 
debates on Bosnia and Herzegovina; we have had a couple of major 
debates on Haiti, that poor troubled nation in the Caribbean; we have 
had debates designed as much to express our displeasure at the actions 
of this person or that person, this institution or that institution.
  What I am concerned about, Mr. President, is that there is one area 
of debate that we do not have. We had it to some extent here, but we 
have not really had it on the floor of the Senate.
  We find it easy to get up and say we do not like what this country 
has done or that country, or this leader or that leader, and sometimes 
the leaders are our own. But, it has really been years since there has 
been a major debate, either within the administration or the Senate on 
what should be the direction of our use of foreign aid or foreign 
assistance or foreign military assistance.
  Obviously, it is easy to say that we have a security interest in 
using foreign aid. If it can enhance the national security of the 
United States by helping foster democracies, helping to lessen tensions 
of other countries, it can usually enhance our security far less 
expensive than building more aircraft carriers, or bomber wings, or 
placing tens of thousands of troops in this part of the world or the 
other. Also, as democracy flourishes in different parts of the world, 
the security of all other democratic nations is enhanced. That we 
understand.
  It is a value to our economic development in this country. We know 
that hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of jobs in the United 
States can be created if we are enabled to increase our exports.
  As we have put development assistance into countries, especially in 
the Third World, we have found, amazingly enough, that the greatest 
increase in our exports has been into the Third World. We do not find 
enormous increases in exports to Europe or Japan or elsewhere, but it 
is in the Third World or the potential in the Pacific Basin or the 
other areas.
  So, again, the kind of development assistance and other funds in here 
help our own economic security at home, and it creates jobs.
  Last, of course, there is another reason for it. That is, when you 
are the most wealthy, most powerful Nation on Earth, a nation with 
about 5 percent of the Earth's population and consuming within 40 to 50 
percent of the Earth's resources, we have a humanitarian reason. God 
has blessed us, as no other country on Earth. And I think we have a 
humanitarian reason to help out others. Sometimes the help we give is 
almost shamefully low, as the debate talked about in sub-Sahara Africa, 
the poorest of the poor, so much of our assistance amounts to less than 
$1 per capita.
  But there are other times when the United States has shown its 
enormous capacity for help. Where there have been earthquakes and 
typhoons and natural disasters in other parts of the world, often it is 
the United States with our almost inexhaustible supply of food and 
provisions in this country, our ability to reach anywhere in the world 
with our military transport systems, it has been the United States that 
stepped forward and helped out in these situations.
  Having said all that, Mr. President, this simply states the obvious: 
The security reasons, the economic reasons, and the humanitarian 
reasons.
  But I hope--and I cannot emphasize how much I hope--that the 
administration and the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, can sit down, perhaps after this year's elections, and start 
determining a new direction for the way we use foreign aid in a post-
cold-war period.
  Mr. President, I urged President Bush, and I have urged President 
Clinton: Let us start designing a new policy as part of our foreign 
policy in the use of assistance that we give.
  Too much of what is in this bill reflects the inertia of the cold-war 
period and not the innovation of a post-cold-war period. We can set the 
directions as we go into the next century.
  Many of the Senators here have children who will live most their 
lives in the next century. Let us think how we design that.

  So I urge the President, and I urge the bipartisan leadership, let us 
get together this fall and try anew to design something that reflects 
more the real interests and the greatness of the United States before 
we do next year's bill.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 2299

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an 
amendment by Senator Brown which has been cleared on both sides be 
considered at this time. I send the 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 Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2299.

  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 the bill insert the following:

     SEC. 576. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE 
                   ENHANCED STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FACILITY.

       (A) Limitation.--Not more than $20,000,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under Title I under the heading ``CONTRIBUTION 
     TO THE ENHANCED STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FACILITY OF THE 
     INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND'' shall be available until the 
     Bipartisan Commission described in subsection (b) submits the 
     report described in subsection (c).
       (b) Bipartisan Commission.--There shall be established a 
     bipartisan Commission whose members shall be appointed within 
     two months of enactment of this Act to conduct a complete 
     review of the salaries and benefits of World Bank and 
     International Monetary Fund employees and their families. The 
     Commission shall be composed of:
       (i) 1 member appointed by the President;
       (ii) 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (iii) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (iv) 1 member appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       (v) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       (vi) Salaries and expenses.--The salaries and expenses of 
     the Commission and the Commission's staff may be paid out of 
     funds made available under this Act.
       (c) Covered Report.--Within six months after appointment, 
     the Commission shall submit a report to the President, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of 
     the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which includes the 
     following:
       (i) a review of the existing salary paid and benefits 
     received by the employees of the World Bank and the IMF;
       (ii) a review of all benefits paid by the World Bank and 
     the IMF to family members and dependents of the employees of 
     the World Bank and the IMF;
       (iii) a review of all salary and benefits paid to employees 
     and dependents of the World Bank and the IMF as compared to 
     all salary and benefits paid to comparable positions for 
     employees of U.S. banks.

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2299) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to express my thanks to the 
chairman of the subcommittee for his cooperation in moving this bill 
forward. In particular, I thank the majority staff, and of course those 
with whom I have worked most closely, Jim Bond and his assistant, 
Juanita Rilling, and my long-time assistant and foreign policy adviser, 
Robin Cleveland.
  Let me say as we go to the conclusion on this vote, there is a 
substantial imprint on this year's foreign aid bill by Republican 
Senators. Frequently we have been accused by some as being guardians of 
gridlock. I would say in this particular instance we have put forth an 
affirmative program for the New Independent States and for Russia.
  This bill, as it passes the Senate, reflects the priorities of many 
Republicans that we ought to have a country-specific approach to the 
New Independent States and to Eastern and Central Europe. That is 
reflected by a $150 million earmark for Ukraine, a $75 million earmark 
for Armenia, a $50 million earmark for Georgia, and a requirement that 
Russia withdraw all of its troops, every last one, from the Baltics by 
the date originally set by the Russians of August 31 of this year.
  In addition to that, there was bipartisan support for emphasis on the 
crime problem in Russia and two amendments related to local law 
enforcement and the establishment of FBI offices in helping the 
Russians in dealing with their enormous crime problems which are 
spilling over onto us. That is addressed in this bill.
  In addition, this bill requires that 50 percent of the grants and 
contracts be country-specific. The importance of that is that we move 
away from dealing with the New Independent States through Moscow and 
that we deal with them as independent and separate entities. That 
philosophy is expressed time and time again through this foreign aid 
bill.
  We had some good debate about both Haiti and about NATO and the 
composition thereof. I was disappointed but encouraged that an 
amendment I offered to, finally after all of these years, establish 
specific criteria for NATO, and then once those criteria are 
established provide assistance to countries to meet those standards and 
become a part of NATO, was only narrowly defeated: 53 to 44.
  I might say to my friends in the administration, they worked pretty 
hard to defeat that amendment, but we will be back. There were other 
amendments approved with regard to the expansion of NATO. If NATO is to 
have any meaning as we move toward the end of this century, clearly it 
must grow and include others.
  Let me say in conclusion, there are many millions of Americans of 
Eastern European descent who care about our policy in that part of the 
world, who are working with us to move the administration in the 
direction of a country-specific approach and termination of this Moscow 
myopia, which has been so prevalent in the first year and a half of the 
Clinton administration.
  I thank the chairman for his friendship and cooperation, and we look 
forward to final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his cooperation, and 
also for his kind remarks.
  I do want to thank the new chief clerk on the majority side, Bill 
Witting, for his help in this bill; Tim Rieser, who has worked 
tirelessly; Fred Kenney, who is our Vermont secret weapon in this for 
all the hours he has put in; Neil McGaraghan, who has joined us here on 
the floor throughout this; Elizabeth Murtha; and those who have worked 
with Jim Bond, Robin Cleveland, Juanita Rilling, and Michelle 
Hasenstab.
  These are the people without whom we would not have this bill, 
without whom we would not be able now to complete it.


                       vote on amendment no. 2281

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 1:50 having arrived, the question 
now occurs on amendment No. 2281.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Harkin] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] 
and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] are necessarily absent.
  I also 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. Mathews). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boren
     Campbell
     Coverdell
     Harkin
     Lott
     Wallop
  So the amendment (No. 2281) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the excepted 
committee amendments, as amended, are agreed to.
  If there is no objection, the remaining pending floor amendments are 
withdrawn.
  So the amendments (No. 2247, 2249, 2250, 2251, 2255, 2259, and 2260) 
were withdrawn.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, would like to make some general 
comments about the fiscal year 1995 Foreign Operations Appropriation 
bill. I commend the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for 
their hard work on this legislation. I understand that the committee 
has been forced to make some difficult choices in a very tight fiscal 
environment.
  In this regard, I applaud the committee for its strong commitment to 
funding for the Development Fund for Africa. I am also pleased that 
this legislation provides funds for the IMF's Enhanced Structural 
Adjustment Program and the World Bank's International Development 
Association, efforts which help the poorest countries in the world, 
particularly in Africa.
  I am, however, Mr. President, concerned by the number of 
congressional earmarks in this appropriations bill. By my count, this 
legislation contains more than 20 mandatory earmarks. It is an 
intrusive foreign aid bill with an unreasonable degree of congressional 
micromanagement.
  For years, I have opposed congressional earmarking in our foreign aid 
budgets. I have believed that earmarks fragment our overall foreign 
assistance program, divert resources from worthwhile projects, cripple 
the ability of the administration to respond to changing events, and 
undermine the overall effectiveness of our foreign aid programs.
  In response to these and similar concerns, last year's foreign 
operations bill moved away from earmarks, retaining only a small number 
of politically sensitive priorities, such as Israel, Egypt, and Cyprus.
  Again this year, the house has passed a bill with no mandatory 
earmarks. The Senate legislation, in contrast, reverts to the old 
philosophy of micromanagement and congressional control.
  Mr. President, I understand the frustration that has led to these 
earmarks, and I support many of the earmarked programs. The 
administration, in my mind, has underfunded child survival and basic 
education. These are effective and successful foreign aid programs with 
a broad domestic constituency. I also fully agree with the criticisms 
of the assistance program in the former Soviet Union. It is badly 
managed and overly focused on Russia.
  But while I agree with the problems I do not support congressional 
earmarking as a solution.
  Let's look at the impact of earmarking on our aid program in the 
former Soviet Union.
  Together with prior commitments, the proposed earmarks would tie up 
$719 million of the $839 million proposed for next year, leaving little 
more than $100 million for new programs. This would severely limit the 
ability of the administration to respond to changing events.
  I believe that the countries in central Asia are very important to 
U.S. interests. By focusing aid on Georgia, Armenia, and Ukraine, the 
proposed earmarks would dramatically slash funds from the struggling 
countries of central Asia. These countries simply do not have the 
strong constituency to fight for funds.
  I am no fan of the aid program in the former Soviet Union. We need to 
improve the management of the program. We should devolve decisionmaking 
to the field. Too much goes to U.S. contractors. We should cut funds--
as this bill does. But I do not believe that micromanaging the program 
from Capitol Hill will solve the problems.
  Mr. President, we are engaged in an effort in the Foreign Relations 
Committee to enact comprehensive foreign assistance reform. The 
Subcommittee on International Economics recently marked up a reform 
bill. While everyone understands the difficulties in passing such 
legislation this year, I believe we have laid the foundation of 
congressional action on comprehensive reform in the near future.
  The fundamental philosophy of the reform effort, in my mind, is to 
lay out clear objectives for our foreign assistance programs, give the 
administration as much flexibility as possible to achieve those goals, 
and then hold them accountable as they implement these programs.
  Mr. President, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill before the 
Senate today runs counter to the foreign aid reform effort. It signals 
a return to business as usual. And, I fear, it represents a victory for 
special interests over the long-term effectiveness of our foreign 
assistance programs.


                 international executive service corps

  Mr. McCAIN. I have always been a strong supporter of the 
International Executive Service Corps [IESC]. Exposing foreign business 
managers to U.S. business know-how is a vital element of our foreign 
assistance program, and IESC is the best in the business. It has 
recently come to my attention, however, that IESC may have 
unintentionally provided USAID funded assistance to large corporations 
capable of providing that assistance themselves. Out of a list of 
several hundred projects, I have identified a handful of projects for 
companies in which major corporations own large stakes. It is not clear 
to me why such a company requires assistance from USAID. It seems that 
it could appeal to its larger, more notable partner for assistance. To 
deal with this situation I believe USAID should establish some 
administrative guidelines to ensure that, absent considerations of U.S. 
technology or economic interests, no unintentional subsidization of 
large corporations occur in the provision of IESC technical assistance.
  Mr. LEAHY. Like the Senator from Arizona, I am a strong supporter of 
their work. I can tell you that although the vast majority of IESC 
programs go to support small indigenous companies, there are 
exceptions. USAID will fund an IESC program for a company such as you 
have identified as a means of ensuring that these companies use U.S. 
volunteer executives and U.S. technology. Let me say, however, that I 
fully understand the Senator's concern. It is possible that out of the 
many IESC programs, a few have had the effect of subsidizing large 
corporations. It makes a great deal of sense to see that the money 
USAID makes available for IESC projects goes to those companies most in 
need of assistance. With the dwindling foreign aid budget, these sorts 
of prudent distinctions are a necessity. Encouraging USAID to establish 
administrative guidelines, as the Senator suggests, to prevent any 
unintentional subsidization of large corporations is a good idea.
  Mr. McCAIN. When the conference committee convenes, would the Senator 
be amenable to including report language to that effect.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would be glad to seek inclusion of such language. The 
work of the IESC is too important for there to be any confusion over 
the nature of its work.
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree and I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a program which I 
believe deserves special recognition and an area in which I would like 
to recommend AID funding. Specifically, funding should be considered in 
support of the recent efforts by U.S. credit unions to initiate a 
``people-to-people'' program.
  As part of this program Mr. President, credit union activists carry 
out volunteer international assignments and host credit union leaders 
as interns here in the United States for training. The goal of this 
people-to-people program is to directly involve U.S. credit union 
personnel in overseas programs. This will enhance the progress of 
democratization in developing countries, in addition to teaching basic 
tenets of local savings and sound credit for microenterprises and 
family needs such as home improvements health care and education.
  The internship program has already been highly successful in 
introducing the concept and democratic principles of credit unions to 
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In addition, this program 
could be timely and effective in the transition to a multiethnic 
society in South Africa.
  Mr. President, I think most will agree that these are precisely the 
kinds of initiatives that fulfill the mission of AID, and I strongly 
encourage that the agency consider funding for the people-to-people 
program that I have described.


                      nongovernmental organization

  Mr. LEAHY. It is my understanding that nongovernmental organizations 
doing humanitarian work in Azerbaijan are concerned that current law is 
impeding them from delivering humanitarian aid to the people of 
Azerbaijan. Specifically, they are concerned that the legal prohibition 
on aid to the Government of Azerbaijan precludes them from using 
government facilities, or making incidental repairs to those 
facilities, in the course of carrying out their humanitarian aid 
programs. I know of the Senator's deep concern about this issue. Is it 
the Senator's understanding that section 907 of the Freedom Support Act 
does not preclude these types of activities?
  Mr. DOLE. That is my understanding. I do not construe the language in 
current law to prohibit an NGO from using government facilities if 
required in order to carry out the NGO's program. It was not the 
intention of section 907 to preclude humanitarian aid provided by and 
through NGO's. In the course of providing such aid, NGO's may find it 
necessary to use government trucks or warehouses, or to use or to make 
necessary repairs to government facilities--such as repairs to health 
clinics, or to housing for displaced people. NGO's may also use 
government personnel to distribute commodities--such as doctors giving 
out medicine to civilians in need. As long as the NGO retains control 
of any commodities or services, I do not view these incidental 
activities as prohibited by section 907.


                       helping american exporters

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee for his hard work on this bill.
  Importantly, the bill the Senate will approve today does more with 
less money. Under this bill, we will spend $632 million less on foreign 
aid next year than we did this year. We will provide $632 million less 
than the administration asked us to spend in its budget request.
  Mr. President, this bill includes funding for several programs that 
help American exporters and create U.S. jobs. Programs like the Export-
Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency. I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of a letter I recently received from a company in 
my State outlining the importance of funding for the OPIC program, and 
a letter from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, be included in the 
Record.
  Export assistance programs funded in this bill help American 
exporters overseas. Because they help to open new markets and provide 
new opportunities for American businesses, they help to create and 
sustain jobs in America.
  Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the committee for his hard 
work on this bill. We have cut funding below last year's level, and 
funded important programs.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                         Foster Wheeler Corp.,

                                         Clinton NJ, June 8, 1994.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: A number of would economies are 
     rapidly expanding creating a large growth in the demand for 
     electricity. Many of these new overseas power markets will 
     rely upon private power. As a major manufacturer of boilers 
     for power plants we are interested in providing equipment for 
     these markets at a time when the U.S. domestic market is 
     small.
       The Overseas Private Investment Corporation direct loans 
     and loan guarantees are important to the development of these 
     markets, therefore, we are very much interested in an 
     increased subsidy appropriation for OPIC in HR 4426; the 
     Foreign Operations Export Financing and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Bill.
       Specifically, the House raised OPIC's subsidy appropriation 
     to $23,296,000 from the $11,648,000 requested by the 
     Administration and we recommend that the Senate include the 
     House number.
       Second, we ask that the Senate provide sufficient 
     appropriations to administer OPIC's credit programs by 
     appropriating the amount requested by the Administration.
       Your assistance in these matters will be gratefully 
     appreciated.
           Very truly yours,
                                                Frank A. Kelleher,
                                     Director, Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                            U.S. Trade and Development Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1994.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I appreciated the opportunity to 
     testify before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on May 24. 
     Unfortunately, due to the busy floor schedule that day, there 
     was not sufficient time to discuss in detail the programs of 
     the U.S. Trade and Development Agency [TDA]. As the FY95 
     Foreign Operations Appropriations bill will be marked up on 
     Thursday, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you 
     more specifically of TDA's involvement with firms in the 
     State of New Jersey.
       In the past four years, TDA has awarded 16 feasibility 
     study grants worth $6.7 million to New Jersey firms and 
     provided $1.1 million in funding for 25 other activities by 
     companies in your State. By funding feasibility studies and 
     other project support activities, TDA enables American 
     companies to compete more effectively in a competitive global 
     environment. Several examples highlight how TDA support 
     results in increased exports and often secures a contract for 
     the project. AT&T whose headquarters and much of 
     international work is handled out of New Jersey has used TDA 
     programs successfully. In two significant cases, TDA training 
     grants and feasibility studies led to AT&T's involvement in 
     the final project. The value of AT&T's contract for switching 
     project with China was $9.2 million and the contract for the 
     fibre optic cable project in Columbia was $134 million. In 
     both cases, AT&T's long list of suppliers for the projects 
     included large numbers of small companies. For the China 
     contract, AT&T used more than 20 New Jersey component 
     suppliers, and most were small companies.
       A number of other New Jersey companies benefited from TDA's 
     programs. Burns and Rose and Louis Berger, for example, are 
     two New Jersey engineering firms that have won follow on 
     contracts from host countries after completing TDA 
     feasibility studies. In addition, the New Jersey facilities 
     of Ingersoll Rand (Phillipsburg) have benefited from at least 
     two recent TDA feasibility studies. A TDA petrochemical 
     project in Thailand that was done by Stone and Webster 
     produced a contract for a $800,000 B.F.W. pump from 
     Ingersoll. Ingersoll also supplied equipment to a water 
     resources project that TDA assisted in Venezuela with a 
     feasibility study that was done by Harza Engineering.
       These activities indicate how TDA helps create jobs here in 
     the U.S. by assisting companies such as those in New Jersey 
     pursue business opportunities overseas. TDA would like to 
     continue its aggressive approach to helping U.S. companies 
     enter new markets and pursue new export opportunities. I ask 
     for your continued support of TDA and its programs during 
     consideration of the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill 
     for FY95.
           Sincerely,
                                            J. Joseph Grandmaison,
                                                         Director.


                          Volunteer Tech Corps

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of an amendment 
agreed to earlier in the consideration of the fiscal year 1995 Foreign 
Operations appropriations bill. This amendment would allocate funds for 
a volunteer tech corps of United States citizens which would give 
technical aid to Russia.
  Russia has many needs besides financial assistance. Providing money 
is only a Band-Aid, covering their problems without getting to the root 
of them. Financial assistance funds are scarce, and they are getting 
tighter every year. We need to provide Russia with some of our 
technical expertise. My bill would create a tech corps, which would 
provide that knowledge and expertise. These provide useful tools for 
future growth.
  One way we can help Russia is by sending Americans with expertise in 
specific areas to get to the roof of these problems. A good example is 
the area of refrigeration. We can send food to Russia, but what good is 
that food if it isn't edible when it reaches the stores. Russia has 
lots of rich farmland, giving it the ability to grow food to feed its 
people. What Russia lacks is adequate preservation of agriculture 
products, proper distribution facilities, and refrigerated means of 
transportation. Their agriculture is not of much use if the food isn't 
properly stored and transported.
  The tech corps would send well-seasoned, practical, experts in the 
design and installation of refrigeration equipment, and service and 
repair technicians to help train Russians in the area of refrigeration. 
We need to help the Russians help themselves. And the tech corps would 
provide the best bang for the buck.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and the third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? On this question the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Harkin] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Coverdell], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], and the Senator 
from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] are necessarily absent.
  I also 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--9

     Byrd
     Craig
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Helms
     Hollings
     Kempthorne
     Roth
     Smith

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boren
     Campbell
     Coverdell
     Harkin
     Lott
     Pressler
     Wallop
  So the bill (H.R. 4426), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the title amendment is 
agreed to.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``An Act making appropriations 
for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendments, requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the chair is authorized to 
appoint the conferees.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Mathews) appointed Mr. Leahy, Mr. Inouye, 
Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. McConnell, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
Nickles, Mr. Mack, Mr. Gramm of Texas, and Mr. Hatfield conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while I was unable to vote for the bill, I 
commend the managers of this bill, Mr. Leahy, chairman of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee, and Mr. McConnell, ranking member of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee, for their excellent work on this 
legislation.
  This is a difficult bill to administer and the managers have done an 
excellent job in shepherding it through the Senate, and I express my 
thanks for a job well done.

                          ____________________