[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on H.R. 4426 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4426) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of August 1, 1994.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Vermont is recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the conference 
report on H.R. 4426, the foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  The Senate-House conference on this legislation finished at about 3 
a.m. on Friday, July 29. It was about 1 a.m. when we took up the $50 
million in emergency supplemental relief for Rwandan refugees, and 2 
a.m. when we finally got to the Jordan debt issues.
  One month ago, the Senate passed the foreign operations bill by a 
vote of 84 to 9. The conference report passed the House last week 341-
85, the largest majority for a foreign aid conference report in recent 
history. Except for the Jordan and Rwanda supplementals, the funding 
levels in the conference report are very close to those in the bill we 
passed. In fact, although this is an appropriations bill, the funding 
issues in conference were relatively few. Most of the controversial 
issues involved legislation, which in many instances had little or 
nothing to do with this bill.
  This bill is a reduction of $664 million below the fiscal year 1994 
foreign aid appropriation, and $340 million below the President's 
request for fiscal year 1995. It continues a trend which began 3 years 
ago of declining foreign aid budgets. I do not believe that foreign aid 
should be exempted from the budget cuts everyone else is having to 
make. At the same time, there should be no mistake--if this trend 
continues we risk serious harm to our Nation's national interests.
  We simply cannot continue to pursue United States interests in 
promoting free markets and democracy especially in the former Soviet 
Union, supporting peace in the Middle East, stabilizing population 
growth, protecting the environment and combating global health 
epidemics like AIDS--all the things that are funded in this bill, and 
at the same time continue to cut funding for these programs.
  We will continue to see catastrophes like Rwanda, or Somalia, if we 
do not do our part to support sustainable development in these 
countries that is the best prevention for such disasters.
  Foreign aid is often accused of being a giveaway that we cannot 
afford. I could not disagree more. Our foreign aid program, which 
amounts to less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, pays for itself 
many times over, both in generating exports for American businesses 
and solving problems that threaten our national security. It also 
reflects the generosity of the American people to help people in need.

  This bill contains $50 million in emergency supplemental funds for 
refugee and disaster assistance for Rwanda. We received the President's 
request for these funds late on the night of conference, and the 
conferees passed it within a few hours. The urgency of this request was 
obvious to everyone. Without these funds, the Rwanda crisis alone would 
deplete our annual emergency refugee assistance fund for the entire 
world.
  There has been the suggestion that this supplemental was unnecessary, 
that there were adequate funds in the bill already to finance American 
relief operations in Rwanda.
  If that were true, we would have done so. As it is, this bill, not 
counting the emergency supplemental for Rwanda, contains $802 million 
in bilateral assistance to sub-Saharan Africa. That is about $1 per 
person, for the poorest region in the world. It is also about the same 
amount that we have provided to Africa in each of the past 4 years, 
despite the highest population growth rates in the world, a devastating 
AIDS epidemic, and significant new demands in South Africa. The 
President plans to provide about $125 million in fiscal year 1995 grant 
funds to South Africa, almost half of which was not included in the 
budget request. So it must be taken from other needy African countries.
  I would also point out that, while the funds in this bill for Africa 
are to support long-term development programs, the Rwanda supplemental 
is for fast-disbursing emergency relief. These supplemental funds will 
be used to prevent depletion of the $50 million emergency refugee and 
migration account. That account is all we have to meet refugee 
emergencies throughout the world.
  Perhaps those who have objected to this supplemental would propose to 
shift some of our contribution to the International Development 
Association, which provides low-interest loans to support economic 
development in the poorest countries. A majority of IDA funds go to 
sub-Saharan Africa.
  The United States is already $310 million in arrears in our payments 
to IDA, payments that were pledged by the Bush administration. This 
bill cuts another $15 million from our pledge, even though every $1 we 
contribute to IDA generates $5 in business for American companies who 
bid on IDA-financed contracts. When this bill was debated here 2 weeks 
ago, an amendment to cut funding for IDA was defeated 59 to 38.
  Mr. President, there was agreement among the conferees that our 
highest priority is to fund, as close to the President's request as 
possible, the assistance program for the New Independent States of the 
former Soviet Union. There is no greater challenge than assisting 
Russia and the other NIS countries during this difficult transition to 
democracy and free markets. This bill provided $850 million for the 
NIS, and recommends that, of this amount, $150 million should be made 
available for Ukraine, $75 million for Armenia, and $50 million for 
Georgia. This is considerably more than the administration requested 
for these countries.
  The House made no mention of Ukraine, Armenia, or Georgia. I believe 
strongly that we should support these countries, but to write a blank 
check. Some have complained that we are giving too much to Russia and 
that we should have earmarked funds for these other countries. I 
disagree.
  Russia is the largest recipient of NIS aid for several good reasons. 
First, it has a larger population than all of the other NIS countries 
put together.
  Second, Russia possesses the overwhelming majority of nuclear weapons 
in the NIS.
  Third, Russia plays a leadership role in the NIS and where it leads, 
others are likely to follow.
  And fourth, the Russian Government, in contrast to some of the other 
NIS countries, is pursuing ambitious programs of market economic reform 
and democratization that provide fertile ground for effective use of 
United States aid.
  Equally important, but rarely mentioned, is that on a per capita 
basis we have given seven times as much aid to Armenia than Russia, and 
over twice as much to Georgia than Russia. Ukraine is not far behind, 
yet that country has yet to demonstrate a commitment to market reform. 
It is not in the U.S. interest to give large amounts of aid to 
governments that are clinging to communism. If Russia flags in its 
reform efforts, I would expect to see our aid to Russia decline. If the 
new Ukrainian Government makes a break from its predecessor and begins 
to implement real economic reforms, I will be the first to urge the 
President to support those reforms vigorously.
  Finally, I would add that the final resolution of each of these 
funding issues in the conference was made only after consultation and 
agreement between the Senate Republican and Democratic conferees.
  I was pleased that the conferees recommended up to $30 million for 
programs to combat organized crime in the NIS which has direct 
consequences for the United States. This was an amendment offered by 
Senator D'Amato, Senator McConnell, and myself, and will involve the 
FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies. The Senate had recommended 
up to $15 million for the FBI.
  The conferees also recommended that $15 million should be made 
available for family planning programs in the NIS. This was Senator 
Hatfield's amendment and would be used to reduce the rate of abortion 
in the NIS, where women have on average six to eight abortions in their 
lifetimes.
  I was pleased that the conferees provided $42 million above the 
President's request for development assistance. This will help AID fund 
activities like child survival and other humanitarian programs, which 
have been priorities of the Congress for many years. Last year, many of 
these programs were cut deeply, and these additional funds are intended 
to enable AID to fund them at higher levels in 1995. In order to give 
AID the flexibility to respond changing circumstances, and in 
recognition of the many demands on a limited budget, the conferees did 
not earmark these and other development assistance programs. However, 
we fully expect AID to consult with the Appropriations Committees in 
advance of any decision not to fund these programs at the recommended 
levels.
  Mr. President, we were all moved by the speeches of Prime Minister 
Rabin and King Hussein at last week's joint session of Congress. The 
declaration ending the state of war between Jordan and Israel is 
dramatic proof of the momentum for peace in the Middle East. Peace in 
that dangerous region will not come easily, and this bill strongly 
supports the Middle East peace process in several ways. It contains the 
traditional earmarks for Israel and Egypt. It also contains $99 million 
in supplemental funds to forgive a portion of Jordan's debt to the 
Agency for International Development.
  I talked with King Hussein, Prime Minister Rabin, and President 
Clinton. I know all three of them agree on this. After listening to 
them, I agree with them, too, but it is only a portion of the entire 
debt owed, and the joint statement of managers says that great 
importance will be given, as we look at future requests for debt 
relief, to progress of peace in the Middle East.
  The conferees require that the authority to forgive Jordan's debt may 
be exercised only in amounts that are appropriated in advance. And the 
bill recommends $20 million for programs to help create jobs in the 
West Bank and Gaza, where unemployment is rampant. The Palestinians 
need to see that peace with Israel will quickly lead to improvements in 
their standard of living.
  We also have close to $1 billion for export promotion programs, 
something I have worked on for well over a decade because I have seen 
it create thousands of jobs in the United States.
  Many people made invaluable contributions to getting this conference 
report to this point. I want to thank the distinguished full committee 
chairman, the President pro tempore, for his leadership and support 
during this process. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sasser and Senator Domenici, 
for their advice and support for handling some difficult problems.
  I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator 
McConnell, who has been a strong advocate of an effective foreign 
assistance program. His role in this conference report was particularly 
important in the recommendations concerning funding for the NIS, which 
has been a special concern of his. We may disagree on the need for 
earmarks, but we share the same goals.
  On a personal note, for a number of years in my capacity, first as 
vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and then as a member 
of the Appropriations Committee and then as chairman of this 
subcommittee, I was helped and aided by Eric Newsom, a long-time staff 
member of the Senate and now a senior official with the State 
Department. His position was filled when he left by Bill Witting, 
formerly the Consul General of the United States in Calgary, Canada. 
Bill has been absolutely essential in bringing this legislation here. 
He came in shortly before it started and learned very quickly in--I was 
going to say 24-hour days--I think they were 30-hour days, as we tried 
to piece together all the conflicting demands that go into such a bill.
  But I think that he would agree with me that it would have been 
impossible had it not been for the assistance, first, of Tim Rieser, a 
lawyer who has been associated with this legislation for years, a man 
who has done so much for refugee assistance, landmine legislation, 
Third World issues, and has learned the intricacies of the foreign aid 
bill, budget dollars, programs in a way that I have not seen matched by 
anybody else in my experience here. Tim's work was also essential.
  Aiding them was a man who I think has probably not gone to bed before 
midnight for the last 4 months, Fred Kenney, a Vermonter who came here 
and who has somehow managed to keep track of every single piece of this 
bill, know exactly where they were, and has helped us all the way 
through.
  I mention these three because without them, there is no way this bill 
could have been finished in the record time that it has, no way we 
could have handled the complexity, nor could we have taken care of the 
two emergency situations, one because of the late developments in the 
Middle East and the other because of the crisis in Rwanda.

  We were also very fortunate to have Neil McGaraghan and Elizabeth 
Murtha assisting the subcommittee this year.
  I also want to thank the minority clerk, Jim Bond, who has been with 
the Appropriations Committee for 22 years. Jim's reputation as a 
stalwart defender of the committee, and of the foreign assistance 
program, benefits us all. Juanita Rilling, also of the minority staff, 
and Senator McConnell's staff member Robin Cleveland, put a great deal 
of effort into shaping the bill. They were also ably assisted by 
Michele Hasenstaub.
  I want to thank the representatives of the administration who 
participated throughout this process. Their contributions were also 
invaluable. They helped us to avoid many mistakes or misjudgments, and 
gave us countless pieces of advice. We appreciated all of it, even if 
we did not always take it.
  I want to give special thanks to Wendy Sherman, for her superb work 
as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. Both President 
Clinton and Secretary Christopher were extremely well-served by 
Assistant Secretary Sherman.
  AID Administrator Brian Atwood's hand in this process was also 
constantly felt. Mr. Atwood has distinguished himself by bringing a new 
sense of mission and dedication to AID. AID has made real progress in 
refocusing its mission on sustainable economic development, and Brian 
Atwood deserves credit for that.
  Bob Lester and Carol Schwab, counsels from AID and the State 
Department, again very generously provided their legal expertise and 
indispensable historical memory. These two lawyers were there from the 
beginning to the bitter end, day and night, to ensure that what we did 
was properly written and safe from legal challenge.
  I also want to thank Will Davis, of the Bureau of Legislative Affairs 
at State, Marianne O'Sullivan, of the AID Bureau of Legislative 
Affairs, George Tyler and Robert Baker of Treasury, Michael Friend of 
the Defense Security Assistance Agency and many others who helped get 
this bill done in record time. I cannot recall a year when we passed 
the foreign operations bill before the August recess.
  Our conference went into the wee hours of the morning last Friday. I 
want to compliment Chairman Obey, who was suffering from pneumonia that 
day, and the ranking member, Mr. Livingston, on the House side, and 
their colleagues, for pushing through and finishing the conference 
despite many obstacles. There were several times when I had my doubts 
that we would finish.
  In the end, we produced what I believe is a bill we can be proud of, 
with funding for the NIS, the Middle East, Rwandan refugees, and so 
manh of the other humanitarian programs that the American people 
support.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today with very mixed feelings 
about supporting this conference report. Although, I will vote for 
final passage, I think my colleagues may be interested in the 
circumstances leading up to a decision by all the Republicans on the 
subcommittee not to sign the conference report.
  During July, when the subcommittee and full committee considered the 
bill, there were press reports that the administration would offer 
Jordan debt relief and military assistance in return for signing an 
agreement with Israel. Although I asked for information on any aid 
commitment, the administration could not or would not offer any.
  On Wednesday, July 27, Dennis Ross briefed the Congress on the terms 
of the Israeli-Jordanian agreement and suggested the outlines of an aid 
package. Thursday morning, July 28, language was suggested by the 
administration for inclusion in the foreign operations bill. We 
received letters from both the Secretary of State and the President 
supporting what ever action the conference committee might take, but we 
never actually received an official administration budget request. 
Apparently, while the administration supported peace, it was not at the 
price of appearing to break spending caps.
  Frankly, leaving the actual action up to Congress falls just this 
side of cowardice as far as this Senator is concerned. It is my view 
that the administration did not want to be held politically accountable 
for breaking the caps to supply foreign aid. They said it was essential 
to securing peace yet did not want to pay a domestic political price.
  So on Thursday afternoon the conference began with Presidential 
encouragement but virtually no actual budget request, no formal 
consultation, and no debate in the Senate or House on the merits of 
providing Jordan with debt relief or military aid.
  Many of my colleagues had legitimate concerns and serious questions 
about how and what the administration was planning. With repeated 
allegations that Jordan has violated the U.N. sanctions against Iraq, 
many wondered why we would provide military equipment which might be 
transferred to Baghdad. Others pointed out that there is no actual 
peace agreement in place with Israel. I was repeatedly asked does 
Jordan expect to be compensated for every step it takes along the road 
to peace? Are we engaged in a pay-as-you-go plan? What kind of open-
ended commitment of U.S. resources have been made without a peace 
agreement?

  As questions emerged during the day on Jordan, the members of the 
conference were presented with a second unannounced request. Late in 
the evening, my recollection is around 11 p.m. we were handed a piece 
of paper requesting $50 million in emergency refugee and disaster aid 
for Rwanda.
  Given the conditions in Rwanda, the conferees were put in the 
position of supporting the funding or being accused of thwarting vital 
relief efforts. Unfortunately, given the lack of consultation and 
information at the late hour, the conferees could not establish if 
there was some way to fund the request without resorting to an 
emergency designation, thereby once again, breaking budget ceilings.
  Mr. President, members of the subcommittee take the consultation 
process seriously and I think it is unfortunate that on two matters of 
significant national interest, the administration basically blind-sided 
the Congress. To express our collective and strong opposition to this 
sloppy, inappropriate and irresponsible approach to consultation and 
funding requests, no Republican signed the conference report.
  In addition to objections about the administration's failure to 
adequately consult on these important matters, I want to draw my 
colleagues attention to a number of concerns I have about specific 
provisions in the bill. First, my colleagues should understand that on 
every major, controversial issue including many on which we held 
recorded votes, the Senate did not prevail in conference.
  Let me begin with the Senate's 89-8 vote on Russian troop withdrawal 
from the Baltics. It was clear that our vote produced an immediate 
breakthrough on the stalled negotiations between Estonia and Russia. 
Nonetheless, the administration working closely with the majority, on a 
party line vote, managed to have the provision stripped. Apparently, it 
was offensive to the Russians.
  Similarly, binding earmarks for Armenian and Ukraine were diluted in 
spite of widespread bipartisan support in the Senate.
  The Senate voted 100-0 to fund FBI and local police investigative 
training programs out of the belief that narcotics trafficking, 
counterfeiting, and prospects of nuclear terrorism in the NIS posed a 
direct threat here at home. In conference the provision was watered 
down.
  The Senate's strong support of an amendment permitting the 
Administration to provide assistance to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic to move them along the road to NATO admission was stripped 
from the bill. Keep in mind this authority was permissive, not 
mandatory, and it was still removed from the bill.
  At every turn, on every continent, and most every issue the 
administration and the majority diluted or defeated language which the 
Senate had supported.
  On a number of these, in particular the funding levels for Armenia 
and Ukraine, I intend to make sure the administration follows through 
and observes congressional intent. Let me note that since conference, 
many members, including the Republican leader, have expressed 
reservations on the bill language on Armenia. I want to clarify that a 
majority of the conferees view the $75 million made available for 
Armenia as a floor--not a ceiling. With Armenian President Ter-
Petrossian due to arrive this week, I think he should hear directly 
from Congress, if not the administration, that we intend for Armenia to 
be eligible for and receive at least as much aid in fiscal year 1995 as 
this past year.
  A majority of the Senate conferees also agree that the funding could 
and should be drawn from the NIS account in the foreign operations 
bill. As we proceed with notifications on the obligation of fiscal year 
1995 funds, I plan to make sure this commitment is upheld.
  Mr. President, I am similarly committed to seeing adequate funding 
for Ukraine. Last year, the administration strongly opposed an earmark 
of $300 million for Ukraine out of the $2.5 billion package and then 
turned around and announced that amount during President Kravchuk's 
visit. Unfortunately, policy by press release has been just that--all 
talk and no action. In 1992, 1993, and 1994, Ukraine has actually only 
been provided with a little over $40 million compared with Russia's 
balance of $1.6 billion. If we were going to make a positive 
contribution to economic and political reform in Ukraine, we must step 
up our commitment.
  Mr. President, in spite of these concerns, I feel obligated to vote 
for the final conference report. The bill does have a number of very 
important funding provisions including our support for the Camp David 
countries, the overall level of aid to the NIS, and strong promotion 
for our export agencies.
  It was not an easy process to complete action on this bill this year, 
but I think we have done the best we could given conflicting priorities 
as well as limited resources and limited flexibility in conference on 
the issue of earmarking.
  Having said that, I want to extend my appreciation to the chairman--I 
have enjoyed working with him this year--to the majority staff, Tim 
Rieser, Bill Witting, and Fred Kenney, and particularly on our side, 
Juanita Rilling, Jim Bond, who is really a veteran of this process on 
our side, and my long-time foreign policy advisor, Robin Cleveland, who 
always does a spectacular job.
  Let me say in conclusion, Mr. President, that some of this is going 
to have to change. The failure to consult on Jordan and Rwanda, the 
failure to sustain the Senate's position on earmarks to Ukraine, 
Armenia, and Georgia, conditioning aid to Russia on an August 31 troop 
withdrawal, and permission to help Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic achieve entry into NATO, all of these items which the Senate 
felt strongly about were added unanimously in committee or added by 
large votes on the Senate floor and were lost in conference.
  Next year, things are going to have to be different. When the Senate 
speaks overwhelmingly on an issue, I hope that our view in conference 
will be to sustain, if at all possible, the Senate position.
  So, Mr. President, having said that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on July 15, this body unanimously 
approved an amendment I offered on behalf of myself and the 
distinguished minority leader, Senator Dole, to the foreign operations 
appropriations bill. The amendment barred United States aid to North 
Korea until President Clinton certified to Congress that three 
conditions were met:
  First, that North Korea does not possess nuclear weapons. If North 
Korea possesses a nuclear weapon or weapons already, as the CIA 
believes, then the weapon(s) must be destroyed.
  Second, that North Korea has halted its nuclear weapons program. The 
program must be halted, not simply frozen. This means full compliance 
with the terms of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and the January 30, 
1992, full-scope safeguards agreement between the International Atomic 
Energy and North Korea.
  Third, that North Korea has not exported weapons-grade plutonium to 
other countries on missiles or by other methods.
  The amendment was adopted 95-0 on a rollcall vote, representing, I 
think, the widespread feeling in this body that United States taxpayer 
dollars should not be used to subsidize this rogue regime that remains 
a threat to regional and global security until the President can 
certify that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat. Not one person 
spoke against my amendment.
  I was dismayed, therefore, to learn that the final conference report 
does not contain the North Korea language. I am told that the House 
conferees, under pressure from the Clinton administration, objected to 
including the North Korea amendment in the final package.
  Why did the administration oppose the amendment? Is the United States 
prepared to offer North Korea economic assistance at the high-level 
negotiations ongoing in Geneva without ensuring that North Korea will 
abandon its nuclear intentions? Comments made by North Korean and 
American officials indicate that economic concessions are on the table.
  What types of concessions might the administration be considering? It 
has been widely reported that North Korea is demanding light-water-
based nuclear reactors [LWR's] to replace the outmoded graphite-
moderated reactors that they currently possess. I do not doubt that the 
United States negotiators view this technology upgrade as a significant 
carrot to offer North Korea. My concern is that the United States will 
give this carrot away without gaining tangible concessions from North 
Korea on its nuclear program. I am also concerned that the long-term 
nature of this project has not been sufficiently thought through by our 
negotiators. I ask for unanimous consent that a Washington Post op ed 
by Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, entitled ``No Quick Fix on Korea,'' be included in the 
Record. I believe that Mr. Gilinsky exposes some of the fallacies in 
believing that LWR's will solve the nuclear issue. As Mr. Gilinsky 
observes:

       In the end, what is wrong with the LWR proposal is that it 
     presumes a level of goodwill on North Korea's part that, were 
     it present, would obviate the need for the proposal. If the 
     North Koreans are interested in electricity, there are much 
     cheaper, better and safer ways to provide it. If they insist 
     on a prestige nuclear project, we can be sure the deal is, in 
     fact, too good to be true. There are no neat technological 
     fixes to the present impasse. What is needed is change in 
     North Korea.

  The administration's written position paper on the Murkowski-Dole 
amendment listed six examples of possible assistance to North Korea 
that would be precluded by the language of the amendment. I would 
remind the administration that this amendment would not preclude any of 
these examples of assistance. If North Korea lived up to the conditions 
on nuclear concessions.

  After watching the administration negotiate with the North Koreans 
over the last year, I continue to believe that economic concessions for 
anything short of nuclear concessions would be a mistake. Rewarding 
North Korea for empty words and promises brings us no closer to a 
resolution of the nuclear issue. For example, the United States agreed 
to resume high-level negotiations with North Korea after former leader 
Kim Il-song ``promised'' former President Carter that the spent fuel 
rods at its Yongbyon reactor would not be reprocessed.
  But this promise was merely empty words. The fuel rods cannot not be 
processed for 2 months whether we negotiate or not because the rods are 
too hot with radioactive material. The promise that meant something was 
the promise the North Koreans did not keep--the promise to not move the 
fuel rods into the pond in the first place.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues of the ominous announcement 
in Seoul by Kang Myong Do, a defector identified as the son-in-law of 
North Korea's Prime Minister. Kang indicated first, that Pyongyang has 
developed five nuclear warheads, and second, that North Korea is 
purposely delaying international inspection of its nuclear sites by 
stalling talks with the United States and South Korea. The accuracy of 
defector's claims are disputed by the State Department, but the mere 
fact that our intelligence cannot readily confirm nor dispute his 
allegations illustrates how dangerous the North Korean nuclear 
situation has become.
  North Korea created the current impasse by its consistent refusal to 
abide by the terms and conditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty and North Korea can end the stalemate. The new leader, Kim Jong-
Il, has an historic opportunity to begin a new era for his people by 
announcing that North Korea is prepared to come clean on its past and 
present nuclear activities. While Kim Il-song might have felt he would 
lose face by revealing hidden activities, the son is not bound by the 
deeds of his father.
  Allowing IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors full 
and unhindered access to the two suspected and seven declared nuclear 
sites would distinguish this regime from the rogue tactics of the last. 
This come down approach was taken in 1991 by South Africa's former 
President F.W. de Klerk when his country opened up its program to 
reveal past nuclear activities. We should expect no less from North 
Korea.
  And what should the American people and Congress expect from the 
Clinton administration during these negotiations? We should expect that 
the administration will use its leverage as the sole superpower to 
refrain from rewarding North Korea with taxpayer dollars until the 
President can certify that the nuclear threat on the Korean peninsula 
is eliminated. Economic concessions should be made only for good deeds, 
not just good words. Unfortunately, the administration's opposition to 
my amendment leads me to believe that the administration is betting, 
once again, that rewards given now will lead to good behavior in the 
future. Every other time the administration has made such a bet, it has 
lost. This time, North Korean concessions should come first.
  I think Congress would be irresponsible to write the President a 
blank check for any other approach. Therefore, I plan to offer another 
version of my North Korea amendment in the near future. I hope I can 
count on my colleagues both on the floor and in Congress to support 
this approach in the future.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Mitch 
McConnell, ranking Republican on the Foreign Appropriations Committee, 
for his strong support of my amendment at the conference.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         No Quick Fix on Korea

                          (By Victor Gilinsky)

       The idea has gotten about that there is a neat technical 
     fix to the threat posed by North Korea's homemade nuclear 
     reactors. This involves replacing their reactors, which are 
     fueled with natural uranium and geared to producing 
     plutonium, with ones like ours, which are more 
     ``proliferation resistant.'' It was explained in the headline 
     of a recent Post story: ``U.S. to Dangle Prospect of Reactor 
     at N. Korea; Deal Would Allow Nuclear Plant for Electricity'' 
     [front page, July 7]. Jimmy Carter is said to have supported 
     this idea in his talks in North Korea.
       It was actually the North Koreans who came up with the 
     offer to switch technologies. During U.S.-North Korean talks 
     a year ago, they said they would rather have U.S.-style power 
     reactors (called light-water reactors, or LWRs) than the 
     outmoded ones they possess. Because the two reactors they are 
     building would soon multiply their weapon potential many 
     times, this offer by the North Koreans seemed almost too good 
     to be true.
       In a joint communique of July 19, 1993, the United States 
     agreed what if the ``nuclear issue'' could be resolved 
     finally, then it was ``prepared to support the introduction 
     of LWRs and to explore with the [North Koreans] ways in which 
     LWRs could be obtained.'' A year later, the idea seems to be 
     very much alive. The Post story cited above quotes a ``senior 
     U.S. official'' as saying ``the attitude is, if that's what 
     they want, that's what we'll give them.''
       We had better stop and think.
       Sure, it would be great if we could switch their nuclear 
     plants into less threatening ones with a snap of our fingers. 
     But the reality of such an exchange is more tangled than it 
     might appear, and the attempt would likely do more harm than 
     good.
       To begin with, for the United States to provide technology 
     and assist with financing (North Korea is without funds or 
     credit), the president would have to override our strict 
     statutory standards for nuclear exports. He would have to 
     make favorable findings about North Korea that, in effect, 
     would make us accomplices to its violations of 
     Nonproliferation Treaty inspection rules.
       By thus buying off an international troublemaker, we would 
     be giving the wrong idea to others similarly inclined (as 
     well as to those who have played by the rules). The 
     undermining of international nuclear export rules would 
     not be lessened if we sent U.S. technology through another 
     country with weaker export rules (South Korea has been 
     mentioned), or (this is the latest proposal) if we paid 
     the Russians to export their version of LWRs to the North 
     Koreans.
       In an era when we are extolling the virtues of the 
     marketplace, it is also more than a little inconsistent to 
     indulge the technological vanities of dictators for 
     uneconomic prestige projects. A nuclear power plant of even 
     modest size needs an infrastructure of people and equipment 
     and a sizable and secure electrical grid that--from 
     everything one hears--is lacking in the North. To develop 
     these, to train large numbers of North Koreans and to build a 
     plant would take most of a decade. Do we really want to do 
     this?
       If North Korea is willing to trade its outmoded nuclear 
     plants for their modern electrical equivalent, then coal-
     fired plants make much more sense. And more than a new 
     generation of nuclear plants, the North Koreans need to 
     improve the efficiency of the way they transmit and use 
     electricity. Such changes would be relatively cheap and would 
     produce results much faster, perhaps within a year. Whether 
     North Korea seeks genuine improvements or prefers an 
     uneconomic prestige nuclear project is a test of its goodwill 
     and judgment.
       It will no doubt be argued that, given the nature of the 
     North Korean regime, a prestige project from the West is 
     exactly what is needed to get it off its dangerous course 
     toward nuclear weapons. Moreover, the multi-year duration of 
     the project--and its dependence on enriched uranium fuel, 
     which North Korea would have to import from one of the 
     advanced countries--would allow us to remain in control. The 
     same factors would seem to give the North Koreans the 
     incentive to hold up their end of the bargain.
       Let us not, however, deceive ourselves. Barring a 
     miraculous change in the regime (in which case the deal would 
     be unnecessary), the North Koreans are not likely to give up 
     their plutonium production potential during the 10-year 
     construction of replacement reactors. And they will likely 
     want a sufficient stockpile of enriched uranium fuel so they 
     will not be at our mercy when those reactors do operate.
       Instead of being under our control, the project is likely 
     to develop strong constituencies and to take on a life of its 
     own. We should not imagine that we would be able to turn it 
     off if the North Koreans did not keep their promises. If 
     history is any guide, we would be the hostages, not the North 
     Koreans.
       In the end, what is wrong with the LWR proposal is that it 
     presumes a level of goodwill on North Korea's part that, were 
     it present, would obviate the need for the proposal. If the 
     North Koreans are interested in electricity, there are much 
     cheaper, better and safer ways to provide it. If they insist 
     on a prestige nuclear project, we can be sure the deal is, in 
     fact, too good to be true. There are no neat technological 
     fixes to the present impasse. What is needed is change in 
     North Korea.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to place in the Record my 
reservations about the conference report on H.R. 4426, the foreign 
operations, export financing, and related programs appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1995.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $13.7 billion and new 
outlays of $5.6 billion to finance America's foreign aid, international 
disaster and refugee, and export financing programs during fiscal year 
1995. It also includes $99 million in supplemental appropriations for 
the country of Jordan and $50 million for a small part of the American 
efforts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Central Africa.
  My first reservation about this bill is the unnecessary use of the 
emergency exemption from our budgetary ceilings for the $50 million 
supplemental for Rwanda. That is unnecessary.
  A much larger $170 million supplemental for United States military 
participation in humanitarian activities around Rwanda was not declared 
to be an emergency item. It will be counted against the very tight 
overall Appropriations Committee outlay ceiling for 1995.
  I commended Chairmen Byrd and Inouye for absorbing the cost of the 
larger Rwanda supplemental during the markup of the Defense 
appropriations bill. I fail to understand why the managers of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee took the emergency route.
  In fact I fail to understand why this bill includes a symbolic 
supplemental for Rwanda, when the bill already includes more than $2 
billion for Africa during the year beginning October 1, 1995. The bulk 
of our effort in Rwanda will come from the Departments of Defense and 
Agriculture that are funded in other bills. AID's Africa funding can 
easily accommodate $50 million for Rwanda.
  My second reservation about this bill is that it violates several 
budget rules.
  As Chairman Byrd informed the full Appropriations Committee at the 
markup of this bill, the measure before us exceeds the subcommittee's 
section 602(b) allocation by $72 million in outlays. A section of the 
bill, section 562, amends the Budget Enforcement Act to exempt the 
Israel loan guarantee program from being scored against the 
discretionary caps.
  As this provision was not reported by the Committee on the Budget, as 
required, it is subject to a point of order in the Senate. If enacted, 
section 562 would have the effect of reducing the outlay impact of the 
bill by $73 million, bringing the bill within its allocation.

  Finally, Mr. President, there are substantive grounds for every 
Senator to oppose the conference agreement.
  The House insisted on dropping language prohibiting any aid for North 
Korea until the President certified that North Korea had ended its 
nuclear weapons development program.
  The House insisted on dropping Senate earmarks ensuring that Armenia, 
Ukraine, and Georgia would share in the massive American aid program 
that has mostly gone to Russia up to now.
  The House insisted on dropping an amendment, sponsored by this 
Senator and the Republican leader, that the Senate adopted by an 18 
vote margin, that would have allowed the President to transfer limited 
amounts from the massive AID program for Russia to the vital Nunn-Lugar 
cooperative threat reduction program.
  The Nunn-Lugar program to reduce the danger from nuclear and chemical 
weapons systems is so short of funds that it verges on failure, yet the 
administration and the House decided that high school exchange programs 
and high priced consultants are more vital to United States-Russian 
relations than weapons of mass destruction that Russia and Ukraine 
cannot afford to dismantle alone.
  Mr. President, this was an acceptable bill when it left the Senate, 
but I cannot support the conference agreement that is before us now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Breaux). The Senator from Kentucky has 35 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Vermont has 4 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to note several things. One, I would 
not want to leave the impression--while the Senator from Kentucky is on 
the floor--I would not want to leave the impression that somehow the 
majority was getting the paper, the request, or the language on either 
Rwanda or Jordan earlier than the minority.
  I recall as each of those requests was handed to me, he was sitting 
beside me, and I held it so he could read it, literally, as I was 
reading it. The staff received it at the same time.
  On the question of the $15 million for the FBI in Russia--and I was 
one of the cosponsors of that amendment--the impression is that somehow 
it was taken out.
  It was not. We put in up to $30 million for the FBI, the DEA, and 
others. The Senate bill contained up to $15 million for the FBI. So we 
increased the amount and made it very clear to the administration, as I 
have, that we expect that amount to be available.
  We include funding for the Ukraine. But there is also a concern, 
raised legitimately by the other body, that the administration is 
negotiating with the Ukraine to move ahead with the economic reforms 
that they have not moved forward on. We do not want to send a signal 
that they are going to get the money whether they reform or not. It is 
money that has to go through the normal notification process. And, if 
it is not being used the way we want it to, we also have an almost 
weekly and monthly club over the administration in that regard.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe I have a few seconds left. I 
do not want to continue the debate, but I believe Chairman Leahy 
misunderstood what I said with regard to crime fighting. We both were 
blind sided, both the majority and the minority. My point about crime 
fighting is it was made permissible, not mandatory.
  I think, in looking to next year, maybe what we need to do is take 
some of these amendments back in disagreement with the House and see 
how the full House feels about such issues as earmarks for Ukraine and 
Armenia. I am fully prepared to do that next year, and maybe that would 
be therapeutic for the conferees on both sides.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas has 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I just have a few things I want to say 
before we finish this bill.
  First of all, I am sorry our dear colleague from Kentucky has left. I 
have had an opportunity to serve on committees with a lot of Members of 
the Senate. But I have rarely seen anybody take his or her 
responsibility in a leadership position on a subcommittee of 
jurisdiction as seriously as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, 
Senator McConnell. Senator McConnell is a clear leader on these issues. 
We have attempted to develop a bill that reflects the interest of the 
American people in promoting capitalism and democracy in the states 
that were former members of the Soviet Union. We have tried to move 
away from a foreign policy where we would rush into every problem with 
a handful of money trying to buy friends and influence--we often found 
ourselves in a position similar to a little rich kid in the middle of a 
slum with a cake, and everybody wanting a piece of the cake. Whether it 
was divided up and given away or whether it was taken away, the cake 
was always too small relative to the demands upon it.

  What we have done in this bill--I attribute much of our success in 
moving in this direction to Senator McConnell and to our distinguished 
chairman--is to try to move toward the use of American foreign policy 
and using American assistance to promote the things that we believe in 
and the things that we know work--democracy and capitalism, the recipe 
not just the cake. We are trying to move away from funding programs and 
policies that we know do not work. I think that is an important 
activity that we have undertaken in this bill.
  Finally, I would like to say that there has been a big issue about 
earmarking. When funds are provided for assistance to try to help other 
parts of the world make a transition to democracy and capitalism, 
should Congress earmark funds? I believe in this case we have areas of 
clear interest in Ukraine, in the parts of Eastern Europe that were 
liberated because we won the cold war, and in places like Armenia where 
you have a small, isolated, landlocked Christian country in the middle 
of a Moslem world engaged in a conflict for its survival, embargoed by 
its neighbors. It is very important, it seems to me, to see that we 
guarantee that assistance, that we decide to target money that will be 
spent anyway, that it goes to help countries like Armenia that have 
committed to democracy, that have implemented democracy, that are 
engaged in privatization, that are trying to basically take the 
American model and apply it in a small, isolated, landlocked nation 
with very few natural resources. It seems to me that is the kind of 
country that needs and deserves our support.
  I think it is very important to repeat something that Senator 
McConnell said; that is, the earmarking of $75 million for Armenia is a 
floor and not a ceiling. We expect that instruction to be adhered to by 
the State Department. These funds are vitally important.
  I want to commend the chairman and our distinguished ranking member 
for their leadership on what was a very tough conference on an 
appropriations bill. A conference where clearly there existed big 
differences between the House and the Senate. I think we are fast 
reaching the point where we are going to have to come back in 
disagreement and let Members of the House vote as to whether they agree 
with their conferees or whether they agree with us. My guess is they 
will agree with us. We only have to do that once to settle these 
issues.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rule, the Senator from North 
Carolina, [Mr. Helms] has 10 minutes under his control. He is 
recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it was in the early morning of Friday, July 29, that 
an interesting thing happened to the taxpayers' money. On Friday, July 
29, the conferees of the House and the Senate were working on this 
conference report which we have before us, the pending business.
  This conference report calls for the spending of $13.7 billion for 
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
programs, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995. That is a 
pretty enormous sum of the taxpayers' money--in effect, $13.7 billion 
in checks on which the taxpayers, present and future, will have to make 
good. I say ``future'' because all of this is piling debt on top of 
debt that the young people such as those sitting on either side of the 
dais at this moment will have to pay.
  One of those taxpayer-financed checks slipped through almost 
unnoticed, sort of like a ship passing in the night. It was scored as a 
cost of $99 million.
  In any event, the Foreign Operations appropriation conferees canceled 
more than $200 million in debt owed to the United States by the country 
of Jordan. On top of that, the conferees authorized the cancellation of 
the remainder of Jordan's entire $700 million debt to the United States 
and approved on top of everything else the gift of lethal military 
equipment to Jordan. I do not have even an estimate of what that is 
going to cost the taxpayers. I daresay that not one out of 1,000 
Americans know that this gift was made to the country of Jordan.
  There was not one syllable of debate on these giveaways, not one word 
spoken. The House did not recede to the Senate in this conference. The 
Senate did not recede to the House. It was just one of those deals made 
on the old buddy system. I am going to explain a little bit more as I 
go along. Nobody was looking. So there went $99 million as it was 
scored, but the appropriations conferees in fact canceled more than 
$200 million in debt.
  Here is what happened. President Clinton had made an offer to the 
King of Jordan that the King, as the saying goes, could not refuse; as 
a matter of fact, he was not about to refuse it. He grabbed the money 
and ran.
  President Clinton volunteered King Hussein of Jordan a payoff if the 
King would meet with Israel's Prime Minister Rabin. King Hussein, and I 
like him; I met with him many times, and his American-born wife is a 
delightful lady, but King Hussein, being of sound mind, did not look 
this gift horse in the mouth. He took the American taxpayers' money.
  Now, Mr. President, it is a given that Prime Minister Rabin and King 
Hussein have shown great courage, and I can understand the desire to 
recognize Jordan's rapprochement with Israel in a tangible way. I can 
understand in a general way--but I can never support--the writing off 
that $200 million in U.S. taxpayer funds in the dark of the night 
without any discussion of it on this Senate floor or on the floor of 
the House of Representatives.
  What prompted the cancellation of the entire $700 million Jordanian 
debt to the United States? Before anybody gets carried away with joy, 
all those checkbook diplomats need to be reminded that King Hussein has 
not even signed a peace treaty with Israel, not yet. He may in the 
future, but he has not done it yet. They went down to the White House 
and had a ceremony, and President Clinton was standing between Hussein 
and Rabin. They shook hands and they went home. And the taxpayers were 
all the poorer for it. Nice show. I hope it turns out fine, but it has 
not turned out fine yet.
  After the euphoria of the joint session of Congress for Prime 
Minister Rabin and King Hussein, and after that heady moment when the 
Senate-House conferees made quick disposition of $700 million in debt 
to the American taxpayers', plus millions more in free lethal weaponry 
for the country of Jordan, a few wet blanket observations may be in 
order just to set the record straight.
  Why did Jordan desperately need its debts canceled? Why is Jordan's 
economy in shambles? Was it because King Hussein decided to stand with 
Iraq--remember that? When Hussein stood with Iraq, not with the United 
States in that Persian Gulf war? Yes, sir. He was standing there with 
Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
  In any event, millions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money 
are going to a country that supported Saddam Hussein in the Persian 
Gulf war, a country that no doubt shipped United States weapons to 
Iraqi soldiers, soldiers who killed some Americans. Remember that. 
Millions are going to a Nation that used its resources to assist Saddam 
in obtaining weapons of mass destruction. For all we know, Jordan may 
still be assisting Saddam in that quest. Nobody tells us about that.
  In the last month, there has been credible reporting that Jordan is 
becoming a center for the rearmament of Iraq. I have not heard a 
syllable about that on this floor. Is it true? Who knows? But the 
Congress was not willing to take the time to investigate before handing 
out that money. And the administration did not bother to provide any 
credible evidence one way or another. And that is what I am griping 
about.
  What we do know is that every penny of foreign aid the United States 
has given Jordan in the past 3 fiscal years has required a waiver 
because Jordan still is not in compliance with U.N. sanctions on Iraq. 
No doubt about that.
  Yet, Jordan ends its state of war with Israel, and we forget all 
about Iraq. Does no one else see anything wrong with this overall 
picture?
  Mr. President, such was the rush to fulfill every jot and tittle of 
the President's promise to Jordan, a promise made without any 
consultation with Congress. If there had been consultation, I think I 
would have known something about it because I am the ranking member on 
the Foreign Relations Committee. No consultation and the Appropriations 
Committee members took action that at least risks a point of order on 
this bill. I wonder if it is not correct to say that authorizing on an 
appropriations bill is subject to a point of order?
  Of course it is. We say that all the time around here. It just 
depends who is doing the authorizing and the legislation.
  The cancellation of Jordan's entire debt to the United States is 
authorized in this conference report, as is the provision of lethal 
excess defense materiel to Jordan a gift of the United States 
taxpayers.
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Finally, Mr. President, let us not forget something very 
clear and very simple. The peace process is not over. Camp David costs 
the United States more than $5 billion every year; $3 billion for 
Israel, $2.1 billion for Egypt. Hundreds of millions of dollars have 
been pledged to the Palestinians, and now hundreds of millions to 
Jordan.
  Members of Congress are not giving away their own money. They are 
giving away money from the taxpayers, who are not even informed of 
actions like this.
  The President was not using his own resources when the commitment to 
Jordan was made to forgive the debt.
  Again, I say it is the American people's money, and it would not be 
surprising if someday, somewhere along the line, the American people 
begin to ask, can we afford peace in the Middle East?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I still have time on the bill.
  Will the Senator withhold the request for a quorum?
  Mr. HELMS. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
  The Senator from Vermont has 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 extra minute 
to balance the time yielded to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, anyone can debate whether we should be 
spending money in the Middle East out of our foreign aid bill to help 
bring about peace in the Middle East. But I would dispute the statement 
made by the Senator from North Carolina that somehow aid was given to 
Jordan and nobody knew about it. This was discussed by Prime Minister 
Rabin, by King Hussein, by President Clinton, and by Members of 
Congress, whose statements were made on the floor. It was in every 
newspaper that I read at that time. And when it was passed, it was in 
every newspaper. It was discussed in the House when the conference 
report came back up, and it has been discussed here.
  We do have a stake and a commitment in bringing about a lasting peace 
in the Middle East. We have secured the existence of Israel from the 
time that State was founded. It has been a commitment of Republican and 
Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic controlled 
Congresses since the time of President Harry Truman in the forties when 
Israel came into existence.
  It is a commitment of mine, and it is a commitment of most Members of 
this body.
  This is a step, one initial step, and both Democrats and Republicans 
agree that it would help promote the peace process in the Middle East. 
Certainly the Prime Minister of Israel and others in the Israeli 
Government felt it would help increase their security, and certainly 
the King of Jordan thought that it would help him in the steps he had 
to take, steps that have been seen just in the last few days of opening 
access, of improving travel, and in the exchange of people between the 
two countries.
  So, frankly, Mr. President, while I would have been glad to have had 
more advance notice, as we all would have, before the bill came up, so 
we could have debated it, I am willing to bet that there would have 
been an overwhelming vote in favor had it come to a vote on this floor.
  But in one way, it will come to a vote tomorrow, and anybody who 
disagrees with it or disagrees with the aid to Israel or disagrees with 
the aid to other countries can vote against the conference report.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], said that we 
should spend more money in the former Soviet Union in those countries 
that promote democracy and a market economy. I am glad he and I agree 
on that. He can probably understand why we are a bit hesitant to give a 
blank check to the Ukraine until we see exactly what they are going to 
do.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption 
of the conference report on H.R. 4426 occur without any intervening 
action or debate upon the disposition of H.R. 4606, the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I have any remaining time, I yield it 
back.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] has 
described an agreement that, we are told, was made around midnight 
during the all-night foreign operations conference regarding one of my 
amendments to the foreign operations appropriations bill.
  By a vote of 94-0, the Senate agreed to require that the President of 
the United States certify to the Congress that Colombia is indeed 
investigating corruption allegations against senior officials and is 
continuing its counternarcotics cooperation.
  Mr. President, the Senate is entitled to know both context of the 
agreement and what the agreement was that Senator Leahy has mentioned. 
The Senator is correct in noting that some House conferees objected to 
the amendment, particularly the provision asking that Congress be given 
assurances that the corruption allegations emerging from Colombia are 
in fact being seriously investigated.
  The House-Senate conferees modification would have gutted the Senate 
provision. The modification would have required a report by the 
Secretary of State on Colombian human rights, operations against the 
drug cartels, and eradication efforts.
  The real issue--corruption--was not addressed, Mr. President. 
Apparently, someone did not want to require assurances that narcotics 
corruption is being investigated by the Colombians. Having nothing is 
preferable to having the provision gutted and rendered meaningless.
  What is the alleged agreement to which Senator Leahy referred? It was 
simple and related solely to the foreign operations conference. I would 
not object to dropping the Colombia language provision on the foreign 
operations conference report in exchange for acceptance of another of 
my amendments which requires certification that Russia is in compliance 
with their biological and chemical weapons agreements.
  According to the Senator from Vermont, dropping the Colombia 
amendment in conference forbids my right--or any other Senator's 
right--to raise the issue again on another bill. That is absurd. How 
did the Senator from Vermont or his staff reach the conclusion that any 
Senator must forfeit his right to offer a similar amendment on the same 
subject to a different piece of legislation? It simply is not so.
  The Senator from Vermont is perhaps discontented that there was some 
sort of breach of faith. I do not know what he is talking about--there 
were no assurances whatsoever that this matter would not be revisited. 
No such demands were made, nor would I--or my staff--ever consent to 
such a demand.
  If anything, I should be the one expressing my dissatisfaction with 
what happened in the conference. The Senator from Vermont apparently 
assumes, because the foreign operations conferees decided to drop a 94-
0 Senate-passed provision, that this issue should never be revisited.
  I suggest the Senator from Vermont read the amendment I offered 
yesterday. The amendment is different in several respects. It is based 
on a letter I received from Colombia's President-elect Samper after the 
Senate first vote on my provision, and it was prompted by recent 
corruption allegations against the head of the Colombian National 
Police.
  Mr. President, as I said earlier, the real issue here is not the 
foreign operations conference report or the DOD appropriations bill. 
The issue is corruption in Colombia.
  If Senator Leahy wishes to reverse his position on this amendment, he 
is certainly free to do so. I bear him no ill-will for changing his 
position--that is his prerogative. But I cannot countenance his 
implying that I acted in bad faith--nor can I accept his curious 
interpretation of the Senate rules.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend the Clinton administration for helping to foster peace in the 
Middle East. Every Member of this Congress, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, were moved by the signing of the Declaration of Principles by 
Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat at their historic meeting on the White 
House lawn on September 13.
  Leading Arab-Americans and American Jews met at the old Executive 
Office building in the hours following that signing. Vice President 
Gore attended that session and urged that these two communities agree 
to work together to further the peace process. The Vice-President's 
concept led to the formation of a new organization called Builders for 
Peace.
  The co-presidents of Builders for Peace are former Congressman Mel 
Levine and Dr. James Zogby, the president of the Arab-American 
Institute. Its boards are composed of leaders from these two 
communities which had been hostile for so many years who are now 
willing to work together on behalf of peace.
  Builders for Peace is designed to assist Americans to invest in the 
newly autonomous territories to assist in job creation and support for 
the peace process among the people who matter the most--the people who 
actually live in the region.
  The new organization is a good example of how example of how private 
sector-government cooperation can contribute to the cause of peace. Its 
success will go a long way toward assuring the overall success of the 
peace process.
  At this point, I would request that Congress express its support for 
this important nongovernmental approach to economic development as a 
meaningful contribution to the Middle East peace process.

                          ____________________