[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]

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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2275

  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, now I think we should get on to the bill, 
but I do not want it to be like a grenade being tossed into this at the 
very end when we run out of time.
  Madam President, am I correct that the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma is now pending?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct, amendment No. 
2275.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time is there on that amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifty minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. I hope it will not be necessary to use all that time. What 
I would suggest, we have normally followed the tradition of going back 
and forth. That is not part of the order, but I hope that we might 
right after this----
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment that Senator DeConcini and I have been endeavoring 
to offer be the next business of the Senate after the disposition of 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears 
none, and it is ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I wish to thank the 
Senator from Vermont and also the Senators from Florida and Arizona.
  Madam President, the Senator from Vermont is correct. We have 50 
minutes on this amendment. I do not think it will take that long. We 
will have to find out.
  Madam President, this amendment makes three changes in the budget 
figures in the foreign operations bill. This amendment restores $52 
million of money for the International Narcotics Control Agency. This 
brings it up to $152 million. That is what the President requested. I 
think it is what is needed.
  I have a memo from the State Department where they are very critical 
of the House appropriations figure. I will just read this. It says:

       The figures from the House Appropriations Committee, 
     Subcommittee on Foreign Operations markup of the 
     International Narcotics Control budget for fiscal 1995 are 
     not just bad--they are disastrous. The committee mark 
     recommends a 1995 budget of $100 milion, the same as the 
     current year and roughly 35 percent less than requested. 
     Major international narcotics programs cannot survive another 
     year at this level of funding.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire memo from 
the State Department be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Impact of the House Appropriations Committee Markup--International 
                  Counternarcotics Programs

       The figures from the House Appropriations Committee, 
     Subcommittee on Foreign Operations mark-up of the 
     International Narcotics Control budget for FY-1995 are not 
     just bad--they are disastrous. The committee mark recommends 
     a 1995 budget of $100 million, the same as the current year 
     and roughly 35 percent less than requested. Major 
     international narcotics programs cannot survive another year 
     at this level of funding.
       Some may believe that, because INM programs will survive 
     the current year with $100 million funding, this is an 
     acceptable base budget. It is not. INM will survive 1994 by 
     smoke and mirrors. They are using to the fullest possible 
     extent funding and equipment already in the prior year 
     pipeline. They are deferring upgrades and improvements. They 
     have received interagency assistance from ONDCP's portion of 
     the Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Fund, and from DOD via 
     Section 1004. And they have cut most overseas programs to the 
     core. In some country programs, basic administrative costs 
     are now more than 50 percent of the total program level.
       This approach cannot be sustained a second year. New 
     programs to address new crises such as Asian heroin or 
     organized crime in the former Soviet Union could not even be 
     contemplated. A FY-1995 INM program budget of $100 million 
     will produce inevitable consequences:
       Turning Our Backs on the Source Countries: The President's 
     new strategy for the Western Hemisphere (PDD-14) calls for a 
     shift in emphasis from the transit zone to source countries. 
     The new approach is more efficient and more effective. 
     Current programs in the Andean source countries cannot be 
     sustained at a $100 million level, far less expanded. They 
     would have to be reduced dramatically.
       Closing Programs: Central America and Caribbean programs 
     are already at shoestring levels. They were maintained last 
     year because INM decided that maintaining a counternarcotics 
     presence and infrastructure in the region justified the 
     programs, even at minuscule levels. They cannot survive a 
     second year at that level. Another $100 million program 
     budget puts us out of the counternarcotics business in 
     Central America and Panama, just as narcotics replaces 
     insurgences as the primary threat against these new 
     democracies.
       Ignoring Heroin: Heroin is the new U.S. drug epidemic. 
     South and Southeast Asia produce roughly two-thirds of the 
     heroin in the U.S. Until now, State deferred funding major 
     programs in the region because the heroin threat lagged far 
     behind cocaine. The U.S. no longer has the luxury to defer. A 
     $100 million program level does not provide the resources for 
     an aggressive effort against heroin in Asia.
       Shutting Down Eradication: After years of debate and 
     effort, there are finally serious eradication programs in 
     Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Panama. Eradication is 
     expensive. It is also politically unpopular in every country 
     where it is implemented. If the U.S. does not support 
     eradication programs vigorously, governments will not conduct 
     them on their own. At $100 million, INM can neither support 
     eradication programs at their current level or start new 
     programs.
       Gutting Aviation Support: The Committee calls for INM to 
     get out of the air force business. However, the Committee has 
     never argued against support for essential counternarcotics 
     aviation efforts, and it certainly never directed INM to 
     waste the taxpayers' money by abandoning aircraft to budget 
     starvation. This would be the effect of a $100 million budget 
     on INM's aviation support programs.
       Ignoring Russia and the Former Soviet Union: If there is 
     one place on the planet where organized crime has made 
     enormous inroads in the 1990s, it is Russia and the former 
     Soviet Republics. The Congress recognizes it, as the 
     Gephardt-Michel Report earlier this spring graphically noted. 
     The former Soviet governments are ready to cooperate with us. 
     INM has training and assistance programs to address some of 
     the most serious crises. At a $100 million funding level, 
     however, INM could not offer more than token programs.

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I also just mention to my colleagues, 
somebody might say, well, wait a minute. Last year they had $100 
million; the year before they had $173 million; the year before that 
$147 million; and the year before that $150 million.
  So if we pass this amendment, we will go up to $152 million, which is 
basically the same as it was in 1991 for international narcotics 
control.
  Now, can anyone in this Chamber, anybody in this country, say that we 
do not have a problem as far as illegal drugs coming into this country 
that are killing thousands of people? It is still happening. It is a 
serious problem. We need to interdict those drugs. We need to fight the 
battle. To go down to $100 million, as we did last year, is a serious 
mistake. The year before that it was $173 million.
  What kind of signal does that send to the drug warlords in Colombia? 
They have to be excited. They like it. They would like to see zero. Let 
us not spend any money on international efforts to interdict drugs. 
That would make them happy. I do not think we should do that.
  I happen to agree with the State Department which says, wait a 
minute, this would be disastrous. If you are really serious about 
trying to combat illegal drugs coming into this country, I think this 
is rather modest. Again, this is the same level that we were spending 
all the way back in 1991.
  I might mention we have had some success. We interdicted in 1993 
cocaine seizures--not all drugs, just cocaine seizures--108 metric 
tons. That is a lot. But, unfortunately, that was only about 14 percent 
of the production estimated that year. What is that, 1 out of 7, one-
seventh? So we still have a lot to do.
  And so, yes, I do think $152 million is a lot better than $100 
million. That is what we were spending a few years ago. Frankly, it is 
needed.
  Now, how do we pay for it? I understand some people are going to 
object to how we pay for it. But let me tell you, I think we were very 
responsible. I said look at some of the areas that have big increases. 
I looked at the International Development Association. That is the 
World Bank. Under the bill, there is a big increase.
  The 1995 Senate bill says let us spend $1.2 billion--actually, $1.207 
billion. Well, in 1994, we only spent a little bit over $1 billion--
$1.024 billion. So that is almost--well, it is a $183 million increase.
  So I said, well, let us reduce part of that increase. And even after 
my amendment, the International Development Association would still 
have a 7-percent increase over last year. So we have reduced the rate 
of growth in the World Bank lending arm, but still they have more money 
in 1995 than they had in 1994.
  We also made a reduction in the global environmental facility. 
Somebody might say, ``Gosh, you reduced that significantly.'' Well, we 
reduced the outlays by $2.7 million. But I might mention last year they 
had $30 million. The committee was saying let us go up to $99 million. 
Under my amendment, we would go to $50 million. So they would still 
have a 66 percent increase in the global environmental facility.
  Now, some people might say, ``Wait a minute, isn't that harmful to 
the environment?''
  I might tell my colleague and friend from California, many in the 
environmental community agree wholeheartedly with this amendment. They 
are not pleased with the International Development Association. They 
are not pleased with the multilateral development banks and their 
lending practices. They made a lot of loans that really did not make 
sense. And they are not pleased with the global environmental facility.
  Let me just read from a couple letters. Friends of the Earth wrote me 
a letter dated July 12. They said:

       Friends of the Earth believes the performance of the World 
     Bank's Global Environmental Facility has for the most part 
     been disastrous and the U.S. funding should be cut back until 
     there is substantial change in the operation of the Facility.

  I might tell my friends who are not familiar with it, this is a new 
facility. This is something that we did not have on the books. The 
first funding came in 1993, and they received $30 million. In 1994, 
they received $30 million. And if my amendment is approved, they will 
get $50 million. A lot of the environmental groups are saying no 
increase whatsoever, no funding. Under my amendment they still get a 66 
percent increase.
  So for those who might have some concerns about, well, this Nickles 
amendment would be too draconian on the global environmental facility, 
I totally disagree. I think if they would read letters from members and 
leaders in the environmental community they would concur.
  Let me also mention the Environmental Defense Fund. It is well known 
for leading environmental battles in Washington, DC. This letter was 
written to Senator Brown because Senator Brown was contemplating an 
amendment that would freeze the International Development Association's 
funding at last year's level. It sounds kind of reasonable.
  That is not my amendment. My amendment allows funding to increase by 
7 percent. Maybe we should be voting on Senator Brown's amendment. But 
my purpose was not to see how much money we could cut out of the 
International Development Association. It was to fund international 
narcotics control. We are not doing enough.
  So I allowed some reduction in the International Development 
Association, but they will still have a 7 percent increase over last 
year. Let me just read what the Environmental Defense Fund says to 
Senator Brown. This is dated July 13.

       I am writing on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund to 
     support efforts of you and your colleagues to, at the very 
     least, maintain fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the World 
     Bank at fiscal year 1994 levels rather than approve any 
     increases.

  In other words they are saying, ``Hey, we don't want you to increase 
to $183 million. We don't think they are doing a very good job.''
  That is the essence of the other page and a half of this letter.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters, 
as well as a statement by Bruce Rich on behalf of the Environmental 
Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, National 
Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club, concerning appropriations 
before the Senate Foreign Ops Committee on May 17 be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Friends of the Earth,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1994.
     Re: World Bank and Global Environment Facility (GEF).

     Senator Don Nickles,
     Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: Friends of the Earth believes that 
     the performance of the World Bank's Global Environment 
     Facility has for the most part been disastrous and that U.S. 
     funding should be cut back until there is substantial change 
     in the operation of the Facility.
       A reduction in funding to $50 million from the proposed 
     Senate level of $98 million makes sense at the time. 
     Furthermore, the Congress should make appropriations to the 
     GEF contingent upon basic conditions of transparency and 
     accountability, which do not now exist. It will take some 
     time to develop appropriate guidelines on these two points, 
     so there should be no need to rush their disbursement of 
     funds.
       In testimony to the Senate this year the Environmental 
     Defense Fund posed the basic question about the GEF: ``What 
     stake will poor populations in the developing world have in 
     GEF projects if they are conducted along the same lines of 
     small-minded secrecy and closed, top-down, bureaucratic 
     planning that characterizes so much of the Bank's current way 
     of operating?'' We fully concur with this challenge.
           Sincerely,
                                            Dr. Brent Blackwelder,
                                                   Vice President.
                                  ____



                                   Environmental Defense Fund,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 1994.
     Senator Hank Brown,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Environmental Defense Fund to support efforts of you and your 
     colleagues to, at the very least, maintain FY 1995 
     appropriations for the World Bank (IBRD and IDA) at FY 1994 
     levels rather than approve any increases. On March 3, 1994 
     EDF and four other national environmental organizations with 
     over five million members urged in testimony before the 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on 
     International Economic Policy, Trade, Oceans and Environment 
     that ``the Foreign Relations Committee recommend to the 
     Appropriations Committee to cut a portion of authorized 
     funding for the [World] Bank's hard loan window, the IBRD. We 
     believe that this will be the most effective spur to reforms 
     at the Bank.''
       The rationale EDF and other national environmental 
     organizations cited for this recommendation is stronger now 
     than it was in March: ``the money the Administration is 
     requesting the Congress to authorize and appropriate this 
     year for the MDBs will too often be poorly used, without very 
     significant improvements in the overall management and 
     environmental performance of these institutions. We would 
     suggest that the overall poor environmental performance of 
     these institutions may be only a leading indicator of deeper 
     and more widespread management and project quality 
     problems.'' The areas of poor performance of the Bank are 
     described in detail in the March 3rd statement submitted to 
     the Foreign Relations Committee. Rather than respond to many 
     of these areas of substantive concern, the Bank continues to 
     increase the resources devoted to public relations lobbying 
     with its major donors, including devoting more time of senior 
     management to public relations efforts to rebut criticisms of 
     Bank performance.
       The most telling indicator of the Bank's approach to 
     criticisms of project quality is an ongoing process of 
     reissuing the Bank's Operational Directives--the Bank's 
     internal rules and regulations requiring staff to take into 
     account environmental, social and other concerns in project 
     preparation and implementation--as weakened ``Operational 
     Policies,'' a change that is a giant step backward in making 
     Bank staff accountable and responsible for the developmental 
     impact of their work. The Bank persists in preparing and 
     promoting economically inefficient, environmentally and 
     socially disastrous schemes, the most recent being the 
     proposed Arun dam in Nepal, opposed by numerous NGOs in 
     Nepal, as well as in Europe and North America.
       Rather than increased appropriations for the World Bank, 
     scarce foreign aid resources of the U.S. would be much better 
     used in supporting a greater variety of bilateral aid 
     programs (such as the Interamerican Foundation and the 
     African Development Foundation) that directly assist poor 
     communities in developing countries, and in promoting 
     increased debt relief for the poorest nations. Indeed, the G-
     7 Summit Meeting just concluded in Naples endorsed further 
     debt relief for the poorest nations through the Paris Club.
           Sincerely,

                                                Bruce M. Rich,

                                     Senior Attorney and Director,
                                            International Program.

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, let me just highlight a couple of the 
concerns that were in this testimony again just as recently as May 17.

       The message the national environmental organizations I 
     represent today wish to convey to you in the strongest terms 
     is that the money the Administration is requesting the 
     Congress to authorize and appropriate this year for the MDBs 
     will be unnecessarily wasted and poorly used, without very 
     significant improvements in the overall management and 
     environmental performance of these institutions.
       In this regard, the case of the World Bank and associated 
     GEF is particularly disturbing, because of the leadership 
     role that institution is perceived to have. Events over the 
     past two years reveal a long building, serious breakdown of 
     accountability and responsibility at the highest levels in 
     the Bank, despite belated, ineffectual steps of management to 
     respond to increasing international pressures for greater 
     transparency and improvements in project quality.

  I will skip a paragraph. It says:

       But we would submit that these efforts notwithstanding, 
     there is growing evidence that the MDBs and particularly the 
     World Bank current cannot be trusted to use the public's 
     money wisely and effectively. We believe that it would be a 
     wiser use of taxpayers' money not to concentrate resources so 
     intensively on the World Bank and other MDBs, with their 
     disturbing record of declining project quality and 
     demonstrated management problems, but rather to also 
     encourage and support a diversity of alternative development 
     institutions and channels for foreign assistance, ones that 
     would have a better chance of helping the poor and helping 
     the global environment.

  Just a couple of other excerpts from this statement:

       We recommend, therefore, that for FY 1995 the Congress not 
     appropriate the full GEF and MDB capital increases that are 
     being proposed until these institutions show that they have 
     carried out a number of fundamental reforms discussed in 
     detail later.
       In the case of the GEF, we believe it would be a mistake 
     for the U.S. to commit funds before the GEF has completed 
     Congressionally mandated restructuring and reforms enacted in 
     appropriations legislation over the past two years. It is 
     important that smaller amounts for the GEF be appropriated 
     quickly, to fund more limited activities related to the 
     immediate implementation of the Climate and Biodiversity 
     Conventions, such as developing country planning and 
     reporting requirements.

  Madam President, I could go on. I do not know that it is necessary. 
But this statement is very strong saying let us not have increases in 
funds for the Global Environmental Facility and the multilateral 
development banks, of which the International Development Association 
is a major part.
  Again, my amendment does not freeze. Maybe it should. My amendment 
allows for an increase in 1998 of 7 percent. It allows an increase for 
the Global Environmental Facility of 66 percent. But we do save enough 
money in budget authority to give us the outlay money to fund 
international narcotics control, which in my opinion will save lives 
and it will stop tons of cocaine from coming into this country. When 
that happens, the price is going to be higher. It is going to be more 
difficult for kids in the District of Columbia to be able to buy crack. 
It will be more expensive for them. When it is more expensive, maybe 
some of them will not buy it. Maybe some of them will not get addicted. 
Maybe some of them will not die fighting for that drug, or killing to 
get the money to buy the drug.
  I hope my colleagues will understand that this amendment is not an 
attempt to undermine these international institutions. I think they 
need reform. I think they waste a lot of money. The environmental 
community believes very strongly that they are not spending their money 
well, either.
  I think we need to restore money for international narcotics control 
at least to the level that we were doing in 1991. Let us not go back to 
this $100 million figure and basically be sending a signal to the drug 
warlords throughout the world that the United States really does not 
care about interdicting serious illegal drugs.
  Madam President, I hope my colleagues will concur and that we will be 
successful in passing this amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators D'Amato, 
Brown, Craig, Gramm, and Hutchison be added as cosponsors.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if my colleague from Kansas will withhold 
for just a moment, I wanted to note a couple of things for the Record 
on why I oppose putting this $100 million in for counternarcotics.
  We have spent well over $1 billion in counternarcotics expenditures. 
But everybody agrees it has not made any difference. Narcotics are more 
available than before the counternarcotics efforts were underway, and 
at a lower price.
  So it has not had the effectiveness many would like to think. I said, 
only somewhat facetiously, that we should probably put the 
counternarcotics program in the Department of Agriculture. The reason I 
said this is that with the billions we spent, we stopped about 1 
percent from coming in here. The best-run agricultural programs in this 
country lose about 3 percent between harvest and the consumer. We could 
just put it under the USDA, and we would triple our effectiveness.
  The point of it is, of course, that we are going to have to stop 
demand. That is going to be far more effective than a lot of money that 
we poured into counternarcotics, which has gone into the hands of 
corrupt regimes, gone into human rights violations, and other areas.
  We kept $100 million in this program to try to have some of that 
work. But to suggest, as has been suggested here, that somehow the 
administration does not want any of this money, the fact of the matter 
is, we are trying to carry out pledges made by the Bush administration, 
by the Reagan administration, and currently.
  If we are going to make anymore cuts in this, we are going to have to 
say that the promises made by the Bush and Reagan administrations are 
worthless; we are going to have to say that all the efforts that we 
were able to make in the GEF, a year spent negotiating a restructured 
GEF based on money withheld, and pledges made by past administrations 
and this one, that now that they have done all the reforms, we are not 
going to keep our word.
  I think it would be irresponsible to renege on our pledge, and other 
countries are going to have ample reason to ridicule us if we do this.
  So, Madam President, just so there is no question where the 
administration is, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen, in strong opposition to this 
amendment, be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Secretary of the Treasury,


                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: During floor consideration of H.R. 4426 
     (the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill) today, 
     amendments may be offered that I hope you will oppose.
       These amendment will cut the Committee mark for the 
     International Development Association (IDA) and the Global 
     Environment Facility.
       IDA is the centerpiece of multilateral programs to provide 
     cost-effective assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. The poorest 
     countries depend heavily on IDA for financial and policy 
     support. We are already $310 million dollars in arrears in 
     our payments to IDA.
       The Global Environment Facility is the major international 
     mechanism to combat transnational environmental problems, 
     including ozone depletion, extinction of plant and animal 
     species, and ocean pollution. An outgrowth of the 1992 Rio 
     Earth Summit, the GEF has moved beyond the preliminary stage 
     to meet my own staff standards for operational efficiency. 
     The time is ripe to upgrade the GEF to a full-fledged program 
     as provided by the Committee's mark.
       I hope you will oppose any efforts to cut these vital 
     programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lloyd Bentsen.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that another 
letter by the Under Secretary of State, who has to oversee both the 
counternarcotics and the global environmental programs, in strong 
opposition to this amendment, be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

         U.S. Department of State, Under Secretary of State for 
           Global Affairs,
                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are deeply concerned about proposed 
     amendments to the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations 
     bill that would reduce its request of $98.8 million in fiscal 
     year 1995 for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and that 
     would condition the remaining appropriation. Full funding for 
     the GEF is urgently needed to enable the United States to 
     maintain its international leadership in combatting key 
     threats to the global environment. These include global 
     warming, the loss of biological diversity, the degradation of 
     international waters and depletion of the stratospheric ozone 
     layer.
       We have worked hard in negotiations to restructure the GEF 
     and achieved all of its negotiating objectives. We believe 
     that the GEF is now positioned to play a key role in our 
     efforts to combat these threats to the global environment. We 
     must back our policy leadership with financial resources to 
     ensure the GEF's success. Other donors' pledges are tied to 
     ours in a burden-sharing arrangement; failure to honor our 
     pledge may unravel the GEF itself, and with it, efforts to 
     bring developing countries and economies in transition to 
     market economies into the global effort to safeguard our 
     environment. Failure to meet our GEF commitments would be a 
     significant blow to US global environmental leadership and 
     could increase pressure to create a multitude of 
     international environmental funding mechanisms.
       It is the Department's understanding that a proposal may be 
     offered to reallocate GEF funds to other key problems facing 
     our nation, including efforts to combat narcotics. Reducing 
     funding for critical global environmental programs to pay for 
     increases in narcotics programs makes no more sense than 
     reducing narcotics funding for environmental purposes. Strong 
     support for both of these major global issues is needed and 
     they must be pursued in tandem. We support full funding for 
     both efforts and we must oppose amendments that could cause 
     harm to the global environment we leave to our children, even 
     if they are aimed at laudable and shared commitments for 
     counternarcotics efforts. That is a false choice and we 
     reject it.
       I urge you to strongly support the Administration's request 
     of $98.8 million in fiscal year 1995 for the Global 
     Environment Facility.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Timothy E. Wirth.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I also ask that a letter from the World 
Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, and Conservation International, be printed in the Record at 
this point, all in strong opposition to the amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          World Wildlife Fund,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express World Wildlife 
     Fund's support for the funding levels for multilateral and 
     bilateral funding for environmental protection and 
     development activities recommended in the foreign operations 
     appropriations bill. We consider these amounts the minimum 
     necessary for the United States to help meet global 
     challenges in these critical areas.
       In particular, I would draw your attention to the 
     recommended funding levels for the international financial 
     institution, including the Global Environment Facility. The 
     United States' contributions to international financial 
     institutions often serve as a benchmark for other countries' 
     contributions, multiplying the benefit of our dollars. 
     Although we at WWF believe that significant improvements 
     continue to be necessary to ensure that these institution's 
     lending contributes to truly sustainable development, the 
     United States' influence in support of further reform depends 
     on our continued full participation. The appropriations 
     levels in the bill would also take the important step of 
     paying back a portion of the United States' arrearage to the 
     international financial institutions. We urge you and your 
     colleagues to support the administration's Global Enviroment 
     Facility and International Development Association request 
     for fiscal year 1995 without further conditionality, and 
     specifically to reject amendments we understand will be 
     offered by Senators Brown and Nickles that will slash funding 
     for these crucial initiatives.
       In addition, after years of budget cutbacks, the Agency for 
     International Development has been left with the minimum 
     funding necessary to meet its mission despite substantial 
     organizational improvements and reforms in the last year. The 
     world looks to the United States to be a leader in meeting 
     the challenges of international development as well as 
     meeting its obligations under the Convention on Biological 
     Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. We 
     appreciate the funding levels that your subcommittee has 
     recommended for bilateral development and conservation 
     assistance.
       Please do not hesitate to call upon us to answer any 
     questions that you might have by telephoning me at (202) 778-
     9680 or Will Singleton at (202) 778-9791.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Doug Siglin,
                                Director, Congressional Relations.
                                  ____



                                       The Nature Conservancy,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I understand Senator Brown of Colorado 
     will offer an amendment to the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill to cut back the appropriation to the 
     Global Environment Facility (GEF) from $98.8 million to $30 
     million. He also wants to place certain conditions on the 
     appropriations.
       In our view it is essential the GEF receive the full US 
     pledge in order not to severely affect reforms gained in 
     recent negotiations in which the US played a significant 
     leadership role. We supported those reforms and served on the 
     US delegation, which addressed every major area of concern 
     dealt with by a recent independent evaluation.
       The GEF is an essential component of the Administration's 
     international environmental policy and will serve as the 
     financial mechanism for the Conventions on Climate Change and 
     Biodiversity. We must back our policy leadership by 
     demonstrating a financial stake in the success of the GEF. 
     Failure to fulfill our pledge to the GEF will be seen as a 
     major disappointment to both developed and developing 
     countries.
       Mr. Chairman, on behalf of The Nature Conservancy and its 
     more than 700,000 members, I urge you to fight the Brown 
     amendment and any other amendment which seeks to cut funding 
     or impose new conditions on the GEF.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tia Nelson,
                     Policy Representative, International Program.
                                  ____



                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: The Natural Resources Defense Council 
     strongly supports appropriating the full $98.8 million 
     proposed for the Global Environment Facility in the Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations Bill now before the Senate. This 
     money is critical to ensuring the success of the newly 
     restructured facility to deal with several global 
     environmental problems.
       The Global Environment Facility is a fund to assist 
     developing countries deal with the global problems of 
     biodiversity, climate change and international waters. The 
     fund is a critical part of the international process to deal 
     with these problems, and a key component to two international 
     treaties on Climate Change and Biodiversity that the US has 
     ratified (Climate Change) or in the process of ratifying 
     (Biodiversity).
       Failure to secure the full $98.8 million as an initial 
     contribution by the US will jeopardize the viability of the 
     GEF to deal with these problems, and hence the participation 
     of developing countries in these international processes to 
     protect the global environment. In the long term this means 
     an even greater burden for the United States if these 
     processes fail. We urge you to support the full 
     appropriations for this critical environmental program.
           Sincerely,
                                                  S. Jacob Scherr,
                                 Director, International Programs.
                                  ____



                                   Conservation International,

                                                    July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman. I am writing to express concern over 
     amendments we understand will be offered by Senators Brown 
     and Nickles that cut back appropriations for important 
     environmental and development initiatives recommended in the 
     foreign operations appropriations bill. We urge you and your 
     colleagues to support the administration's Global 
     Environmental Facility request for fiscal year 1995 and 
     oppose any amendments which will cut funding for this 
     important program.
       The GEF is perhaps the most tangible result of the landmark 
     Rio Earth Summit. It is the interim financial mechanism for 
     the Biodiversity and Climate Conventions and is one of the 
     cornerstones of the Administration's international 
     environmental policy. The Administration has fought hard over 
     the past year for critical changes during the restructuring 
     negotiations and deserves the full endorsement of the Senate.
       Please do not hesitate to contact me at 973-2251 should you 
     have any questions regarding these issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ian Bowles,
                                   Director, Legislative Programs.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, one thing that is united in this foreign 
aid issue is that there have been both Democratic and Republican 
administrations in support of how the world's poorest countries are 
trying. We send about $1--$1--per capita to these African nations, for 
example, in foreign aid. In contrast to other parts of the world where 
we spend foreign aid, we spend about $1, and we support IDA because at 
least that increases the contribution. They do about $5.
  It is hard to think that we are even responsible with the kind of aid 
we give there, when you think of the amount of money we shell out to 
Nicaragua, El Salvador, or when, based on the last administration's 
pledge, we gave nearly $2 billion in foreign aid to Saddam Hussein.
  I do not remember the Senator from Oklahoma or anybody else down here 
trying to stop the last administration from giving a pledge that 
required the taxpayers of this country to give $2 billion to Saddam 
Hussein. But here we are going to cut out a dollar per capita to the 
poorest of the poor. It does not make any sense. So I am opposed to it.
  The Senator from Kansas is here. I also note that the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee is here. I yield to him for 3 minutes, and 
then I will yield to the Senator from Kansas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, this amendment would not only reduce 
funding for the World Bank's programs in the poorest countries of the 
world, but it would also significantly reduce funding for the Global 
Environmental Facility [GEF].
  The Global Environmental Facility was created to help developing 
countries carry out commitments they made in the Biological Diversity 
Treaty and the Climate Change Treaty.
  The Senate has already given its advice and consent on the Climate 
change Treaty and the Foreign Relations Committee recently reported out 
the Biological Diversity Treaty by a vote of 16 to 3.
  The facility will fund projects that will benefit the global 
environment in the areas of climate change, biodiversity, ozone 
depletion, and international waters.
  Over the last 2 years, the Bush and Clinton administrations have 
negotiated the conditions of the GEF and withheld funding until the 
United States determined that it had established clear procedures to 
ensure public access to information and are developing procedures to 
ensure that affected communities are consulted in all aspects of 
project implementation.
  The United States also successfully negotiated a significant 
reduction in the size of the facility and narrowed the scope of 
eligible projects to ensure that only projects with agreed global 
environmental benefits be funded.
  To reduce funding below the $98 million the United States has pledged 
to the GEF now that the United States has accomplished its negotiating 
objectives would severely reduce U.S. leverage and its ability to 
ensure that these conditions are fully met and put the United States in 
arrears.
  Madam President, this amendment would strike a major blow to United 
States and multilateral efforts to protect the global environment. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. How much time does the Senator from 
Kansas need?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. How much time will the manager yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time would the Senator like?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I will use 5 minutes at the most.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Nickles 
amendment. As it has been laid down, it cuts more than $100 million 
from the U.S. contribution to the World Bank's International 
Development Association. It reduces nearly $50 million in our 
contribution to the Global Environmental Facility, and finally, it 
would increase funding for the international narcotics program.
  Let me address the two accounts that the Senator from Oklahoma wants 
to cut and one he would like to increase. I understand the concerns and 
the arguments that Senator Nickles has made regarding the World Bank's 
International Development Association. Clearly, there is waste at the 
World Bank--the salary levels are very high, offices are too plush--but 
I do not believe that cutting funding for IDA is the best method to 
encourage reform. IDA is an economical, coordinated, and effective way 
to promote development focused solely on the poorest countries in the 
world. It helps countries from Armenia to Cambodia, Georgia to Albania. 
All IDA borrowers have a per capita income below $825.
  IDA is particularly important for Africa, which gets about half of 
all IDA resources. Many African countries, such as Ghana, Gambia, 
Uganda, and Tanzania, are undertaking substantial economic reform. IDA 
supports these reforming economies.
  As someone who has followed Africa for a number of years on the 
Foreign Relations Committee, I strongly believe that Africa will never 
develop and succeed without solid economic policies. This is not easy. 
But IDA is the best instrument that we have, as an international 
community, to promote policy reform and help these countries through 
difficult times.
  I know we can sit here and look at the tragedy that has played out in 
Rwanda, Sudan, or many African nations and wonder if the little bit 
leveraged through IDA does any good. But, Madam President, I suggest 
that without it, we will never help and be able to encourage solid 
economic reforms that are going to be the basis for some stability in 
the countries that need it the most.
  I have had, and continue to have, serious concerns about the 
coordination of international development efforts. Often, it seems that 
the United States is off doing one thing, the Europeans another, and 
the Japanese another. The World Bank, and particularly IDA, offers an 
effective, coordinated way for donors to work together to promote 
development.
  The World Bank--largely prodded by the United States--has taken some 
positive steps to reform itself. First-class travel has ended; an 
inspection panel has been created to oversee Bank projects. The 
question is how best to continue these reforms.
  We are already $310 million in arrears to IDA. We are the only major 
donor in arrears. If this amendment is approved, adding to our 
arrearages, our efforts to reform the Bank, I make the case, would be 
seriously undermined.
  I understand and sympathize with the concerns of the Senator from 
Oklahoma, but I strongly believe that the committee recommended funding 
for IDA promotes reform at the Bank and supports developing countries, 
particularly Africa.
  I will speak for a moment about the Global Environmental Facility. 
Many, including myself, have had serious reservations about the 
original mandate, size, and focus of this facility. Due to these 
concerns expressed by many, the United States did not fund the pilot 
program for the facility for 3 years. I now believe that many of these 
issues have been addressed, and addressed very effectively. After tough 
negotiations by both the Bush and Clinton negotiators, we now have the 
type of institution that we want--a transparent, accountable, cost-
effective mechanism to address international environmental issues.
  Under intense American pressure:
  The scope and costs of the GEF have been reduced from $4 billion to 
the current size of $2 billion;
  The U.S. share is only $430 million over 4 years, less than the per 
capita contributions of other countries;
  The United States retains a great amount of control over the GEF's 
policies and projects; and
  The focus of the GEF has been limited to projects with global 
environmental benefits, such as biodiversity.
  I now believe that the GEF can become an important part of U.S. 
efforts to promote international cooperation on the environment. The 
United States won some major concessions in forming the GEF. If we want 
to keep this institution on the right track, it is important that our 
participation be comprehensive and aggressive to help shape the agenda 
and make GEF a constructive, focused, effective, and coordinated 
institution addressing global environmental problems.
  May I have an additional 2 minutes to further address the 
international narcotics control program?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has requested an additional 2 
minutes from the manager.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Finally, Madam President, I oppose the proposed 
increase for international narcotics control. I suppose that sounds 
sort of wild in the belief that this is a program that really is 
adequately funded, because I care just as much as everybody else does 
about getting the international narcotics program under control. Just 
as the Senator from Oklahoma said, the big drug traffickers around the 
world need to be stopped in every way imaginable, the demand in our own 
country needs to be addressed.
  The committee funded the narcotics control account at last year's 
level of $100 million. Given budget realities, I think this is more 
than sufficient funding for this program.
  I am not convinced that increased funding for this program will make 
any real difference in reducing the flow of drugs into this country.
  I doubt if the effectiveness of the program during the Reagan and 
Bush administrations, and nothing in this administration's strategy 
demonstrates to me that the program will be any more successful in the 
future.
  We have now devoted more than $2.2 billion over the last 5 years in 
the so-called Andean strategy. Yet, there is no sign that the actual 
levels of cocaine reaching the United States shores has changed 
significantly. Estimates are that less than 5 percent of all drugs 
entering our country are interdicted at the border.
  Madam President, I really do have to question the effectiveness of 
this program and in order to make it effective we must be willing to 
challenge it. Given the mixed record and budget constraints I believe 
the committee has acted appropriately by keeping funding at last year's 
level.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. I think Senator Graham wants a couple minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the time.
  Does he yield time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Kentucky mind if I yield to the 
Senator 3 minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to speak at greater length on 
this issue raised by this amendment when we debate the next amendment. 
But I would like to raise this issue.
  It is imperative for an effective program against drugs in this 
country that we have both a strong offense in terms of our efforts to 
reduce the amount of drugs coming into the United States and an equally 
strong defense in terms of reducing the demand for drugs within this 
country.
  I do not see these two as being incompatible any more than the same 
strong offense and strong defense would be incompatible on an athletic 
team.
  What has happened is that we have had a major restructuring of our 
offensive strategy. The efforts to reduce the supply of drugs into the 
United States used to be primarily focused on a border policy. That was 
a policy which keyed around domestic agencies, such as the Department 
of Defense providing intelligence for more effective interdiction, the 
Department of Treasury with their customs capabilities, and a whole 
array of agencies within the Department of Justice to capture those 
persons who crossed our border with illicit drugs.
  We now have adopted a new policy, and I will quote from a statement 
issued by the drug coordinator on February 9 of this year in which he 
stated that the new international strategy calls for a--
       * * * controlled shift in emphasis from transit zones to 
     source countries. The term ``controlled shift'' is used 
     because it is anticipated that the shift could in turn 
     precipitate changes in tactics by drug cartels. This requires 
     drug control agencies to be prepared to respond to changes as 
     they occur.

  So our new strategy is to diminish the focus on transit zones, and my 
colleague and cosponsor of the next amendment, Senator DeConcini, will 
talk at some length about that topic and focus on eradication and 
interdiction inside the key source countries. Those efforts are largely 
funded through the international counternarcotics programs in the 
Department of State.
  So when we say we are going to hold it at the previous year's level 
of funding, we are holding it at the previous year's level of funding 
while we have a new strategy.
  So, Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment as offered by the 
Senator from Oklahoma. I think it is consistent and has the support in 
terms of reaching these levels of funding for our international 
narcotics program of the Clinton administration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe the majority will yield me 3 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment, which proposes to cut the U.S. contributions to the 
International Development Association [IDA] and the Global Environment 
Facility [GEF] to direct funding to international narcotics control.
  Environmental problems do not recognize borders. Excessive carbon 
emissions in the developing world directly impact our climate here in 
the United States. Use of ozone depleting chemicals in these countries 
destroys the ozone over North America. And loss of biodiversity 
eliminates our ability to discover life-saving pharmaceutical products 
and methods to control agricultural pests.
  The above problems are being addressed by three key treaties. The 
Montreal protocol calls for the complete phase-out of most ozone-eating 
compounds by the year 1996. Without U.S. participation in this 
important process, many countries would miss this deadline, leading to 
the continued production and use of chemicals that destroy this 
protective layer. The Convention on Climate Change works to halt the 
growth in emissions of the greenhouse gases that are warming the 
Earth's atmosphere. Just last year this body ratified this convention, 
making the United States an active participant in efforts to stem 
global air pollution. And finally, we are just weeks away from Senate 
ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty. The treaty works to stem the 
loss of the earth's species, their habitats and ecosystems by 
developing a common framework for natural resources management. Many 
economic benefits result from the conservation and sustainable use of 
these resources. We must preserve plant and animal species that may 
lead to the development of medicines and the protection of agricultural 
crops from pests.
  During a recent Senate Foreign Relations hearing on the Biodiversity 
Treaty, we heard testimony from representatives of the pharmaceutical 
industry on the importance of this convention. One company 
representative indicated the importance of the United States playing an 
active role in the preservation of biodiversity, as it will continue to 
allow this U.S. company to effectively discover and screen plants which 
may lead to drug development and commercial sale around the world.
  Just 2 weeks ago the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 
overwhelmingly in support of ratification of the treaty. I hope this 
body moves rapidly to complete ratification of this important treaty.
  Mr. President, we must maintain our commitment to these important 
global environmental measures. U.S. participation is vital. The 
proposed amendment would gut U.S. participation in the GEF, and would 
be a major blow to U.S. international credibility on environment 
issues. The GEF allows the United States to maintain its commitment 
under the above conventions at the lowest possible cost.
  I agree that the GEF has had problems in the past. Two years ago 
Congress put conditions on U.S. funding to the GEF, stating that the 
GEF needed to establish procedures for access to project information, 
Government oversight and procedures to involve nongovernmental 
organizations and local communities in project preparation and 
execution. During the last year the administration, through the 
leadership of the Treasury and State Departments, have worked closely 
with World Bank officials to ensure that such changes were instituted. 
I believe they made clear and significant progress in this area. Over 
the last year, the GEP has undergone a major restructuring, largely as 
a result of U.S. concerns. Secretary Bentsen has determined that the 
conditions that Congress imposed on previous appropriations measures 
have been met. To be sure that the GEF continues to reform, we must 
play a role and we must begin to provide our piece of the total budget, 
while working to ensure that changes really happen.
  We must maintain our leadership role in the GEF by continuing this 
funding. The newly restructured GEF gives donor countries, such as the 
United States, substantial authority over policies and projects of the 
facility. The GEF will promote the use of environmental technologies, 
in which the United States is a leader. These technologies include 
latest generation energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. In my 
home State of Vermont we are on the cutting edge globally in producing 
wind turbines, many of which are shipped around the world to displace 
the use of less efficient, polluting energy sources. A company in 
Hinesburg, VT, NRG ships wind energy systems to every corner of the 
planet. By continuing its work, the GEF can serve as a catalyst for 
much larger investments in U.S.-based technologies, boosting the demand 
for U.S. goods and services.

  Let us maintain our lead in promoting global environmental 
protection. Let us continue to ensure that U.S. clean technologies 
continue to dominate markets around the world. Let us work to fully 
implement the Biodiversity Treaty, the Climate Convention, and other 
international environmental treaties. The only way to do this 
successfully is to continue our commitment to the GEF, support the full 
funding and oppose any efforts to cut funding for the GEF.
  Mr. President, I also oppose this amendment's attempt to cut U.S. 
funding for the International Development Association. The IDA plays an 
important role in economic development throughout the developing world. 
This institution, an affiliate of the World Bank, was established under 
U.S. leadership in 1960 to make or guarantee loans for productive 
development to the poorest countries, at rates well below those offered 
in commercial lending markets. IDA projects assist in institution 
building, human resources development, infrastructure development, and 
private sector development.
  My colleagues and I have legitimate concerns about certain egregious 
practices of the World Bank and the impact of IDA development loans and 
projects on poor countries. As ranking member on the Africa 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I am especially 
concerned about the debt burden of countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
  It is true that much of this debt is owed to multilateral agencies 
like the World Bank. It is also true that the poorest and most fragile 
nations of the developing world can't reform their economies without 
international assistance. The multilateral development banks are still 
the most significant source of funding for sustainable, broad-based 
development.
  The United States has successfully pressured the World Bank to 
undertake some important reforms. Congress helped apply that pressure 
by withholding significant portions of our pledges to IDA. The funding 
level contained in this bill acknowledges that progress has been made 
on these reforms. However, this amendment would prevent us from 
fulfilling our pledge and would increase our arrears, despite positive 
steps undertaken by the Bank--at our insistence--to address these 
concerns.
  As with the GEF, I believe we must continue to press the World Bank 
to implement additional reforms. This can best be accomplished by 
remaining engaged in the process, by funding our pledge to IDA and 
continuing to forcefully push for change.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back any time that I might have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont yields back his time.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma for his leadership in this area.
  Certainly we have had a lot of discussions over the years about the 
effectiveness of the American tax dollars spent on antinarcotics 
efforts, but I think it is really going too far to say that they have 
not made any difference at all.
  My goodness. I can imagine just how bad the situation would be if we 
had no effort whatsoever. And also I think it is important to remember 
that these antinarcotics efforts are one of the few areas of any 
foreign assistance bill that have a very direct impact on us here at 
home, the clear domestic impact.
  Frankly, I think both of these accounts are worthwhile, and I have 
supported both. I think the narcotics account did take an unusually 
large reduction this year. I know the chairman did the best he could 
with our allocation, but the Senate ended up reducing funding for 
international narcotics control below the House level.
  The administration requested $152 million. The House provided $115 
million, and we are down to about $100 million. On the other hand, the 
International Development Association is funded by the Senate at just 
over $1.2 billion, really quite a significant amount in a just under 
$114 billion foreign aid bill.
  This is not a cut, but a reduction in a substantially larger account 
than the narcotics account. Clearly these are not easy choices.
  But I would like to say that I believe my colleague from Oklahoma is 
on the right track. This is not the time to retreat in the fight to 
control international narcotics trafficking.
  Just last week, there was extensive coverage of the economic 
consequences of crime in this country--our country; that is really what 
the Senator from Oklahoma is talking about here--crime that is, in 
large measure, drug related.
  I do not think we can claim we are serious about crime at home unless 
we fight the problem on all fronts, all fronts, beginning with waging 
an unrelenting war at the source and in transit countries.
  So I support the amendment offered by Senator Nickles. It will 
improve the chances of cleaning up our streets and solving our 
problems, a combination that is rare in any debate on any foreign aid 
bill. So I commend my friend from Oklahoma and thank him for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Graham of Florida be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by 
Senator Nickles. This amendment would nearly cut in half funding for 
the United States participation in the Global Environmental Facility, 
or GEF. The money would be transferred to the appropriation for 
international narcotics control. While I fully support both funding for 
the GEF and international narcotics control, this amendment would rob 
Peter to pay Paul. We should not do that. By halving our contribution 
to the GEF, the amendment would seriously weaken our Nation's 
leadership in global environmental affairs.
  The GEF provides the means by which the United States and other 
developed nations fulfill our financial commitments under the Climate 
Change Convention and the Biodiversity Convention. The GEF funds 
projects implementing these conventions in developing nations.
  The GEF not only facilitates U.S. leadership in global environmental 
affairs, it is also good for American business. For example, the GEF 
funds projects that promote the use of environmental technologies in 
which the United States is a leader, such as energy efficiency and 
renewable energy projects. Companies like Bechtel, Texaco, and Brooklyn 
Union Gas have already participated in GEF-funded projects.
  The Bush administration negotiated these conventions and the 
provisions for the GEF. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations have 
pushed hard to ensure that the GEF is fiscally lean and accountable to 
the nations that fund it, as well as the people who are directly 
affected by the funded projects.
  Mr. President, reducing the U.S. contribution to the GEF diminishes 
our global environmental leadership. Other nations look to the United 
States for this leadership. The contributions of other nations to the 
GEF are tied to the size of our contribution. If other nations see the 
United States reducing its commitment to the GEF, they are likely to 
follow suit. Thus, a reduced U.S. contribution could lead to an 
unraveling of the GEF itself.
  The amendment would also limit our influence over the administration 
of the GEF. The number of votes a nation receives on questions 
involving administration of the GEF depends on the size of its 
contribution. We should not shoot ourselves in the foot by reducing our 
contribution and limiting our own influence.
  Mr. President, funding international narcotics control is, of course, 
also critically important. I strongly support it. But I do not believe 
we have to weaken our global environmental leadership to fight the war 
on drugs. We can, and must, do both. That is why Under Secretary of 
State for Global Affairs Tim Wirth, who is responsible for both 
environmental affairs and international narcotics control efforts, has 
written Senator Leahy on behalf of the administration to oppose this 
amendment. As Under Secretary Wirth states in his letter:

       We must oppose amendments that could cause harm to the 
     global environment we leave to our children, even if they are 
     aimed at laudable and shared commitments for counternarcotics 
     efforts. That is a false choice and we reject it.

  I agree, Mr. President, and I urge Senators to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of comments in 
regard to the statements made by my friends in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I heard my friends from Vermont and Kansas talking about the 
reductions we are making in the International Development Association.
  Let me just recite my earlier statement. The funds that we have in 
this amendment will provide for a 7-percent increase over last year; 
not a reduction from last year. Last year we only spent a little over 
$1 billion. We allow almost $1.1 billion under the Nickles amendment. 
It goes up by 7 percent. It does not go up by 18 percent as proposed by 
the Senate committee.
  The Global Environmental Facility, which some people said, ``Well, we 
are reducing it. We are reducing the rate of growth.'' Last year, we 
only got $30 million. We say it will go up to $50 million, not $100 
million. But $50 million happens to be a 66-percent increase in the 
Global Environmental Facility.
  Let me just say that both of these programs have significant problems 
that have been recognized by many leaders in the environmental 
community.
  Now, I know my friend from Vermont will have some letters from some 
community members saying they oppose this amendment. But we have strong 
support from the environmental defense fund, from Friends of the Earth, 
from the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, 
and the Sierra Club that basically are telling the Senate not to 
increase these two functions because of their serious management 
problems.
  The Senator from Kansas alluded to the fact that the World Bank has 
been criticized because it has a big bureaucracy. It has over 7,000 
employees who make an average of something like, I think, $70,000, and 
they do not pay taxes. They just built a headquarters that cost over 
$300 million in downtown Washington, DC. I have been critical of that.
  But, really, the focus of my amendment is not attacking the World 
Bank or even the Global Environmental Facility. It is saying, ``Wait a 
minute. We need to do more to interdict drugs coming into this 
country.''
  My friend from Kansas said, ``Well, I do not think they have been 
very effective.''
  Well, they have been somewhat effective. If you look at the fact that 
they seized total foreign products in the United States of something 
like 141 metric tons of cocaine, I would say something is better than 
nothing.
  Let me just read from the State Department analysis. Their analysis 
was it would be devastating if we fall below the sum of $100 million. 
Let me remind my colleagues that 2 years ago we were spending $173 
million. In 1991, we were spending $150 million.
  So I am trying to keep at least the International Narcotics Control 
Program level. The other two programs, we are reducing the rate of 
growth, but still IDA gets to grow by 7 percent and the Global 
Environmental Facility by 66 percent.
  We are trying to keep the International Narcotics Control Program at 
least level with what it has been in the last few years.
  This is from the State Department. Keep in mind what the figures we 
have in our amendment are. To give the administration's figures, they 
requested $152 million for this program. They say the narcotics program 
will survive in 1994 by smoke and mirrors. In 1994 they got $150 
million. They said they have cut overseas programs to the core. They 
say we are turning our backs on the source countries.

       Current programs in the Andean source countries cannot be 
     sustained at a $100 million level, far less expanded. They 
     would have to be reduced dramatically.
  That is from our State Department.

       Closing Programs: Central America and Caribbean programs 
     are already at shoestring levels. They were maintained last 
     year because INM decided that maintaining a counternarcotics 
     presence and infrastructure in the region justified the 
     programs, even at miniscule levels. They cannot survive a 
     second year at that level. Another $100 million program 
     budget puts us out of the counternarcotics business in 
     Central America and Panama, just as narcotics replaces 
     insurgencies as the primary threat against these new 
     democracies.
       Ignoring Heroin: Heroin is the new U.S. drug epidemic. 
     South and Southeast Asia produce roughly two-thirds of the 
     heroin in the U.S. Until now, State deferred funding major 
     programs in the region because the heroin threat lagged far 
     behind cocaine. The U.S. no longer has the luxury to defer. A 
     $100 million program level does not provide the resources for 
     an aggressive effort against heroin in Asia.
       Shutting Down Eradication: After years of debate and 
     effort, there are finally serious eradication programs in 
     Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Panama. Eradication is 
     expensive. It is also politically unpopular in every country 
     where it is implemented. INM can neither support eradication 
     programs at their current level or start new programs.

  In other words, we are going to be shutting down an effort that has 
been at least responsible for confiscating, in 1993, something like 141 
metric tons of cocaine if we fund this at a level of $100 million.
  I say we should support State and we should support this 
administration and their efforts to fund this program and allow some 
modest increases in IDA and the Global Environmental Facility. That is 
allowed under my amendment. I would not even say modest.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Global Environmental Facility, under this amendment, 
gets a 66-percent increase. IDA gets a 7-percent increase. The 
International Narcotics Control under this amendment goes back to the 
1991 level.
  I hope my colleagues will concur.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will ask for 1 additional minute on our 
side to balance that.
  Mr. President, let us be clear on this. There is talk as though the 
administration supports the Nickles amendment. It does not. The Under 
Secretary of State who oversees both the narcotics and the 
environmental programs has written very clearly, and it is in the 
Record, that they do not support this.
  Now, I yield to nobody in my desire to stop narcotics coming into 
this country. I think they are the absolute scourge of this Nation. 
When I was a prosecutor, drug cases were among the top priorities in my 
office.
  But we are giving them $100 million. What I am trying to do in 
finding money in here, and there is very little money--remember, we cut 
several billions of dollars out of what the foreign aid bill was back 
in the Reagan administration, for example, or the early Bush years. It 
is several billions of dollars less today. You have to make choices.
  What we are saying with this amendment is that pledges made during 
the Reagan and Bush and now Clinton administrations will not be 
fulfilled. We are saying that in Africa, where we spend about $1 per 
capita or less, we will cut that even more.
  If we are really serious and we want more money for narcotics, then 
let us take 5 percent out of every country's earmark. I have not heard 
the Senator from Oklahoma or others suggest that. But that would give 
us hundreds of millions of dollars, and it would not end up crippling 
the poorest of the poor. But I do not hear anybody suggesting we do 
that. Nobody here seems to think that that might be a way to do it. And 
yet, if we are really serious about protecting U.S. interests in 
narcotics and if we think by throwing money in it we could do it, that 
would be the way to do it.
  We know that in coca--talk about how effective our antidrug program 
is--they cultivate 198,000 hectares and we have eradicated 3,000. So 
now they only end up with 195,000. This really is like trying to bail 
out the ocean.

  Certainly it is better than nothing, if we cut down by 1 percent. But 
it still means 99 percent comes over. If money alone could do it and 
was going to stop the drugs in this country, we ought to take all the 
foreign aid going to every single country and put it into drugs. But 
nobody is suggesting that for two reasons. One, we know that we have 
national security and economic interests worldwide in this program of 
foreign aid. And, second, we know that simply throwing money at it 
would not stop the problem at all.
  What I am saying is, let us support the commitments made in the 
Reagan years and the Bush years, and now in the Clinton years, and let 
us not cut further into these areas. We are not going to have--as 
Secretary Bentsen has pointed out, and others--the reforms we have been 
able to negotiate unless we, the United States, keep our word.
  I would love to put more money in a number of these programs. But I 
know the Senator from Oklahoma would not support cuts in some of the 
areas with the largest amounts of money in this, and the majority of 
the Senate would not support cuts in it. So let us be honest. Let us 
not just go off and cut the poorest of the poor. They seem to be the 
only ones that get clobbered every time somebody wants further money. 
The fact is there is only so much money. The fact is we have cut the 
foreign aid bill by several billions of dollars. And the fact is that 
now we have to live with what we have.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield for 30 seconds for a question, because I do not 
have the time.
  Mr. NICKLES. We are talking cuts. Is it not true that under my 
amendment both the International Development Association and Global 
Environmental Facility will have more money next year than this year, 
and the International Narcotics Control Program will actually have less 
money than it had in 1993?
  Mr. LEAHY. Under the amendment of my friend, we are talking about the 
difference, as the Senator knows, between outlays and budget authority. 
The International Narcotics Control Program is not cut at all. It still 
gets $100 million that was requested.
  In the Senator's amendment we will not carry out the pledges made by 
the Bush administration or by previous administrations, and that is the 
problem that we face.
  As Secretary Bentsen said, the Global Environment Facility is the 
major international mechanism to combat international environment 
problems including ozone depletion, extinction of plant and animal 
species, and ocean pollution. They now are reaching the standards that 
we had required them to do, and we have to go forward.
  For IDA, we are $310 million in arrears on our payment.
  If we can find some way, rather than clobbering both the environment 
and poorest of the poor, to find this money, I am happy to do it. I 
suggested a way, but I have not heard any takers on that. But this is 
the situation we have.
  Does the Senator from Massachusetts want the remainder of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. It is a moot point. We are now at 10 seconds
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was, unfortunately, chairing a nomination 
hearing or I would have been here. I do not want to delay the Senate. I 
ask unanimous consent--would my colleague be agreeable to 5 minutes or 
something?
  Mr. LEAHY. Equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. I know my friend from Arizona would like time.
  Mr. LEAHY. I request 5 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I think the Senator wanted 5 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Do I understand it is 10 minutes equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 5 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. No, 5 minutes per side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I applaud the desire of my friend from 
Oklahoma to try to increase the narcotics effort. I serve as chairman 
of the Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations Subcommittee 
in the Foreign Relations Committee and we have been involved for years 
in trying to target the money appropriately. We are funding the current 
level of international narcotics effort in this committee mark, so this 
is not a cut. But as most of our colleagues know, over the last few 
years we have tried to shift the focus of some of the international 
narcotics efforts.
  I very strongly argue when you add what we have coming in the crime 
bill with what will be coming in the subsequent drug bill, that to cut 
the Global Environment Facility [GEF] and the International Development 
Association [IDA] funding is simply a misallocation of priorities.
  It is not inappropriate to want to do more about drugs. We want to do 
that and we intend to do that with a $25 to 30 billion crime bill. In 
addition, we will follow shortly with a drug bill, where we will 
increase our own domestic efforts. We are not going to increase 
sufficiently the antinarcotics effort by shifting this money out of the 
GEF and IDA into the international sector where we have had very, very 
mixed success.
  I might add, it would be far more important to shift the 
international narcotics focus now to where the Coast Guard is pulling 
away the line of defense from south of Florida, and where it is forced 
to shift into some of the internal efforts in other countries. 
Therefore, the money in this amendment would not even be spent 
effectively. That is one side of the ledger. The place where the 
Senator from Oklahoma wants to shift this funding is not going to be as 
effective.
  The other issue in this amendment is from where the funding is being 
shifted. The Senator from Oklahoma seeks to cut the committee's funding 
for the GEF and the IDA which would have an enormous negative impact on 
U.S. foreign policy efforts. With respect to the GEF, where we have 
spent 3 long years negotiating in an effort to get the European 
countries and others to join us, this amendment would be a major blow 
to U.S. credibility on international environment issues and would 
prevent the United States from fulfilling its commitment to the GEF 
which is the funding mechanisms for both the conventions on climate 
change and biodiversity, among other initiatives.
  The United States has been able to exert leadership in formulating 
GEF policies even with its relatively low-cost contributions from the 
United States. We finally have reached agreement and all of a sudden we 
want to come in and pull out the guts of that agreement. This would be 
an enormous setback.
  The U.S. negotiated for the overall worldwide GEF budget to be 
reduced from $4 billion to $2 billion over four years. The United 
States accepted responsibility for a share of $430 million, less than 
our proportional share to other international organizations such as the 
United Nations and dramatically less than sought by other participants. 
At present, we have yet to send one dollar. This amendment would reduce 
this first year's contribution of $98.8 million to $50 million. Thus, 
this amendment would prevent the United States from meeting its 
international obligation.
  Finally with regard to the GEF, the votes are tied to a country's 
contribution levels. Therefore, at a minimum, if we cut the United 
States contribution, failing to meet our prior commitments, the United 
States will forfeit its claim to environmental leadership and will lose 
its influence over the effort to combat global environmental problems.
  The second program from which funding would be shifted is the IDA 
which deals with the question of what creates the whole huge 
expenditure here on an annual basis for refugees and migration. I have 
just come from a hearing of our new Assistant Secretary for Population, 
Refugees and Migration. The Congress is called upon to spend millions 
of dollars for refugee relocation and we are here taking money from IDA 
which is one of the principal sources of loans to the poorest countries 
in the world in an effort to prevent these crises. This amendment would 
reduce our ability to proactively deal with those crises.
  So I will guarantee that, as a result of not spending that money on 
the GEF and IDA, we will be back here on the Senate floor finding other 
ways to spend millions of dollars to make up for what happened as a 
consequence of our not investing in the long-term.
  I say to my friend, it is a good idea to want to do more about 
narcotics internationally. But you have to balance what he is seeking 
to do against where he seeks to get the money, and what the impact, 
negatively, will be on those things that are funded by IDA and the GEF. 
You have to balance it against what we are already accomplishing in the 
international field and where the priorities are in the international 
field that will not be addressed by the amendment of my friend from 
Oklahoma.
  Therefore, I would conclude that while the intent is good, the means 
of carrying it out are not going to accomplish the goal and will 
simultaneously have a very negative impact on other efforts of the 
United States.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains for both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining. Opponents 
have 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield my friend and colleague from 
Arizona 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma and compliment him on this amendment. I have heard the debate. 
Yes, we have two very important areas.
  But to me, it is quite simple to determine that if we are committed--
as we have constantly said and this administration has constantly said 
but I do not think it has acted strong enough--to the war on drugs, 
then we should put that as a No. 1 priority, and that is what is done 
here.
  The reductions from IDA are not so significant or so dramatic that it 
cuts the guts out of that program. What this does is it says that we 
are going to really continue the war on drugs. We have not done that, I 
am sorry to say.
  As our new strategy has come out to shift the source country from the 
transit area and interdiction area, what have we done or what has the 
administration attempted to do? They have cut the overall drug area. In 
the area of interdiction, $52 million. They wiped out--actually, they 
started with $200 million in the interdiction program.
  The Senator from Massachusetts made reference to the effort of the 
military down in south Florida. That is a perfect example of a 
miscalculation and misappropriation of budgetary assistance down there. 
The admiral and his people are not prepared to take over what the 
interdiction program has been through the U.S. Customs. Consequently, 
in the bill that I chaired on the floor some time ago, we added some 
people there. This gives some money that could be assigned to such 
efforts.
  Talking about the host countries, what we need is more emphasis and 
more resources to Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru, and do not tie their 
hands. For the first time--and this is the good side or the good news 
of this new strategy--for the first time, we have seen cooperative 
efforts by those countries. We ought to place more emphasis here, and I 
support the Senator's amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be shown as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my 
friend and colleague from Arizona.
  I heard too many opponents say we are just gutting IDA, the 
International Development Association, we are gutting the World Bank, 
we are gutting the Global Environmental Facility, and that is not 
factual. Let us at least state the facts.
  The facts are that the Global Environmental Facility last year got 
$30 million; the year before that, they got $30 million; the year 
before that, they got zero. Why? Because they were not ready. They are 
still not ready.
  Under my amendment, they get $50 million. That is a 66-percent 
increase. That is a $20 million increase. That is an increase over last 
year.
  I might say that several people in the environmental community think 
that they are not ready, that they are not doing a good job. I have 
already read statements by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Friends 
of the Earth, the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife 
Federation, and the Sierra Club which says: ``Don't give them any more 
money.'' They said the same thing about the World Bank. Why? Because 
they are financing a bunch of very questionable projects. They are 
wasting money.
  I am not going to bash them. Under my amendment, they get more money. 
The World Bank, the IDA gets 7 percent more money than they had last 
year. Why are we doing this amendment? We are taking some of the 
reductions or savings so we do not increase the World Bank by 18 
percent and we do not increase the Global Environmental Facility by 23 
percent. We give them some increases, but we take those savings and put 
it back into drug interdiction.
  I must confess, I was asleep on the floor last year because the year 
before, in 1993, we spent $173 million in drug interdiction, and in 
1994, only $100 million. The State Department says if we stay at $100 
million, we are gutting the program. We are going to lose our ability 
to be able to interdict drugs; we are going to not be able to take on 
heroin coming from Southeast Asia and other places, and it is going to 
cost lives.
  If you look at the result, yes, they have confiscated something like 
143 metric tons of cocaine. That is saving some lives.
  So I just urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me quickly counteract. The League of 
Conservation Voters has sent a time-sensitive letter stating that they 
oppose any amendment that will reduce U.S. contributions to the Global 
Environment Facility below the level requested by the administration or 
that would transfer GEF funding to other purposes including narcotics 
enforcement. And while the Environmental Defense Fund says to Senator 
Brown that they want to maintain the IDA at the current level, the 
League of Conservation Voters states that environmental organizations 
are not completely in agreement among themselves as to the appropriate 
level of funding.
  Finally, I repeat: The Attorney General of Colombia has changed the 
policy of Colombia in a way that helps drug traffickers, and we are not 
now giving them any information.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2275 offered by 
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles].
  Mr. NICKLES. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] 
is 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. Are there any other Senators in the Chambers 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boren
     Campbell
     Coverdell
     Moseley-Braun
     Wallop
  So the amendment (No. 2275) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have an announcement I would like Members 
to hear. We have, as you know, in this bill, a very significant part 
for the Camp David countries. It has been put together by a number of 
us in a bipartisan fashion to move forward the peace process. I think 
it is essential to the peace process.
  One of the things that Senators should know about--and I think it is 
something that can give us all hope--is that King Hussein of Jordan and 
Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin of Israel will meet with President Clinton 
at the White House on July 25. This is going to be a historic meeting, 
as Senators know--those Senators in both parties who have worked so 
hard on Middle East peace matters.
  Mr. President, last month, as you know, there were meetings, United 
States-Jordanian-Israeli meetings, here, and this builds on that. I 
think Prime Minister Rabin and King Hussein both deserve a great deal 
of credit for this. But I also think President Clinton and Secretary 
Christopher, who put a great deal of their own time and effort into 
this, also deserve credit in bringing them together.
  The President has stated over and over again to virtually every one 
of us, and also to the American people, his personal commitment to 
bring about a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. So, next 
week, Secretary Christopher will be going back to the region, and he 
will continue to work on this. He will participate in the United 
States-Jordan-Israeli discussions and meet with Yasser Arafat and 
review the progress in implementing the declaration of the principles 
of Palestinian self-rule. As one who has worked with Presidents Ford, 
Carter, Reagan, Bush, and now Clinton in trying what sometimes seems 
like very laborious steps toward Middle East peace, I think this is a 
very positive situation. I look forward to the meetings in just 10 days 
here in Washington. I compliment the parties who have done that.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2290

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the regular order, 
under the previous order, is that the question would occur on amendment 
No. 2290, offered by the Senator from Florida. Debate on this amendment 
was limited to 50 minutes, equally divided in the usual form.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the floor manager yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the manager will agree that after Senator 
Graham completes, I may be allowed to go next?
  Mr. LEAHY. I would be happy to do that. What I have been trying to 
do--we do not have an order, but we have been trying to go back and 
forth from side to side. Senator Graham has been waiting patiently here 
since yesterday and was to go next.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we also have two Senators here on the 
floor who are prepared to follow Senator Graham, and I think it would 
help if Senators would get their amendments in prior to the expiration 
of the UC agreement and if we stacked these, with Senator Murkowski 
coming after Senator Graham and Senator Domenici after him.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as I understand it, the next order of 
business is amendment No. 2290. I would be prepared to lay that 
amendment aside for the purposes of taking up Senator Murkowski's 
amendment, with the understanding that our amendment would recur at the 
disposition of the next amendment.
  During that period, we are attempting to work out some language that 
might result in amendments 2290 and 2291 becoming acceptable and, thus, 
saving both controversy and time for the Senate.

                          ____________________