[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13904-S13911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I compliment Senator McConnell for the job 
he has done in putting this bill together. Having served for 6 years as 
chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and maybe for a dozen 
or more years before that as a member of the committee, I know how 
difficult it is to put this bill together. He and I, and our staffs, 
have worked closely on this. I think we have the makings of a bill the 
President can sign.
  We have a time, as we know, when many of our fellow Senators, both 
Republicans and Democrats, favor cutting foreign aid even further than 
it has already been cut in recent years. Senator McConnell has defended 
the need for foreign aid to protect U.S. interests around the world. I 
joined him in that. But, despite efforts by both of us to obtain a 
higher budget allocation for foreign operations, foreign operations 
which, like defense, is uniquely the responsibility of a Federal 
Government, our budget has been slashed. Today we see the consequences.
  This bill represents nearly a $1.2 billion cut below the fiscal 1995 
level; a $2.4 billion cut below the President's fiscal year 1996 
request.
  Had I written this bill this year I might have done some things 
differently. But neither Senator McConnell nor I could have avoided 
serious damage because the money simply is not there. We ought to stop, 
and think, as a country. If we continue down this path in a very few 
years the United States, which today is the only superpower in the 
world, will have no money to carry out foreign policy other than to 
fight wars. We do not have the kind of money to stop a problem from 
happening. Yet we can come in with billions after the problem occurs, 
to fight a war.
  There is not going to be money for peacekeeping, none for supporting 
economic development in countries that hold great promise for American 
exports. The jobs that we create here in the United States, preparing 
items for exports--those exports are going more to the developing world 
than to the developed world. Our increase in exports is to the 
developing world but we are not going to have money to support economic 
development of those parts of the world.
  We will end up abandoning the World Bank, the United Nations. Then we 
will stand back and watch Japan and our other allies fill the void. And 
they will, because they are anxious to do so, because they know the 
long-term economic and political benefits are enormous.
  We would be terribly shortsighted now, at the end of the cold war, 
when the United States stands as the economic and military giant of the 
world, if we just gave away our preeminence by nickel and diming the 
programs that might sustain it.
  I do want to mention a couple of provisions of the bill which I 
believe stand between us and the President's signature. I have heard 
from several Senators about these provisions, including the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, who mentioned 
them at the committee markup.
  One is the provision relating to Korea. I am sympathetic to the 
chairman's goals, but I am told by the administration as a practical 
matter this would prevent the United States from contributing to KEDO. 
If we want this bill to get signed, we are going to have to 
substantially modify this provision. I am told our staffs are already 
making progress on them.
  Another is the provision which would cut off all aid to Russia if it 
proceeds to the sale of nuclear equipment to Iran. On the merits, I am 
in complete agreement with this. I think of Iran as a pariah nation 
fostering terrorism, showing complete disregard for human rights, and 
certainly unwilling to carry out its obligations as a member of the 
world community. But I also want to be sure that either here or in 
conference we modify this provision so we do not jeopardize a program 
very much in our national interest.
  And, finally, I note that the subcommittee voted 8 to 5 for my 
amendment to strike restrictive House language on funding for 
international population programs. I have to assume there is going to 
be an amendment to restore that language here on the floor, but I 
emphasize this bill continues the prohibition of funding for abortion 
that we have had for years. It also prohibits the use of any United 
States funds in China. Further restrictions along the lines of what the 
House has proposed could invite a veto.
  Now, this bill should not take a lot of the Senate's time unless 
people want to make debating points rather than policy points. We have 
already had an opportunity to debate the State Department authorization 
bill when many of the foreign policy issues were discussed. There is no 
reason to repeat that episode in this bill. I hope that we will dispose 
of any amendments and dispose of them quickly if amendments come up 
that basically just ask us to retrod the ground we have already walked 
on in this session.
  As I said, I will put a longer statement in the Record, but I do want 
to say how much I appreciate the bipartisan way Senator McConnell and 
his staff approached this process. I think it bodes well to get this on 
to the President's desk.
  Mr. President, despite Senator McConnell's and my best efforts, this 
bill poses major challenges for the United States as the world's only 
superpower. At a time when the global threats to our security are too 
numerous to mention, funding to combat those threats is increased in 
only one area, export assistance, and even there it falls short of the 
President's request.
  In other areas it makes unprecedented cuts in programs that seek to 
fight poverty, promote economic growth, reduce population growth rates, 
stop the spread of infectious diseases, care for growing numbers of 
destitute refugees, combat ocean pollution, the destruction of 
biodiversity and other environmental degradation, deter the 
proliferation of conventional and nuclear weapons, and countless other 
problems that directly threaten every American.
  Again, this is despite the considerable efforts Senator McConnell and 
I have made to spread the pain that the cuts in our allocation 
required.
  Let me mention some specific programs, and what we have done.
  For the first time, the bill consolidates all development assistance 
and non-Middle East economic support funds. This means, for example, 
that the Development Fund for Africa no longer exists in this bill as a 
separate account, and neither does population. There are no longer 
separate appropriations for the Inter-American Foundation or the 
African Development Foundation.
  Frankly, this concerns me. The Development Fund for Africa has 
existed for almost a decade, and a population account since 1967. The 
DFA was created, in large part, to protect this extraordinarily 
vulnerable, poorest region in the world, and it has served its purpose 
well. We need to be sure that whatever we end up with in conference 
adequately protects Africa in the future.
  Having said that, in order to minimize the possibility that any of 
these accounts or programs are disproportionately hurt when cuts are 
made, at my request Senator McConnell agreed to include a provision 
that requires that the cuts be made on a proportional basis, reflecting 
each program's current percentage of the fiscal year 

[[Page S 13905]]
1995 level of funding for these combined accounts. Therefore, if in 
fiscal year 1995 the Development Fund for Africa received 15 percent of 
the total appropriation for these combined accounts, then Africa will 
receive 15 percent of the total appropriation for these accounts in 
fiscal year 1996. Again, I know some people have concerns that we 
should preserve the DFA intact, and we will revisit this issue in 
conference.
  I know the same is said of the population account, and there are 
strong desires in both the House and Senate to maintain current levels 
of funding for child survival and microenterprise lending programs. As 
a longtime supporter of these programs I completely sympathize, but 
people need to recognize that we cannot do everything we once did and 
at the same time cut $1.2 billion from this bill. I believe our first 
aim should be to ensure that each program is treated as fairly as 
possible when cuts are made.
  I want to note my concern about two other aspects of the 
consolidation approach. First, I do not believe it is wise to include 
ESF in the new economic assistance account. Interestingly, neither the 
State Department nor AID is happy with this approach. The danger I see 
is that funds that have been traditionally used for development 
programs will be increasingly tapped for ESF-type activities. I think 
it is predictable that, particularly in emergency situations, the State 
Department's concern for addressing short-term political crises will 
take precedence over long-term development goals.
  I am also concerned about the fate of the IAF and ADF. While I 
recognize that budget constraints force us to make difficult choices, I 
want to know what the practical effect will be of leaving it up to AID 
to channel fund to these organizations.
  There is a somewhat similar proportionality provision with respect to 
the international organizations and programs account, which is cut 
severely in this bill from $374 million in fiscal year 1995 to $260 
million in fiscal year 1996. The provision requires that funding for 
several named organizations shall not be reduced below their 
proportional share of the current level of funding for the IOP account. 
My strong hope is that in the conference we can increase funding for 
these programs so we can maintain our leadership in them, especially 
those that are headed by Americans.
  The multilateral development banks were also cut deeply. Although our 
contributions to these institutions reflect pledges we made in the 
context of international negotiations, we have not lived up to those 
commitments. I am very concerned that this year we add hundreds of 
millions of dollars in arrears to the hundreds of millions of dollars 
in arrears we have already accumulated. My amendment in the 
subcommittee markup to add another $200 million for the International 
Development Association, $20 million for the Global Environment 
Facility, and $20 million for the Inter-American Development Bank's 
Fund for Special Operations, was accepted by Senator McConnell. 
However, this still falls far short of our commitments to the first two 
of these institutions, which directly support U.S. economic and 
environmental interests.
  I was disappointed that we were unable to provide a contribution to 
the North American Development Bank which will provide funding to 
address acute environmental problems along the Mexico-United States 
border. However, I am hopeful that some of the funding in this bill for 
the Multilateral Investment Fund, which has a large pipeline and at the 
current rate of disbursement is projected to have reserves in excess of 
$150 million by the end of fiscal year 1996, can be transferred to the 
NAD Bank.
  I was disappointed that we were not able to match the House level for 
international disaster assistance, but I do want to credit Senator 
McConnell for providing a modest increase above the current level. 
Nevertheless, I am informed that the House level is needed in order to 
avoid serious damage to the humanitarian program in northern Iraq, so 
this will be an issue for the conference.
  Senator McConnell has substantially increased funding for 
international narcotics programs. This is one area where I would have 
preferred the House level. I am not convinced that these programs are 
cost-effective, and there are too many other programs in this bill that 
desperately need these additional funds.
  I want to mention several policy issues, besides the three I 
mentioned earlier, that concern me.
  One is the conspicuous lack of any reference to Indonesia in this 
bill. This concerns me because of the continuing human rights problems 
in Indonesia and East Timor. The Congress had included restrictions on 
funding for Indonesia on human rights grounds in the past several 
years, and I do not believe the situation there warrants a relaxation 
of those restrictions.
  Another policy issue that concerns me is assistance to Turkey. The 
House imposed a ceiling on ESF for Turkey, due to concerns about the 
Turkish Government's treatment of the Kurdish minority in that country. 
Despite my own concerns about the rights of the Kurds, I do not believe 
this is a wise approach. I believe we have a strong interest in 
supporting economic development in turkey, which is an important and 
valued member of NATO. However, I may offer an amendment which I 
believe would more directly address concerns about human rights and the 
situation facing the Kurds. I also included language in the committee 
report which requests the administration to submit a report on the 
efforts of the Turkish and United States Governments to monitor the use 
of United States-origin military equipment by the Turkish Armed Forces. 
Specifically, this report should address the use of U.S. military 
aircraft which, according to the State Department's own reports, has 
been used to strafe and destroy Kurdish villages. I and others want to 
know what efforts are being made to reduce the use of these aircraft 
against civilians or targets occupied by civilians.
  Another provision I support is the prohibition on assistance to any 
government or organization which cooperates commercially with the Khmer 
Rouge. The reasons for this provision are discussed in the committee 
report, but very briefly, it was included on account of the 
considerable evidence that Thai military personnel are routinely 
engaged in facilitating the export from Cambodia of valuable timber by 
the Khmer Rouge. These sales have provided the Khmer Rouge with a 
steady source of income to continue their murderous campaign against 
the Cambodian Government and the Cambodian people. This provision is 
intended to encourage the Thai Government to take steps to deter this 
cooperation.
  Several other provisions deserve mention. The bill includes an 18 
month extension of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, which 
enables funding to continue for the Palestinians. It also includes 
authority requested by the administration for the drawdown of up to 
$100 million in military equipment for Jordan. As in the past, there 
are earmarks for the Camp David countries, as well as Cyprus.
  Last but not least, I want to mention Ireland. For the past decade, 
the United States has generously contributed to the International Fund 
for Ireland. August 31 was the one year anniversary of the IRA 
ceasefire, and the House bill provides $19.6 million for the IFI. 
Although the Senate bill does not contain an earmark for the IFI, I 
believe it is very important that the Congress support this program 
during this pivotal year. While trade and investment will be the engine 
that propels the economies of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the IFI 
remains an important source of funding during this critical transition 
period.
  Mr. President, again, there are aspects of this bill that I do not 
agree with. There are programs that I would prefer to see receive a 
larger portion of the funds. However, I believe that on the whole it 
reflects a reasonable balance between Senator McConnell's and my 
priorities. Funding for foreign assistance has been falling since the 
mid-1980's and future budget projections do not bode well for these 
programs. The Congress needs to recognize that the reality is that this 
is not simply foreign assistance. The funds in this bill directly 
promote the interests of the American people. That becomes clearer the 
farther into the future one looks.
  You know, Mr. President, there are a lot of things where we can 
disagree in 

[[Page S 13906]]
this country. There are a lot of political issues we can disagree on. 
But I hope that most Americans can be proud of the fact that we have 
created the strongest democracy that history has ever known and we 
should be proud of our position in the world. But we should also 
understand our responsibilities in the world. We are a quarter of a 
billion people. We are the largest economy in the world. But even 
though we are only a small percentage of the world's population, we use 
close to half of the world's resources.
  We have great opportunities but great obligations. The opportunities 
are to foster the kind of democracy that the United States has known 
and to encourage countries that want to become democratic nations.
  But we also have a certain humanitarian responsibility to the rest of 
the world. God has blessed this country with great resources and great 
advantages. But at the same time I think you can say there is a moral 
responsibility to help those less fortunate. It is not the idea of 
having some massive giveaways. We do not. Our foreign aid budget is 
less than 1 percent of our overall budget. Much of it reflects our own 
security interests. A lot of it is designed to create jobs for 
Americans and our export markets, and a tiny part reflects the 
humanitarian concerns of the greatest nation history has known. We may 
want to look at just how tiny that percentage is.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2707

  (Purpose: To provide for the streamlining and consolidation of the 
foreign affairs agencies of the United States, including the abolition 
 of at least two of the following agencies: the U.S. Arms Control and 
  Disarmament Agency, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Agency for 
                       International Development)

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

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for Mr. Dole, 
     for himself and Mr. Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2707.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this pending amendment will save the 
taxpayers of America $3 billion, if and when the Senate approves it.
  This amendment will mandate the abolition of three outdated, 
anachronistic Federal agencies--the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency; the Agency for International Development, which is the foreign 
aid giveaway agency, Mr. President; and the U.S. Information Agency. 
Reorganization of U.S. foreign affairs institutions puts the interests 
of the American people first, for a change, and prepares the United 
States for the 21st century. The American people voted for a change 
last November, if my understanding of what the people wanted is 
anywhere on target. It is now the Senate's duty to follow through.
  Before I proceed, I must acknowledge that I have never, in my nearly 
23 years in the Senate, seen such furious lobbying by the executive 
branch, and by the State Department, to resist cutting spending and 
resisting reorganization. They have made all sorts of charges, none of 
which is true; they have circulated all sorts of threats. They may have 
almost intimidated some Senators, but I do not think it will last--
certainly not in all cases. But we must proceed, so that the Senate can 
decide whether it will join the House of Representatives in saving the 
American taxpayers billions of dollars by discarding outmoded, 
anachronistic Federal agencies that ought not to exist anyway.
  I will tell you one thing, Mr. President. There is nothing so near 
eternal life as ``temporary'' Federal agencies. They go on and on and 
on like Tennyson's brook, and they cost the American taxpayers billions 
of dollars.
  Now, I confess a reservation about my own amendment, Mr. President, 
the reservation that my own amendment does not go far enough in 
changing the situation. It does, however, go a long way toward 
accomplishing the objectives that I laid out in Senate Bill 908, the 
Foreign Relations Revitalization Act.
  Just as importantly, this amendment is consistent with legislation 
introduced months ago--on February 15, to be precise--a bill numbered 
S. 422, offered by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. 
McConnell]. Now, the McConnell proposal proposed to abolish the Agency 
for International Development--that foreign aid giveaway crowd--and 
transfer its function into the State Department. A similar provision is 
incorporated into the Foreign Relations Committee's bill, S. 908. 
American taxpayers would be saved millions of dollars by cutting AID's 
overextended operating costs.
  On May 11, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] 
appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I happen to 
be chairman, and he said at that time that his bill, S. 422, includes 
``abolishing AID and consolidating the agency's functions under the 
Secretary of State * * *.''
  He proceeded to say it would also ``move assistance programs into the 
State Department, reflecting my own view that the U.S. foreign aid must 
better serve the U.S. foreign policy interests. The connection between 
U.S. aid and U.S. interests has been lost with agencies acting wholly 
independent of our collective interests and good.''
  That was Senator McConnell on May 11 in his appearance before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  With all due respect, having praised Senator McConnell, as I have on 
many occasions for his courage and his foresight, I must say that the 
pending legislation, H.R. 1868, is a far cry from what he said when S. 
422 was offered this past February to the Senate and about which 
Senator McConnell was speaking when he testified.
  The pending amendment now at the desk will get us back on track by 
eliminating two of the three anachronistic, wornout Federal agencies. 
In fact, if Senator McConnell would like to direct that AID--the Agency 
for International Development--be one of the two, I will be happy to 
accommodate him. I do not think he is going to want to do that because 
a great deal of pressure has been applied by certain Federal 
bureaucrats. They have confused the issue and muddied the water, and we 
may have to straighten out the situation by careful evaluation of the 
true facts of the situation involving all of this legislation.
  The congressional budget levels mandate that Congress deflate bloated 
bureaucracies in the Federal Government by eliminating vast 
duplications and by eliminating incredible waste across the board. 
Every Member of this Senate knows that duplication and waste has been 
going on. It is going on right now, and it will continue to go on, 
unless we have the guts to do something about it.
  The amendment pending at the desk meets the Budget Committee target 
levels for international affairs required to balance the Federal budget 
by the year 2002. The savings thereby generated do not derive from 
excessive cuts in international programs. The savings derive entirely 
from reductions in the sprawling foreign affairs bureaucracy.
  Let me say this with all of the sincerity that I possess, Mr. 
President. If the Senate and the House of Representatives, composing 
this Congress, fail to seize this opportunity to consolidate, the 
American taxpayers will be stuck with a massive international affairs 
budget which feeds a huge, enormous bureaucracy.
  So the Senate, it seems to me, has two choices: One, it can save 
intelligently through consolidation; or two, it can cannibalize Federal 
programs.
  As I said earlier, there is nothing so close to eternal life as a 
temporary Federal agency. The idea of eliminating these worn out 
bureaucracies--that 

[[Page S 13907]]
were temporarily designated, and specified as temporary, when they were 
created--is just as old as the agencies themselves. During the past 
decades, at least 89 studies have been made on the subject of 
consolidating our foreign affairs institutions. These have been 
conducted by a series of administrations, Democrat and Republican. I 
think, as just one Senator, Mr. President, that we should stop talking 
and do something to benefit the American taxpayers.
  In many respects, as I have said earlier, the pending amendment 
mirrors S. 908, the bill reported by the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. The State Department reorganization bill thus reported by 
the Foreign Relations Committee has been endorsed by five--count them, 
five--former Secretaries of State. Every one of them, without 
exception, supported the abolition of the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency, the Agency for International Development, and the U.S. 
Information Agency.
  All five former Secretaries of State advocated publicly, in 
testimony, that all three agencies be eliminated and the money be 
saved. Now, the functions of these agencies will be transferred into 
the State Department, which in the process will be reorganized and 
revitalized.
  I have to say that our good friend, Warren Christopher, the present 
Secretary of State, whom I respect and for whom I have affection, 
concluded that just such a plan makes sense. In November of last year, 
Secretary of State Christopher submitted to Vice President Gore a 
reorganization plan, the Christopher reorganization plan, a plan 
similar to our reorganization plan. But that plan, sad to say, lost out 
to the bureaucratic lobbyists in the administration--including the 
White House--who care more about protecting their fiefdoms than they do 
about streamlining the Federal Government for the post-cold-war world. 
Indeed, it is an irony, it seems to me, that Secretary Warren 
Christopher's reorganization proposal was rejected, rejected by the 
very same office that had been created with great fanfare--to do what? 
To reinvent Government. Some reinvention.
  Let me say, Vice President Gore--and I liked him very much personally 
when he was a Senator and now as Vice President--but I feel obliged to 
mention the fact that Al Gore promised the American taxpayers that he 
would cut $5 billion out of the foreign affairs budget in the next 5 
years while keeping the bureaucracy in place.
  I wanted to see how he could do that. That promise reminded me of the 
fellow who applied for a job at a circus, saying he could jump off a 
90-foot tower into a wet washcloth, which he did. The only problem, he 
broke his neck. You cannot cut down on the bureaucracy without cutting 
down on the bureaucracy.
  In any case, our friend, Al Gore, Vice President of the United 
States, has not to this good day, this hour, submitted the first 
syllable of a plan for his proposal. Nothing. Zilch.
  The Vice President has said simply that he has no plan. But he does 
have an opinion about others, including Secretary of State Christopher, 
who have tried their best to get this country embarked on the 
proposition that we have to cut down on the Federal bureaucracy. The 
State Department itself has not submitted even one syllable of a formal 
authorization request for fiscal year 1996, this fiscal year coming up.
  Instead, what have we heard from the State Department? What have we 
heard from the Agency for International Development and others? We did 
have one pretty clear message which somebody slipped to us over the 
transom, a copy of an internal memorandum in which they outlined, Mr. 
President, exactly how they were going to oppose Senator Helms in my 
effort to cut down on the Federal budget. They said the plan is to 
``delay, postpone, obfuscate, derail'' the congressional debate on 
reorganization.
  Now, Mr. President, I have consulted the highest levels of the 
administration on Foreign Relations Committee bill S. 908. In fact, 
inasmuch as the media has mentioned my visit with the President on 
August 11, I suppose it is common knowledge. I have never said publicly 
heretofore anything in detail about my meeting with President Clinton.
  He was very gracious and generous with his time, and if I am able to 
read the expressions on anybody's face, I perceived that the President 
was much impressed at the detailed outline that was presented that 
afternoon.
  In any case, the pending amendment provides enormous flexibility to 
the President. I think that is why Mr. Clinton appeared so receptive to 
proposals contained in S. 908 to consolidate those anachronistic 
foreign affairs bureaucracies.
  The President understands that this is an issue about good government 
and about saving the American taxpayers billions of dollars.
  It allows the executive branch even greater latitude than exists in 
current law. It requires the abolishment of only two or three outdated 
agencies. As a matter of fact, I am willing to settle for abolishing 
two of them--and I will let them decide which two. But let us do away 
with two of them, two out of the three.
  This legislation, this amendment at the desk, does not--and I 
reiterate for emphasis--it does not legislate every position and office 
in the Department of State. But it does provide an organized framework 
for consolidation and it does provide necessary extraordinary authority 
for a smooth transition to a smaller, more efficient, far less 
expensive foreign affairs apparatus. As the President of the United 
States said on the afternoon of August 11, ``Who can be against that?'' 
``Who can be against that?''
  I am not implying, nor should anybody infer, that the President has 
endorsed any plan. I do not know. He said he was going to get back to 
me, but he never did. I suspect that he was subjected to some rather 
severe lobbying from within the official family, but I do not know 
that. But I do know that consolidation of U.S. foreign affairs and all 
of its institutions is obviously the right thing to do. It is a wise 
proposal on which unanimous agreement should result. We ought not to be 
here prepared to debate it. We should not be here quibbling over $23 
million or whatever. We should be standing in a phalanx, and: Yes, sir, 
we are going to cut down the size of this Government and especially the 
foreign aid giveaway programs. Because, by doing so we can save the 
American taxpayers, as I said at the outset, billions--not millions--
billions of dollars. And in the process we will be strengthening the 
hand of the Secretary of State in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
  That is why five former Secretaries of State appeared before the 
Foreign Relations Committee and endorsed our proposal that emerged from 
the committee.
  Abraham Lincoln said it well, I think. He said, ``The dogmas of the 
quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled 
high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is 
new,'' Mr. Lincoln said, ``so we must think anew and act anew.'' Abe 
Lincoln said so many smart things, but he did not say one that was any 
smarter than that one. I agree with it and I think 99 percent of the 
American people, at least those who are not on the Federal payroll, 
will agree with what Abraham Lincoln said.
  The need for innovative thinking is not tomorrow, next week, next 
month or next year. It is now. It is time to shed ourselves of these 
archaic, burdensome, anachronistic institutions so that we may enter a 
turbulent 21st century--and it is going to be turbulent--so we can go 
into that century with a more effective State Department and a more 
coherent foreign policy and one that does not, as now is the case, 
bleed the American taxpayer white.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Helms 
amendment. I would like to make this point to Members. This is a 
controversial amendment. It does involve dramatic changes in the State 
Department and the way we organize that function. The choice we have is 
to spend $3 billion extra on overhead, or to save that money for real 
programs that help real people.
  The fact is, America is in transition. We face tough competition from 
abroad. We face tough competition and problems in solving our own 
budget dilemma. That is going to be resolved in 

[[Page S 13908]]
a happy way, only if we set priorities and eliminate those things least 
efficient, least productive, least creative in Government and 
concentrate the limited resources we all recognize we have on those 
things most productive. In short, the choice we have is to spend $3 
billion in foreign affairs that experts tell us we can save through 
reducing unnecessary overhead and salaries and inefficiencies, and 
transfer that money to programs that are vital, that are important.
  Everyone concerned about Social Security ought to be in favor of this 
amendment because this frees up $3 billion that can be spent to save 
Social Security.
  Everyone concerned about Medicare and Medicaid ought to be for this 
amendment because it frees up money that can be reserved and used for 
those programs.
  It is not enough to pretend we have the resources for everything in 
the world. We do not. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina, 
through his innovations, has found us $3 billion that we can reprogram 
for much higher priorities. I hope, while this is a tough decision, 
while it involves change, while it involves sacrifice, it does involve 
changing our priorities to move away from overhead and offices and 
unneeded supervision and unneeded duplication to a program that 
transfers that money over to our most efficient, effective and helpful 
programs.
  I believe that is the essence of what good Government is about on the 
national level, taking a look at our budget and making sure it is spent 
in the most logical, thoughtful, productive ways.
  The fact is that Democrats and Republicans who served as Secretary of 
State, who have served in that office in supervisory capacities, have 
come before the committee and have testified this is a wise and 
efficient and productive and efficient thing to do. We ought to get on 
with it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Committee Amendment on Page 15, Line 17, Through Page 16, Line 24

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Helms amendment 
be temporarily set aside and that we proceed to consideration of a 
committee amendment beginning on page 15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendment No. 2708 To Committee Amendment on Page 15, Line 17, Through 
                            Page 16, Line 24

 (Purpose: To clarify restrictions on assistance to Pakistan and other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
committee amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] for himself, Mr. 
     Harkin, and Ms. Moseley-Braun proposes an amendment numbered 
     2708 to committee amendment on page 15, line 17, through page 
     16, line 24.

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

       At the end of the committee amendment on page 15, line 17 
     through page 16, line 24, insert the following:

     SEC.  . CLARIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 620E of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2375) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking the words ``No assistance'' and inserting 
     the words ``No military assistance'';
       (B) by striking the words ``in which assistance is to be 
     furnished or military equipment or technology'' and inserting 
     the words ``in which military assistance is to be furnished 
     or military equipment or technology''; and
       (C) by striking the words ``the proposed United States 
     assistance'' and inserting the words ``the proposed United 
     States Military assistance''.
       (D) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``(e)''; and
       (E) by adding the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The prohibitions in this section do not apply to any 
     assistance or transfer provided for the purposes of:
       ``(A) International narcotics control (including Chapter 8 
     of Part I of this Act) or any provision of law available for 
     providing assistance for counternarcotics purposes;
       ``(B) Facilitating military-to-military contact, training 
     (including Chapter 5 of Part II of this Act) and humanitarian 
     and civic assistance projects;
       ``(C) Peacekeeping and other multilateral operations 
     (including Chapter 6 of Part II of
      this Act relating to peacekeeping) or any provision of law 
     available for providing assistance for peacekeeping 
     purposes, except that lethal military equipment provided 
     under this subparagraph shall be provided on a lease or 
     loan basis only and shall be returned upon completion of 
     the operation for which it was provided;
       ``(D) Antiterrorism assistance (including Chapter 8 of Part 
     II of this Act relating to antiterrorism assistance) or any 
     provision of law available for antiterrorism assistance 
     purposes;
       ``(3) The restrictions of this subsection shall continue to 
     apply to contracts for the delivery of F-16 aircraft to 
     Pakistan.
       ``(4) Notwithstanding the restrictions contained in this 
     subsection, military equipment, technology, or defense 
     services, other than F-16 aircraft, may be transferred to 
     Pakistan pursuant to contracts or cases entered into before 
     October 1, 1990.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections--
       ``(f) Storage Costs.--The President may release the 
     Government of Pakistan of its contractual obligation to pay 
     the United States Government for the storage costs of items 
     purchased prior to October 1, 1990, but not delivered by the 
     United States Government pursuant to subsection (e) and may 
     reimburse the Government of Pakistan for any such amounts 
     paid, on such terms and conditions as the President may 
     prescribe, provided that such payments have no budgetary 
     impact.
       ``(g) Inapplicability of Restrictions to Previously Owned 
     Items.--Section 620E(e) does not apply to broken, worn or 
     unupgraded items or their equivalent which Pakistan paid for 
     and took possession of prior to October 1, 1990 and which the 
     Government of Pakistan sent to the United States for repair 
     or upgrade. Such equipment or its equivalent may be returned 
     to the Government of Pakistan provided that the President 
     determines and so certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that such equipment or equivalent neither 
     constitutes nor has received any significant qualitative 
     upgrade since being transferred to the United States and that 
     its total value does not exceed $25 million.''
       ``(h) Ballistic Missile Sanctions Not Affected.--Nothing 
     contained herein shall affect sanctions for transfers of 
     missile equipment or technology required under section 11B of 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979 or section 73 of the 
     Arms Export Control Act.''

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment is an amendment that deals 
with the subject of Pakistan and the longstanding sale of military 
equipment to that country and our further domestic relations with that 
country. It is a compromise amendment. It has been considered on the 
floor prior to this, with extended debate.
  I offer it in hopes that those who feel strongly--and I recognize 
there are Members who feel strongly on both sides--will not only have 
an additional opportunity to share their views with the Senate, but 
allow us an opportunity to proceed and dispose of the issue one way or 
another.
  Mr. President, with this background, I might mention that much of 
this issue started back in 1979 which started with an event which 
shocked America and shocked the world. It started with the Soviet 
invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan's neighbor to the north.
  President Carter responded strongly to this, and violated his 
understanding and agreements with the Soviet Government. It spoiled a 
period that might have developed into detente under his leadership, and 
it particularly affected our relationships with Pakistan and to some 
extent India. It affected those relationships because Pakistan was the 
neighbor immediately south of Afghanistan and faced great danger. The 
Soviet Union had made direct threats against Pakistan for their 
assistance and cooperation with the United States prior to that and, 
again, the threat of further Soviet retaliation against Pakistan was 
highlighted when they invaded their neighbor to the north.
  It also aggravated the disagreement between the Indians and 
Pakistanis. The Pakistanis strongly condemned 

[[Page S 13909]]
the invasion of Afghanistan but, tragically, the leader of India rose 
and in a speech supported and defended the Soviet invasion of 
Afghanistan. It further aggravated then strained relationships between 
India and Pakistan as well. It affected this country's relationship 
because the United States saw a need and an importance to work with 
Pakistan to thwart that Soviet occupation and subjugation of 
Afghanistan. It saw renewed and unique cooperation between our two 
countries. It resulted in a series of additional sales of military 
equipment to Pakistan as well.
  Faced with the potential of the further Soviet activity on the 
northern border, we saw an interest in building up Pakistan's military 
strength. And, thus, in a period between 1986 and 1989, a series of 
sales of military equipment were made to Pakistan. Specifically, during 
that period, 1986 to 1989, we sold them a total of 60 aircraft, a total 
potentially then of 71, including 11 additional aircraft as part of the 
deal--a total of 71 aircraft that were considered. These were F-16 
aircraft. It was not only a sale for United States industries, but it 
was a way to help strengthen and support Pakistan's military defense 
that they faced: the Russian invasion of Afghanistan on its northern 
border.
  In addition, there were $368 million of other military equipment 
included in this sale. That equipment was a sale; that is, the 
Pakistanis paid for it with their own money. But what happened was, 
after that, two things occurred. First, finally the Soviets understood 
the folly of having invaded Afghanistan and began a withdrawal and 
began a settlement. Second, in 1990, the Pressler amendment kicked in. 
The Pressler amendment I think was well-intentioned, and it was 
designed to prevent nuclear proliferation. It was designed in a way, 
though, where it was country specific; that is, it applied to Pakistan 
but did not apply to India.
  India had developed--or at least we believe they had developed--their 
own nuclear weapons. But--this is important--it did not violate the 
Pressler amendment because the Pressler amendment was not geared to the 
kind of activity India was involved in; that is, domestic development 
or primarily domestic development of their own weapons. But it did 
apply country specific to Pakistan. In other words, we established in 
the Pressler effort a rule that applied and was limited to Pakistan but 
not to India as it developed out.
  So two things occurred. The Pressler amendment resulted in the 
noncertification of Pakistan under that amendment, and, according to 
the Pressler amendment, the sale of this equipment was cut off; that 
is, we were prevented by law from delivering it.
  So here is the controversy in 1990. The United States has sold 
equipment to a good ally and a good friend, Pakistan, a total sale of 
1.4 billion dollars' worth of equipment of which they have paid for and 
we have ordered the equipment to be built and are unable to give the 
equipment to Pakistan because of the Pressler amendment, and we are 
also unable to give them their money back. We are unable to give them 
their money back even though we cannot give the product because the 
Government has turned around and contracted for the production of the 
equipment.
  So we are set in a controversy in 1990. We have the Pakistani money 
or the obligation. We are unable to deliver the equipment, and we are 
unable to give them their money back because we have already spent it 
for the equipment. Thus, for 5 years we have sat in a controversy with 
one of our best friends holding their money and their equipment and not 
willing to give either one of them, or not able to give either one of 
them, to them.
  The next thing that happened was in 1993 when Pakistan was faced with 
the nondelivery, decided and agreed with the United States reluctantly 
to cut back their order of F-16 aircraft, which is by far the most 
controversial part of the package, from a total of 71, or the 60 they 
had purchased plus the 11, back to a total of 28. So the total has 
dropped from 71 back to 28. We are still faced, though, with the 
package of $1.4 billion in military equipment combined, which we have 
their money for and which we are unable to deliver.
  Mr. President, I should point out also that there is a further 
problem here. Not only does this nondelivered, nonaccomplished contract 
aggravate our relations with Pakistan, but each year Pakistan has been 
charged with and is required to pay storage costs on the equipment they 
have paid for but which we refuse to deliver. It adds insult to injury 
to some extent.
  In addition, the equipment each year of these last 5 years has become 
more and more obsolescent. Each year we fail to resolve this crisis, 
the equipment drops in value, the storage costs and maintenance costs 
continue on, and relations become more and more strained between our 
two countries. It is clearly in this Nation's interest to work out an 
arrangement to resolve this longstanding dispute.
  Mr. President, I also think it is important for us to keep in mind 
what was behind the Pressler amendment; that is, a genuine and a 
sincere interest in stopping proliferation. So, in thinking about 
settling this dispute, it seems to me that we, as Americans, ought to 
be thinking about a couple of things. First, how do we resolve the 
dispute without sending the message that we are going to give up on 
stopping proliferation? Clearly, as we come out of this, we have to 
have in place something that is a discouragement for people from 
developing nuclear weapons.
  So it is important I think that the solution come out. First, so that 
it is fair to both India, Pakistan, and the United States; and, second, 
so that there is still significant deterrence for people violating the 
structures, and the disincentives, against proliferation.
  Mr. President, that is what this amendment is meant to do, a 
resolution of that longstanding controversy. What does it do?
  The amendment is very clear, and for Members let me divide it into a 
couple of parts. First, simply a clarification of the Pressler 
amendment. That is, in the cutoff of certain relationships between the 
United States and Pakistan, we want to clarify some areas where we 
think it is in our interest to not have cutoff. What are they? For 
example, is it in the interest of the United States to cooperate with 
Pakistan in the suppression of terrorism?
  I think most Members would think it is reasonable to say, of course, 
it is; that in cutting off relationships between the United States and 
Pakistan because of the Pressler amendment, one of the things we should 
not cut off is cooperation between our two countries with regard to 
suppressing terrorism. An example occurred earlier this year. Within 
Pakistan, we were able to apprehend, with the assistance of the 
Pakistani authorities, a suspected terrorist who was thought to be 
involved in the bombing within this country of the New York World Trade 
Center. We asked the Pakistanis to arrest him and extradite him to the 
United States.
  Was that in our interest? Yes. Mr. President, incidentally, the 
Pakistanis did cooperate. Even though they faced pressure from Islamic 
fundamentalist countries that surround them, they arrested this 
suspected terrorist and they extradited him to the United States. I 
might mention that that kind of cooperation has not been seen by all 
countries in the world and Pakistan took particular risks in doing so. 
So I think it is in our interest to have an arrangement that allows us 
to cooperate with them in suppressing terrorism. I think it is also in 
our interest to have an arrangement that allows us to cooperate with 
them in suppressing drug traffic and arresting drug traffickers.
  Why is it important to amend the Pressler amendment? The Pressler 
amendment--and it is not as clear as it might be--appears to cut off 
even assistance that, for example, would help them set up a lab, which 
is what we have done with a lot of countries, which would identify 
chemicals. So what we have done in a number of countries around the 
world is help them with technical expertise to identify what is 
cocaine, what is heroin, what these different chemicals and drugs are, 
and convict the people who are trafficking in them.
  So the first part of the amendment is reasonably noncontroversial. It 
passed out of committee 16 to 2. What it says, in the so-called 
economic areas, we are going to clarify what Pressler means and we are 
going to allow cooperation in the areas of suppressing terrorism, 
counternarcotics control, peacekeeping, and multilateral nation 
building. I 

[[Page S 13910]]
think there are a lot of examples. We have gone to the Pakistanis in 
recent years and asked them to help by sending troops to Haiti, by 
sending troops to Somalia. We want to make it clear that there is 
cooperation allowed. In other words, if we provide transportation, for 
example, for their troops to go to Somalia to help us with a mission, 
we want to clarify the Pressler amendment to make it clear that is 
allowed.
  So the first piece of it we believe is fairly noncontroversial. It is 
clarifying that the Pressler amendment in the economic areas does not 
cut off areas where I think most every American would think it is to 
our advantage to cooperate with Pakistan.
  The second aspect should be fairly noncontroversial as well, and that 
is it makes it clear by law that we will not deliver the F-16 aircraft, 
exactly what the Pressler amendment allows right now or provides right 
now, and it indicates that the President is authorized to sell the 
planes and return what money of the Pakistanis that he can through a 
sale of those aircraft to other people.
  Now, Mr. President, the only thing new in that is making it clear 
that he is authorized to sell them and return the money such as he can. 
It does not appropriate money for this purpose, and that is an 
important difference. We are not, as I hope we would eventually and I 
think is important, by this amendment returning the Pakistani money. We 
are authorizing the President to sell those aircraft and authorizing 
the return of the proceeds from what he sells, but it does not 
appropriate money. It merely authorizes a resolution of that.
  So what we have done is left in place the major penalty for Pakistan 
in this. The aircraft, the F-16's, are clearly things that the Indians 
are most concerned about. They have indicated it is their top priority. 
They have indicated it is the thing that is most important to them, to 
see that they are not delivered in the way of equipment to the 
Pakistanis. The aircraft amount to almost three-fourths of the entire 
military package.
  So the way it deals with the second area is it makes it clear that 
those aircraft, none of them are to be delivered to Pakistan, and if 
there is money derived from selling them, that can be returned to 
Pakistan.
  Third, Mr. President, it does authorize the delivery of about a 
fourth of the package, and that fourth is other equipment that is 
described as insignificant.
  We have held extensive hearings on this question. Every witness that 
we had--we had a large number of witnesses, experts from academia, 
military experts, and a variety of other experts from the 
administration--every expert that came in who talked about this other 
package--that is, about a fourth of the military sale--described to us 
that these were militarily insignificant packages. Both Democrat and 
Republican, both liberal and conservative, both academic and military 
experts, all of them came in and described this part of the package--
and it is $368 million of military equipment that they have contracted 
and paid for--as militarily insignificant.
  Now, some critics have said, ``Goodness, if you allow the delivery of 
this equipment that is 5 years old or older, it will upset the 
remainder of power between India and Pakistan.''
  I am happy to respond to that if it is made in the Chamber, and I 
wish to be very clear about it because the experts we have asked, all 
of them have come in and said, First, it is militarily insignificant 
and, second, it will have no effect whatsoever on the remainder of 
power between India and Pakistan. India is clearly the dominant power. 
It is 2 to 1 over Pakistan in almost every military aspect and, of 
course, in population has an advantage much greater than that. So while 
that is a point of contention in this, it is a controversial piece of 
it I hope Members will put in place. First, the experts say it is not 
militarily significant and will do nothing to change the major balance 
of power between India and Pakistan, which is clearly in India's favor 
and continues in a very significant way to be in India's favor.
  Mr. President, let me deal specifically with what the amendment does 
not do because I think that is important. It does not repeal the 
Pressler amendment. It leaves it in place. It leaves in place a cutoff 
of military sales to Pakistan. Even though they have been our ally, 
even though they have been our friend, they cannot look to us even in 
difficult circumstances to buy military equipment.
  The military equipment that here is involved is a sale that is 8 or 9 
years old and that they have paid for and for which we are unable to 
return their money. So what we are doing is not delivering three-
fourths of the material and delivering a quarter of it. But it leaves 
in place the Pressler amendment and the cutoff of sanctions. Second, it 
does not create instability with India. It leaves them with a 2-to-1 
advantage in military hardware. Third, it does not--and this is very 
important, I think--undermine the nonproliferation efforts of the 
United States. It leaves in place tough sanctions against Pakistan.
  Some may feel this amendment does not go far enough, that we ought to 
reconsider those tough sanctions. But this amendment does not do that. 
I must say personally, Mr. President, I think it is very important for 
us to keep in mind that we have to have credibility in terms of our 
strong stand against proliferation. As some Members may note, I have 
been one who has been concerned about our negotiations and discussions 
with North Korea. I think we jeopardize the credibility of our 
nonproliferation effort by what we have done there. So I think it is 
important to note this amendment leaves in place tough sanctions.
  Mr. President, I wish to suggest to Members that there are three 
things I hope they will keep in mind as they consider this amendment. 
No. 1, Members from my side of the aisle have been critical at times of 
the President in his conducting of foreign policy, but here is an 
example where the President faced a tough problem. He faced a tough 
problem because it deals with relationships with Pakistan and India. He 
faced a tough problem because for 5 years we have had this equipment 
and we have refused to either deliver it or give the Pakistanis their 
money back.
 Previous administrations had not been able to deal with this problem, 
as difficult as it was.

  Mr. President, here is a situation where the President of the United 
States faced a tough foreign policy problem and found a solution. He 
negotiated for this Nation and he developed a good compromise. The 
compromise he developed did not deliver the F-16's, which were the most 
controversial piece of the package, and did deliver a portion of the 
package, about a fourth of it, that is not thought to be militarily 
significant.
  He negotiated a strong compromise that while it does not satisfy 
everyone, it gets this problem behind it. No one, I think, can look at 
this problem and think it makes sense to delay further in trying to 
resolve it. Every day that passes the equipment gets older and of less 
value. Every day that passes, there is storage costs that impose a 
greater and greater burden on the parties involved.
  The question Members have to ask themselves is this: If they fail to 
pass the President's compromise, what do they do to his negotiating 
position in foreign policy? I think it is very clear they undercut it. 
I think it is very clear what happens. If you fail to pass the 
President's compromise in this area, we send a message to the world 
that they cannot negotiate in good faith with the President of the 
United States, that we will not back him when he steps forward to 
settle difficult problems. I think we undercut his position and his 
credibility and his ability to negotiate on behalf of the United States 
in the future.
  It would be a tragic mistake to take an area where the President has 
shown real leadership and real courage in solving a tough problem, and 
to undercut him.
  Second, Mr. President, I think there is a very important thing we 
ought to consider as we look at this package, and that is how people 
around the world will respond to the United States when we come and ask 
for help, when we come and ask for cooperation. They will look at how 
we have treated Pakistan and they will make a decision of whether or 
not they want to be our friend and whether or not they want to work for 
us. 

[[Page S 13911]]

  Mr. President, there is a simple guideline for this solution as to 
how Pakistan has responded. When we have needed help and we have gone 
to Pakistan and asked for help, the Pakistanis were there for us. Let 
me review the record quickly.
  In 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea, the United States went 
to Pakistan and asked for their help in the United Nations to vote 
against that invasion and to authorize U.N. forces to go to war to save 
freedom and democracy in South Korea. Pakistan said yes when we asked 
them for help.
  In 1954, when we organized the Central Treaty Organization, CENTO--it 
was designed to stop the spread of communism around the world--we went 
to Pakistan even though they were in a vulnerable position, close to 
the Soviet Union, and we asked them to join this military alliance to 
protect freedom and democracy around the world. Pakistan said yes when 
we asked them to join.
  In 1955, when we helped organize the Southeast Asian Treaty 
Organization, SEATO, and asked Pakistan to join that organization, 
Pakistan said yes, and stood shoulder to shoulder with us to stop the 
spread of Marxism and communism around the world.
  In 1959, when we went to Pakistan and asked them to sign a mutual 
defense treaty, Pakistan once again said yes to the United States. In 
accordance with that defense treaty Pakistan allowed the United States 
to set up military air bases within Pakistan designed to perform 
reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union.
  Now, Mr. President, keep in mind what this was. We asked Pakistan to 
allow us to set up a base in their own country that would fly our spy 
planes, our reconnaissance planes, over the Soviet Union, providing 
vital military intelligence to the United States. Pakistan, close to 
the Soviet Union, was at great risk and great danger. And once again, 
even at their own risk, Pakistan said yes to the United States.
  Francis Gary Powers, incidentally, was involved in one of those 
flights, which Americans will remember.
  Incidentally Khrushchev himself threatened to wipe this airbase off 
the face of the Earth. Pakistan took an enormous risk by letting us on 
their territory, and said yes to helping us.
  In 1970, when we wanted to open up relationships with China, Pakistan 
said yes to our request to allow Henry Kissinger to enter China through 
Pakistan, cooperating and setting up that relationship with China. Even 
though the Soviets were very upset by Pakistan, and in less than a year 
signed a friendship treaty with India partly in relationship to their 
anger, Pakistan went ahead and said yes to the United States offers for 
help.
  Americans should note that it was within a year after that 
cooperation with the United States that resulted in a friendship treaty 
between the Soviet Union and India that India then felt free to send 
their troops into east Pakistan which saw the Pakistanis lose that war 
and lose a significant portion of their country.
  From 1979 to 1989 the United States went to Pakistan and asked them 
to cooperate with us in and help us fight the Soviet invasion of 
Afghanistan through infiltration of military equipment and other 
devices. Once again Pakistan said yes to the United States even though 
they faced great danger.
  In the gulf war against Iraq in 1990 we asked Pakistan to send 
troops. They did. They stood side by side and fought with us to repel 
the Iraqi invasion.
  Since 1992 and 1993, Pakistan has been at the forefront of 
peacekeeping operations. We went to them and asked them to supply 
troops for Somalia, and they said yes. And we went to them and asked 
them to supply troops for the Haiti operation, and they said yes. And 
in 1995 we went to them and asked them to return a suspected terrorist, 
and they helped arrest him and return him to the United States, a 
terrorist who was involved in the World Trade Center bombing.
  Mr. President, when we have asked Pakistan for help, they have been 
there. They have stood side by side for America with America. They have 
stood side by side with us in resisting Soviet aggression. They have 
stood side by side with us to stop and reverse the Russian invasion of 
Afghanistan. And, Mr. President, they stood side by side to help us 
stop or reverse terrorism around the world.
  Now, Mr. President, they are asking us, asking us to treat them 
fairly with regard to this sale that started almost 9 years ago.
  Mr. President, at this time I would like to ask that Senator Harkin 
and Senator Moseley-Braun be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Finally, Mr. President, let me suggest this: The reason we 
ought to pass this amendment is not for Pakistan, although that ought 
to be a consideration, it is not for anyone else in the world except 
for the United States.
  If there is one thing important to Americans, it is that our word be 
good, that our commitments be strong, that people place credibility in 
what America does. Is there anyone in this Chamber that is comfortable 
with us having taken the Pakistani money and refused either the 
equipment that we contracted for or their money back? I do not think 
so. Americans do not deal that way with people. We do not take their 
money on a contract and then refuse to deliver on the contract or 
refuse to return their money. We ought to adopt this amendment because 
of America and what we stand for and who we are, because our word is 
good, and our commitment is good, because we do not cheat people.
  We ought to adopt this amendment because it is a fair compromise of a 
tough problem that treats people fairly and reasonably. Mr. President, 
I believe it would be wrong for us to both keep the money and the 
military equipment and to refuse to resolve that problem. And that 
stands as a cloud over the integrity of the United States.
  Mr. President, I am proud of this country. I think we deal fairly 
with people. And I think we want people to know that. We ought to pass 
this amendment more than anything because it says a lot about the kind 
of people we are and the kind of integrity we have and the validity and 
the integrity of the word of the United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  

                          ____________________