[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 148 (Thursday, September 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13995-S14079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 1868, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1868) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1996.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Helms (for Dole/Helms) amendment No. 2707 (to committee 
     amendment on page 2, line 25), to provide for the 
     streamlining and consolidation of the foreign affairs 
     agencies of the United States.
       Brown amendment No. 2708 (to committee amendment beginning 
     on page 15, line 17 through page 16, line 24), to clarify 
     restrictions on assistance to Pakistan. (By 37 yeas to 61 
     nays (Vote No. 452), Senate earlier failed to table the 
     amendment.)
       Murkowski amendment No. 2712, to set forth requirements for 
     implementation of the Agreed Framework Between the United 
     States and North Korea Act relating to the Korean Peninsula 
     Energy Development Organization.


                           Amendment No. 2708

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1 
hour of debate on the Brown amendment No. 2708, equally divided.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. So ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment is about simple fairness. We 
have taken their money. We have obtained a contract to deliver 
equipment, and we do not want to deliver that equipment. I understand 
the feelings of those Members who have that position. But, Mr. 
President, it is wrong to take somebody's money and not deliver the 
equipment and not give them their money back.
  If this were Sears, Roebuck in the United States, we would lock them 
up. The consumer protection laws do not apply to the U.S. Government, 
but, Mr. President, simple fairness does. The American people 
understand this issue because they understand what it is like when 
someone who is selling something takes their money and does not deliver 
either the product or the money. That is what this amendment is all 
about. It is about fairness, and it is about saying either give them 
their money back or give them the equipment they contracted for.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  Under the quorum call that just took place, how is the time charged 
to each side? 

[[Page S 13996]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was charged to the Senator that suggested 
it.
  Mr. GLENN. Would the Chair repeat?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was charged to the Senator who suggested 
it.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, my sense is that fairness would require 
that it be charged to both sides equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I suggest the absence of a quorum and request the time be 
charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I cannot disagree more with my 
distinguished colleague from Colorado when he says this is just a 
matter of fairness about giving money back as though we ordered 
something from Sears, Roebuck and did not get it so we ought to get our 
money back. That is such a simplistic view that it mocks what we have 
been trying to do with our nonproliferation policy, our nuclear 
nonproliferation policy for the last 30 years.
  We have tried to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around this 
world. That is what this issue is all about. It is a nonproliferation 
issue. The question: Are we serious about a U.S. leadership role in 
nonproliferation policy or are we not? I share the concern that 
Pakistan should get its money back, but not at the expense of dumping 
our nuclear policy and making our efforts around the world to further 
nuclear nonproliferation be mocked by the 178 nations that signed up 
under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is what this is all about.
  Pakistan has been the most egregious violator. They refused to join 
the NPT and refused to cooperate and repeatedly told us untruth after 
untruth after untruth after untruth, lie after lie after lie, about 
their intentions on nuclear weapons.
  They deliberately misled us--misled me personally. I was over there a 
couple times. Once I met with President Zia; with Yaqub Khan, the 
Foreign Minister; Mir Khan, from their atomic energy commission. They 
told me they had no program at all. They said that our intelligence was 
just flat wrong.
  Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto repeatedly has made statements that 
they have no nuclear weapons objectives. And yet we know that is not 
true. So what this is about is not just about fairness of giving the 
money back as though a purchase had been made at Sears; this is a 
matter of nonproliferation and are we serious about it or not?
  We all love to get up and make our press conference statements about 
how much we are against nuclear proliferation and we do not want to see 
nuclear weapons spread to more nations around the world. We, in fact, 
right now are getting control of our nuclear weapons stockpiles with 
the former Soviet Union, now the Russians, and we are scaling those 
down. At the same time we asked other nations, ``Please do not go ahead 
with nuclear weapons programs. We will cooperate with you if you do 
not.''
  We cooperated with Pakistan when they were threatened and mutual 
interest indicated we should send weapons to the Mujaheddin in 
Afghanistan. It was in Pakistan's interest we do that, also. It was not 
just a gratuitous favor to the United States.
  Through the years over and over we were assured Pakistan had no 
nuclear weapons program by their officials when we knew they did. 
During this time period we were successful in turning off a Taiwanese 
effort to start a nuclear weapons program. We were successful in 
turning off a South Korean effort to start a nuclear weapons program. 
South Africa, they finally gave up on their efforts after having a 
nuclear weapon or being close to it. Argentina and Brazil ceased their 
efforts. And 178 nations signed up under NPT. This is a great success 
story.
  Do we mean it when we say we have a nonproliferation policy or not? I 
am very critical of this administration. I sent a long letter to the 
President with my position on this back in April. I included it in the 
Record last night. I think this is sort of a test case here. Do we mean 
it or not? If we let Pakistan go ahead and say we reward them then with 
all sorts of help, with economic aid, with all the things that are 
going on with the weapons program, with the spare parts, with things 
like that, with new missiles, and we reward them for these efforts, it 
makes a mockery--makes a mockery--out of our nonproliferation efforts 
when other nations say they may want to do the same thing that Pakistan 
has already done.
  The international nuclear trade has been going up, I am sorry to say. 
We should be trying to cut it back. We passed legislation--we passed 
the Glenn-Symington amendment to deal with this way back. We passed the 
Pressler amendment later on that was Pakistan-specific, and should have 
been. It is the way it should be. But the Congress was unwilling to 
give a complete blank check to Pakistan, and stipulated in our waiver 
legislation that Pakistan would still be cut off if it received or 
exploded a nuclear device. ``Received''--in other words, gained that 
capability.
  Congress stipulated that an annual report would be provided on 
Pakistan's nuclear activities so that Congress could confirm that the 
United States assistance was indeed inhibiting Pakistan's bomb program, 
as was confidently assumed by Reagan administration officers. Waiver 
after waiver after waiver, which I went through in detail last night, 
waiver after waiver after waiver for Pakistan. And every time one was 
granted, it was granted on the basis that we need to be their friends 
so they will not continue along this route.
  And we have that whole trail of broken promises, one after another 
after another. The result of all of this, all the untruths that were 
told to us, all this mendacity, plus ongoing information that the 
program was progressing, resulted in the Pressler amendment.
  Well, the CIA, to their credit, was skeptical that any of these 
things would work back at that time. And they were right. So now we 
have the effort to give the money back. And it is supposedly that they 
would like to have you think that the proposal from the other side was 
that they just paid all this money out there, and then we jerked the 
rug out from under them.
  The fact is that out of the $858 million, $50 million was paid before 
Pressler; the rest of it was all paid after the Pressler amendment was 
adopted, and Pakistan knew full well what they were doing. They knew 
exactly what they were doing, and they continued and paid the rest of 
that money after the Pressler amendment was adopted, hoping that we 
would back down, that we were not serious about our nuclear 
nonproliferation policy, and they were right. We backed down. The 
United States of America is still backing down on nuclear 
nonproliferation.
  It is not easy for the Pakis, because they are entitled to some 
sympathy in their national security plight in South Asia. They fought 
three wars with a much larger adversary, India, who was also pursuing a 
nuclear weapons program and had exploded a device in 1984, and mainly 
built their program because of China's nuclear efforts.
  I do have sympathy for them in that regard, but I do not have much 
sympathy when they have deliberately misled us, lied to us all through 
the years.
  Mr. President, one after the other, officials in Pakistan have not 
told us the truth. I said before my own personal experience in meeting 
with President Zia, the foreign minister, Yaqub Khan, and from the 
atomic energy commission, Mir Khan, was that they all assured us they 
had no program when we knew that they did.
  Let me read a few quotes. Back in 1988, opposition leader Benazir 
Bhutto, shortly before coming Prime Minister:

       We don't want any controversy [with the U.S.] on the 
     nuclear issue . . . We want it clear beyond doubt that we're 
     interested only in energy, not nuclear weapons.

  Again, interview with Time magazine, November 1988:

       We believe in a peaceful [nuclear] program for energy 
     purposes and nothing else.

  Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, interview in Calcutta Telegraph, 
December 1988:


[[Page S 13997]]

       I can tell you with confidence that there is no bomb 
     programme in Pakistan . . . There is no bomb programme . . . 
     there is no bomb programme.

  December, 1988:

       We're committed to a peaceful energy program. We don't have 
     any [nuclear] weapons policy . . . Pakistan doesn't have any 
     intention to get a nuclear device or a nuclear weapon.

  Another one in June 1989, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, in an 
address before a joint meeting of Congress, right down the hall, a 
joint meeting of Congress, and made this statement to all of us. I was 
in attendance at that meeting:

       Speaking for Pakistan, I can declare that we do not possess 
     nor do we intend to make a nuclear device. That is our 
     policy.

  New York Times, 1989 interview with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto:

       Pakistan has not, nor do we have any intention of putting 
     together or making, a bomb, or taking it to the point where 
     you can put it together.

  So much for the word of Pakistan.
  So when we say, Mr. President, that this is an issue of just giving 
the money back, as though we have made a deal at Sears someplace, that 
is extremely misleading, and I disagree with that characterization of 
what this is about.
  What this is about is whether the United States has a nuclear 
nonproliferation policy and whether we are truly willing to stick to it 
or are we not. Do we have the guts to make the tough decisions in the 
interest of seeing nuclear weapons not spread further around the world, 
just at the same time we are trying to get our own nuclear weapons 
stockpiles and those of the former Soviet Union under control and doing 
a good job in that area.
  Mr. President, that is what this vote is all about. I know from the 
vote yesterday what the vote is likely to be today. I think it is a 
wrong vote because it sends all the wrong signals to the 178 
nonproliferation members around the world who are doing what we wanted 
them to do, what we tried to lead them to do and which they have 
continued to do, and that is try and stop the spread of nuclear weapons 
around the world. That is what this vote is all about.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, there are several important points raised by the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio that I would like to address. One is 
the suggestion that we have somehow backed down on our nonproliferation 
objective or let Pakistan off the hook if this amendment is adopted.
  I sincerely believe that is an inaccurate statement, and I want to 
draw the attention of the Members to the facts. The reality is, if this 
amendment is adopted that our restriction against military assistance 
stays in place and it stays in place even though Pakistan has 
significant national security problems, our restriction against 
military sales stays in place, and it does so even though they have a 
great need and want to buy equipment from the United States.
  For a country that is in need of assistance and in need of weapons, 
those are significant and major restrictions, and to throw them away or 
ignore them, I think, ignores the facts. The fact is, they are strong 
sanctions that are in place and continue in place if the amendment is 
adopted.
  We should not forget the fact as well that Pakistan signed a contract 
for these some 9 years ago, for other parts 8 years ago, and for other 
parts 7 years ago. They paid for those, and whether they paid all up 
front or paid in installments, as most people do, I think misses the 
point.
  The fact is, they paid for these, they contracted for these. These 
items they have contracted for have sat around. Does anybody think 
military equipment that was due for delivery 5 years ago is as valuable 
today as when it came up? Of course, not.
  So to suggest there have not been and do not continue to be 
enormously significant sanctions in place against Pakistan is to simply 
ignore the facts. It is misleading, I think, to say that there are not 
major penalties that we have demanded that the Pakistanis pay and will 
continue to pay in the future.
  Mr. President, a great deal has been made about disingenuous 
statements by the Pakistanis with regard to their nuclear program. I, 
for one, think it is regrettable that that has happened. But, we should 
not be holier than thou when we talk about misleading statements 
regarding national security. Are our memories so short around here, 
particularly with regard to Pakistan? Does not anyone recall that 
Francis Gary Powers' flight took off from Pakistan, an area we asked 
the Pakistanis to make available to us, at a base we asked them to let 
us fly out of, to fly over and spy on the Soviet Union? Has everyone 
forgotten how important that was to national security?
  Incidentally, does anyone remember what President Eisenhower said 
when he was asked about it? No one has mentioned that today. But if you 
want to talk about disingenuous statements, what about President 
Eisenhower? Are we so holy we have forgotten it? This emanated from 
Pakistan. President Eisenhower denied the flights. Was it an incorrect 
statement? Of course it was. Why did he do it? To protect our national 
security.
  Does anybody remember what President Kennedy said with regard to the 
Bay of Pigs? We do not dwell on it, but before we get so holy, before 
we get too holy, remember, Americans have felt a need to protect their 
national security, too, and it is strange that people would talk about 
the phenomenon of nuclear weapons with regard to Pakistan and not be 
willing to talk about the phenomenon of nuclear weapons with regard to 
India.
  My own view of this is that we want to be friends with both India and 
Pakistan. We want to stand beside them. We want to work with both of 
them. Perhaps it was not widely noticed, but I was the prime critic of 
the administration when it was slow to name an Ambassador to India. It 
seemed to me that was an important function to do, with a country that 
should be our friend and we want to work with.
  I spoke out against the bashing of India over the question of 
Kashmir. I believe what we want is a balanced policy, but, Mr. 
President, we should not look at the questions regarding Pakistan's 
national security in a vacuum.
  To assume that we are going to have a policy that denies Pakistan 
nuclear weapons and not comment about India's nuclear weapons is a 
mistake. To assume we are going to bash Pakistan for trying to find 
missiles and not say anything about India's missile program is a 
mistake. What we ought to have is a balanced policy in that part of the 
world, not a one-sided policy.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator from 
Colorado on his diligence and his effort to bring some rationality and 
reason to this debate, to try to get us to focus on fairness and equity 
in dealing with this part of the world.
  I certainly would not want any of my comments that I made last night 
in the debate, or any I might make now, to be construed to indicate in 
any way that I have it in for India. That is not it at all. But I do 
believe that the history of our relations with Pakistan are such that 
we have to start dealing in a more evenhanded fashion in that part of 
the world.
  Last night in my remarks, I went over the long history of Pakistani-
United States friendly relations. I do not mean to belabor that again 
and go over that, other than to just say that going clear back to when 
Pakistan got its independence, Pakistan has always been oriented toward 
the United States. They supported us in the Korean war. As the Senator 
from Colorado pointed out, the flights of the U-2 over the Soviet Union 
came from Pakistan. After the U-2 was shot down, Nikita Khrushchev 
threatened Pakistan with nuclear weapons. Pakistan stuck with the 
United States. In the gulf war, Pakistan helped us out; they were on 
our side. In Somalia--and even in Haiti, Pakistan has sent troops to 
help restore democracy to Haiti.
  So in almost everything that we have done, Pakistan has been our 
strong friend and ally. Yet, I believe we have not treated them 
evenhandedly. All this really is is a question of fairness.
  Last night, I quoted--and I want to repeat that--the statement by the 
Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, in 

[[Page S 13998]]
a letter dated September 20 to Senator Daschle. He said:

       We appreciate the bipartisan interest we have seen in 
     improving our relationship with Pakistan. We would support an 
     amendment that would permit aid to Pakistan that is in our 
     own interest, such as trade promotion, counternarcotics 
     assistance, and counter-
     terrorist programs. We also support language that would allow 
     for the return of military equipment for which Pakistan has 
     already paid. To engage Pakistan on issues of concern to us, 
     including nonproliferation, it is essential to resolve this 
     unfair situation.

  That is what the Brown amendment does.
  Again, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter, dated 
September 20, from Secretary of State Christopher, be printed in its 
entirety in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       The Secretary of State,

                                   Washington, September 20, 1995.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Democratic Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Daschle: As the Senate begins consideration of 
     the FY 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, I would 
     like to address several issues in the version of the bill as 
     reported by the full Appropriations Committee.
       At the outset I would like to thank Chairman McConnell and 
     Senator Leahy for their willingness to work with us and to 
     include priority initiatives such as a long-term extension of 
     the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act (MEPFA) and a drawdown 
     authority for Jordan in the subcommittee mark. We would 
     oppose any amendments that would alter the carefully 
     negotiated language for either of these initiatives. Also, we 
     appreciate the Subcommittee's removal of objectional 
     conditions adopted by the House on population assistance and 
     aid to Turkey, Haiti, and Mexico. We hope to continue in this 
     cooperative fashion to produce a Foreign Operations bill that 
     can be presented to the President with bipartisan support.
       Despite the favorable aspects of the legislation, there are 
     several items that are of great concern to the Department of 
     State. The funding levels throughout the bill are well below 
     the President's request level. The Foreign Operations cuts, 
     coupled with the cuts being proposed to international 
     programs in the Senate's Commerce, Justice, State Department 
     Appropriations bill, represent a serious threat to America's 
     leadership in international affairs.
       The bill also contains numerous earmarks and substantially 
     restructures our foreign aid accounts. We expect 
     international agencies to do their share in the effort to 
     balance the budget as the President's budget plan makes 
     clear. However, we, the Administration, should have the 
     flexibility to apply funds to the programs that provide the 
     best results. Earmarks in our programs for the New 
     Independent States, International Counternarcotics, and 
     economic assistance would prevent us from being able to 
     respond to the crisis and unexpected requirements of the 
     post-Cold War world. Further, the proportionality requirement 
     in the new Economic Assistance account restricts our ability 
     to change the distribution of these funds from year to year. 
     We oppose these restrictions.
       The bill also contains a number of objectionable policy 
     provisions. Restrictions on our ability to contribute to the 
     Korean Energy Development Organization (KEDO) would, in 
     effect, prevent U.S. funding of KEDO and greatly hinder, if 
     not destroy, the international effort to implement the Agreed 
     Framework. We oppose linking KEDO funding to substantial 
     progress on North Korean/South Korean dialogue. Imposing an 
     artificial and unrealistic deadline on North/South talks, 
     which have taken years to progress, will hold hostage the 
     very funding that will facilitate the progress we all so 
     desire. We remain convinced that the North/South dialogue 
     will move forward substantially as a result of the Agreed 
     Framework and the creation of KEDO. Our failure to contribute 
     to KEDO will threaten its ability to meet its obligations 
     under the Framework and, consequently, invite North Korean 
     non-compliance. The Agreed Framework is working. North Korea 
     has frozen its nuclear weapons program. We need Congressional 
     support for KEDO to keep the freeze in place.
       Regarding assistance to the New Independent States (NIS) 
     and Russia, we have reached a critical moment in the reform 
     process. Continued funding is essential. It can make a major 
     difference in whether reformers in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, 
     Moldova and other states will be able to maintain momentum, 
     or the opponents of reform will halt the development of 
     democratic market societies. We need to stay the course for 
     this transitional period, while normal trading and investment 
     relationships develop in the former Soviet states. We very 
     much appreciate the continued support we have received from 
     the Congress, and the Senate Appropriations Committee in 
     particular, for this critical effort, as reflected in this 
     bill.
       At the same time, however, we oppose new conditions on 
     assistance to the NIS. It is of course tempting to withdraw 
     our assistance as punishment when we do not agree with 
     Russian actions or policies. But this would be a mistake. 
     This assistance is in our national interest. Cutting or 
     restricting aid would hurt reformers, the very people who 
     have protested the war in Chechnya, criticized Russia's 
     proposed nuclear sale to Iran, or insisted that Russia end 
     cooperation with Cuba. We urge you to remove such conditions 
     from this bill. Let me assure you that we share your concerns 
     about Russia's policies in these areas; that is why we 
     continue to work on other fronts to stop the Russian nuclear 
     reactor sale to Iran and to prevent completion of the Cuban 
     reactor project.
       We also urge you to restore the national security waiver 
     for the certification requirement on violations of 
     territorial integrity, which has been removed from the Senate 
     version of this bill. It is important that the President 
     retain the ability to determine whether the national security 
     of the United States justifies a waiver of this requirement. 
     Moreover, removal of the waiver provision could have 
     unintended consequences, such as prohibiting humanitarian 
     assistance to the victims of regional conflicts in countries 
     such as Armenia.
       The language regarding restrictions on the termination of 
     sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro also reflects 
     objectionable House language carried over in the Senate bill. 
     The recent combination of NATO's resolve and energetic United 
     States leadership on the diplomatic front has led to some 
     encouraging opportunities for a negotiated settlement to the 
     conflict. To prematurely close off any avenues that may lead 
     to a diplomatic settlement, including adjustments to the 
     sanctions regime against Serbia, would complicate our 
     efforts.
       We appreciate the bipartisan interest we have seen in 
     improving our relationship with Pakistan. We would support an 
     amendment that would permit aid to Pakistan that is in our 
     own interest, such as trade promotion, counternarcotics 
     assistance, and counterterrorism programs. We also support 
     language that would allow for the return of military 
     equipment for which Pakistan has already paid. To engage 
     Pakistan on issues of concern to us, including non-
     proliferation, it is essential to resolve this unfair 
     situation.
       There remain other problematic issues in the bill, but we 
     are encouraged by the willingness of the bill's managers to 
     work with us, and we hope that these other issues can be 
     resolved on the Senate floor or in conference.
           Sincerely,
                                               Warren Christopher.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is also a letter from Secretary 
Perry, the Secretary of Defense, who said:

       This is an effort to resolve issues involving ``fairness'' 
     that have become a major irritant in our relationship with 
     Pakistan--it is in no way an effort to resume a military 
     supply relationship. Meanwhile, our ability to work with 
     Pakistan to achieve nonproliferation goals is eroding. The 
     status quo, unfortunately, offers few incentives for future 
     cooperation or restraint by Pakistan--or by India, whose 
     nuclear and missile programs are also of concern.

  We do not hear much talk about that around here. The nuclear programs 
and the missile programs of India ought to be a big concern of ours 
also.
  Secretary Perry concluded:

       If we succeed in putting this issue behind us, we will be 
     in a better position to engage Pakistan in a constructive way 
     on issues of concern to us, particularly nonproliferation.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Perry, dated 
August 2, also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 1995.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Ranking Democrat, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: For the past six months, the 
     Administration has wrestled with the difficult problem of 
     trying to build a stronger, more flexible relationship with 
     Pakistan--an important moderate Islamic democracy in a 
     troubled region which has been a long-time friend and has 
     become a major partner in peacekeeping operations--while 
     promoting the very important nonproliferation goals of the 
     Pressler Amendment.
       Based on a detailed review within the Administration and 
     consultations with Congress, the President has decided to 
     address this matter on three fronts:
       First, he strongly supports provisions already contained in 
     the House and Senate versions of the Foreign Aid 
     Authorization bill that would permit us to resume economic 
     assistance and limited military assistance affecting clear 
     U.S. interests (including assistance in peacekeeping, 
     counterterrorism and counternarcotics as well as IMET).
       Second, the President has decided to seek authority, as 
     provided by an amendment to be proposed by Senator Brown, 
     that would release approximately $370 million worth of 
     embargoed military equipment purchased by Pakistan before the 
     imposition of Pressler sanctions. This authority would 
     specifically exclude the release of the F-16s. Among the 
     items that would be released are three P-3C 

[[Page S 13999]]

     Orion maritime patrol aircraft, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 
     counter-mortar radars, howitzers, and support kits for F-16s 
     and Cobra helicopters already in the Pakistani inventory. 
     These items will not disturb the conventional arms balance in 
     South Asia which overwhelmingly favors India.
       Finally, the President has decided that, rather than 
     releasing the 28 F-16s to Pakistan, he will seek to sell them 
     to a third country and deposit the proceeds of any sale in 
     the Pakistan Trust Fund to reimburse, as much as the sale 
     permits, Pakistan's investment in these aircraft.
       While we recognize that this is not a perfect solution, it 
     is, we believe, the course which will best help us resolve a 
     difficult problem with a country which has long been a 
     friend. This is an effort to resolve issues involving 
     ``fairness'' that have become a major irritant in our 
     relationship with Pakistan--it is in no way an effort to 
     resume a military supply relationship. Meanwhile, our ability 
     to work with Pakistan to achieve nonproliferation goals is 
     eroding. The status quo, unfortunately, offers few incentives 
     for future cooperation or restraint by Pakistan--or by India, 
     whose nuclear and missile programs are also of concern. If we 
     succeed in putting this issue behind us, we will be in a 
     better position to engage Pakistan in a constructive way on 
     issues of concern to us, particularly nonproliferation.
       The second aspect of this three-part effort--embodied in 
     Senator Brown's pending amendment to provide authority to 
     release the embargoed Pakistan equipment other than the F-
     16s--may be coming to a vote very shortly. I urge you to 
     support our efforts to resolve this problem by supporting 
     Senator Brown's amendment when it is offered.
           Sincerely,
     William J. Perry.
                                                                    ____


 Putting The Release Of Embargoed Pakistani Equipment Into Perspective

       The total package has a value of $368 million--not $700 
     million as has been reported.
       Although the P-3C Orion provides a long-range offensive 
     capability, three aircraft would hardly disturb India's 
     nearly 2 to 1 advantage over Pakistan in naval systems:
       It is claimed that the P-3s provide a ``lethal stand off 
     capability'' against Indian naval targets as far south as 
     Cochin; however, it should be noted that because the Pakistan 
     Navy has no aircraft carriers (of which the Indian Navy has 
     two), the Pakistanis would be unable to provide fighters to 
     escort these slow aircraft when operating at such a great 
     distance from Karachi--thus leaving them vulnerable to 
     interception by either land-based Indian Air Force fighters 
     or carrier based Indian Navy aircraft.
       It is incorrect to say that the P-3C represent a new 
     weapons system for the region as the Indian Navy already has 
     two squadrons of similar maritime patrol aircraft that 
     include five Il-38 (the Russian version of the P-3) and eight 
     Tu-142 Bear F aircraft. While these aircraft do not have a 
     system equivalent to the Harpoon, they do have equipment to 
     locate submarines and are capable of launching torpedoes.
       The Indian Navy also possesses an anti-ship missile, the 
     Sea Eagle, which is similar to the Harpoon. Although not 
     capable of being launched from the maritime patrol aircraft 
     mentioned above, the Indian Sea Eagles can be carried on the 
     Sea Harrier jets and the Sea King helicopters which operate 
     from India's two aircraft carriers--thus giving the Indian 
     Navy a more formidable long-range strike capability than that 
     provided by three P-3s.
       C-NITE would enable Pak Cobra helicopters to launch TOW 2 
     anti-tank guided missiles at night; however, these 19 
     helicopters, so equipped, would hardly offset India's 2 to 1 
     advantage (by over 2000 tanks) over Pakistan.
       The Pakistani F-16s are already equipped with the AN/ALR-69 
     radar warning receiver and AN/ALQ-131 electronic counter 
     measures jamming equipment. These are defensive rather than 
     offensive systems. The ALR-69 alerts the pilot that a radar 
     has ``painted'' his aircraft; the ALQ-131 electronically 
     deflects the hostile missile. The ALR-69 and ALQ-131 kits 
     that would be released would enhance the reliability of these 
     systems rather than provide any new military capability.
       Since Pakistan has previously received over 200 AIM-9L air-
     to-air missiles, the release of 360 more will not provide any 
     new capability. Furthermore, India will still enjoy an almost 
     2 to 1 advantage in jet combat aircraft over Pakistan to 
     include a better than 2 to 1 advantage in aircraft equivalent 
     to the Pakistani F-16s (i.e., MiG-29 and Mirage 2000).
       The 24 howitzers that would be released to Pakistan are 
     M198 155 mm towed howitzers. Given the fact that the Indian 
     Army has over 3000 towed artillery pieces (almost twice the 
     number in the Pakistani inventory), 24 more will not make a 
     significant difference. It should be noted that during the 
     nearly five years that these howitzers were embargoed, India 
     acquired over 250 equivalent artillery pieces from 
     Czechoslovakia and Russia/USSR.
       In regard to MK-46 torpedoes, Pakistan will receive parts 
     that constitute less than one operational MK-46.
       As for the 2.75" rockets, these constitute a resupply of 
     ammunition for one of the weapons systems on the Pakistani 
     Cobra helicopters--they do not give Pakistan any new 
     capability.
                                                                    ____


                          Brown Amendment Text

       Add the following subparagraph to section 620E of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961:
       (  ) Applicability.--(a) The restrictions of section 
     620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall continue 
     to apply to contracts for the delivery of F-16 aircraft to 
     Pakistan.
       (b) Notwithstanding the restrictions contained in section 
     620E(e), military equipment, technology or defense services, 
     other than F-16 aircraft, may be transferred to Pakistan 
     pursuant to contracts of cases entered into before October 1, 
     1990.

                     Impact of the Brown Amendment

       The proposed legislation would authorize the release of 
     approximately $368 million worth of military equipment 
     purchased by Pakistan before the imposition of Pressler 
     sanctions (1 October 1995) but not delivered to Pakistan due 
     to Pressler sanctions. Specifically prohibited from release 
     to Pakistan under  this  legislation  are  the  28  Pakistani 
     F-16s. Items to be released include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Stored                
                Item                   Stored      value       Funding  
                                      quantity  (millions)     source   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:                                                                   
    C-NITE modification kits........        18      $24.1           FMF 
    M198 Howitzers..................        24       18.7      FMF/Cash 
    TPQ-36 radars...................         4       10.5           FMF 
    M-Series rebuild parts..........        NA        6.8           FMF 
    TOW launchers...................       135        6.1           FMF 
    2.75 inch rockets...............    16,720        9.4           FMF 
    Miscellaneous Army items........        NA        1.7      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Army subtotal.................  ........       77.4               
                                               ============             
Navy:                                                                   
    P-3C aircraft...................         3      138.1           FMF 
    Harpoon missiles................        28       30.8      FMF/Cash 
    AIM-9L missile components.......       360       19.7      FMF/Cash 
    MK-46/Mod 2 torpedo components..        NA         .1          Cash 
    Miscellaneous Navy items........        NA        2.1      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Navy subtotal.................  ........      191.8               
                                               ============             
Air Force:                                                              
    Peace Gate II support equipment,                                    
     220E engine kits...............    30,968       28.5      FMF/Cash 
    Depot engine spares program.....     4,746        8.0           FMF 
    ILC kits: Spares for ILC, ALQ-                                      
     131, F-100, ALR-69, support....     2,035        7.9      FMF/Cash 
    Peace Gate III support package:                                     
        Peculiar support equipment..        37         .9           FMF 
        Engine spares...............       511        9.1           FMF 
        Spares......................       154        1.6           FMF 
        Standard support equipment..        67         .4           FMF 
    Peace Gate IV support package:                                      
        Engine components...........        14         .1          Cash 
        Developmental support                                           
         equipment..................       144        8.0          Cash 
        Standard support equipment..       386        1.2          Cash 
        Non-standard support                                            
         equipment..................         9         .5          Cash 
        Standard spares.............       204        1.3          Cash 
        Test equipment..............        NA         .1          Cash 
        ALQ-131 pods and spares.....        20       21.7          Cash 
        Class A explosives..........   245,046        1.5          Cash 
    Other Air Force items...........        NA        8.2      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Air Force subtotal............  ........       98.8               
                                               ============             
      Grand total...................  ........      368                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Initiative to Strengthen Relations with Pakistan

       After extensive review and consultations with Congress, 
     President Clinton has decided to support legislation to 
     permit a stronger and more flexible relationship with 
     Pakistan, while maintaining the nonproliferation goals of the 
     Pressler Amendment.
       The President's decision builds on provisions already in 
     the House and Senate versions of the Foreign Aid 
     Authorization bills, which would permit the United States to 
     resume economic assistance and limited forms of military 
     assistance (including IMET, counternarcotics, 
     counterterrorism and peacekeeping assistance) to Pakistan.
       The President has decided to seek authority, as provided 
     for in legislation proposed by Senator Brown, to release to 
     Pakistan approximately $370 million in military equipment, 
     exclusive of F-16s, contracted for by Pakistan prior to the 
     imposition of Pressler sanctions in October, 1990.
       This equipment includes air-to-air and anti-ship missiles, 
     radars, howitzers, three P-3C Orion Aircraft, and support 
     kits for the F-16s already in Pakistan's inventory. This non-
     strategic equipment does not have the symbolism that the F-
     16s have come to acquire in the region. Release of this 
     equipment would be a one-time exemption to the Pressler 
     Amendment. We do not seek repeal of the Amendment or a 
     resumed military supply relationship with Pakistan.
       The President also decided not to seek release of the 28 F-
     16s in the pipeline. Instead, he will seek to sell the 
     aircraft and return the proceeds of any sale to Pakistan, to 
     reimburse as much as possible of the $684 million that 
     Pakistan has expended on these aircraft.
       Putting these issues behind us will permit a more normal 
     and productive relationship between Washington and Islamabad, 
     without which real progress on nonproliferation and other 
     issues of importance to the United States will remain 
     difficult.
       Finally, in making his decision, the President stressed the 
     importance of there being no substantial change in the status 
     quo in Pakistan with regard to nonproliferation issues of 
     concern to the United States. In particular, we expect that 
     Pakistan will exercise restraint in the nuclear and missile 
     areas.

  Mr. HARKIN. On July 28, to the National Press Club, Secretary of 
State Christopher responds to a question. 

[[Page S 14000]]
This gets to the heart of the arguments made by the Senator from Ohio 
and the Senator from Michigan about the so-called evidence that 
justifies the impositions of sanctions.
  Here was the question:

       Will the Clinton administration order additional sanctions 
     against China for supplying missile technology to Pakistan 
     and Iran?
       Secretary Christopher. As I mentioned in my remarks, we are 
     concerned about proliferation issues, and we are certainly 
     concerned about it as they relate to South Asia. We monitor 
     it very carefully and very closely.
       At the present time, although there is a fairly large body 
     of evidence, we do not think there is the evidence there that 
     would justify the imposition of sanctions.

  I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record, also.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Address by Secretary of State Warren Christopher on U.S. National 
 Interest in the Asia-Pacific Region, National Press Club, Washington, 
                           DC, July 28, 1995

       Question. Will the Clinton Administration order additional 
     sanctions against China for supplying missile technology to 
     Pakistan and Iran?
       Secretary Christopher. As I mentioned in my remarks, we are 
     concerned about proliferation issues, and we are certainly 
     concerned about it as they relate to South Asia. We monitor 
     it very carefully and very closely.
       At the present time, although there is a fairly large body 
     of evidence, we do not think there is the evidence there that 
     would justify the imposition of sanctions. But I want to 
     assure all that we feel an obligation to keep this matter 
     carefully under review and to follow and comply with the law 
     in this regard.

  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I want to point out that under the missile 
technology Control Regime, which has been talked about by the Senator 
from Michigan and the Senator from Ohio, even under that, even if MTCR 
sanctions were imposed tomorrow, all of the items in the Brown 
amendment could still go to Pakistan, because MTCR violations only 
prohibited new licenses to Pakistan and China. These items were already 
licensed in the 1980's.
  Again, Mr. President, there is a lot of talk about Pakistan not 
admitting certain things. I think the Senator from Colorado answered 
that quite adequately.
  Again I would just ask a question: Has India ever admitted that they 
have a nuclear weapon? We know that they detonated one in 1974. Has 
India ever admitted that they have a nuclear weapon? If not, are they 
lying to us, also?
  I think that is enough of that. Mr. President, I want to close my 
remarks by pointing out that Pakistan has always gone the extra mile to 
try to get a reasonable solution and compromise in that part of the 
world with India. Let us keep in mind what we are talking about here. 
We have India, a large nation with 981 million people, confronting 
Pakistan, a small country with only about 125 million people. We have 
to kind of keep that in context.
  I want to review for my colleagues some of the proposals that 
Pakistan has put forward, going back over 20 years. First of all, 
Pakistan proposed to establish a nuclear-weapons-free zone in south 
Asia in 1974.
  In 1978, they proposed to issue a joint Indo-Pakistan declaration 
renouncing the acquisition and manufacturing of nuclear weapons.
  In 1979, they proposed to have mutual inspections by India and 
Pakistan of nuclear facilities.
  Also in 1979, they proposed simultaneous adherence to the Non-
Proliferation Treaty by India and Pakistan.
  Again in 1979, they proposed to endorse a simultaneous acceptance of 
full-scope international atomic energy safeguards and to have the IAEA 
do inspections.
  They proposed, also in 1987, an agreement on a bilateral or regional 
nuclear test ban treaty.
  In 1991, Pakistan proposed to commence a multilateral conference on 
the question of nuclear proliferation in south Asia.
  A couple years ago, they proposed to create a missile-free zone in 
all of south Asia.
  Pakistan has proposed all this. What is the stumbling block? India 
will not accept any of these. They are the ones that have said ``no'' 
to all of these proposals. Yet, we are the ones that are sticking it to 
Pakistan. I do not understand this at all. It seems to me that this is 
the kind of regime that we want in south Asia. We ought to be behind 
these proposals, and we ought to be using our influence with India and 
other countries in that area to agree with Pakistan, to sit down and 
negotiate these proposals, which were made in good faith by Pakistan.
  Last, Mr. President, two quotes, first by President Clinton, April 
11, 1995:

       I don't think what happened was fair to Pakistan in terms 
     of the money . . . I don't think it is right for us to keep 
     the money and the equipment. That is not right. And I am 
     going to try to find a resolution to it. I don't like this.

  President Clinton, April 11, 1995. That is exactly what the Brown 
amendment does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa 2 
additional minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the President is supporting the Brown 
amendment because it reflects exactly what President Clinton said April 
11.
  On the same date, Prime Minister Bhutto said:

       The Pressler amendment has been a disincentive for a 
     regional solution to the proliferation issue.

  April 11, 1995, Prime Minister Bhutto.
  Mr. President, it is time to put this behind us. It is time for 
fairness and equity. It is time to recognize that if we want to support 
the democratic forces in Pakistan, if we want to give Prime Minister 
Bhutto the support she needs to consolidate the prodemocracy forces in 
Pakistan, then we have to put this behind us.
  This will do more to help promote a regional solution to these 
problems than anything else we can do.
  It is simply a question of fairness and equity. I hope that the vote 
will be overwhelming, overwhelming in favor of the Brown amendment. Let 
Pakistan know we will not turn our backs on Pakistan after all of these 
years of friendship and support that Pakistan has given to us.
  I yield back whatever time is remaining. I thank the Senator from 
Colorado for his leadership on this.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will vote against the Brown amendment, 
though I agree with much of what my colleague from Iowa has to say. I 
will vote against any weapons in any amendment that go to Pakistan or 
India or China until we get this nuclear thing worked out.
  Many of the things that Senator Harkin says are correct; for example, 
Pakistan and India, Pakistan suggesting that they have mutual 
inspection of nuclear facilities and so forth. The difficulty is India 
also fears China. There has to be a tripartite agreement. I think that 
necessarily means United States leadership working together with Russia 
to bring that about.
  There is no question Pakistan has some legitimate grievances. We 
ought to get those worked out. I think the Feinstein amendment that is 
going to be coming along shortly will help to move in that direction.
  We want to maintain friendship with Pakistan. Pakistan has moved from 
a dictatorship to a functioning democracy. Like all functioning 
democracies, it has problems. We ought to be working with Pakistan more 
closely.
  However, I do not think we ought to be sending weapons to any one of 
the three parties, who now have the greatest nuclear threat, I think, 
anywhere in the world.
  I think it would be a mistake to approve the Brown amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator from Ohio 
that his side has 15 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and my friend from Ohio.
  Mr. President, the Brown amendment moves us in the opposite direction 
of trying to restrain missile proliferation. We have a law on our books 
and it says that where there is a determination that a transfer of a 
missile with a certain range and payload has been made that we will 
then impose sanctions.
  There is a large body of evidence. It is up on the fourth floor. We 
have had three briefings. The briefers left the 

[[Page S 14001]]

material for us to look at. It is right there, a couple floors above 
us, for any of us to look at, to see whether or not each of us are 
satisfied that, in fact, a missile of a certain range and payload in 
excess of the missile technology control regime has been transferred 
from China to Pakistan. Under American law, if that occurs, sanctions 
are supposed to be imposed.
  Now, what the Brown amendment does is take us in the opposite 
direction. It would have us amend Pressler, to then allow for the 
transfer of significant military equipment to Pakistan.
  Instead of looking at this evidence and deciding whether or not it 
proves incontrovertible that there has been a transfer of missiles in 
excess of the range and payload that is provided for in the missile 
technology control regime which we have incorporated in our law, the 
amendment before the Senate would say that still could apply, but we 
will move in exactly the opposite direction.
  This amendment makes a mockery--if it passes this Senate--will make a 
mockery of our efforts to restrain the proliferation of missiles. That 
is the issue before the Senate. It is American law. American law says 
if there is a transfer of a missile or missiles that meet certain 
tests, sanctions will be imposed.
  I do not think we can in good conscience say that we are fighting the 
proliferation of missiles if we ignore that evidence two floors above 
us, if we do not take the time to at least look at that evidence two 
floors above us, and instead of acting on it, whatever our conclusions 
are, under American law, we move in exactly the opposite direction, 
amend Pressler, allow for the transfer of military equipment which 
otherwise could not be transferred. That is the issue before this 
Senate.
  I hope we will adopt the Feinstein amendment, which will provide that 
any appropriate funds that are owed to Pakistan that they have given to 
us, whatever is equitable, be returned to Pakistan, without trashing 
the missile technology control regime.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, I want to deal with an aspect of this that I think is 
a fundamental problem because we have not addressed it, and maybe we 
have not addressed it for a good reason.
  This amendment is about fairness and about the inequity of keeping 
both their money and their arms. I think Americans will respond 
strongly to that. They understand it, and would be outraged at any 
retailer who did the same thing or anyone who signed contracts to sell 
as well.
  Other Members have brought up significant issues and concerns about 
arms in Southeast Asia. That is appropriate, and they should, and it 
ought to be a concern. It is why I made sure with the adoption of this 
amendment that very strong sanctions stay in place that send a clear 
message that Pakistan is paying a price for having developed weapons.
  Mr. President, the aspect of this that needs Members' attention is 
this: We have sanctions that will sanction Pakistan for developing 
nuclear weapons, but we do not have sanctions that will sanction India 
for developing nuclear weapons. They are two nations, side by side.
  The fact is, Pakistan's program literally came about in part because 
India was Pakistan's adversary and India developed nuclear weapons. We 
cannot ignore that when you think about trying to solve this problem.
  There has been a lot of concern raised about missiles. That is a 
valid concern. I think we need to do more in that area.
  Mr. President, you cannot talk about it in a vacuum. The fact is, 
Pakistan developed their program after India developed weapons, and 
there are strong indications that the potential of Pakistan's missiles, 
if they have them and if they uncrate them, is somewhat similar to what 
the potential of the Indian missiles are. If anything, India has 
stronger missiles.
  You cannot talk about this in a vacuum. If you do talk about it in a 
vacuum and you think about it in a vacuum, you are doomed to failure. 
We want a nonproliferation program that works, that is effective.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to respond, perhaps, to my 
colleague from Illinois who talked about the weapons going to Pakistan. 
I have looked over the list of the items that are going. I thought I 
might, just for the Record, point out what some people have said about 
these items. All of the experts agree, it will not in any way upset the 
regional balance.
  Steve Cohen is the director of program in arms control, disarmament 
and international security at the University of Illinois. He said,

       In terms of the regional military balance, I don't think 
     that the release of this military equipment . . . will have . 
     . . significant impact on the balance one way or the other.

  George Tanham, who was a vice president of the Rand Corp., says, ``I 
agree.'' He said:

       In fact, there is no balance now. India dominates so 
     strongly. They have twice as large an army as Pakistan, twice 
     as large an Air Force, twice as large a Navy, twice as many 
     tanks, twice as many airplanes. * * * India has overwhelming 
     strength.

  So this small amount of equipment will not upset any balance. All of 
the experts basically agree that this amount of items that we are 
sending over there would not in any way upset that regional balance.
  James Clad, professor at Georgetown University said:

       They offer for Pakistan ``exactly as Dr. Tanham pointed 
     out, an equalizing hand in trying to somehow correct the 
     subcontinental mismatch of conventional weaponry capability 
     and geographical reality.''

  So, again, I have gone over this list. I do not know if anyone has 
ever put it in the Record. But of the military equipment, adding to 
about $368 million, the biggest items are three P-C3 aircraft, four-
engine turboprop aircraft. They are very slow aircraft. They do not 
have the capability in any way to threaten India, and I would be glad 
to get into a discussion with anyone if they would like to discuss 
that.
  I want to make sure this is in the Record. I ask unanimous consent a 
list of the items be printed in the Record and also a description of 
these items be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Putting the Release of Embargoed Pakistani Equipment Into Perspective

       The total package has a value of $368 million--not $700 
     million as has been reported.
       Although the P-3C Orion provides a long-range offensive 
     capability, three aircraft would hardly disturb India's 
     nearly 2 to 1 advantage over Pakistan in naval systems:
       It is claimed that the P-3s provide a ``lethal stand off 
     capability'' against Indian naval targets as far south as 
     Cochin; however, it should be noted that because the Pakistan 
     Navy has no aircraft carriers (of which the Indian Navy has 
     two), the Pakistanis would be unable to provide fighters to 
     escort these slow aircraft when operating at such a great 
     distance from Karachi--thus leaving them vulnerable to 
     interception by either land-based Indian Air Force fighters 
     or carrier based Indian Navy aircraft.
       It is incorrect to say that the P-3C represent a new 
     weapons system for the region as the Indian navy already has 
     two squadrons of similar maritime patrol aircraft that 
     include five II-38 (the Russian version of the P-3) and eight 
     Tu-142 Bear F aircraft. While these aircraft do not have a 
     system equivalent to the Harpoon, they do have equipment to 
     locate submarines and are capable of launching torpedoes.
       The Indian Navy also possesses an anti-ship missile, the 
     Sea Eagle, which is similar to the Harpoon. Although not 
     capable of being launched from the maritime patrol aircraft 
     mentioned above, the Indian Sea Eagles can be carried on the 
     Sea Harrier jets and the Sea King helicopters which operate 
     from India's two aircraft carriers--thus giving the Indian 
     Navy a more formidable long-range strike capability than that 
     provided by three P-3s.
       C-NITE would enable Pak Cobra helicopters to launch TOW 2 
     anti-tank guided missiles at night; however, these 19 
     helicopters, so equipped, would hardly offset India's 2 to 1 
     advantage (by over 2000 tanks) over Pakistan.
       The Pakistani F-16s are already equipped with an AN/ALR-69 
     radar warning receiver and AN/ALQ-131 electronic counter 
     measures jamming equipment. These are defensive rather than 
     offensive systems. The ALR-69 alerts the pilot that a radar 
     has ``painted'' his aircraft; the ALQ-131 electronically 
     deflects the hostile missile. The ALR-69 and ALQ-131 kits 
     that would be released would enhance the reliability of these 
     systems rather than provide any new military capability.
       Since Pakistan has previously received over 200 AIM-9L air-
     to-missiles, the release 

[[Page S 14002]]

     of 360 more will not provide any new capability. Furthermore, 
     India will still enjoy an almost 2 to 1 advantage in jet 
     combat aircraft over Pakistan to include a better than 2 to 1 
     advantage in aircraft equivalent to the Pakistani F-16s 
     (i.e., MiG-29 and Mirage 2000).
       The 24 howitzers that would be released to Pakistan are 
     M198 155 mm towed howitzers. Given the fact that the Indian 
     Army has over 3000 towed artillery pieces (almost twice the 
     number in the Pakistani inventory), 24 more will not make a 
     significant difference. It would be noted that during the 
     nearly five years that these howitzers were embargoed, India 
     acquired over 250 equivalent artillery pieces from 
     Czechoslovakia and Russia/USSR.
       In regard to MK-47 torpedoes, Pakistan will receive part 
     that constitute less that one operational MK-46.
       As for the 2.75'' rockets, these constitute a resupply of 
     ammunition for one of the weapons systems on the Pakistani 
     Cobra helicopters--they do not give Pakistan any new 
     capability.
                                                                    ____


  MILITARY EQUIPMENT (LESS F-16 AIRCRAFT) PURCHASED BY PAKISTAN BUT NOT 
                   DELIVERED DUE TO PRESSLER SANCTIONS                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Stored                
                Item                   Stored      value       Funding  
                                      quantity  (millions)     source   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:                                                                   
    C-NITE modification kits........        18      $24.1           FMF 
    M198 Howitzers..................        24       18.7      FMF/Cash 
    TPQ-36 radars...................         4       10.5           FMF 
    M-Series rebuild parts..........        NA        6.8           FMF 
    TOW launchers...................       135        6.1           FMF 
    2.75 inch rockets...............    16,720        9.4           FMF 
    Miscellaneous Army items........        NA        1.7      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Army subtotal.................  ........       77.4               
                                               ============             
Navy:                                                                   
    P-3C aircraft...................         3      139.1           FMF 
    Harpoon missiles................        28       30.8      FMF/Cash 
    AIM-9L missile components.......       360       19.7      FMF/Cash 
    MK-46/Mod 2 torpedo components..        NA         .1          Cash 
    Miscellaneous Navy items........        NA        2.1      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Navy subtotal.................  ........      191.8               
                                               ============             
Air Force:                                                              
    Peace Gate II support equipment,                                    
     220E engine kits...............    30,968       28.5      FMF/Cash 
    Depot engine spares program.....     4,746        8.0           FMF 
    ILC kits: Spares for ILC, ALQ-                                      
     131, F-100, ALR-69, support....     2,035        7.9      FMF/Cash 
    Peace Gate III support package:                                     
        Peculiar support equipment..        37         .9           FMF 
        Engine spares...............       511        9.1           FMF 
        Spares......................       154        1.6           FMF 
        Standard support equipment..        67         .4           FMF 
    Peace Gate IV support package:                                      
        Engine components...........        14         .1          Cash 
        Developmental support                                           
         equipment..................       144        8.0          Cash 
        Standard support equipment..       386        1.2          Cash 
        Non-standard support                                            
         equipment..................         9         .5          Cash 
        Standard spares.............       204        1.3          Cash 
        Test equipment..............        NA         .1          Cash 
        ALQ-131 pods and spares.....        20       21.7          Cash 
        Class A explosives..........   245,046        1.5          Cash 
    Other Air Force items...........        NA        8.2      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Air Force subtotal............  ........       98.8               
                                               ============             
      Grand total...................  ........      368                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would just point out that, given the 
overwhelming superiority of India in this case, the small amount of 
items we are sending over in no way upsets the regional balance 
whatsoever. Keep in mind again: India, at 981 million people; Pakistan, 
125 million people. The imbalance is already there on India's side.
  It is interesting to note in all this debate, we talk about MTCR 
sanctions on Pakistan but no one is trying to put the sanctions on 
China. I make that note for the record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time? The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from California. I would like to make one remark. For those who 
were not at the briefing yesterday--most of the Senate, by far; we had 
just a few up in S-407--I urge people to go up and look at the chart, 
look at the information we retained. It is available in S-407 right 
now. You could look at it before you come to the floor to vote. I yield 
to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to tell you how I look at this. 
If one were to take the top trouble spots of the world and say which 
are most likely to have a nuclear confrontation, I would have to name 
India and Pakistan as one of the top two.
  So what are we doing? We are adding to the arsenal of one of those 
two countries at a very sensitive time, at a time which is a few months 
before a general election in India, when flames of hatred between the 
two countries are now being fanned by politicians on both sides of the 
India-Pakistani border. We are taking this time and we are sending 
several hundred million dollars worth of equipment.
  The P-3C aircraft capable of sophisticated surveillance; the 28 
Harpoon missiles capable of air-to-surface or surface-to-surface 
launch; 360 AIM-9L surface-to-air missiles; 135 TOW-2 missile 
launchers; spare parts for F-16's, and other sophisticated equipment, 
and we are launching that into the middle of this situation.
  I heard the same experts testify. None of them could answer the 
question, ``What does India do, then?'' That seems to me to be the 
central question.
  I will tell you what I think India does. I think India deploys the 
Prithvi missile. That certainly changes the balance in the area, if it 
happens. And that is a very likely result of what we are doing here 
today.
  Is Pakistan a friend? Yes. Has Pakistan been helpful in a number of 
different pursuits? Yes.
  I say there is a way we can say thank you in an amendment which some 
of us will offer following this amendment, that will take what I 
consider to be the good parts of the Brown amendment, the economic 
help, the military networking, the antiterrorism help, the antinarcotic 
help, and also carry with it a sense of the Senate that will say, the 
honorable thing and the fair thing for us to do is sell the F-16's, 
repay the money to Pakistan, and provide whatever equity requires. That 
is the right thing to do. That is something that is not going to change 
the balance of power.
  So, I believe very strongly that the Brown amendment is a mistake. I 
have had three security briefings. Those briefings run directly counter 
to statements made by Pakistan. Let me tell you what they run directly 
counter to.
  ``We are a very responsible country and we do not believe in the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons.'' That is not true. That was a 
statement made by the Pakistani Foreign Minister in 1994. It is simply 
not true.
  ``I want to say categorically and finally that Pakistan has not made 
nuclear weapons. Pakistan does not intend to make nuclear weapons.'' 
The Pakistani Foreign Minister, 1994. That statement is categorically 
untrue.
  ``We have made a sovereign decision not to produce nuclear weapons.'' 
Again, a foreign ministry spokesman--untrue.
  ``We have not detonated one, nor have we got nuclear weapons. Being a 
responsible state and state committed to nonproliferation, we in 
Pakistan, through five successive governments, have taken a policy 
decision to follow a peaceful nuclear program.''
  I do not believe, based on three classified briefings, that these 
statements are true and correct. Therefore, I believe it is a mistake 
in judgment to add to the proliferation in the area by putting 
sophisticated weaponry in the hands of one of these countries at a time 
where there is a very sensitive and very difficult situation between 
the two countries.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. May I ask the Senator to yield?
  Mr. BROWN. I yield to the Senator from Iowa 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, surely the Senator from California does 
not want to imply in any way that the articles on this list add one 
iota to any nuclear capability of Pakistan? That is simply--that belies 
common sense. You can look at the list. There is nothing on there that 
has anything to do with nuclear proliferation or nuclear weaponry. Talk 
about a P-3C aircraft as being some kind of offensive aircraft? I 
happen to have flown in P-3 aircraft. It is a four-engine turbo-prop, 
basically built as an antisubmarine reconnaissance aircraft. The fact 
is that India already has two squadrons of similar type of patrol 
aircraft. I also point out that India has two aircraft carriers which 
Pakistan does not have.

  They talk about the P-3 aircraft being able to penetrate and go as 
far south as Cochin in India. The fact is that it would have to do so 
without any fighter escorts whatsoever. This is a very slow airplane. 
India could shoot that thing down in a minute.
  So the arguments made by the Senator from California I find are just 
off the mark because this in no way disrupts any balance or in any way 
adds to any kind of nuclear capability whatsoever.
  I yield back any time I may have.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 2 
minutes.
  Before of I yield, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  I would just add that a good part of this package is F-16 parts to 
keep the 

[[Page S 14003]]

F-16's flying. They are a nuclear delivery system. That is the part of 
this that is very critical.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. President, I believe the amendment of the Senator from Colorado 
is a great mistake. The question is really a very simple question. Why 
would you relax sanctions that were put in place because of one 
proliferation problem at the exact moment when Pakistan is involved in 
another proliferation issue? Every one of us understands the reality 
from briefings and otherwise about the M-11 controversy. In 1989, 
Pakistan knew exactly what the sanctions would be and exactly what the 
results would be with respect to a continued nuclear development 
program, and they knew in 1995 what the consequences would be of 
pursuing ballistic missiles. They have done both. We know they have 
done both.
  So, if we send a message that we are willing to undo the sanctions on 
the first proliferation issue, we are making it very clear that the 
second proliferation issue does not matter at all, I think. It is 
really that simple. And when you couple that with what the Senator from 
Ohio just said with respect to the nuclear delivery capacity and the 
type of weapons being sent, it is a mistake.
  The Senator from California is absolutely correct. There is a matter 
of equity here. It is unfair for the United States to hold onto money 
which they delivered for products. So, obviously, we ought to rectify 
that as a matter of fairness and as a matter of proper judgment and 
proper relationships, and we need to cooperate with Pakistan. There is 
much we have in common and that we want to work on. But it would be an 
enormous mistake. We do not have a relationship with India with respect 
to the selling of weapons. And we have always had a certain tension 
over Western nuclear program proliferations.
  We must hold the line on the question of people who break the law 
when we say that there will be a certain set of sanctions if certain 
actions are taken and, notwithstanding those warnings, those actions 
are taken. To do anything less than that would make a mockery of 
nonproliferation efforts.
  I thank the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment of the senior Senator from Colorado.
  I am deeply concerned about the signal that adoption of this 
amendment would send to the rest of the world, particularly to the 
numerous countries with nuclear ambitions. The effect of allowing the 
proposed transfer of sophisticated military equipment and the 
resumption of economic aid would be to legitimize Pakistan's nuclear 
program.
  The issue here is much larger than just Pakistan and the military 
equipment they want to take delivery of--it is about the credibility of 
our entire nuclear non-proliferation policy.
  The proposal before us rewards a country that repeatedly lied to us 
about its nuclear ambitions. It tells other would-be nuclear states 
that there is no price to be paid for seeking the most destabilizing 
weapon a country can acquire.
  Mr. President, I want to make clear my view that Pakistan was a 
valuable ally in resisting the Soviet occupation of neighboring 
Afghanistan. In the course of our common fight against Soviet 
expansionism, we forged a strategic relationship that served both of 
our countries.
  But, Mr. President, the Soviet threat was not the sole concern in our 
dealings with Pakistan in the 1980s. Throughout this period, this body 
repeatedly expressed its concerns regarding Pakistan's nuclear program. 
It is instructive to examine the record, because what many people 
forget is that at the time we were given ironclad assurances that 
Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear capability.
  In fact, the Reagan administration told us that if we did not amply 
supply Pakistan with military hardware, then we would be encouraging it 
to pursue the nuclear option. Thus, high levels of assistance to 
Pakistan became an integral part of our nuclear nonproliferation 
policy.
  Well, Mr. President, we supplied Pakistan with over $4 billion in 
military and economic aid during the eighties, and I must say that I 
have yet to see any evidence that massive American aid in any way 
deterred Pakistan's nuclear program.
  One could argue that our assistance had the opposite effect. It freed 
up resources which would otherwise have been used for conventional 
defenses. And in fact, if you piece together the evidence, you will 
find that Pakistan's greatest nuclear strides correspond with the 
highest levels of American aid. This can only lead you to conclude that 
we helped to underwrite the Pakistani bomb.
  The proposal which is before us today at the request of the Clinton 
administration strikes me as suffering from the same flawed logic as 
those advanced during the Reagan and Bush administrations. In exchange 
for easing the Pressler ban, we are getting absolutely nothing to 
address our non-proliferation concerns: No rollback, no freeze, not 
even a pause. The supporters of this amendment want to lavish Pakistan 
with destabilizing conventional weapons while that country proceeds 
full throttle with its nuclear program.
  The Pressler amendment unambiguously states that no assistance can be 
supplied to Pakistan unless the President certifies that Pakistan does 
not possess a nuclear explosive device. It is unambiguous. It does not 
allow for any fudging. And fudging is what the Brown amendment amounts 
to.
  The proposed transfer of military hardware not only contradicts the 
Pressler ban, it also fails to meet the standards of the licensing 
policy for commercial military sales to Pakistan. I might add that many 
in Congress strenuously objected to the Bush administration's decision 
to license commercial sales in the first place. Under that policy, any 
equipment which could upgrade Pakistan's military capability is to be 
denied a license. By the administration's own admission, many of the 
items they want to transfer now would be denied a license according to 
this standard.
  There you have it. The administration is willing to eviscerate the 
Pressler amendment, and it is willing to waive its already lax 
standards while getting nothing in return.
  If we are asked to undo a decade-old pillar of our non-proliferation 
policy, then the least we can ask for are some restraints on Pakistan's 
nuclear program.
  I expect that some will say that Pakistan already paid for this 
equipment--it is rightfully theirs, and we ought to send the goods or 
return the money. Setting aside the argument that Pakistan knew a 
situation like this would result if it failed to be certified, I would 
favor finding a way to compensate Pakistan in some manner.
  I would propose that the administration sell this equipment to third 
parties, and send the proceeds from such sales to Pakistan, just as it 
plans to do in the case of the F-16s.
  Mr. President, invoking the Pressler amendment achieved what billions 
of aid dollars could not--a halt to fissile material production by 
Pakistan. Congress is not always right, but in this case we were.
  Now is not the time to discard a policy that has worked. Press 
reports indicate that Pakistan has clandestinely acquired M-11 missiles 
from China, that it is quietly cooperating with Iran's nuclear 
ambitions, and that it has openly engaged in military exercises with 
Iran.
  Mr. President, unless we reject the Brown amendment, we will be 
putting our imprimatur on these very dangerous developments.
  The late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the present prime minister's father, 
once declared that his countrymen would eat grass in order to acquire 
nuclear capability. And Mr. President, Pakistan, like neighboring 
India, has more or less followed through on this promise. It has built 
a clandestine nuclear weapons program of unknown safety at tremendous 
cost, while doing nothing to improve the plight of its tens of millions 
of citizens trapped in poverty.
  Well, Mr. President, if Pakistan's leaders choose to sacrifice the 
greater welfare of their people to further develop a nuclear arsenal, 
then that is a decision they will need to justify to their citizens. We 
should not make their job any easier in this regard. Unfortunately, 
that would be the effect of resuming economic assistance.

[[Page S 14004]]

  I fully understand the complex security situation that exists among 
India, Pakistan, and China. And I believe that we should be doing more 
to address the sources of instability among these three countries if we 
are to successfully deal with the nuclear menace in that part of the 
world.
  But I do not think that the nuclear capability of Pakistan's 
neighbors should be an excuse for not enforcing our laws with respect 
to Pakistan.
  The fact is there is no Pressler amendment for India, but there are 
laws that have been used to invoke sanctions to blunt India's nuclear 
weapons ambitions. I would also note that India, unlike Pakistan, did 
not receive billions of dollars in aid for the expressed purpose of 
preventing the development of a nuclear weapon.
  The point is that we have to uphold the laws that are on our books. 
Pakistan was well aware of the Pressler amendment. It supported the 
amendment's adoption. And it chose to ignore the consequences of non-
compliance with the amendment.
  It is that simple. And it is up to us to demonstrate that on an issue 
of such vital importance to our national security, we mean what we say.
  Mr. President, we must not reward the kind of behavior Pakistan has 
demonstrated. Others are watching this debate closely, and how we act 
in this situation could well affect the decisions of many other 
potential nuclear states.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a table identifying the military items to be transfered to 
Pakistan pursuant to the amendment.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  MILITARY EQUIPMENT (LESS F-16 AIRCRAFT) PURCHASED BY PAKISTAN BUT NOT 
                   DELIVERED DUE TO PRESSLER SANCTIONS                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Stored                
                Item                   Stored      value       Funding  
                                      quantity  (millions)     source   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:                                                                   
    C-NITE modification kits........        18      $24.1           FMF 
    M198 Howitzers..................        24       18.7      FMF/Cash 
    TPQ-36 radars...................         4       10.5           FMF 
    M-Series rebuild parts..........        NA        6.8           FMF 
    TOW launchers...................       135        6.1           FMF 
    2.75 inch rockets...............    16,720        9.4           FMF 
    Miscellaneous Army items........        NA        1.7      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Army subtotal.................  ........       77.4               
                                               ============             
Navy:                                                                   
    P-3C aircraft...................         3      139.1           FMF 
    Harpoon missiles................        28       30.8      FMF/Cash 
    AIM-9L missile components.......       360       19.7      FMF/Cash 
    MK-46/Mod 2 torpedo components..        NA         .1          Cash 
    Miscellaneous Navy items........        NA        2.1      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Navy subtotal.................  ........      191.8               
                                               ============             
Air Force:                                                              
    Peace Gate II support equipment,                                    
     220E engine kits...............    30,968       28.5      FMF/Cash 
    Depot engine spares program.....     4,746        8.0           FMF 
    ILC kits: Spares for ILC, ALQ-                                      
     131, F-100, ALR-69, support....     2,035        7.9      FMF/Cash 
    Peace Gate III support package:                                     
        Peculiar support equipment..        37         .9           FMF 
        Engine spares...............       511        9.1           FMF 
        Spares......................       154        1.6           FMF 
        Standard support equipment..        67         .4           FMF 
    Peace Gate IV support package:                                      
        Engine components...........        14         .1          Cash 
        Developmental support                                           
         equipment..................       144        8.0          Cash 
        Standard support equipment..       386        1.2          Cash 
        Non-standard support                                            
         equipment..................         9         .5          Cash 
        Standard spares.............       204        1.3          Cash 
        Test equipment..............        NA         .1          Cash 
        ALQ-131 pods and spares.....        20       21.7          Cash 
        Class A explosives..........   245,046        1.5          Cash 
    Other Air Force items...........        NA        8.2      FMF/Cash 
                                               ------------             
      Air Force subtotal............  ........       98.8               
                                               ============             
      Grand total...................  ........      368                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes on each side.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I having offered the amendment, and I would 
like to close and retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, there appears to be no appreciation in the remarks on 
the Senate floor by the supporters of the Brown amendment of the 
history of Pakistan's violation of our laws. I do not condone India's 
nuclear weapons program, and I do not think there is any Senator in the 
Senate who has been more outspoken about that matter than I have.
  I was in opposition to India's program. I led the fight in 1980 that 
ultimately resulted in the cutoff of nuclear materials to India because 
of her guarded nuclear program. So I certainly do not come down on 
India's side on this either. But India has not violated United States 
nonproliferation law.
  When we passed the Glenn-Symington amendment in 1970, we did not have 
Pakistan in mind. The law applied to everyone; it was not aimed at a 
particular country. But Pakistan violated our law. As a result, the 
Carter administration--going clear back that far--cut them off from 
military and economic assistance. Then the Reagan administration got a 
waiver from the law for a temporary period for Pakistan only. We tilted 
in favor of Pakistan, for Pakistan only, in order to send aid after the 
Afghan invasion occurred.
  Because relief from our nonproliferation law was given to Pakistan, 
the Congress set up a new line in the sand. We said we really mean it 
now. And we mean it, Pakistan. We passed the Pressler amendment, and it 
was Pakistan-specific.
  So it is incorrect to say that we are not being evenhanded. It is not 
unevenhanded to say that those who violate our laws should not then be 
given the benefit of our shipments of economic and military help. They 
should be punished, those who do not abide by our laws. Those who abide 
by our laws should not be punished.
  So I do not and will not defend the Indian program, but they did not 
violate our nonproliferation laws. And to claim that fairness requires 
that we ignore a violation of our laws time after time after time and 
not telling us the truth about what was going on, is to just condone 
behavior that we do not want to see exist. So I will not support 
changing our laws just to accommodate violations of our 
nonproliferation laws.
  Mr. President, this is not a matter of fairness that we are talking 
about. It is a matter of nonproliferation. Are we going to have a 
nonproliferation policy for the United States of America and mean it? 
Or are we not? And that is the question.
  I want to give Pakistan's money back even though most of it was paid 
in after the Pressler amendment was passed, so they knew what they were 
doing. They are not dummies. They knew exactly what they were doing. 
Now they want to say--they got caught and want us to make them whole. I 
want to see them get their money back--if we can sell the airplanes to 
somebody else.
  To stand back and make a mockery of our nonproliferation laws when we 
have 178 other nations signed up under NPT and are trusting us to deal 
with them fairly--that is the issue. Are we a nation that stands for 
nonproliferation and backs up the laws we have to that effect, or are 
we not? That is what this vote is all about.
  I know Senator Pressler is on the floor.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time remaining.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, does the Senator ask for 1 additional 
minute on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has the remaining 
time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Colorado yield for a unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. BROWN. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 
additional minute on each side so that Senator Pressler can speak for 1 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Dakota,
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his 
remarks. His leadership on this issue has been remarkable.

[[Page S 14005]]

  Last night I traced the beginning of this amendment. It started out 
as a way to give Pakistan money and to give Pakistan arms. And Pakistan 
supported this amendment as the original thing. It was Pakistan's not 
telling the truth to then Vice President George Bush and John Glenn and 
others that led us into this problem. They bought the airplane under 
false pretenses. That is the whole problem that has led to where we are 
today. I do not want to go back and punish anybody for any right and 
wrong. But, if we pass the Brown amendment today, it will be opening 
the door to proliferation. We are rewarding a proliferator. We are 
rewarding a country that has violated an agreement on nuclear 
nonproliferation. And it is an amazing thing, because if it happens, 
all bets are off on nuclear nonproliferation.
  I want to commend Senator Glenn for his leadership on this issue. He 
has fought it for years.
  I made my speech last night. This is an amazing thing; if our country 
is for nuclear nonproliferation, we will be rewarding a country for 
proliferation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I am concerned about nonproliferation, and all Members 
ought to be concerned about it. They ought to be aware that if this 
amendment is agreed to, very strong, tough sanctions remain in place 
against Pakistan--a bar on military sales, a bar on military 
assistance, and a variety of other tough sanctions.
  A lot has been said about the nonproliferation policy. The fact is 
this. Our current nonproliferation policy with regard to India is that 
India may build and develop nuclear weapons and there are no sanctions. 
That is a fact. Our policy is also that Pakistan may not do that, and 
there are heavy sanctions. That is not even-handed any way you slice 
it.
  There are a couple considerations I hope Members will keep in mind as 
they consider this question. We have gone to the Pakistanis year after 
year and asked them for their help.
  In 1950, we asked them to condemn the invasion of South Korea, and 
they gave us unqualified support and a strong condemnation of the North 
Korean invasion.
  In 1954, we asked them to be an initial member of the Central Treaty 
Organization and help contain communism, and they gave unqualified 
support and joined.
  In 1955, Pakistan joined the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization, 
SEATO, at our request and helped stem the tide of communism.
  In 1956, we offered a resolution in the United Nations and asked 
Pakistan to support that 1956 resolution, condemning the Soviet Union's 
invasion of Hungary. Pakistan supported us. India abstained on the 
vote.
  In 1959, we asked Pakistan to sign a mutual defense treaty with the 
United States at a tough time, and they did. Later on, we asked that 
the Pakistanis allow us to build a base in Pakistan to fly military 
aircraft out of it and spy on the Soviet Union, and they said yes.
  In 1960, the Soviets shot down Francis Gary Powers and threatened to 
wipe the Pakistani base off the face of the Earth, and the Pakistanis 
still stood by us.
  In 1970, Pakistan helped us open up China by staging the trip of 
Henry Kissinger, incurring the further wrath of the Russians.
  From 1971 to 1989, we asked the Pakistanis to join us in fighting the 
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and they did.
  Mr. President, in 1984, we asked for a vote in the United Nations 
condemning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and asked for the 
Pakistanis' support. They voted with us in condemning that invasion. 
India voted no.
  In 1990, we asked Pakistan's help in the war against Iraq, and they 
delivered troops.
  In 1992 and 1993, we asked Pakistan's assistance for troops in 
Somalia, and they said yes and responded.
  In 1993, we asked for their help with troops in Haiti, and they again 
said yes.
  In 1995, we went to Pakistan and asked their help in apprehending a 
terrorist and returning him to the United States, the mastermind, at 
least the one we suspect was the mastermind, of the World Trade Center 
bombing, and they said yes.
  Mr. President, when we have needed help Pakistan has responded and 
been there to help us. This amendment has specific language in it that 
makes it clear that any ballistic missile sanctions are not affected by 
this.
  And last, the President of the United States has gone out on a limb. 
He has negotiated a compromise. He has shown leadership. This is not 
the time to condemn him.
  Mr. President, I will yield the remainder of my time to the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I wish to see the United States as 
a country that keeps its word in international affairs.
  We entered into a contract with Pakistan to sell military equipment 
and accepted more than $1 billion for that equipment. Likewise, we have 
made it quite clear that we will not do business with countries that 
proliferate. We all understand that the transfer of the F-16's cannot 
be completed now because Pakistan has chosen not to work with the 
United States on proliferation issues. However, the United States 
cannot continue to retain both the planes and the money and in the 
process break its word. I believe this issue is as simple as that. 
Since the sale cannot be completed, I believe we have an obligation to 
come to an agreement to reimburse the Government and the people of 
Pakistan.
  The President has offered a thoughtful solution which is being 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Colorado. I support it and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  I know my time has expired. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 454 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Craig
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gramm
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 2708) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      advanced telecommunications

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have been a supporter of the 
possibilities offered to this Nation's public and private sector by the 
burgeoning growth of the telecommunications industry. Coming from a 
rural Western State 

[[Page S 14006]]
with vast distances between our communities, I realized that advanced 
telecommunications was likely the only avenue to Montana that could 
overcome the burdens of distance and geography to allow rural Americans 
to compete in a rapidly changing economy.
  This spring, three United States universities--Montana State 
University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Portland State 
University--combined with two universities from Northern Ireland--
Queens University of Belfast and Armagh and the University of Ulster--
to form the Distance Learning Consortium for International Management 
in the United States and European Union. This consortium has been 
formed for the purpose of providing interactive video and voice 
technologies. The consortium will offer programs in the area of 
international business, focusing on such topics as joint market 
opportunities, issue topical and germane to the U.S. and E.C. markets.
  The project would make it possible for a businessman in Billings, MT, 
and anywhere else in America to walk into one of the participating 
universities and receive a real-time, interactive block of instruction 
on the latest in European Community regulations, or distribution 
channels, or constraints regarding their exports. These programs would 
be taught by some of the leading European experts. Conversely, a 
businessman in the European Community would be able to access the 
latest information on U.S. trade, commerce, regulations, and 
opportunities in a similar fashion.
  While the consortium will utilize their own match, the consortium 
needs initial support of $500,000 to develop their interrelated 
curricula and harmonize their separate distance learning technologies.
  I hope the manager of this bill will consider this project during its 
conference with the House.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I appreciate Senator Burns bringing this project to my 
attention, and I will be happy to work with him on this project.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina is going to address the Senate for a few moments, 
and then we will move along with our agenda. I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                     DRAWDOWN AUTHORITY FOR JORDAN

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to section 576 of 
H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which would 
provide authority for the President to drawdown $100 million of defense 
articles from Department of Defense stocks.
  I oppose the inclusion of this provision in the bill because there 
are no funds appropriated in the bill to reimburse the Department of 
Defense for the defense articles, services, training, or military 
education that would be provided. In fact, this provision would waive 
section 506(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which requires 
that there be an authorization and appropriation. The provision would 
also waive the requirement under section 632(d) of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961, which would require the Department of State to 
reimburse the Department of Defense for the defense items which have to 
be replaced. In short, the Army will have to find $61 million in its 
operations and maintenance budget to pay for the training, 
transportation and handling, as well as repair and defense items which 
are to be sent to Jordan.
  Mr. President, I believe it is important to support nations who work 
with the United States to achieve peace in regions where we have 
national interests, and where it is consistent with our other security 
priorities around the world. I appreciate the role that Jordan played 
in the Middle East peace process. I believe Jordan should have the 
defense items, services, and military training, that enable them to 
protect their borders and respond to terrorist threats. However, there 
are no funds authorized and there are no funds appropriated in this 
bill or the foreign aid bill for this drawdown. This is a function of 
the international affairs budget and there should be an appropriate 
authorization and appropriation within the foreign aid and foreign 
operations bills.
  Mr. President, when the Defense authorization bill was before this 
body, the administration sought support for a similar provision. In a 
letter supporting the proposed amendment to the Defense authorization 
bill, the Secretary of Defense stated that without replacement of the 
nonexcess items and reimbursement to the military services for 
transportation and other costs, military readiness will suffer.
  Mr. President, once again, I believe the United States should provide 
Jordan with the defense items that would be authorized by this 
drawdown. However, I cannot support the use of Defense funds without 
reimbursement to pay for this authority.
  I will not offer an amendment to strike this provision from the bill. 
However, I want all Members to understand that the Senate Armed 
Services Committee worked very hard to ensure the Defense budget was 
not used for nondefense items.
  This provision would use Defense funds to provide the defense 
articles and services to a foreign nation. The Department of State 
should reimburse the Department of Defense for these items. If there is 
no reimbursement, the Army will have to use money in fiscal year 1996 
and future years, which has not been included in the future years 
defense plan, to replace these items. This cannot help but be 
detrimental to the future readiness of the U.S. Army. We should stop 
these raids on the Defense budget.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with regard to the Jordanian drawdown, 
the $100 million drawdown will allow the United States to keep its 
commitments to King Hussein to address legitimate security concerns of 
Jordan in a post-peace environment. The King's courageous decision to 
provide refuge to the Iraqi defectors only increases his security 
problems.
  Moreover, this drawdown package demonstrates America's resolve to 
support those who support peace in that area of the world. We are at a 
very critical time in the peace process and it is important we maintain 
our credibility if we are to maintain our leadership role in brokering 
further peace agreements.
  The drawdown is designed to address the immediate needs of the 
Jordanian Armed Forces primarily for border security. In the immediate 
post-peace treaty era with Israel, Jordan finds itself hard-pressed to 
prevent infiltration of its border with Israel by potential terrorists 
and smugglers. They desperately need to increase their capability to 
survey the border, especially at night.
  I am well aware of the economic constraints our Nation faces as it 
fights a bulging deficit, which is precisely why the drawdown package 
is tailored so that it has a minimum impact upon our force readiness.
  Mr. President, I will also say, while not typically being a spokesman 
for the administration, they are strongly in support of the Jordanian 
drawdown, as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I concur with what the distinguished 
chairman has said. I think this is extremely important. I have met a 
number of times with Jordanian officials, and a number of times with 
King Hussein regarding this and other issues involving Jordan.
  Jordan is in a critical, pivotal position. I remember last year--
actually, about 11 months ago now--when I had the privilege of 
accompanying the President of the United States to the signing ceremony 
of the peace agreement between Jordan and Israel, signed out in the 
desert in Al Aqabah, in 110-degree weather. I remember the day as 
though it was yesterday. There was a stiff desert wind blowing. People 
from Israel and Jordan and from the United States were there to witness 
the signing of this historic peace agreement. There was a very moving 
speech by Prime Minister Rabin and by King Hussein. The President of 
the United States was speaking for all Americans about our pride in 
this historic agreement.
  Every commitment that King Hussein has made, he has kept. Every step 
he has said he would take, he has taken--many with great courage and 
great foresight.
  This is not an easy time in the Middle East. Prime Minister Rabin, 
who 

[[Page S 14007]]

justly deserves his Nobel Peace Prize, has pushed so hard to keep a 
peace agreement going in the face of political opposition and terrorist 
attacks. He and Foreign Minister Peres have worked so hard on this. 
There is really a handful of people in the Middle East who are trying 
to bring about peace--not so much for their generation, because their 
generation will soon reach a time when it fades from the scene, but for 
the generation of children, Arab and Jew alike. They are facing a 
potential for peace which their parents did not have, but a potential 
they now have. This is an area where we can help. The United States has 
strong and real security interests in that part of the world. We should 
help.
  So I strongly support the administration's position. I think the 
President and Secretary of State are right.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of 
Senator Wellstone, to allow a fellow on his staff, Paul Mazur, the 
privilege of the floor during the consideration of H.R. 1868, the 
foreign ops bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


        Transfer of Excess Nonlethal Defense Articles to Albania

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss section 557 of this bill, 
a provision which I support. Last year, the Senate adopted my amendment 
to allow a waiver of transportation fees for nonlethal excess defense 
articles being transferred to Albania. I am pleased to see that this 
provision is being extended this year in both the Senate and House 
bills, and that it is in fact being expanded to cover all countries 
eligible to participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace Program, 
including Albania.
  Albania is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Somehow, despite 
decades of isolation, tyranny and brutal Communist rule, the seeds of 
democracy survived in the people and have begun to sprout. The people 
of Albania still look to the United States as a model, admiring our 
values and desiring our support. In just a few short years, Albania has 
become an important ally of the United States in the fragile region of 
the Balkans and is working closely with NATO.
  Albania is classified by the United Nations as the least-developed 
nation in Europe. Albania is trying to establish free markets and free 
institutions there, and they have a good chance of succeeding. Albania 
is one place where a little help from the United States can go a very 
long way to fostering democracy and building stability in the region.
  The United States is properly providing some modest assistance to 
Albania. And one aspect of that assistance can be strengthening 
civilian control of the military in Albania, and the construction of 
modern, reformed national defense forces. Helping Albania in this way 
is clearly in the interest of United States security and European 
stability. Under the assistance provision adopted last year, Albania 
has received shipments of uniforms and other nonlethal excess defense 
materials from the United States without having to bear the cost of 
transporting those materials. That cost would have been prohibitive for 
Albania, but it is a small cost for us and one that yields a real 
benefit. Now, under section 557 of this bill, we will be able to 
continue waiving the transportation fees for such assistance to 
Albania, and to other countries eligible to participate in the 
Partnership for Peace Program.
  Our efforts are helping. With United States advice and assistance, 
the Albanian military has been reorganized. The entire ministry staff 
was changed, and all of the people who had worked for the Albanian 
secret police were dismissed. The army was restructured from 21 
divisions into just 9. Fifty percent of the commissioned officers and 
30 percent of the enlisted officers were dismissed, reducing the total 
number of officers from 18,000 to 8,200. The heavily politicized 
military academies, based on old Soviet doctrine, were shut down and 
replaced with a new noncommissioned officer academy based on a United 
States model. A new rank system and promotion track was established.
  The Albanian military is also shedding its isolationist policies and 
seeking extensive cooperation with the West and integration into 
regional security structures. Albania has been very cooperative with 
NATO efforts to help halt the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. 
Albania has allowed United States reconnaissance drones to be based at 
the Gjader base there since mid-summer, and those drones have been very 
useful in observing military activities in the former Yugoslavia.
  Albania has participated in seven joint military exercises with 
United States and other NATO forces, most recently the Peaceful Eagle 
exercise last week, which trained Albanian units to be deployed in 
future U.N. peacekeeping missions. Notably, some of these joint 
exercises have brought Albanian forces together with troops from its 
neighbors in the region, including Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania, 
building important positive links where there have been historic 
animosities. And these exercises have also trained Albanian and other 
troops for peacetime missions, such as coordinated emergency disaster 
response.
  Last week, Albania offered air bases in Albania for United States F-
117 Stealth fighter-bombers that we may want to use in Bosnia. We had 
been unable to get agreement to base those planes in Italy. So we and 
NATO are seeking to build a valuable ally in Albania, and it is 
important to continue that assistance.
  This month, Albanian President Sali Berisha traveled to Washington 
and met with President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Secretary of State 
Christopher, Secretary of Defense Perry and other officials. President 
Clinton praised Berisha for the country's economic and democratic 
reforms.
  On the thorny problem of relations with its neighbor Greece, the two 
nations recently initiated talks on the rights of Greek and Albanian 
minorities in each other's country, at the urging of United States 
Assistant Secretary of State Holbrooke who was visiting the region.
  Mr. President, there are other ways we can provide assistance to 
Albania at a small cost to ourselves. Last week President Clinton 
offered to help establish a training program for judges, prosecutors 
and police and to equip and outfit the Albanian peacekeeping contingent 
under the NATO Partnership for Peace Program. Albania still needs 
development assistance, help with legal structures, environmental 
protection and planning, and foreign investment. But we have made a 
good start, and section 557 of this bill helps permit that to continue.


                        overseas police training

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for 20 years the United States Government 
has been prohibited from training foreign police forces. Section 660 of 
the Foreign Assistance Act reflected earlier congressional concern that 
U.S. personnel should not train security forces in repressive regimes.
  But for more than a decade we have realized that some overseas police 
training is necessary and important--particularly in the area of 
antiterrorism. This year's pending foreign operations appropriations 
bill adds another important exemption: It allows the training of 
overseas police forces to monitor and enforce sanctions. But I believe 
that another exemption is needed. The President, civilian officials, 
and U.S. military commanders, need the authority to conduct public-
safety training during and after significant military operations.
  As the United States discovered in Grenada, Panama, and Haiti, public 
order is likely to collapse when existing regimes collapse. In each of 
these cases, U.S. forces were unable to depart until order was 
restored--and a mechanism for maintaining public safety was created. In 
none of these cases was this done smoothly or efficiently. The U.S. 
Justice Department's International Criminal Investigative Training 
Assistance Program [ICITAP], which is permitted under current law to 
perform training in this hemisphere, did not perform well. Given the 
relatively small size of its training organization, and the demands 
created by hostile and demanding environments, this was not surprising.
  During the past 10 years, there has not been an effective civilian 
organization for conducting public-safety training in the context of a 
U.S. military operation. In the words of the Commission on Roles and 
Missions of the Armed Forces, ``our recent experience in Latin America, 
the Caribbean, and 

[[Page S 14008]]
Africa shows that there are no civilian agencies capable of short-
notice law-enforcement operations and training in hostile, demanding 
environments.''
  In the absence of an effective civilian training organization, the 
U.S. military was compelled to perform public-safety training. Military 
commanders worked hard to ensure that they did so without violating 
section 660. In Somalia, for example, marines trained ``auxiliary 
security forces'' rather than police forces. But because of section 660 
restrictions, U.S. military commanders could not plan and train for 
this mission. In short, it was done on an ad hoc, reactive basis.
  Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has accepted my amendment on 
overseas training, which would permit the President to use whatever 
agency of Government was most appropriate to train public-safety forces 
during and after a military operation. In some cases, such as Haiti, 
the environment was relatively peaceful, and the training mission could 
be carried out by the Justice Department. But in other, more dangerous 
situations, such as Panama, the President might direct local military 
commanders to conduct short-term training. Once order is restored, 
civilian agencies could take over longer-term training and assistance.
  In the post-cold-war world, the United States in my judgment will 
from time to time be compelled to use military force to protect our 
interests, and to carry out other operations where public safety will 
be an issue. Mr. President, I believe this amendment will help U.S. 
military commanders perform this mission much more effectively in the 
future. I thank the distinguished managers of the pending legislation 
for accepting my amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss United States aid 
to the PLO, as it has been included in the fiscal year 1996 foreign 
operations appropriations bill and to explain my vote on the subject.
  We have to face the facts. The PLO is not complying with its 
responsibilities. It has failed to restrain the radicals in Gaza; 
failed to extradite terrorist murderers in its custody to Israel; it 
has failed to change the PLO Covenant; and it has failed to come clean 
with the amount of its assets. Most importantly, the PLO's overwhelming 
failure to restrain the radical elements within its areas of control is 
an insult to Israel and everyone who had placed hope in Yasir Arafat's 
ability to deliver the peace.
  Mr. President, I am angered that the PLO will be funded in this 
foreign aid bill, and moreover, with the fewest of strings attached. 
The PLO is not living up to its end of the bargain, but the United 
States is rewarding this band of murderers, nonetheless. I would 
venture to say that the PLO has no plans to live up to its bargain. 
They were created with murder in mind, and they will continue that way.
  I must say that I fear for Israel. While we provide aid and comfort 
for the PLO, Yasir Arafat concludes deals with Hamas, rediverts aid, 
and continues business as usual, laughing all the way to the bank. The 
United States should be ashamed of itself for giving aid and comfort to 
these murderers. In the end, though, it will not be the United States 
that suffers first. It will be Israel, and for them I feel sorry.
  I want it known very clearly, I voted for the foreign operations 
appropriations bill so that Israel could receive the aid that it needs 
at this crucial time. It is in no way a vote in favor of aid to the 
PLO. However virulently against funding the PLO in the manner in which 
it will be funded, I am not willing to hurt Israel by voting against 
the entire bill. In fact, I think that it was wrong to link the two aid 
packages together because Senators, such as myself who support aid to 
Israel but not the PLO, are put in a difficult position. If one votes 
to kill the aid to the PLO by voting against the overall bill, he or 
she also votes to kill the aid to Israel. This is wrong and it 
distresses me greatly.
  Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record, a letter to me 
from four grieving mothers, whose children have been taken from them by 
terrorist acts carried out by the very people to which the United 
States will be providing aid. This letter pleads for extradition by the 
PLO to Israel of the murderers of their children. I urge my colleagues 
to read this heartrending letter to further understand the mistake we 
are committing by providing this aid to the PLO with so few strings 
attached.
  Mr. President, I also ask to have printed in the Record, copies of 
documents that are purported to be from the Palestinian Economic 
Council, Development and Reconstruction, otherwise known as PECDAR. 
These documents, which I make no claim to their authenticity, highlight 
a series of alleged economic diversions and schemes by the PLO to buy 
up property in the West Bank to leverage against Israel. Finally, I ask 
to have printed in the Record an article on this same subject by A. M. 
Rosenthal that details the documents in question.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               September 20, 1995.
     Hon. Senator Alfonse D'Amato,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We are the mothers grieving for our precious 
     children, of blessed memory, who were brutally murdered by 
     merciless terrorists as they innocently hiked the countryside 
     of the land of Israel. We, as mothers, have never been active 
     politically. For years we tirelessly and lovingly dedicated 
     ourselves to raising our children. In one day, our dreams 
     were shattered when we received the bitter news that 
     unconscionable murderers, with their knives in hand, 
     butchered our beloved offspring.
       We turn to you at this critical hour with regard to the 
     granting of financial aid to the Palestinian Authority. We 
     beseech your assistance regarding one specific issue--the 
     extradition of the murderers who were apprehended by the 
     Palestinian Authority and are currently being held in 
     Jericho.
       According to the agreement signed with Mr. Arafat, the 
     State of Israel has the right to obtain the transfer of 
     murderers of its citizens in order that they be tried in the 
     courts of the State of Israel.
       The State of Israel has turned to the Palestinian Authority 
     and has requested the extradition of the murderers. However, 
     the Palestinian Authority has refused to comply and transfer 
     the killers of our children to the Israeli authorities.
       We are terribly pained, anguished and distraught by the 
     Palestinian's outright refusal to comply. We have turned to 
     the Prime Minister, to Cabinet Ministers, and to members of 
     the Knesset with our plea for compliance and justice. We 
     recently met with the President of the State of Israel, Mr. 
     Ezer Weitzman, who unequivocally stated to us his support of 
     halting the peace talks as long as the Palestinian Authority 
     refuses to comply and extradite the murderers to the State of 
     Israel.
       We look upon this issue of the extradition of the savage 
     murderers of our children as not simply a political issue, 
     but rather as a moral issue of the highest order.
       The United States of America has been courageously battling 
     terrorism for many years. In view of this honorable policy, 
     it behooves this great country to insure the extradition of 
     terrorists as a primary condition for the continuation of aid 
     to the Palestinian Authority. Compliance with this matter by 
     the Palestinian Authority will be a true test of the 
     sincerity of the P.L.O., heretofore a terrorist organization, 
     now professing to be a peace seeking organization.
       As mothers struggling to cope with the incessant pain and 
     sorrow of our losses, we wish to have a dialogue with members 
     of the Senate. It would be scandalously immoral to provide 
     the P.L.O. with funds as long as they continue to refuse to 
     allow the State of Israel to bring the terrorists to justice.
       Dear Senator, your intervention is our only hope. Our 
     children cannot return to us. We dare not compromise their 
     honor.
       Please accept our heartfelt appreciation for your efforts 
     regarding this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
     Yehudit Shachor.
     Bilha Bachrach.
     Rifka Forer.
     Batya Bachar.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, June 12, 1995]

                              On My Mind:

                           The P.L.O. Papers


                   Aid, Congress and a mother-in-law

                          (By A. M. Rosenthal)

       Should the United States continue giving hundreds of 
     millions of dollars to the Palestine Liberation Organization, 
     and under what conditions?
       Has Yasir Arafat lived up to the existing conditions of 
     American aid? For instance, is all international money 
     distributed through the P.L.O. being used for the economic 
     benefit of Palestinians in territory turned over by Israel? 
     Or has he used foreign help for his own personal and 
     political purposes?
       That is what is going on, according to copies of 28 letters 
     in my possession. They deal with orders from Mr. Arafat's top 
     finance aide in the Palestinian National Authority to Pecdar, 
     the Palestinian economic development organization, which 
     handles international aid and is supposed to be independent 
     of political direction from Mr. Arafat.
       With admonishments of secrecy, the letters contain 
     instructions, and pecdar notices 

[[Page S 14009]]
     of compliance, to allocate money to such projects as buying a large 
     chicken farm, other land, apartments and companies for P.L.O. 
     notables, enlarging holdings in Jerusalem--and $2.5 million 
     for an expanded propaganda apparatus, the money to be 
     channeled through Mr. Arafat's mother-in-law.
       Pieces of the correspondence have been printed in Israel, 
     but have not surfaced publicly in the U.S. until this column.
       The P.L.O. says they are forgeries. The Israeli Government 
     does not want anything to interfere with U.S. aid to the 
     P.L.O., as these letters could, but has been interestingly 
     non-committal about the letters.
       The Clinton Administration also does not want any glitches 
     about U.S. aid to the P.L.O. But American intelligence has 
     been asked to examine the letters by Representative Ben 
     Gilman, New York Republican, chairman of the House 
     International Relations Committee.
       I got them from Israeli and American sources who feel the 
     labor Government's negotiating techniques with the P.L.O. and 
     Syria amount to a giveaway of Israeli security that will not 
     bring a lasting peace but make it impossible.
       Iraeli officials finger Yigal Carmon, former adviser on 
     terrorism to the previous and current Israeli Prime 
     Ministers, as the source. He certainly was not mine. After I 
     showed him the letters a month ago he returned with a reply 
     he said he wished he did not have to make: certain 
     informalities in Arabic usage gave him pause. Now he says 
     that after consultations with other Palestinian and Israeli 
     specialists, his linguistic questions are answered and the 
     letters are authentic. Other anti-terrorist experts, who 
     spent four months checking the letters, say they are not 
     forgeries.
       Spokesmen for the U.S., Israel and the World Bank tell me 
     that the political projects outlined in the letters do not 
     come from their contributions. They volunteered that the 
     money could have come from other contributing nations or that 
     international funding could have freed up more P.L.O. funds 
     for secret political actions.
       The letters are not the only question that the House and 
     Senate will have to consider about continuing the $500 
     million U.S. aid to the P.L.O.
       Why has Mr. Arafat not lived up to the condition that the 
     P.L.O. eliminate the death-to-Israel clauses from its 
     convenant? Will he ever stop encouraging Palestinians to 
     believe that the peace negotiations are the first phase 
     toward the convenant goal of control over all of what is now 
     Israel? Why have more Israelis died in terrorist attacks 
     since the Oslo agreement than before?
       But the basic question before Congress is this:
       Will peace be killed by insisting on P.L.O. compliance with 
     conditions already outlined by the U.S. but unfulfilled by 
     the P.L.O.? That is what Israeli and U.S. officials say they 
     believe. Or could that make a lasting peace somewhat more 
     possible? (My belief.)
       In the Senate, Alfonse M. D'Amato, a Republican, demands 
     proof of P.L.O. compliance on anti-terrorist action and 
     changing the convenant as a price of aid. In the House, 
     Democrats and Republicans have introduced wording that would 
     also reduce aid if any is misspent. Among them are Democrats 
     Eliot Engel and Charles Schumer of New York and Republicans 
     Jim Saxton of New Jersey and Tom DeLay of Texas.
       That's one great thing about Congress--there are always 
     members of both parties around who insist on bringing up 
     issues about which the Administration of the day wants only 
     considerable shut-up.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction, (PECDAR),
                                                December 17, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 12.12.1994 No. MP/30/305 
     concerning the founding of a corporation of the name of 
     corporation of advancing for import and export Palestinian 
     sited in the city of Ramallah which shall be managed by the 
     comrade Jameel Titarify with the participation of the 
     national palestinian authority by 60% (six million US 
     DOLLARS) a contact has been established with the comrade 
     Jameel Altarify and the following steps have been taken:
       1. The required amount has been shifted to the account of 
     the comrade Jameel Altarify abroad for covering the financial 
     commercial credits.
       2. The receiving bank has confirmed reception of the 
     transfer.
       3. We have obtained a written commitment from the comrade 
     Jameel Al tarify that the amount is a deposit in his hands.
       We request to inform the comrade leader Abu Amar about the 
     details and performance of the matter.
           Respectfully,

                                                 ------ ------

                           Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council,
     Development and Reconstruction.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,
                                                  August 25, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return.
       In accordance with the desire of the comrade leader Abu 
     Amar the President of the National Palestinian Authority to 
     found a company for importing and exporting Ltd, according to 
     the necessity and in order to ensure full and effective 
     control on the commercial market it has been decided to 
     assign this matter to the comrade Jameel Altarify with the 
     participation of members of the frame of FATAH in the West 
     Bank in the following manner:
       1. To found a company in the name of ``the Palestinian 
     advanced company for importing and exporting under the 
     management of the comrade Jameel Altarify who shall choose 
     such appropriate people from the frame of FATAH.
       2. The capital of the company shall be ten million dollars.
       3. The National Palestinian Authority shall participate for 
     60% and its participation shall be registered in the name of 
     sworn members of the frame of FATAH.
       4. The central office of the company will be in the city of 
     Ramallah. It may open branches in any part of the West Bank 
     and Gaza Strip.
       Please take all necessary steps for full execution of the 
     matter and have us informed.
           Respectfully,
                                      Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby,
     Finance Minister.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction, (PECDAR)
                                                December 15, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 28.11.1994 No. MP/30/227 in 
     the matter of founding a general contracting company for 
     importing huge apparatus for construction similar to what is 
     in international companies under the control and management 
     of the comrade Jameel Altarify, the part of the National 
     Palestinian Authority in the capital being thirty million 
     dollars from fifty million dollars namely a proportion of 
     60%, we are to inform you the following:
       1. The required transfer of the amount has been effected to 
     the account of the comrade Jameel Altarify according to his 
     request in his personal account abroad.
       2. The bank has confirmed receipt of the transferred money.
       3. We have taken a commitment from the comrade Jameel 
     Altarify that the amount is a trust in his hand on behalf of 
     the national palestinan authority.
       Please do inform the leader comrade Abu Amar the President 
     of the National Palestinian Authority about the matter in the 
     due way.
           Respectfully,

                                                 ------ ------

                           Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council,
     for Development and Reconstruction.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,
                                                  August 28, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return.
       The comrade leader Abu Amar has communicated to us his wish 
     for the formation of a general contracting company for 
     building and importing of the huge apparatus for building 
     like bulldozers and cars and modern supplies. Since the 
     brother Jameel Altarify has a wide experience in this field 
     it has been decided to assign to him this matter in the 
     following manner:
       1. A limited company shall be founded with shareholders 
     from inland and abroad and it ought to compete with the 
     international companies.
       2. The capital of this capital shall be one million 
     American dollar.
       3. The company shall be sited in the city of Ramallah.
       4. The national authority shall participate by 60% in the 
     capital and its participation shall be registered in the 
     names of men belonging to the cadre of FATAH who are 
     reliable.
       5. The approved capital of the company shall be fifty 
     million dollars.
       6. The necessary measures shall be taken for a speedy 
     foundation of the company.
       Please ensure taking the necessary financial and secondary 
     measures to inform the comrade leader Abu Amar the President 
     of the National Palestinian Authority.
           Respectfully,
                                      Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby,
     Finance Minister.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction, (PECDAR),
                                               September 25, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return:
       Referring to your letter dated 17.9.1994 No. MP/30/155 we 
     inform you immediately that all the measures for the 
     execution of the orders of the comrade leader Abu Amar 
     President of the National Palestinian Authority in the matter 
     of financing the special central computer, in the following 
     way:
       1. On the basis of banking arrangements with the brother 
     Dr. Nabeel Sha'ath minister of planning and international 
     cooperation, it appears that he prefers to deal with his sons 
     Ali and Maxin in this project.
       2. The required informations have been obtained on the sons 
     accounts abroad.
       3. There was accomplished the transfer of eight dollars as 
     required.
     
[[Page S 14010]]

       4. The bank has confirmed receipt of the transfer.
       Please inform the leader comrade Abu Amar President of the 
     National Palestinian Authority that his orders have been 
     executed in due form.
           Respectfully,

                                                 ------ ------

          Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
     Reconstruction.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Following our letter of 3.9.1944 No. MP/30/126 and relating 
     to the instructions provided there by the comrade leader Abu 
     Amar, President of the National Palestinian Authority and in 
     pursuance of performing the projects (the comrade Dr. Nabeel 
     Sha'ath) chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
     development and reconstruction, the second project 
     concentrates on the following:
       1. The private special central computer: There shall be 
     founded a corporation for the private (or special) central 
     computer in addition to the one which is the National 
     Palestinian Authority.
       2. The said corporation shall instruct and councel in the 
     technical and scientific operation of the central computer of 
     the Authority in all places of the Gaza Strip. This activity 
     shall further extend to the West Bank and to Jerusalem, 
     capital of the Palestinian State.
       3. The capital of the private corporation shall be eight US 
     million dollars which shall be paid by the National Authority 
     immediately to the corporation.
       4. The corporation shall immediately appoint the necessary 
     staff from the country and abroad, and they should be highly 
     qualified.
       5. The direct managers shall be the sons of Dr. Nabeel 
     Sha'ath, Ali and Mazin, who are experts in this field.
       The comrade leader Abu Amar, President of the National 
     Palestinian Authority shows the highest interest in this 
     scientific and technological project and urges to deal with 
     it diligently.
           Respectfully,

     ------ ------
                                                                    ____


         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction (PECDAR),
                                                  October 7, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 30.9.1994 No. MP/30/168 we 
     are to inform that the necessary measures for the setting and 
     enlarging of the corporation TEAM in Jerusalem has been 
     effected with MM. Ali and Mazin sons of the comrade Dr. 
     Nabeel Sha'ath Minister of Development and Reconstruction at 
     the National Palestinian Authority in a way which is 
     convenient to them. We shall add the following:
       1. We have suggested to them a building in the suburb of 
     the Bareed which comprises eight flats with a preliminary 
     consent
       2. A special budget has been assigned for purchasing of 
     apparatus according to what was decided
       3. A budget has been assigned for expenses and wages
       Please convey to the comrade leader Abu Amar President of 
     the National Palestinian Authority the content of this letter
           Respectfully,

                                                ------ ------,

          Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
     Reconstruction.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return.
       Following our letter of 17.9.1994 No. MP/30/155 and in 
     performance of the instructions, provided there, of the 
     comrade leader Abu Amar, President of the National 
     Palestinian Authority and in pursuance of performance of the 
     projects which have been attributed to Dr. Nabeel Sha'ath, 
     the chairman of the council of planification and 
     international cooperation, we are to inform you that the 
     third project to be executed will concentrate on the 
     following:
       1. The international planning corporation for 
     administration which is managed by the sons of the comrade 
     Dr. Nabeel Sha'ath, and which have branches in Egypt and 
     Lebanon and through it the Palestinian Authority will be able 
     to obtain private informations and set clubs and congress in 
     the country and abroad.
       2. It will be agreed to purchase a building in Arab 
     Jerusalem or its suburbs for an amount of two million 
     dollars, to be the residence of the said corporation.
       3. An amount of one million dollars shall be given to 
     purchase the necessary office furnitures and appliances.
       4. A budget of expenses in administrative matters and 
     current expenses for an amount of two million dollars for a 
     start. Therefore the required amount is five million dollars.
       We stress the importance of the project and the necessity 
     to provide diligently the required amounts.
           Respectfully,
     Muhdi Zuhdi Alnashashiby.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction, (PECDAR),
                                                 October 15, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 7.10.1994 No. MP/30/305 
     concerning the development projects which are under the 
     management of the comrade Dr. Amin Hadad one of the pillars 
     of the PECDAR member of the economic delegation which was 
     negotiated in Paris and on the basis of the decree of the 
     comrade leader Abu Amar, the transfer of fifteen million 
     dollars has been effected according to the bank informations 
     which have been brought to us by him.
       We have checked the effective transfer of the said amount 
     to his personal account in due course. Please inform the 
     comrade leader Abu Amar that it has been done according to 
     his wish.
           Respectfully,

                                                ------ ------,

          Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
     Reconstruction.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return.
       On the basis of a decree of the comrade leader Abu Amar, 
     President of the National Palestinian Authority and his full 
     faith in one of the elements of the Palestinian Economic 
     Council for development and Construction (PECDAR) and its 
     unrelenting efforts for the setting of the institutions of 
     the Authority, the leader symbol has decided to nominate Dr. 
     Amin Haddad to manage the private projects. He shall have the 
     power to appoint the faithful and reliable elements from 
     among the cadre of ``FATH''. In order that the Authority 
     should stay away from these projects the following shall be 
     done:
       1. The projects shall have the special stamp ``A private or 
     public shareholders corporation'', its shareholders shall be 
     Palestinians from the country and from abroad.
       2. The foundation of construction which shall be named 
     ``The Palestinian corporation for projects and construction'' 
     shall build dwelling flats in the city of Ramallah with a 
     capital of fifteen million US dollars.
       3. There is no objection in having landowners participating 
     in the said corporation.
       4. A financial arrangement shall be provided with Dr. Amin 
     Haddad to pay the approved amount in a way convenient to him.
       5. The properties of this corporation shall belong to the 
     National Palestinian Authority.
       We stress that the comrade leader Abu Amar has the highest 
     interest in this matter.
           Respectfully,
     Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction (PECDAR),
                                               September 11, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 3.9.1994 No. MP/30/126 Dr. 
     Nabeen Sha'ath minister of planning and international 
     cooperation--for the founding of a technological 
     architectural corporation in both the Gaza Strip and West 
     Bank, we inform you the following:
       1. We have contacted the comrade Dr. Nabeel Sha'ath. He has 
     furnished us the necessary banking informations.
       2. The required transfer has been effected from the 
     ``special accounts''.
       3. The bank has confirmed receipt of the amount and its 
     transfer in the account of the comrade Dr. Nabeel Sha'ath.
       Please convey these informations to the comrade leader Abu 
     Amar, President of the National Palestinian Authority and 
     that his orders have been fully executed.
           Respectfully,

                                                ------ ------,

                           Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council,
     Development and Reconstruction.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,
                                                September 3, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return.
       In accordance with the instructions of the comrade leader 
     Abu Amar, and whereas it is mandatory to initiate a 
     technological scientific activity in the Gaza Strip and West 
     Bank on a desirable scientific level, it has been decided to 
     bestow this function on the Minister of Planning and 
     International Cooperation Dr. Nabil Sha'ath, since these are 
     private and personal projects and they should not contradict 
     the interests of the other party who could exploit them 
     politically in international circles among the donors and the 
     Americans and thus may cause hard problems to the National 
     Palestinian Authority. Therefore, the comrade leader Abu 
     Ammar has decided to start as follows:
       1. To found a technological architectural corporation 
     having the required qualifications. It will start its 
     activities first of all in the Gaza Strip and then shall go 
     to the West Bank and the Arab villages and their suburbs.
       2. The said corporation shall deal with instructing and 
     counseling in the architectural and technological matters in 
     the private and public sectors.
     
[[Page S 14011]]

       3. The capital of the corporation shall be five million US 
     dollars. It may be increased, if necessary, by setting a 
     shareholders corporation with the participation of 
     Palestinians from the country and abroad.
       We emphasize that the comrade leader Abu Amar considers the 
     matter of setting the corporation as specially important.
           Respectfully,
     Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction (PECDAR)
                                                 October 28, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greatings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 20.10.1994 No. MP/30/225 in 
     the matter of the industries and antiques of Naplus that will 
     be assigned to the comrade Amin Hadad and in accordance with 
     the wishes of the comrade Abademar, the following financial 
     procedures have been accomplished:
       1. by arrangement with the comrade Dr. Amin Hadad 
     instructions have been given for the transfer of the required 
     amount six million US dollars.
       2. A notice has been received to the effect that the amount 
     has been received and entered in the personal account of the 
     comrade Dr. Amin Hadad.
       3. He has given a commitment personal that this project 
     (according to the share) is the property of the National 
     Palestinian Authority.
       4. He has given a commitment that he will involve the 
     maximum number of industrials in the city of Naplouse in this 
     project.
       Please convey to the comrade leader President of the 
     National Palestinian Authority about the execution of his 
     order.
           Respectfully

                                                ------ ------,

                                                         Chairman.
       It is forbidden to read this document without the special 
     authorization of the President.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,
                                                 October 20, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return
       In execution of the order of the comrade leader Abu Amar 
     the President of the National Palestinian Authority to bestow 
     on the comrade Dr. Amin Hadad the function of developing 
     industries in Naplus and mainly the soap industry and the 
     antiques in the city and the neighbouring villages by 
     founding a corporation which will gather all industrials in 
     the city with a capital for an amount of ten million US 
     dollars in which the National Authority shall participate 
     with six million dollars it being 60% of the capital.
       We request to take the necessary measures for the setting 
     of this corporation on the aforesaid conditions. The National 
     Authority shall be represented by Dr. Amin Hadad in his name 
     and on behalf of persons from our staff reliable and having a 
     good name.
       In accordance with the desire of the comrade leader Abu 
     Amar President of the National Palestinian Authority, the 
     amount of six million US dollars should be diligently paid in 
     a due way.
           Respectfully
                                      Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby,
     Finance Minister.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction (PECDAR),
                                                November 11, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zudhi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 30.10.1994 No. MP/30/241 
     concerning the Palestinian corporation for importation of 
     iron and steel Ltd which the comrade Dr. Amin Hadad member of 
     (PEDCAR) intends to found we are to inform you the following:
       1. An understanding has been reached with the comrade Dr. 
     Amin Hadad on the manner he prefers for the operation of 
     financing.
       2. A commitment has been obtained from the comrade Dr. Amin 
     Hadad that the said corporation belongs to the Palestinian 
     Authority and that it is a deposit in his hands.
       3. You will be informed at the completion of the procedures 
     of financing and reception of the amount and its deposit in 
     the account of the comrade Dr. Amin Hadad soon with the wish 
     of God.
       Please inform the comrade Abu Amar president of the 
     National Palestinian Authority on the details of the 
     procedures.
           Respectfully,

                                                ------ ------,

                           Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council,
                                   Development and Reconstruction.
       It is forbidden to read this document without the special 
     authorization of the President.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,
                                                  August 25, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PEDCAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return
       The matter: A Palestinian Corporation for importation of 
     iron and steel.
       According to the instruction of the remarkable leader the 
     comrade Abu Amar President of the National Palestinian 
     Authority for the formation of a corporation which shall 
     start to import iron and steel and to develop, the comrade 
     leader has decided to put the comrade Dr. Amin Haddad in 
     charge of this enterprise in the following way:
       1. A limited corporation shall be registered under the name 
     of the Palestinian Corporation for importation of Iron and 
     Steel Ltd.
       2. The corporation shall be sited in the city of Naplus.
       3. Its capital shall be twenty million US dollars.
       4. The National Palestinian Authority shall participate 
     with a capital of 60% namely twelve million dollars and the 
     balance shall be provided by shareholders (eight million 
     dollars).
       5. Activating the construction in the city and putting to 
     market with favorable prices iron and steel and also for 
     local industrial organizations.
       The comrade leader Abu Amar the President of the National 
     Palestinian Authority stresses the acting in a speedy way in 
     taking the necessary measures in order to publicise this 
     corporation in the region.
           Respectfully
                                      Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby,
     Finance Minister.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction (PECDAR),
                                                September 8, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 12.8.1994 No. MP/30/85 which 
     includes the decree by the comrade leader Abu Amar concerning 
     the setting and founding of a poultry farm in Beer Zeit 
     (Ramallah) which will specialize in strengthening the 
     palestinian economy we inform you as follows:
       1. We obtained all the plans and necessary informations 
     concerning this project, we have studied it and have decided 
     as follows:
       2. We have contacted the comrade pressman Mr. Ibrahim 
     Alkarain and obtained from him the necessary bank 
     informations
       3. The transfer of the required amount has been effected 
     from the ``special accounts''
       4. The bank has confirmed to us receipt of the amount and 
     its transfer in the account of the comrade Ibrahim Alkarain
       Please convey these informations to the comrade leader Abu 
     Amar President of the National Palestinian Authority and that 
     his orders have been fully executed.
           Respectfully

                                                ------ ------,

                           Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council,
                                   Development and Reconstruction.
       It is forbidden to read this document without the special 
     authorization of the President.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance
                                                  August 12, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return
       Whereas the National Palestinian Authority acts through the 
     faithful palestinian elements to build and execute the 
     economic projects and to help our people to progress and to 
     be self-sufficient in our local markets and to rely on our 
     products provided by our faithful people, therefore the 
     comrade leader Abu Amar has decided as follows:
       1. To set a huge poultry farm on a space of land of ten 
     dounams. The place has already been chosen in the region of 
     Beer Zeit (district of Ramallah). It will require the 
     purchase of machines for . . . and whatever is needed by the 
     farmer in order to compete with the international farms.
       2. The capital of this farm shall be 1.5 million US dollars 
     at the start.
       3. The farm shall be managed by the pressman Mr. Ibrahim 
     Alkarain owner of the review ``Alawda'' (The Return) and of 
     the Palestine Press Office to him and his partners.
       We stress that the comrade leader Abu Amar has the highest 
     interest in the matter as it will provide work to 
     palestinians.
           Respectfully
                                      Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby,
     Finance Minister.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction (PECDAR),
                                                November 11, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       We refer to your letter dated 19.11.1994 No. M/30/266 and 
     are to inform you immediately that all the measures for the 
     execution of the instructions of the comrade leader Abu Amar 
     President of the National Palestinian Authority concerning 
     the financing of the Palestinian Press Office Review Alawda, 
     as follows:
       1. The necessary informations have been obtained from the 
     pressman Ibrahim Tlkarain on his personal account in France 
     he and his partners Remonde Altaweel.
       2. The transfer has been effected of 2.5 million American 
     dollars.
       3. The bank has confirmed receipt of the transfer.
       4. The way of transfer is sophisticated and the other party 
     cannot in any way discover the way and style which has been 
     taken in the transfer.
       5. We have received an excessively important letter from 
     the comrade Remonda 

[[Page S 14012]]
     Altaweel confirming receipt of the whole amount and thanking the 
     comrade and beloved father Mr. Yasser Arafat ``Abu Amar'' 
     with thanks from the Palestinian diaspora in France.
       Please inform the comrade Abu Amar president of the 
     National Authority that his orders have been executed 
     properly.
           Respectfully,

                                                ------ ------,

                           Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council,
     Development and Reconstruction (PEDCAR).
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,
                                                November 19, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PEDCAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return.
       Whereas the National Palestinian Authority encourages the 
     saying of truth which stands above all, and encourages the 
     development of a Palestinian press and journalists that they 
     utter the truth with no fear of any danger anywhere and 
     pursue the enemies of the homeland and unveil them to the 
     public, therefore the comrade leader has proclaimed as 
     follows:
       1. The Palestinian Press Office shall support the comrade 
     journalist Ibrahim Alkarain, the owner of the office which is 
     sited in Arab Jerusalem, the capital of Palestine (Journal of 
     the Return) and helping him to purchase modern printing 
     machines and sophisticated computers and the purchase of 
     press offices and providing for payments of employees and 
     pressmen.
       2. The center of the said office shall be in the Arab 
     Jerusalem, the capital of the state of Palestine.
       3. A preliminary amount of 2.5 million US dollars shall be 
     provided in installments to be decided on.
       4. A financial arrangement shall be provided to expend the 
     amount in a way which will be convenient to (him).
       Please take the necessary steps to execute the aforesaid 
     and have us informed.
           Respectfully,
     Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction (PECDAR),
                                                  August 23, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of return.
       Referring to your letter dated 15.8.1994 No. MP/30/1994 
     which includes the matter of the decree promulgated by the 
     comrade leader Abu Amar concerning the ``inland 
     Palestinians'' from among members of the Knesseth and parties 
     and philanthropic and cooperative organizations and local 
     councils and private councils and churches ``helps and 
     contributions'' and that this matter should be held directly 
     and intensively by the brother Dr. Ahmad Tiby, we are to 
     inform you as follows:
       1. We have contacted Dr. Ahmad Tiby who has visited our 
     office personally and he prefers not to talk on the 
     telephone.
       2. He has assured us of the necessity to pursue the 
     transfer in the same way.
       3. We should inform him by code of the receipt of the 
     amount in his account special abroad.
       4. The amount has been transferred and entered in his 
     account in due form.
       Please inform the comrade leader Abu Amar that the matter 
     has been effected in the most secret way due to the 
     sensitivity of the operations.
           Respectfully,

                                                ------ ------,

     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,
                                                   August 5, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR), Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return.
       Following our letter dated 7.8.1994 No. MN/30/75 in the 
     same matter on the basis of building the auxiliary apparatus, 
     the comrade leader Abu Amar has decided that the activity of 
     the National Palestinian Authority should spread inside 
     Israel and concentrate on the Arabs and inland Palestinians 
     and that this function should rest on the comrade Dr. Ahmad 
     Tiby and the comrades ought to be chosen from among the 
     members of the Knesseth, the Municipal and Local Councils, 
     the philanthropic organizations, the cooperatives, the 
     villages and the churches in view of gaining their 
     collaboration in achieving the following:
       1. Helping the various parties which support the foundation 
     of the Palestinian State which will include Jerusalem.
       2. Helping such local councils as are suffering from 
     financial deficit.
       3. Contributing to the philanthropic and cooperative 
     associations.
       4. Contributing to the village councils.
       5. Contributing to the bishops and religious persons who 
     lead the churches of various communities.
       6. For these activities an amount of twenty million US 
     dollars shall be immediately reserved.
       As it was mentioned in my previous letter the comrade 
     leader Abu Amar recommends that the activities of the said 
     committee should not be noticed by the public and they should 
     be far and away from journalists and statesmen.
           Respectfully,
                                      Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby,
     Finance Minister.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council, Development and 
           Reconstruction (PECDAR)
                                                  August 31, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       Referring to your letter dated 25.8.1994 No. MP/30/111 
     concerning the building of dwelling flats in Arab Jerusalem 
     and its suburbs by decree of the leader comrade Abu Amar and 
     assigning the matter to Dr. Ahmad Tiby with direct 
     responsibility we are to clarify the following:
       1. The transfer of the amount of twelve million dollars in 
     the same way is not easy now.
       2. Half of the amount may be transferred immediately 
     (namely six million dollars) and the other half may be paid 
     after a month from today.
       3. The comrade Dr. Ahmad Tiby has consented to divide the 
     amount and has affirmed that there is no urgency now and no 
     prejudice will come out of the postponing.
       Please convey the actual picture to the comrade leader Abu 
     Amar and clarify that the amount of six million dollars has 
     been brought in the account of the comrade Dr. Tiby when this 
     letter will reach you.
           Respectfully,

                                                ------ ------,

                           Chairman, Palestinian Economic Council,
                                   Development and Reconstruction.
       It is forbidden to read this document without the special 
     authorization of the President.
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,
                                                  August 25, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR)--Jerusalem.
       Greetings of return.
       In pursuance to our letter dated 15.8.1994 No. MF/30/93 
     (Dr. Ahmad Tiby) I am to inform you that the comrade leader 
     Abu Amar has instructed me to convey to you his desire for 
     the construction of dwelling flats in the Arab Jerusalem and 
     its suburbs in buildings of ten flats each or more in 
     accordance with the Town Planning Law (authorized) and that 
     for this purpose an amount of twelve million US dollars 
     should be assigned and the project should not be registered 
     in the name of the National Palestinian Authority lest it 
     would attract reactions from the other party which will be 
     difficult for us to solve. Therefore, it shall be arranged as 
     follows:
       1. The comrade Dr. Ahmad Tiby shall be responsible for the 
     setting of this commission with reliable people under his 
     chairmanship.
       2. There is no objection to the participation in this 
     project of landlords who wish so.
       3. An architectural tactic shall be followed whereby, if 
     circumstances allow that, the same maps shall be used so that 
     the building in all regions will be similar.
       3.The moves of the commission should not attract any 
     attention.
       Please deal with the matter in the most secret way due to 
     its sensitiveness and to the position of the comrade Dr. 
     Ahmad Tiby in the region.
           Respectfully,
                                      Muhammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby,
     Finance Minister.
                                                                    ____

         Palestinian Economic Council (PECDAR)
                                                  August 17, 1994.
     To the comrade Mohammad Zuhdi Alnashashiby, Finance 
         Minister--Gaza.
       Greetings of Return.
       With reference to your letter dated 7.8.1994 No. MP/30/75 
     relating to the decree of the leader comrade Abu Amar 
     concerning the setting of a land corporation sited in the 
     city of Jerusalem which will specialize in purchasing lands 
     in Arab Jerusalem (Eastern) the capital of the Palestinian 
     State with the will of God and in the Old City, we are to 
     inform you the following:
       1. We have contacted the comrade Dr. Ahmad Tiby and have 
     obtained from him the bank informations and the way and style 
     which he prefers for the transfer of the required amount at 
     the inception of this project.
       2. The method of transfer of the amount is sophisticated 
     and convincing. The other party will never be able, to 
     discover the way and method whereby the transfer is effected.
       3. We have contacted the bank to which the transfer has 
     been effected and it has confirmed its receipt.
       Please assure the comrade leader Abu Amar that the matter 
     has been executed precisely and most secretly.
           Respectfully,

                                                ------ ------,

                                                         Chairman.
       It is forbidden to read this document without the special 
     authorization of the President
                                                                    ____

         The National Palestinian Authority, Ministry of Finance,

[[Page S 14013]]

                                                   August 2, 1994.
     To the Chairman of the Palestinian Economic Council for 
         Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR)--Jerusalem
       Greetings of return.
       Since the National Palestinian Authority, with the 
     assistance of faithful palestinian elements, is building 
     various assisting apparatus in view of strengthening the 
     basis of the palestinian state to which all aspire with the 
     help of God in our beloved homeland while concentrating on 
     the holy Jerusalem in order to strengthen our position there 
     and intensify our presence in an active and strong way;
       And whereas we don't want to have this activity appear in 
     the name of the National Palestinian Authority lest it would 
     be exploited counter for political aims in international 
     circles by the other party and consequently jeopardize the 
     peace process and the good name of the Palestinian Authority 
     in the international circles by the (missing word) and mainly 
     the American administration;
       Therefore the comrade leader has decided as follows:
       1. To found a land corporation which will be sited in 
     Jerusalem, which will purchase lands in East Jerusalem and in 
     the Old City and only in the name of this corporation.
       2. The capital of the corporation shall be fifteen million 
     american dollars at the start.
       3. The manager of the chairman of the board will be Dr. 
     Ahmad Tiby and the members of the Board will be the 
     following:
       1. Bassam Tcdel Hameed Alsa'ih, 2. Haj Faiz tk'ubaidy, 3. 
     Abd Abu Diyab, 4. The lawyer Ali Guzlan, 5. Abdel Rauf Abu 
     Assab (Abu Kaid), 6. Haj Tewfik Abu Zahra.
       We stress that it is the desire of the comrade leader Abu 
     Amar that the meetings of this group should be held secretly 
     and its activities should not be noticed and it should keep 
     its documents and registries away from the other party.
           Respectfully,
     ------ ------.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if nobody else is seeking recognition, 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. COHEN. 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. 2724

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2724.

  Mr. COHEN. 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 an appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . REPORT ON RUSSIAN MILITARY OPERATIONS.

       (a) No later than three months after the date of enactment 
     of this act, the President shall declassify, to the maximum 
     extent possible, and resubmit to the Congress the report 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to Section 528 of Public 
     Law 103-236, with an addendum updating the information in the 
     report.
       (b) The addendum referred to in subsection (a) shall be 
     unclassified to the maximum extent possible and shall 
     address, inter alia--
       (1) Russian compliance or lack of compliance with the 
     Russian-Moldovan agreement of October 24, 1994, providing for 
     the withdrawal of Russian military forces from Moldova, 
     subsequent Russian deployments of military forces to Moldova 
     and Russian efforts to secure long-term military basing 
     rights in Moldova;
       (2) possible Russian complicity in the coup attempt of 
     September-October 1994 against the government of Azerbaijan 
     and the exertion of Russian pressure to influence decisions 
     regarding the path of pipelines that will carry Azerbaijan 
     oil;
       (3) Russian efforts or agreements to assume partial or 
     complete responsibility for securing the borders of countries 
     other than Russia, using troops of the Russian Ministry of 
     Defense, Ministry of the Interior or any other security 
     agency of the Russian Federation;
       (4) Russian efforts to integrate its armed forces, other 
     security forces, or intelligence agencies with those of any 
     other country and the relationship of such efforts to the 
     development of institutions under the Commonwealth of 
     Independent States; and
       (5) Russian compliance with the Treaty on Conventional 
     Armed Forces in Europe and the Organization on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe's Code of Conduct on the Politico-
     Military Aspects of Security.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, early last year, Mr. President, the Senate 
adopted an amendment I offered to require the President to submit a 
report on the revised Russian military doctrine and Russian military 
operations outside Russia's border.
  The report was necessary because Russia has been engaging in a 
systematic effort to regain effective control over the countries that 
formerly made up the Soviet Union. The tools Moscow has been using in 
this effort have included economic, political, and military, including 
blatant military intervention and covert military actions.
  Moscow fomented secessionist war on Georgia, bringing the government 
of Eduard Shevardnadze to the brink of defeat. Once Moscow had coerced 
him to capitulate to its demands to join the Commonwealth of 
Independent States and give Moscow permanent military bases, Russian 
troops rushed in to keep the peace.
  In Moldova, Russian troops assisted ethnic Russian secessionists 
establish a self-proclaimed independent republic sandwiched between 
Moldova and Ukraine's western border.
  In oil-rich Azerbaijan, Russian troops provided assistance to rebel 
forces that overthrew the democratically elected government and then 
may have supported coup efforts against the new government once it 
refused to succumb to Moscow's effort to dictate to it on oil policies.
  Russian troops are heavily involved in the civil war in Tajikistan 
and patrol the borders of Tajikistan and Armenia, putting them once 
again on NATO's border.
  The revised Russian military doctrine asserts Russia's right to 
intervene militarily throughout the territory that was the Soviet 
Union.
  And so the Senate adopted the amendment requiring the President to 
tell us and the American people what the Russian military was doing and 
what the implications were for American and allied security.
  But when the President submitted the report last September, it was 
classified from cover to cover, even though much of the report did not 
warrant being restricted by a security classification. The decision to 
throw a cloak of secrecy over this report probably was not related to 
the fact that it was submitted just a few days after his Washington 
summit with President Yeltsin. I am only speculating here, but perhaps 
the administration did not want to embarrass President Yeltsin, 
although it is not clear that he would have been embarrassed at all. 
Just prior to the summit, President Yeltsin embraced a Russian Foreign 
Intelligence Service report calling for reintegration of the former 
Soviet republic into a single economic and defense zone, complete with 
a unified military command and a Russian nuclear umbrella.
  Perhaps the administration was worried about being embarrassed itself 
given its acquiescence to Russia military adventures.
  In any case--no need to speculate about this--the decision to 
classify the report from cover to cover has prevented Congress from 
conducting a complete public debate about Russian actions and the 
administration's policy toward Russia, and it has prevented the 
American people from becoming fully informed on these matters.
  And so I am offering an amendment today to require that the report be 
declassified to the maximum extent possible. The amendment also 
requires submission of an addendum, unclassified to the maximum extent 
possible, updating the information in the report.
  Among the more recent issues that need to be addressed in the 
addendum are the agreement Prime Minister Chernomyrdin signed last 
October to withdraw Russian troops from Moldova within 3 years, which 
Moscow now seeks to nullify by pressuring Moldova for permanent basing 
rights. There have been further coup attempts in Azerbaijan in which 
Moscow might have had a hand as part of its intense effort to compel 
Azerbaijan to ship its oil through a Russian pipeline. Moscow continues 
its pressures to unify the defense policies of the newly independent 
states, with President Yeltsin personally endorsing the effort just 
last week. And Moscow seems intent on blatantly violating the Treaty on 
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the so-called CFE Treaty, which 
the administration has called the cornerstone of post-cold-war European 
military stability but 

[[Page S 14014]]
which the administration is not proposing to amend in response to 
Russian threats to abandon the treaty.
  Ironically, the Russians now object. After having negotiated and 
signed and ratified the CFE treaty--they now object to its provisions.
  So, clearly, the need for a well informed public debate is greater 
today than when the Senate voted on this last year, calling for the 
President's report. The amendment I offer would ensure that such a 
debate can take place in Congress, in the media, and in other public 
fora. So I urge my colleagues to accept, or if not accept, adopt the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Maine for bringing up a 
really, I think, significant issue, just the continued presence of 
Russian troops in the former Soviet Republics, and how that intimidates 
those young democracies.
  So I think the amendment of the Senator is very well advised. This is 
the kind of information, it seems to me, that ought to be shared. I 
commend him for his amendment and I am prepared to support it. I am 
aware of no opposition on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have earlier discussed his amendment with 
the Senator from Maine. There is much I find very appealing, for a 
number of the reasons that he has laid out. There have been just a 
couple of questions raised on this side. I wonder if we might delay any 
action just for a few more minutes.
  What I am going to do is suggest the absence of a quorum, but it will 
be only for a very few--I see the chairman may have something else to 
say about it. But I suggest, in a few more minutes we may be able to 
resolve this whole issue. I am sure that would be agreeable to the 
Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say in conclusion on the Cohen 
amendment, I think Senator Kerry will be here shortly to, as well, 
offer an amendment upon which a rollcall will be required.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to discuss with the chairman of 
the subcommittee an issue of importance regarding the opening of 
offices for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service 
in the triborder area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. This area has 
been identified as extremely dangerous with criminal and terrorist 
elements running rampant in the area. Today's organized terrorist and 
criminal organizations are international in nature and the presence of 
these agencies is of paramount importance to the security of the United 
States and its elected officials. The subcommittee, in its 
deliberations saw the preponderance of these criminal activities and 
appropriated funds for the establishment and maintenance of offices for 
both agencies. The bill in its current form allocates $5 million for 
both agencies to establish and maintain offices. It is my understanding 
that this appropriation is to be split evenly between the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service, $2.5 million per 
agency. I realize that this was the intent of the subcommittee and I 
merely wanted the opportunity to ensure that the Record accurately 
reflects this appropriation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from New York is correct, 
and I thank him for his concern. This appropriation is intended to fund 
the establishment and maintenance of offices for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Secret Service. The intent of the subcommittee is 
for these funds to be split evenly between the two agencies. I 
understand the ambiguity of the wording in the bill and I hope this 
dialog will answer any questions or uncertainties.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend and colleague for that clarification. 
I feel the importance and immediacy of filling these law enforcement 
positions should not be delayed to bureaucratic debate on the amount of 
funds awarded to the different agencies.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2724

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have now cleared the Cohen amendment 
on both sides. I am not aware of any need for further debate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I noted earlier, I support the Cohen 
amendment. I wanted to doublecheck with a couple of people on this 
side. I appreciate the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Kentucky 
delaying action while we did that. That checking has been done.
  I compliment the Senator from Maine on his amendment. It is 
acceptable on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is further debate, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
  The amendment (No. 2724) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the 
situation before the Senate right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is No. 2712 offered by 
the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, so my understanding is that for any 
amendment offered there has to be unanimous consent to lay aside that 
amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the 
amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I might say I would like to discuss the 
matter with Senator Harkin. For the time being I would object to laying 
the amendment aside until I see what he would like to achieve.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
which I am going to offer on the bill at some point. I figured since 
there was a lull in the proceedings, we do not need to take much time.
  Senator Feingold and I have an amendment which we would enter into a 
time agreement on. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I figured 
there was no one else doing anything around noontime.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would be happy during the quorum to 
discuss with the Senator from Iowa what he has in mind. Maybe I would 
not have an action to laying aside the current amendment. I would like 
to have a sense of what we are doing here.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor 
privileges be granted to Stephanie Eglinton, a Javits fellow currently 
on Senator Biden's staff, for the duration of debate on the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S 14015]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Iowa, would he 
be agreeable to vote on a motion to table his amendment at a quarter to 
1?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a vote on the 
Harkin amendment, on or in relation to the Harkin amendment at 12:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, did I understand the unanimous consent that there 
would be a tabling motion at quarter to 1 with no amendments to my 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a vote ordered on the amendment or in 
relation to the amendment at 12:45.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I might say to the Senator from Iowa, it would be my 
intention to offer a motion to table at that point.
  Mr. HARKIN. A plain motion to table?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, a plain motion to table.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, could we ask unanimous consent that no 
other motions or amendments be in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. I thank the floor managers.


                           Amendment No. 2725

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the conference on S. 
                      4., the Line-Item Veto Act)

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

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Bradley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2725:

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE CONFERENCE ON S. 4., THE 
                   LINE ITEM VETO ACT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the line item veto was a major plank in the House 
     majority's ``Contract With America'' and has received strong 
     bipartisan support in the 104th Congress;
       (2) the House of Representatives on February 6, 1995, 
     passed H.R. 2, the Line Item Veto Act of 1995, on a vote of 
     294-134;
       (3) the Senate on March 23, 1995, passed S. 4, the Separate 
     Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 1995, on a vote of 69-
     29;
       (4) the House of Representatives passed S. 4, with the text 
     of H.R. 2 inserted, by voice vote on May 17, 1995, 50 days 
     after passage by the Senate;
       (5) notwithstanding the failure of the House of 
     Representatives to request a conference, the Senate disagreed 
     with the House amendment, requested a conference, and 
     appointed conferees on S. 4 on June 20, 1995;
       (6) the House of Representatives appointed conferees on 
     September 7, 1995, 168 days after both Houses of the Congress 
     had passed line item veto legislation;
       (7) with the passage of time, it increasingly appears that 
     the Congress may pass and send to the President not only the 
     appropriations bills for fiscal year 1996 but also the 
     reconciliation bill required by H. Con. Res. 67 (the 
     concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget 
     for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
     2002) without first passing and sending to the President a 
     line item veto bill;
       (8) it is now only 9 days until the end of the fiscal year 
     when the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills need to become 
     law in order to avoid disruption of the Government services; 
     and
       (9) the conferees on S. 4 still have not met.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the conferees on S. 4 should meet by September 26;
       (2) the conferees should expeditiously resolve the 
     differences between the 2 bills in sufficient time for the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate to consider the 
     conference report on S. 4 prior to the time the President is 
     required to act upon the first fiscal year 1996 appropriation 
     bill; and
       (3) if the conferees do not complete action on the 
     conference report in time to allow for the House of 
     Representatives and Senate to consider the conference report 
     prior to the time the President is required to act upon the 
     fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills, S. 4 should, to the 
     extent possible, contain provisions making the provisions of 
     S. 4 applicable to the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills 
     and the 1995 reconciliation bill.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this resolution provides that the 
conferees meet on the line-item legislation by next Tuesday, September 
26.
  This sense-of-the-Senate amendment provides that Congress move 
forward and send the line-item veto legislation to the President 
expeditiously. It calls on the conferees, as I said, to meet by next 
Tuesday, and further calls on the conferees to resolve their 
differences and bring a conference report to the floor in time for the 
President to use the authority of the line-item veto on the first 
fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. And if the conferees do not 
complete action by that time, the amendment provides that it is the 
sense of the Senate that the conferees should include a provision to 
make it effective for the fiscal year 1996 bills already signed.
  Mr. President, this body passed a line-item veto bill on March 23. 
The other body passed it on February 6. It was part of their so-called 
100-day Contract With America. But we had to wait not 100 days, or 130, 
or 140, or 150, we had to wait 168 days for the other body just to 
appoint conferees.
  One of the major items that they wanted--it took them 168 days just 
to appoint conferees. Days rolled by, weeks rolled by, months rolled 
by. Still no conferees. Finally, on August 1 Senator Dorgan proposed a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling on the other body to appoint 
conferees on the line-item veto legislation. It passed on a vote of 83-
14 in this Senate.
  And on September 7, the conferees were finally appointed. But to this 
very day they have not even met. And they have not even scheduled a day 
to meet. Imagine that? Passed the House on February 6. It passed here 
on March 23. They appointed the conferees 168 days later. Still have 
not even met. Unfortunately, we have just 10 days before the end of the 
fiscal year. And we are not much further than we were a half-year ago 
toward passing a line-item veto.
  Mr. President, I must confess, I am a little confused. I thought this 
was supposed to be priority legislation of the majority party. I 
thought we needed it now--not next month, not next year, not next 
decade, but now. And I thought I heard that the line-item veto was too 
important to take a back seat to partisan politics.
  Well, I know what the cynics might say, ``Wait a second. I know what 
is going on here. The majority does not want to hand this new power 
over to a Democratic President.''
  I have to say that could not be the case. After all, on the day that 
the line-item veto passed the House, the Speaker of the House, Speaker 
Gingrich said:

       It does show our sincerity, I think, that we are prepared 
     to deal with giving President Clinton increased power because 
     we think it is good for America.

  On the day the legislation passed the Senate, our majority leader, 
Senator Dole, said:

       During the 1980's, opponents of the line-item veto used to 
     say that Republicans supported it only because a Republican 
     happened to be President at the time. With the passage of 
     this measure we hope to dispel that myth once and for all. We 
     believe that any President of the United States, as Chief 
     Executive, should be given more power to reduce Federal 
     spending. . . . Now we are in the majority, and we are 
     prepared . . . to give this authority to a Democratic 
     President.

  So, Mr. President, this could not certainly be about partisan 
politics. This could not be about a Republican Congress and Democratic 
President. So let us move forward.
  Now, Mr. President, I do not think that the line-item veto is a 
panacea for everything. I had concerns and still have some concerns 
about it. But I also see the huge job we face in responsibly balancing 
the budget. I believe the time has come to use all the tools we have. 
And the line-item veto is one of those tools. We need every effective 
tool to weed out the wasteful spending and cut the pork and not the 
people. It will help this country reach a balanced budget more easily 
and hopefully more quickly.
  Let me repeat the words of the majority leader.

       We all believe that any President of the United States, as 
     Chief Executive, should be given more power to reduce Federal 
     spending. If we cannot control ourselves--maybe the Chief 
     Executive can help.

  I believe that the conferees and the congressional leadership owe the 
American people a proposal that will pass the House and the Senate and 
be sent to the President so he has the ability 

[[Page S 14016]]
to exercise the line-item veto on appropriate provisions in the 13 
appropriations bill that we are now passing. It can and should be done. 
Let us have a conference report before the House and the Senate by the 
end of this month so this President can exercise the line-item veto 
that the majority party has said for so long that they want to give to 
the President.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair, and I especially thank my colleague 
and friend from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, who has taken the lead on this. I am 
delighted to participate with him, along with the Senator from North 
Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in 
expressing the sense of the Senate that the conferees on S. 4, the 
line-item veto bill, should, by September 26, expeditiously resolve the 
differences of the two Houses in time to consider the conference report 
on S. 4 prior to the President needing to sign the fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bills and also this year's reconciliation bill.
  If the conferees do not complete action on the conference report in 
time to allow Congress to consider the report, prior to the President 
signing of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills and this year's 
reconciliation bill, as the Senator from Iowa pointed out, this 
amendment further expresses the sense of the Senate that the line-item 
veto conference report should, to the extent possible, contain 
provisions making the bill applicable to the fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bills and the 1995 reconciliation bill. Simply stated it 
would give this President, President Clinton, the opportunity to clean 
out some of the pork in the bills that we may pass in next few weeks 
this year instead of having to wait until next year.
  Mr. President, the Senate passed S. 4, the Line-Item Veto Act of 1995 
on March 23, many months ago. A few weeks earlier, in early February, 
the other body had passed their own version of this important 
legislation. And this was trumpeted quite loudly throughout the country 
as one of the leading items in the so-called Contract With America. For 
something other than an emergency appropriations bill, that was very 
rapid consideration, and I would say in this case rightly so.
  The line-item veto proposal, in one form or another, in my view, 
could be a useful tool to help reduce the Federal deficit and balance 
the Federal budget and more importantly to bring reform to the whole 
budget process. Indeed the line-item veto was part of the so-called 
Contract With America agenda and initially being given this kind of 
expedited treatment.
  But, Mr. President, the expedited treatment of the line-item veto 
ended some time ago. The line-item veto bill began to slow and 
eventually it stalled and it remains stalled. The other body did not 
ask for a conference committee until mid-May, and it was a month before 
the Senate appointed conferees. Until last week the other body had 
still to appoint its own conferees.
  Now, Mr. President, some have suggested that the failure of the other 
body to appoint conferees in a timely manner and the general slowing 
down of the measure was partisan in nature, the delay was a deliberate 
effort by leadership to deny President Clinton an effective budget tool 
during this very crucial period of time when we have to consider 
appropriations bills and reconciliation and the overriding need to 
balance the budget as soon as possible.
  I hope this is not the case. Certainly in this body it has to be said 
that one of the leading proponents of the line-item veto has been the 
senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], a Republican. Now, I know he 
supports moving rapidly on this question and to give this President 
this new authority in time to address this year's budget measures.
  It has been my privilege to work with Senator McCain on a number of 
reform measures including a number that target these very budget 
practices that tend to load up our bills with pork and they cannot be 
eliminated because of the lack of a line-item veto. I was especially 
pleased that an amendment we offered to the line-item veto bill 
relating to emergency appropriations was also included in the Senate 
version of the measure. So this also is dependent on moving quickly on 
the line-item veto issue.
  Senator McCain is committed to budget reform. And I believe many of 
his Republican colleagues in this body share that commitment. I believe 
that they are ready and willing to provide President Clinton with the 
line-item veto authority in time to exercise it during this budget 
cycle.
  However, Mr. President, as I noted, it was not until last week that 
the other body finally appointed conferees that allowed Congress the 
opportunity to come to an agreement on this important issue and give 
this President, President Clinton, the flexibility that he needs to 
shape this Federal budget. With the fiscal year almost at an end, and 
work on various appropriations bills and reconciliation measures 
scheduled to be completed in the next few weeks, this delay in 
hammering out a line-item veto measure may well jeopardize our ability 
to provide President Clinton with this very important additional 
authority.
  This amendment we are offering today speaks to this very issue by 
expressing the sense of the Senate that if a new line-item veto 
authority is created, that this President be able to act on that 
authority on this year's appropriations measures and this year's 
reconciliation bill.
  This amendment allows Members to go on record to refute those who 
would suggest that the line-item delay is partisan. And in doing so, it 
also expresses clear support to allow the President to begin to 
exercise the kind of specific budget pruning that many of us feel is a 
necessary response to the budget abuses that do persist in this year's 
appropriations bills. Pork did not end in this place on November 8. I 
have a suspicion it increased over the 103d Congress.
  Just last month, my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, who has 
helped form a number of colleagues into a group of pork busters, took 
to the floor and specifically identified a number of problems with the 
fiscal year 1996 defense appropriations bill. He mentioned an 
appropriation of $20 million to fund an unauthorized transfer of 
federally owned educational facilities on military installations to 
local education agencies.
  He mentioned a transfer that was not even reviewed by the Armed 
Services Committee. He mentioned a $1 million earmark for the marine 
and environmental research and training station, also unauthorized, and 
he mentioned that this was contrary to the wishes of the Navy.
  Senator McCain also mentioned the granting of authority for the Coast 
Guard to draw $300 million from the defense business operations fund, a 
new authority that I am informed was not considered by the Armed 
Services Committee.
  So, Mr. President, there are many examples, but these are good 
examples of the kinds of provisions that could and should be eliminated 
with the appropriate application of the line-item veto, and there are 
equally good candidates for line-item veto review by the President in 
other appropriations bills as well.
  I do not think any fairminded person would suggest that this year's 
crop of appropriations bills is sufficiently pure of budgetary mischief 
that the line-item veto authority should be postponed until next year. 
There is plenty that needs to be taken out now.
  That should be reason enough to act on a line-item veto in a timely 
manner, but I also believe there is another, possibly more important 
reason for acting quickly, and it goes to the heart of the original 
line-item veto debate.
  Mr. President, I supported the line-item veto measure as it passed 
this body, and hope to support a conference committee agreement as 
well, but the question is a very close one for me.
  I have deep concerns about the potential abuse of an overly expansive 
line-item veto authority.
  In Wisconsin, we have seen the abuse of an overly broad veto 
authority by a number of Governors, and it is safe to say that no one 
anticipated the extent of those abuses when the line-item veto 
authority was first contemplated.
  The current Governor, Governor Thompson, has used the veto authority 
not only to rewrite entire laws, but to increase spending and increase 
taxes.

[[Page S 14017]]

  In the hands of a President, that kind of abusive authority would not 
only defeat the intent of those who have advocated expanded veto 
authority, it could well upset the checks and balances so carefully 
designed by the Framers of the Constitution.
  That is the potential peril of the line-item veto, and I believe it 
is shared by many of my colleagues who supported S. 4 as it passed the 
Senate.
  If the cynics are right, and the line-item veto measure is being 
deliberately stalled to gain partisan advantage by denying a Democratic 
President the opportunity to use this new tool, then there may be real 
cause for concern about what the end product of the conference 
committee will be.
  Partisan political advantage is an irresponsible and reckless basis 
on which to establish this additional authority for the President.
  A new line-item veto authority crafted on such a foundation may well 
be susceptible to being overly broad, and one that is subject to 
Presidential abuse when the authority is finally granted.
  Instead of fashioning a useful tool to help shape a better, learner 
budget, a line-item veto authority that is driven by partisan 
considerations could dramatically shift the balance of power between 
the legislative and executive branches that was so carefully crafted by 
the Framers of the Constitution.
  Mr. President, I very much view our amendment as an insurance policy 
against just such a disaster.
  If the Republican-controlled conference committee knows that a 
President of the opposing party is to have this new expanded authority, 
they will be less likely to structure a line-item veto that would allow 
the kind of abuse we have seen in Wisconsin.
  And the taxpayers are doubly winners.
  First, because a modest line-item veto authority will be exercised 
all the sooner.
  And second, because future Presidents of either party will not become 
backdoor emperors that can dictate to Congress.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to 
demonstrate to cynics that at least this body is sincere in its support 
of a line-item veto, and to ensure that this year's budget gets the 
kind of thorough review to which taxpayers are entitled.
  I will conclude by saying that I see that the Senator from North 
Dakota, who has been a great leader on this issue, is here. I defer to 
him at this point, given the limited time that is available.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this vote is currently scheduled for 
quarter to 1. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 10 minutes 
to 1 and that--how much time does the Senator from West Virginia 
desire?
  Mr. BYRD. I would like to have about 5 days on it, but since you only 
have 5 minutes, that will be fine.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from West Virginia will have the last 5 
minutes before the vote, at which point I be recognized to make a 
motion to table.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, since we have about 20 
minutes left for debate, I wonder if we can at least equally divide 
whatever time is remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think that will be fine, divide the remaining time 
until 10 minutes to 1 evenly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from Iowa if 
I might speak for 5 minutes?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do we have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 20 minutes remaining, and each side 
has 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is very rare these days that I disagree 
with my friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator 
Byrd. I have watched him on the floor, and he almost always comes to 
the floor right on the bull's eye of an issue.
  In this case, however, we have a disagreement. He will no doubt speak 
eloquently, as he does, in his opposition to the line-item veto, but I 
reached a different conclusion on this issue.
  I voted for and supported a line-item veto when President Reagan was 
President, believing as a Democrat that this President, President 
Reagan, ought to have a line-item veto. I felt the same way and voted 
the same way when President Bush was President, and I feel the same way 
now that President Clinton is President.
  The Senator from Iowa says, ``Let's get moving.'' We passed a line-
item veto bill, the Senate passed a line-item veto bill, it is in the 
Contract With America, and yet it has been stalled. Why? I assume it 
has been stalled because some folks want to talk about it more than 
they want to do it. They prefer that a line-item veto be given to a 
Republican President but not a Democratic President.
  Let me describe to you why I think a line-item veto might be 
appropriate for the interest of the taxpayers in this country. We 
recently had a Defense bill on the floor of the Senate, both an 
authorization bill and an appropriations bill. If you take a look at 
the Defense bill, No. 1, it spent $7 billion more than the Department 
said they wanted to defend this country. In other words, the Defense 
Department said, ``Here are our needs for defense purposes,'' and then 
the Senate added $7 billion more.
  They decided that we should buy trucks that the Defense Department 
says we do not need; we should buy submarines the Defense Department 
says we do not want; we should buy jet fighter planes that the Defense 
Department did not ask for.
  And the hood ornament, in my judgment, on all of the pork that exists 
in these bills, especially that bill, was in the Defense authorization 
bill. Someone wrote in, with no hearings and no discussion, that we 
should buy blimps, $60 million to buy blimps in the Defense 
authorization bill. It apparently is the Hindenburg strategy of 
defense. It demonstrates that hot air exists all over this town, even 
in the bowels of the Defense authorization bill to spend $60 million 
without a hearing and without thoughtful discussion to buy blimps.
  I speak only as one, but I guess I would like to see when the Defense 
authorization committee or Appropriations Committee says, ``Let's buy 
trucks'' that we do not need, that somebody might be able to say, 
``Well, I'm going to veto that line. There is no sense buying trucks we 
don't need for the military.''
  Or when somebody says, ``let's buy blimps,'' without a hearing on why 
we need blimps to defend America, maybe someone can get out a veto pen 
and say, ``I'm sorry, in the interest of the American taxpayer, that is 
something we ought not do.'' That is why a line-item veto makes sense; 
you can go into those bills and do it.
  In the recent defense bill, they resurrect star wars. They have $300 
million to build a new star wars project with an accelerated deployment 
in 1999. The President says, ``That does not make any sense. In my 
judgment, it is an awful waste of the taxpayers' money.'' If the 
President had the line-item veto, the President could go into that 
appropriations bill and just veto the line for star wars, veto the line 
that says, ``Let's spend $300 million we don't have to build something 
we don't need.''
  I would like the President to have that veto power. Why does he not 
have it? Because we have a lot of folks who are stalling and foot 
dragging. They talk about the line-item veto, but they really do not 
believe in it. Had they believed in it, they would have brought that 
back from conference.
  Mr. President, do you know something? They have not even been to 
conference--have not even been to conference. Month after month after 
month they roar and bellow around here having press conferences and all 
kinds of charades on the steps of the Capitol talking about what they 
stand for, what they fight for. The fact is, what they fight for is 
evident on the floor of the Senate and the House. They do not fight so 
hard for the line-item veto. Apparently, they are willing to pass it 
and talk about it, but they are not ever willing to go to conference. 

[[Page S 14018]]

  The Senator from Iowa is saying, let us get this thing to conference, 
get it back and get it done. If you believe in it, as you say you do, 
join us, let us finish the job. Let us give this President the 
opportunity with the line-item veto to write a line through some 
blimps, strike a line through some star wars, get rid of some trucks, 
yes, even get rid of a few submarines that this country does not need 
and is now going to apparently ask the taxpayers to pay for it.
  That is why we should have the line-item veto. I hope we adopt the 
amendment Senator Harkin offers. I intend to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky [Mr. McConnell].
  Mr. President, I was not informed that there was about to be a time 
limitation on this amendment. I just happened to be eating one of those 
``coal miner's steaks,'' one of those bologna sandwiches, downstairs in 
my office when I heard the booming voice of my friend from Iowa, Mr. 
Harkin, coming across the TV screen advocating this piece of 
foolishness.
  I was somewhat surprised that nobody had called me to see if I had 
any objections to limiting the time on this amendment. I think 
everybody in the Senate, including all the staff, knows that I do not 
enter into time agreements on line-item veto amendments or 
constitutional amendments to balance the budget.
  Nevertheless, ``the moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves 
on,'' so we are limited as to our time.
  I hope that the Senate will table this silly amendment and do so with 
an overwhelming vote. Number one, the Senate should not be trying to 
tell the other body what it should do. Under the Senate rules, Senators 
on this floor are not supposed to criticize any Member of the other 
body or criticize the other body concerning its work. Certainly, we are 
not supposed to attempt to instruct, in any way, the other body as to 
how it should act.
  Now, we are going to get ourselves into a situation where, in the 
House, they will be making speeches critical of the Senate or adopting 
measures that seek to instruct Senate conferees, as this amendment 
would instruct House conferees. I think we ought to be very careful 
about floor action or debate that can disturb the comity between the 
two Houses.
  It works two ways. This rule is a good rule.
  Secondly, Mr. President, this is truly a political maneuver. I want, 
as much as anybody, to oppose many of the efforts being made by 
Senators on both sides of the aisle, and Members on both sides of the 
Capitol, to cut or emasculate vital programs. Some programs need to be 
cut. Some funding programs need to be reduced. Some, perhaps, need to 
be eliminated. But I think that we are going too far in some of the 
things that are being advocated by the party that is now in control of 
both Houses.
  I expect to see the President use his veto on occasions when merit 
would require it. I will be among the foremost in defending some of the 
programs that stand to be cut or in opposing misguided policies. As 
ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am confronted 
with such problems every day. So I am not at all happy with some of the 
actions that are taking place around here.
  But this amendment is a political move. I do not think it is a very 
worthy one. It is never worthy to play politics with the Constitution 
of the United States. I will say it this way. I have great respect for 
the Senators who are advocating this approach. Their intentions are 
good. But I must say that I am a little surprised at some of those who 
are advocating it. I am under the impression that some of the 
supporters of this amendment have been against the line-item veto in 
the past. Yet, now they, apparently, are advocating that this President 
be given the line-item veto.
  I do not advocate that any President be given the line-item veto. I 
was against it when Mr. Reagan was President. I was against it when Mr. 
Bush was President. I am against it now that Mr. Clinton is President. 
I do not think it is appropriate for us on the Democratic side to be 
against a line-item veto when there is a Republican President in the 
White House and then to be for it when we have a Democrat in the White 
House. It tinkers with the Constitution and flies in the face of the 
separation of powers, and checks and balances, which constitute the 
very pillar of our republican system of Government. I think it is a 
mistake for us on the Democratic side to advocate giving this 
President, President Clinton, a line-item veto.
  In the final paragraph, the amendment advocates or proposes that the 
conference report on S. 4 contain language making the provisions of S. 
4 applicable to the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills and the 1995 
reconciliation bill--in other words, making it retroactive. I think 
that is a mistake, Mr. President. I am sorry that I have to come to the 
floor at this time and make these few comments. But I feel so deeply 
about the line-item veto. I think it is a surrender of the authorities 
and powers of the legislative branch to the executive branch.
  I think Members will rue the day if the line-item veto ever becomes 
part of the Constitution or part of the law of this land. Frankly, I do 
not think the line-item veto can be given to the President by 
legislation. I think that it would require a constitutional amendment 
to give the President a line-item veto. We cannot change the 
Constitution of the United States by legislation--resolution or 
otherwise. Now, this is just a sense-of-the-Senate amendment and, 
therefore, it will not have much impact anyhow. However, it is the 
wrong direction in which to move.
  Mr. President, Nero, the Roman Emperor who reigned from 54 to 68 
A.D., was condemned by the Senate. When he heard that the Senate had 
passed a decree condemning him, he fled. He was in the company of one 
of his servants and two or three friends, and they fled to a country 
house, where he sought to remain hidden from the Senate. When he heard 
the sound of horses' feet approaching--bearing the Senate-appointed 
enforcers of the execution decree--he tried to get one of those persons 
who were with him to die first so as to show him--Nero--how to die, and 
thus give him the courage to die. But he had no takers. So when the 
horses' hooves sounded louder and louder and were almost upon him, he 
put a dagger to his throat and said, ``I die shamefully.''
  Mr. President, the day that the Congress hands to the President the 
line-item veto, the Congress will put a dagger to its own throat and it 
will ``die shamefully.''
  I hope that the manager of the bill will move to table this 
iniquitous amendment and that it will be tabled overwhelmingly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will soon move to table the Harkin 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not in order until the Senator 
has utilized his time.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. I understand the opposition of the 
Senator from West Virginia, which has been long, constant, consistent, 
and eloquent. I understand that.
  However, I point out that some of the words he used, like ``foolish'' 
and ``silly'' and all that--I simply point out, Mr. President, that on 
August 1 of this year, the Senate passed a similar resolution, stating 
it is the sense of the Senate that the Speaker of the House should move 
to appoint conferees on S. 4 immediately so that the House and Senate 
may resolve their differences on this important legislation.
  That resolution passed 83 to 14 in this body.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator state whether or not it had my vote?
  Mr. HARKIN. Of course, it did not have the vote of the Senator from 
West Virginia. I wanted to point out that it was a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. It dealt with the Speaker of the House. We have done this 
before many times. It passed 83 to 14. I also point out to the Senator 
from West Virginia that 

[[Page S 14019]]
there was a 30-minute time limit, also, on that resolution on August 1. 
So we operated under a 30-minute time limit at that time.
  Mr. President, again, this is similar to the Dorgan resolution of 
August 1. It passed 83 to 14.
  All we are saying in this resolution is, wait a minute, it is time 
for the conferees to meet.
  Now, I have been informed that there is maybe tentatively possibly a 
meeting on September 27, not that it has been published or anything 
like that. I hope that takes place.
  I hope we pass this overwhelmingly so that the conferees will get 
these instructions to meet and to report the bill expeditiously back to 
the Senate and the House so that the Senate and House can work its will 
and send this on to the President.
  Again as I said, Mr. President, I may also have misgivings about 
line-item vetoes, but I think the time has come because of the great 
deficits we are operating under that we need to give this President the 
line-item veto.
  I could not agree more with the Senator from North Dakota when he 
said it just looks as though the majority party is trying to hold this 
up so that the President cannot line-item veto some of the pork, some 
of the profligate spending, some of the wasteful spending, that is in 
these appropriations bills. The time to give the President that power 
is now.
  This resolution is very similar in tone and in verbiage to the 
resolution that passed here on August 1 by 83-14. We should not back 
down. We should continue the effort. We should demand that the 
conferees meet. We should get this bill before us and give the 
President the line-item veto that he needs to cut some of the wasteful 
spending out of this bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I have a lot of 
misgivings about any notion of a constitutional amendment for a line-
item veto and would oppose it.
  However, what passed the Senate was a 5-year sunsetted line-item 
veto. I think, obviously, we are going to have an experiment with a 
line-item veto. That is going to be the result of this Congress.
  The purpose of this amendment is not to say that the line-item veto 
is automatically a good idea. But it says since we are going to have 
this experiment anyway, since that is going to be an outcome of the 
104th Congress, get on with it, and let this President have that 
opportunity.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment No. 2725 offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Harkin].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 455 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--24

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Robb
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2725) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first let me make a general statement.
  As Members on both sides know, we are trying to work together so we 
can finish all the appropriations bills by next Saturday on the 30th. I 
do not think there will be a Saturday session this week because, 
frankly, some of the Members who would have to manage the bills are not 
here. We have not had much success in working out that Saturday 
session. So I would hope that we can keep the Medicare amendments and 
line-item veto amendments, and others, off the bill. But if they have 
to be offered, do not come around next week to me and say, ``Why can't 
we go home?'' So I will just leave it up to whatever. We probably will 
not go home in any event because maybe it does not make any difference.


                           amendment no. 2707

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about the 
Dole-Helms amendment offered yesterday. Our amendment will save money, 
make government more efficient, and better protect American interests 
overseas. The Foreign Affairs Reinvention Act of 1995 streamlines and 
consolidates U.S. Foreign Affairs agencies. Our amendment builds on the 
hard work by Senator Helms and his staff in their months of effort to 
reduce bureaucracy, and reinvent the international agencies for the 
U.S. Government.
  In July, the Senate considered S. 908, the Foreign Relations 
Revitalization Act of 1995. At administration prodding, Democrats 
filibustered the bill. The Senate fell five votes short of invoking 
cloture on two successive votes on August 1. Because of the lack of 
Democratic willingness to allow consideration of reorganization 
legislation, I was forced to return S. 908 to the Senate Calendar.
  During debate on S. 908, Democrats conceded the need for 
reorganization. Senator Lieberman, for example, said:

       Senator Helms and his committee, I say, have acted on sound 
     impulse, which is that we do need to do a searching 
     reappraisal of the way we conduct our foreign policy in the 
     post-cold-war era. The committee has produced a coherent new 
     architecture for our Foreign Affairs agencies.

  Democrats supported reorganization, but they expressed concern over 
Congress mandating the details of reorganization. Give the President 
flexibility they said. Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, for example, 
said:

       All we are suggesting is give the President a mandate from 
     the Congress to make the cuts, but allow the President to 
     determine exactly how they are going to be made.

  Mr. President, that is exactly what the Dole-Helms amendment does.
  The amendment requires the President to submit a plan in 6 months 
with the following guidelines:
  Achieve cost savings of $3 billion over 4 years; Abolish at least two 
of three major Foreign Affairs agencies; and Specify how the 
consolidation of all personnel and functions will occur.
  The plan is enacted automatically within 60 calendar days unless 
Congress passes a resolution of disapproval. If the President does not 
submit a plan which meets these guidelines, the three agencies are 
abolished. Finally, transition funds are authorized to allow an orderly 
transfer.
  So the Helms amendment--it is primarily Senator Helms' amendment; I 
am very honored to be a cosponsor--streamlines bloated bureaucracies 
and eliminates duplication. It increases the control of the Secretary 
of State over the conduct of American foreign policy. That is why five 
former Secretaries of State from Henry Kissinger to Jim Baker endorsed 
Senator Helms' original effort. The Dole-Helms amendment also meets the 
stated concerns of Senate Democrats about Presidential flexibility in 
reorganizing Foreign affairs agencies.

  The scaremongers in the administration claim reorganization is a ploy 
by 

[[Page S 14020]]
isolationists--some kind of veiled effort to help America withdraw from 
the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our plan is a way 
to better support American engagement in the world. Five Secretaries of 
State are not isolationists and would not endorse a plan that 
diminished America's ability to protect its global interests. After 
sitting on the budget sidelines all year--we have had all this talk 
about line-item vetoes since March; we have had this all year long--the 
administration now says funding cuts will imperil American diplomacy. 
Yet the best way to avoid deep cuts in programs is to save money by 
reducing duplication and by streamlining bureaucracy. I do not want to 
complicate action on Senator McConnell's legislation. Much of this plan 
is consistent with legislation proposed by Senator McConnell earlier 
this year.

  We have tried to reach agreement with other Senators, and I believe 
the Senate should know what offer has been made and rejected. Senator 
Kerry yesterday suggested he would support an agreement along the 
following lines: Pull the amendment from this bill; bring up 
freestanding legislation which requires the President to submit a plan 
abolishing only one agency--only one agency; vote after 4 hours of 
debate; release all 15 State Department nominees currently on the 
Executive Calendar; resume the normal business of the Foreign Relations 
Committee on nominations and treaties.
  Mr. President, that is a very fair deal. No one guarantees the 
outcome of the vote or the outcome of the conference or the eventual 
fate of any conference report. Nominees would be confirmed immediately, 
like today, or whenever we had the vote, and more would be reported to 
the Senate. Unfortunately, after Chairman Helms indicated his 
willingness to accept the terms proposed by Senator Kerry, the White 
House said no. One State Department official said, ``There's nothing in 
that deal for us.''
  I must say we also made inquiries, I made inquiries to the White 
House, saying this seems to be a reasonable proposal to me to have all 
these Ambassadors confirmed, talking about eliminating one agency. I 
thought it was a rather reasonable effort. We would do it freestanding. 
It would have to go through the House. The President could veto it if 
he wished. There are all kinds of options the President has.
  So it would seem to me that the partisanship out of the White House 
and State Department does not serve our country well and only 
jeopardizes important issues from Ambassadors to China, Indonesia, 
Panama, and other critical countries to ratification of the START II 
treaty.
  I do not know if President Clinton knows what his advisers turned 
down because he has not been in town much the last few weeks, but I do 
know that 15 nominees and their families know what has happened. They 
ought to know what has happened and they ought to know who turned it 
down.
  I do not know why the Clinton administration would want to keep 
gridlock going on foreign affairs. I do not know why they are now 
afraid of the reorganization proposed by Secretary Christopher earlier 
this year. I hope they quit saying ``no, no, no'' and begin to engage 
honestly in the legislative process. If they have a counteroffer, let 
us hear it.
  So it would seem to me, if the President had this information, he 
would be saying, ``Take the Kerry proposal.'' Let us set it aside, take 
it off this bill, and have 4 hours of debate. I hope the President 
would weigh in; if not, the Vice President, or, if not, somebody in the 
administration. I think we have made a lot of agreements around here, 
and I certainly think this is a very reasonable effort--one agency, 
freestanding bill, 4 hours of debate. It has to go to the House. The 
President can veto it. The nominees are confirmed immediately. The 
other nominations pending in the Senate go back through the orderly 
business and come back to the floor.
  So I would hope there could be some disposition because I know the 
Senator from North Carolina shares the view of the Senator from 
Kentucky. We want to get this bill finished. We want to finish the bill 
this evening. Then we want to take up the District of Columbia 
appropriations, maybe follow that with State-Justice--if not, VA/HUD. 
And there is one other one floating around out there somewhere, but it 
is a major one.
  So I would just hope that we could resolve this issue. I know the 
manager wants to move very quickly. There are other relevant 
amendments. But I must say--and this is a relevant amendment--if we are 
going to continue to have a lot of amendments that have nothing to do 
with this bill, then I do not know what the managers have in mind. But 
hopefully we can complete action by early this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I wanted to just take a moment to offer 
my congratulations to Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy and the 
Appropriations Committee for presenting the Senate with a useful and 
constructive foreign operations bill. Unlike most or many of the 
foreign and defense-related bills that have come to the Senate floor in 
this budget cycle, this bill tries to be forward looking and positions 
America to continue to play an important role in the world.
  The committee, under the leadership of Chairman McConnell and the 
ranking member, Senator Leahy, was able to work within a tight budget 
constraint and still find extra funding for the truly essential 
programs for America in this post-cold-war world.
  Particularly, I would like to point to the former Soviet Union and 
Eastern Europe where the committee increased funding from the House 
levels by $125 million for the NIS assistance and $11 million for 
Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. Now, of course, it is up to the 
administration to use this money on good programs that help the people 
of the NIS, Eastern Europe, and the Baltics, and not use this money for 
American consultants.
  The committee also managed to squeeze out an extra $37 million to 
combat drug trafficking.
  Mr. President, I note the committee's action on international 
financial institutions. Every $1 of U.S. assistance to these 
institutions results in $20 of donor support for developing countries. 
So I was very pleased to see the committee find almost $200 million 
over the House level.
  These are just a few examples of the way Senator McConnell and 
Senator Leahy and their committee staffs and their committee were able 
to do more with less. In light of the overall reduction in foreign 
assistance resources, the committee decided to provide the 
administration with a great deal of flexibility and reduced the number 
of earmarks. As a strong supporter of the international children's 
vaccine program, basic education programs and primary health care 
programs for children in developing countries, I would urge the 
administration to use this flexibility the committee provided to 
adequately fund these programs.
  Again, Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations on a 
job well done to Chairman McConnell and his ranking member, Senator 
Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader said he 
would be back in a moment. I know Senator Helms was here a minute ago.
  I would like to make sure the Record accurately reflects where we 
have traveled with respect to possible agreements or nonagreements. I 
thought that Senator Dole made a very fair summary of most of the 
journey that the discussions have traveled. But I think there is one 
incorrect judgment made, and that is whether or not I had at any time 
signed off on what was a negotiation in progress, and in fact as part 
of the negotiation we had proposed that the START treaty be permitted 
to come to the floor of the Senate, and that was not mentioned as a 
component, or one of the ingredients that we were waiting to hear back 
on. And so we never had reached any kind of final agreement.
  It is true that I did say that reducing it to the one Agency 
abolition would suit me because that was in keeping with an amendment 
that I had proposed in the committee itself. But with respect to our 
ability to move forward here and now, there were other elements under 
discussion at that time, and I think appropriately. For instance, the 
unanimous consent request of the Senator from North Carolina suggested 
4 hours on the bill itself as a 

[[Page S 14021]]
freestanding bill, but it allowed no amendments. And we had a number of 
Members on our side who were obviously, as I think anybody would be 
here, concerned about this thing being presented fait accompli without 
the ability to be able to amend it.
  So that was also under discussion at the time, and we never had any 
cloture with respect to this. In fact, I have never had any sort of 
final conversation with either Senator Helms or his staff. Now, it is 
also true, however, that the administration did signal back directly to 
Senator Dole as well as to Senator Helms that some form of whatever was 
under discussion was not acceptable, and that I am aware of, and that 
message was indeed conveyed.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a point?
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the points my friend and 
colleague from Massachusetts is making.
  I just wanted to ask my colleague from Massachusetts as well if he 
would not agree with me, having listened to the majority leader, with 
all due respect, talk about the families of these nominees who are now 
being held up because we do not agree to this formulation he has 
presented, that it was in fact the very holds that were put on those 
nominations--this is almost October--back in July. If we are going to 
express sympathy for these families of the nominees, let us not try to 
blame the Clinton administration or Democrats here who have a 
legitimate substantive disagreement over an important substantive point 
where all these nominations are being held up because we do not agree 
with it. The very holds were placed by the majority on those nominees, 
and if the families want to be upset, they ought to be asking the 
people who put the holds on those nominations, not blaming Democrats or 
the administration for their unwillingness to agree to something that 
substantively has some profound implications. Does my colleague not 
agree?
  Mr. KERRY. I do agree. I think the Senator is absolutely correct, 
that the business of the committee has obviously been wrapped up almost 
entirely in the effort to try to ram this through.
  And one of the things that concerned a great many of us--I think the 
distinguished chairman knows this because I expressed it to him 
personally and in private conversations--was the sense that there was 
not really a bipartisan effort to try to mold the bill. It was a bill 
created, and that at a subsequent point we only entered into last-
minute negotiations before the markup. And I said that to the Senator 
at the time.
  Now, I would like to say to the chairman, I would like to see if we 
could find some measure of agreement here. I am prepared to move 
forward on the one-agency abolition that I talked about previously. I 
am not backing down on that.
  But the other components of my amendment had a different sum of money 
in them. Now, the Senator is looking for $3 billion. And my amendment, 
which he keeps suggesting that he is embracing, had a $2 billion 
savings. And there is a very strong reason for that. I mean, in the 
last decade the appropriations for function 150 have declined by $15.6 
billion constant. They have gone from $36.8 to $21.2 billion in 1995. 
And under the budget resolution, the discretionary function, 150 
plummets from $17.1 billion in budget authority down to $15.1 billion 
in 1999 and $14.7 billion by the year 2002. So we have gone from $36.8 
billion down to $14.7 billion by the year 2002.
  There is nobody examining the various functions that are effected who 
cannot suggest that this is not going to have just, you know, a 
gargantuan impact in the capacity of this country to affect its foreign 
policy around the world.
  Now, I am prepared--certainly speaking just for myself, this 
Senator--if we could--in fact, yesterday in the last discussion that we 
had we suggested that there was some problems with the numbers. And we 
wanted to try to come closer to the House structure on numbers.
  Now, I believe that if we were to embrace the House structure on 
numbers, we could conceivably proceed forward. But there did not even 
seem to be a response to that. So we had no sense of whether or not 
that might be possible.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from Massachusetts support the 
underlying bill?
  Mr. KERRY. Apart from this?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. Would you like to see it become law?
  Mr. KERRY. I think the rest of the bill is, generally speaking, 
acceptable.
  Mr. McCONNELL. One of the concerns I have is the Vice President 
indicated to me yesterday in conversation that the President is going 
to veto this bill if the Helms amendment on reorganization is in this 
bill.
  Now, I personally support, in concept, what the Senator from North 
Carolina is trying to do.
  What I am mystified by is why it is not possible, on the assumption 
that my friend from Massachusetts and other Democrats support this 
bill, why it is not possible to reach an agreement that would take this 
issue off of this bill and have it dealt with free standing. It seems 
to me it serves everybody's interest, the Senator from North Carolina, 
the Senator from Massachusetts. Certainly it serves my interest, 
because I would like to see this bill become law.
  I am mystified as to why we are not able to work out an agreement, 
particularly since the Senator from North Carolina generally offered to 
allow--how many nominees?
  Mr. HELMS. All of them.
  Mr. McCONNELL. All of them, whatever nominees may be currently 
pending in the Foreign Relations Committee to go forward. I am stunned 
that we cannot reach an agreement here because it seems to me the 
agreement that has been suggested serves everyone's interest.
  Mr. KERRY. Well, I know that the Senator from Kentucky is not easily 
stunned. So I understand that this must be one of those major 
legislative brouhahas. But I am not sure that it really is. I do not 
think it is that stupefying. At this moment in the legislative process, 
a consolidation in a format that the administration does not accept at 
a level of reduction that the administration does not accept is not 
going anywhere.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Right.
  Mr. KERRY. But if, merely because the chairman holds up all the 
nominations, and then attaches himself to a bill that his colleagues on 
his side of the aisle want very badly, all of a sudden we on this side 
of the aisle are supposed to give up our legislative prerogative and 
reward the holding of hostage of all of these ambassadors with the 
creation of a legislative agenda that is totally contrary to the 
administration's interests, I do not find it very puzzling why people 
would oppose that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. You would not be giving up a thing. Presumably, as a 
freestanding measure, the President would veto it and it would not 
become law. You would not have lost a thing. All you would have allowed 
is the underlying bill to become law.
  Mr. KERRY. That is not, in fact, accurate, because I think, as the 
Senator well knows, there is a world of difference whether or not 
colleagues are asked to vote on a motion to table and whether or not 
they have to vote to sustain a veto of the President, No. 1. That is 
just No. 1.
  No. 2, it seems to me that there is also a world of difference as to 
whether or not we should give up our legislative prerogatives, which at 
this point are shared by many that is sort of a one-sided, rather 
heavy-handed effort to drive home simply one point of view.
  I mean, usually--let me give you an example. Last year we jointly 
worked on this. We sat down and worked on every aspect of the 
authorization bill together. It came to the floor. And I think we 
passed one of the first authorizations in a record amount of time.
  This year, under a new regime, none of those sorts of preliminary 
discussions ever took place. We wound up with every single Democratic 
member of the committee voting against this bill even coming to the 
floor. So here we are with a not even marginally bipartisan effort now 
being presented to us in a way that requires us to give it freestanding 
life that it does not have on its own.
  Now, if the Senator from North Carolina, which I am very happy to 
do--I am prepared to vote for some consolidation requirements. I am 
prepared to 

[[Page S 14022]]
vote for a one-agency abolition requirement. But the Senator seems 
completely unwilling even to embrace the notion that we would move 
closer to the structure of the House on numbers or we could agree to 
have the START treaty come to the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I object to the thrust of the Senator's 
comments.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. I have always been willing to yield, by an appropriate 
request, to a colleague.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HELMS. No. I thank the Senator for his generosity, but I want the 
floor in my own right before I begin to discuss what the real facts 
are.
  When the Senator is ready to yield the floor, I want the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Well, let me ask the Senator from North Carolina, if I 
may. I would ask the Senator, is it not a fair representation on my 
part that the committee amendment that I proposed--that the Senator 
from Massachusetts proposed, embraced the notion of the $2 billion 
reduction as well as a one-agency abolition?
  Mr. HELMS. That is correct. That part of it is correct, yes.
  Mr. KERRY. So it is correct then that the Senator is appropriately 
representing that there has always been a difference in the amount of 
money that we have been willing to embrace as appropriate for a 
mandated reduction.
  Mr. HELMS. But the amount in question depends on which of the 
conversations the Senator is referring to.
  Mr. KERRY. Well, let me ask the Senator----
  Mr. HELMS. With all due respect, Senator, you have been all over the 
map with what you have been saying.
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to have it right out in the open. I want it to 
be very clear to everybody, then there cannot be any question about any 
conversation.
  Is it not also fair to say that I mentioned yesterday that we were 
more interested in the House numbers than in the ones that the Senator 
from North Carolina was proposing?
  Mr. HELMS. Well, I understand that you said that to my able assistant 
here. You did not say it to me.
  Mr. KERRY. I did not say to the Senator when we were standing by the 
cloak room door that I was interested in some numbers, and that the 
Senator then left the conversation and left us to discuss it as he went 
into the cloakroom?
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, perhaps the Senator will yield some time 
for me to discuss the very point he is making?
  Mr. KERRY. Well, I will in one moment. I do not want to keep the 
floor.
  Mr. HELMS. I need only 30 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to.
  Mr. HELMS. Now, we checked on that very point, with everybody 
associated with me, on the issue of numbers. House versus Senate, it 
was an issue raised by the Senator from Massachusetts very late in the 
day after I had acceded to your first suggestion. Yes, but very late in 
the conversation and day. The Senator kept stipulating additional 
things, but the Senator did not discuss the issue of numbers with the 
Senator from North Carolina.

  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend, because I think these kinds of 
dealings are very important and I do not want the Senator from North 
Carolina to feel somehow this was a moving target. The Senator from 
Massachusetts recalls having----
  Mr. HELMS. That is precisely what it is, a moving target.
  Mr. KERRY. Beg your pardon?
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator has been a moving target from the very 
beginning.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend from North Carolina, there was a 
conversation over here with Senator Leahy, and we subsequently engaged 
in a conversation. I do not think I had any late-in-the-day 
conversations at all yesterday. The entire discussion was in the 
morning and in the early afternoon. I came over immediately and said to 
your able assistant that there were concerns by other Senators being 
expressed, and those concerns entailed whether or not we could get the 
full agenda of the committee liberated, and I specifically mentioned 
not just the START treaty but also the CWC treaty.
  We were told the CWC treaty was out of the question, but the START 
treaty we would see. I never personally had a response with respect to 
the START treaty, and I do know that the administration in between that 
had some conversations and made it clear to the Senator that the 
numbers were simply unacceptable.
  It seems to me that the key here is to try to see whether or not we 
could get an agreement on the numbers. I think we have an agreement on 
the rest of the framework. I am prepared to vote for a consolidation 
requirement--always have been; I was in the committee. But the issue is 
whether we are going to do it under a stricture of numbers that are so 
draconian that we are leaving no discretion and no capacity for the 
Department itself to operate properly.
  And facing that, it is not inappropriate for us to be concerned about 
creating a freestanding entity that then could go over to the House--
for instance, it could go to the House, and it could then be attached 
to the authorization bill in the House. The authorization bill could be 
what comes back, and we are faced with sort of this same round robin, 
unless there is some meeting of the minds
  Mr. President, I will be happy to see if we can engage in some 
discussion on that. In the meantime, I am prepared to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the exchanges on this floor sometimes may 
sound a little more heated than they really are. My reaction to some of 
the things that have been said is more amusement than anything else.
  It is a fact that Senator Pell did not want to manage the State 
Department reorganization bill offered by the Senator from North 
Carolina and approved by every Republican Senator.
  It is also true that three Senators on the Democrat side came to me 
and told me what a great bill this was. In addition to that, I do not 
think the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], will object to my 
mentioning the conversation we had at a dinner sponsored by the Senate 
wives. He came over to the table where Dorothy Helms and I were seated 
with others, and said, ``That's a great bill. I want to help you with 
it any way I can.''
  I did not realize, until Senator Pell, my good friend, one of the 
kindest, most gentle men I have ever known, advised me that Senator 
Kerry was his designee to oppose my bill, and I think Senator Pell will 
verify what I have just said.
  Mr. PELL. Will the Senator yield for one correction?
  Mr. HELMS. Certainly.
  Mr. PELL. I yielded to the Senator from Massachusetts not to oppose 
but to manage the bill. There is a difference.
  Mr. HELMS. All right, I accept that. I understood it the other way. 
But if the Senator remembers it that way, that is fine. I have no 
quarrel with Senator Pell. He is a thoroughbred gentleman. Always has 
been, always will be.
  The moment that we began discussion of the State Department 
reorganization bill, which by the way, Mr. President, let me reiterate, 
five former Secretaries of State came before the committee or wrote to 
the committee, or both, and say, in effect, this is the greatest thing 
since sliced bread, it needs to be done. As soon as the markup, as we 
call it, began, there was one protest, one suggestion after another. I 
do not know how many times the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
and I went to the back room. We recessed the committee; he would make a 
proposition, and I would agree to it.
  Then someone would insist on another concession, and another and 
there would always be something else, another suggested concession. And 
that is the way it has been on this floor each time legislation comes 
up regarding State Department reorganization.
  The truth of the matter is, Mr. President, the State Department does 
not like this bill--well, half of the State Department. You would be 
surprised, Mr. President, at how many State Department people tell us 
privately that they want this bill. The opposition from the bureaucrats 
has been vociferous because they do not want to lose their well-paying 
positions.
  Here you have, for example, the Agency for International Development, 


[[Page S 14023]]
the foreign aid giveaway program, if you please, which has lobbied 
everybody in sight. They had a session down at the National Press Club 
where they engaged in personal ridicule. Brian Atwood for example said, 
``Well, Helms drew up his reorganization plan on the back of an 
envelop.''
  Immediately the media came to me: ``Did you hear what Brian Atwood 
said?''
  ``Well, yes, I did,'' I acknowledged.
  ``What is your response?''
  I said, ``Abraham Lincoln did pretty well on the back of an envelope. 
I hope I do one-tenth as well.''
  That is the way it has been.
  The Vice President is in charge of reinventing Government and has 
done so with much fanfare. He pledged that ``we are going to do this, 
and we are going to do that.'' I myself talked with the Vice President 
on the telephone and said, ``Mr. Vice President, let's work together on 
this thing.'' All we got was a little bit of doubletalk and to this 
day--to this day--not one scintilla has come from the reinventing 
office. I will tell you what they reinvented up there, or down there. 
They have reinvented a horse and buggy, and that is about all.
  Senator Kerry came on the floor back in July--July 31. There was a 
concerted effort from the Democrats: ``Don't vote for cloture,'' they 
intoned, including the three Senators--four Senators actually--who told 
me what a great bill it was. But not one Democrat, except the 
distinguished ranking member of the committee, voted for cloture. And I 
do not want to speak for Senator Pell, I believe I am correct in my 
understanding that he has never voted for cloture. There was a phalanx 
of opposition. They were not going to allow it to be voted on because 
they do not want to trim down the bureaucracy, they do not want to cut 
foreign aid, and I would not yield to demands that we bring down our 
bill to the point that it was absolutely meaningless.

  Now, we have moved from abolishing three agencies to abolishing two 
agencies to abolishing one. I believe Senator Kerry has already 
acknowledged that this is the case. My recollection is that he accepted 
the $3 billion savings provision when I offered my proposition--one 
agency abolition.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for one point?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes, briefly.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator said he accepted the $3 billion. The $3 
billion was originally in his bill. We proposed $2 billion. So nothing 
was accepted.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when we agreed to move it to one agency--I 
will ask the Senator what he recalls he said yesterday about the amount 
of money?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I say to my friend that what I said--his 
able aide, Steve, was there at the time. We were interested in trying 
to see if we could use the structure of the House numbers, because 
under that structure we felt there was sufficient discretion within the 
capacity of the administration to do the consolidating that would be 
required. It seems to me that given the fact that we know we are going 
to wind up in a conference anyway, and the House has a position, it was 
a reasonable proposal to try to make in the spirit of cooperation. His 
staff informed me, Mr. President, at that time that there was a 
contingency fund contained within the Helms legislation of about $125 
million, and that that fund ought to be able to be sufficient to take 
care of some of the concerns of the administration because it had 
flexibility.
  So I then went back to examine that, but found, in fact, that there 
are other problems presented because the money is not there. So you 
have a serious problem if the money is, in fact, not there, No. 1. And 
we never actually got back to a further conversation.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I cannot yield for the Senator to make a 
speech.
  Mr. KERRY. I am trying to explain.
  Mr. HELMS. Please, Senator. There is no money in this amendment, 
none. So on what does the Senator base his conversation about that?
  Mr. KERRY. To answer the question, the Senator is absolutely correct. 
There is no money in his amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. That is not what the Senator has been saying.
  Mr. KERRY. The money is in the appropriations bill, but it is not in 
the appropriations bill in the amount that the money is in the 
Senator's amendment. So for us to accept his staff's word that because 
it is authorized, somehow the problem goes away, is incorrect. The 
problem remains because the appropriators have not given us the money.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, maybe we are getting somewhere. I think 
before this exchange with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
began, he said something to the effect, ``perhaps we can get 
together.'' Is that what the Senator said?
  Mr. KERRY. I am always prepared to try to see if we can work things 
out.
  Mr. HELMS. All right. Let us see how far the Senator is willing to 
go. May I ask the Senator if he is suggesting a reduction in the $3 
billion savings as required in the amendment?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have suggested an alternative figure.
  Mr. HELMS. I did not understand the response.
  Mr. KERRY. That is affirmative. We have suggested an alternative 
figure and structure.
  Mr. HELMS. Well, there is only one figure. There is only one figure 
in the amendment. Do you want to go to $2.7 million in savings as a 
compromise?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I would love to put in a 
quorum call and have a moment to talk to my friend and see if we can 
work through it. Again, let me outline what we have suggested as a fair 
approach. We would like to know a date certain that the START Treaty 
could come to the floor and have a vote.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I cannot allow my friend to take off on a 
rhetorical gambit. I did not mention the START Treaty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator from Massachusetts knows as well as anybody 
that neither of us can set the date for a START Treaty in this bill or 
in this amendment. The leadership will set that date, not Senator 
Kerry, not Jesse Helms, not in this legislation and not in the 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HELMS. If I know the answer, I will, yes.
  Mr. KERRY. I know the Senator knows the answer to this because he 
taught most of us how to do it. That is, through a unanimous-consent 
request, when there is this kind of a legislative impasse, you can 
accomplish anything on the Senate floor; is that not true?
  Mr. HELMS. Well, yes, but agreements involving the scheduling of 
treaties has happened on either side. The Senator knows what he is 
doing when, at the last minute, as another feature of his compromise, 
he wants to stipulate when the START Treaty will start.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS. I have the floor, do I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Let me tell you the position the Democrats are in and the 
administration is in. They moan and groan about the Ambassadors being 
held up. They remind me of the fellow who shot his mother and father 
and then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan. They have 
deliberately blocked consideration of the original State Department 
reorganization bill, beginning on the first day of debate.
  Who was the Senator whom they brought in for 2 hours 12 minutes? The 
distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, who wanted to talk 
about the minimum wage. For the past 2 years, during his chairmanship 
of the relevant Senate committee, the senior Senator from Massachusetts 
did not even mention minimum wage.
  So, obviously, a filibuster began at the beginning. The instructions 
had been handed down. And, yes, I am perfectly willing to clear the 
deck and clear all of the Ambassadors and all the rest of it to the 
extent I am able to. But I cannot speak for the majority leader, Bob 
Dole, and I will not, or for the minority leader, to work out to their 
satisfaction.
  Let me state a few things that I will be willing to do. If the 
Senator from Massachusetts wants to present, representing the majority 
of his side, a reduction in the $3 billion savings required in the 
amendment, we will talk about it. I want to know how much reduction 
they want in the savings. But I 

[[Page S 14024]]
will tell you one thing, Mr. President; the American people want at 
least $3 billion saved in the foreign aid giveaway. That is the meat of 
the coconut. That is what the Democrats oppose. That is what Brian 
Atwood is opposing.
  Somewhere in these discussions, I am going to bring up the 
arrangement by the Agency for International Development to move into a 
sort of Taj Mahal, at $55 per square foot. It is going to cost--in the 
bill there is about $40 million just for moving expenses for the Agency 
for International Development--the foreign aid giveaway program which, 
by the way, began as one of those Federal temporary programs. Mr. 
President, there is nothing so close to eternal life as a temporary 
Federal bureaucracy. This is a demonstration of it. That is the reason 
they are fighting so hard. I have never seen such lobbying. Wendy 
Sherman, a nice lady, has absolutely reached the ultimate in ferocity 
in campaigning against this legislation from the very beginning.
  She is good at what she does. I acknowledge that. I have told her so.
  The fight is about whether the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress is 
going to do what the people demanded in last year's election, and that 
is to cut Federal spending. One of the top things on the minds of 80 
percent of the American people is cutting foreign aid.
  That is the problem with this bill. That is the reason we keep 
getting this stone stew sort of a thing.
  I see the distinguished Chaplain of the U.S. Senate sitting there, 
our good friend, Dr. Ogilvie. I related to him the story about the 
farmer who had a visitor one day who claimed he could make a delicious 
stew out of a stone, water, and nothing more.
  His friend said, ``I want to see you do it.'' So he got a stone, put 
it in a pot of water. He said to his friend, ``This would be a better 
stew if you had a few carrots in it.'' So his friend got a few carrots. 
``And it would be better if it had a few beans, beef,'' and added 
various other ingredients. In the end, his stone stew was tasty.
  That is the way our dear friend from Massachusetts negotiates. He 
comes and says, ``We will do this but it needs more of that. How about 
more of something else?'' I agree but it doesn't come to an end. This 
happened in committee, as well as here on the floor yesterday.
  Then he said, ``Well, you have to do this, too.'' I have tried to be 
accommodating. From three agencies to two agencies to one agency. See? 
Then Senator Kerry comes back and he ends up requesting the great big 
piece of roast beef, that is something that he knows I cannot do. That 
is to guarantee when the START treaty is going to be considered by the 
Senate. That is his coup de'tat, the way to kill any hope of any 
negotiation.
  Now, I will accept the Senator's statement as his word. His word is 
his bond. If he wants to sit down in good faith and specify what he is 
willing to do, I am willing to work with him.
  Now, I have been provided with some figures. The moving of the 
quarters of the Agency for International Development for fiscal year 
1994 and 1995 at a cost to the taxpayers of $14 million. That is just 
the move. In fiscal year 1996 it will cost another $17 million. For 
fiscal year 1997, another $9 million. This little temporary agency that 
started way back yonder is going to take 3 years to move, one 
bureaucratic mess to the Taj Mahal at $55 a square foot.
  Anyway, let me say again for the Record, I will not debate further 
with the Senator from Massachusetts, if he decides to sit down and 
negotiate in good faith, and specify what he is willing to do and stick 
by it, he has a deal. I will either accept it or reject it in equally 
good faith.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank you, Mr. President.
  I certainly want to join in this discussion because I think it is 
critical as chair of the Subcommittee on International Operations in 
this Senate, and I have been the ranking member of the same 
subcommittee in the House of Representatives for the last 10 years.
  It is surprising to hear the tenor of this debate here today about 
the consolidation proposal.
  First of all, I think it should be understood that the administration 
never submitted a State Department authorization, which is a first, at 
least to my knowledge and with the experience I have had on that 
subcommittee for the last 10 years, there has never been a case where 
the President has not submitted his own proposals with respect to the 
State Department authorization.
  This consolidation issue is not something that just developed in 
recent days or weeks. In fact, it was first initiated by the current 
Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, back in January, only to be 
rejected by the President.
  Interestingly enough, the Secretary of State's proposal for 
consolidating the State Department and the other agencies that we are 
referring to today, by Chairman Helms, pretty much approximates what 
this consolidation proposal is all about.
  In response to Secretary Christopher's proposal and in rejecting it 
by the administration, on January 26, Vice President Gore issued a 
press release announcing the second phase of the national performance 
review. ``It is anticipated that the overall review of international 
affairs programs and agencies will result in savings of at least $5 
billion over 5 years and a substantially enhanced capacity to deliver 
more effective programs overseas and provide value to the American 
taxpayers.''
  I remind my colleagues that the administration and, indeed, the Vice 
President, proposed $5 billion over 5 years. This consolidation 
proposal is referring to $3 billion over 4 years. The $3 billion was 
determined by the Budget Committee, but it is less than what the 
administration proposed for consolidating and cutting within the State 
Department and its related agencies.
  I think the bottom line here is that the administration, the 
President on down--and what we are hearing today and is reflected in 
the comments made by the Senator from Massachusetts--is that they do 
not want any consolidation proposal.
  I should remind you we started out consolidating three agencies, and 
the Senator from Massachusetts and I had a number of conversations. In 
fact, we had hearings at the subcommittee level and at the full 
committee level. This is an issue that has been discussed throughout 
this year.
  The President does not want a consolidation proposal. We started out 
with three agencies to be merged into the State Department. Chairman 
Helms recommended yesterday that we will take two agencies.
  In fact, the Senator from Massachusetts, before the committee, had 
recommended one agency for consolidating and merging to State 
Department. In fact, Chairman Helms said he would accept that. Now we 
are down from three to two to one, and we are still not able to reach 
an agreement.
  Yes, it should not be on this bill. We hoped we could complete the 
State Department authorization bill. That should have been done long 
before the recess. In fact, it was here on the floor, but it was clear 
we were not making any progress, that a stalemate had occurred because 
of this consolidation proposal.
  So really that is what it is all about, that the President does not 
want to consolidate these agencies. The President will not even submit 
a plan to tell us how we reach this goal of $3 billion or tell us where 
he stands on anything other than opposing consolidation. He does not 
even put forward his own proposals.
  So we have to move forward because the American people deserve to 
have a more innovative approach to the problems we are facing. They 
certainly deserve to have consolidation and savings within the State 
Department. We want to do it on a reasonable basis. I think going from 
three agencies to consolidate to two, to one is a very fair compromise. 
It is more than compromising. Yet we do not seem to be making any 
progress.
  Over this last year we were told time and again, ``We want to work 
with you to produce an agreement.'' We started out last winter, we had 
our hearings, we had more hearings because they said they needed to 
examine this issue further. And I say that is fair because this is 
serious business. We do not take this consolidation lightly. We do not 
say we have all the right answers with respect to this proposal. 
Clearly we could not be that far off the mark since Secretary of State 
Warren Christopher proposed essentially the same proposal for 
consolidating. 

[[Page S 14025]]

  Then it came to the committee markup, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts did propose an alternative at the last minute but we said 
again ``Let's work before we go to the floor.''
  We went to the floor and nothing happened. It went on and on, and it 
was clear we had to move on to other subjects pending before the 
Senate. So here we are now on the appropriations bill.
  What we would like to know is, how do we move beyond this so we can 
resolve this question, complete the State Department authorization, and 
also do what we need to do with respect to savings? We have to achieve 
$3 billion in savings, and that is the issue here. I cannot believe 
that the President would oppose consolidation within the State 
Department. There are five former Secretaries of State and two former 
National Security Advisers who have endorsed this proposal. That 
represents many years of experience with respect to foreign relations.
  I cannot believe we would just systematically reject out of hand the 
idea of consolidation. At a time when we are driving to balance the 
budget over the next 7 years, we are saying we are not going to do it 
with respect to the State Department and related agencies. A proposal 
was put forward--come your way, down to one agency--and we have still 
yet to make any progress.
  I think that is regrettable. I certainly have not experienced this in 
all the years in which I have addressed this issue. Believe me, we had 
many contentious issues with previous administrations on the State 
Department, but we were able to resolve them. At the very least, we had 
a President who was willing to submit a proposal. This President has 
not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am concerned that we have a proposal to 
reform U.S. foreign affairs agencies on this bill. It is a major 
proposal. It restructures the way we administer our foreign aid 
programs. It merges most foreign affairs functions into the Department 
of State.
  The reason I am concerned is it is in this bill. This is an 
appropriations bill. We have had a lot of hearings on appropriations. 
We had a lot of hearings on where we spend money on everything from the 
security interests of the United States abroad to how we help in 
humanitarian programs. We have not had hearing one on how we might 
rewrite, in the appropriations bill, a formal change in our whole 
foreign policy apparatus.
  If we are going to have that debate, we have an excellent Foreign 
Relations Committee. They can bring an authorization bill to the floor. 
They have once. Bring one down, get it passed. That is where it should 
be. But to suddenly take the appropriations bill--not even the State 
Department appropriations bill, but the foreign operations 
appropriations bill--and say let us rewrite the Department of State and 
our whole foreign policy apparatus, that makes very, very little sense 
to me.
  It would be like saying we are going to take the District of Columbia 
appropriations bill and while we are doing it, let us redo the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Because, after all, the 
District of Columbia is an urban area and the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development handles urban matters. It is about that related. To 
do it here, simply because the Senate rejected attempts to do it in 
another guise, does not make much sense to me.
  I have long advocated better coordination among the executive branch 
agencies and foreign policymaking. I have done that in both Democrat 
and Republican administrations because both Democrat and Republican 
administrations have had problems in such coordination. But I think the 
proposal we see here would result in U.S. national interests being less 
well, not better, served.
  Why is the Foreign Agriculture Service administered by the Department 
of Agriculture, not by the State Department? Because farmers know they 
can count on USDA to represent their interests better than the 
Department of State. And all experiences have proven that.
  Why, 15 years ago, did we take the commercial function away from the 
State Department and create a foreign commercial service in the 
Department of Commerce? It was because State had for years neglected 
export promotion. They would sacrifice export interests to foreign 
policy priorities. They treated their own commercial officers as 
second-class employees, and it was because the American business 
community demanded we do something better.
  The reason we have separate Foreign Service bureaucracies is that 
many of our foreign policy interests are actually domestic policy 
interests and they are best pursued abroad by technical experts from 
domestic policy agencies, not by foreign policy generalists from the 
State Department. You go to the domestic policy agencies that know a 
particular area and send them.
  I do not know about North Carolina farmers or Maine farmers but 
Vermont farmers are not all anxious to see the State Department expand 
its influence over U.S. foreign agricultural policy. If you shift power 
from domestic agencies to the State Department, that is not going to 
strengthen representation of United States interests and United States 
policy, but it will strengthen representation of French interests and 
Argentine interests and Russian interests and interests of other parts 
of the world.
  I have been advocating reform of our foreign aid program ever since 
the fall of the Berlin wall so I am happy to see a discussion of this 
issue. Sponsors of the amendment say our foreign aid program should 
further our national interests. I do not know anybody who agrees more 
with that than I do. But I do not agree with the definition of the 
problem.
  The problem is not that the Agency for International Development is 
somehow ignoring America's national interests. The problem is, since 
1961--going back to a time before I was old enough to vote--when the 
Foreign Assistance Act was enacted, much of our foreign aid was 
allocated to winning allies in the fight against communism. Billions 
went to rightwing dictatorships with little or no commitment to 
democracy or improving the living conditions of their people or even 
allowing business competition--either our business competition or their 
own business competition.
  So a lot of that aid failed by standards that we, all of us, would 
apply today. But it is unfair and I believe it is even disingenuous to 
judge AID's effectiveness today against the failures of the past, 
because in the past our goals were fundamentally different.
  The Secretary of State has full authority under statute to give 
policy direction to AID. The State Department, we all know, influences 
AID's activities every day. If AID's projects deviate from State 
Department policy, it is not because AID is out of control. It is 
because the people at the State Department are not paying enough 
attention to what they are doing.
  I think the amendment ignores the considerable efforts of 
administration to improve AID's performance. There have been years of 
neglect--we all have to admit that--under the previous administrations. 
But, with Brian Atwood at the head of the AID, with the efforts of an 
awful lot of people and with the support of an awful lot of Members of 
Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, there have been significant 
improvements.
  Over the past 2 years, we have seen dramatic progress at the Agency 
for International Development and the Treasury and State Departments in 
redefining our foreign aid priorities. They focus resources where they 
can achieve the most advance in U.S. interests abroad. They have done 
that, in spite of the constraints of an obsolete Foreign Assistance 
Act--as I said, a Foreign Assistance Act that passed later in that year 
when I finally became old enough to vote. It has been a long time. That 
could require some changes.
  We are not going to do it in the appropriations bill. As I said 
before, it would be like trying to reorganize HUD on the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill. We have enough trouble trying to take 
care of the problems of the District of Columbia.
  Here we have major issues. Chairman McConnell and I and others on 
both sides of the aisle have worked very closely to try to improve 
things and try to work within the constraints of the amount of money we 
have for those 

[[Page S 14026]]
programs specifically under this bill. To ask us somehow to take on 
something our committee has not handled, that we have had no hearings 
on, and to write it in, pages and pages and pages and pages of 
authorizing legislative language on this appropriations bill, I cannot 
accept that.
  I cannot accept the fact that it ignores what has happened. I 
mentioned AID Administrator Brian Atwood before. He has made extensive 
changes at AID. He initiated an agencywide streamlining effort that 
resulted in plans to close 27 missions. Incidentally, that is a 
reduction of 1,200 staff. He is installing state-of-the-art data 
processing systems that links headquarters in Washington with project 
officers in the field in real time which ensures that the information 
available at the one end of the pipeline is also available at the 
other. That is going to increase efficiency and improve decisionmaking. 
It is going to be a quantum leap forward from what it was just a few 
years ago.
  Administrator Atwood has decentralized decisionmaking. People closest 
to the problems have now the full opportunity to design solutions. AID 
is improving its performance because, for the first time since the mid-
1980's, it has hands-on leadership that is really committed to making 
our foreign aid program have effective leadership that actually cares 
that it works in the best interests of the United States.
  Can they make that performance better? Sure. It is like every one of 
us who may feel we run our offices very, very well. Every one of us can 
honestly say there have to be ways we can make it better. Anything can 
be made better. But the question here has to be not can AID make it 
better, especially with the tremendous steps forward which they have 
made, the question has to be: But can you take it away from AID, turn 
it over to the State Department and have them do it better? I doubt it. 
If you abolish AID, if you ask the regional Assistant Secretaries of 
the State Department to manage its functions, I think that would be a 
serious mistake. These Assistant Secretaries are very good. But they 
are chosen for their expertise in broad foreign policy. They do not 
have the experience--many of them--in managing money and programs as 
AID does. Lord knows. Many of them are up to their necks in alligators 
trying to deal with the daily emergencies and complexities of our 
political relationships with the countries in their regions.
  Even former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, a man whose 
management skills I have always admired, and whose political policy 
savvy I also have admired--and a Republican--expressed doubt about this 
proposal in his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee on 
March 23. I quote Secretary Eagleburger. He said:

       The State Department is not well suited, either by 
     historical experience or current bureaucratic culture, to 
     assume many of these new responsibilities.

  I might put it a little more bluntly. The State Department speciality 
is making policy. It has never--and probably never will--manage these 
kinds of programs well. Secretary Eagleburger offered the hope that 
with Cabinet selection of Under Secretaries it might do better. But I 
am reluctant to trade a bureaucracy that is doing reasonably well and 
getting better every day at delivering foreign aid with one that has no 
competence or outside chance that it might get better. If we disperse 
the responsibility of foreign aid among Assistant Secretaries of State, 
we are going to hear more stories about misguided failed projects--not 
fewer--and more questions about why we have foreign aid--not fewer.
  AID performs a wide array of tasks that enjoy overwhelming support 
among the American people. Every year they managed programs worth $1 
billion aimed at protecting the Earth's environment. Does protecting 
the Earth's forests and oceans and atmosphere matter to us as 
Americans? Why, it should. Does it further our foreign policy interest? 
Of course, it does. A century from now we are not going to have any 
foreign policy unless we join with other countries today in protecting 
our environment because we will be spending all of the time just trying 
to stay alive in an environment not suited for the habitat of humans.
  Every year AID manages hundreds of millions of dollars to 
international health programs. Is this money wasted? Is tuberculosis 
infectious? Is AIDS infectious? Of course, they are. Tuberculosis just 
does not sit in one country. AIDS just does not sit in one country. 
They go worldwide. I tell you right now. There are 250 million 
Americans who will tell you unequivocally that we can do things to try 
to wipe out these diseases worldwide so they do not come across our 
borders they would be for it.
  Every year AID commits a large part of its budget to promoting free 
markets and democratic development in countries where the United States 
has important interests. That is not diplomacy. It is hands-on 
assistance that requires people with special expertise on the ground 
who can get the job done, working with foreign governments and private 
organizations on the nuts and bolts of solving real problems. That is 
what AID does.
  When we get those free markets going, when we get that democracy 
going, do you know who profits by it? Many, many times companies in my 
State, and the other 49 States, because they export. We all know that 
we are getting far more exports, and a far greater increase in our 
exports, I should say, in the developing world than we do in the 
developed world. The greatest percentage of new export jobs are created 
in exporting to the developing world. AID helps in that.
  We have a strong need to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act. We 
define the framework for foreign aid. That is the job of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. They had an opportunity earlier this year to do 
that. I suspect that they will work at it again, and will bring it to 
the floor. And we will have a real debate, and we will agree with some, 
disagree with others, and finally the Senate will work its will on such 
legislation; but not on an appropriations bill.
  AID can continue downsizing and improve its efficiency. Let us not 
abolish an agency that is aggressively adapting itself to the changed 
world we live in to a shrinking foreign aid budget.
  Mr. President, I strongly hope that this legislation will not be 
considered on this bill. The distinguished leadership can bring it up 
as an authorizing piece of legislation if it wants. We can argue and 
debate other things. Let us get our appropriations bill through. If we 
stick to the items that are within the jurisdiction of the 
Appropriations Committee, if we vote on matters that are within the 
jurisdictions of the Appropriations Committee, if we vote on matters 
that are actually part of this bill, why, we could be done before the 
Dracula hour of legislation.
  My colleagues know the Dracula hour is what I refer to as the time 
when too often we end up voting. Those are the hours after darkness 
when people who work for family-friendly organizations tend to see 
their families. And those who want to be home tend to be there. Where 
we with a sense of camaraderie and perhaps people who do not have 
families tend to stay here together eagerly looking forward to vote 
after vote into the wee hours of the night.
  Frankly, Mr. President, if we could just talk about appropriations 
matters on this, we could all go home for supper tonight. Think what a 
novel idea. Think of opening the door and having children say, ``You 
look so familiar. Didn't I see your picture in the paper once?'' To 
have, if you have one, a pet responding perhaps with some dim memory of 
who you are, and not bite you as you come in the door; to have your 
neighbors look out and say, ``I know him'' or her.
  Perhaps they might even ask for an autograph, or at least not call 
the police thinking you are a stranger.
  Think how wonderful it would be and we would probably have a good 
piece of legislation.
  I see the distinguished Republican leader on the floor. I see others 
seeking the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWINE). The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Rhode Island is 
also seeking recognition.
  I am going to offer an amendment and make a brief statement, and then 
I think there will be statements made in support or maybe even in 
opposition.
  I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S 14027]]



                           Amendment No. 2726

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  I ask that the amendment be read. It is very brief. I think that will 
sort of explain the purpose of the amendment as well as I can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dole), for himself, Mr. Simon, 
     Mr. Helms, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. D'Amato, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. 
     Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 2726.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the Bill, add the following:


 limitation on assistance to countries that restrict the transport or 
           delivery of united states humanitarian assistance

       Sec.  . (a) In General.--None of the funds made available 
     in this Act may be used for assistance in support of any 
     country when it is made known to the President that the 
     government of such country prohibits or otherwise restricts, 
     directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United 
     States humanitarian assistance.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     assistance in support of any country when it is made known to 
     the President that the assistance is in the national security 
     interest of the United States.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to 
Senator Simon, Senator Helms, Senator Hatfield, Senator D'Amato, 
Senator Feinstein, and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun be added as 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for 
their support of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The amendment that 
has been offered, I think, is clear and precise, not very long. We just 
had it read. It has strong bipartisan support, and it furthers an 
important American foreign policy objective, which is to facilitate the 
prompt delivery of humanitarian aid.
  The amendment, which overwhelmingly passed the House, prohibits U.S. 
foreign assistance to countries that impede or prohibit the delivery or 
transport of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. This 
legislation also recognizes there may be a compelling U.S. national 
security interest which would override the principle of noninterference 
with humanitarian aid.
  For this reason, U.S. foreign aid to nations in violation of this act 
may be continued if the President of the United States determines that 
such assistance is in the national security interest of the United 
States.
  Let me say, Mr. President, this bill does not single out or exempt 
any one country. All nations are held to one standard. The intent is 
simple, to ensure that American humanitarian aid can be delivered where 
it is needed and when it is needed.
  Currently, there is one country that is clearly affected by this 
legislation. Turkey, a valuable ally in NATO and in Operation Desert 
Storm, continues to receive a large amount of assistance in the form of 
grants and concessional loans financed by the American taxpayers. At 
the same time, however, they continue to enforce an immoral blockade on 
Armenia.
  Mr. President, today marks the fourth anniversary of Armenia's 
independence from the Soviet Union. We as Americans welcome their 
independence and through our humanitarian efforts strive to help this 
fledgling democracy grow and prosper. Their road has not been an easy 
one, but the United States has been willing to provide the assistance 
they need. The delivery of humanitarian assistance to aid those in need 
is consistent with the fundamental values of our Nation. This 
legislation will also strengthen our ability to deliver such 
assistance, which, as I stated before, is an important component of our 
foreign policy.
  Just let me conclude by saying it does not make sense to offer U.S. 
taxpayer dollars unconditionally to countries that hinder our 
humanitarian relief efforts. And in light of budgetary constraints, it 
is imperative that U.S. relief efforts be timely and efficient. The 
Federal budget deficit and spending constraints require maximum 
efficiency in the usage of U.S. foreign assistance. And no doubt about 
it, countries that prevent the delivery of such assistance or 
intentionally increase the cost of the delivery of such assistance do 
not deserve unrestricted American assistance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, not for partisan 
politics, but for the belief in the fundamental values this Nation is 
built on.
  Let me repeat. If some country out there is receiving American aid 
and they are preventing delivery of assistance paid for by the American 
taxpayers or if they circumvent delivery or make it almost impossible 
or impede delivery, or increase the cost of delivery, then I do not 
believe they should receive American assistance. And that is all this 
amendment is about. It does not exempt any specific country. It does 
not apply to a particular country. Right now, it applies to Turkey, but 
in the future it will apply to any other country that would follow the 
same practice.
  I hope, if the amendment cannot be accepted, it can be voted on 
rather quickly.
  I also ask unanimous consent to add my colleague, Senator Murray, as 
a cosponsor, and my colleagues, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, 
Senator Pressler from South Dakota, and the manager of the bill, the 
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I see my primary cosponsor, Senator Simon, is in the 
Chamber, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just say very briefly I wish to commend the 
majority leader for this amendment. Like many of my colleagues, I share 
the desire to see that countries are not allowed to block delivery of 
U.S. humanitarian assistance. Senator Dole has led a bipartisan 
coalition of Senators in promoting this ideal through the cosponsorship 
of this amendment. I applaud his efforts and am glad to be a cosponsor 
of this amendment.
  This particular measure enjoys widespread support in both the House 
and the Senate. Earlier this year, the House International Relations 
Committee approved the bill by a vote of 27 to 7. The Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee followed suit and voted in favor of the bill by a 
vote of 14 to 4. And most recently the House voted to include the 
provision in its foreign operations appropriations bill which passed 
the House overwhelmingly.
  Countries which choose to blockade the delivery of U.S. humanitarian 
assistance exponentially increase the cost of that assistance. 
Currently, we find ourselves facing a situation where we are forced to 
stretch every dollar in the foreign assistance account. Allowing a 
nation to needlessly increase the cost of our assistance, thereby 
further limiting the amount of aid we are able to provide, is just 
simply unacceptable. We have a responsibility to the American taxpayer 
to ensure that their hard-earned money is sufficiently utilized.
  If the United States is going to remain actively engaged in world 
affairs, as I believe it should, it must be allowed to provide 
assistance which is needed. This amendment makes good budget sense and 
is an important moral statement.
  Clearly, we cannot afford to leave this issue unaddressed. I think 
Senator Dole's proposal offers a reasonable and intelligent solution to 
this problem. I deeply appreciate his efforts and leadership on the 
issue.
  In addition, I would like to thank him for including an emergency 
waiver provision in the proposal. While we want to ensure countries do 
not block our efforts to deliver assistance, it is important that we 
provide the President the ability to waive this provision in the event 
of humanitarian or security emergencies.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation.
  As Senator Dole pointed out, this does not apply specifically in the 
language to any one country. Now, it does apply immediately to our 
relationship with Turkey because Armenia faces a very, very grim 
situation. And I have 

[[Page S 14028]]
to say I was a little appalled when, I guess about 2 years ago, I flew 
to Armenia with colleagues in the Senate and we could not fly over 
Turkey, after all the aid we have given Turkey. We had to go around to 
get to Armenia. But when you get there, you see the countryside in many 
areas with trees taken down, what once were beautiful trees on great 
avenues, because they are desperate for fuel. It is a tough situation.
  Ironically, Turkey would benefit economically by entering into normal 
diplomatic and trade relations with Armenia. Azerbaijan wants to have 
an oil line going from Azerbaijan, through Armenia, through Turkey to 
supply the world with oil. Turkey benefits. Armenia benefits. 
Azerbaijan benefits. This is not an anti-Turkish resolution, but it 
does say in simple words, if you get American aid, you cannot stop 
humanitarian assistance to another country.
  That has been what Turkey has been doing. I regret that. Turkey has 
been a valuable ally. I am old enough, perhaps unlike the Presiding 
Officer; I can remember the Korean war very well when Turkey was one of 
the few countries that really provided assistance. In many ways I feel 
grateful to Turkey, but I believe the message beyond this is that 
Turkey ought to be getting along better with her neighbors. That means 
Greece, that means Armenia.
  But the principle that is in this legislation is sound: You do not 
get American foreign aid if you block humanitarian assistance to a 
nation that needs it. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. And I hope the 
Senate will overwhelmingly accept the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not damage the 
longstanding alliance between the United States and Turkey.
  Located in one of the most volatile regions of the world, bordered by 
Greece, Bulgaria, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and several former Soviet 
Republics, Turkey acts as a stabilizing force in the region. She has 
stood with the United States in all its conflicts since the Second 
World War, from the Korean war to the gulf war. She was the bulwark of 
NATO's southern flank during the cold war, defending 37 percent of the 
NATO-Warsaw Pact land frontier, as well as her Black Sea coast and the 
straits controlling Soviet access to the Mediterranean.
  Turkey is connected geographically, ethnically, or politically to the 
problems of Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Cyprus, Greece, 
Bulgaria, Russia, Tajikistan, Syria, and Islamic fundamentalism. As one 
journalist has written, ``Turkish foreign policy today is a 360-degree 
nightmare.'' Now more than ever, the United States should work with 
Turkey as she continues to be the strong bridge between the Moslem 
world and the West, her Western orientation serving as a model for many 
of the republics of the former Soviet Union.
  I believe that both Turkey and Armenia recognize their need to lessen 
tensions and to cooperate with the United States to resolve regional 
problems, including the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-
Karabakh. As a good will gesture toward Armenia in April 1995, turkey 
opened an air corridor connecting Erzurum to Yerevan, previously closed 
for 2 years. I hope that Armenia will reciprocate and that the process 
toward improved relations--already well under way--will continue.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
proposed amendment to prohibit U.S. assistance to countries that 
prohibit or restrict the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian 
aid. This is a basic matter of principle: No country should have the 
right to interfere with the delivery of humanitarian assistance 
anywhere. When the United States provides food, medicine, and clothing 
to suffering civilian populations, in response to war or natural 
disaster, there is simply no justification for a country to block this 
assistance, especially when that country receives assistance from the 
United States itself.
  The United States goes to great lengths to ensure that nations in 
dire need for humanitarian aid receive it in the most expedient and 
efficient way. Supplying humanitarian aid to people in need is 
consistent with the basic values of our Nation, and we should not 
ignore attempts to hinder its delivery.
  This amendment would apply to all countries which receive U.S. 
assistance. However, as we all know, the major problem in this area 
today lies with Turkey's blocking of United States humanitarian aid to 
Armenia, a contemptible practice which has gone on for over 2 years.
  While Turkey has made some progress on this issue, agreeing to open 
an air corridor to Armenia, this does not begin to address the problem 
of humanitarian assistance which must be transported over land. The 
bulk of the assistance we send to Armenia requires such land 
conveyance.
  It is my hope that the administration will work with Turkey to ensure 
that all routes available for bringing humanitarian aid to Armenia are 
opened. Opening an air corridor is only the first step toward resolving 
this serious problem. Perhaps by working with Turkey on this issue, we 
can help to avoid ever having to invoke the aid cutoff called for in 
this amendment.
  It is important to note that this amendment includes a national 
security waiver, thereby recognizing the fact that there may be 
compelling national security interests which require U.S. assistance to 
countries even when the recipient is blocking humanitarian aid to 
others. This waiver also appropriately preserves the President's 
prerogative to conduct U.S. foreign policy.
  Turkey is an important United States ally, and I realize that 
assistance to Turkey is an integral part of our foreign policy to 
ensure regional security in that part of the world. However, we simply 
cannot continue to assist Turkey, or any other nation, which impedes 
the delivery of humanitarian aid to others. Again, this is a matter of 
principle, and it is my hope that my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle will support it.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


     reorganization and the foreign relations committee's business

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, earlier today some statements were made on 
the floor of the Senate concerning the proposed reorganization plan for 
the State Department. The suggestion was made that Democratic Members--
specifically those on the Foreign Relations Committee, are responsible 
for holding up the processing of Ambassadorial nominations and other 
business by delaying the passage of the reorganization plan.
  I think that suggestion warrants a response. Why? The reorganization 
plan at issue is not a bipartisan plan. I only wish it was. Its 
existence was made known only yesterday, and it was crafted without the 
knowledge or input of even one Democratic Member. Already, it is clear 
that there are serious differences and much disagreement about the 
plan.
  I have other thoughts about this plan which should be expressed 
later.
  But I just wanted to respond to the suggestion that somehow it is the 
Democratic side of the committee that is delaying the consideration of 
nominations, legislation, treaties, and other important matters.
  The truth is that there is not, nor has there ever been, a Democratic 
hold on the Foreign Relations Committee's business. It is entirely the 
prerogative and within the power of our Republican colleagues to resume 
the committee's business. The halt in activity is an attempt to force 
an amendment that is supported and written and endorsed only by 
Republicans. We should not succumb to it simply because the proponents 
state erroneously that Democratic Members are responsible for the 
delay.
  Mr. President, during the years that I chaired the Foreign Relations 
Committee, I always tried to move every nomination and conduct business 
in both a timely and collegial fashion. Never--never--during those 
years--and indeed during those years of service on the committee--since 
1964--can I recall a time when the committee was stopped dead in its 
tracks to force the consideration of a controversial measure. I do not 
think that is a proper way to conduct business and a tactic I have 
always--always resisted using over a great many years.
  I would hate to see it being used now, and the Senate becoming a 
battlefield, saying some of the Members will not do what they should do 
anyway, what they were hired to do, plus the treaty, plus the 
nomination, and in the meantime say, ``We will not do what we are 

[[Page S 14029]]
supposed to do until you do what we want you to do.'' And I think it is 
a bad precedent.
  I would hope that the Senate turns it down.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 2726

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that we may have one or two 
others who might want to speak--that we may not have any others that 
want to speak on the pending amendment.
  Am I correct, Mr. President, in understanding that the pending 
amendment is the Dole amendment on humanitarian corridors?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Republican 
leader on this amendment. In fact, I would ask to be named as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the greatest things the United 
States can do as a country with worldwide reach is to help in 
humanitarian matters. We are very, very fortunate as a country. 
Periodically, we have faced devastating situations in our own country. 
We did in Los Angeles, of course, during the earthquakes. We did in 
Florida during the hurricanes. We have seen devastation of Americans in 
the Virgin Islands, in Puerto Rico in the past few days. But we are 
such a powerful nation and such a wealthy nation that we can help each 
other out. Whether it is the flood of a couple years ago in Montpelier, 
VT, my hometown, we are America; and through our Federal Government, we 
came together to help with the floods in the Midwest of a year ago. But 
there are other countries that are so small and so poor that when they 
are faced with an earthquake or faced with tornadoes or faced with 
flooding, devastation, they have nowhere to look to but the 
international community. And the United States, along with many of our 
allies, have always responded.
  I remember earthquakes in Armenia, flooding in Bangladesh, famine in 
Africa, earthquakes in other parts of the world--Mexico, for example--
we have responded. We have the ability to reach out and fly supplies 
literally anywhere in the world. We have the ability to send medical 
technicians and experts and rescue operations and others anywhere in 
the world. It is something that, just to stop and think, in our 
lifetime, for most of us in our lifetime it was impossible for any 
nation to even think of doing this in the way that we do with the 
communications, the logistics, just the resources. And a child 
suffering loss of family because of an earthquake, anywhere in the 
world, is a child suffering; or an adult who has had their whole 
livelihood washed away in a flood, is an adult suffering, no matter 
where they are in the world.
  If the United States and the American people, through everything from 
Red Cross, Catholic Charities, Decatur, and the Federal Government, 
respond, we respond not to say, well, we will respond to this child 
because they are politically correct, but not this child because they 
have a different ideology or something, we respond because they are 
human beings suffering. We responded in countries that technically were 
countries that were adversaries of ours. We responded to people. We 
will always continue to do so. But I think when we do it, and I think 
when our allies do, we should not be blocked from giving that 
humanitarian aid because we give it not to advance a political agenda 
of the people aided or of our own. We do it to help people suffering.
  So this amendment is not intended to embarrass or cause problems with 
Turkey or any other country. It is a matter of principle. It says that 
the people's needs should not be denied aid for political reasons. We 
have given aid. I remember a time even during the cold war when those 
allied with the Soviet Union who were in need, and the United States, 
like our allies, responded to that need when called upon to. It is like 
a ship hearing another ship in distress. You do not ask what flag they 
carry; you say they are under distress, and we go to help them.
  So, I would say to any of our allies who may be concerned about such 
an amendment, this is not intended to embarrass you. It is intended to 
carry out what has always been the policy of the United States. People 
desperately need help. If we can help, we do. We do this in Vermont. If 
a neighbor's home or barn is on fire, or they are suddenly 
incapacitated, we go to help. We do this as world neighbors, too.
  Mr. President, I would hope that the amendment would be accepted. And 
while we check to see if there are others coming, I was going to put in 
a call for a quorum, although I see the distinguished chairman on his 
feet. I yield to him.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am unaware of anyone who wants to speak on this 
side, nor am I aware of any calls for a rollcall vote. So if the 
distinguished ranking member can check his side, we will be ready to 
vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I wonder in the meantime if we might just suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the purpose of my offering an amendment--I 
ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be laid aside 
temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PELL. There is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
  Mr. HELMS. In that case, I will discuss the amendment. I can 
certainly do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is in order.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me read the text of the amendment that 
I shall offer presently. It is entitled, ``Prohibition on use of funds 
for relocating Agency for International Development to Federal Triangle 
Building.''

       Section 577. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this act may be used to relocate the Agency for International 
     Development, or any part of that agency, to the Federal 
     Triangle Building in Washington, District of Columbia.

  When I send this amendment to the desk and it is stated, the Senate 
will have before it a rather interesting set of circumstances. While 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was busy approving legislation 
to abolish the Agency for International Development, this very same 
entrenched bureaucracy at AID was preparing to spend $40 million to 
move its offices into some of the most expensive real estate in the 
entire Washington area.
  Apparently, AID officials must believe they are playing with Monopoly 
money, and that the Agency for International Development has just 
landed on Boardwalk.
  In any case, the building known as the Federal Triangle and dubbed by 
one of the Washington newspapers as ``a blueprint for a boondoggle,'' 
was originally supposed to cost $362 million. But its cost ended up 
being in the neighborhood of $700 million. Tom Sherman, former 
Assistant Administrator at the General Services Administration called 
it ``the project from hell.''
  Yet, despite congressional efforts to abolish the Agency for 
International Development, that agency now intends to burrow in at this 
plush, new Taj Mahal on Pennsylvania Avenue, further isolating itself 
from the Department of State.
  (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. HELMS. Now, you will recall, Madam President, that early on I 
referred to the fact that five former Secretaries of State have 
endorsed--and now Senator Dole has joined in sponsorship--my plan was 
to reorganize the State Department and to abolish three independent 
Federal agencies. When I say independent, I mean independent.
  All three of these agencies were established as temporary Federal 
agencies. As I said earlier today, there is nothing so near eternal 
life as a temporary Federal agency. The Agency for International 
Development is one of the three agencies that would be abolished under 
my plan to reorganize the 

[[Page S 14030]]
State Department. And AID itself says its proposed move has already 
cost the taxpayers $13.6 million in fiscal years 1994 and 1995, and 
will cost at least an additional $27 million in fiscal years 1996 and 
1997.
  When a Federal agency contemplates such a move, it usually does so 
with the goal of saving taxpayers' money. But that is not the goal of 
the Agency for International Development. AID, obviously, intends to go 
in exactly the opposite direction. Right now, AID pays $20 million for 
its leases in the DC area, but after the move, AID will spend more than 
$32 million a year in rent. So this move would, in fact, increase the 
Agency for International Development's annual rent by more than a 
third.
  The pending amendment, which I shall send to the desk momentarily, 
would save at least $16 million next year alone by prohibiting AID from 
spending any money to facilitate its move out of the State Department.
  So let me explain why this move will be so costly to the American 
taxpayers, 80 percent of whom do not like the foreign aid program 
anyhow. On the chart next to me is the cost of USAID's luxury offices. 
The average cost of office space, per square foot, is $37 in DC, $23 in 
Northern Virginia, and $20 in suburban Maryland. Had the Agency for 
International Development chosen one of those sites. But, oh, no, AID 
chose the luxury building. Look at the cost--$55 per square foot. You 
can see what that is. The chart clearly shows that the average cost to 
lease space in either Virginia or Maryland is less than $29 per square 
foot. Even in central Washington the going rate for leasing space is 
$37 per square foot. But, at this moment, under the terms negotiated by 
the Agency for International Development and the General Services 
Administration, AID intends to lease space in the Federal Triangle 
building for a minimum--that is a minimum--of $55 per square foot, 
which is far more than any private business in Washington would agree 
to pay. It does not take a rocket scientist to perceive that the people 
at the Agency for International Development have been snookered in this 
deal--whether they knew it or not is yet to be determined.
  More shocking, I suppose, is that the Agency for International 
Development intends to lease a substantial amount of what it calls 
structurally-changed space for more than $97 per square foot, and that 
is three times the fair market value of this space.
  So, Madam President, while some of us in Congress are working to 
abolish the Agency for International Development, the Agency for 
International Development, itself, has been busily figuring out ways to 
spend even more Federal Government money--meaning the taxpayers' 
money--with this new move to this high-rent district.
  So I say, Madam President, I hope the Senate will vote to give the 
taxpayers a break for a change. The Agency for International 
Development neither needs, nor deserves, to be an occupant of a Taj 
Mahal. This facility, by the way, is the second largest in the District 
of Columbia, the Pentagon being the largest.
  Now then, Madam President, I send my amendment----
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Dole amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Does that have to be set aside, or is this an amendment to 
the Dole amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. It was set aside, I inform the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. The understanding of the Senator from Vermont is that it 
was not set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am told by the Parliamentarian that the 
Senator from Rhode Island objected to the Dole amendment being set 
aside. So the pending business is still the Dole amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. I think what he objected to--but I will not contest the 
issue--was my sending the amendment to the desk. If that is the Chair's 
ruling, fine. But, Madam President----
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will withhold, let me explain the 
situation, the way I understand it is.
  Madam President, I do not want to stop the Senator from bringing this 
or any other amendment up, unless it is something that requires a point 
of order. But we have one amendment pending, and that was set aside to 
take up an amendment by the distinguished Republican leader. I would 
like to start getting some of these things that are backed up here 
voted on one way or the other. I would like to get the humanitarian one 
done and then go to others.
  I say that only because I am afraid we will keep having amendments 
after amendments out here in ether and about 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock 
tonight when everybody will be coming to the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky and myself saying, ``When will we go home? on the outside 
chance we will see our family again,'' and then we start voting.
  I know that is not the intent of the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina, but I wonder if maybe we could get rid of the one that is 
there once the Senators who wish to speak on it do, and then go on to 
more.
  I know that an objection was made by the distinguished Senator from 
Rhode Island, and I will at least for the moment--I am sure the Senator 
from North Carolina understands we have to protect that objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am told by the Parliamentarian that the 
Senator from North Carolina could offer a second-degree amendment to 
the Dole amendment without unanimous consent.
  Mr. HELMS. Let me ask a parliamentary question of the Chair. I know 
the answer before I ask.
  Suppose I should call for regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If you call for regular order, the question 
would be on the Senator's first amendment, No. 2707, which is pending 
to the first amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. I am not going to do that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HELMS. I have not yielded the floor.
  I am perfectly willing, for my part, to offer my amendment as a 
second degree to the otherwise pending Dole amendment, of which I am a 
cosponsor, by the way.
  But I think I ought to do him the courtesy of asking if he has any 
objection to that.
  Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I shall not detain the Senate long. I apologize to Senators 
for the delay, but I have to say that there are too many things 
happening today.
  I was tied up in an appropriations conference on the Transportation 
appropriations bill when I understood that Mr. Dole had offered his 
amendment and hoped to have a vote soon.
  Therefore, with that explanation, I shall proceed now to what I have 
to say otherwise.
  Senator Dole has offered an amendment which, although it does not 
spell out by name the country Turkey, it is clearly aimed at Turkey. 
The amendment, a repeat of S. 230, the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act, 
cuts U.S. assistance to countries that ``prohibit or restrict the 
transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance'' to 
other countries. It is clearly aimed at Turkey's refusal to allow aid 
to pass through Turkey to Armenia.
  I would like to say I have been listening to statements that have 
been made and I would like to, as Paul Harvey says on the radio--or 
used to say, I do not get a chance to listen to him anymore--tell ``the 
rest of the story.'' Why does Turkey restrict the passage of aid to 
Armenia? Or, I should say, why did Turkey restrict the  passage of aid 
to Armenia, since Turkey opened the air corridor from Erzurum to 
Yerevan on April 20, 1995, subject to the establishment of direct 
communication links and an aviation protocol between the two countries?

  Prior to 1993, Turkey allowed hundreds of tons of third party 
assistance to pass through its territory and airspace to Armenia. But 
in 1993, Armenia escalated the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an 
autonomous region of ethnic Armenians located within the 

[[Page S 14031]]
Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan and Armenia are both neighbors of 
Turkey. Currently, more than 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory is 
occupied by Armenia, and one of every seven Azerbaijanis is a refugee 
in his own country. At the time, the official U.S. reaction was to 
condemn the Armenian offensive, which undermined the CSCE-sponsored--
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe--CSCE-sponsored peace 
process. Human rights groups have chronicled the human rights abuses 
against Azerbaijan. In February 1995, the Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 
group published a 118-page report on the subject, entitled 
``Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh.'' Madam 
President, if human rights were the real issue here, perhaps aid to 
Armenia should also be reduced.
  So, I say this just to say that this is a matter that is so more 
complicated than has been presented thus far. The government of Turkey 
is not to be said to be acting capriciously. It has responded to the 
concerns of its own citizens, who are culturally closer to the Azeris 
than to the Armenians. Public opinion in Turkey, something that we 
respect a great deal in this country, would not support assistance 
going to Armenia. Humanitarian aid to Armenia, which would allow that 
nation to concentrate on a military offensive in Azerbaijan while still 
addressing the needs of its own people, while Azeris were being turned 
into refugees, simply could not be tolerated. Cutting off the passage 
of aid was a political decision, designed to help push for the end of 
the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan as quickly as possible. 
This is not unreasonable, but it is understandable.
  I would also note, as an aside, that Armenia is slated to receive $85 
million in U.S. assistance from this bill. However, as there is some 
question as to Armenia's cooperation in allowing humanitarian aid to 
reach Azerbaijan, it is not entirely clear that Armenia will not also 
be caught in the net that is being woven in this amendment for Turkey.
  Finally, I would like to again remind my colleagues of the many sound 
reasons the United States has for maintaining a strong relationship 
with Turkey. I have only yesterday noted the unique position of Turkey 
as a moderate, predominately Muslim nation, a representative democracy 
in a region that is increasingly becoming radicalized and extremist. 
Turkey was among the first nations to recognize Israel, and it has been 
an example and a supporter of peace in the Middle East.
  Turkey is also a member of NATO, and during the Cold War was 
responsible for defending 37 percent of the NATO/Warsaw Pact border, 
along the strategically critical Southern Front. Turkey continues to 
maintain a large military, like the United States, but unlike most 
other NATO allies. This military security allowed Turkey to stand 
bravely with the West, in the face of some internal opposition, against 
Saddam Hussein, and all this despite a 331 kilometer border with Iraq. 
Turkey has paid the price for that cooperation. It closed the oil 
pipeline from Iraq, losing millions in revenues. It has supported the 
economic sanctions against Iraq, previously its second largest trading 
partner. It made quite a sacrifice in doing that. Over 2,700 air 
sorties to strike Iraq originated in Incirlik, Turkey. Since the war, 
over 23,000 sorties flown over Iraq to protect the Kurds in northern 
Iraq have been flown from bases in Turkey. The U.S. Operation Provide 
Comfort to support the Kurds in Iraq would not be possible without the 
support of the Turkish government and its people.
  Both Secretary of Defense Perry and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, General Shalikashvili, have written letters in support of a 
continued strong U.S.-Turkish relationship. A continued strong 
relationship with Turkey is in our interest. It is in the interests of 
Turkey. It is in the interests of Israel. It is in the interests of 
Greece.
  Poorly disguised pro-Armenian, anti-Turkish amendments and bills 
serve only to undermine the support that the United States needs to 
serve our interests in sustaining Iraqi sanctions, honoring our promise 
to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq, promoting moderation in Middle 
East politics, and maintaining the NATO alliance.
  Madam President, this amendment does contain a waiver for national 
security reasons. I hope that, should this amendment be adopted, the 
President will exercise that waiver and maintain a strong and important 
U.S.-Turkish relationship.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from 
the Secretary of Defense, Mr. William Perry, dated May 24, 1995, in 
which letter Mr. Perry writes as follows:

       I am also disturbed by some provisions of H.R. 1561 which 
     would impose unnecessary restrictions on the ability of the 
     President to conduct U.S. foreign policy. Its prohibition on 
     assistance to countries which in any way restrict the flow of 
     U.S. humanitarian aid would unduly damage our important 
     security relations with Turkey.

  And, also, a letter written to representative Sonny Callahan, member 
of the House Appropriations Committee, and signed by the chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John M. Shalikashvili, in which he states--I 
will include this in the Record:

       Imposing more restrictions on this valued ally will only 
     hinder our attempts to encourage progress and bring about 
     lasting change. The Turks are proud people, and respect for 
     the military is a time-honored tradition. By withdrawing 
     support for them and taking on the role of adversary, we lose 
     access to key decision makers. Recent progress combined with 
     Turkey's unquestioned strategic importance, should drive the 
     United States to increase support to Turkey in order to 
     achieve our objectives, not destroy bilateral relations.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed 
in the Record in its entirety at this point, as well as a statement by 
Nick Burns, Office of the Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, dated 
April 30, 1995, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         The Secretary of Defense,


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Gephardt: I am deeply concerned by some 
     of the recommendations of the Committee on International 
     Relations regarding the American Overseas Interests Act of 
     1995 (H.R. 1561), particularly as they affect the President's 
     International Affairs (150) budget request. The 150 budget is 
     critical to our ability to protect our nation's security 
     interests. Though these funds are provided in the 150 
     account, the Department of Defense has a direct stake in the 
     outcome of this debate, because they directly support our 
     national security program.
       H.R. 1561, as reported by the Committee, would authorize 
     150 programs at significantly reduced levels. Adequate 
     International Affairs funding, however, is essential to 
     crisis prevention and gives us an alternative to unilateral 
     U.S. action in support of our interests. For example, foreign 
     affairs spending can mitigate internal and regional conflicts 
     that, left to fester, could require U.S. military logistical 
     involvement and possibly direct intervention, with escalating 
     human and material costs. The costs of such contingencies are 
     borne primarily in the DOD budget at the expense of military 
     readiness. Underfunding the International Affairs budget, in 
     my view, runs the risk that the United States will be unable 
     to protect its interests except with military force.
       I am also disturbed by some provisions of H.R. 1561 which 
     would impose unnecessary restrictions on the ability of the 
     President to conduct U.S. foreign policy. Its prohibition on 
     assistance to countries which in any way restrict the flow of 
     U.S. humanitarian aid would unduly damage our important 
     security relationship with Turkey. Cutting off security 
     assistance to this important Western-style democracy would 
     only hurt our efforts to contain the threats in the Middle 
     East. Other restrictions in H.R. 1561 would hinder our 
     ability to implement and fund the Agreed Framework with North 
     Korea, undercutting our achievements in preventing the spread 
     of nuclear weapons. Finally, H.R. 1561 would restrict our 
     ability to contribute to international organizations which 
     can help shoulder our security burden.
       I appreciate the support for military assistance 
     activities, particularly IMET, included in H.R. 1561. 
     However, for the reasons stated above, I would recommend that 
     the President veto the bill if it were presented to him in 
     its present form.
           Sincerely,
     William J. Perry.
                                                                    ____

     Hon. Sonny Callahan,
     House Appropriations Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Callahan: Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
     my views on the military importance of Turkey. Now that 
     Turkey occupies the new front line in the post-Cold War era, 
     the strategic value to the United States of having a staunch 
     and steadfast ally situated in a critical strategic location 
     in the flanks and Middle East cannot be overstated.

[[Page S 14032]]

       Turkey has had a tradition of supporting Western interests 
     over the past 50 years. From 1950 to 1953, Turkey provided a 
     4,500-man infantry brigade to join the United States in the 
     U.N. effort in Korea. Turkish forces fought with enormous 
     valor and distinction. Turkey was also the bulwark of NATO's 
     southern flank during nearly the entire Cold War, defending 
     37% of the NATO-Warsaw Pact land frontier, as well as 
     Turkey's Black Sea coast and the straits controlling Soviet 
     access to the Mediterranean.
       During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Turkey 
     was a stalwart supporter of the United States and coalition 
     efforts. Turkey allowed the deployment of Joint Task Force 
     Proven Force fighters and other aircraft to Incirlik Air 
     Base. The Turks allowed strike missions against Iraq from 
     Incirlik--almost 2,700 sorties were flown from Turkish 
     territory. The Turks have paid a heavy price for their 
     support of the coalition during the Gulf War, due not only to 
     the closing of the Turkish-Iraqi oil pipeline but also as a 
     result of sanctions against Iraq, formerly Turkey's second 
     largest trading partner. As of 19 June, the coalition has 
     flown over 23,000 sorties out of Incirlik in support of 
     humanitarian operations protecting the Kurds of northern 
     Iraq. Further, without Turkish military support, our 
     humanitarian operations in Provide Comfort would have long 
     since been terminated and Saddam Hussein would have 
     subjugated the Kurds of northern Iraq.
       Additionally, the Turks have stood with us in Somalia, 
     contributing 350 troops and the commander of the military 
     elements of the U.N. force after U.S. forces withdrew. They 
     also support current operations in Deny Flight and Sharp 
     Guard with over 1,500 troops in UNPROFOR in Bosnia. Turkey 
     represents a positive role in the Middle East peace equation 
     and uses traditional influence with the Central Asian 
     Republics to spread democratic values, secular principles, 
     and to promote market-based economies. In our endeavors to 
     reduce tensions in the Aegean between Greece and Turkey, the 
     Turkish military has been forthcoming in providing unilateral 
     good faith gestures toward the Greeks and working with us to 
     establish military-to-military Confidence Building Measures 
     to bring about a reduction in tensions.
       Turkey's continued participation NATO as a strong ally of 
     the U.S. remains vitally important as new security 
     arrangements evolve in Europe. Next to the U.S., Turkey 
     maintains the largest standing army in NATO. We have 
     supported their efforts to modernize commensurate with the 
     threats they face in this rough neighborhood. While some of 
     Turkey's neighbors continue development of weapons of mass 
     destruction, Turkey faces increasing fiscal constraints in 
     efforts to modernize and remains vulnerable to the threats 
     posed by these weapons.
       It is my understanding some individuals would eliminate 
     military assistance to Turkey based on human rights concerns. 
     The Turkish military is actively engaging in efforts to 
     improve human rights awareness among its personnel. Progress 
     is visible in their newfound willingness to discuss this 
     sensitive issue openly. They have instituted new rules of 
     engagement for all military operations and provided 
     additional training to many soldiers assigned to anti-
     terrorist operations. While the recent operations in northern 
     Iraq drew sharp criticism from many of Turkey's European 
     neighbors, evidence indicates that Turkish military went to 
     great lengths to protect the lives of innocent civilians 
     while destroying terrorist base camps. There has been, in 
     short, significant progress on the human rights front.
       I have personally engaged General Karadayl, Turkey's Chief 
     of Defense, in dialogue regarding human rights and found him 
     to be willing to assist in moving forward with new measures 
     aimed at enhancing Turkish democracy and human rights. The 
     Turkish military leadership is backing progress on human 
     rights and is ready to make a concerted effort to see 
     democratization legislation pass. Imposing more restrictions 
     on this valued ally will only hinder our attempts to 
     encourage progress and bring about lasting change. The Turks 
     are proud people, and respect for the military is a time-
     honored tradition. By withdrawing support for them and taking 
     on the role of adversary, we lose access to key decision 
     makers. Recent progress combined with Turkey's unquestioned 
     strategic importance, should drive the United States to 
     increase support to Turkey in order to achieve our 
     objectives, not destroy bilateral relations.
       Your support in ensuring continued military assistance to 
     Turkey is appreciated. Please do not hesitate to call if I 
     can be of further assistance.
     Sincerely,
                                            John M. Shalikashvili,
     Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
                                                                    ____

                                         U.S. Department of State,


                                      Office of the Spokesman,

                                                   April 20, 1995.

                  [Statement by Nick Burns, Spokesman]

              Turkey: Opening of Air Corridor With Armenia

       The United States is pleased to note that the government of 
     Turkey has decided to reopen an air corridor to Armenia. This 
     should help the flow of humanitarian aid to Armenia. It 
     represents the first concrete step in what appears to be a 
     warming trend in Turkish-Armenian relations, and can help 
     further efforts for peace in Nagorno-Karabakh and stability 
     in the region.

  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, let me respond just briefly to my friend 
from West Virginia, and he is my friend. I have tremendous respect for 
him, and he gives us a historical perspective not only in the Senate 
but from the centuries. If you visit the Simon household you will see 
in our dining room a print of a painting by a young Robert Byrd done 
some years ago. I forget the year. I am sure Robert Byrd could tell us 
the year of that painting.
  Mr. BYRD. It would have to be at least, Madam President, 100 years 
ago for me to have been young.
  [Laughter]
  Although I feel that my spirit is still young.
  Mr. SIMON. But let me, Madam President, respond to what Senator Byrd 
had to say. When he called this a poorly disguised anti-Turkey 
amendment, both Senator Dole and I mentioned in discussing the 
amendment initially that it would immediately affect Turkey. There has 
been no attempt to hide that. Though the principle, we think, is sound, 
a nation that denies humanitarian assistance to another nation should 
not get American foreign aid.
  On the situation in Karabakh, I have not visited that region. I have 
visited Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, and Baku, the capital of 
Azerbaijan. Karabakh is a region where the large majority of people are 
Armenian by heritage. Again, I say this as someone who has not visited 
the area, but there is a division of opinion within Karabakh. Some of 
them want that as an independent country. Some of them want Karabakh to 
be part of Armenia.
  But the Government of Armenia, while clearly the sympathy and public 
opinion in Armenia is powerful just as it is in Turkey--Senator Byrd 
mentioned public opinion in Turkey--the Government of Armenia has 
assisted by providing electricity to Karabakh, and there is at least 
the strong possibility, maybe a probability, that they have provided 
some weapons to assist the government there. Whether that has been done 
by the government or whether it has been done surreptitiously just by 
volunteers I frankly do not know. But there is in that region now a 
cease-fire, and there is movement toward negotiation.
  There have been small steps forward. And one of the small steps 
forward was mentioned by Senator Byrd. When the Prime Minister of 
Turkey--and right now the Prime Minister of Turkey is trying to 
reorganize the Government of Turkey, as I am sure Senator Byrd is 
aware. But she has shown some small steps toward reconciliation with 
Armenia. We ought to be encouraging those small steps, and other steps 
to be taken. That is the aim of this resolution.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield just at that point?
  Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. We should be encouraging additional steps. I am just not 
sure that this is the way to go about it.
  Mr. SIMON. That is where my friend and I differ. I think this is a 
way to send a message, and as the Senator from West Virginia has 
pointed out, we have flexibility in here. The President can negate 
this. The President can say it is in our national interest to go ahead 
despite this violation. So I think it is wise.
  One other point Senator Byrd makes that I think is a point which we 
should keep in mind--not only in this but in other things. Turkey is 
predominantly a Moslem country. We are going to have to be more 
sensitive to the Moslem world than we have been. We have in the United 
States more Moslems than we have Presbyterians today, one of the 
amazing statistics, at least as it applies to me when I learned it. 
That is why I think what we did in Somalia by helping the people of 
Somalia was very important, and I think it was one of George Bush's 
finest hours despite the criticism that sometimes is made of our small 
reaction.
  But the principle that is established here in the Dole amendment I 
think is sound. Does it apply to Turkey right now? Yes. Will it apply 
in other situations in the future? Yes. Do we have flexibility with it? 
Yes. Because we permit the President of the United States to have a 
waiver. 

[[Page S 14033]]

  So I think the resolution should be adopted. I hope we will accept 
it, and move ahead.
  Again, I make clear that neither on the part of Senator Dole nor on 
my part is this designed as an anti-Turkey amendment. It is a message, 
however, to the Turkish Government.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, my distinguished friend says that this 
amendment sends a message. He interprets the message in a different way 
from the way I interpret it. That is what I am concerned about. It will 
not be interpreted in Turkey as the way, perhaps, Senator Simon wants 
it to be. I cannot speak authoritatively, of course. But I do not 
believe this is the way to send a positive message to the Turks. I am 
concerned that we will send a message that backfires. I have no 
particular ax to grind for Turkey, or for Greece, or for Israel. I am 
not anti-Turkey. I am not anti-Armenian. I am not anti-Israel, and I am 
not anti-Greek. I am pro all of them. But I am even more pro-American. 
My first interest and my last interest, and my interest all the time, 
is in what I feel to be the best interests of the United States of 
America.
  I think we sometimes offer amendments that may appeal to this, or 
that, or some other special interest group or lobby, and there are some 
pretty powerful ones that can sway a lot of votes in this Senate. I 
suppose in that regard, I might wish that Turkey had a more powerful 
American lobby. Turkey does not have a powerful lobby in this country. 
And for that matter neither do the American people.
  I am here lobbying for the American people. I do not claim to be more 
patriotic than any other Senator. I do not ascribe any ulterior purpose 
to anyone. We are all patriotic. But I am afraid that we may weaken and 
undermine the interests of our own country when we become a little 
overly enthusiastic at times in sending so-called messages to countries 
that are our friends, and that have demonstrated time and time again 
their friendship towards the United States.
  Look at the strategic position of Turkey on the map. The people of 
Israel, and the people of Greece should recognize that there is a 
strong Turkey protecting their flanks and their security 
interests. There are forces within Turkey that are striving to turn 
Turkey's face away from the West and may someday succeed in converting 
Turkey into another Iran. Then where would Israel be? Then where would 
Greece be? Then where would NATO be? Our own security interests would 
suffer. I am just pro United States, and I see Turkey as a friend, an 
ally. So we cannot afford to insult her. It seems that we have a 
proclivity for wanting to slap Turkey around--to send a ``message.''

  Madam President, I respect the views of other Senators, but I hope 
the Senate will not adopt this amendment. If it does, I hope that the 
President will exercise the authority to waive this provision.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I do not believe there are any other 
speakers on this side of the aisle on the Dole amendment, nor do I have 
a request for a rollcall vote. So I think we are ready to move forward.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would be perfectly happy, since no one 
is requesting a rollcall vote on this side, to go with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2726) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I wish to inquire of the managers or acting manager, as 
the case may be, is there now any objection to my setting aside 
temporarily the pending amendment so that I can have stated the 
amendment that I have already discussed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. I am not sure I understand the question. There was some 
noise here, and I literally could not hear the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from North Carolina asking that 
the pending amendment be set aside so that he can offer his amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. All pending amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All pending amendments. That is the question.
  Is there objection to setting aside all the pending amendments so the 
Senator from North Carolina----
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, if I inferred or if I implied that I want 
to set aside the committee amendment, I do not want to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am not sure. Has the Senator made that 
request, or was he asking Senator McConnell as the manager, and myself 
as the ranking manager whether we would accept such a request? That was 
my problem.
  Mr. HELMS. The communication will go all the way down. I do not 
understand what the Senator said.
  Mr. LEAHY. We seem to have a communication problem.
  Might we enter a quorum call for just a moment?
  Mr. HELMS. Fine.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam 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. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.


      Amendment No. 2727 to Committee Amendment on Page 2, Line 25

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for relocating the Agency for 
International Development to the Federal Triangle Building, Washington, 
                         District of Columbia)

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, oh, about 30, 40 minutes ago I was 
delayed in having my amendment, which is now at the desk, stated.
  When I asked unanimous consent to have all amendments laid aside, 
except the committee amendment, there was an objection. Now there is no 
objection, as I understand it. So I now ask that the amendment be 
stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  If not, the clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2727 to the committee amendment on page 2, 
     line 25.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the committee amendment insert 
     the following:


  prohibition on use of funds for relocating aid to federal triangle 
                                building

       Sec. 577. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act may be used to relocate the Agency for International 
     Development, or any part of that agency, to the Federal 
     Triangle Building in Washington, District of Columbia.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, while the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee was busy approving legislation abolishing the Agency for 
International Development, the entrenched bureaucracy at AID has been 
preparing to spend $40 million to move its offices into some of the 
most expensive real estate in the entire Washington area. Apparently, 
AID officials think they are playing with monopoly money and that AID 
has just landed on Boardwalk.
  The building, known as the Federal Triangle and dubbed by the 
Washington Times a ``Blueprint for a Boondoggle,'' was originally 
supposed to cost $362 million but its cost has soared to $700 million. 
Tom Sherman, former assistant administrator of GSA called it the 
project from Hell. Yet, despite congressional efforts to abolish AID, 
they intend to burrow-in at this plush, 

[[Page S 14034]]
new Taj Mahal on Pennsylvania Avenue, further isolating AID from the 
Department of State.
  According to AID, its proposed move has already cost taxpayers $13.6 
million in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and will cost at least an 
additional $27 million in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Now, when a 
Federal agency contemplates a move, it usually does so with the goal of 
saving taxpayers money. But AID intends to do just the opposite. Right 
now, AID pays $20 million annually for its leases in the D.C. area. 
After the move, AID plans to spend more than $32 million a year in 
rent--so this move would actually increase AID's annual rent by more 
than one-third.
  The pending amendment would save at least $16 million next year by 
prohibiting AID from spending any money to facilitate its move out of 
the State Department.
  Let me attempt to explain why this move will be so costly to the 
taxpayers. The chart next to me illustrates how much AID intends to 
spend per square foot for this new lease as compared to lease costs 
elsewhere in the Washington area.
  The chart clearly shows that the average cost to lease space in 
Washington is less than $29 per square foot. Even in central 
Washington, the going rate for lease space is only $37 per square foot. 
But right now, under the terms negotiated between AID and the General 
Services Administration [GSA], AID intends to lease space in the 
Federal Triangle building for a minimum of $55 per square foot--far 
more than any private business in Washington would agree to pay. It 
does not take a mathematician to know that the folks at AID have been 
snookered on this deal.
  More shocking, AID intends to lease a substantial amount of what it 
calls structurally changed space for more than $97 per square foot--
triple the fairmarket value of this space. So, while Congress is 
working to abolish AID, AID is busy figuring out ways to spend more 
Federal money with this move to the high-rent district.
  Mr. President, let us give the taxpayers a break. AID does not need a 
new Taj Mahal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2727) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is my understanding we are down to 
about four or five amendments left that would require a rollcall vote, 
other than amendments that the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee may have and that the majority leader may have. So 
I would like to encourage--and I see one of those Senators here on the 
floor, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
  Again, let me repeat, we are down to about four or five amendments 
that will require a rollcall vote, other than the amendments that may 
be offered by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee and by the majority leader. So that is where we are at the 
moment. I see Senator Bingaman here.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator includes in that--so we make 
sure we understand--one that would obviously require a rollcall. That 
would be the major reorganization amendment that we debated earlier 
today.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Vermont that is one of the 
amendments of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, while we are waiting for just some 
administrative work being done on an amendment which is about to be 
offered, we have here, at least as it came out of committee, basically 
a very straightforward appropriations bill. The distinguished chairman 
and myself worked very, very hard on this. We tried to accommodate the 
concerns and desires of Republicans and Democrats alike in the 
Appropriations Committee and others who came to us with amendments. 
Those things that we could not agree on when we did it, we had votes in 
the committee on them.
  We are now, on the 21st of September, 9 days before the end of the 
fiscal year, on one of the 13 major appropriation bills that have to be 
passed. Frankly, I would like to see--and I suspect the distinguished 
chairman agrees with this--I would like to see if sometime by early 
evening we could just vote and pass all of these; either vote these 
amendments up or vote them down, and then vote up or vote down on the 
final bill. And I urge our colleagues to work toward that end.
  Frankly, my willingness to accept or accommodate amendments 
diminishes as the Dracula hour approaches. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2728

  (Purpose: To allow residents of the United States to send to their 
  immediate family members in Cuba small amounts of money to pay for 
      basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2728.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROTECTION OF HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS.

       Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary:
       (a) Family Support Payments.--Residents of the United 
     States shall not be prohibited from sending to their parents, 
     siblings, spouses, or children currently residing in Cuba 
     small amounts of money (not to exceed $200 per month) to be 
     used for the purchase of basic necessities, including food, 
     clothing, household supplies, rent, medicine, and medical 
     care.
       (b) Compassionate Travel.--Residents of the United States 
     shall not be prohibited from traveling to Cuba for a period 
     up to thirty (30) days to attend to a medical emergency 
     involving, or to attend the funeral of, such resident's 
     parent, sibling, spouse, or child.
       (c) National Disaster Relief.--The United States shall not 
     be prohibited from participating in humanitarian relief 
     efforts of multilateral organizations of which the United 
     States is a member, where such humanitarian relief efforts 
     are made in the aftermath of a natural disaster on the island 
     of Cuba.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment, as the language of the 
amendment just read indicates, is an effort to put the Senate on record 
and the Congress on record as favoring protection of some basic 
humanitarian efforts made by Americans on behalf of the Cuban people.
  More importantly, it also allows Cuban-Americans currently residing 
in the United States to ease the suffering of immediate family members 
who they may have still remaining in Cuba.
  First, the amendment would allow Cuban-Americans and American 
citizens who currently reside in the United States to provide modest 
cash remittances of not more than $200 a month to immediate family 
members.
  The reason that this is an important provision is that, as I 
understand it, we presently have in place a policy or Executive order 
that is prohibiting those remittances. That has been in place ever 
since we were negotiating sometime last year with the Cuban Government. 
I do not believe that this will hurt any efforts to bring democracy to 
Cuba or aid the Cuban Government, but it will go a great distance in 
aiding or in easing the suffering of the Cuban people.
  Second, the amendment would protect the rights of Cuban-Americans to 
travel to Cuba in the event of a medical emergency or death in their 
immediate family. Cuban-Americans would be able to travel for periods 
of up to 30 days for such emergencies. I am sure my colleagues would 
agree that any individual should be able to freely travel in order to 
attend the funeral of a family member or deal with a family medical 
emergency.
  Finally, the amendment says that the United States would not be 
prohibited from participating in humanitarian efforts of multilateral 
organizations in the aftermath of any natural 

[[Page S 14035]]
disaster that might occur involving the island of Cuba. These 
international efforts or humanitarian efforts referred to would be 
efforts initiated by multilateral organizations of which we are already 
a member, and we, of course, would be aiding in relief efforts through 
those organizations.
  Mr. President, I am sure that all Members of the Senate will agree 
that the protection of these basic humanitarian efforts by Americans 
and Cuban-Americans on behalf of the Cuban people and family members is 
the right thing to do. We may have serious disagreements about United 
States policy and how that policy can best achieve democracy in Cuba, 
but surely we can all agree that such a policy should not be inhumane 
to the people of that country.
  Our Government's dispute with the Cuban Government should not 
interfere with clearly humanitarian efforts and basic family rights of 
Cuban-Americans residing in this country.
  Mr. President, I believe it is important for the Senate to be on 
record in support of this, particularly in light of some of the 
Executive orders that have been issued recently.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Pell, the Senator from Rhode Island, be listed as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Chair inform me as to what the 
lineup of amendments is as they now stand?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering an amendment of the 
Senator from New Mexico, amendment No. 2728.
  Mr. HELMS. That is the pending business. There are three other 
amendments in line, are there not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two other amendments were set aside. One is an 
amendment of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, and the other an 
amendment by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina for himself 
and for Senator Dole.
  Mr. HELMS. May I ask the manager of the bill, do they intend to 
accept the amendment? Does the Senator from New Mexico intend to ask 
for the yeas and nays on his amendment?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to the Senator from North Carolina, I was 
hoping to have a vote on the amendment that I have offered. I would be 
glad to do that at this time.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we need to withhold from going to the 
vote. We have not cleared the time yet on this side.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence----
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will withhold. Would the Senator like to 
set aside the pending amendment so I can call up another amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina suggesting that we handle the--I do not see a number on this--
PLO amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. Middle East peace, yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding that that has been cleared by 
both sides. Is that Senator Leahy's understanding?
  Mr. LEAHY. I am doublechecking that right now. If it is, we can 
dispense with it in about 2 minutes. Maybe we can save ourselves even 
more time if we can withhold for just a couple of minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. In any case, if the Senator will yield, I do have a 
statement which would take 5, 10 minutes in connection with the 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have no problem with that at all. That might kill two 
birds with one stone.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the managers of the bill. I shall be as brief as 
possible. This amendment, as I understand it, has been cleared on both 
sides. I hope that is correct.
  Mr. President, Senator Pell, the distinguished Senator from Rhode 
Island and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I and 
the several other cosponsors of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act 
of 1995 introduced our bill, S. 1064, on July 21, with the now-obvious 
overly-optimistic assumption that it could and would be incorporated 
into the State Department authorization bill.
  I shall not recount the well-known reasons why the Foreign Relations 
Committee's State Department authorization bill was given such scant 
consideration by the minority of the Senate, except to say that it ran 
into bureaucratic bombardment from the State Department, the White 
House, and a coterie of independent agency bureaucrats who were 
tormented by the very idea that their multibillion dollar playpens 
might be broken up, which, I might add, was precisely the intent of my 
piece of legislation.
  In any case, here we are with the Foreign Relations Committee's 
authorization bill now in part tacked onto the appropriations bill.
  I certainly find no joy in that set of circumstances. The 
authorization bill, S. 1964, had bipartisan support, in part because 
there was a fairly explicit presumption that Chairman Gilman, the 
distinguished gentleman over in the House, chairman of the House 
International Relations Committee, and I would be able to act on our 
respective reservations about the authorization bill when it went to 
conference. Now all of that is out the window--at least for the time 
being. So, as it turned out, Ben Gilman and I never got the chance.
  There are a number of improvements that can and should be made to 
this legislation. But let me offer some purely personal and fundamental 
problems that I have with the so-called Middle East Peace Facilitation 
Act, which is now pending.
  If you wonder if I trust Yasser Arafat, the answer is ``no.'' His 
hands are bloody; his career is smeared with unspeakable acts of 
terrorism. I will never fully understand how the leaders of Israel 
could reach the decision to turn over land to Arafat, a man whose creed 
calls for the destruction of the nation of Israel, and whose co-
conspirators have referred to Israel as the ``eternal enemy.''
  Will this peace process convince Arafat that he cannot promote peace 
while he is winking at gun-toting terrorists in Hamas? I do not know, 
but I frankly doubt it. Will it matter to Arafat that the Congress of 
the United States regards Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that 
this Congress has not the slightest predisposition or intent to help 
finance PLO offices in Jerusalem? I think not.
  One thing is certain about the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 
1995, the pending amendment. One thing or the other is going to happen. 
Yasser Arafat will have a final opportunity to demonstrate that for 
once a leopard can change its spots. He will have an opportunity to 
astonish everybody by demonstrating that he does indeed wish to join 
the ranks of the decent and honorable in this violent and troubled 
world. He may astonish me, and I pray that he can and that he will.
  All around are leaders willing to risk giving Yasser Arafat one last 
chance. I fear that I know what is going to happen down the road, and 
not very far down the road. As is so often said, ``let's give peace a 
chance,'' even if it proves to be one last exercise in futility.
  I have several amendments to offer, none of which will kill the peace 
process, and the PLO can comply with each and every one of them if 
Yasser Arafat has even a spark of genuineness in him.
  First, although Senators may not be aware of it, the PLO has at least 
10 offices operating within the city limits of Jerusalem. The PLO does 
not belong in Jerusalem. If those offices are not shut down within 6 
months, then under this amendment, all U.S. aid to the PLO would be cut 
off.
  Second, 2 years ago Yasser Arafat pledged he would cooperate in 
providing information regarding the fate of 

[[Page S 14036]]
an Israeli-American soldier captured by a PLO faction. To the best of 
anybody's knowledge, he has not done that. No doubt there is 
information in Mr. Arafat's hands about other Americans held by the PLO 
and those affiliated with the PLO.
  The President of the United States, under this amendment, must 
certify that Yasser Arafat is being specifically helpful in the search 
by the United States for information regarding victims of terrorism. 
Surely this is a small request in return for assistance that the United 
States provides.
  Third, this Middle East Peace Facilitation Act is to be 18 months in 
duration. Several Members of the House of Representatives have argued 
for a 12-month bill. I happen to believe they are right. The situation 
in the Middle East is so fluid that 12 months will serve everyone 
better, in my judgment.
  Then I have two technical amendments which will follow shortly to 
clean up some unclear language regarding the Palestinian covenant and 
the participation of active terrorist groups in Palestinian elections. 
I doubt that anybody in this Chamber will find either of these 
objectionable.
  In summary, there has been a great deal of discontent and doubt about 
this peace process. I hope we can relieve some of that. I do hope that 
all Senators who have suggested alternatives or amendments to MEPFA, I 
hope they will offer them for an open discussion that will, of course, 
benefit all of us.
  Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment of the Senator from North 
Carolina is acceptable on this side.
  I wonder if the distinguished floor manager would be interested in 
doing it this way: That we pass by voice vote the amendment by the 
Senator from North Carolina and then go for rollcall, the yeas and nays 
having been ordered on the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, approving the Helms amendment is fine.
  I indicated to the Senator from New Mexico that the Senator from 
Florida, Senator Mack, will want to speak on his amendment, so we will 
not be able to go forward on the Bingaman amendment yet.
  I see no problem in moving ahead on the Helms amendment that is 
currently before the Senate. I am aware of no opposition to it, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been offered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am referring to the amendment that the Senator from 
North Carolina has been speaking about.


           Amendment No. 2729 to the Last Committee Amendment

       (Purpose: To Amend the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act)

  Mr. HELMS. I send an amendment to the desk for immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2729.

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

       On page 113, lines 25 and 26, strike ``eighteen'' and 
     insert ``twelve''.
       On page 119, line 15, insert ``and thereby nullified'' 
     after the phrase ``effectively disavowed''.
       On page 120, lines 3 and 4, strike ``in accordance with the 
     terms that may be agreed with Israel'' and insert ``that 
     neither engage in nor practice terrorism or violence in the 
     implementation of their political goals''.
       On page 120, line 15, strike ``and''.
       On page 120, line 19, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 120, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       (7) the P.L.O. has not funded, either partially or wholly, 
     or has ceased funding, either partially or wholly, any 
     office, or other presence of the Palestinian Authority in 
     Jerusalem.
       (8) the P.L.O. is cooperating fully with the Government of 
     the United States on the provision of information on United 
     States nationals known to have been held at any time by the 
     P.L.O. or factions thereof.

       At the appropriate place in the Committee amendment, insert 
     the following new section:


                  coercive population control methods

       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 
     other law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     made available for the United Nations Population Fund 
     (UNFPA), unless the President certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that (1) the United Nations 
     Population Fund has terminated all activities in the People's 
     Republic of China; or (2) during the 12 months preceding such 
     certification, there have been no abortions as the result of 
     coercion associated with the family planning policies of the 
     national government or other governmental entities within the 
     People's Republic of China. As used in this section the term 
     ``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction 
     or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or 
     severe psychological pressure.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2729) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a few minutes ago we passed the 
humanitarian corridor amendment, of which I was a cosponsor. I ask 
unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have an unprinted amendment--it is a 
printed amendment--at the desk. I ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask unanimous consent to set 
aside the pending amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes, sir. I thank the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Amendment No. 2730 To The Committee Amendment

(Purpose: To restrict the availability of funds for the U.N. Population 
                             Fund (UNFPA))

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

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2730 to the committee amendment.

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

       At the appropriate place in the Committee amendment, insert 
     the following new section:


                  coercive population control methods

       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 
     other law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     made available for the United Nations Population Fund 
     (UNFPA), unless the President certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that (1) the United Nations 
     Population Fund has terminated all activities in the People's 
     Republic of China; or (2) during the 12 months preceding such 
     certification, there have been no abortions as the result of 
     coercion associated with the family planning policies of the 
     national government or other governmental entities within the 
     People's Republic of China. As used in this section the term 
     ``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction 
     or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or 
     severe psychological pressure.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment is directed toward 
the U.N. Population Program familiarly known as UNFPA. It is directed 
at the U.N. Population Program and the People's Republic of China.
  The arrest earlier this year of my friend, Harry Wu--and he is a 
friend of a lot of Senators here--again highlights, I think, China's 
dismal human 

[[Page S 14037]]
rights record. And of course all Senators have heard the horror stories 
associated with the brutal population control program of the People's 
Republic of China.
  The pending bill proposes to hand over another $35 million to UNFPA--
$20 million less than the Clinton administration proposed in my 
judgment, and I think the judgment of many other Senators, it is still 
$35 million too much. I, therefore, expect a few UNFPA defenders to 
come down to the Senate floor and say that U.N. Population Program 
activities in China really don't matter because UNFPA does some good 
things elsewhere. Others will claim that language specifically 
restricting the United States contribution from being used in China is 
all that is needed. But, I do not buy that, and neither do the American 
people, if I am any judge of the attitude of the people.
  Either UNFPA is mixed up in China's grotesque and cruel population 
control program, or it is not. And the fact is, UNFPA helped design 
China's one-child-per-family population control program 20 years ago, 
and it has actively supported the program ever since. Indeed, UNFPA 
holds up China's program as a model for the developing world.
  The pending amendment insists that the U.N. Population Program 
terminate its activities in China or the United States Government will 
terminate its association with UNFPA. It is as simple as that. The 
amendment is identical to language in the House version of this bill, 
and should be included in this bill.
  Let me say, parenthetically, that a foreign aid conference report may 
experience some trouble in the House unless this and other pro-life, 
pro-child provisions remain. Foreign aid is as unpopular in the House 
as it has ever been, and I do not think that pro-life Congressmen will 
be inclined to vote for this bill without language protecting unborn 
children.
  Mr. President, let us be clear about the kind of abuses that occur in 
China under the nose of UNFPA. Women are dragged into government 
clinics and forced to have an abortion if they already have one child. 
Women and men are forced, like animals, to undergo sterilization 
procedures if they violate the one-child policy. This inhumane 
program--of which UNFPA is so proud--has caused an alarming increase in 
abortions of baby girls because many Chinese value boys more.
  In light of this cruelty against the most innocent and helpless 
members of the human race, the Christian Coalition's Contract with the 
American Family specifically targets eliminating funding for UNFPA. A 
cogent explanation of why UNFPA is targeted is on pages 72-74 of the 
contract. I shall do everything I can to require that UNFPA pull out of 
China, or face termination of United States taxpayers' funding.
  Mr. President, this bill carries another provision--as have previous 
foreign aid appropriations bills since 1985--designed to prohibit 
funding UNFPA, but without identifying UNFPA by name. The provision, 
known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment, prohibits funding of any 
``organization or program which, as determined by the President of the 
United States, supports or participates in the management of a program 
of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.'' Senator Kasten and 
Congressman Kemp had Communist China in mind, where UNFPA operates one 
of its cornerstone programs.
  From 1986-92, the Reagan and Bush administrations determined that 
UNFPA was in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment. Indeed, President 
Bush vetoed the fiscal year 1990 foreign operations appropriations bill 
because it gutted the Kemp-Kasten amendment. President Bush opposed 
funding UNFPA because it was the only organization that violated the 
Kemp-Kasten amendment and because, as Mr. Bush put it:

       The [U.N. Population Program] participates in and strongly 
     defends the program of a particular foreign government 
     [China] which relies heavily upon compulsory abortion. This 
     fund received no United States assistance since 1985, 
     precisely because of its involvement in the coercive abortion 
     policy.

  It is well known that one of the first actions taken by President 
Clinton, when he assumed office, was to reverse this longstanding 
policy--despite the administration's full knowledge of China's cruel 
program and UNFPA's close relationship with it. That is why the pending 
amendment is the pending business in the Senate right now.
  AID Administrator Brian Atwood told the chairman of the House Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, in an August 6, 1993, letter, 
that ``* * * if there are not significant improvements in China's 
population program, the United States will not support continued UNFPA 
assistance to China beyond 1995 when the current program ends.''
  The fact is, Mr. President, the situation in China has worsened, but 
UNFPA does not intend to pull out of China, and the Clinton 
administration has every intention of contributing money to UNFPA. The 
administration apparently gives UNFPA a wink and a nod in New York, and 
then glibly tells Congress, ``trust us, the United States doesn't 
support UNFPA assistance to China.''
  Let me say this in conclusion. Mr. President, Americans already 
believe that too much of their tax money goes to the United Nations. 
Poll after poll after poll shows that. And they certainly do not want 
any administration to give money to the U.N. Population Program, 
thereby condoning that organization, including its involvement with 
China's grotesque population control program.
  Since China clearly has made no improvement on human rights, and 
since UNFPA's relationship with China remains unchanged, I strongly 
urge Senators to support the amendment to force UNFPA out of China.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the Senator from North Carolina, I 
believe, mentioned in his statement, the amendment he offered was in 
the original chairman's mark which was then stripped out at the 
subcommittee level, so I obviously support the amendment of the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  One of the thoughts that my friend from Vermont and I were discussing 
is the possibility of a hour and half, or a 2-hour time agreement on 
the amendment, if that is acceptable to the Senator from North 
Carolina. That would give Senators notice that there would be a vote at 
a time certain in a couple of hours from now.
  I am curious. I would ask Senator Leahy if he has any feeling about 
the appropriateness of such time agreement.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support it if we are ever going 
to finish this bill in our lifetime. I understand one Senator is not on 
the floor, and he would be on the floor in about a minute or two.
  I would suggest this, that we go off this amendment for about 3 
minutes, bring back the Bingaman amendment during that time, and then 3 
minutes from now go back to the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go off the pending 
amendment, go back to the Bingaman amendment, and I assure my colleague 
I will be asking that we go back to the Helms amendment in a matter of 
3 or 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Helms amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Hearing no 
objection, is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I thank the managers.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from New Mexico 
that the pending amendment is the amendment of the Senator from New 
Mexico.


                Amendment No. 2731 to Amendment No. 2728

  (Purpose: To allow residents of the United States to send to their 
  immediate family members in Cuba small amounts of money to pay for 
      basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a second amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration. 

[[Page S 14038]]

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2731 to amendment No. 2728.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROTECTION OF HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS.

       Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary:
       (a) Family Support Payments.--Residents of the United 
     States shall not be prohibited from sending to their parents, 
     siblings, spouses, or children currently residing in Cuba 
     small amounts of money (not to exceed $195 per month) to be 
     used for the purchase of basic necessities, including food, 
     clothing, household supplies, rent, medicines, and medical 
     care.
       (b) Compassionate Travel.--Residents of the United States 
     shall not be prohibited from traveling to Cuba for a period 
     up to thirty (30) days to attend to a medical emergency 
     involving, or to attend the funeral of, such resident's 
     parent, sibling, spouse, or child.
       (c) National Disaster Relief.--The United States shall not 
     be prohibited from participating in humanitarian relief 
     efforts of multilateral organizations of which the United 
     States is a member, where such humanitarian relief efforts 
     are made in the aftermath of a natural disaster on the island 
     of Cuba.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily 
lay aside the Bingaman amendment and that we go back to the Helms 
amendment we were discussing just a moment ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what I was going to suggest, subject to 
the approval of the other side, is that we schedule the vote on the 
Helms amendment for 6:30.
  Would that work?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would it 
be possible in that same unanimous-consent agreement to have a 
provision for a vote on the second-degree amendment that I just offered 
giving sufficient time for debate?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from New Mexico, we are still 
trying to get the input from one Senator on his amendment now as 
amended. So at this particular moment I think that would not be 
possible.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will not object, Mr. President.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have absolutely no objection. In fact, I 
think it would be a good idea to have the vote on the Helms amendment 
in an hour and a half, with the time equally divided under control of 
the managers.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
on the Helms amendment occur at 6:30 and that the time on the amendment 
be equally divided in the usual fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2730

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes from the side in 
opposition to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the manager very much 
for the 15 minutes in order to oppose the Helms amendment on UNFPA and 
to support the committee language on population and abortion.
  Everyone understands that this is the same debate we had in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee this summer, when the committee 
voted by a decisive 11-5 vote to authorize $35 million in funding for 
UNFPA.
  The UNFPA is the world's leading family planning agency, with 
approximately one-third of all population assistance to developing 
countries channeled through it.
  It provides funds and training for maternal and child health care, 
family planning devices, and technical assistance for population 
programs.
  UNFPA, by its own mandate, is not involved in abortions or abortion-
related services. It is family planning agency.
  So, this is a debate on population. It should not be a debate on 
abortion.
  That is why the amendment by the Senator from North Carolina 
demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the UNFPA does, and 
will do nothing to end the horrific practice of coercive abortion.
  Nowhere in the world--including China does the UNFPA involve itself 
with abortion policy or the delivery of abortion and abortion-related 
services. Indeed, if I believed that UNFPA or any U.S. Government 
program was being used to support coercive abortion, I would vehemently 
object.
  Like the chairman, I too, am the father of two daughters and am 
horrified by the Chinese policies on baby girls. To insinuate that 
anyone in this body supports such a practice is really disingenuous.
  That is one of the reasons I introduced legislation with the chairman 
to revoke most-favored-nation status for China. I believe it should be 
at the forefront of our human rights agenda with China.
  It should be an issue at bilateral and multilateral fora;
  It should be linked to benefits, such as MFN, which the Chinese 
desire;
  It should be a subject for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights;
  And it should be an issue for foreign corporations in China as they 
are sincerely interested in improving the quality of life for their 
Chinese employees.
  But withdrawing from the UNFPA would do nothing to combat coercive 
abortion because UNFPA is not involved in the policy, and current law 
governing the United States contribution to UNFPA wholly separates 
United States funds from being used in China altogether.
  That law was reaffirmed by a strong, bipartisan 11-5 vote in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month when we debated the UNFPA 
issue in an amendment to the foreign aid authorization bill.
  Current law not only explicitly prohibits United States funds from 
being used in UNFPA's China program, it also mandates that UNFPA must 
hold United States funds in separate accounts to ensure that they are 
not comingled with other moneys which may be supporting family planning 
services in China.
  Our provisions also require that the administration certify that 
China is receiving only the $7 million which the UNFPA 5-year plan 
allocates. Under current law, if the report shows that UNFPA invests 
more than $7 million in China, then the United States contribution to 
UNFPA will be deducted by that proportional amount, so there is no way 
that additional funds from the United States can be put in in this way.
  Mr. President, we will do more to influence the China program if we 
stay involved with UNFPA. The current program ends in December 1995. If 
we are not contributors to UNFPA, then we will not be at the table at 
the end of the year to help decide if and how this organization will 
work in China. That is certainly no way to stop coercive abortion.
  Further, if we withdraw, we will pull no other country with us. Let 
me remind my colleagues that when the United States withdrew from UNFPA 
in 1984, not one single other country joined in our boycott. In any 
event, it makes no sense to withdraw from this organization since it is 
in fact exactly the services performed by UNFPA that make abortion less 
likely and less frequent. 

[[Page S 14039]]

  Let us talk about that for a minute. Let us talk about the threat of 
overpopulation to our national security interests and what UNFPA and 
global population programs are doing to address it. The world 
population is exploding. From 1800 to 1930, our planet grew from 1 to 2 
billion people. Today, we are up to 5 to 6 billion people, with 1 
million born every 96 hours. At this rate, we will have quadrupled our 
population by the end of this century.
  Overpopulation hampers economic development, harms world health 
standards, threatens food security. It stresses the environment, it 
harms the status of women, and it often forces dangerous migration and 
refugee patterns. These are among the most serious threats in the 21st 
century. We must be able to use the achievements of the 20th century; 
namely, family planning, to counter them. With the UNFPA in the lead, 
contraceptive use worldwide has quintupled in the past 20 years while 
the average family size has been halved. Yet, according to the World 
Health Organization, approximately 350 million couples still completely 
lack access to family planning services and information.
  Mr. President, population will be the key to whether improved 
economic policies succeed; whether we will coexist with our environment 
or deplete it; and whether political crises become large-scale 
humanitarian disasters or not.
  There are fortunately, Mr. President, many success stories to 
illustrate this point.
  The so-called Asian Tiger economies--Indonesia, Malaysia, and 
Thailand--have been very successful in family planning programs, and 
they have been put together with assistance from UNFPA.
  I have also visited, Mr. President, a family planning clinic in 
Tunisia which has one of the most successful programs in the world. It 
is also a country which is fast modernizing and developing a strong 
middle class. In my view, there is no coincidence that the economies of 
these countries are doing so well. There is no coincidence that the 
role of women in these societies is improving. Like human rights, 
global population concerns are U.S. national concerns.
  Let me say again, while I share the outrage of the Senator from North 
Carolina about China's abortion policy, I believe that it makes no 
sense to sacrifice UNFPA for China's abortion policy in which that 
organization plays no role. If we can focus on what the real issue is 
here, I think my colleagues will be persuaded that a U.S. contribution 
to the UNFPA is clearly in our national interest and does not 
contradict our national values.
  Mr. President, this amendment really spawns a false debate, and I 
urge the Senate to follow both the Foreign Relations Committee and also 
the Appropriations Committee and to defeat it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of whatever time I have 
back to the manager. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is informed that 
time is controlled. Does she wish to ask unanimous consent to take a 
certain amount of time from the Senator from Vermont?
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 43 minutes and 7 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Vermont yield 10 minutes?
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Washington 
has 10 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee position on funding 
for international family planning programs and against the Helms 
amendment to cut and restrict family planning aid.
  The Helms amendment before us today is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It 
pretends to be antiabortion but in fact it is antifamily planning and 
does not effect the question of abortion funding at all.
  In addition, the Helms amendment pretends to address the horrendous 
problem of forced abortions in the People's Republic of China, 
ostensibly trying to solve that terrible problem by denying United 
States support for the U.N. Population Fund.
  Mr. President, the debate surrounding UNFPA began over a decade ago 
during the Reagan administration. Foes of UNFPA claimed then, as they 
do today, that the United States should withdraw support for UNFPA 
because of the fund's presence in China where there have been 
persistent reports of government sanctioned forced abortions.
  There is no question that the Chinese do many things that I abhor. 
Forcing women to have abortions or forcing individuals to undergo 
sterilization is a gross violation of human rights and should be 
condemned by our Government at the highest levels.
  Likewise, the killing of female infants in China is widespread in the 
country and appears to often go unpunished by Chinese officials. But it 
would be illogical--and counterproductive--for the United States to 
pull out of those international agencies that give aid to children in 
China because of the horrific practice of female infanticide that 
plagues that nation.
  So why should we ask this organization to carry the sins of China on 
its shoulders when it comes to the question of family planning? The 
facts have never supported this approach. When the question of UNFPA 
funding was first debated during the Reagan administration, officials 
under President Reagan investigated the issue and found, and I quote 
from an AID document from that time, ``that UNFPA is a benevolent 
factor in China which works to decrease the incidence of coercive 
abortion'' in China by providing effective family planning services.
  That same Reagan administration investigation found absolutely no 
evidence that the UNFPA participated in or supported in any way China's 
coercive family planning practices. Sadly, caught up in the pro-life 
politics of the time, UNFPA was nonetheless defunded by President 
Reagan. President Clinton has since resumed U.S. support for this 
agency and therein lie the roots of today's debate. Through all of 
this, however, the facts have been clear, that UNFPA has been part of 
the solution in China by helping to reduce the incidence of abortion in 
that country and others by providing high-quality voluntary family 
planning services. UNFPA's goal is to eliminate the need for abortions. 
They do so by providing maternal and child health care and voluntary 
family planning services. These are the kinds of programs that are 
unquestionably the most effective means of preventing abortion. And the 
majority of UNFPA's assistance goes toward projects in these areas. 
Ironically, by denying support to this most effective international 
family planning agency, the Helms amendment might well have the 
unintended effect of increasing the incidence of abortion in China.
  As has been pointed out by others during this debate, the committee 
bill before us continues the longstanding policy of banning the use of 
U.S. funds for abortions overseas. That ban, commonly known as the 
Helms amendment, has been part of the permanent foreign aid statutes 
since 1973 and remains unchanged in the committee's bill.
  In addition, the bill prohibits the use of U.S. funds for abortion 
lobbying.
  So the real question facing the Senate today is this: The committee 
bill is already stringently antiabortion, but by disqualifying one of 
the most tried and true family planning organizations from receiving 
U.S. support, do we really want to make this bill antifamily planning 
as well?
  Let me take a minute to review for my colleagues the important work 
that is being done by UNFPA and why U.S. support for this agency is so 
important. The United States played a key role in establishing the 
UNFPA in the late 1960's, seeking to form an organization where we 
could work with other nations to address the problem of overpopulation. 
Since that time, UNFPA has become a respected and trusted source of 
safe and effective family planning services for women and families in 
poor and developing nations.
  With programs in over 140 countries, UNFPA is the world's largest 
voluntary family planning program. The guiding philosophy behind 
UNFPA's work in the developing world is to invest in women. UNFPA 
recognizes that 

[[Page S 14040]]
by investing in women, we strengthen entire communities as well as 
national economies. In addition to family planning services, UNFPA 
provides life-saving maternal health care programs.
  While childbirth anywhere carries certain risks, in the developing 
world mothers face grave statistics. In Africa, for example, 1 out of 
every 21 women will die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth, making 
the African women 200 times more likely to die as a result of bearing 
her children than a European woman.
  The kinds of programs provided by UNFPA can prevent many of these 
maternal deaths. So when we support UNFPA, we are supporting those 
women and families across the developing world who seek the means to 
space their births and avoid high-risk pregnancies.
  Equally important, when we support UNFPA we are increasing the 
chances that child survival rates will rise across the developing 
world. We know that babies born in quick succession to a mother whose 
body is not yet recovered from her previous birth are the least likely 
to survive.
  UNFPA programs seek to support child survival efforts and help women 
understand the vital link between child survival and family planning.
  For the record, let me outline UNFPA's position on abortion. UNFPA 
does not and never has supported abortions or abortion-related services 
in any country it operates in. According to the UNFPA's governing 
council, it is ``the policy of the UNFPA not to provide assistance for 
abortion, abortion services, or abortion-related equipment and supplies 
as a method of family planning.''
  So, as I noted in my earlier remarks, the Helms amendment will do 
nothing to prevent abortions in China or elsewhere, but it will prevent 
vital health services from being delivered to women and children in the 
world's poorest nations.
  I urge my colleagues to remember what is really at stake here. This 
is a public health issue and an extremely serious one. Family planning 
saves lives. Experts estimate that the lives of 5.6 million children 
and 200,000 women could be saved every year if all the women who wanted 
to limit their families had access to family planning. I ask my 
colleagues to really think about those statistics; 5.6 million children 
and 200,000 women every year.
  So when we debate this issue of whether to support voluntary family 
planning programs like UNFPA, let us keep this debate focused squarely 
where it belongs--on the world's young women who struggle against 
impossible odds to better their lives and who desperately need 
reproductive health care services. Let us keep this debate squarely 
focused on young mothers around the world who have small children or 
babies and need family planning assistance to ensure that they do not 
become pregnant again too quickly and endangering their own lives and 
that of their babies and young children. Let us keep this debate 
squarely focused on thousands of women in poor nations who, lacking 
access to reproductive health care, resort to self-induced abortions 
and too often tragically lose their lives. Experts estimate at least 
500,000 women will die from pregnancy-related causes, roughly 200,000 
from illegal abortions which are prevented when women have family 
planning services.
  The issue of refunding the UNFPA came before Congress again and again 
when Presidents Bush and Reagan were in office. Congress repeatedly 
voted for the United States to resume funding. So let us move on to the 
task of ensuring that women in the developing world have access to the 
kinds of reproductive health services they deserve, the kinds of 
services that will save their lives and the lives of their children.
  In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to remember that this 
is a public health issue and an extremely serious one. We should reject 
the Helms amendment and vote in support of women and children across 
our globe. I thank you and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for those in 
opposition to the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 32 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. What it does is it 
reverses the action taken by the subcommittee in legislation that was 
then in the full bill as reported out of the full committee.
  By a vote of 8-5 the Foreign Operations Subcommittee passed my 
amendment to strike the kind of restrictions imposed by the House and 
proposed in this amendment that were in the bill that came before the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee. I moved to strike the House language, 
taking the same position as the distinguished Senator from Washington, 
and before her, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. The Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee approved of my amendment. And that is the 
condition we are in now.
  When you look at what we have done, the bill simply continues current 
law and practice. We are not asking for anything radically different. 
This is what we have always done. At a time when support for voluntary 
family planning programs and women's reproductive health is growing 
around the world, it would be foolhardy for the United States to once 
again, as we did in the early 1980's, surrender our leadership in this 
area.
  This bill has the same prohibition on funding for abortion that we 
have had for years. Now, I have listened to some speaking around this 
Chamber. I want to make sure everybody understands. No funds in this 
bill can be used for abortion. It is not just the case that there is 
not any money in there for abortion; there is an explicit prohibition 
against money being used for abortion. So, basically, we are putting up 
a straw person to knock down here.
  And then the question is, what might happen in China? No funds in 
this bill can be used in China. None, nada, neant, rien.
  So what is the problem? The whole point of the program in this bill 
is to promote contraceptive and other alternatives to abortion--
alternatives to abortion. We are trying to have alternatives to 
abortion. We say none of the money can be used for abortion and none of 
the money can be used in China where they have forced abortions, and, 
instead, the money can be used for alternatives to abortion. We all 
ought to jump on board with that one. Every dollar is for voluntary 
family planning.
  So, if you support this amendment, you are opposing voluntary family 
planning. If you support the amendment on the floor right now, you are 
against voluntary family planning. Provisions relating to the U.N. 
population fund would enable us to contribute to this organization, 
which is the largest international family planning agency in the world.
  UNFPA does not fund abortions. It funds contraceptives and 
information, education about family planning in 140 countries. It is 
absolutely vital that the United States play a leading role in this 
agency, especially when the decisions we make today will determine if 
the world's population doubles or triples.
  Can you imagine what this bill would look like, the overall foreign 
aid bill here, if the world population doubled or tripled?
  That is not our population of the United States, that is the rest of 
the world, most of it in the area where we have the gravest concerns in 
this bill.
  The bill does not earmark funding for UNFPA, but it would permit up 
to $35 million for UNFPA, which even in the unlikely possibility that 
that amount is available, is still $15 million below last year's level, 
and it contains all the restrictions on our contributions. There is an 
explicit prohibition against using U.S. funds in China, despite the 
fact UNFPA's program in China promotes voluntary family planning and 
human rights.
  Let us not go backward in this bill, not when so many governments are 
finally seeking help in limiting the growth of their own population 
growth. Many of these countries are already impoverished, and the 
poverty increases because the population grows. We have the technology, 
the expertise, and we ought to help.
  This amendment would require UNFPA to withdraw from China. That is 
not a decision UNFPA can do, nor can we pass a law to require it to do. 
It is a decision of its governing board. It 

[[Page S 14041]]
is made up of donor governments and a large majority support UNFPA's 
program in China. By attaching a requirement that UNFPA cannot meet, we 
cut off funding in 139 other countries.
  There is no money for abortion, no money for China. There is no 
reason to vote for this amendment, unless somehow you are against 
voluntary family planning altogether. If you have that attitude, then I 
guess there is nothing I can say.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Stirling Scruggs, the 
chief of information at UNFPA, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               United Nations Population Fund,

                                                    July 26, 1995.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Senate Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: It has just come to my attention that 
     on June 28, 1995 during a debate on the House floor, 
     Representative Chris Smith quoted Dr. Sadik, Executive 
     Director of UNFPA, ``China has every reason to feel proud of 
     and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its 
     family planning policy and control of its population growth 
     over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its 
     experiences and special experts to help other countries.'' 
     Senator Jesse Helms used the same quote in the Senate Foreign 
     Relations Committee Report accompanying S-961.
       I believe this quote comes from China Daily, an English 
     language newspaper published in Beijing. I was with Dr. Sadik 
     when she was interviewed for this article in 1991. This 
     article was a terrible distortion of what she actually said. 
     Dr. Sadik did say that China should be proud of its record of 
     improving women's and children's health since 1949. She 
     commended China's continuing efforts to improve maternal and 
     child health by discussing a joint UNFPA and UNICEF project 
     in 300 poor counties in China that especially focuses on 
     improving children's health through training and supplies for 
     treatment of acute respiratory infection and diarrhea, 
     promotion of prenatal care and nutrition, breast-feeding, 
     assisted deliveries and family planning that assured several 
     contraceptive choices and informed consent. She went on to 
     say that this project was a model that could be replicated in 
     other countries.
       I have no idea why Dr. Sadik was misquoted. I tried 
     unsuccessfully at the time to secure a retraction from China 
     Daily. I remember during her visit being very proud of Dr. 
     Sadik's tenacity and courage and my disappointment with the 
     China Daily article which was not only wrong, but 
     contradictory of her real position.
       In fact, during this trip, Dr. Sadik attended a series of 
     meetings that included: the Ministers of Family Planning and 
     Health, the Head of the People's Congress and several of his 
     colleagues and the General Secretary of the Communist Party 
     of China. During these meetings she was very critical of new 
     laws in several provinces requiring sterilization of the 
     mentally retarded. She also successfully negotiated projects 
     designed to increase training for informed consent and 
     voluntary participation in family planning, and research that 
     would examine the safety and efficacy of the Chinese steel 
     ring IUD. The first project, currently on-going, provides 
     interpersonal counseling training and promotes contraceptive 
     choice for grass-roots family planning workers in several 
     provinces. The second resulted in a Chinese ban on steel ring 
     IUD's in favor of copper based IUD's which in ten years will 
     prevent 35.6 million abortions. It would also prevent 16,300 
     maternal deaths; 365,000 potential infant and 28,000 
     potential child deaths.
       For 3\1/2\ years I served as UNFPA's Country Director in 
     China. I know first hand what we did and said in China and I 
     can tell you that the way we are frequently portrayed, such 
     as in the statement in question, is absolutely and 
     unequivocally untrue.
       UNFPA has always represented international norms and human 
     rights standards as articulated in several U.N. documents 
     including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 
     World Population Plan of Action and the Programme of Action 
     of the International Conference on Population and 
     Development. For example, Chapter VII, para. 12 of the 
     Programme of Action which states ``. . . the principle of 
     informed free choice is essential to the long-term success of 
     family-planning programmes; that any form of coercion has no 
     part of play, that governmental goals or family planning 
     should be defined in terms of unmet needs for information and 
     services; and that demographic goals, while legitimately the 
     subject of government development strategies, should not be 
     imposed on family-planning providers in the form of targets 
     or quotas for the recruitment of clients''.
       In particular, Dr. Sadik has been a champion of human 
     rights, women's equality and reproductive rights. In the 14 
     years I have known her, I have never heard her use the phrase 
     ``population control.''
       We deeply appreciate your past and continuing support and 
     hope you can help set the record straight regarding the quote 
     used by Representative Smith and Senator Helms.
           Sincerely,

                                          Stirling D. Scruggs,

                                            Chief, Information and
                                      External Relations Division.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-six minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms 
amendment to end U.S. participation in the United Nations Population 
Fund, UNFPA. It will have a disastrous effect on women's health. It 
would weaken the most effective organization we have for delivering 
family planning services to the world's poorest women. And it ignores 
the fact the United States funds are not used for abortions and are not 
used in China.
  Over 100 million women throughout the world cannot obtain or are not 
using family planning because they are poor, uneducated, or lack access 
to care; 20 million of these women will seek unsafe abortions. Some 
will die, some will be disabled. Only 25 to 35 percent of women in 
Africa and Asia receive prenatal care. Many of these women are very 
young--still children themselves. When children have children, they 
often lose their chance of schooling, a good job, self-sufficiency.
  Why is the UNFPA so important? Because it has the infrastructure, the 
expertise, and the personnel to be the most effective program for 
providing family planning services around the world. It specializes--it 
does nothing but provide family planning and maternal and child health. 
And it is in 140 countries--whereas U.S. bilateral programs are only in 
56 countries. At a time when foreign aid is being cut to the bone--
UNFPA makes the most use of scarce U.S. foreign aid dollars.
  We should be clear about what is in the bill--and what isn't. There 
is no money for abortions or abortion lobbying. Federal funds cannot be 
used to fund abortions--this bill retains this prohibition. That is why 
opponents of this amendment include Senators who strongly oppose 
abortion--because they know that effective family planning actually 
reduces abortions.
  There is no money for China in this bill. We all agree that coerced 
abortions and sterilization are despicable. That is why no United 
States funds may be spent in China now. The bill retains this policy. 
United States contributions to UNFPA are segregated from other UNFPA 
funds; none of the United States funds may be used for China; and the 
United States contribution would be fully refunded if any United States 
funds were used for China or for abortions. These provisions ensure 
that not one cent of United States funds can be used in China.
  What is in the bill? We simply maintain current law. We continue to 
provide modest funding for UNFPA. Without U.S. funds--there is no U.S. 
influence. We would have no say on how and where international family 
planning services are delivered.
  In this bill we seek to maintain our modest role in providing family 
planning to the world's poorest women. I wish we could do more to 
ensure that all women have access to family planning. But the bill 
passed by the committee ensures that we continue to do something to 
help the world's poorest women to control and improve their lives. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Helms amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Helms 
amendment, which would defund the United Nations Population Fund 
[UNFPA].
  UNFPA is the largest internationally funded source of population 
assistance, directly managing one-third of the world's population 
assistance to developing countries. The United States was instrumental 
in creating the UNFPA in 1969 and until 1985 provided nearly 30 percent 
of its funding.
  The UNFPA is the principal multilateral organization providing 
worldwide family planning and population assistance. Operating in over 
140 countries, in the poorest and most remote regions of he world, 
nearly half of the UNFPA assistance is used for family planning 
services and maternal and child health care. Another 18 percent is 
allocated for related population information, education, and 
communication.

[[Page S 14042]]

  The fund also provides support for population data collection and 
analysis, demographic and socio-economic research, and population 
policy formulation and evaluation.
  In 1993 UNFPA supported 1,560 projects in 141 countries, including 44 
countries in sub-saharan Africa, 33 countries in Latin America and the 
Carribean, 39 countries in Asia and the Pacific, and 25 countries in 
the Arab States and Europe.
  UNFPA programs contribute to improving the quality and safety of 
contraceptives, to reducing the incidence of abortion and to improving 
reproductive health and strengthening the status of women. These 
programs have saved the lives of countless women and children.
  UNFPA also helps to promote male participation and responsibility in 
family planning programs, address adolescent reproductive health, and 
reach isolated rural areas with high demands for family planning 
services.
  The Helms amendment is really just a back door assault on family 
planning and that is a big mistake. Experts now recognize that 
population is an explosive problem and the committee has responsibility 
recommended steps to deal with it.
  This is not about China. Existing law specifically states that none 
of the funds made available to the UNFPA shall be made available for 
activities in the People's Republic of China. I strongly support this 
prohibition and oppose any coercive population practices around the 
world.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of family planning 
and oppose the Helms amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina.
  I would like to take a few moments to talk about the United Nation's 
population program more generally, because quite clearly, the 
underlying intent of the amendment is to eliminate U.S. funding for all 
of UNFPA's population stabilization efforts.
  Mr. President, I believe direct, substantial, and long-term benefits 
flow to American families from our national investment in sustainable 
development and population efforts.
  Today, as we approach the 21st century, we are facing a world that 
will be more economically competitive and more challenging than ever 
before. This is not the time to be weakening our role as the world 
leader in these areas.
  Instead, I believe it is in the best interest of America's children 
and families for the Congress to reaffirm and solidify our commitment 
in to population stabilization, reproductive choice, and other critical 
health and sustainable development programs.
  For the past 12 years or so, I have spent a lot of my time here in 
the Senate focusing on the domestic and international high tech 
industries. I have worked to develop strategies to strengthen the 
technology and manufacturing bases in this country and to secure 
higher-wage jobs for Americans.
  I have focused on these issues because of my concern for the long-
term economic viability of our Nation. I believe that to secure our 
economic future, the United States must be fully equipped to compete 
long-term with Japan and other highly developed countries.
  But at the same time, I believe we cannot have a successful economic 
strategy in this country if we do not devote serious attention to the 
economies of the developing world.
  Over the past 10 years or so, growth in U.S. exports to the 
developing world has exploded; and today, developing countries account 
for about 40 percent of a growing U.S. export market.
  In fact, trade with the developing world is growing at a rate that 
far exceeds the growth rate of U.S. exports to developed countries:
  Between 1990 and 1993, U.S. exports to developed countries grew by 
6.2 percent.
  In 1993 alone, U.S. exports to developing countries grew more than 14 
percent. Over the period between 1990-93, exports to developing 
countries rose nearly 50 percent--49.8 percent.
  In terms of dollars, Latin America is a good example. In Latin 
America, United States exports rose by nearly $30 billion between 1989 
and 1993--from $44 billion to $71 billion--representing a 61-percent 
gain.
  I believe a significant factor in this growth has been the modest 
U.S. commitment to development and population assistance in the 
developing countries. Thailand, Costa Rica, Mexico are examples of 
countries in which a small United States investment in population and 
development assistance has repaid itself many times over in increased 
trade opportunities.
  It is in our economic interest to continue support for UNFPA. The 
concerns raised by the Senator from North Carolina are addressed under 
current law and in the bill before the Senate today.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time run equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is currently laid aside an 
amendment which is in the second degree, I believe, by the Senator from 
New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. I ask unanimous consent that a vote on or 
in relation to the Bingaman amendment occur immediately at the end of 
the currently scheduled vote at 6:30, and that the duration of time on 
that vote to immediately follow the Helms amendment be 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maine is on 
the floor and wishes to speak. I ask her how much time she would like.
  Ms. SNOWE. About 8 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Vermont 
for yielding me time. I certainly want to express my position on this 
issue with respect to international family planning and the amendment 
that was offered by Senator Helms, because I think that this is a very 
important issue.
  I certainly oppose the restrictions that would be placed by the Helms 
amendment with respect to funding for UNFPA, which has been a very 
effective organization in providing for family planning services 
throughout the developing world.
  I think it is important to understand, first off, that the current 
law already contains strong conditions on U.S. contributions to UNFPA. 
For more than a decade, no United States funds provided to UNFPA have 
been spent in China. In addition, it requires half of the United States 
contribution to UNFPA to be spent after March 1 so that Congress can 
review the amount that UNFPA has budgeted for activities in China as 
reported to Congress in mid-February.
  This is important because it provides us with the opportunity to 
ensure that UNFPA has not taken any action to increase the amount of 
money it spends in its programs in China so there is no direct 
correlation between the United States contribution to UNFPA and the 
amount that it provides to China.
  It also will ensure, for those who have been critics of our 
contributions to UNFPA, that our funds are not fungible and that United 
States funds are used in China even indirectly. I think it is important 
to note that our contributions to UNFPA cannot be commingled with 
UNFPA's funds at all. They are maintained in separate accounts and 
cannot be spent on UNFPA's activities in China. I think that is 
important, because we want to make sure that our funds are in no way 
linked, No. 1, but second, to ensure we are not doing anything directly 
or indirectly to enhance their program activities in China.
  But I think we should understand what the funding of UNFPA is not 
about. First of all, it is not about abortion. UNFPA has a firm policy 
against any involvement in abortion services advocacy. 

[[Page S 14043]]

  Second, and I think we all recognize and are concerned about China's 
controversial population program, human rights abuses in China have 
continued despite, not because of, UNFPA's small presence in China. It 
is unfortunate this has occurred not only at the central level of 
Government in China but also that the abuses and the policies have been 
promoted by the independence of the provincial governments as well in 
China.
  So many of the worst abuses appear to be happening at the provincial 
level. But I think it is essential to underscore the fact that UNFPA's 
presence in China is to do everything that it can to prevent those 
abuses from occurring.
  UNFPA has had a very successful voluntary program with respect to 
family planning throughout the developing world. It has had a presence 
in more than 140 countries, and nearly half of UNFPA's support is in 
the area of maternal and child health care and family planning.
  There are other areas, including education, population data 
collection and analysis and research on demographic and socioeconomic 
relationships. I would like to reemphasize, because it is important, 
that UNFPA does not provide support, nor has it ever provided a policy 
of support for abortions or abortion-related activities anywhere in the 
world.
  UNFPA was established back in 1969, interestingly enough, with strong 
encouragement from the United States. It happens to be the largest 
multilateral provider of population and family planning assistance to 
the developing countries. Approximately one-third of all population 
assistance to developing countries go through UNFPA.
  So it has a presence in a number of countries where it plays a very 
critical role. Consider the facts. According to the World Health 
Organization, of the 500,000 women who die each year of pregnancy-
related causes, 99 percent are in the developing world. So we should be 
doing everything as a country to support the activities of 
organizations like UNFPA and what they are doing in many of these Third 
World countries. We should be for family planning programs. We should 
not be doing everything to undermine the value of family planning 
programs in these countries.
  As a matter of fact, the United States was the leader, the forerunner 
in support of these family planning programs internationally. We did 
everything to encourage, as I said, organizations like UNFPA and IPBF 
to do everything that they can to support strong programs in the 
developing world regarding family planning programs.
  So I think that it is unfortunate that, as we discuss our 
contributions to such valuable organizations, we are now getting it 
interspersed and intertwined with the abortion debate. We all have our 
disagreements on the issue of abortion. But no one should be able to 
disagree on the issue of family planning. That is why we should be 
supporting such organizations, because the more they can do in 
providing family planning services to these countries, the more we will 
reduce not only the incidence of death, but of abortion as well.
  So I hope that Members of the Senate will oppose the Helms amendment. 
We all know that rapid population growth is becoming a very critical 
problem. If you consider the fact that the world population is going to 
grow by 90 million people this year alone, this is like adding a new 
country the size of Nigeria to the world every year, or a city the size 
of New York City every month. Based on various assumptions about 
fertility rates, the U.N. population projections for the middle of the 
next century range between 8 and 12 billion people.
  This rapid population growth has serious implications for global 
economic, and social stability. Ground water supplies are dwindling; 
rivers and lakes are fouled with pollutants from industries, 
municipalities, and agriculture. Tropical forests are being cleared at 
the rate of 17 million hectares a year.
  Rapid population growth, especially when overlaid with sharp social 
or economic divisions, places great strains on political institutions. 
So to the extent that population pressures contribute to weakening 
economic and political structures, the adversely affect international 
stability and peace. This directly affects our own national security 
interests around the world.
  Let us consider for a moment the benefits of population assistance, 
because they are substantial. A cost-benefit analysis of Thailand's 
family planning program, which reduced the average number of children 
per woman from 6 in the late 1960's to 2.1 in 1991, found that the 
average return on each dollar invested was estimated to be more than 
$7.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. SNOWE. I ask for 5 additional minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 16 minutes 40 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I know the Senator from Wyoming needs some time. How much 
will he need?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Six minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the Senator from Maine an additional 5 minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. A similar study in Mexico concluded for every peso 
invested in family planning, 9 pesos are saved that would have to be 
spent on maternal and child health care. In Indonesia, each dollar 
spent on family planning will result in $12.5 of savings in public 
expenditures for health and education. This does not even take into 
account the benefits that accrue to every single person on this planet 
from reduced environmental trauma, reduced immigration pressures, 
improved standards of living, and improved social and political 
stability.
  So I think that the benefits are clear of international family 
planning programs, and that is why we should not impede the ability of 
organizations, like UNFPA, that have done so much to enhance family 
planning services in the developing world.
  In the 28 countries with the largest U.S.-funded family planning 
program, the average number of children born per family has dropped 
from 6 in the 1960's to 4 today, a decline of one-third. Since the 
1960's, births for women in developing countries have dropped 37 
percent, child mortality by 50 percent, and primary school enrollment 
is up by 38 percent. None of this would have been accomplished without 
U.S. leadership in international family planning. To forestall the 
still-looming world population crisis, we need to strengthen and 
continue our leadership and not pull away from our leadership.
  So I hope that we will defeat the Helms amendment because I think we 
have to do everything that we can to support these services. I want to 
repeat, once again, that UNFPA is not involved in any of the abuses or 
coercive programs that have been advanced by the Government of China, 
or the provincial government within China. In fact, they have done 
everything to discourage it. It is more important that they have a 
presence there. But the fact is that they will, at the end of their 5 
years, be reexamining their program. They are doing everything they can 
to reduce the abuses that are occurring in China. We should do 
everything that we can to assist them in the process. We have limited 
our contributions to UNFPA in the past. We know that our funds are not 
being used for UNFPA's program in China. Our appropriation process 
already places restrictions so that our funds are not comingled in any 
way with UNFPA's program in China.
  So we have already in place the necessary procedures and restrictions 
to ensure that our money is not being used in any way, directly or 
indirectly, in China. So I urge my colleagues to support the committee 
position and oppose this amendment, so that we can continue to permit 
our U.S. leadership in the effort to stabilize the world's population 
through voluntary family planning services. We can only do this by 
supporting the efforts of UNFPA and the private organizations that have 
had a proven record of effectiveness and efficiency. We must maintain 
our international leadership, not just to assist the poor countries of 
the world that need our assistance, but, first and foremost, we need to 
continue our leadership in international family planning programs for 
our own Nation and our own future.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  
[[Page S 14044]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from 
Wyoming on the floor. I yield to him 6 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I particularly thank 
my friend from Maine, who has been such a stalwart worker in this area. 
Senator Snowe has proven time and time again, on these issues and other 
issues of reproductive choice, that this issue is not about abortion. 
It is sad, actually, that somehow this issue of funding the U.N. 
Population Fund settles back on the issue of abortion. That is not so.
  I support this U.S. funding. I commend my colleague from Maine and 
thank her for her consistency and the energy that she puts into this 
program and all programs of this nature. It is wonderful to have an 
ally like that because it has sometimes been a rather lonely venture 
over here on these particular issues. But you have to, in this 
situation, give President Clinton some credit, because during the 
Reagan-Bush administrations, these programs fell into disarray on the 
issue of abortion, which is very unfortunate.
  This year, we are looking at funding levels of $35 million. I do 
understand where we are, obviously, with the budget. I just left a room 
where we will talk about how we are going to get $270 billion in 
savings in Medicare and some $180 billion in Medicaid. We all know what 
is confronting us. But I do not like to see these programs unfairly 
targeted. It sends a wrong message to the rest of the world. I was a 
congressional delegate at a conference in Cairo with Senator John 
Kerry. There were not a great deal of our colleagues seeking passage to 
Egypt at that time.
  I have always very much admired President Mubarak and the Government 
of Egypt. They gave us a remarkable convention and convocation, and I 
was impressed with the leadership of the Vice President in that effort 
as that consensus document was formed concerning maternal and child 
health care, strengthening family planning programs, promotion of 
educational opportunities for girls and women, improving the status of 
rights of women across the world, discussion of all issues, including 
contraception, fertility, and many other serious things.
  Of all of the challenges that face the country--and, boy, there are 
plenty of them all around the world--none compares to the increasing of 
the population of the Earth. Every single effort we use or try to do 
here to protect the environment, promote economic development, jobs, 
everything is compromised and severely injured by the staggering growth 
in the world's population.
  I hope we realize that there are currently 5.7 billion people on the 
Earth, and in 1950, when I was a freshman at the University of Wyoming, 
not that long ago, there were 2.5 billion people on the face of the 
Earth. Mr. President, 2.5 billion in 1950; 5.7 billion today.
  Where do we think we are going if current birth and death rates 
continue? The world's population will again double in 40 years. We will 
not have to worry about methane gas from cows and how much propellant 
there is in a shaving cream can. There will not be anything left of the 
Earth. It will be totally overpopulated.
  Then what happens to the babies, the old, and the people we all talk 
about all day who have not enough to sustain them. Civilizations have 
gone down in that fashion in years past.
  Here we are again, this same issue. I think we should show our 
support here. The fund is supported entirely by voluntary 
contributions, not by the U.N.'s regular budget. There are donors ready 
to assist, budget has been cut back, and it would be a real shame if 
the United States were to back away from its commitment to the world's 
largest source of multilateral assistance for population program.
  This is subject to all the restrictions in the past, as Senator Snowe 
has said. These restrictions are already in place to address concerns 
about U.S. funds being spent in China. Under current appropriations 
law, foreign aid funding is denied to any organization or program that 
supports or participates in the management of a program of coerced 
abortion or involuntary sterilization in any country. That is in the 
law.
  Furthermore, current appropriation law assures that none of the 
United States contribution to this program may be used in China. The 
United States is not funding any of the population activities of China. 
The U.N. Population Fund does not fund abortions or support coercive 
activities. UNFPA funds go toward family planning services and maternal 
and child health care across the developing world.
  No U.S. funds may be commingled with any other of these U.N. funds, 
and numerous penalties exist in the law for any violation of the 
requirement.
  For those reasons, I strongly oppose the pending amendment introduced 
by the Senator from North Carolina to require the United States to stop 
funding this program unless the fund withdraws from China.
  I have serious concerns about China, its abortion policy, its 
coercion in that area, but forcing the U.N. population fund to withdraw 
from China will not affect that policy. In fact, without the careful 
monitoring that the fund performs, conditions in China will just simply 
get much worse.
  The world and the United States cannot turn its back on what is 
currently going on in China. We certainly cannot turn our back on the 
necessity of these funds for the rest of the world, for the sake of 
humanity.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On your side 6 minutes 20 seconds, and the 
other side has 49 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe under the unanimous consent agreement, time 
runs equally charged, is that right?
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be equally 
charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am told that Senator Leahy is 
controlling the time on the other side and is more than happy to yield 
at least 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there are few issues that bear more 
directly on the future of the globe, and on our own health and way of 
living, than population growth. If the world's population continues to 
grow at the current rate, our prosperity and the potential for 
prosperity in much of the developing world are at grave risk. And if we 
are slow in stepping up to the challenge of controlling population 
growth, then it just might be too late.
  Experience has proven that it does not take a lot of money to have a 
large effect upon population growth. However, it does take efficient 
programming, consistency, and a commitment for the long term. The U.S. 
Agency for International Development runs the premier bilateral family 
planning program, and UNFPA runs the largest and most effective 
multilateral program.
  I am troubled by certain aspects of this debate. For many years we 
have hashed over the issue of what kind of conditions we should place 
on organizations that receive U.S. population assistance. A majority of 
this body repeatedly spoke up in opposition to imposing stricter 
conditions upon family planning activities overseas than we impose on 
U.S. organizations receiving family planning funding at home. This 
policy seemed to be clearly in our best interest and was certainly the 
most effective way of supporting the best international family planning 
programs. We thought that debate had been settled. Yet here we are 
again.
  Mr. President, I do not think a lot has changed in the rest of the 
world since we last revisited this issue. Our family planning 
assistance is still urgently needed. UNFPA is still the premier 
international family planning organization. And it is still in our best 
interest to cooperate with those groups which are doing the best work. 
Imposing stringent conditions upon our assistance will merely undercut 
our own long-term goal--which is to prevent unchecked growth of the 
world's population from robbing all of us of the opportunity to give 
our children a better future.
  I yield the floor. 

[[Page S 14045]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator from Kentucky correct that the time 
will be charged equally to both sides if there is an absence of a 
quorum suggested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will require unanimous consent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
quorum call time be equally charged to both sides, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, the 
situation is this: Senator Kerry is now on the floor prepared to offer 
an amendment. It will be our intention to debate the Kerry amendment 
between now and the first vote at 6:30 and then stack the vote on the 
Kerry amendment. All Senators should be aware that in all likelihood 
there will now be three votes beginning at 6:30.
  I see Senator Kerry is here. I am certain that he will shortly send 
his amendment to the desk.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Mr. President.


               Amendment No. 2732 and Amendment No. 2733

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask 
for their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) proposes 
     amendments numbered 2732 and 2733.

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


                           amendment no. 2732

       On page 26 of the bill, strike lines 4 through 22.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2733

       On page 29 of the bill, strike the word ``Appropriations:'' 
     on line 17 and all that follows it on that page and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``Appropriations.''.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, these two amendments are in sequence. They 
amend two different committee amendments but they go to the same issue. 
Obviously, if the first one fails, on a vote, I will be happy to have a 
voice vote sequentially on the other.
  This amendment is an amendment to the bill in order to strike 
earmarks that designate a total of $23.7 million which is taken from 
the Department of State's budget for international narcotics control 
and anticrime assistance, and it is transferred to the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation. And in one case, a small amount of money transfers to 
the Secret Service.
  In my judgment--and particularly in the judgment, more importantly, 
of both the Justice Department and the State Department--this earmark 
has a number of problems. First, it appears to be a very significant 
back-door funding of the FBI going around the normal appropriations 
process of the Senate in order to obtain from the foreign operations 
bill what it could not obtain from its own appropriations bill.
  It is my understanding that Senator Hollings advised the FBI very 
directly that he wanted the FBI, and the committee wanted the FBI, to 
concentrate first on its efforts of crime fighting here at home in the 
United States, and that, while foreign crime fighting is important, he 
did not think they ought to place their principal thrust on operations 
so far away from home.
  So when the FBI asked for money and in its own budget placed agents 
abroad, the subcommittee looked at those requests and decided not to 
give the FBI that money that it wanted. The FBI now has come back 
through a different appropriations bill and received an earmark taken 
out of the State Department's appropriations.
  I believe--again more importantly the Justice Department and the 
State Department believe--that this back-door approach creates a lot of 
difficulties. It is not simply that both the Departments of State and 
Justice oppose it, but the FBI's earmark takes funds not just from the 
State Department it winds up taking money from every other U.S. law 
enforcement agency engaged in fighting crime abroad. It takes money 
from the Drug Enforcement Administration. It takes money from the U.S. 
Customs. It takes money from the Financial Enforcement Center of the 
Treasury Department, from the Internal Revenue Service, from the Secret 
Service, and from diplomatic security.
  The result is that the money that is grabbed here by the FBI in this 
earmark outside of its own appropriations bill would shut down 
operations and training programs that the United States has placed in a 
number of different countries and which link up all of these law 
enforcement agencies, each of which are operating as part of a team.
  What this earmark does is destroys the team, eliminates the training 
programs, and winds up plunking the money down in the hands of the FBI, 
when the committee that has jurisdiction over the FBI said we do not 
want to do that.
  Let me tell you some of the programs that will be lost by virtue of 
this earmark, this very special earmark for the FBI. We would lose the 
training program in Byelarus by the U.S. Customs for enforcing limits 
on contraband which help our own customs here at home make cases 
involving smuggling out of Byelarus.
  We would lose the funding for the Newly Independent States by the IRS 
which is specifically trying to fight the multibillion-dollar problem 
of money laundering. There would be no more cases made as a result of 
the relationship which we would lose from that money.
  We would lose the training by the Secret Service in computer crime 
investigations in the former Soviet Union, and there would be no 
further crime computer tips to the Secret Service or its counterparts 
in Russia or the Ukraine because the Secret Service would be taken out 
of that linkage altogether.
  In addition, there would be no further training in Russia in 
postblast investigation of the kind that was needed to figure out who 
shot the embassy the other day. Maybe the FBI can do this on its own. 
But the fact is that if they cannot, you will have cut off the 
assistance of those other agencies that currently exist.
  We would lose the training program of people in the former Soviet 
Union or Central Europe that deals with fraudulent passports, visas, 
travel documents. This is not a specialty of the FBI--never has been a 
specialty of the FBI. It is a specialty of the State Department 
diplomatic service and their programs will be robbed of money because 
of this earmark.
  We would lose the antidrug training by the DEA in Byelarus, Georgia, 
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
  We will lose the training with the Hungarian police to develop 
witness protection programs that would help the United States to fight 
organized crime, and we would shut down the airport interdiction 
program that we currently have in Budapest which is conducted by the 
DEA. The Baltics would lose their drug enforcement programs. We would 
lose the training in dealing with fraudulent travel documents. We would 
see a shutdown of our courses and training in Central European law 
enforcement agencies on how to deal with gunrunners and also with the 
information sharing that we have currently set up with our own law 
enforcement agencies.
  In Poland, we would lose the efforts to combat economic crime and 
counterfeiting, activities that threaten United States citizens and 
particularly our businesses and our currency.
  We would have to shut down the advance counterfeit investigations 
that our Secret Service is currently engaged in with the Polish 
Government. And we would have to shut down our postblast training in 
Poland as well as our microcomputer training.
  In Rumania, we would lose the combating of economic fraud and 
counterfeiting as well as the postblast training 

[[Page S 14046]]
taking place there, and we would lose the United States capacity 
currently developed against the use in Rumania of fraudulent visas and 
passports.
  In summary, Mr. President, if the FBI gets this money earmarked at 
the expense of the State Department that currently metes out this money 
to these various activities, we would be shutting out these other 
agencies, unless the FBI decided out of their good will to somehow 
bring them in and parcel it out. You would lose many of these 
relationships throughout Central Europe and the Baltics in order simply 
to augment FBI agents' incapacity. In some cases, this earmark would 
actually provide money to the FBI that they have never even requested. 
For example, the Bureau has never asked to maintain offices in 
Kazakhstan, and according to the Department of State there currently is 
not a lot of work there for the FBI to do even though they have other 
specialized efforts that they want to perform in Kazakhstan.
  In addition, Mr. President, because of the structure, the way each of 
these entities work in another country, it is entirely possible that 
even with this earmarking the FBI would not be able to put the money to 
use because the Ambassador in the country could decide that the 
Ambassador does not want those moneys used or those people positioned, 
and the Ambassador, as the personal representative of the executive in 
a foreign country, has the right to determine what entities will be 
based in a country. That is why these efforts are coordinated out of 
the State Department in the first place.
  What that means is that if the FBI wants to have someone abroad and 
the Ambassador does not believe it is a good idea for that person to be 
there, given the underlying political situation, the FBI is not 
permitted to base somebody there.
  So here we are taking the money away from the people who have the 
right to decide who is going to be there doing it, and you might in 
effect wind up not only cutting the money from the people who are there 
now that the Ambassadors want to have use it, but you might give it to 
somebody who in effect the Ambassador would decide they did not want to 
have use it. There are all kinds of political reasons why an Ambassador 
in some country might not want the fabled FBI involving itself in some 
of the activities of a particular country.
  It seems to me there are a series of problems raised by this. The 
political situation in a particular country or certain forces in a 
particular country might well want to use the FBI presence in that 
country to raise political issues such as leaking information for 
political purposes, and it would hardly be advantageous to the United 
States to have the FBI conceivably become used or involved in those 
kinds of activities.
  Those are kinds of things the DEA, CIA, or a host of other agencies 
have used before and they are best left under the control of our 
Ambassadors, under the control of our executive.
  I might add that neither the Justice Department nor the Treasury 
Department believe this is a good idea, and I do not believe that it is 
a wise idea for the Senate to end run Cabinet Secretaries and other 
entities and go to a subagency and wind up funding it through the back 
door of a whole different department's arena.
  Mr. President, I will reserve some time here. I know my colleague 
wants to say a few words. We can come back and revisit it. But I really 
think that we should stick with the original intention of the 
Appropriations Committee that has jurisdiction over this issue.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. My good friend from Massachusetts could not be more 
wrong. The amendment does not take $23.9 million out of the State 
Department; $17.1 million of the funds are drawn from the NIS account, 
an account we substantially increase over the House level.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, if we are going to continue 
this program, which has been extremely effective, the only way to do it 
is the way that we have done it in the underlying bill. The FBI--the 
letter from Director Freeh to me of September 18 makes the point, ``The 
FBI does not have funding for these international training efforts in 
our budget. It is from the support that you and your colleagues 
provided last year that we were able to undertake these endeavors. 
Because the FBI has no separate appropriation for this purpose, we must 
rely upon the Department of State for grants.'' That was the situation 
last year, Mr. President.
  Let me tell you what happened, Mr. President and Members of the 
Senate. Last year the Senate provided $30 million for this purpose. The 
FBI had begged for the money from the State Department. The State 
Department begrudgingly gave them $6 million.
  In other words, the State Department does not like this project. They 
are against this project. The $12.6 million earmark in this underlying 
bill will support the International Law Enforcement Center in Budapest, 
as well as short-term training sessions in Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, 
Latvia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Kyrgystan, 
and Slovenia. They are earmarked for the FBI but will support the DEA, 
BATF, Secret Service, and other law enforcement agencies working in the 
center in Budapest.
  What is this about, Mr. President? Russian organized crime is 
impacting us here in this country. And if there is any provision in 
this foreign operations appropriations bill that directly affects us 
here at home, it is the efforts the FBI has been making to help the 
Newly Independent States begin to deal more effectively with their own 
criminal problem which is spilling over to our shores.
  Now, some people say that foreign aid is something they have a hard 
time understanding. They have a hard time seeing how it has any impact 
here. Well, of all the items in this bill, the one that has the most 
direct bearing on us here at home is the efforts we are making with the 
Russians and with the others in that part of the world to begin to get 
a handle on an extraordinarily serious crime problem that is spilling 
over to our shores.
  The reason these earmarks are necessary is because if it is left up 
to the State Department like it was last year, Mr. President, they will 
not give this program anything or very little, because they do not care 
about it.
  This is about priorities. And what the underlying bill says is that 
it is a priority for us to help them do a better job of dealing with an 
organized criminal effort that not only adversely affects them, but 
adversely affects us. So the Kerry amendment is completely 
inappropriate, and I certainly hope that it will not be approved.
  Earlier this week the Russian Ambassador was in my office, and we 
discussed a number of issues, including this very issue, the 
devastating impact that crime was having on Russia's economic and 
political process. And Ambassador Vorontsov lamented the fact that 
corruption and violence over there has reached epidemic proportion. 
Last Tuesday, the New York Times provided a disturbing analysis of the 
weaknesses of the banking sector over there.
  To quote the New York Times article:

       Banking in Russia has developed a reputation as a risky 
     business, especially for bankers who are gunned down--

  Gunned down--

     with horrifying frequency by mobsters intent on intimidation 
     and extortion.

  At the end of August, the Washington Post ran an editorial titled, 
``Murder Inc. in Moscow.'' The editorial called attention to an unusual 
demonstration outside the secret police headquarters. Middle-aged 
businessmen with briefcase and bodyguards in tow were protesting the 
murder of a colleague Ivan Kivalidi. As the Post pointed out, Mr. 
Kivalidi, chairman of the Russian Business Round Table, was a ``notable 
figure in the world of Russian finance; a casualty in the war now 
underway between the two kinds of private enterprise in Russia--the 
legitimate and the violently criminal.''
  Although a $1 million reward was offered for information on his 
murder, his colleagues were pessimistic.
  One commented: ``We have grounds to think that the police are closely 
related to the killings. None of the investigations of contract 
killings in the last year produced results.''


[[Page S 14047]]

  When Prime Minister Chernomyrdin announced new tough anticrime 
measures, he was scorned--scorned--by the local news media. Izvestia 
questioned the 70 pages of crimefighting declarations already issued by 
the Government, and the result, they asked? ``The government is unable 
to fight crime.''
  Now, everyone is impressed by the remarkable progress Russia has 
achieved. But as the Washington Post warns, if the crime trend 
continues, ``Russians are going to believe that democracy means 
confusion and that respect for law means weakness. Uncontrollable 
violent crime is turning into a greater threat than any political force 
now on the scene.''
  This is not a new problem. Since our trip to Moscow in 1993, Senator 
Leahy and I have repeatedly raised the crime problem. It was the 
principal concern expressed by the business community, our business 
community. Indeed, the principal impediment to expanding foreign 
investment over there--the principal impediment; there are plenty of 
impediments to Americans doing business in Russia--but the principal 
impediment is this: Beginning in 1993, we encouraged the administration 
to provide adequate funds to support legal reforms and the drafting and 
implementation of a tax, criminal, and commercial code.
  Last year, Mr. President, we voted 100 to 0 to support this effort by 
earmarking resources for the FBI and for local law enforcement 
training. We were just beginning to see how problems in the NIS were 
spilling over and infecting Europe.
  We were also beginning to see evidence that the 5,000 organized 
criminal enterprises which were strangling Russia were expanding their 
bank fraud, smuggling and narcotics trafficking to U.S. shores.
  Mr. President, Russian crime is now American crime. There are no 
longer borders or boundaries. The problem has swept across the ocean 
and arrived here at home.
  In July, the FBI arrested five Russians in New York City involved in 
a string of international extortion and murder cases.
  And extortion is not the worst of the problems we can expect. For the 
past 2 years, Judge Freeh has warned of the ominous rise in arrests of 
individuals involved in smuggling nuclear material--smuggling nuclear 
material, Mr. President.
  Yet the administration keeps citing the need for flexibility, just as 
they did last year when they prevailed upon the conferees to strip out 
$30 million for law enforcement activities.
  In the meantime, the problems have gotten worse. Crime is a serious 
problem. The solution requires a serious effort and investment on our 
part.
  This spring with congressional support, the FBI opened an 
international law enforcement training center in Budapest. In addition, 
the FBI cobbled together short term, in country training programs. But 
those activities have been ad hoc and funded on a shoestring.
  Concerned about this crazy quilt approach, I asked the FBI for an 
unofficial and rough estimate of the costs for several initiatives 
which would address our interests in the region.
  Roughly $12 million is needed to sustain training, exchanges and 
investigative and technical assistance both at the center in Budapest 
and in country. I believe these programs should be complemented by an 
ongoing presence of legal attaches in the region, so I have also 
provided funds to support legal attaches in Estonia, Ukraine, and 
Kazakhstan. Given the magnitude of the problem, this is really a 
relatively modest investment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent 
exchange of letters I had with Judge Freeh about my decision to expand 
the Bureau's role and an August 26, 1995, newspaper article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                              Federal Bureau of Investigation,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Senate 
         Appropriations Committee.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to advise you the 
     Departments of State and Justice are adamantly opposed to any 
     earmarking of funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriation Bill, 1996. Pursuant to those 
     objections, I respectfully request the Committee not to use 
     this mechanism to fund the FBI programs in question.
       The programs for which this funding is being made available 
     remain critically important and the FBI remains committed to 
     the democratization process in Central Europe, Russia, and 
     the New Independent States. Quite frankly, it has been 
     through the support and commitment of people like yourself 
     that the FBI in the past year has been able to make a 
     significant impact in the region. As you know, in the past 
     year, we have brought training to over 1,700 middle to upper-
     level police officers in their countries, at the FBI Academy 
     in Quantico, and through innovative efforts at our newly 
     created International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest.
       As we continue our efforts, we are hopeful that the 
     Department of State will continue to support our efforts to 
     confront the problems of international organized crime, drug 
     trafficking, nuclear trafficking, and terrorism.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Louis J. Freeh,
     Director.
                                                                    ____

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                              Federal Bureau of Investigation,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of this date. 
     My view, remains that the law enforcement training 
     initiatives we have undertaken and cop-to-cop relationship 
     that will flow from these endeavors are absolutely essential 
     to the long-term public safety and national security of the 
     United States. In addition to the contributions these efforts 
     provide toward democratization, we have seen tangible results 
     from the joint investigations and subsequent prosecutions of 
     international criminals made possible only because of these 
     initiatives.
       The FBI does not have funding for these international 
     training efforts in our budget. It is from the support that 
     you and your colleagues provided last year that we were able 
     to undertake these endeavors. Because the FBI has no separate 
     appropriation for this purpose, we must rely upon the 
     Department of State for grants.
       In a related issue, I understand that the Commerce, State, 
     Justice appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1996 would 
     provide some funding that could be used for limited expansion 
     of our Legal Attache program. These offices are essential in 
     our effort to combat international crime.
       I hope this information has been helpful to you.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Louis J. Freeh,
     Director.
                                                                    ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1995.
     Hon. Louis J. Freeh,
     Director,
     Federal Bureau of Investigation,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Judge Freeh: I have received your letter of September 
     15th, and appreciate the difficult circumstances you find 
     yourself in.
       As you know, I share your belief that combating the growing 
     international crime problem is essential. I am sympathetic to 
     the State Department's objections to earmarks but worry that 
     eliminating this provision would deny funds to this 
     worthwhile effort. Would the FBI be able to fund these 
     programs without support from the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriation Bill?
       I look forward to your reply, and congratulate you on the 
     success this initiative has enjoyed to date.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mitch McConnell,
     United States Senator.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 26, 1995]

                         Murder Inc. in Moscow

       As demonstrations go in Moscow, it was decidedly unusual. 
     The participants were middle-aged businessmen carrying 
     briefcases, surrounded by their bodyguards, gathered near the 
     building that houses the secret police for the purpose of 
     protesting the murder of a banker--and calling attention to 
     the very slight chance that justice will ever catch up with 
     the people who did it. The victim, a man named Ivan Kivelidi, 
     was also chairman of the Russian Business Round Table and a 
     notable figure in the emerging world of Russian finance. He 
     was a casualty in the war now underway between the two kinds 
     of private enterprise in Russia--the legitimate and the 
     violently criminal.
       Mr. Kivelidi's death is important because it is typical of 
     many in a country where racketeering has become pervasive. 
     Anyone who hopes to see Russia develop as a prosperous 
     democracy can only read with dread about this epidemic of 
     killings, the great majority of which remain unsolved. If 
     Russia's elected government cannot organize effective law 
     enforcement, it risks being replaced by other kinds of 
     government as public fears increase.
       Russia's police and system of justice is disorganized and 
     demoralized, frequently corrupt and generally ineffectual. 
     The post-Soviet government has, with reason, wanted to change 
     it from the instrument of repression that it used to be into 
     something else. But 

[[Page S 14048]]
     the transformation has gotten bogged down, leaving the system uncertain 
     and incompetent, with salaries eroded by inflation and with 
     no consensus regarding its purpose and its powers.
       If this condition continues, Russians are going to begin to 
     believe that democracy means confusion and that respect for 
     law means weakness. Russia is an inherently rich country, 
     with immense natural resources and a well-educated 
     population. In less than four years since the collapse of the 
     Soviet Union, its private sector has grown with remarkable 
     speed. After a sharp economic decline, a recovery now seems 
     to be well underway.
       But this promise of growth and steadily improving living 
     conditions depends on political and social stability. 
     Uncontrollable violent crime is turning into a greater threat 
     to it than any political force now on the scene. That little 
     funeral demonstration on a summer evening in Moscow, in 
     memory of Mr. Kivelidi, was a warning. Anarchy is not a 
     popular form of government.

  Mr. McCONNELL. On Monday, Judge Freeh wrote to advise me that the 
State Department and the Justice Department opposed earmarking funds 
for the FBI in the foreign operations bill. Frankly, he felt obliged to 
register their concerns. He did go on to point out, however, that 
congressional support last year was what was responsible for training 
over 1,700 middle- to upper-level police officers at Quantico and at 
the new center in Budapest.
  I wrote back and asked Judge Freeh if these programs were important 
and whether they could be sustained from existing FBI resources. And 
here is what he said, Mr. President.

       Judge Freeh: My view remains that the law enforcement 
     training initiatives we have undertaken and cop-to-cop 
     relationships that flow from these endeavors are absolutely 
     essential to the long-term public safety and national 
     security of the United States.

  Of this country.

       In addition to the contributions these efforts provide 
     toward democratization, we have seen tangible results from 
     joint investigations and subsequent prosecutions of 
     international criminals made possible only (only) because of 
     these initiatives.
  This is Judge Freeh now. ``The FBI does not have the funding for 
these international training efforts in our budget.'' The recent 
arrests in New York provide just one more example of the joint 
investigations which produced concrete results protecting American 
interests.
  No doubt some of my colleagues will want to sidetrack this important 
earmark into a debate about the FBI's role somewhere else. I would 
rather see the FBI live up to its potential, and I think that this 
particular amendment is absolutely essential if we are going to help 
achieve something not only for the Russians but ourselves in the law 
enforcement area.
  Obviously, I hope the Kerry amendment will be defeated 
overwhelmingly. I think it is a very bad amendment. It obviously takes 
us in the wrong direction.
  Mr. President, we have about 10 minutes left. I suggest we split the 
remaining 10 minutes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I might inquire of the manager of the 
bill for a moment----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. If I might have 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining 10 minutes before the vote be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not intend to take all that time.
  The FBI is earmarked for $12.6 million for foreign law enforcement 
training in the International Law Enforcement Academy in Hungary.
  This earmark is essential for the security of the United States. And 
I say this because the FBI is training the law enforcement officers of 
Russia and the former Soviet Union and also Eastern Europe so that the 
organized crime gangs do not bring their business to the United States.
  And when I say the United States, I want you to know that they are 
doing a thriving business in my own State of New York, in Brighton 
Beach, which has been called ``the hub of the Russian mafia.''
  I am encouraged by FBI Director Louis Freeh's deep commitment to 
fighting Russian organized crime. His efforts have highlighted his 
concern for the issue and we want to support him as he has taken the 
clear initiative on this important front.
  With these funds the FBI will be able to continue international 
cooperation on a level heretofore not seen in international law 
enforcement. The FBI will be able to provide training in organized 
crime and related investigative matters, forensic and other advanced 
investigative technological support, and continue the goodwill efforts 
begun last year with Director Freeh's visit to the region. Because the 
countries of Eastern Europe are facing the Russian crime gangs first, 
before they come here, this type of cooperation is vitally necessary 
and unprecedented in the history of law enforcement.
  Presently, one of the greatest threats facing democracy in Russia and 
Eastern Europe today, is the rapid expansion of organized crime. The 
situation is so bad that organized crime literally threatens to 
undermine the very democracy that the United States and the West seek 
to protect through their assistance programs, and more so by 
connection, our own security.

  President Yeltsin has stated that ``organized crime is trying to take 
the country by the throat.''
  When one looks at the numbers, this is becoming all too clear. At the 
beginning of 1994, according to Russian First Deputy Minister of 
Internal Affairs Mikhail Yegorov, there were 5,691 organized crime 
groups in Russia, with over 100,000 gang members.
  In addition to the number of groups operating in Russia, there are 
close to 100 criminal groups concentrated in 29 countries, including 
Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Baltic Countries, Turkey, China, 
and 24 in the United States alone, with a concentration in my own 
backyard of Brighton Beach, NY.
  In Brighton Beach, Russian organized crime gangs become intimately 
involved in gasoline-tax scams, insurance fraud, drug trafficking, 
forgery, and contract killings.
  In addition to New York, Russian organized crime gangs operate in San 
Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago. Their activities range from 
money laundering, illegal money transactions, control of gambling and 
prostitution, narcotics trafficking, and most dangerously, in 1993, 241 
cases of illegal trading in nuclear material in Germany.
  Worse yet, these gangs have formed connections with the Sicilian 
mafia and the Colombian gangs.
  Additionally, it is very alarming to look at the activities of these 
gangs in counterfeiting U.S. Federal Reserve notes, FRN's. During 
fiscal year 1992, there were no counterfeit FRNs reported as appearing 
in Russia by either Russian or United States governmental entities. The 
reason for the absence of reported counterfeit U.S. currency activity 
was apparently in direct correlation to the restricted Russian-American 
political and economic relationship.
  During fiscal year 1993, however, without any assistance directed at 
the detection of counterfeit U.S. currency, $1,049,090 in counterfeit 
U.S. currency was documented as appearing in Russia. Accordingly to law 
enforcement officials, this activity is apparently ``only the tip of 
the iceberg,'' and the actual amount of activity would readily become 
more apparent when U.S. law enforcement personnel can get to the 
region.
  If we do not begin work on solving this problem now, we are headed 
for a situation where crime will so inundate the region that democracy 
itself become threatened and perhaps fall. If an extremist were to come 
to power in a backlash to a situation of near or total anarchy, we 
might find ourselves again threatened with confrontation with Russia. 
As for the other former states of the Soviet Union, they might also 
find themselves threatened by the resurgent nationalism these 
extremists espouse.
  For these reasons, we must act now to stem the tide of Russian 
organized crime. If we do not act now, the fate of Russia and our own 
security will become threatened. We cannot allow this chance to stop 
the violence, from slipping through our hands.
  If the Russian crime syndicates continue at the pace they are taking, 
it 

[[Page S 14049]]
could cause a right-wing backlash in Russia, bringing another 
dictatorial leader to power, this time from the right. This situation 
would invariably throw the fate of democratic reform into doubt and 
cast the world back into the throws of the cold war.
  Let me say this, Mr. President. These moneys are absolutely essential 
if we are going to have any success dealing with the kind of organized 
crime efforts that have made an incredible impact in the United States 
of America from abroad but yet impacting my city, the city of New York, 
and its people.
  I have to tell you, this earmark is essential for the security of the 
United States, and it is being used today productively to fight crime. 
We have an area in New York that, unfortunately, has become a magnet 
for organized crime. That is in Brooklyn, Brighton Beach. I want you to 
know that they are doing a thriving business.
  What the FBI is attempting to do is to coordinate, to train and to 
build the kind of relationship abroad, not only in Russia, but in other 
areas, so that they have the ability to communicate, to interdict, to 
stop and, hopefully, stop it before it becomes so pervasive in the 
United States.
  This money funds organized crime investigations, insurance fraud, 
bank fraud, murder, smuggling--and do you know where that is taking 
place? Not just abroad, but here. That is the impact. I cannot believe 
that we would want to in any way impede this very successful program 
for a very modest investment. It is absolutely essential that we 
continue. We should be doing more.
  So I hope, as well-intentioned as my colleague's endeavors--and I 
believe them to be so; he has been a proponent of more anticrime 
legislation or as much as anybody. But I hope that we let the Director 
and let the other agencies, the Treasury Department and the DEA, have 
that opportunity to make an impact in saving lives, in battling crime 
right here in the United States of America, because that is what the 
impact of these funds are.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend for his 
comments and the acknowledgement of what this Senator has done in this 
area. It is precisely because of that that I am here today.
  It was my intention, and is my intention, to ask at the end of my 
comments to withdraw these amendments, but I wanted to raise this 
debate. My hope is that, in the days to come, there can be some further 
discussion in the context of the conference, and otherwise, to 
guarantee what is really at the heart of what this Senator is concerned 
about.
  I do not think there is any Senator--I do not say this with any 
special finger pointing--but I think I have had as many hearings and as 
much focus in my 11 years here on international crime and organized 
crime as anyone in the Senate. It is my concern that what is at stake 
here is the capacity to control and the capacity to have oversight and 
an appropriate coordination. This is not a question about whether the 
FBI should get money. It is a question about how it ought to get the 
money and who will coordinate these international efforts today.
  It ought to be of great concern to Senators that both the Justice 
Department and Treasury Department are opposed to a subagency coming in 
and getting funding separately outside of the Cabinet process, outside 
of the normal appropriations process. It ought to be of concern that 
the FBI wants to begin a training program in Ukraine for a model of the 
FBI on their own, without the oversight and input and constructive 
effort of all of these other agencies. This is a team effort in this 
country. We have always been best when law enforcement is a team 
effort. This represents solo flying. I respectfully suggest that we 
ought to be concerned about this question of control.
  The fact is that the FBI has received over half of the funds 
available to the State Department for this purpose last year, and every 
single one of the FBI's request to undertake training last year was 
granted by the State Department. Not a single FBI request was turned 
down. So let us put this in its proper perspective.
  But, on the other hand, I think it is the kind of issue where 
Senators coming to the floor and voting with the Appropriations 
Committee's issues the way they are, that this would be best resolved 
through further discussions.
  My hope is the appropriate parties will engage in that effort so that 
we can guarantee that we are not injuring other aspects of a 
coordinated team effort; rather, that we are enhancing all of our 
capacity to fight this new and significantly increasing threat of 
international organized crime.
  So I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to withdraw both 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The amendments are withdrawn.
  The amendments (Nos. 2732 and 2733) were withdrawn.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from 
Massachusetts for withdrawing the amendments. It has been a useful 
discussion.
  I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote on the 
Helms amendment No. 2730, which will start momentarily, that there be 4 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a motion 
to table the Bingaman amendment, upon which we will vote right after 
the Helms amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2730

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 6:30 having arrived, under the 
previous order, the question is on agreeing to the Helms amendment No. 
2730.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
   The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 456 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 2730) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor. I hope 
the Senator from New Mexico would seek recognition.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed by the managers of the 
bill that it would be more appropriate to offer this as an amendment to 
the State, Justice, Commerce bill which is scheduled for consideration 
next week.
  For that reason, I withdraw the amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been discussing this with the 
distinguished chairman.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. The Senate is 
not in order.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  
[[Page S 14050]]

  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, where we are 
we have one more amendment upon which we will be voting, a motion to 
table very shortly, the Helms amendment. And in all likelihood the only 
additional vote will be final passage. There is one other amendment we 
are still working on. So there could possibly be two rollcall votes 
plus final passage; but in all likelihood one rollcall on an amendment, 
a tabling motion, and then final passage. So we are very, very close to 
finishing the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, following that, I would hope Senators would 
cooperate. We know we are going to have to pass this bill. We know the 
distinguished Republican leader and the distinguished Democratic leader 
have said there are other bills coming along behind it. I would hope we 
would go forward with it.
  I note one thing for my colleagues. I have listened to the discussion 
of the distinguished Republican leader this afternoon and the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I assume 
this would mean, if he has his up-or-down vote, or a clear vote on his 
amendment----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend while the Senate 
comes to order?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I assume after that vote we would then go 
forward with the confirmation of a number of ambassadors. This is not 
just some small matter. It is now mid-September, and we have people who 
have children. The children do not know where they are going to be 
going to school, and they do not know whether they will move out of the 
house or in.
  This is a very, very real situation for these families. We may have 
our efforts back and forth with each other, but the children ought to 
have some idea where they are going to be going to school, and what 
they are going to be doing.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the Senator from Kentucky correct 
that the pending amendment is the Helms amendment regarding State 
Department reorganization?


                     Amendment No. 2712, withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the Murkowski 
amendment No. 2712.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have reviewed the revision of section 
575 of the committee amendment of H.R. 1868 concerning North Korea, to 
which I understand the managers of the bill have agreed. I do not 
believe that this revised section is as strong or specific as it should 
be, nor is it even as strong as the original version. Further, I still 
believe that my amendment would provide a more concrete and fundamental 
structure for monitoring compliance with the agreed framework on 
nuclear issues between the United States and North Korea.
  Nevertheless, it appears to me that the revised section 575 takes at 
least a few first steps toward the objectives of my amendment, No. 
2712. Just as importantly, it puts the administration and the North 
Koreans on notice that we will be monitoring closely the implementation 
of the agreed framework on nuclear issues, including North Korea's 
commitment to participate in dialog with the Republic of Korea.
  As a result, and to save time for the Senate as it moves to complete 
this bill, and because the revised amendment comes at least some way 
toward my amendment, I would like to withdraw my amendment at this 
time.
  However, in doing so, I want to advise my colleagues that since this 
issue deserves extensive further debate and consideration within the 
Senate, I am going to propose my amendment in the form of a 
freestanding bill in the near future. I also advise my colleagues that 
my friend Senator Helms has promised to consider this matter in his 
committee expeditiously.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Murkowski amendment be laid aside and that the pending business be the 
Helms amendment regarding State Department reorganization.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to advise the floor 
manager the Murkowski amendment has been withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw his 
amendment.
  Does the Senator from Alaska request that?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska does request that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  So the amendment (No. 2712) was withdrawn.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2707

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the pending business the Helms 
amendment regarding State Department reorganization?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to table the Helms amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Helms amendment No. 2707. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 457 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2707) was rejected.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                     Amendment No. 2707, Withdrawn

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Have the yeas and 
nays been ordered on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered on the 
amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2707) was withdrawn.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, obviously, I agree with the withdrawal of 
the amendment and hope that will be an issue better addressed in 
another forum. I am pleased it was. I also hope that we may see soon 
the Ambassadors--this confirmation is still being withheld--so the 
family, the children, everybody else can make plans, especially since 
the school year is now upon us.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc; that the 
bill be considered as original text for the purpose 

[[Page S 14051]]
of further amendment; and that no points of order be waived thereon by 
reason of this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were agreed to, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I have great reservations about a provision 
in this bill that cuts overall aid to Russia based on the Iranian 
nuclear reactor sale. I will not detain the Senate tonight. I will ask 
for Senators to think very carefully about this. I think it is 
essential that we understand that the number one national security 
challenge we have in the next 5, 10 years relates to proliferation.
  I completely agree with the critics of this sale by the Russians to 
the Iranians. It is my view that this is against the U.S. national 
security interests and also against the security interests of Russia. 
We have a common security interest in preventing the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons. We differ because the Russians are making the sale for 
economic reasons. The question is: How do we respond? Do we respond 
with a shotgun attack, cutting overall aid which is what this bill 
does, or do we have a more refined approach, a rifle approach, making 
it clear that our own policy is not in any way going to permit them to 
do this without protest, nevertheless, reserving some economic 
leverage--
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think it is important that we not use all 
of our economic leverage on this matter, as important as it is. If the 
Russians wanted the Iranians to have nuclear weapons, they could get 
them nuclear weapons in 24 hours. Yet, this provision in this bill acts 
as if the Russians are indeed trying to give the Iranians a nuclear 
weapons capacity. That is not what the Russians are doing. They are 
trying to gain economic advantage because of their economic situation.
  I do not have an amendment on this. I think all Members ought to 
think about this very carefully. The Russians are the only empire in 
history with 30,000 nuclear weapons that has collapsed. They have some 
thousands and thousands of tons of chemical weapons, and no one even 
knows how much in biological weapons, and with scientists that know how 
to produce this material and know how to make these weapons of mass 
destruction.
  We have an enormous amount of security at stake in maintaining our 
good relationship with Russia, as long as they proceed and struggle 
toward democracy and market reform. If Russia becomes unstable, if 
Russia becomes paranoid, if Russia becomes nationalistic, we are going 
to have terrible difficulties in the years ahead, and even the months 
ahead, in dealing with this situation. That may happen, inevitably, but 
certainly we should do no harm.
  This provision in this bill is going to cause very big problems if it 
remains in conference. I hope all Senators will think carefully about 
this situation. I hope the conferees will look very carefully as to 
whether they can use a rifle approach, making it clear what our policy 
is, making it clear that we disagree with this sale, that it has some 
penalties attached, but not cutting overall economic assistance to a 
country that really holds the future of nuclear proliferation in its 
hands with its huge arsenal of weapons, and a country whose own 
stability is enormously important to our own national security.
  I ask the conferees to consider this matter very carefully when they 
go to conference and not to be locked into this position, which I think 
is unwise and against our own national security interests.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the section of H.R. 
1868 that provides:

       No funds may be made available under this heading for 
     Russia unless the President determines and certifies in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     Government of Russia has terminated all planning and 
     implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical 
     expertise, training, technology or equipment necessary to 
     develop a nuclear reactor or related nuclear research 
     facilities or programs.

  It is clear, Mr. President, that the Government of Russia has 
decided, over strong and I believe well-founded United States 
objections, to proceed with the sale of light water reactor technology 
and equipment to Iran. So the effect of this provision would be to 
block all United States foreign assistance to Russia in the coming 
fiscal year.
  Mr. President, I oppose the sale of Russian nuclear reactor 
technology and equipment to Iran. It is not in our country's national 
security interests. I believe it also will not serve Russia's national 
security interests.
  However, I think we need to consider carefully whether a cutoff of 
all foreign assistance to Russia will advance our national security 
interests. I have serious doubts that this provision will serve U.S. 
interests.
  First, I believe Russia's decision to proceed with this sale was 
based on economic considerations. The Russian economy, and particularly 
the budget of the Ministry for Atomic Energy, badly needs additional 
revenue. From their perspective, this deal appears very lucrative.
  Second, in my view, a cutoff of U.S. foreign assistance is not going 
to stop this deal. The decision has been made at the highest level, 
after the Russian side listened to the best arguments the United States 
side could made in opposition to the proposed sale. The Russian 
Government has invested too much prestige, and expects too much 
monetary return, for this decision to be reversed because of cessation 
of United States aid.
  Third, I believe Russia has wrongly discounted the disruptive impact 
on international affairs that Iran could play, should it succeed in 
developing even crude nuclear weapons. Yet it is unreasonable to assume 
that Russia wants to help Iran to become a nuclear weapons state. 
Russia possesses over 20,000 nuclear warheads, tons of weapons-grade 
fissile material, and hundreds of scientists and technicians skilled in 
creating nuclear weapons. Russia does not need to build a light water 
reactor in Iran to boost the Iranian nuclear weapons program. If Russia 
decides to supply Iran with nuclear weapons, it can do so in a few 
hours.
  Fourth, I believe we must ask whether United States influence on 
Russia to safeguard nuclear technology, to prevent it from being 
applied to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, will be increased by a 
ban on United States assistance to Russia. I think the reverse is more 
likely: that cessation of United States aid will decrease the 
likelihood of Russian cooperation with us on this vital issue.
  Mr. President, our concern over Russia's determination to continue 
with sale of civilian nuclear reactory technology and equipment to Iran 
should be addressed, in my view, with a carefully-aimed marksman's 
rifle, not with a shotgun blast that demolishes everything in front of 
it. If we cut off all aid because of this sale to Iran, what do we take 
away the next time Russia acts in a way we believe is contrary to our 
interests? We will have fired all our ammunition and will have little 
economic leverage left.
  It may be that some aspects of our assistance to Russia merit 
critical review and reduction. That is another issue entirely. Overall, 
however, I believe our assistance has made an important contribution to 
movement toward the development of market economy, a political 
democracy, and a pluralistic society in Russia. To my mind, this is 
clearly in our national security interests and should not be brought to 
a total halt because of our disagreement with an unwise decision by the 
current Russian Government.

  Mr. President, I offer these remarks in the hope that the Senate 
conferees will review this provision carefully as they enter into 
conference on H.R. 1868.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of Senator Nunn, relative to the provision restricting funds for 
Russia.
  I hope the conferees will add Presidential waiver language to that 
section. Otherwise the language could endanger the chances for our 
relationship with Russia to continue to grow and could lessen the 
chances for democracy to survive in Russia.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. The Senator from 
Georgia has just raised issues of concern that many of the rest of us 
have. I hope this is a matter, as we work through conference, that can 
be handled. During 

[[Page S 14052]]
this whole bill, we have been helped by the cooperation on both sides, 
by the distinguished chairman, by Robin Cleveland, Jim Bond and his 
staff, Tim Rieser on mine. I am sure that will continue that throughout 
the conference.


               Amendments Nos. 2734 through 2767, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments, en bloc, 
to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2734 through 2767, en bloc.

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

                           amendment no. 2734

   (Purpose: To make $3,000,000 available for the World Food Program)

       On page 43, line 17, strike out ``Provided,'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``Provided, That not less than $3,000,000 of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading shall be made available 
     for the World Food Program: Provided further,''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for accepting my 
amendment making $3,000,000 available for the World Food Program [WFP].
  As the largest WFP donor, the United States expects more and more 
every year from WFP as the key provider of food aid in emergencies. In 
its investigation of WFP effectiveness, the General Accounting Office 
determined that a larger cash component in United States food donations 
is needed to improve the efficiency of our food aid distribution 
operations in such difficult emergencies as those found in Rwanda, 
Bosnia, Angola, and Sudan.
  While this earmark will not increase WFP funding from this account, 
it will continue the current level of U.S. support and give us time to 
address through other legislation the fundamental problem of linking 
cash to food in order to improve the management of food aid so 
desperately needed around the world.
  I deeply appreciate the acceptance of my amendment and thank the 
chairman and his staff for their consideration of this important issue.


                           amendment no. 2735

       On page 11, line 10 insert after ``Zaire'': ``: Provided 
     further, That, Not less than $2,000,000 shall be provided to 
     the International Fertilizer Development Center''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2736

       At the appropriate place under the heading on page 8, 
     ``Economic Assistance'' add the following proviso: ``Provided 
     further, That not less than $800,000 of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be made available for 
     support of the United States Telecommunications Training 
     Institute;''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2737

(Purpose: To increase amounts appropriated for international narcotics 
      control and to decrease amounts available to the Agency for 
                       International Development)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     $20,000,000 of the funds made available under this Act for or 
     through the Agency for International Development shall be 
     transferred to, and merged with, the appropriations account 
     entitled ``international narcotics control'' and shall be 
     available for the same purposes for which funds in such 
     account are available.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am here today to warn about the 
serious illegal drug problem that poses a major post cold war threat to 
our Nation's peace and security. Frankly, I worry that these words will 
fall on the deaf ears of an America that seems unwilling to face 
reality and commit the resources to stop its own destruction. We are 
indeed at a crucial point. Representative William Zeliff, wrote last 
March: ``There is growing consensus that America's domestic counterdrug 
strategy is failing. In 1993 and 1994, respected University of Michigan 
surveys of 51,000 American students indicate that gains once made are 
slipping. We are in the midst of a major reversal--in use and 
attitudes.''
  After a steep drop in monthly cocaine use between 1988 and 1991 from 
2.9 to 1.3 million users, and a similar drop in overall drug use 
between 1991 and 1992 from 14.5 to 11.4 million users, numbers released 
earlier this year revealed drug use up in 1994 for all surveyed grades 
for crack, cocaine, heroin, LSD, non-LSD hallucinogens, inhalants, and 
marijuana.--The Washington Times, ``Renewing Drug War Strategies,'' by 
William Zeliff March 9.
  In 1994, according to this Michigan study, twice the number of eighth 
graders were experimenting with marijuana as did in 1991, and daily use 
of marijuana by seniors was up by half just from 1993. Also, the 
nationally recognized Drug Abuse Warning Network has reported that 
drugrelated emergency visits in 1994 were up 8 percent over 1993--now 
standing at their highest point ever.
  Meanwhile, the resurgence of heroin use in the U.S. borders on 
epidemic proportions. Heroin related admissions to emergency rooms have 
increased 30 percent since 1990. DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine 
recently noted that heroin is now available in more cities at lower 
prices and higher purities than ever before in our history. In November 
1993, the Clinton administration announced that it would develop a 
separate strategy to combat the heroin threat. However, a recommended 
strategy was only just presented in June of this year, and still awaits 
the President's approval.
  One expert is very blunt: ``If these trends continue, by 1996, the 
Clinton administration will have presided over the greatest increase in 
drug use and the largest expansion in the supply of illegal drugs in 
modern American history.''--John Walters, president of the New 
Citizenship Project and former acting director for supply reduction, 
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
  If that's not a loud enough wakeup call, there's more:
  About 23 million Americans use drugs, of which at least 6 million use 
cocaine. If current trends continue, the jump in marijuana use among 
children from 1992-94 signals that 820,000 more of them will try 
cocaine; about 58,000 will become regular users or addicts.
  Illegal drug use among the Nation's high school seniors has risen 
44.6 percent in the last 2 years according to the Department of Health 
and Human Services. And there is a decline in the perceived risk which 
leads to an increase in actual drug use. According to Lloyd D. Johnson 
of the University of Michigan, there is an increase in drug 
glorification messages aired on television news and entertainment 
shows. There is a softening of informal and formal antidrug attitudes.
  Over 70 percent of the prison population--which is at 1.4 million--
tested positive for drugs after their arrest. Whether it is violent 
crime, child abuse, homelessness, or inner-city poverty, drugs--and 
particularly crack--have made those pathologies far more acute and in 
some places unmanageable. Violent crime, largely induced by drug use, 
is increasing at an alarming rate. And, according to DEA Administrator 
Constantine: ``For the first time in our history, America's crime 
problem is being controlled by worldwide drug syndicates who operate 
their networks from places like Cali, Colombia * * *.''
  The number of police officers, lawyers, accountants, judges who have 
been tainted by drug money has never been quantified, but the erosion 
of public trust is apparent.
  Drug abuse is costing America about $100 billion annually, excluding 
billions in taxes on illegal profits from the drug trade, but the moral 
cost to the U.S. social and political system is immeasurable.
  These distressing facts are not simply a reflection of society's more 
permissive attitudes. This administration also changed counterdrug 
policies. Just days after inauguration, Clinton moved the White House 
office created to direct national antidrug--the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy [ONDCP] efforts to a backwater and slashed its personnel 
by over 80 percent. Enforcement has been deemphasized. Mandatory 
minimum sentences have been reduced. Prosecution statistics from the 
Administrative Office of U.S. Courts for 1992-94 reveal: a 14-percent 
drop in charges under all Federal drug laws and a 30-percent drop in 
charges under narcotics offenses.
  The Clinton administration slashed drug interdiction. Information 
provided at a recent Senate Judiciary hearing revealed a cut of 
50 percent between 1993 and 1994 alone in the ships 

[[Page S 14053]]
and aircraft devoted to the interdiction of drugs from South America. 
America's low-key drug czar, Lee Brown, has warned of the need to 
restore assets to the interdiction force structure. He reported that 
all Federal agencies involved in drug interdiction had reached a 
consensus: ``that to maintain adequate resources in theater, we must 
return to the 1992-93 levels of effort.'' But shortly after that 
warning, the administration released its fiscal year 1996 budget 
requesting a cut in interdiction funds to $1.27 billion--almost 35 
percent below the fiscal year 1992 level.

  Even drug treatment and especially prevention--often held up by this 
administration as alternatives to rigid enforcement, had their budgets 
trimmed by $100 million and $130 million, respectively.
  According to recent testimony from the GAO's Joseph Kelly, Director 
in Charge International Affairs Issues, National Security and 
International Affairs Division, before the House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the executive 
branch had difficulty implementing a key part of the strategy--shifting 
resources from the transit zone to the source countries.
  Defense Department officials have also complained that the amount of 
resources applied to the transit zone has been significantly reduced 
without a shift in resources to the source countries. For example, the 
DEA is reducing its presence in Colombia, the U.S. Southern Command is 
now flying fewer sorties each month in support of source-country 
interdiction than it did in 1993, and counternarcotics assistance to 
the three primary source countries was less in 1995 than in 1991 or 
1992. In short, Kelly admits that ``shifting resources between and 
within agencies has been problematic.''
  Kelly mentions other severe problems with America's so-called war on 
drugs, including the need for better coordination. No single 
organization seems in charge of the drug war in either the cocaine 
source or the transit countries. He mentioned better leadership as 
required to develop a coherent plan, and to integrate all U.S. 
programs.
  What we have now is virtually no strategy at all. The result is 
``U.S. Falling Far Short in the Drug War,'' as written in the 
Washington Post by Jeffrey Smith. Smith and others have noted--and 
frankly, I am deeply concerned--that American officials on both sides 
of the aisle are seriously underestimating the threat. I have painted a 
bleak, yet accurate, account of the tragedy of drug abuse, the 
violence, the health costs, the destruction of lives. But I doubt that 
this Senate or our antidrug officials have fully grasped the magnitude, 
complexity, and sheer danger of the drug trade.
  Corruption is leading a path right to the heart of the political 
system. And many foreign leaders appear unable to deal with the 
problem. The facts are daunting: Large, criminal drug trafficking 
empires, better armed than many police forces, and with ties to other 
organized international crime branches around the globe are wreaking 
destruction around the world, particularly in this hemisphere. The CIA 
estimates that illicit narcotics is a $300 billion a year industry. 
Yet, U.S. and independent experts warn that cuts are harming 
Washington's ability to interrupt the new alliances being formed by 
major criminal organizations involved in drug activities on different 
continents.
  A senior U.S. intelligence official recently stated that these 
organizations ``are developing massive capital. I am concerned that 
they are going to link together * * * to leverage Democratic societies 
around the world * * * There is a tremendous dimension to this problems 
that we have hardly begun to see.''--the Christian Science Monitor, 
``Spy Agency Adapts Cold-War Tactics for Drug War,'' by Jonathan 
Landay, July 5, 1995. Political instability, rising corruption, and 
porous borders in the United States, Europe, and Asia have enabled 
criminal organizations to expand into lucrative opium growing areas and 
new cocaine markets.
  The technological advancement of the drug trade also has been 
underestimated. Colombia's Cali cartel has apparently changed its 
transportation mode from single- and twin-engine aircraft to larger 
commercial aircraft, such as 707's and 727's. There are no estimates on 
how many large commercial flights are used. But the traffickers are 
creating economies of scale to bring in tons of cocaine. Jeffrey Smith 
notes: ``The United States and other developed countries are falling 
further behind in the war on drugs as criminal organizations in Latin 
America and Asia have increased production and become more 
sophisticated in distributing cocaine and heroin.''
  With profits as high as 75 percent, heroin and cocaine producers can 
afford to spend tens of billions of dollars annually on sophisticated 
counterintelligence programs, telecommunications equipment, as well as 
hiring some of the best marketing and legal talent that U.S. colleges 
and universities produce. While the problem has often been compared to 
efforts to undermine America's crime mob, that comparison may be 
misleading. Today's drug leaders are better armed, have much more funds 
at their disposal, and have access to sophisticated technology to carry 
out their trade.

  In the Western Hemisphere, drug traffickers have invested in a 
nationwide chain of pharmacies; legal drug labs--even their own brand 
of aspirin and vitamins; investments in soccer teams; hotels; shopping 
centers; car dealerships; apartments; poultry farms; ranches with 
thousands of heads of cattle--and they are even believed to have 
purchased some newly privatized State industries, according to the FBI 
and other sources.
  Based on the extent of coca leaf production in South America, the 
Western Hemisphere's annual cocaine production is about 1,100 metric 
tons. Drug users in the United States consume an estimated 300 tons; 
police and customs seize another 300 tons. That leaves a tremendous 
glut of cocaine on the world market, keeping street dealers on several 
continents flush, despite continuing victories like the arrest of major 
traffickers.
  Proponents of efforts to stop the production of drug crops and 
substances at the source--in Latin America and Asia--believe that 
reducing the foreign supply of drugs is crucial to lowering the levels 
of drug use in the United States. They argue that, coupled with intense 
law enforcement, such programs will succeed since it is easier to 
locate and destroy crops in the field than to locate subsequently 
processed drugs in America's streets. Opponents generally believe that 
the reduction of the foreign supply is unrealistic, and that the only 
ultimate solution is the reduction of demand. By now, any reasonable 
person has surely come to the conclusion that it will take both: We 
must decrease demand, even as we reduce the flow of illegal drugs.
  Here's just a sample of the reality I must deal with in trying to 
stem the flow of drugs into the United States, as the Western 
Hemisphere Subcommittee chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee:
  Mexico: Fifty to 70 percent of the illegal drugs that enter the 
United States are smuggled through Mexico. Between 60 to 80 percent of 
the foreign-grown marijuana available in the United States is of 
Mexican origin, and Mexico supplies about 23 percent of the heroin. 
Mexico is also a key transshipment point for cocaine entering the 
United States, and has expanded its role over recent years as a 
clearing-house for worldwide drug shipments and money laundering.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy has designated Mexico as 
the second most important country in the international narcotics 
program, behind Colombia. The DEA attache in Mexico has recommended 
that Mexico be reclassified as a source country so it can be considered 
for more resources under the administration's counterdrug strategy.
  Faced with a growing threat from narcotics trafficker, President 
Zedillo has singled out the drug trade as Mexico's most pressing 
national security problem. But even that key admission is not enough. 
In a disturbing development, drug smugglers are buying passenger jets 
and flying in huge amounts of drugs into Mexico for transport to the 
United States. According to the State Department, drug-laden cargo jets 
``are one of the most difficult and critical challenges * * * facing 
Mexico.'' 

[[Page S 14054]]
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, March 1995. Zedillo 
has ordered the Mexican military to take a greater role in the 
counterdrug fight, including the use of air force fighter jets to 
intercept cocaine-laden planes.
  Experts say that Mexican drug organizations have built a financial 
empire using the tourist industry and stock market, while converting 
billions of dollars in drug profits into legitimate forms of capital. 
Mexico's National University estimates that Mexican drug lords spend as 
much as $500 million a year on bribery. Some bankers suspect that last 
December's financial crisis was partly the result of a massive transfer 
of drug money.
  Colombia: We vigorously congratulate recent success in Colombia 
apprehending Cali cartel kingpins, Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela and Jose 
Santacruz Londono, among others. The Cali cartel has accounted for at 
least 80 percent of the cocaine shipped into the United States. We are 
elated and anxiously await more traffickers being brought to justice. 
But we are wise enough to recognize that the problems down there are 
far from over. We need to determine that those captured will be 
prosecuted, fully. These kingpins must receive punishment commensurate 
with their crimes. Short sentences, in which they're able to hold on to 
their ill-gotten gains would be counterproductive. Hopefully, 
Colombia's institutions will deliver and operations against the Cali 
cartel will continue.
  But last year Columbia achieved only minimum success in the tactical 
arenas of drug interdiction, illicit crop eradication, and precursor 
chemical seizures. Colombia is now producing so much cocaine that U.S. 
officials can barely keep track of it, and it may well have surpassed 
Bolivia as the world's second largest coca grower. Peru remains the 
largest coca grower, accounting for nearly two-thirds of the world's 
coca production, most of which is processed in Colombia. Colombia is 
also believed to have the dubious distinction of surpassing Mexico as 
the hemisphere's leading poppy producer.
  Early this year, Columbia's justice minister released a report 
concluding that judges and prosecutors were overly generous in the use 
of plea bargains. Even Columbia's chief prosecutor described the 
situation as virtual impunity. We applaud Columbia for coming clean on 
a failed program, but the reality is: Colombian officials themselves 
are embarrassed by the lenient sentences.
  Ernesto Samper's Presidency remains tainted with allegations that his 
1994 campaign received up to millions of dollars in contributions from 
traffickers. The corruption of Colombia's Congress continues to be a 
problem, with one former U.S. officials warning that as much as 50 to 
75 percent of the Colombian Congress is influenced by the drug cartels.
  Notwithstanding present doubts about the effectiveness of America's 
strategy in the war against drugs, there was success against the drug 
cartels during the mid 1980's to early 1990's. The energy and resources 
devoted to the antidrug effort during the Bush and Reagan 
administrations, combined with hardening public attitudes produced 
declines in the drug problem. And while Federal spending on the drug 
war was substantial--approaching $12 billion at the end of the Bush 
years--it never exceeded Federal spending for NASA. Clearly, neither 
the space program nor the Federal antidrug effort ever presented a 
serious burden in terms of the Federal budget. Meanwhile, modest 
progress against drug trafficking was also being made in my area of the 
globe; eradication and drug seizures were up. These successes were 
achieved despite the criminals' resolve.
  Then, as now, we recognize the valiant efforts made by law 
enforcement personnel in Mexico, Colombia, and throughout Latin America 
who have lost their lives to stopping the flow of illegal drugs into 
this country. In the past decade, Colombia has lost 23 judges, 63 
journalists, 4 presidential candidates, and more than 3,000 police 
officers and journalists. And we agree with many of the leaders of the 
region that America simply must do more to curb its appetite for 
illegal drugs. They must not see us as hypocritical--watching their 
every move, while reducing our own financial commitment to the problem.
  But, even more, I fear that political leadership and world class 
American will to fight the drug scourge is eroding throughout the 
Western Hemisphere. But now here in America we seem asleep in the face 
of a problem that is devastating our future and threatening our 
national security. If we are willing to commit the resources and 
implement a coherent program, even as we attack the drug consumption 
problem, we will experience renewed success. The alternative--reducing 
badly needed counterdrug resources at this crucial time--would further 
threaten our national security, would risk democracy and stability 
throughout the hemisphere, and would place our young people's very 
lives at risk.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I support the amendment to restore funding to the 
international narcotics program. I am aware that the bill already 
contains a considerable increase for the program but it still remains 
well below what is essential to sustain a viable international 
narcotics effort.
  In the last several years, funding for our international narcotics 
program has been in a free fall. In addition, the administration has 
failed to articulate a coherent strategy or consistently defend the 
programs that it has put forward. This has left the impression that it 
does not care about the drug program, does not see fit to push its own 
ideas.
  Some in Congress seem to have concluded from this that the drug 
program does not work and that the money can do better service 
someplace else.
  Both views are wrong.
  When we made the drug issue a continuing policy concern we saw 
success. And when we provided our efforts with adequate guidance and 
support, backed up by the moral authority of the government in support 
of the public, we made significant progress on the drug problem. We saw 
the result in steady declines in use, the most important barometer of 
how we are doing.
  We can also see the results of a retreat from our earlier commitment. 
In the last 2 years we have seen marijuana use among 12-17-year-olds 
soar, up 50 percent. At this rate, within the next year or so we will 
have wiped out the gains made in reducing use over the last 13 years. 
It is from this new, emerging user population that tomorrow's addicts 
will come. The situation reminds me of what happended to us in the 
1970's. We let indifference get the better of us. We had to suffer a 
major drug epidemic to learn our lesson. We cannot afford to let that 
lesson go to waste.
  It is a national tragedy if we let drug use escape us again. With 
serious effort we reversed the worst years of drug abuse. What clearer 
indication can there be of the effects of meaningful effort and 
indifferent effort than in these contrasting pictures.
  More important, I would remind my colleagues that it has been 
Congress that has lead the effort in representing the public's interest 
on the drug question. In 1986 and 1988, we moved to increase both the 
funding for our drug efforts and to put pressure on the administration 
to take forceful action. We saw results. Just this year, the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, and Senators Helms and Coverdell, took the 
lead in putting pressure on Colombia to do something about arresting 
drug kingpins, something everyone told us could not and would not 
happen. Well, it happened in jig time. Consistency and meaning what you 
say are still solid currency, here and abroad. It is that kind of 
fortitude and stick-with-it-ness that we still need.
  We still have a substantial responsibility to represent the American 
public on the drug issue. And we still have the need to be the leaders 
in insisting on adequate funding for well-executed programs. This does 
not mean we have to measure our drug efforts by impossible standards of 
success. We need to be realistic and we need to be consistent.
  Given recent gains in putting drug kingpins behind bars in Colombia 
we also need to build on our efforts to go after the second and third 
tier of cartel leaders. This means continued support for our 
international programs.
  I would also remind my colleagues, that the money we spend on this 
foreign assistance program goes directly to support efforts aimed at 
individuals and groups that target Americans, whose actions daily kill 
and wound 

[[Page S 14055]]
more people than all the terrorists combined. Drug dealers, here and 
abroad, are real enemies whose actions have direct and immediate 
consequences on the quality of life in our homes and on our streets. 
Money spent on this international program pays real benefits here. We 
can see the result when we are willing to act and we can see the 
consequences when we fail.
  I support the amendment to increase the international narcotics 
program by a further $20 million, which still brings the total 
international effort in at over $40 million below the administration's 
request. This funding will help us do the job we must continue to do.


                           amendment no. 2738

  (Purpose: To provide for the transfer of excess defense articles to 
                                Estonia)

       At the end of section 546 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (c) The President may transfer to Estonia such excess 
     defense articles as the President determines necessary to 
     help modernize the defense capabilities of Estonia, subject 
     to the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of section 
     519 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321m).

  Mr. GORTON. Five years ago I was invited to be the first United 
States Senator to address the newly elected Estonian Parliament as it 
liberated itself from 50 years of illegal Soviet occupation. I was 
denied entry into Estonia by the Soviet regime, but have since taken a 
distinct and parochial interest in Estonia's well-being.
  Recently I met with Lt. Gen. Aleksander Einseln, commander of the 
Estonian Armed Forces. In our meeting, he outlined the significant 
material problems that his nascent military faces. With the almost 
complete withdrawal of Russian military forces, Estonia must now look 
to its own defense. Estonia is struggling to heal its wounds of 50 
years of Soviet domination. Its resources are very limited; its army 
small--merely 4,000 soldiers I am told.
  This amendment gives the President authority to transfer to Estonia 
such excess defense articles as the President determines necessary to 
help modernize its defense capabilities. The transfer is subject to the 
provisions of section 519 subsections (b) through (f) of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961. In short, those provisions authorize the 
President to transfer excess, nonlethal defense articles to a country 
if a foreign military financing program has been justified for the 
fiscal year in which the transfer is to be made; allow the United 
States to help said country modernize its defense capabilities; allow 
the transfer of the excess defense articles only if the equipment is 
drawn from existing DOD stocks, no DOD procurement funds are used in 
connection with the transfer, the President determines the transfer 
will not have an adverse effect on the military readiness of the United 
States, the President determines transferring said articles is 
preferable to selling them; require the President to notify the Senate 
and House Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services--or National 
Security--and Foreign relations; require the President to submit an 
annual report to said committees detailing the value of the shipment; 
require said country to pay for all crating, packing, handling, and 
transportation costs.
  Estonia has joined the United Nations, the Organization for Security 
and Cooperation in Europe and the Partnership for Peace. Its government 
has developed a robust democracy while fully embracing the principles 
of a market economy. For our part, any help the United States can 
provide will, I believe, be invaluable to our strategic and moral 
interests. This amendment does just that.


                           amendment no. 2739

       On page 18, line 24, after ``assistance:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That not less than the 
     Egyptian pound equivalent of $85,000,000 generated from funds 
     made available by this paragraph, or from any other source 
     including from funds made available for Egypt for fiscal year 
     1997, shall be made available to the United States pursuant 
     to the United States-Egypt Economic, Technical and Related 
     Assistance Agreements of 1978, for the following endowments 
     established under such agreements: the Egyptian pound 
     equivalent of $50,000,000 shall be made available to 
     replenish the existing endowment for the American University 
     in Cairo, and the Egyptian pound equivalent of $35,000,000 
     shall be made available to replenish the existing endowment 
     for projects and programs which promote the preservation and 
     restoration of Egyptian antiquities:''

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would 
designate 85 million dollars' worth of Egyptian local currencies to be 
used for two programs in Egypt that have enjoyed considerable support 
from this body in the past. This amendment does not affect the dollar 
appropriation for Egypt nor does it add any new money to the bill.
  First, the amendment requires that the existing endowment for the 
American University in Cairo be replenished by the equivalent of $50 
million in Egyptian pounds.
  The Congress has twice before directed that local currencies 
generated from our aid programs be used to support AUC. However, as the 
pound has devalued against the dollar, the value of the existing 
endowment for AUC has continued to shrink, thus making an additional 
contribution necessary. In addition, lower interest rates, while 
obviously good for the general economy in Egypt, have resulted in 
significant income decline from these funds.
  Mr. President, AUC is an institution of outstanding importance, not 
only in providing an American-type university education in Egypt and 
elsewhere in the Middle East, but also as a key element in the close 
relationships that have developed between the American and Egyptian 
peoples. Our colleague, the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, was instrumental in securing the original 
allotment of Egyptian pounds for this important institution.
  AUC is a cost-effective instrument for building cultural and 
intellectual bridges. Reflecting on its American heritage, AUC attracts 
Egyptians from all sectarian communities. Egyptian youths compete for 
an opportunity to acquire the American-style education which AUC offers 
and, in the process, learn something intangible about American culture 
and values. Several years ago the State Department concluded that, 
``AUC enhances United States long-term national interest in Egypt and 
the Middle East and does it at a very reasonable cost.'' I and my 
cosponsors have supported the work of AUC for many years, and note that 
the Egyptology department at AUC played a pivotal role concerning the 
recent find in the Valley of the Kings.
  Mr. President, this amendment, which represents the third 
congressionally directed contribution to the endowment of AUC, is a 
``no-cost'' way of fostering U.S. values in a region of the world that 
is vital to our national interest.
  The second program for which local currencies are designated is an 
endowment for the preservation of Egyptian antiquities. Again, prior 
legislation, written by Senator Inouye and I, had directed the 
establishment of an endowment with Egyptian local currencies. The 
amendment makes the equivalent of $35 million available for this 
purpose.
  Egypt's cultural heritage is one of the richest and most important in 
the world's history. Yet, it is seriously endangered by pollution, 
decay, and the simple passage of time. An endowment was established in 
the Foreign Aid Appropriations Act for fiscal 1993 to address this 
problem and for reasons similar to those affecting AUC, the endowment 
now needs replenishment.
  Mr. President, both of these programs are worthy ones. In the past, 
the Congress has used this innovative way of providing them with 
support without costing the taxpayer anything. I would hope that this 
practice can continue with the adoption of my amendment.


                           amendment no. 2740

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken insert the 
     following:


                    north american development bank

       For payment to the North American Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States share of the 
     paid-in portion of the capital stock, $25,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended; Provided, that for the payment to 
     the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment Fund 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States 
     contribution to the fund to be administered by the Inter-
     American Development Bank, $45,000,000 is provided to remain 
     available until expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the North American 
     Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation 
     to the callable capital portion of the United States share of 


[[Page S 14056]]
     the capital stock of the North American Development Bank in an amount 
     not exceed, $318,750,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to raise 
the fiscal year 1996 appropriation for the North-American Development 
Bank to $25 million. I believe that this amendment makes good 
environmental sense as well as good economic sense.
  Mr. President, some of today's most pressing environmental problems 
are along the United States-Mexico border.
  Rapid population growth along both sides of the border have created 
situations where large numbers of people are living in areas that have 
inadequate drinking water, wastewater, or municipal solid waste 
facilities.
  To address this situation, the United States and Mexico entered into 
a joint agreement to establish the North American Development Bank 
[NAD-Bank].
  NAD-Bank will provide the capital for these much-needed border 
projects, choosing those projects from lists developed by the 
multilateral Border Environment Cooperation Commission [BECC].
  NAD-Bank will not provide grants or equity funding for environmental 
infrastructure projects, but instead will act a real world investment 
bank, providing financing to both public and private entities to build 
the environmental projects recommended by the BECC.
  NAD-Bank ensures that the best projects are constructed through the 
following criteria:
  All projects financed by the NAD-Bank must address the environment 
along the 100 km region on both sides of the United States-Mexico 
border.
  NAD-Bank projects must be able to demonstrate repayment of their 
loans and guarantees. NAD-Bank will closely review factors that may 
affect capital outlays, construction, operations and maintenance, and 
project revenues--user fees, state/local backing, guarantees.
  All beneficiaries must share some project costs and/or 
responsibilities.
  Projects must use designs and technologies which result in a least 
cost solution for long term facilities' operations and maintenance.
  In addition to the fact that NAD-Bank's projects will promote a 
healthier environment, NAD-Bank's activities will benefit the United 
States economy as a whole.
  Specifically, properly planned and developed border infrastructure 
will help United States-Mexico trade to flow freely.
  Finally, NAD-Bank was created by the United States and Mexican 
governments as an equal partnership to address these environmental 
problems. Mexico has already put up its share of the money of NAD-Bank.
  We have an obligation to show that we are as committed to addressing 
these problems as is our southern neighbor.
  In sum, therefore, this amendment makes good economic as well as good 
environmental sense, and I urge its adoption.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise tonight in support of the North 
American Development Bank, which was created to assist border States 
and local communities in coordinating, designing, and facilitating 
border infrastructure projects. It is a unique binational financial 
institution which acts as a catalyst for private and public capital 
investment for projects certified by its sister organization, the 
Border Environment Cooperation Commission [BECC].
  Established through a joint agreement between the United States and 
Mexico, the NADBank also establishes the United States and Mexico as 
equal partners, under which both the United States and Mexico 
contribute equally to the Bank's resources. Importantly, each 
government's capital subscription is not an operational expenditure. It 
represents an investment in a sound financial institution which will 
appreciate with the Bank's earnings and may eventually be returned to 
its investors--United States and Mexican citizens.
  The NADBank's role is a crucial one; it acts as the lead bank, like 
an investment bank, financing border environmental infrastructure 
projects as a complement to other public and private sector financial 
sources. It also has an important private sector orientation. Unlike 
other multilateral development banks which lend primarily to public 
entities, the NADBank may provide financing to any entity--public or 
private.
  What will NADBank capital be used for? Well, 90 percent will go to 
border infrastructure projects. Ten percent will be used to fund 
separate domestic programs in the United States and Mexico beyond the 
Mexican border. Clearly, the role of the NADBank is an important one 
not just to border States but to any community.
  Mr. President, pollution does not require a visa. Border pollution 
impacts both Mexico and the United States, and growing public health 
concerns and a lack of adequate clean water prevent economic growth 
extending out and beyond the border regions. Growing health concerns 
due to the inadequacy of municipal infrastructure are a potential time 
bomb. If the health risks associated with lack of adequate 
infrastructure are not addressed, the border will face even more severe 
health problems over the next decade. The NADBank, in its efforts to 
address growing infrastructure needs, will benefit the entire border 
region's health standards. The proper use of the Bank's capital will be 
guarded carefully, therefore, as if it were a trust for our children.
  Properly planned and developed border infrastructure will help United 
States-Mexico trade to flow freely.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senator Domenici of New Mexico, Senator Hutchison of Texas, and Senator 
Kyl of Arizona, in supporting the amendment to restore funding to the 
North American Development Bank, better known as the NADBank. As a 
cosponsor of this amendment, I want to tell you how important NADBank 
funding is to improving environmental conditions along the United 
States-Mexico boarder. This is important not only to my State of New 
Mexico, but to all the border States and to our Nation.
  The North American Development Bank was created in 1993 as a 
supplement to the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. Its 
purpose is to provide loans and loan guarantees to projects certified 
by the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission [BECC], also created 
as part of the NAFTA, for high priority border environmental and health 
projects. Due to its lack of wealth, the border region cannot be self-
financing in its endeavor to develop and implement these types of 
infrastructure projects. These projects are absolutely critical to the 
border area in managing its considerable problems with air and water 
pollution, wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste, and hazardous 
waste.
  The NADBank is patterned after other multilateral development banks, 
such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. The 
United States and Mexico each are to contribute $225 million over a 4-
year period in initial paid-in capital. The NADBank will then use this 
capital, along with funds raised in the financial markets and other 
resources to fund environmental and health projects along the border 
and to supplement privately funded projects. These funds will be 
combined with existing State and local funding, Federal grants and 
State revolving loans, and World Bank and Inter-American Development 
Bank loans to Mexico to provide for the substantial investment that is 
needed to provide the basic level of protection to human health and the 
environment.
  Rapid population growth and industrialization in the border cities 
has overwhelmed existing wastewater, water supply, and solid waste 
infrastructure. Untreated domestic and industrial sewage currently 
flows north to the United States and into the Rio Grande River. 
Thousands of residents lack safe drinking water and adequate solid 
waste disposal facilities. Air quality is severely deteriorated by 
emissions of industrial pollutants, and dangerous levels of carbon 
monoxide and ozone-forming hydrocarbons from urban traffic.
  Let me be clear that while this funding is for binational projects, 
U.S. citizens will realize substantial benefit from potential border 
infrastructure improvements. About 6 million people live in 
metropolitan areas along the United States-Mexico border. This 
population is critically impacted by water 

[[Page S 14057]]
pollution coming across the border from Mexico in areas such as the 
Tijuana River and New River in California, the Santa Cruz River in 
Arizona, and the Rio Grande in Texas and my home State of New Mexico. 
By investing in pollution control in these areas, there is a direct and 
important benefit to U.S. citizens in terms of health protection, crop 
protection, and improved recreational benefits and increased property 
values.
  There are economic benefits that will accrue to us as well in 
maintaining our commitment to the border area. U.S. jobs will be 
generated in the equipment manufacturing and professional services 
sectors, which are found in almost all 50 States. The United States has 
a strong competitive advantage for providing equipment, 
instrumentation, and professional services for the construction of 
Mexico wastewater facilities along the border. With a potential need of 
almost $8 billion in border water related facilities over the next 
decade, up to $2 billion of business could be generated in U.S. 
products and services.
  In closing, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to 
ensure the future protection and preservation of the environment along 
the United States-Mexico boarder. It is good, not only for the health 
of our border communities, but also for the environment along the 
United States-Mexico border, and for the economy of the entire United 
States.


                           amendment no. 2741

       On page 43, under the heading, ``International 
     Organizations and Programs,'' add the following provisio; 
     ``Provided further, That not less than $1,500,000 of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading shall be made available 
     for the United Nations Fund for Victims of Torture;''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2742

           (Purpose: To increase transfer authority for IFAD)

       On page 11, line 3, strike ``$15,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$30,000,000''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration. The amendment I am offering simply 
increases the transfer authority that the administration may utilize to 
fund the U.S. contribution to IFAD. Specifically the amendment 
increases that authority by $15 million. Let me assure my colleagues 
that this transfer authority will not require any offsetting cuts to be 
made as the overall funding of the foreign operations budget is not 
increased.
  The International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD] is the 
only international financial institution with the specific mandate to 
address rural poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. To this end, IFAD 
promotes participatory, cost-effective approaches to help poor groups 
such as smallholder farmers, rural women, and the landless to increase 
their output and incomes in sustainable ways.
  In January 1995, the Governing Council of IFAD agreed that the target 
for the Fourth Replenishment should be $600 million, and urged both 
developing and developed countries to join in a partnership to achieve 
this target. To date, the United States is the only country that has 
not announced its pledge.
  As you know, the U.S. commitment to the Fourth Replenishment is 
expected to be $92 million over a 3-year period. While the transfer 
authority of $15 million is a positive step for IFAD, it does not 
fulfill the first $30 million annual payment by the United States 
toward its expected 3-year pledge.
  The transfer authority for $30 million would allow the United States 
to continue its leadership in IFAD and allow us to continue our 
successful work to increase the productivity and incomes of the rural 
poor. A transfer of $30 million to IFAD will also make it possible for 
the United States to pledge its commitment of $92 million to the Fourth 
Replenishment, bringing the 3-year negotiations on this replenishment 
to a successful conclusion. Once the Fourth Replenishment is concluded, 
a new governance structure will go into effect. New voting procedures 
will reflect the level of contributions made, and will ensure that the 
voice of larger contributors will be heard more clearly.
  The transfer authority will not harm the programs and accounts from 
which the funds are transferred. With a U.S. contribution of $92 
million, the $600 million level of the Fourth Replenishment will be 
achieved and with another $600-plus million from loan repayments and 
investments, a total of $1.2 billion will be available to IFAD to fight 
poverty and hunger around the world. About 40 percent of the resources 
available in our Fourth Replenishment will go to Africa. Hence the 
transfer authority will make it possible for IFAD to commit $160 
million per year for Africa, increasing over fivefold the total 
development resources for that region. IFAD is an effective and 
efficient organization that through strict loan repayment and 
investment policies and contributions from other member countries 
leverages about $13 for every $1 that the U.S. commits. Without the 
U.S. pledge there will not be a successful conclusion of the Fourth 
Replenishment, and will not be able to provide this level of resources 
to the region.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           amendment no. 2743

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.   . GUATEMALA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Government of Guatemala, under President De Leon 
     Caprio, has made significant progress towards negotiating an 
     end to Guatemala's civil conflict which has resulted in 
     numerous human rights violations, claimed tens of thousands 
     of lives and impeded economic development in that country.
       (2) President De Leon Caprio has taken steps to improve 
     human rights, including his support for the U.N. mission for 
     the verification of human rights and of compliance with the 
     commitments of the comprehensive agreement of human rights in 
     Guatemala (Minugua) and his recent decision to abolish the 
     military commissioners, but his efforts to bring human rights 
     violators to justice have been impeded by certain members of 
     the Guatemalan Armed Forces;
       (3) Despite numerous appeals by the families of victims of 
     human rights abuses, human rights organizations and Members 
     of the United States Congress, there has been minimal 
     progress towards resolving specific human rights cases 
     including cases involving American citizens or their 
     relatives;
       (4) President De Leon Caprio deserves the support of the 
     United States in his efforts to resolve Guatemala's conflict 
     peacefully, to support democratic elections, and to improve 
     respect for human rights.
       (b) Limitations.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     law--
       (1) No assistance in this Act or any other Act shall be 
     made available to the Guatemalan Armed Forces or the URNG;
       (2) No sales of defense articles or services shall be 
     licensed or approved for Guatemala for the Armed Forces or 
     URNG; and
       (3) No visas shall be granted for any member of the 
     Guatemalan Armed Forces or the URNG suspected of 
     participating in or ordering any violation of human rights or 
     of seeking to coverup or otherwise thwart the investigation 
     of such acts.
       (c) Certification.--The limitations contained in subsection 
     (b) shall cease to apply when the President certifies to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations that--
       (1) The Guatemalan Armed Forces and the URNG are fully 
     cooperating with efforts--
       (A) By the family of U.S. citizens Michael Devine who was 
     murdered in 1990 to bring to justice those responsible for 
     the murder or coverup of the murder;
       (B) The October 1994 murders of Roderico Baudilio De Leon 
     and Flavio Matias Marroquin;
       (C) By Jennifer Harbury to exhume the body of her husband, 
     Efrain Bamaca Velasquez; and
       (D) By human rights organizations and the Guatemalan 
     attorney general to investigate and bring to justice those 
     involved in the prominent human rights cases committed by 
     both sides to the conflict, including those cases enumerated 
     in the April 7, 1995 letter to President Clinton by twelve 
     Members of the United States Senate.
       (2) The Guatemalan Government and Armed Forces are 
     complying with the recommendations in Minugua's first and 
     second reports, particularly those related to the 
     investigation and prosecution of human rights cases.
       (3) The U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human 
     Rights Commission has consulted with Representatives of other 
     Member States to determine whether respect for human rights 
     would be enhanced by the appointment of a special United 
     Nations rapporteur for Guatemala.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment is very straight forward. It 
says that until we see some tangible progress in the human rights 
performance of the Guatemalan military, including cooperation with 
efforts to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the 
murder and cover up of United States citizen Michael DeVine, no 
assistance of any kind will be forthcoming for that institution.
  The prohibitions on military assistance, sales of defense articles 
and service, and the denial of visas to members 

[[Page S 14058]]
of the armed forces suspected of wrong doing are to remain in effect 
until the President certifies to the Congress that the Guatemalan Armed 
Forces are cooperating with efforts to investigate a number of high 
profile human rights cases, including the murders of Michael DeVine, 
Myrna Mack, and Efrain Bamaca Velasquez, the husband of United States 
citizen Jennifer Harbury.
  I would ask unanimous consent that an April 7, 1995, letter on this 
subject to President Clinton be printed in the Record following the 
conclusion of my statement. Appended to that letter is a list of the 
human rights cases that we believe are particularly worthy of special 
consideration by the U.S. Government.
  Mr. President, Guatemala is at an important turning point in its 
rather tragic history. A civil war has been waging there for 35 years. 
More than 140,000 Guatemalans have lost their lives as a result of that 
conflict. The bulk of those killings occurred in the 1980's when the 
Guatemalan Armed Forces mounted massive counterinsurgency operations, 
particularly against rural populations.
  But killings have not been limited to the seventies and eighties. 
Political violence in this decade has been more targeted, most notably 
against teachers, human rights workers, and politicians. In 1994, the 
Guatemalan Catholic Church reported that there were some 356 political 
killings and another 40 cases of forced disappearances. Almost none of 
these cases have been resolved.
  Thanks in large measure to the efforts of the U.N.-facilitated peace 
negotiations, the parties to the conflict have been making progress in 
reaching a diplomatic solution to their differences. Agreement has 
already been finalized in a number of areas of mutual concern.
  On March 29, 1994, the parties signed a global accord on human rights 
that sets forth basic human rights principles. This agreement also 
resulted in the deployment of a U.N. human rights verification mission 
to Guatemala early in 1995 in order to monitor compliance with that 
agreement. In the most recent report of the U.N. verification mission, 
it found that ``impunity remains the most serious obstacle to the 
enjoyment of human rights in Guatemala, despite the manifest concern 
and commitment of the President of the republic to combat it''.
  The Guatemalan military and security forces, like every other sector 
of Guatemalan society, must demonstrate that they are not above the 
law, that their members will be held accountable for illegal acts. The 
first step in making this a reality is a demonstration such forces that 
they are prepared to cooperate in bring to justice those within their 
ranks responsible for some of the most notorious human rights abuses--
most notably the murder of U.S. citizen Michael DeVine.
  The pending amendment is intended to prod those in control of the 
military and security forces to take demonstrable steps to end nearly 
40 years of impunity. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment has 
been carefully targeted to lend support to the President of Guatemala 
in his efforts to reorganize the military and security forces and to 
institute civilian control over such forces in the context of a final 
peace agreement. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           amendment no. 2744

(Purpose: To permit the continued provision of assistance to Burma only 
                  if certain conditions are satisfied)

       On page 104, strike lines 7 through 10 and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 570. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for international narcotics control assistance under 
     chapter 8 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or 
     crop substitution assistance, directly for the Government of 
     Burma unless the Secretary of State certifies to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that any such programs 
     are fully consistent with United States human rights concerns 
     in Burma and serve a vital United States national interest. 
     The President shall include in the annual International 
     Narcotics Control Strategy Report submitted under chapter 8 
     of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 a description 
     of the programs funded under this section.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague from 
Arizona's amendment to restore authority for the State Department to 
use funds for counter narcotics efforts and crop substitution programs 
in Burma as long as the President certifies that any such program is 
fully consistent with human rights concerns and serves vital United 
States interests.
  Human rights is an issue of extreme importance and deep concern to 
every Senator in this Chamber, and must remain a significant element in 
our dealings around the world, and no Senator is more committed to the 
issue than Senator McCain.
  His amendment is a commonsense amendment that gives the United States 
the necessary flexibility to act in its interest in a nation which 
provides 60 percent of the heroin smuggled into this country. To 
prohibit counter narcotics efforts would be ill-advised and 
counterproductive.
  Whatever our deep and abiding concern for human rights, it is 
important to note, Mr. President, that Burma's most noted victim of 
human rights violations, Aung San Suu Kyi, supports drug control 
efforts in her country, and that, Mr. President, is the best argument 
for support of the McCain amendment.
  We have three important objectives in Burma--democracy, 
counternarcotics, and human rights. All three demand our attention and 
our support; but common sense would tell us that we cannot diminish 
potential success in any of these areas because of specific failures in 
another as long as we are sensitive to the impact of our actions on 
overall diplomatic progress.
  Mr. President, the State Department is well aware of congressional 
concerns and I fully anticipate that it will conduct counternarcotics 
efforts consistent with our overall international policy and in 
consultation with the Congress.
  I think, therefore, that this is a commonsense amendment that allows 
us to do what we need to do to fight the drug problem at its source 
while recognizing the limitations of our involvement and maintaining a 
strong focus on human rights.
  I would urge support of the Senator from Arizona's amendment, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would modify the provision 
in the underlying bill that prohibits funding for international 
narcotics control assistance in Burma. The amendment would modify that 
prohibition by permitting such assistance only if the Secretary of 
State certifies to Congress that such programs are fully consistent 
with United States human rights concerns in Burma, and that they serve 
a vital United States national interest.
  That vital national interest is obvious, Mr. President. Sixty percent 
of the heroin that comes to this country originates in Burma--60 
percent. We have a compelling, urgent responsibility to do whatever we 
can to eliminate or at least reduce Burma's export of that dangerous 
narcotic. Without a strategy that addresses the heroin trade in Burma, 
we have no effective antinarcotic program at all.
  I can well understand the Senate's desire to influence the Burmese 
regime's treatment of the Burmese people. That treatment has been 
abominable and well deserves our severe reproach. I visited Burma last 
March and was exposed to a pretty representative sampling of how 
abominable that treatment has been and continues to be.
  Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's release was a very welcome development. But in 
and of itself it does not represent evidence of political reform or 
even an indication of progress toward an objective standard of human 
rights in Burma. Burma has a very long way to go.
  I know the authors of this provision feel very strongly, as do I, 
that the United States must actively support the cause of human freedom 
in Burma, and make it unmistakably clear to Burma's State Law and Order 
Restoration Council, the SLORC, that the United States, indeed, all of 
the civilized world expect them to begin respecting the will and the 
rights of the Burmese people.
  But what I have difficulty understanding is why we must refrain from 
acting in our own national interest while we attempt to act in the 
interest of the Burmese people. I could understand the objective of 
this provision if it stated that no funds for drug control could be 
made available directly to the 

[[Page S 14059]]
SLORC. I would not support this assistance either if the State 
Department were proposing to simply provide money to the SLORC with the 
promise that the SLORC would use it to eradicate poppy fields. It is 
quite probable that such funds would be used by the SLORC to further 
oppress ethnic minorities in Burma, like the Wa.
  But, Mr. President, that is not what the administration proposed to 
do with this assistance. First, it is a relatively small amount of 
money that we are talking about, with most of it going to the efforts 
of the U.N. Drug Control Program [UNDCP] in Burma; $2 million would be 
provided to the U.N. to work with ethnic minorities on crop 
substitution and other programs intended to begin making some, although 
admittedly small, progress in reducing poppy cultivation. None of that 
assistance would be funneled through the SLORC.
  A limited--a very limited amount of assistance, $50 thousand, I 
believe--would be provided to train Burmese customs officials. But I 
fail to see the harm in that, given that the amount is so small, and 
the need for better Burmese control of drug smuggling at the borders so 
obvious.
  Mr. President, $2 million isn't going to solve America's heroin 
problem. But I do not see how we begin to get any control over that 
problem absent some kind of program in Burma.
  Opium production in Burma has skyrocketed in recent years. It is, by 
far, the largest heroin producing country in the world. Again, 60 
percent of heroin in the United States originates in Burma.
  The enormous increase in heroin production globally has substantially 
reduced the street price of heroin while simultaneously increasing the 
purity, and consequently, the lethality of the drug. Overdoses--fatal 
overdoses--have increased rapidly in the United States.
  Sadly, as long as there is demand for heroin, we will never be able 
to keep it out of all our children's hands. But if in Burma and 
elsewhere our efforts make some progress in restricting the flow of 
heroin to the United States, we will make the drug more expensive and 
less readily available on our streets than it is today.
  Mr. President, before I conclude, I should also add that in meetings 
attended by American Embassy officials in Rangoon, Daw Aung San Suu 
Kyi, had no objections to counternarcotics programs in Burma. While 
advising that the U.N. counternarcotics effort in Burma be closely 
monitored--as it should be, she also understood the importance of 
reducing poppy cultivation. Further, she observed that the U.N. Burma 
program employs many prodemocracy supporters.
  I am convinced that the counternarcotics assistance envisioned for 
Burma is consistent with our human rights goals in Burma. But, I 
repeat, to ensure that it remains so, this amendment requires the 
Secretary to certify that all the program which our assistance would 
support are fully consistent with our human rights concerns in Burma.
  Mr. President, I believe--as we have in many other countries--the 
United States can advance or values and protect our national interests 
in Burma simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive, and should 
not be treated so.
  I commend the Senator of Kentucky and also the Senator from Vermont 
for their abiding concern for the rights of the people of Burma. I 
understand the motive--the very decent motive--for authoring the 
provision I seek to amend. My only concern is over this particular 
approach to achieving a very worthy objective. So let us find a way to 
advance the cause of freedom in Burma and reduce the flow of heroin to 
the streets of America.


                           amendment no. 2745

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate concerning the provision 
          of spare parts and other military equipment to Peru)

       At the appropriate place add the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Since March 1995 the Peruvian government has engaged in 
     an aggressive air interdiction program to prevent narcotics 
     traffickers from violating Peruvian airspace for the purpose 
     of transporting illegal narcotics to Colombia.
       (2) As a result of the Peruvian interdiction program, the 
     number of illicit flights detected in recent months has 
     dropped to its lowest level in over three years and the price 
     of transporting narcotics out of Peru has risen by as much as 
     500 percent.
       (3) The inability of the traffickers to move cocaine base 
     out of Peru has produced a glut of coca leaf and cocaine base 
     in Peru with a resulting 50 percent decline in the price.
       (4) The Peruvian government's ability to sustain the 
     success of its interdiction program is dependent on the 
     maintenance and upkeep of a very limited number of aircraft.
       (5) As a result of the internal Peruvian political 
     situation and the conflict earlier this year between Peru and 
     Ecuador, the United States suspended military transfers to 
     Peru.
       (6) As much as 80 percent of the cocaine that reaches the 
     United States comes from coca grown in Peru and the 
     disruption of the air corridor between Peru and Colombia is 
     important to United States counter narcotics efforts.
       (7) The situation which led to the cutoff of military 
     equipment for the air interdiction effort have been 
     satisfactorily resolved or have progressed to a point where 
     the cutoff of this military equipment is no longer in the 
     interest of the United States.
       (b) It is the Sense of the Senate that the President 
     should, as soon as possible, provide limited spare parts and 
     other military equipment to the government of Peru in support 
     of Peruvian Air Force efforts to monitor, intercept and 
     interdict aircraft and other forms of transportation engaged 
     in illegal narcotics trafficking activities.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last Friday the New York Times reported 
rather substantial increases in the price of cocaine on the streets of 
New York City. The article attributed this price rise to the recent 
arrests in Colombia of six of the seven biggest drug kingpins.
  Certainly the decapitation of the Cali cartel has played an important 
part in disrupting the supply of cocaine, but we should not overlook 
the other factors at work here. I want to draw particular attention to 
the efforts undertaken by the Governments of Peru and Colombia to shut 
down illicit narcotics flights between their countries.
  This air interdiction program was made possible by an amendment 
adopted last year by Senate during consideration of the Defense 
authorization bill. That amendment removed a legal impediment to 
sharing United States intelligence information with Peru and Colombia.
  Since our intelligence sharing began earlier this year, the Peruvian 
and Colombian Air Forces have seized aircraft, destroyed them on the 
ground, forced them down and, as a last resort after complying with 
strict verification procedures, shot them down.
  The resulting disruption in the flow of cocaine and cocaine base out 
of Peru has been impressive. The number of illicit flights detected in 
May, June, and July was the lowest level in 3\1/2\ years.
  The price of transporting narcotics out of Peru has risen by as much 
as 500 percent. In many cases the traffickers cannot hire pilots at any 
price.
  Constricting the flow of drugs through this critical choke point has 
led to an oversupply of coca leaf and cocaine base in Peru, the source 
country for 80 percent of the cocaine that reaches our streets.
  This glut has caused the price of coca leaf and cocaine base to 
plummet. In parts of Peru the price is down 50 percent and there are 
scattered reports of farmers abandoning coca fields because it is not 
worth their effort to harvest the crop.
  Unfortunately the air interdiction effort that is producing these 
noteworthy results faces a serious problem. The Peruvians cannot obtain 
spare parts from the United States for the A-37 aircraft that they use 
to intercept the traffickers planes.
  The United States suspended the transfer of these parts in 1991 when 
President Fujimori dissolved the Peruvian legislature and threw out the 
constitution. The situation was further complicated by the conflict 
earlier this year between Peru and Ecuador.
  The conditions which led to the cutoff of military equipment have 
evolved to the point where it is no longer productive to continue 
denying these parts. President Fujimori was overwhelmingly reelected in 
May and a cease fire holds sway in the border conflict with Ecuador. 
This amendment is offered as a way to encourage to the administration 
to rethink and modify its position.
  I know that the distinguished Senator from Vermont and others have 
concerns bout the human rights record of the Peruvian military and I 
share those concerns. This amendment should not be interpreted as an 
attempt to open the flood gates for broad military assistance.
  The only assistance I am encouraging is equipment for the 
interdiction program that is already in the pipeline. 

[[Page S 14060]]
The Peruvian military needs to make much more progress in the area of 
respect for human rights before the United States should consider other 
forms of assistance.
  It would be a travesty if the Peruvians were forced to shut down this 
program because the United States would not send spare parts for two 
airplanes. Keeping cocaine in Peru, keeps cocaine off our school yards 
and street corners. I encourage the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Time, Sept. 15, 1995]

        Colombia Arrests Raise Price Of Cocaine in New York City

                          (By Clifford Kauss)

       Only a few months after the Colombian Government began 
     arresting the top leaders of the Cali drug cartel, law 
     enforcement officials said the supply and potency of cocaine 
     in New York City is dwindling, forcing wholesale and street 
     prices to soar.
       In what officials described as the most precipitous shift 
     in almost six years, the wholesale price of cocaine has 
     increased nearly 50 percent since May, while retail prices 
     have gone up 30 percent. Similar increases, they said, are 
     evident in other big Eastern cities dependent on New York-
     based Cali operatives for supplies.
       In addition, they said, recent seizures and intelligence 
     indicate that the size and number of shipments of cocaine 
     into the New York area have declined. Only four months ago, 
     Federal agents say, shipments weighing 1,000 pounds or more 
     were coming into the city in trucks, ships and airplanes; 
     now, they typically weight less than 200 pounds.
       The shifts are also evident in the city's drug markets. 
     Drug dealers in Washington Square Park said this week that 
     the same gram of cocaine that sold for $50 in May now goes 
     for $80, an increase that they said was beginning to drive 
     away younger buyers who come to Greenwich Village from New 
     Jersey.
       ``I've been around 39 years,'' said one Washington Square 
     dealer, whispering as he gave knowing glances to prospective 
     buyers walking through the park. ``So I know when they bust 
     the big guys in Colombia, that's when the coke goes up.''
       Law enforcement authorities cautioned that the shifts in 
     supply and price might be temporary, evidence of another 
     periodic realignment of international trafficking networks 
     with little long-lasting importance. But they said that the 
     declining sizes of cocaine shipments and five recent fatal 
     shootings between competing drug gangs in Queens appeared to 
     be strong signs that the world's richest drug trafficking 
     organization is at least going through a painful period of 
     adjustment.
       ``Maybe it's only a breather that is benefiting the 
     community,'' said Peter A. Crusco, chief of narcotics 
     investigations in the Queens District Attorney's office. 
     ``But relatively little is coming in. The big-level people 
     are not risking moving the cocaine.''
       Officials say cocaine buyers can still find the drug in 
     neighborhoods across the city, but New York police officials 
     say laboratory tests show that dealers are now mixing their 
     small bags and tins of cocaine powder with 30 percent more 
     sugar or baking powder to stretch supplies.
       On the other hand, officials say supplies and prices of 
     crack--the cocaine-based drug of choice among many poor 
     users--have not been affected, because its purity is low to 
     begin with and abusers need little to become intoxicated.
       Though they are encouraged by the tightened supply of 
     cocaine, some police officials expressed concern that 
     shortages of cocaine could eventually increase demand for 
     heroin, which is already gaining in popularity and is mostly 
     distributed by organized crime groups that compete with the 
     Cali cartel.
       They also worry that if drug profits continue to be 
     stretched, street gangs competing for customers, territory 
     and supplies could turn more violent, much as they did when 
     crack first became popular in the late 1980's.
       Investigators said information collected through wiretaps 
     and informers indicate that supplies of cocaine are being 
     held up in Colombia and Mexico, where they are stockpiled 
     before moving across the border, because the leaders who once 
     personally supervised their release are in jail or on the 
     run.
       Middle-level traffickers, the wiretaps and informers 
     indicated, are holding back shipments, in part because they 
     feared that the captured leaders might be trading information 
     about cartel operations in exchange for more lenient 
     treatment.
       ``The one person who moved the cocaine between Colombia and 
     Mexico, Miguel Angel Rodriguez Orejuela, is out of commission 
     for at least the moment,'' said a senior Drug Enforcement 
     Administration official who spoke on condition that he not be 
     named. ``One can logically surmise that right now there is a 
     quandary, a state of confusion, and problems with people 
     hooking up with the traffickers both in Colombia and 
     Mexico.''
       The most striking effect of the arrests in Colombia have so 
     far been at the wholesale level of the drug trade, officials 
     said, Responding to the decreased supplies, several law 
     enforcement officials said top cocaine dealers have increased 
     their prices to their largest distributors to an average of 
     $26,000 per kilogram, from $18,000 only four months ago.
       In Detroit, the Drug Enforcement Administration has 
     reported an increase in wholesale prices from $22,000 to 
     $32,000 per kilogram in the last two months alone.
       A bodega owner in Washington Heights with broad knowledge 
     of the cocaine trade in New York said the recent increase had 
     forced middle-level dealers to drop some street sellers, 
     shave profits, dilute their inventory and hoard supplies in 
     case the current shortages continued.
       ``A lot of people are just holding onto their good stuff 
     for when prices really go up,'' he said.
       The last time cocaine prices in New York rose so much and 
     so fast was in late 1989, when a shooting war broke out 
     between the Medellin cartel and the Colombian Government. The 
     Medellin group never recovered, but within months the Cali 
     cartel picked up the trafficking slack, and prices returned 
     to normal levels.
       State Department and law enforcement officials said that 
     Mexican trafficking groups and smaller Colombian cartels 
     operating on Colombia's northern coast are now jockeying for 
     new markets. Mexican traffickers have already taken control 
     of much of the cocaine market in the Southwest, they said, 
     and wholesale prices there have not risen as sharply as in 
     New York.
       But Thomas A. Constantine, the head of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, said in a recent interview that there was no 
     cartel waiting in the wings that could match the Cali group's 
     financial resources, political clout in Colombia, and 
     international trafficking connections.
       ``Nobody out there even compares,'' he said, saying that 
     the Cali group had already surpassed the Medellin cartel in 
     sophistication and resources at the time of the Medellin 
     group's downfall.
       But Mr. Constantine and other officials cautioned that it 
     was too soon to tell how harshly the Colombian authorities 
     would punish the six top Cali leaders they captured this 
     year. United States officials noted that the cartel leaders 
     were able to negotiate some of the terms of their surrender, 
     and none have suffered confiscations of ill-gotten gains like 
     their mountainside mansions or fleets of yachts.
       In addition, the United States officials say, the cartel 
     leaders are still able to communicate with their lieutenants 
     sporadically through family members who visit them in jail 
     and by paying off guards. But perhaps because their telephone 
     conversations are being monitored, the officials say, they 
     have not directed their underlings to release huge loads of 
     cocaine warehoused in Colombia and Mexico.
       Whatever the long-term impact, law-enforcement officials 
     say, the latest price rises demonstrate that the cartel's top 
     leaders direct the most minute details of their cocaine 
     wholesale operations in the New York area. Recent captures of 
     cartel records include items like personnel evaluations and 
     Con Edison bills.
       ``We have done investigations involving wiretaps,'' said 
     Robert H. Silbering, the Special Assistant District Attorney 
     in charge of citywide narcotics cases, ``that show a direct 
     link from the streets of New York to the estates of Cali.''

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have agreed to accept this amendment, 
because it is narrowly written and deals only with the authority to 
provide spare parts for Peruvian aircraft used in the drug interdiction 
program. It does not authorize funds on equipment for the Peruvian 
Army. We prohibit military aid to Peru in this bill on account of 
longstanding human rights concerns. We do not want to undermine that 
policy in any way, by providing equipment to the army for any purpose.
  However, this amendment would not do that. It only permits the 
delivery of spare parts to permit the Peruvian Air Force to operate its 
drug interdiction aircraft, which I am told by the sponsor of the 
amendment, Senator Kerry, are having an effect. I am willing to see 
that effort continue if it is helping interrupt the flow of cocaine, 
but I cannot agree to any assistance to the Peruvian Army.

                           Amendment No. 2746

(Purpose: To ensure that the current proportion of economic assistance 
 continues to be channeled through private and voluntary organizations 
                           and cooperatives)

       On page 9, insert after the end of line 8 the following: 
     ``Provided further, That the President shall seek to ensure 
     that the percentage of funds made available under this 
     heading for the activities of private and voluntary 
     organizations and cooperatives is at least equal to the 
     percentage of funds made available pursuant to corresponding 
     authorities in law for the activities of private and 
     voluntary organizations and cooperatives in fiscal year 
     1995:''.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I offer an amendment in support of the 
excellent work done by private, voluntary organizations and 
cooperatives, I believe my amendment will be acceptable to 

[[Page S 14061]]
both sides. It is cosponsored by Senators Mikulski, Sarbanes, and 
Simon.
  My amendment is very simple. It says that the President shall seek to 
ensure that the same percentage of our economic assistance that 
currently is channeled through PVOs, continues to be channeled through 
PVOs next year. This language is identical to a provision that was 
included in the foreign aid authorization bill reported by the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and it is similar to a provision in the House-
passed foreign operations appropriations bill.
  I think this amendment is important because private, voluntary 
organizations--PVOs--are our most cost-effective vehicle for delivering 
foreign assistance, and in this era of shrinking budgets we simply 
cannot afford to abandon our partnership with them, PVOs operate in 
countries and circumstances in which our government cannot or will not. 
They not only reflect American values and generosity, but are an 
efficient means of delivering people-to-people assistance that has a 
positive and lasting impact on the lives of the poor and builds long-
term friendships for the United States.
  In addition to commanding broad public support, our partnership with 
PVOs and cooperatives leverages vast private resources. Much of the 
assistance we provide through PVOs is matched by contributions from 
corporations and private individuals. Thus reductions in the level of 
PVO participation in our foreign aid program could have a very damaging 
multiplier effect.
  Unfortunately, it appears that some cuts in development assistance 
are unavoidable. My amendment simply seeks to ensure that PVOs are not 
cut disproportionately. I think it is critical that the Senate go on 
record in support of the tremendous work done by these organizations 
and I would urge that the Senate adopt my amendment.


                           amendment no 2747

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Of the funds appropriated for Turkey under the heading 
     ``Economic Assistance'', not less than $5 million shall be 
     made available only through non-government organizations to 
     be used only for projects in the ten southeastern provinces 
     currently under a state of emergency, and shall be used only 
     for projects designed to promote economic development, 
     cultural and ethnic tolerance, and human rights activities, 
     and to support the development and activities of non-
     governmental organizations.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that directs that 
a small amount of our overall assistance to Turkey be used by 
nongovernmental organizations for specific activities in the poorest 
part of Turkey--the southeast. Specifically, the amendment designates 
that not less than $5 million of our aid to Turkey be used for projects 
designed to promote economic development, cultural and ethnic 
tolerance, and human rights activities, and to support the development 
and activities of nongovernmental organizations in the southeast. The 
southeast, of course, is a traditionally Kurdish area where Kurds are 
caught in a vise between PKK terrorism and the Turkish military.
  Earlier this week, I released a report on Turkey prepared by members 
of the minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee. The report, 
which was based upon a trip that the staff conducted in August, found, 
among other things, that the Kurdistan Workers' Party [PKK] poses a 
grave threat not only to Turkey, but to regional stability as well. 
According to the report, the PKK bears direct responsibility for much 
of the tensions in southeast Turkey and for prompting the recent 
Turkish invasions of Iraq.
  The report also found, however, that the Government of Turkey bears 
much of the responsibility for the continued suffering in the 
southeast. The report acknowledges the great political challenges Prime 
Minister Ciller faces as she tries to address the Kurdish problem--a 
fact borne out by developments of the last several days by the fall of 
her government. The bottom line, however, is that the government has 
been unable--or unwilling--to distinguish the genuine threat posed by 
the PKK from the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Kurdish 
people. As a result, Turkey refuses to engage in a political dialog 
with nonviolent Kurdish representatives, and is executing a heavy-
handed, indiscriminate military campaign to eradicate what it views as 
a monolithic threat to the unity of the country.
  By equating all Kurdish aspirations with the terrorist designs of the 
PKK, Turkey effectively has eliminated outlets for nonviolent Kurdish 
political or cultural expression. As a consequence, Turkey 
unintentionally may be contributing to the PKK's appeal. I believe it 
is important to encourage Turkey to offer Kurds and other groups 
outlets for nonviolent expression.
  One response to the well-chronicled Turkish rights violations has 
been to cut assistance. In fact, as many of my colleagues may be aware, 
the House voted to limit economic support funds for Turkey to $21 
million. I propose that we take a different approach by addressing some 
of the very real economic needs Turkey is facing in the southeast--and 
to do so through non-governmental organizations.
  The Foreign Relations Committee staff visited Diyarbakir, one of the 
main cities in the southeast, which in many ways symbolizes the ethnic 
difficulties that persist within Turkey. That city has become a haven 
for rural Kurds forced to evacuate neighboring towns and villages 
destroyed by the Turkish military. By some estimates, the city's 
population has grown from roughly 300,000 to more an 1,500,000 during 
the past 5 years. Although Turkish officials, local residents, and some 
independent observers suggest that tensions have subsided during the 
past 2 years, it is evident that any existing calm is tenuous and the 
result of Turkey's overwhelming--and at times oppressive--security 
presence, which has exacted a high cost in terms of human rights 
violations. I believe that my amendment would have a positive impact by 
improving economic conditions in a very unstable area.
  This amendment also sends an important message to Turkey--as it faces 
the challenge of forming a new government--about the need to address 
other underlying problems such as the lack of ethnic and cultural 
acceptance and human rights abuses in the southeast. Turkish officials 
speak of the need to increase stability in the southeast. True 
stability can only come with increased tolerance. This amendment is 
intended to bolster that effort.


                           amendment no. 2748

       On page 36, line 4, after the word ``Turkey'' insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That the President should 
     seek the agreement of the Prime Minister of Turkey to permit 
     access throughout Turkey for international humanitarian 
     organizations which operate confidentially, and report to the 
     Committee on Appropriations by June 1, 1996, on progress 
     towards such agreement''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2749

 (Purpose: To amend the NATO Participation Act of 1994 to expedite the 
    transition to full membership in and cooperation with the North 
   Atlantic Treaty Organization of European countries emerging from 
                         Communist domination)

       On page 121, below line 24, add the following:
          TITLE VII--NATO PARTICIPATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1995

     SECTION 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``NATO Participation Act 
     Amendments of 1995''.

     SEC. 702. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) has played an essential role in guaranteeing the 
     security, freedom, and prosperity of the United States and 
     its partners in the Alliance.
       (2) NATO has expanded its membership on three different 
     occasions since 1949.
       (3) The sustained commitment of the member countries of 
     NATO to mutual defense of their security ultimately made 
     possible the democratic transformation in Central and Eastern 
     Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union.
       (4) NATO was designed to be and remains a defensive 
     military organization whose members have never contemplated 
     the use of, or used, military force to expand the borders of 
     its member states.
       (5) While the immediate threat to the security of the 
     United States and its allies has been reduced with the 
     collapse of the Iron Curtain, new security threats, such as 
     the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, are emerging to the 
     shared interests of the member countries of NATO.
       (6) NATO remains the only multilateral security 
     organization capable of conducting effective military 
     operations to protect Western security interests.
       (7) NATO has played a positive role in defusing tensions 
     between NATO members and, as a result, no military action has 
     occurred between two NATO member states since the inception 
     of NATO in 1949.
       (8) NATO is also an important diplomatic forum for the 
     discussion of issues of concern 

[[Page S 14062]]
     to its member states and for the peaceful resolution of disputes.
       (9) America's security, freedom, and prosperity remain 
     linked to the security of the countries of Europe.
       (10) Any threat to the security of the newly emerging 
     democracies in Europe would pose a security threat to the 
     United States and its European allies.
       (11) The admission to NATO of European countries that have 
     been freed from Communist domination and that meet specific 
     criteria for NATO membership would contribute to 
     international peace and enhance the security of the region.
       (12) A number of countries have expressed varying degrees 
     of interest in NATO membership, and have taken concrete steps 
     to demonstrate this commitment.
       (13) Full integration of Central and East European 
     countries into the North Atlantic Alliance after such 
     countries meet essential criteria for admission would enhance 
     the security of the Alliance and, thereby, contribute to the 
     security of the United States.
       (14) The expansion of NATO can create the stable 
     environment needed to successfully complete the political and 
     economic transformation envisioned by European states 
     emerging from Communist domination.
       (15) In recognition that not all countries which have 
     requested membership in NATO will necessarily qualify at the 
     same pace, the accession date for each new member will vary.
       (16) Nothing in this title should be construed as 
     precluding the eventual NATO membership of European countries 
     never under Communist domination, namely, Austria, Finland, 
     and Sweden.
       (17) The provision of NATO transition assistance should 
     include those countries most ready for closer ties with NATO 
     and should be designed to assist other countries meeting 
     specified criteria of eligibility to move forward toward 
     eventual NATO membership.
       (18) The evaluation of future membership in NATO for 
     countries emerging from Communist domination should be based 
     on the progress of those nations in meeting criteria for NATO 
     transition assistance and evolving NATO criteria, which 
     require enhancement of NATO's security and the approval of 
     all NATO members.

     SEC. 703. UNITED STATES POLICY.

       It should be the policy of the United States--
       (1) to join with the NATO allies of the United States to 
     redefine the role of the NATO Alliance in the post-Cold War 
     world;
       (2) to actively assist European countries emerging from 
     Communist domination in their transition so that such 
     countries may eventually qualify for NATO membership; and
       (3) to work to define the political and security 
     relationship between an enlarged NATO and the Russian 
     Federation.

     SEC. 704. REVISIONS TO PROGRAM TO FACILITATE TRANSITION TO 
                   NATO MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--Subsection (a) of section 
     203 of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Public 
     Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Establishment of Program.--The President may provide 
     expanded security assistance and other related assistance to 
     countries designated under subsection (d) to facilitate their 
     transition to full NATO membership.''.
       (b) Eligible Countries.--
       (1) Eligibility.--Subsection (d) of section 203 of such Act 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Designation of Eligible Countries.--
       ``(1) Presidential review and report.--Within 60 days of 
     the enactment of the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 
     1995, the President shall transmit to the Congress an 
     evaluation of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
     Slovakia, as well as all other European countries emerging 
     from Communist domination which have expressed an interest in 
     joining NATO, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 
     (3) and specifically designate one or more of these countries 
     to be eligible to receive assistance under the program 
     established in subsection (a). The President shall provide a 
     report of the country-by-country evaluation as well as an 
     evaluation of each designated country's progress toward 
     conformance with criteria for full NATO membership.
       ``(2) Other european countries emerging from communist 
     domination.--In addition to the country or countries 
     designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the President may 
     designate other European countries emerging from Communist 
     domination. The President may make such a designation in the 
     case of any such country only if the President determines, 
     and reports to the designated congressional committees, that 
     such country meets the criteria specified in paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Criteria.--The criteria referred to in paragraph (2) 
     are, with respect to each country, that the country--
       ``(A) has made or is making significant progress toward 
     establishing--
       ``(i) shared values and interests;
       ``(ii) democratic governments;
       ``(iii) free market economies;
       ``(iv) civilian control of the military, of the police, and 
     of intelligence services;
       ``(v) adherence to the values, principles, and political 
     commitments embodied in the Helsinki Final Act of the 
     Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and
       ``(vi) more transparent defense budgets and is 
     participating in the Partnership For Peace defense planning 
     process;
       ``(B) has made public commitments--
       ``(i) to further the principles of NATO and to contribute 
     to the security of the North Atlantic area;
       ``(ii) to accept the obligations, responsibilities, and 
     costs of NATO membership; and
       ``(iii) to implement infrastructure development activities 
     that will facilitate participation in and support for NATO 
     military activities;
       ``(C) is not ineligible for assistance under section 563 of 
     Public Law 103-306, with respect to transfers of equipment to 
     a country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 
     40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; and
       ``(D) could, within five years of the determination of the 
     President under paragraph (1) or (2), be in a position to 
     further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to 
     contribute to its own security and that of the North Atlantic 
     area.
       ``(4) Prohibition on funding for partnership for peace 
     activities or on funding for the warsaw initiative.--
     Effective 60 days after the date of enactment of the NATO 
     Participation Act Amendments of 1995, no funds authorized to 
     be appropriated under any provision of law may be obligated 
     or expended for activities associated with the Partnership 
     for Peace program or the Warsaw Initiative until the 
     President has designated at least one country to participate 
     in the transition program established under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsections (b) and (c) of section 203 of such Act are 
     amended by striking ``countries described in such 
     subsection'' each of the two places it appears and inserting 
     ``countries designated under subsection (d)''.
       (B) Subsection (e) of section 203 of such Act is amended--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)(2)''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2394)'' before the period at 
     the end.
       (C) Section 204(c) of such Act is amended by striking ``any 
     other Partnership for Peace country designated under section 
     203(d)'' and inserting ``any country designated under section 
     203(d)(2)''.
       (c) Types of Assistance.--Section 203(c) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) 
     the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(E) Assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to the Economic Support 
     Fund).
       ``(F) Funds appropriated under the `Nonproliferation and 
     Disarmament Fund' account''.
       ``(G) Assistance under chapter 6 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to peacekeeping operations 
     and other programs).''.
       ``(H) Authority for the Department of Defense to pay excess 
     defense articles costs for countries designated for both 
     grant lethal and nonlethal excess defense articles.
       ``(I) Authority to convert FMF loans to grants, and grants 
     to loans, for eligible countries.
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``Type of 
     Assistance.--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, in providing 
     assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for the countries designated under 
     subsection (d), the President shall include as an important 
     component of such assistance the provision of sufficient 
     language training to enable military personnel to participate 
     further in programs for military training and in defense 
     exchange programs.
       ``(3) Of the amounts made available under chapter 5 of part 
     II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to 
     international military education and training), $5,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1996 and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 
     should support--
       ``(A) the attendance of additional military personnel of 
     countries designated under subsection (d)(1) or (d)(2), 
     particularly Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
     Slovakia, at professional military education institutions in 
     the United States in accordance with section 544 of such Act; 
     and
       ``(B) the placement and support of United States 
     instructors and experts at military educational centers 
     within the foreign countries designated under subsection (d) 
     that are receiving assistance under that chapter.''.

     SEC. 705. ASSISTANCE FOR NATO PARTICIPATION ACT DESIGNEES.

       The President is authorized to obligate and expend 
     $60,000,000 from funds made available under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 in support of countries designated to 
     receive transition assistance under section 203(a) of the 
     NATO Participation Act, as follows:
       (1) Poland: $20,000,000.
       (2) Czech Republic: $10,000,000.
       (3) Hungary: $5,000,000.
       (4) Slovakia: $5,000,000.
       (5) Other European countries designated under subsection 
     (d)(1) or subsection (d)(2): $20,000,000.

     SEC. 706. TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 203(f) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title 
     II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended to 
     read as follows:

[[Page S 14063]]

       ``(f) Termination of Eligibility.--(1) The eligibility of a 
     country designated under subsection (d) for the program 
     established in subsection (a) shall terminate 60 days after 
     the President makes a certification under paragraph (2) 
     unless, within the 60-day period, the Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution disapproving the termination of eligibility.
       ``(2) Whenever the President determines that the government 
     of a country designated under subsection (d)--
       ``(A) no longer meets the criteria set forth in subsection 
     (d)(2)(A);
       ``(B) is hostile to the NATO alliance; or
       ``(C) poses a national security threat to the United 
     States,

     then the President shall so certify to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
       ``(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the eligibility of 
     countries to participate under other provisions of law in 
     programs described in this Act.
       (b) Congressional Priority Procedures.--Section 203 of such 
     Act is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Congressional Priority Procedures.--
       ``(1) Applicable procedures.--A joint resolution described 
     in paragraph (2) which is introduced in a House of Congress 
     after the date on which a certification made under subsection 
     (f)(2) is received by Congress shall be considered in 
     accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (3) 
     through (7) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473 
     (98 Stat. 1936)), except that--
       ``(A) references to the `resolution described in paragraph 
     (1)' shall be deemed to be references to the joint 
     resolution; and
       ``(B) references to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate shall be deemed to be references 
     to the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.
       ``(2) Text of joint resolution.--A joint resolution under 
     this paragraph is a joint resolution the matter after the 
     resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the Congress 
     disapproves the certification submitted by the President on 
     ____________ pursuant to section 203(f) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994.'.''.

     SEC. 707. REPORTS.

       (a) Annual Report.--Section 206 of the NATO Participation 
     Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 
     note), as redesignated by section 705(1) of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``ANNUAL'' in the section heading before 
     the first word;
       (2) by inserting ``annual'' after ``include in the'' in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1);
       (3) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Partnership for Peace'' 
     and inserting ``European''; and
       (4) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting instead the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In the event that the President determines that, 
     despite a period of transition assistance, a country 
     designated under section 203(d) has not, as of January 10, 
     1999, met criteria for NATO membership set forth by the North 
     Atlantic Council, the President shall transmit a report to 
     the designated congressional committees containing an 
     assessment of the progress made by that country in meeting 
     those standards.''.

     SEC. 708. DEFINITIONS.

       The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 
     103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), as amended by this title, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 207. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) NATO.--The term `NATO' means the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization.
       ``(2) Designated congressional committees.--The term 
     `designated congressional committees' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on International Relations, the 
     Committee on National Security, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       ``(3) European countries emerging from communist 
     domination.--The term `European countries emerging from 
     Communist domination' includes, but is not limited to, 
     Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and 
     Ukraine.''.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Brown 
amendment--the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995.
  No other issue is more crucial to European security than NATO's 
relationship with Central and Eastern Europe. Today, we are in the 
midst of an historical era, an era of transition. It is a phase in 
which the strategic landscape of Europe is particularly malleable--a 
phase that will not last forever. How the Alliance manages its 
relationship with the nations of this region during this period will 
determine whether or not Europe will ultimately have the benefits of an 
enduring and stable peace.
  Careful, gradual, but undeterred enlargement of NATO should be the 
geopolitical priority of America's Europe policy. The Alliance is 
uniquely qualified to provide the institutional foundation for regional 
security and peace. No other institution combines the two necessary 
requisites to serve in this role: a transatlantic dimension and proven 
operational capability.
  The Brown amendment explicitly endorses and facilitates a process of 
NATO expansion. Passage of this amendment is an important step toward 
establishing a system of European security consisting of two pillars: 
an enlarged NATO and a strategic partnership between the Alliance and 
Russia.
  Since I have endorsed this legislation before in this Chamber, allow 
me, Mr. President, to briefly review the key reasons why we should 
support the process of NATO enlargement and why we should vote for the 
NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995:
  First, extending the Alliance's membership to the nations of Central 
and Eastern Europe, beginning with Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and 
Hungary, will help transform this region from a source of instability 
into a cornerstone of peace. Both recent and long-term history show us 
that the region's strategic vulnerability has been a source of danger 
on the continent--with calamitous consequences that drew the United 
States into two World Wars.
  Second, NATO enlargement would help facilitate the economic and 
political integration of this region into the West. Passage of this 
amendment would demonstrate America's commitment to consolidating an 
enlarged Europe, and it would give more incentive to all the nations of 
Central and Eastern Europe to continue their reforms.
  Third, the extension of NATO membership to Central and Eastern Europe 
would positively influence the evolution of two great powers, Germany 
and Russia. These two nations are now undergoing very complex and 
sensitive transformations. The outcomes will be significantly shaped by 
the future of Central and Eastern Europe. NATO enlargement would 
further lock German interests into a transatlantic security structure 
and thereby consolidate the positive role Bonn plays in European 
affairs.
  Moreover, and this leads to my fourth point, NATO enlargement into 
Central and Eastern Europe benefits Russia. By enhancing and 
reinforcing stability in Eastern Europe, an enlarged NATO would bring 
greater stability to Russia's frontiers and would enable Russia to 
direct more of its energy to the internal challenges of political and 
economic reform.
  Mr. President, this point is too often forgotten in this debate. 
There has been too strong a tendency in United States policy to 
overreact to outdated Russian sensitivities at the expense of strategic 
realities and objectives central to the interests of the Alliance, as 
well as to the United States.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me emphasize the NATO Participation Act 
Amendments endorse a vision of European security in a manner fully 
consistent with the spirit and charter of the Washington Treaty. It 
calls upon the President to undertake programs that will help the 
nations of Central and Eastern Europe prepare themselves for the 
responsibilities of NATO membership,
  Enlargement is a process for which the Alliance has always been 
geared. Indeed, Article 10 of the Washington Treaty provides for the 
enlargement of the Alliance to any European state ``in a position to 
further the principals of this Treaty and to contribute to the security 
of the North Atlantic area.''
  Mr. President, America's policies toward Europe must be structured to 
shape a strategic landscape that enhances economic, political, and 
military stability in all parts of Europe. This is in our Nation's best 
interest, and it is the intent of the NATO Participation Act Amendments 
to see such policies embraced. For this reason, I call upon my 
colleagues to pass this legislation.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Colorado 
for working with me and others to revise S. 602, the NATO Participation 
Act Amendments of 1995, which he and Senator Simon introduced earlier 
this year. While there are still a few 

[[Page S 14064]]
changes that I hope we can make down the road, I share the amendment's 
goal of assisting our friends in Central and Eastern Europe to make the 
transition from Communist domination to greater integration with the 
rest of Europe. I believe that overall, the amendment before us is a 
vast improvement over S. 602, and I will support it.
  NATO expansion is very important. In fact, the United States has 
taken the lead within the Alliance to address the issues thoroughly and 
expeditiously. Stepping up security assistance to former Communist 
states is critical to the Partnership for Peace initiative as well as 
to NATO expansion. The administration has already put forth a 
proposal--the Warsaw Initiative--to facilitate the participation of 
democratic European states in Partnership for Peace activities. The 
Brown-Simon amendment complements what the President is already doing 
in this regard. This amendment does not alter the fact that Partnership 
for Peace is becoming an important feature of the European security 
system.
  This amendment sets up a series of eligibility criteria for countries 
to receive additional assistance leading to the transition to full NATO 
membership. The criteria, which include having a Democratic government 
and a free market economy, civilian control of the military and the 
intelligence services, adherence to OSCE principles, and a commitment 
to prevent the sale of defense articles to terrorist states, are quite 
appropriate and reasonable.
  I want to be clear, however, that adoption of this amendment should 
not be taken as a signal that Congress can deem that certain countries 
are more ready than others for NATO membership. The 16 NATO countries 
have a process in place for addressing the expansion issue. That is as 
it should be. NATO has almost completed its internal study of 
expansion, which will be made public as early as next week. Then NATO 
will begin briefing Partnership for Peace members regarding expansion.
  Under Senator Lugar's leadership, the European Subcommittee is 
conducting a series of hearings to examine NATO expansion issues. To 
date, the subcommittee hearings have shown that the issue of expansion 
has not been thoroughly examined or vetted by the Congress or by the 
American public. The costs and responsibilities of NATO expansion have 
not been thoroughly examined. Therefore, any unilateral congressional 
determination as to which countries are ready for NATO membership is 
inappropriate.

  This amendment does not make a pronouncement regarding NATO 
membership. It simply authorizes the President to help countries that 
are already members of Partnership for Peace, and that may be 
interested in full NATO membership.
  I believe that this amendment strikes an appropriate balance between 
encouraging the administration to reach out to our friends in Central 
and Eastern Europe on the one hand and supporting the process among our 
NATO allies on the other.


                           amendment no. 2750

  (Purpose: To provide a substitute for the provision relating to the 
           Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization)

       Strike all after ``that'' on p. 108 line 18 through line 10 
     on page 109, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       (a) in accordance with Section I of the Agreed Framework, 
     KEDO has designated a Republic of Korea company, corporation 
     or entity for the purpose of negotiating a prime contract to 
     carry out construction of the light water reactors provided 
     for in the Agreed Framework; and
       (b) the DPRK is maintaining the freeze on its nuclear 
     facilities as required in the Agreed Framework; and
       (c) the United States is taking steps to assure that 
     progress is made on (1) the North South dialogue, including 
     efforts to reduce barriers to trade and investment, such as 
     removing restrictions on travel, telecommunications services 
     and financial transactions; and (2) implementation of the 
     January 1, 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of 
     the Korean Peninsula.
       (d) A report on the specific efforts with regard to 
     subsection (c) shall be submitted by the President to the 
     Committees on Appropriations six months after the date of 
     enactment, and every six months thereafter.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the language in the bill takes the 
standards for improvements in the United States relationship with North 
Korea and applies them to the North-South relationship. In other words, 
the language codifies what I believe is our policy of parallel progress 
between North and South and the United States relationship with the 
North.
  There is real concern that each time the North Koreans want something 
new in the way of equipment, economic assistance, or a concession, they 
threaten to lift the freeze.
  We then inch closer in our bilateral relationship. My concern has 
been that this has been at the expense of the long-standing United 
States alliance with the South. Ultimately, I think the North is 
determined to drive a wedge between the South and the United States. 
And, their strategy seems to be working. We have responded to threats 
by canceling joint military exercises, offering unconditional economic 
aid in the form of oil, while insisting on no clear steps in the North-
South dialog.
  Let us keep in mind that in spite of the freeze, there is no date 
certain by which North Korea will come into full compliance with their 
treaty obligations. Indeed, I believe we have set a dangerous precedent 
in rewarding violations of the NPT with free reactors and economic aid.
  And, the North's response? When the South recently sent a relief 
shipment of rice, the North captured the boat and held the crew members 
hostage.
  I think it will have an adverse impact on stability on the peninsula 
if we trade away our current commitments to South Korea to secure the 
North's future compliance with their obligations under the NPT and IAEA 
safeguards agreement.
  Talks are again underway again on the next phase of implementing the 
Framework Agreement. It will not surprise anyone to learn that, once 
again, the North is linking a continuation of the freeze to being 
granted millions more in assistance.
  This time, apparently they are interested in the equipment needed to 
build an energy distribution grid.
  Like every Member of this body, I think a freeze on North Korea's 
nuclear program is important--but we need to lock in that freeze--to 
freeze it, if you will.
  At this point, it has been reduced to a negotiating chip which the 
North keeps recycling. Every time they want something new, the North 
threatens to lift the freeze.
  In the last round of talks, the North was adamant that no mention be 
made of South Korean participation in the provision of the light water 
reactor covered under the Framework Agreement.
  To accommodate this demand, we negotiated an arrangement where the 
North agreed to allow KEDO to announce the contracting decision. KEDO, 
in turn, announced that a reactor originally based on a United States 
design but modified by the South would be the reactor provided.

  I gather the ambiguity of this arrangement was unsatisfactory to the 
South but a private letter from President Clinton to President Kim Yong 
Sam was sufficiently reassuring that the South Korean administration 
agreed to go along.
  Unfortunately, side letters do not bear the same official weight as 
obligations spelled out in agreements. Once again, the North seems to 
have achieved their goal of access to energy and easing economic 
pressure while minimizing contact with the South.
  I think it is essential to clarify just what we expect in the North-
South dialog. Ambiguity will ultimately invite challenge and 
confrontation.
  The North's opposition to a clearly defined role for the South is the 
threat to stability. The danger does not lie in imposing obligations 
that are parallel and consistent with our own--the danger lies in 
abandoning our current security commitments to South Korea in an 
attempt to obtain future compliance with IAEA and NPT requirements.
  Mr. President, the principal objection the administration had to the 
restrictions I included in the Foreign Operations bill was the 
timetable I established for progress in the North-South dialog. I would 
like my colleagues to know that the timetable I included was exactly 
the same as the schedule the United States was expected to comply with 
in fulfilling obligations to normalize economic and political 
relations.

[[Page S 14065]]

  However, given the difficulty of the problem I can appreciate the 
administration not feeling able to move as rapidly as I would like, so 
I have modified the language to accommodate those concerns. The 
amendment I am offering on behalf of Senators Byrd, Nunn, Hatfield, 
Stevens, Inouye, Leahy, and myself balances our interest in clarifying 
our goals on the North-South dialog while giving the administration 
sufficient time and a measure of flexibility to advance those 
interests.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, and manager of the bill, for his flexibility in 
accommodating my concerns over the provision in the bill on the Korean 
Framework Agreement. That agreement, concluded on October 21, 1994, if 
properly implemented, holds the promise of relaxing tensions on the 
Korean Peninsula, of steering the North Korean Government off its path 
of nuclear weapons development, and of reducing the long-term 
expenditure of resources by the United States to ensure the safety of 
South Korea.
  The agreement mainly concerns obligations entered into between the 
United States and the North Korean Government, but also refers to the 
need for a dialog between the North and South Korean Governments as 
well. In Provision III of the agreement, the North Korea Government has 
agreed to ``engage in a North/South dialog, as this Agreed Framework 
will help create an atmosphere that promotes such dialogue.'' The 
amendment which has been offered encourages progress in this regard, in 
particular with reference to reducing North-South barriers toward trade 
and investment, including removing restrictions on travel, 
telecommunications services, and financial transactions. If such 
barriers are removed, much of the suspicion, fear, and anger that 
infuses the North-South relationship can be mitigated, and an 
atmosphere of peaceful cooperation could be fostered. Such a 
development is certainly in the national security interest of the 
United States.
  The amendment also requires the President to certify that the North 
Koreans are maintaining their current freeze on nuclear facilities, 
which is required in the Framework Agreement. This is the quid pro quo 
for United States support to the South Korean and Japanese consortium 
to put into place new light water reactor powerplants in the North, 
which will help resolve the overall nuclear issue on the Korean 
Peninsula.
  The administration supports this amendment, and I am pleased that 
Senators could reach this accommodation on the language in the bill. It 
supports America's vital leadership role to bring peace and an 
atmosphere of cooperation on the Korean Peninsula, and head off any 
further danger that the North Koreans might pursue a nuclear option 
which would lead to more tension and perhaps a conflict there.
  I commend the chairman, and others who have contributed to this 
result.


                           amendment no. 2751

       On page 24, line 5 add the following after ``services'': 
     ``Provided, That these funds shall be in addition to funds 
     justified for programs in the fiscal year 1996 congressional 
     presentation documents.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment No. 2752

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding the recent 
                        elections in Hong Kong)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . HONG KONG ELECTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The right to an elected legislature in Hong Kong is 
     guaranteed by the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on the 
     Question of Hong Kong.
       (2) The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act declared the 
     Congress's support for full implementation of the 1984 Sino-
     British Joint Declaration;
       (3) The People's Republic of China declared in the Joint 
     Declaration that Hong Kong would be ``vested legislative, 
     executive and independent judicial power'' and would have ``a 
     legislature constituted by elections''.
       (4) On September 17, 1995, the highest number of Hong Kong 
     voters ever demonstrated their commitment to democracy by 
     freely expressing their right to vote in the Legislative 
     Council elections.
       (5) The voters of Hong Kong have overwhelmingly expressed 
     their desire for the establishment of a fully democratic 
     government by electing 60 Legislative Councillors for four-
     year terms.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the people of Hong Kong are to be congratulated for 
     exercising their right to vote on September 17, 1995;
       (2) the People's Republic of China should respect the clear 
     will of the people of Hong Kong to have a fully democratic 
     government;
       (3) the Government of the People's Republic of China should 
     enter into a dialogue with the democratically elected 
     representative of the Hong Kong people; and
       (4) the Government of the People's Republic of China should 
     respect the mandate of the elected members by withdrawing its 
     pledge to abolish the Legislative Council in violation of the 
     Joint Declaration's provisions on Hong Kong's legislature and 
     autonomy in all but defense and foreign affairs.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and others I am 
offering an amendment that expresses the sense of the Congress in 
support of last Sunday's successful elections in Hong Kong.
  Mr. President, when Mr. Christopher Patten became Governor of Hong 
Kong 3 years ago, he made a very important decision. He decided to 
allow the people of Hong Kong the opportunity to express their 
preference on a simple issue: democracy--yes or no?
  As last Monday's New York Times editorial noted, ``Hong Kong's voters 
declared overwhelmingly on Sunday their preference for democracy and 
their doubts about Beijing's plans for the colony's future.'' Final 
returns from Sunday's vote show the Democratic Party led by Mr. Martin 
Lee won the largest number of seats, 19, in the 60-seat Legislative 
Council. Other prodemocracy allies will give Mr. Lee a working majority 
of 31.
  By contrast, pro-Beijing candidates of the Democratic Alliance for 
the Betterment of Hong Kong won only six seats and the party's top 
three officials were all defeated. Regrettably, spokesmen for Beijing 
have not learned to lose gracefully and have resorted to threats and 
intimidation.
  Again Governor Patten has proved to be the best analyst: ``Everybody 
has to recognize that Hong Kong has expressed its views about the 
present and the future with great clarity.''
  Mr. President, the amendment I have offered congratulates the people 
of Hong Kong for exercising their right to vote, calls on China to 
respect the clear will of the people of Hong Kong to have a fully 
democratic government, and calls on China to enter into a dialog with 
the democratically elected representatives of the Hong Kong people.
  I wish the people of Hong Kong well as they continue to demonstrate 
their clear will to maintain the cause of democracy. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.


                           amendment no. 2753

 (Purpose: To impose sanctions against Burma, and countries assisting 
 Burma, unless Burma observes basic human rights and permits political 
                               freedoms)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following.

     SEC. 2. SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA.

       Except as provided in section 4, the following sanctions 
     shall apply to Burma, effective 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act (or on such other date as is specified 
     in this section):
       (1) Investments.--No United States national may make any 
     investment in Burma.
       (2) United states assistance.--United States assistance for 
     Burma is prohibited.
       (3) Trade privileges.--The President shall continue the 
     suspension of special trade privileges pursuant to the 
     Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), and shall continue 
     the suspension of nondiscriminatory trade treatment (most-
     favored-nation status), with respect to Burma.
       (4) Importation of goods.--No article which is produced, 
     manufactured, grown, or extracted in Burma may be imported 
     into the United States.
       (5) Trade and investment treaties.--The United States 
     should continue to suspend carrying out obligations under 
     bilateral trade and investment treaties with Burma.
       (6) Travel restrictions.--The Secretary of State shall 
     prohibit the use of United States passports for travel to 
     Burma except for travel by United States diplomatic 
     personnel.
       (7) Diplomatic representation.--The President is urged not 
     to accept diplomatic representation from Burma at a level 
     greater than the level of diplomatic representation accorded 
     the United States in Burma.
       (8) Foreign assistance.--The United States shall suspend 
     assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the 
     Arms Export Control Act to any foreign government which sells 
     or otherwise transfers arms to the Government of Burma.
       (9) International organizations contributions.--The United 
     States shall withhold from each international organization 
     that funds activities in Burma other than humanitarian 
     activities an amount equal to 

[[Page S 14066]]
     the United States proportionate share of that funding.
       (10) Multilateral assistance.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director 
     of each financial institution to vote against any loan or 
     other utilization of the funds of the respective bank to or 
     for Burma.
       (11) Eminent persons group.--The President, acting through 
     the United States Permanent Representative to the United 
     Nations, should urge the United Nations to establish an 
     eminent persons group to report on compliance by the 
     Government of Burma with United Nations resolutions.
       (12) International arms embargo.--The President, acting 
     through the United States Permanent Representative to the 
     United Nations, should urge the establishment by the United 
     Nations of an international arms embargo of Burma.

     SEC. 3. AGREEMENTS TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON BURMA.

       (a) Negotiations With Trading Partners.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 15 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall initiate 
     negotiations with all foreign countries with which the United 
     States trades for the purpose of entering into agreements 
     with the countries--
       (A) to support United States sanctions against Burma, and
       (B) to cease trade with and investment in Burma.
       (2) Certification of negotiations and agreements.--Not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall certify to the Congress each country 
     that--
       (A) has failed to enter into an agreement described in 
     paragraph (1), or
       (B) has entered into such an agreement but is not enforcing 
     it.
       (3) Action by the president.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, if a certification is made with respect to 
     any country under paragraph (2) the President shall 
     withdraw--
       (A) any designation of such country--
       (i) as a beneficiary developing country for purposes of 
     title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.),
       (ii) as a beneficiary country for purposes of the Caribbean 
     Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), or
       (iii) as a beneficiary country for purposes of the Andean 
     Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.),
       (B) from such countries the benefits of any other special 
     tariff treatment program under which the special rates of 
     duty apply under column 1 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States, and
       (C) most-favored-nation trade treatment with respect to any 
     such country.
       (b) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--The provisions of this section apply to 
     goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
     originating in or imported from a country with respect to 
     which an action described in subsection (a)(3) has been 
     taken, during the period beginning on the date that is 15 
     days after the date of the certification described in 
     subsection (a)(2) and ending on the date that is 15 days 
     after the earlier of--
       (A) the date the President certifies to the Congress that 
     such country has entered into an agreement described in 
     subsection (a)(1) and is enforcing the agreement, or
       (B) the date a certification described in section 4 is 
     made.
       (2) Rate of duty during period designation is withdrawn.--
     During the period described in paragraph (1), goods entered, 
     or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, originating in 
     or imported from a country described in subsection (a)(3) 
     shall be subject to duty at the rates of duty specified for 
     such goods under column 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 4. CERTIFICATION.

       The sanctions of section 2 shall not apply upon the 
     determination and certification by the President to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that the following 
     conditions are met:
       (1) The Government of Burma has unconditionally released 
     all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.
       (2) The Government of Burma has fully implemented the 
     results of the 1990 elections in Burma, including the 
     transfer of power to civilian authority, the protection of 
     basic human rights, and guaranteeing the right of Burmese 
     citizens to participate freely in the political process, 
     assuring freedom of speech and the right of association and 
     assembly.
       (3) The Government of Burma has implemented an effective 
     counternarcotics effort.

     SEC. 5. SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 
     States executive director of each multilateral financial 
     institution to vote against any loan or other utilization of 
     the facilities of the respective institution to or for the 
     People's Republic of China until the President determines and 
     certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that 
     the People's Republic of China has terminated arms sales and 
     other arms transfers to Burma.

     SEC. 6. SANCTIONS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THAILAND.

       The President shall withhold all United States assistance 
     to the Government of Thailand until the President determines 
     and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees 
     that the Government of Thailand is fully cooperating in 
     providing support and relief for Burmese exiles and refugees.

     SEC. 7. REPORT.

       Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on--
       (1) the chemical and biological weapons capability of 
     Burma;
       (2) a plan to provide United States assistance in support 
     of the democracy movement active inside Burma;
       (3) the treatment by the Government of Thailand of Burmese 
     students, refugees, and exiles resident in Thailand; and
       (4) the status of arms sales and other arms transfers to 
     the Government of Burma, including the amount of expenditures 
     by the Government of Burma in the acquisition of arms.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Investment.--The term ``investment'' includes any 
     contribution or commitment of funds, commodities, services, 
     patents, processes, or techniques, in the form of--
       (A) a loan or loans;
       (B) the purchase of a share of ownership;
       (C) participation in royalties, earnings, or profits; and
       (D) the furnishing of commodities or services pursuant to a 
     lease or other contract.
       (3) Humanitarian activities.--The term ``humanitarian 
     activities'' means the provision of food, medicine, medical 
     supplies, or clothing and does not include cash transfers.
       (4) Financial institutions.--The term ``financial 
     institutions'' includes the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development, the International Development 
     Association, the Asian Development Bank, and the 
     International Monetary Fund.
       (5) United states assistance.--The term ``United States 
     assistance'' means assistance of any kind which is provided 
     by grant, sale, loan, lease, credit, guaranty, or insurance, 
     or by any other means, by any agency or instrumentality of 
     the United States Government to any foreign country, 
     including--
       (A) assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (including programs under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of 
     the Act);
       (B) sales, credits, and guaranties under the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);
       (C) sales under title I (7 U.S.C.A. 1701 et seq.) or III 
     (17 U.S.C.A. 1727 et seq.) and donations under title II (17 
     U.S.C.A. 1721 et seq.) of the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954 of nonfood commodities;
       (D) other financing programs of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for export sales of nonfood commodities; and
       (E) financing under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C.A. 635 et seq.).

                                 
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in July 1989, Ong Son Sue Chi, leader 
of the National League for Democracy was placed under house arrest. In 
spite of her arrest, National League for Democracy representatives 
swept the elections, held the following May, winning 392 of the 485 
seats in Parliament. As we all know, the State Law and Order 
Restoration Council, SLORC, rejected the outcome and has maintained an 
iron grip on Burma ever since.
  While Sue Chi has now been released, today like all others for the 
people of Burma marks one more day of ruthless repression. The recent 
U.N. Special Rapporteur summed up the view of every human rights group 
and democratic activist I have spoken with. People are fearful that 
whatever they say or do will risk interrogation or arrest. In cold and 
dispassionate terms he reported his concern about forced labor, forced 
porterage, forced relocations, arbitrary killings, beatings, rape, and 
confiscation of property by the army.
  I urge all of you to read the July National Geographic article on 
Burma. While holding out hope that Burma's rich natural resources will 
someday offer its people a prosperous future, the article describes how 
clearly the SLORC enriches itself using fear and intimidation to 
exploit both the people and the land--an opinion shared by the Wall 
Street Journal.
  Some of you might ask why I am more concerned about Burma than other 
countries questionable human or political rights records. I am hard 
pressed to find another regime on earth that I find as insulted, self 
serving, and repugnant.
  This is not a honorable government interested in stability and 
freedom. It is a dictatorship and signs cease-fires with ethnic leaders 
then unleashes 10,000 well-armed troops on their camps 

[[Page S 14067]]
of supporters. Last December, when Manerplaw was under attack, I 
offered the view that SLORC would release Sue Chi after annihilating 
all the groups that actively supported her democracy movement. The fall 
of Manerplaw generated 80,000 refugees. Today, as we speak, Karenni 
camps are under siege, in direct violation of a negotiated cease-fire. 
Twenty thousand civilians have fled the fighting.
  SLORC is not a responsible government interested in development--it 
is a corrupt dictatorship driven to protect its power and wealth. While 
people starve, this regime has spent 45 percent of its budget on arms.
  Unlike China, where I believe economic liberalization is benefiting 
hundreds of thousands of people and leading to political change, only 
SLORC officials and their cronies benefit in Burma. I think that is why 
there is unanimous support for this legislation from Burmese student, 
ethnic and democratic leaders alike.
  Before talking about the bill, I want to take just a minute to 
discuss why I think it is important to move legislation at this point.
  As we redefine our priorities in the post-cold-war world, there is an 
urgency to transnational threats. I put international narcotics 
trafficking and crime at the top of my list of concerns.
  In 1986, 15 percent of the heroin coming into this country was coming 
from Asia, now it's 65 percent. Just as important is the purity. 
National and local law enforcement officials in Kentucky tell me that 
10 years ago, heroin on our streets was 2 to 3 percent pure. Today it's 
anywhere from 25 to 65 percent pure.

  Heroin trafficking is a serious national security threat.
  In a Foreign Operations Subcommittee hearing I recently asked the 
Assistant Secretary of State for Asia, Win Lord, several questions on 
Burma, SLORC, and the narcotics problem. His response offers insight 
into why I think we should press to isolate the SLORC.
  Since SLORC has an enormous security apparatus with a tight grip on 
the nation, I asked him what were the major impediments to an effective 
counternarcotics effort. He said,

       What is going to solve the problem over the long run is a 
     popular, representative open government--all other efforts 
     are minuscule compared to whether you have an open system 
     there.

I agree.
  Last November a senior State Department official issued an ultimatum 
to the SLORC--bilateral relations would only improve if there was 
progress on human rights, democracy, and counternarcotics. No one 
disputes, inside or outside the administration, that we have seen a 
real deterioration on all fronts. Unfortunately, the administration has 
failed to follow through. A few weeks ago, Ambassador Albright visited 
Burma. According to news accounts she reiterated the November message--
we want to see improvements.
  SLORC must be wondering by now--improvements, or what?
  What are the real consequences? So far, none.
  Which is why I have decided to move forward with this legislation. 
Let me turn now to the contents of the amendment.
  I think we would all agree that unilateral sanctions are not as 
successful in applying pressure to a government as an international 
effort. There are several provisions which address U.S. unilateral 
action including banning investment, trade, imports, aid and support 
through international financial institutions. I also require the 
President to initiate negotiations to secure support with our trading 
partners for international sanctions. Countries failing to reach 
agreement on an embargo will risk their MFN and and GSP status.
  At this point, after years of self-imposed exile, there is very 
little foreign investment in Burma. I am willing to guess that few 
nations will be willing to put their existing trading relationship with 
the United States at risk for potential future financial gain in Burma.
  The amendment also requires the executive director at international 
financial institutions to vote against loans to China if the PRC 
continues to sell or transfer arms to Burma. The State Department 
estimates that SLORC spends 45 percent of their budget on weapons--arms 
used solely to terrorize their own citizens.
  The amendment will also suspend United States assistance to Thailand 
if there continues to be a lack of cooperation in the provision of 
relief and support to students, refugees, and democratic activists 
living in exile. Students and leaders have been arbitrarily detained, 
arrested, had their offices broken into and documents removed. The 
problems are usually resolved when various officials are paid so-called 
fees and fines. I am not suggesting that there is a condoned program 
orchestrated by the Thai Government at work, but I do think there 
should be a more serious effort to control the conduct of rogue 
officials.

  The amendment also requires several reports among which is one on 
SLORC's chemical and biological weapons capabilities. In the attacks 
carried out last year against various camps, thee were a number of 
eyewitness accounts of the use of some kind of toxic substance. I 
understand clothing and other items have been turned over to the U.S. 
labs for analysis. I earnestly hope the report advises us that there is 
no reason to believe the SLORC has a CBW capability.
  Let me conclude with a personal observation made recently by an 
International Red Cross official with years of experience in Asia. 
After dragging their feet for 7 years, the SLORC recently rejected the 
ICRC's request for access to political prisoners. Although they stand 
ready to return at any point, the ICRC decided to withdraw in July 
because SLORC will not grant them the simplest of terms, which 59 other 
countries accept, that being unsupervised, regular access to political 
prisoners. I think at one point SLORC offered access to Sue Chi, but 
she courageously declined asking that she not be given any preferential 
treatment not offered to other political prisoners.
  When asked when and why the talks collapsed, this official said,

       Last summer when they started to really make money. SLORC 
     realized they could secure their position and their wealth 
     without paying any political price.

  Shortly after she was released, SUU CHI cautiously welcomed this 
legislation saying,

       These are very tough sanctions. They--the sponsor--have 
     shown they are interested in how the democracy movement 
     progresses. I am very grateful for it.

  In July she was reluctant to directly call for a ban on investment 
fearing retaliation by SLORC. Now that months have passed with no 
progress she has taken a tougher stand. In a recent interview with an 
Australian journalist she called for a suspension of foreign investment 
until real progress on the democratic front has been achieved.
  I think it is important that we respect and promote that agenda. 
Keeping the pressure on SLORC will assure that her release is 
translated from a symbolic gesture to freedom and democracy for all 
Burmese.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by noting this initiative is supported 
by a wide variety of organizations and individuals including Nobel 
Laureate Betty Williams and Desmond Tutu, the AFL-CIO, the Democratic 
Burmese Students Organization, the National Coalition Government of the 
Union of Burma, the American Baptist Convention, the Asian-American 
Civic Alliance, and the United Front for Democracy and Human Rights in 
Burma. I have also heard from ethnic leaders endorsing the approach 
including ministers representing the Karen, Karenni, and Mon people. I 
ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters from some of the 
these groups.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, 
           Office of the Prime Minister,
                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I have recently learned of your 
     intention to introduce a bill to impose US economic sanctions 
     on Burma. On behalf of the democratically elected government 
     of Burma, I am writing to give you my wholehearted support as 
     well as that of my government in your effort.
       The imposition of sanctions should never be taken lightly. 
     Any measure designed to constrict the economy of a country 
     will cause some degree of hardship to the people. However, I 
     believe, and the democratic forces working to liberate our 
     country believe, that foreign investment serves to 

[[Page S 14068]]
     strengthen the outlaw State Law and Restoration Council (SLORC). It is 
     providing SLORC with the means to finance a massive army and 
     intelligence service whose only job is to crush internal 
     dissent. SLORC controls all foreign investment into Burma and 
     channels contracts to the military and its party officials. 
     Unlike other countries, investment will not serve to create a 
     middle class of entrepreneurs, only reinforce allegiance to a 
     regime that has murdered tens of thousands of people whose 
     crime was the desire for democracy and to live in a free 
     society. SLORC is in desperate need of foreign currency. 
     Cutting off access to US funds will be a severe blow to 
     SLORC.
       Your decision to move forward on this issue will not be 
     popular with the US business community or countries in Europe 
     and Asia. There are many who place trade and money over 
     Burma's deplorable narcotics, political, and human rights 
     record. I applaud your courage and will do everything in my 
     power to see you succeed.
       The United States has a very special place in the hearts of 
     my countrymen. During the massive democracy demonstrations in 
     1988, students could be seen marching in Rangoon carrying 
     American flags and demonstrating in front of the US Embassy. 
     Supporting us in our struggle is the International Republican 
     Institute. This organization funds pro-democracy activities 
     inside Burma. The Burmese people desperately want what 
     Americans have: the ability to live in peace without fear of 
     government persecution, respect for human rights, and social 
     justice. American ideals will always be a symbol for what we 
     can achieve.
       I want to personally thank you for your leadership and 
     raising your voice to support those who are oppressed. I look 
     forward to assisting you in any way possible.
       With my highest consideration,
           Yours Sincerely,
                                                       (Sein Win),
      Prime Minister.
                                                                    ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organization,
                                 Washington, DC, February 6, 1995.
     Hon. Warren Christoper,
     Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I write to you to express my strong 
     concerns about the continuing egregious behavior of the State 
     Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) regime of Burma. 
     Directly contradicting its claims that it seeks peace and 
     national reconciliation, SLORC sent the Burmese army to 
     viciously attack, capture and sack Manerplaw, the 
     headquarters of the Karen people and key base area for many 
     groups, including the Federation of Trade Unions Burma 
     (FTUB), seeking to restore democracy in Burma.
       We believe that the blatant, unprovoked attack on Manerplaw 
     is a major setback for the cause of democracy in Burma and 
     merits a strong response from the U.S. Government. In the 
     ``two visions'' policy laid out by Deputy Assistant Secretary 
     Hubbard during his visit to Rangoon, the U.S. indicated that, 
     if progress by SLORC on issues of democracy and human rights 
     was not forthcoming, the U.S. would renew its campaign to 
     isolate the regime. In line with this policy, now is the time 
     for the U.S. to show, by actions, that it is serious.
       Accordingly, we urge the U.S. Government to implement a 
     full trade and investment embargo against Burma. Since most 
     U.S. investment enters Burma through joint ventures with 
     SLORC government agencies or entities wholly controlled by 
     the regime, implementing sanctions would have a direct impact 
     on the ability of the SLORC to repress its people and conduct 
     war on groups opposed to this illegitimate government. The 
     withdrawal of the Commercial Officer from the U.S. Embassy in 
     Rangoon would further underscore this message. We also renew 
     our call for the U.S. Government to exert pressure to block 
     development and aid projects of international institutions 
     that benefit the SLORC.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lane Kirkland,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                Asian-American Civic Alliance,

                                Ft. Lauderdale, FL, July 10, 1995.
     Hon. Senator Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We are very grateful of your great effort 
     which have contributed towards the release of Aung San Suu 
     Kyl.
       We hope that you will continue to assist bring Democracy in 
     our beloved country, Burma.
       Please continue your most powerful Bill against the 
     Military Regime in Burma so that the 43 millions Burmese--
     every citizen can enjoy the Democracy and human rights in 
     their life time once again over there.
       We support you wholeheartedly.
           With Sincerity and respect,
                                                    Kyin Ho, M.D.,
     President.
                                                                    ____

         Office of the Supreme Headquarters, Karen National Union,
                                    Kawthoolei, September 5, 1995.
     Hon. Senator McConnell,
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We are much impressed and encouraged to hear 
     that you are to submit the bill as intended in Congress next 
     month, for imposing trade sanctions on Burma.
       Apart from releasing Daw Amg San Sun Kyi from detention, 
     the SLORC has not taken any step for democratic reform. 
     Nearly one thousand political prisoners detained unjustly by 
     the SLORC are still in prison. Forced labor, midiscriminate 
     killings and human rights violations are still being 
     committed on a wide scale by the SLORC army troops. Cease-
     fire agreements between the SLORC and the ethnic groups, 
     remain to be a temporary arrangement without any progress 
     toward agreement for lasting peace and stability. In the case 
     of Karemi, hostilities have broken out again as the SLORC 
     troops violated the cease-fire terms.
       With regard to us. the SLORC has been avoiding with excuses 
     the materializing of talks, while it has been massing 101 
     battalions of troops against our areas. Military operations 
     have already begun in some of our areas even when the rainy 
     season is in full force. This shows that the SLORC's so-
     called ``policy of national reconciliation'' is only an 
     expedient measure in its attempt to perpemate the military 
     dictatorship.
       In conclusion, we would like to say that we are firm in our 
     support for you with regard to your effort to have trade 
     sanctions imposed on Burma. We pray for your success and send 
     our best wishes and regards to you and our colleagues.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Saw Bo Mya,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                        United Front for Democracy


                                    and Human Rights in Burma,

                                 North Potomac, MD, July 10, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Senator: On behalf of the United Front for 
     Democracy and Human Rights in Burma and its affiliated 
     organizations such as Burma America Fund, Burma-Canada 
     Society and the United States of Burma Relief Fund Committee, 
     as well as the people of Burma inside and outside the 
     country, I wish to convey our most sincere appreciation of 
     the continuing efforts you have been making for the down-
     trodden peoples of Burma.
       In particular, we would like to express our appreciation of 
     the bill to impose trade and economic sanctions against the 
     military regime in Burma. We understand that you will go 
     ahead with the sanction bill as you said it would be more 
     important than ever to maintain the pressure on the SLORC to 
     fully implement the results of the 1990 election, and to 
     restore democracy and human rights to Burma. We agree with 
     you entirely that the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi alone 
     would not solve the problems in Burma, Still there are 
     hundreds of political prisoners being detained and the 
     military is still continuing its reckless campaign against 
     the ethnic minorities, in particular the Karennis with whom 
     the SLORC signed a cease-fire only in March 1995. In 
     violation of the cease-fire agreement, the SLORC sent four 
     battalions into the cease-fire designated area and fighting 
     is now going on between the SLORC troops and the Karennis.
       While we welcome with great pleasure the release of Daw 
     Aung San Suu Kyi, the symbol of Burma's democracy movement, 
     we feel that this is just a beginning in the long process of 
     peace-making and restoration of human rights and national 
     reconciliation in Burma. With the history of the cunning 
     tactics that has been used by the brutal regime, we have to 
     wait and see if the SLORC is going to change its ways to 
     bring about genuine democracy and follow a national 
     reconciliation process that will lead to the early 
     establishment of a genuine democratic government by 
     immediately transferring the administration to the elected 
     representatives of the 1990 elections and to form an interim 
     government led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is the only 
     Burmese national leader loved and respected by all the 
     peoples of Burma.
       Until it is definite that the democracy process is assured, 
     just as in South Africa after the release of Nelson Mandela, 
     the sanctions that you proposed should be imposed. We are 
     confident that the international community would agree with 
     this approach.
       We wish to repeat our wholehearted support of your efforts 
     and thank you again for your unrelentless efforts for the 
     cause of democracy and human rights in Burma and elsewhere in 
     the world.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                      U Ba Thaung,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____



                                            Huntsville, Texas,

                                                     July 6, 1995.
     Senator Mitch McConnell,
     Russell Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I wish to take this opportunity to 
     offer my support to the initiative you are preparing to 
     undertake on behalf of my sister laureate Aung San Suu Kyi 
     and the people of Burma. It has been brought to my attention 
     that you intend to introduce legislation on July 11, 1995 
     which will ban all U.S. foreign investment in Burma.

[[Page S 14069]]

       On June 26, 1995, while commemorating the 50th Anniversary 
     of the United Nations, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Lech Walesa, 
     Oscar Arias Sanchez and myself presented a letter to the 
     United Nations which included the signatures of seven other 
     Laureates asking for the release of Daw Suu. The letter 
     stated, ``She has endured six long years of solitary 
     detention without trial at the hands of the military regime. 
     There is no sign at all of her release. We resolutely oppose 
     political oppression disguised as criminal detention.'' 
     Bishop Tutu, in a statement to a forum at the UN Anniversary 
     called for sanctions to be imposed on Burma.
       This legislative initiative is long overdue and will play a 
     critical role in bringing about a transfer of power to the 
     democratically elected 1990 representatives, allowing them to 
     take their rightful (and legitimate) seats in parliament.
       I offer congratulations for implementing this endeavor and 
     hope that your colleagues in the Senate will join you in this 
     worthy effort which I hope will lead to a political dialogue 
     and settlement of the Burma conflict and, most importantly, 
     democracy in Burma.
           Most sincerely,
                                                   Betty Williams,
                                              Nobel Laureate 1976.


                           amendment no. 2754

       At an appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:

     Sec.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THAILAND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings--
       (1) the Royal Thai Government has had a policy of not 
     supporting or cooperating with the Khmer Rouge; and
       (2) Thailand is host to large numbers of persons displaced 
     from neighboring countries, including Burma, placing a 
     significant burden on Thailand's economy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the President should--
       (1) affirm to the Royal Thai Government the support of the 
     United States for that Government's policy not to support or 
     cooperate with the Khmer Rouge and encourage the Royal Thai 
     Government to prosecute vigorously its efforts to prevent 
     cooperation between individual members of the Royal Thai 
     Armed forces and the Khmer Rouge; and
       (2) take appropriate steps to assist the Royal Thai 
     Government in providing and facilitating relief to displaced 
     persons from Burma and other neighboring countries and to 
     encourage that Government to fully cooperate in such relief 
     efforts.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, last year, Mr. President, the foreign 
operations conference report contained a provision that caused serious 
difficulties in our relationship with Thailand.
  The provision conditioned military education and training for 
Thailand and required a report on the Thai military's support for the 
Khmer Rouge.
  This provision was viewed by in Thailand as a ban on military 
education and training and an accusation that the Government of 
Thailand was providing support for the Khmer Rouge. The provision was, 
in fact, somewhat more subtle than that, but this was nonetheless the 
perception in Thailand and was the basis for the Thai reaction.
  This came at a sensitive time in United States-Thai military 
relations, as the United States sought Thai approval to deploy six Army 
prepositioning ships off the Thai coast to support potential combat 
operations in Korea or the Persian Gulf. As chairman of the Seapower 
Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for 
projection forces such as these Army prepo ships, I can assure Members 
of the Senate that prepositioning more equipment in Asia is critical to 
defend our interests.
  If we had not cut the Defense budget for 11 straight years, perhaps 
we could afford to preposition such equipment in both the Persian Gulf 
and Korea. But we only have the money for one set of equipment, and so 
we must deploy it in a location where it can swing in a short time to 
either Korea or the gulf.
  The United States military--and the Thai military--were quite 
optimistic that Thai approval could be obtained for putting these prepo 
ships off the shores of Thailand, a long-time ally. But the issue 
became a political hot potato in Bangkok and our request was denied.
  The foreign operations provision on IMET and the Khmer Rouge was not 
the only factor in making this politically sensitive in Thailand, but 
it was a factor. I was in Bangkok immediately after the Thai denial and 
know that the foreign operations provision drew great attention in the 
Thai media and great resentment in the Thai Government, which 
unfortunately was exacerbated by similar accusations about Thai 
Government support to the Khmer Rouge from an Australian official.
  Beside contributing to the denial of the request to preposition 
ships, the foreign operations provision nearly led Thailand to 
terminate its support for our military advisory group in Thailand, 
which is responsible for arranging Thai purchase of United States-
produced military equipment.
  The great irony is that the concern about Thai Government support to 
the Khmer Rouge is off target. Thai Government support for the Khmer 
Rouge was a legitimate concern at one time. But well before the foreign 
operations provision was enacted, the Government of Thailand adopted a 
policy of not supporting or cooperating with the Khmer Rouge. United 
States officials in the best position to know confirm that the Thai 
Government has adhered to this policy. Thus the Thai Government and the 
Thai people have a reasonable basis for being upset when accusations 
are made.
  As one Thai official told reporters at the time,

       One has to wonder at the American timing. They come here 
     asking for a tremendous favor at a time when their Congress 
     is threatening us over what we believe to be a nonissue.

  I do not mean to suggest that there are no Thai military personnel 
engaging in any cooperation with members of the Khmer Rouge. We can, 
should, and are encouraging the Thai Government to work energetically 
to prevent such cooperation by individuals or groups of personnel 
deployed in the field. But our military alliance with Thailand, the 
value of which stretches from the oil fields of the Persian Gulf 
through the booming economies and vital sealanes of Southeast Asia to 
the Korean DMZ, cannot be made a hostage to such freelancing.
  Are we going to suspend military cooperation with certain NATO allies 
because, according to credible press reports, some of their troops 
deployed as peacekeepers in Bosnia have engaged in unprofessional and 
even heinous acts?
  And so, Mr. President, rather than repeating last year's mistake by 
gratuitously and even mistakenly criticizing the Thai Government, we 
should correct the record.
  Similar considerations apply on the question of Burmese migrants in 
Thailand. Last year's foreign operations bill required a report on 
``the Thai Government's efforts to impede support for Burmese democracy 
advocates, exiles, and refugees'' and did so in a way that seemed to 
link this issue to the imposition of conditions on Thailand's 
participation in IMET.
  The bill completely ignored the heavy burden imposed on Thailand's 
economy over a period of many years by the large numbers of Burmese and 
migrants and refugees from other countries in the region who have made 
their way to Thailand. The bill completely ignored the assistance 
Thailand is providing to these migrants and refugees, as well as Thai 
facilitation of the assistance provided by private and international 
relief agencies.
  Mr. President, I would like to quote from some official statements 
about Thailand's treatment of displaced persons.
  State Department spokewoman Christine Shelley, January 1995:

       It has been Thai policy over the years to provide refuge to 
     displaced persons, including Burmese, for as long as it is 
     unsafe for them to return to their place of origin. We 
     commend the Thai for this humanitarian policy.

  The Foreign Minister of Australia, January 1995:

       Thailand has a good record of sheltering previous waves of 
     Burma border-crossers.
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Representative in 
Thailand, January 1995:

       Permit me to express to . . . the Royal Thai Government the 
     international community's gratitude for the temporary asylum 
     and asistance that Thailand is providing in the border area 
     with (Burma), until such time as conditions in that country 
     are conducive to the return of the affected population in 
     conditions of safety and dignity.

  A coalition of human rights groups in Burma and international human 
rights groups, February 1995:

       We thank the Royal Thai Government for their magnanimous 
     and benevolent treatment of the thousands of Burmese refugees 
     taking shelter on Thai territory.
  In direct response to the accusations of Thai Government interference 
with relief to displaced Burmese, Secretary of State Christopher 
earlier this year reported to the Congress that:

[[Page S 14070]]

       Royal Thai Government treatment of Burmese democracy 
     advocates, exiles, and refugees is generally humane and in 
     accord with international norms. The Royal Thai Government 
     does not, as a matter of policy or practice, impede 
     humanitarian support for non-combatant Burmese in Thailand.

  Thailand may not do everything for the 200,000 Burmese migrants and 
refugees that some might like, including allowing the use of Thailand 
as the launching pad for political attacks on a well-armed neighbor 
with whom Bangkok has no choice but to maintain a constructive 
relationship. While it is easy for to tweek Burmese generals from 
Washington, the Thais do not have a buffer of 12 time zones.
  I would also note that Thailand has adhered to the Comprehensive Plan 
of Action, the U.N.-sponsored plan for handling Vietnamese and other 
migrants and refugees in the region. In contrast, the 104th Congress 
has called the CPA into question, triggering riots at migrant camps 
across Southeast Asia. Yet some think it appropriate for Congress to 
freeze United States aid and cooperation with Bangkok until it improves 
its treatment of migrants in Thailand.
  Throughout Southeast Asia the question of whether America intends to 
remain engaged is asked constantly by political, business, and military 
leaders who must calculate with which big power to cast their lot. 
Clearly, Mr. President, if this is the way we treat our allies in the 
region, few will view us as reliable or even reasonable partners.
  Accordingly, Mr. President, I am offering this amendment. After last 
year's mistake by Congress, it would set the record straight by 
acknowledging that the Government of Thailand has had a policy of not 
supporting or cooperating with the Khmer Rouge and is host to large 
numbers of displaced persons from neighboring countries, placing a 
significant burden on the Thai economy.
  It also expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should 
affirm to the newly elected Thai Government United States support for 
this Thai policy, established by the last government, against the Khmer 
Rouge. It also calls on the President to encourage the Thai Government 
to vigorously pursue efforts to prevent freelancers in the military 
from violating this policy.
  With regard to Burmese in Thailand, the amendment would call on the 
President to encourage Thailand to fully cooperate with relief efforts. 
And, since it is not enough to criticize and cajole, it would call on 
the President to take appropriate steps to assist Thailand in such 
efforts.
  I believe that this is a more constructive approach than gratuitously 
and even erroneously slamming the Thai Government, and I hope that it 
will help to salve some of the wounds from last year's ill-considered 
provision.
  I urge Senators to support this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2755

       Add the following new Section to Title V:


    extension of tied aid credit program and authority to conduct a 
                         demonstration project

     SEC.   . EXTENSION OF TIED AID CREDIT PROGRAM.

       (a) Section 10(c)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 
     (12 U.S.C. 635i-3(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``1995'' and 
     inserting ``1997''.
       (b) Section 10(e) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635i-3(e)) is amended by striking ``1993, 1994, and 
     1995'' and inserting ``1996 and 1997''.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Notwithstanding section 4701(a)(1)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code, the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States may conduct a demonstration project in accordance with 
     section 4703 of such title 5.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2756

       On page 45, line 4, after the word ``funds'' insert the 
     following:
       ``Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, not less than $1,000,000 shall be made 
     available to UNIFEM.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2757

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
     Conventional Weapons Review
       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On September 26, 1994, the President declared that it 
     is a goal of the United States to eventually eliminate 
     antipersonnel landmines.
       (2) On December 15, 1994, the United Nations General 
     Assembly adopted a resolution sponsored by the United States 
     which called for international efforts to eliminate 
     antipersonnel landmines.
       (3) According to the Department of State, there are an 
     estimated 80,000,000 to 110,000,000 unexploded landmines in 
     62 countries.
       (4) Antipersonnel landmines are routinely used against 
     civilian populations and kill and maim an estimated 70 people 
     each day, or 26,000 people each year.
       (5) The Secretary of State has noted that landmines are 
     ``slow-motion weapons of mass destruction''.
       (6) There are hundreds of varieties of antipersonnel 
     landmines, from a simple type available at a cost of only two 
     dollars to the more complex self-destructing type, and all 
     landmines of whatever variety kill and maim civilians, as 
     well as combatants, indiscriminately.
       (b) Conventional Weapons Convention Review.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that, at the United Nations conference to 
     review the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention, including 
     Protocol II on landmines, that is to be held from September 
     25 to October 13, 1995, the President should actively support 
     proposals to modify Protocol II that would implement as 
     rapidly as possible the United States goal of eventually 
     eliminating antipersonnel landmines.
       (c) Moratorium on Use of Antipersonnel Landmines.--(1) 
     United States Moratorium.--(A) For a period of one year 
     beginning three years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the United States shall not use antipersonnel landmines 
     except along internationally recognized national borders or 
     in demilitarized zones within a perimeter marked area that is 
     monitored by military personnel and protected by adequate 
     means to ensure the exclusion of civilians.
       (B) If the President determines, before the end of the one 
     year period of the United States moratorium under 
     subparagraph (A), that the governments of other nations are 
     implementing moratoria on use of antipersonnel landmines 
     similar to the United States moratorium, the President may 
     extend the period for the United States moratorium for such 
     additional period as the President considers appropriate.
       (2) Other nations.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
     President should actively encourage the governments of other 
     nations to join the United States in solving the global 
     landmine crisis by implementing moratoria on use of 
     antipersonnel landmines similar to the United States 
     moratorium as a step toward the elimination of antipersonnel 
     landmines.
       (d) Antipersonnel Landmine Exports.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that, consistent with the United States moratorium 
     on exports of antipersonnel landmines and in order to further 
     discourage the global proliferation of antipersonnel 
     landmines, the United States Government should not sell, 
     license for export, or otherwise transfer defense articles 
     and services to any foreign government which, as determined 
     by the President, sells, exports, or otherwise transfers 
     antipersonnel landmines.
       (e) Definitions.--
       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Antipersonnel landmine.--(A) The term ``antipersonnel 
     landmine'' means any munition placed under, on, or near the 
     ground or other surface area, delivered by artillery, rocket, 
     mortar, or similar means, or dropped from an aircraft and 
     which is designed, constructed, or adapted to be detonated or 
     exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person.
       (B) The term ``antipersonnel landmine'' does not include 
     command detonated Claymore munitions.
       (2) 1980 Conventional weapons convention.--The term ``1980 
     Conventional Weapons Convention'' means the Convention on 
     Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain 
     Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively 
     Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, together with 
     the protocols relating thereto, done at Geneva on October 10, 
     1980.


                           amendment no. 2758

   (Purpose: To extend the authority to administer au pair programs 
                       through fiscal year 1999.)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. ______. EXTENSION OF AU PAIR PROGRAMS.

       Section 8 of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 
     is amended in the last sentence by striking ``fiscal year 
     1995'' and inserting ``fiscal year 1998''.


                           amendment no. 2759

       Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated and 
     expended notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 and 
     section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956: Provided, That this section shall not apply with 
     respect to any accounts for which a general authorization of 
     appropriations for fiscal year 1996 is enacted in law on or 
     before April 1, 1996.


                           amendment no. 2760

  (Purpose: To limit the availability of funds for the Government of 
  Haiti until certain human rights conditions are met, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the end of the last committee amendment, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ______. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR HAITI.

       (a) Limitation--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act or any other Act may be furnished 
     to the 

[[Page S 14071]]
     Government of Haiti until the President determines and reports in 
     writing to the Congress that--
       (1) the government of Haiti has conducted or is conducting 
     a thorough and professional investigation into, and 
     prosecution of those responsible for the murder of Mireille 
     Durocher de Bertin on March 28, 1995, and other possible 
     cases of political or extrajudicial killings, including the 
     20 cases of ``commando-style executions'' cited by the United 
     Nations/Organization of American States International 
     Civilian Mission in Haiti on September 12, 1995;
       (2)(A) the police and security forces of Haiti are not 
     assassinating or abducting civilians, are not engaging in 
     other acts of violence directed at civilians, and are 
     controlling such activities by elements subject to the 
     control of those forces; or
       (B) the government of Haiti is investigating effectively 
     the members within its police and security forces engaged in 
     acts of violence against civilians, and has put in place 
     effective policies to deter and punish such activities in the 
     future.
       (3) the Government of Haiti has actively sought and 
     encouraged a law enforcement service from outside Haiti to 
     assist and monitor investigators of the Government of Haiti 
     in their investigation of the murders cited in section 
     ______(1) above; and
       (4)(A) the Government of Haiti has cooperated fully and in 
     a timely fashion with U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     efforts to investigate the murder of Mireille Durocher de 
     Bertin, including providing access to Haitian government 
     employees in a manner which facilitates prosecution of those 
     responsible for her murder; or
       (B) the Government of Haiti has not cooperated fully and in 
     a timely fashion with U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     efforts to investigate the murder of Mireille Durocher de 
     Bertin, including providing access to Haitian government 
     employees in a manner which facilitates prosecution of those 
     responsible for her murder, in which case the President 
     shall submit a detailed accounting of the areas of non-
     cooperation and his assessment of all the reasons for such 
     non-cooperation by the government of Haiti.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after enactment of this 
     section, the President shall report to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, based on information available to 
     him, on the identity or identities of those responsible for 
     the murder and any subsequent coverup, and on the status of 
     the Government of Haiti's investigation of:
       (1) the murder of American citizen Richard Andre Emmanuel 
     on February 13, 1991;
       (2) the murders of Bastian Desrosiers, Stevenson 
     Desrosiers, Jacques Nelio, Pierre Schiller and Louis Walky on 
     July 26, 1991;
       (3) the murder of Reverend Sylvio Claude on September 17, 
     1991;
       (4) the murder of Roger Lanfontant on September 29, 1991;
       (5) the murder of Antoine Izmery on September 11, 1993; and
       (6) the murder of Minister of Justice Guy Malary on October 
     14, 1993.
       (c) Humanitarian Assistance.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to restrict the provision of humanitarian or 
     electoral assistance to the Haitian people by non-
     governmental or private voluntary organizations.
       (d) Waiver.--The President may waive the requirements of 
     this section if he determines and certifies to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress that it is necessary to 
     facilitate the safe and timely withdrawal of American forces 
     from Haiti.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it has been almost exactly 1 year since the 
United States sent military forces to restore President Aristide to 
Haiti. The purpose of U.S. military intervention was to promote 
democracy and increase observance of human rights. President Clinton 
argued that American national security interests were at stake in 
Haiti. I disagreed with President Clinton, and I opposed U.S. military 
intervention in Haiti.
  Many of us were concerned that the invasion and occupation of Haiti 
would not substantially change Haiti, and could lead to unnecessary 
casualties. We were also concerned that it could be very difficult to 
withdraw American forces once committed to Haiti.
  We should be clear about what American intervention has achieved--
Cedras and the thugs that ran Haiti for 3 years are gone. Human rights 
violations have decreased. The lifting of the economic embargo on Haiti 
has resulted in some economic activity, and thanks to the 
professionalism and bravery of American Armed Forces, American 
casualties have been limited. However, one American soldier, Sgt. 1st 
Class Gregory D. Cardott, 36, was shot to death January 12 in Gonaives, 
Haiti.
  Mr. President, we should also be clear about the lack of success in 
the American intervention in Haiti. The stated purpose of American 
intervention in Haiti was to restore democracy--not just to restore 
Aristide, but to restore democracy. Elections have been held, but Haiti 
has failed the democratic test. The initial June 25 elections were, by 
objective accounts, deeply flawed. A report from the Carter Center and 
former National Security Council member Robert Pastor concluded: ``Of 
the 13 elections that I have observed, the June 25 Hatian elections 
were the most disastrous technically, with the most insecure count.'' 
Pastor further states that he witnessed ``the compromise of one-third 
of the ballot boxes in Port-au-Prince.'' Pastor concludes that ``the 
international community will not help Haiti's democratic process by 
being silent or dishonest. It has a responsibility to insist that the 
parties' concerns be effectively addressed.'' The OAS concluded that it 
could not determine whether the election was free and fair.
  The human rights situation in Haiti is not something America should 
be proud of. The joint United Nations Organization of American States 
International Civilian Mission in Haiti has identified some 20 cases of 
``commando-style'' executions in which theft does not seem to have been 
the motive. Some might argue that Haiti should not be held to a high 
standard, or that there have not been enough killings to be concerned. 
I disagree. The standard should be much higher for a country which was 
invaded and occupied by American military forces. The Government of 
Haiti was put in place by American military power. That makes the 
situation fundamentally different from a country like El Salvador where 
we simply provided military assistance.
  Mr. President, the American people have seen more than $2 billion of 
their tax dollars go to the Hatian operation. All this amendment says 
is do not send any more money to the Hatian Government unless the 
President certifies they are not conducting political assassinations. 
The amendment is modeled after many similar provisions supported by 
Democrats throughout the 1980's. In addition to certification on 
political killings by Haitian Government forces, it addresses the issue 
of Haitian cooperation with the FBI. On March 28, 1995, a Haitian 
political opponent of President Aristide was killed in broad daylight. 
President Clinton promptly offered the services of the FBI to 
investigate the brutal slaying. At one time, 20 FBI special agents were 
in Haiti. The result of their efforts--the Government of Haiti 
stonewalled, harassed, and refused cooperation. A high-priced Miami law 
firm suddenly entered the picture to represent members of the Haitian 
Government forces that the FBI sought to interview. And yesterday, the 
Government of Haiti released four Haitians charged with the crime for 
``lack of evidence.'' This is not justice, this is an outrage. This is 
not good faith, it is an affront to the risks undertaken by the men and 
women of the American Armed Forces to democratize Haiti.
  My amendment says enough is enough. No aid unless our concerns are 
met. I urge its adoption and ask unanimous consent that the September 
20 Reuters article dealing with the death of Mireille Durocher Bertin 
and the release of the suspects be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Four Haitian Suspects Freed for Lack of Evidence

       Port-au-Prince.--Four people arrested six months ago in 
     connection with the killing of a leading opponent of Haitian 
     President Jean-Bertrand Aristide were freed Tuesday for lack 
     of evidence, diplomatic and family sources said.
       Those freed included brothers Eddy and Patrick Moise, 
     members of the Front for United Militants, a far-left 
     paramilitary group with alleged ties to Libya, who were 
     arrested March 19 for allegedly plotting to kill lawyer 
     Mireille Durocher Bertin.
       An ardent defender of former military chief Lt. Gen. Raoul 
     Cedras, Bertin and a client of hers, Eugene Baillergeau, were 
     gunned down on a busy street in the capital March 28--nine 
     days after the arrest of the Moise brothers.
       ``It doesn't mean they are not guilty,'' said a diplomat, 
     who spoke on condition of anonymity. ``But there is just no 
     evidence, no evidence acceptable in a court of law.''
       Also freed were Haitian-American Claude Douge and his wife 
     Evelyn.
       ``If anything had happened to these people in jail it would 
     have been a huge embarrassment for the government,'' the 
     diplomat noted.
       The spectacular daytime killing prompted alarm among 
     Republicans in the U.S. Congress that Aristide, ousted in a 
     1991 coup, 

[[Page S 14072]]
     may have sanctioned acts of vengeance against his political opponents 
     since his restoration to office by U.S.-led multinational 
     troops in October.
       But F.B.I. investigators who arrived in Haiti a day after 
     the double assassination have not turned up any findings and 
     diplomats say there is no evidence linking Aristide to a 
     recent string of professional-style murders.
       The decision to release the four detainees came a few days 
     after two former army supporters, imprisoned on charges of 
     plotting to destabilize the government during pre-Lenten 
     carnival celebrations, were also freed for lack of evidence.
       Observers said the government was responding to pressures 
     from human rights groups and Republicans in Congress who have 
     repeatedly threatened to cut aid to the Aristide government.


                           Amendment no. 2761

 (Purpose: To increase the total value of defense articles and defense 
   services which may be transferred to the Government of Bosnia and 
                   Hercegovina under the legislation)

       In subsection (b) of the section entitled ``authority to 
     assist bosnia-herzegovina'', strike ``$50,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$100,000,000''.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would amend 
Section 540(b) to increase the Department of Defense draw down 
authority in this bill for Bosnia and Herzegovina from $50 million to 
$100 million. I am joined by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, 
Senator Lieberman. This authority could be exercised pursuant to either 
a lifting of the United Nations arms embargo on Bosnia or a unilateral 
lifting of the United States arms embargo.
  Mr. President, there is no doubt that the majority--an overwhelming 
majority--of the United States Congress supports lifting the arms 
embargo on Bosnia. And there should be no doubt that some time in the 
not so distant future the arms embargo will be lifted. Under what 
circumstances, I am not certain. It will depend on developments over 
the next couple of weeks.
  Nevertheless, we need to be prepared to provide the Bosnians with 
meaningful military assistance--whether in the context of continued 
fighting or as part of a settlement. In spite of the recent 
administration euphoria over prospects for peace, according to news 
reports today the Bosnian Serbs violated the no-fly zone and conducted 
air strikes on Bosnian and Croat positions. These planes reportedly 
came from Banja Luka airfield--which escaped the wrath of the NATO 
bombing campaign. The fact is that the war is not over.
  Passage of this measure will also facilitate Senate consideration of 
the Multilateral Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Fund--introduced 
by Chairman Helms--which would create a multilateral fund for 
contributions from the United States and other countries for the 
defense of Bosnia. These contributions of equipment or financial aid 
would be held in a U.S. chaired fund until the U.S. arms embargo is 
lifted.
  Mr. President, the arms embargo has prolonged the war in Bosnia. If 
it had been lifted 3\1/2\ years ago, the war would have been over--with 
far less suffering. Moreover, a couple weeks of NATO air strikes do not 
substitute for allowing a sovereign nation to defend itself. This issue 
may be delayed, but cannot be avoided.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this measure, as they have 
supported lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia.


                           amendment no. 2762

 (Purpose: To establish the Croatian-American Enterprise Fund and make 
                  available funds to support the Fund)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . CROATIAN-AMERICAN ENTERPRISE FUND.

       (a) Designation of Fund.--The President shall designate a 
     private, nonprofit organization as eligible to receive funds 
     and support pursuant to this section with respect to Croatia 
     in the same manner and with the same limitations as set forth 
     in section 201(d) of the Support for East European Democracy 
     (SEED) Act of 1989. Such organization shall be known as the 
     ``Croatian-American Enterprise Fund''.
       (b) Application of SEED Act.--Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided in this section, the provisions 
     contained in section 201 of the Support for East European 
     Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989 (excluding the authorizations of 
     appropriations provided in subsection (b) of that section) 
     shall apply to the Croatian-American Enterprise Fund. The 
     officers, members, or employees of the Croatian-American 
     Enterprise Fund shall enjoy the same status under law that is 
     applicable to officers, members, or employees of the 
     Enterprise Funds for Poland and Hungary under the Support for 
     East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the President for purposes 
     of this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for 
     such purposes, $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 to fund the 
     Croatian-American Enterprise Fund established under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Funds appropriated under this subsection are authorized 
     to remain available until expended.
       (d) Appropriations.--Of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act under the heading entitled 
     ``assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states'', 
     $12,000,000 shall be available only to support the Croatian-
     American Fund established by subsection (a).

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment, together with 
the distinguished Senator from Utah [Senator Hatch] which would create 
an enterprise fund for Croatia and makes available $12 million for that 
purpose.
  Much has changed in Croatia over the past few months. Less than 5 
percent of Croatian territory is not under the Government's control. As 
a result, the number of displaced persons is rapidly dwindling.
  It seems to me that with the situation in Croatia normalizing, with 
the return of displaced persons to their hometowns and villages, that 
an enterprise fund could make a significant contribution to Croatia's 
economy. Moreover, it would do so in a way that would promote free 
enterprise and a market economy--American values.
  Mr. President, this a Croatian-American enterprise fund would offer 
hope and opportunity to the average Croatian--whether he or she is a 
would-be restauranteur or shopowner. Croatia has a lot of economic 
potential--next year should be a big year for Croatia's tourist 
industry, in particular.
  I would also like to point out that the Croatian-American community 
in the United States has distinguished itself in many business sectors 
and will prove to be a rich source of support and expertise for the 
Croatian-American enterprise fund.
  Mr. President, I believe that the time is right for establishing this 
fund and I urge my colleagues to support it.


                           amendment no. 2763

 (Purpose: To earmark funds for humanitarian assistance to the former 
                              Yugoslavia)

       Before the period at the end of the heading entitled 
     ``international disaster assistance'', insert the following: 
     ``: Provided, That of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading, $40,000,000 should be available only for emergency 
     humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia, of which 
     amount not less than $6,000,000 shall be available only for 
     humanitarian assistance to Kosova''.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would earmark $40 
million for emergency humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia 
with no less than $6 million of that amount for Kosova.
  While there is some new optimism about the prospects for a settlement 
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the humanitarian situation remains grim for 
large segments of the population of the former Yugoslavia. Winter is 
fast approaching. Life in Sarajevo is still one of minimum subsistence. 
Gorazde is a large refugee camp surrounded by hostile forces. Thousands 
of refugees are flooding the town of Banja Luka.
  The bottom line is that even if a peace settlement were signed 
tomorrow, the humanitarian situation in Bosnia would not repair itself 
overnight--nor over the next few weeks and months. The humanitarian 
crisis will remain with us for the foreseeable future.
  Furthermore, a peace settlement along the lines pursued by the 
administration would not address Kosova--a serious error from my 
perspective. In Kosova, 2 million Albanians continue to live as they 
have for the past 6 years--under martial law, without jobs and without 
enough food and medicine.
  And so, I believe that we must do what we can to ensure that the 
people of the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
and Kosova, are provided with food and medicine to relieve their 
suffering.
  I trust that my colleagues will support this amendment.


                           amendment no. 2764

     (Purpose: To impose sanctions against countries harboring war 
                               criminals)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
     
[[Page S 14073]]


     SEC.   . SANCTIONS AGAINST COUNTRIES HARBORING WAR CRIMINALS.

       (a) Bilateral Assistance.--Assistance may not be provided 
     in any fiscal year under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     or the Arms Export Control Act for any country described in 
     subsection (c).
       (b) Multilateral Assistance.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall instruct the United States executive directors of the 
     international financial institutions each fiscal year to work 
     in opposition to, and vote against, any extension by such 
     institutions of financing or financial or technical 
     assistance to any country described in subsection (c).
       (c) Sanctioned Countries.--A country described in this 
     subsection is a country the government of which permits entry 
     into or presence in the territory of such country to any 
     person--
       (1) who has been indicted by the International Criminal 
     Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, or any other international 
     tribunal with similar standing under international law, or
       (2) who has been indicted for war crimes or crimes against 
     humanity committed during the period beginning March 23, 1933 
     and ending on May 8, 1945 under the direction of, or in 
     association with--
       (A) the Nazi government of Germany;
       (B) any government in any area occupied by the military 
     forces of the Nazi government of Germany;
       (C) any government which was established with the 
     assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government of Germany; 
     or
       (D) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government 
     of Germany.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``international financial institutions'' 
     includes the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the International Development Association, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, 
     the Inter-American Development Bank, the Inter-American 
     Investment Corporation, the African Development Bank, the 
     African Development Fund, and the Asian Development Bank; and
       (2) the term ``war crime'' includes any offense which is--
       (A) a grave breach of any of the four Geneva Conventions 
     for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949;
       (B) a violation of the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the 
     Laws and Customs of War on Land of October 18, 1907, or the 
     Regulations annexed thereto;
       (C) a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and 
     Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948; or
       (D) a violation of the Charter of the International 
     Military Tribunal of August 8, 1945.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which I believe is of 
great significance--and reflects our commitment to the pursuit of 
justice around the world.
  This amendment would penalize any country that permits entry into or 
permits the presence of any person indicted for war crimes. Very 
simply, this amendment would prohibit U.S. bilateral assistance or 
support for multilateral assistance from international financial 
institutions to any country that provides sanctuary to war criminals.
  Over the past 3 years, we have been witnesses to crimes against 
humanity. Courageous journalists revealed the horrors of starving and 
tortured Bosnian Moslems herded into concentration camps at Manjaca and 
Omarska. CNN brought the haunting images of the Rwandan genocide into 
our living rooms.
  These crimes against humanity cannot be swept aside or forgotten. We 
cannot pretend not to know the truth. And because we know the truth, we 
have a duty to do all we can to bring those responsible to justice.
  The International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 
under the able leadership of Justice Goldstone of South Africa, has 
already handed down a number of indictments--to include Gen. Ratko 
Mladic, the commander of Bosnian Serb forces and Radovan Karadzic, the 
leader of the Bosnian Serbs. However, the tribunal does not have the 
means to pursue these indicted. It is up to the countries where these 
indicted war criminals reside to turn them over.
  Mr. President, the provisions of this legislation would apply not 
only to war criminals indicted by the International War Crimes 
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but to any individuals 
indicted for war crimes--including Nazi war criminals.
  I want to bring to my colleagues attention that one of the most 
notorious Nazi war criminals, Alois Brunner, is still alive and 
believed to be residing in Syria--where he went around 1955. Brunner is 
the former aide to Adolf Eichman and has been blamed for the deaths of 
100,000 to 120,000 Jews and 60,000 non-Jews. His job was to ship 
prisoners under his charge to concentration camps. If it is true that 
Brunner is residing in Syria, then Syria would be subject to the 
sanctions under this legislation.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation. 
Passing this measure will send a strong message to war criminals that 
there are few places of safe refuge for them. It will also send the 
message to countries that provide sanctuary to individuals indicted for 
crimes against humanity, that there is a significant price to pay.


                           amendment no. 2765

 (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for Bosnia and Herzegovina (other 
than for refugee or disaster assistance) to activities in the territory 
                    of the Bosniac-Croat Federation)

       On page 121, after line 24, insert the following new 
     section:


 LIMITATION ON FUNDS TO THE TERRITORY OF THE BOSNIAC-CROAT FEDERATION.

       Sec. 605. Funds appropriated by this Act for activities in 
     the internationally-recognized borders of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina (other than refugee and disaster assistance and 
     assistance for restoration of infrastructure, to include 
     power grids, water supplies and natural gas) may only be made 
     available for activities in the territory of the Bosniac-
     Croat Federation.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment, together with 
the distinguished senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, which would 
limit the availability for United States assistance to Bosnia and 
Herzegovina--with the exception of humanitarian or refugee assistance--
to activities in the territory of the Bosniac-Croat Federation.
  The purpose of this amendment is two-fold: to induce Bosnia to remain 
unified and to guard against United States assistance falling into the 
hands of war criminals.
  The fact is that the recently concluded ``Agreed principles'' 
recognizes two entities: the Bosniac-Croat Federation and a Bosnian 
Serb Republic. There is no agreement on a superstructure to unite these 
entities. The goal of the Bosnian Serb leadership has been to break 
away from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are no signs 
that this goal has been abandoned nor are there any indications that 
recognizing a Bosnian Serb republic is not just an interim step toward 
a Greater Serbia.
  Furthermore, there are no guarantees or provisions in the ``Agreed 
principles'' to ensure that the Bosnian Serb republic will not have at 
its helm indicted war criminals such as Radovan Karadzic and General 
Mladic. So, if we do not make some provision in this legislation to 
take this possibility into account, United States assistance could end 
up in the hands of those indicted by the International War Crimes 
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
  Mr. President, I believe that this legislation sends a strong message 
of support for a unified Bosnia and Herzegovina, while protecting 
United States interests. My office has been in contact with the Serb 
members of the Bosnian Presidency and they have indicated their support 
for this measure. In their view, this amendment if adopted will not 
only encourage Bosnian Serbs to remain in Bosnia, but will prevent 
United States assistance from being used to shore up the leadership 
positions of Bosnian Serb separatists and war criminals.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will support this measure.


                           amendment no. 2766

  At an appropriate place in the bill insert the following new section:

     ``SEC.   . RUSSIAN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CFE TREATY AND 
                   PRIORITIES FOR MODIFYING EXISTING ARMS CONTROL 
                   TREATIES.

       ``It is the sense of the Senate that--
       ``(a) the failure by the Russian Federation to meet any 
     obligation under the Treaty of the Conventional Armed Forces 
     in Europe shall constitute non-compliance with the Treaty;
       ``(b) the United States should insist on full compliance by 
     the Russian Federation with all of the obligations of the 
     Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe;
       ``(c) the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 
     provides adequate means by which the Russian Federation can 
     meet its claimed military requirements for treaty-limited 
     equipment in the flank zone defined by Article V of the 
     Treaty, including movement of equipment within the flank 
     zone, temporary deployment of additional equipment to the 
     flank zone, and the temporary removal of equipment from 
     designated permanent storage sites located in the flank zone; 
     and''.
     
[[Page S 14074]]



                           amendment no. 2767

    Purpose: To require the submission to Congress of a plan making 
  recommendations for a strategic reorganization of the United Nations

       On page 121, after line 24, add the following new section:

   PLAN RECOMMENDING A STRATEGIC REORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

       Sec. ____. (a) Sense of Congress Regarding United Nations 
     Reform.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the 50th anniversary of the United Nations provides an 
     important opportunity for a comprehensive review of the 
     strengths and weaknesses of the United Nations and for the 
     identification and implementation of changes in the United 
     Nation that would improve its ability to discharge 
     effectively the objectives of the United Nations set forth in 
     the United Nations Charter;
       (2) the structure of the United Nations system, which has 
     evolved over 50 years, should be subject to a comprehensive 
     review in order to identify the changes to the system that 
     will best serve the interests of the United States and of the 
     international community;
       (3) the United States, as the strongest member state of the 
     United Nations, should lead this comprehensive review;
       (4) reforms that produce a smaller, more focused, more 
     efficient United Nations with clearly defined missions are in 
     the interest of the United States and of the United Nations;
       (5) the United States should develop a unified position in 
     support of reforms at the United Nations that are broadly 
     supported by both the legislative branch and the executive 
     branch;
       (6) the need for reform of the United Nations is urgent; 
     and
       (7) the failure to develop and implement promptly a 
     strategic reorganization of the United Nations will result in 
     a continued diminution of the relevance of the United Nations 
     to United States foreign policy and to international politics 
     generally.
       (b) United Nations Reorganization Plan.--
       (1) Requirement for plan.--The President shall submit to 
     Congress, together with the budget submitted pursuant to 
     section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     1997, a plan recommending a strategic reorganization of the 
     United Nations.
       (2) Requirement relating to development.--The President 
     shall develop the plan in consultation with Congress.
       (3) Plan elements.--The plan should include the elements 
     described in subsection (c) and such other recommendations as 
     may be necessary to achieve the efficient, cost-effective 
     conduct of the responsibilities of the United Nations.
       (c) Contents of Reorganization Plan.--It is the sense of 
     the Congress that the reorganization plan required by 
     subsection (b)(1) should--
       (1) constitute a comprehensive statement of United States 
     policy toward reform of the United Nations;
       (2) set forth an agenda to implement the reforms set forth 
     in the plan in a timely manner;
       (3) include specific proposals to achieve--
       (A) a substantial reduction in the number of agencies 
     within the United Nations system, including proposals to 
     consolidate, abolish, or restructure mechanisms for financing 
     agencies of the United Nations that have a low priority;
       (B) the identification and strengthening of the core 
     agencies of the United Nations system that most directly 
     serve the objectives of the United Nations set forth in the 
     United Nations Charter;
       (C) the increased cooperation, and the elimination of 
     duplication, among United Nations agencies and programs;
       (D) the consolidation of the United Nations technical 
     cooperation activities between the United Nations 
     Headquarters and the offices of the United Nations in Geneva, 
     Switzerland, including the merger of the technical 
     cooperation functions of the United Nations Development 
     Program (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), 
     the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the United 
     Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the 
     International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the 
     United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), and the 
     United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM);
       (E) the consolidation of the United Nations emergency 
     response mechanism by merging the emergency functions of 
     relevant United Nations agencies, including the United 
     Nations Children's Fund, the World Food Program, and the 
     Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;
       (F) a substantial reduction in, or elimination of, the cost 
     and number of international conferences sponsored by the 
     United Nations;
       (G) a significant strengthening of the administrative and 
     management capabilities of the Secretary General of the 
     United Nations, including a cessation of the practice of 
     reserving top Secretariat posts for citizens of particular 
     countries;
       (H) a significant increase in the openness to the public of 
     the budget decision-making procedures of the United Nations; 
     and
       (I) the establishment of a truly independent inspector 
     general at the United Nations; and
       (4) include proposals to coordinate and implement proposals 
     for reform of the United Nations such as those proposals set 
     forth in the communique of the 21st annual summit of the 
     Heads of State and Government of the seven major 
     industrialized nations and the President of the European 
     Commission at Halifax, Nova Scotia, dated June 15-17, 1995.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
help focus our approach to reform of the United Nations and to ensure 
that Congress is fully involved in administration initiatives on this 
important matter.
  This amendment is identical to language that was included in S. 908, 
the State Department authorization bill, except I have deleted a 
paragraph, to which the administration objected, which would have 
called for a review of potential amendments to the U.N. Charter. The 
amendment before us focuses exclusively on reforms that can be achieved 
without opening the charter to amendment.
  The administration has welcomed this initiative generally and has not 
opposed other provisions of this amendment, which was accepted in the 
manager's amendment to S. 908. When Congressman Lee Hamilton and I 
outlined our thoughts on U.N. reform earlier this year, we were 
strongly encouraged by the support we received from many different 
quarters, including from the White House and from the majority leader, 
Senator Dole. My hope is that this amendment will provide a framework 
for building a broad-based consensus on U.N. reform.
  This amendment has two key elements. First, it states sense of 
Congress that the United States should lead an effort to develop and 
implement reforms of the United Nations, and it outlines several 
specific reform proposals that should be considered. This not intended 
to be an exhaustive list but rather to outline several proposals that 
are of particular concern. Second, it requires that the President 
submit to Congress along with his fiscal year 1997 budget a plan 
recommending a strategic reorganization of the United Nations. It also 
requires that Congress be closely consulted as the administration 
develops this plan.
  Mr. President, I long have had a keen interest in reforming the 
United Nations. This is an effort I have undertaken with colleagues in 
both Houses and on both sides of the aisle. I believe it is imperative 
that we start to bring together the many divergent voices calling for 
U.N. reform and develop a single, responsible agenda for reform that 
all Americans can support.
  The language I propose today is a small step, but I believe it will 
help us advance toward the goal of reaching consensus on what reforms 
we believe the United Nations must undertake. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to, en bloc.
  So the amendments (Nos. 2734 through 2767) were agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        microenterprise programs

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
Senator McConnell, and the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Senator Leahy, in a colloquy on microenterprise programs 
and H.R. 1868, the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs appropriation bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I would be happy to 
discuss the provisions in the appropriations bill regarding 
microenterprise programs with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before discussing the fiscal year 1996 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill, I would like to express my 
sincere appreciation for the support the chairman and the ranking 
member have given microenterprise lending programs in the past. Their 
leadership in this regard has made it possible for microenterprise 
programs to improve the lives of millions of poor people around the 
world.

[[Page S 14075]]

  Mr. President, I understand the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill, as approved by the Appropriations Committee, does 
not designate a specific level of support for microenterprise poverty 
programs.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. In an effort to 
maximize the President's flexibility, the committee recommended the 
consolidation of a number of bilateral economic assistance accounts 
including microenterprise poverty programs.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, although the committee did not designate 
specific earmarks for microenterprise poverty programs, I would point 
out that the report accompanying the bill includes language reaffirming 
the committee's strong support for the program's efforts to encourage 
micro and small business as a means to help the truly poor transition 
out of poverty.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the ranking member is correct. The 
committee--on a bipartisan basis--agrees that these programs promote 
sustainable, market-base development at relatively little cost and 
deserve our support.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is also my understanding that the 
committee included language in the bill that requires a proportional 
allocation for accounts consistent with levels enacted in fiscal year 
1995.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, that is correct. The committee recommends 
approximately $2.1 billion for traditional bilateral aid, which is 
approximately 16 percent less than the level appropriated for fiscal 
year 1995. To ensure that no single account sustains an unreasonable 
share of reductions, the committee included language in the bill that 
requires a proportional allocation among accounts consistent with 
appropriated levels in fiscal year 1995. It flows from that premise 
that, as the committee report states, microenterprise poverty programs 
deserve support substantially consistent with last year's level.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate knowing that the committee 
continues to support microenterprise programs and included bill 
language protecting development assistance from disproportional cuts. 
As a longtime proponent of microenterprise programs, I would like to 
encourage the chairman and the ranking member to do everything they can 
to maintain appropriate funding for these programs when they go to 
conference with the House.
  I would also encourage Senate conferees to insist on conference 
report language reflecting that commitment as well as encouraging AID 
to allocate one-half of microenterprise resources to poverty lending 
programs that provide loans of less than $300 and to channel up to $39 
million through central mechanisms structured to meet the goals of 
nongovernmental organizations like the Grameen Trust.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I have discussed this 
matter and would like to assure the Democratic leader that we will do 
everything we can to include these recommendations into the conference 
report.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations 
for their clarification and assurances.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to begin by commending my 
colleagues the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator McConnell, and the 
ranking member, Senator Leahy, for their efforts on this bill.
  While I am not pleased with the decreasing funding allocation for 
foreign aid operations, I understand the reality we face with regard to 
all of our discretionary spending. I support bringing our budget into 
balance and believe we must make sacrifices to achieve this end.
  However, I continue to believe that foreign aid serves important U.S. 
interests. We have much more work ahead as we try to build basic 
health, education, and welfare infrastructures in the developing world. 
Of course, this cannot be an isolated U.S. effort. We must continue to 
work with our friends and allies throughout the world to expand global 
development efforts.
  My opposition to the military aid in this bill remains firm. The 
United States should be ashamed by the level of arms sales included 
year after year in this bill. I would much rather see this money go 
toward development assistance.
  Funding for international family planning assistance continues to be 
one of my priorities. I have included an earmark for the central office 
or core funding for AID Office of Population. This earmark will ensure 
the continued success of AID's population program, which is arguably 
the best in the world. Over the past 30 years, this program has been 
adjusted and finetuned time and again so that it runs as efficiently 
and effectively as it does today.
  In addition, I am pleased by the level of funding for migration and 
refugee assistance. Worldwide, we continue to see a rise in the number 
of refugees fleeing ethnic strife, civil war, and political 
persecution. The United States must retain a strong commitment to 
providing for the protection and care of these refugees.
  It is my hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass this bill and 
conference with the House so that we can get it on the President's desk 
as soon as possible.


                            mepfa amendments

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the bill also includes several floor 
amendments to the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995. One 
relates to Palestinian Authority offices in Jerusalem. Under the 
Israel-Palestinian agreements, the Palestinian Authority may only 
maintain offices in the areas under its jurisdiction, which do not 
include Jerusalem. Recently, Israel and the Palestinians satisfactorily 
resolved questions that had been raised about existing Palestinian 
institutions in Jerusalem. The amendment included in the bill would 
deny assistance to the PLO if it were to fund a new office in Jerusalem 
that did not conform to Israeli-Palestinian agreements and 
understandings. A second amendment included in the bill requires the 
PLO to cooperate fully with the United States on the provision of 
information on U.S. nationals known to have been held by the PLO or its 
factions. This amendment would cut off U.S. assistance if the PLO is 
not responsive to further, specific U.S. requests for information that 
may be in its possession.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in our Nation's continuing efforts to 
balance the budget, calls to slash foreign assistance are frequently 
heard. I will take a few moments today to explain my thoughts on the 
importance of our foreign assistance programs and the continuing need 
for U.S. leadership around the world.
  It must be understood that foreign assistance is only a minuscule 
fraction of the Federal budget--less than 1 penny of every dollar spent 
by the Government is used for foreign assistance. And since the end of 
World War II, the share of the Federal budget dedicated to foreign 
assistance has consistently declined. Foreign assistance is not busting 
the Federal budget. That is a simple fact. Those who believe that we 
can balance the budget painlessly overnight by slashing foreign 
assistance are simply wrong.
  What do we get for the 1 percent of the budget we invest in foreign 
assistance? In my view, our meager investment has yielded incalculably 
valuable returns. Through foreign assistance, we have promoted peace 
and stability throughout the world and avoided countless wars and their 
tremendous human and financial costs.
  For example, in the Middle East--one of the most explosive regions of 
the world--our commitment to a strong and secure Israel and our 
dedication to the framework established in the Camp David accords has 
been a major contributor to the peace process now underway.
  Through our foreign assistance programs, we have shown unequivocally 
that the United States strongly supports the State of Israel as a 
friend, fellow democracy, and key strategic ally. We have sent the 
equally important message to Israel's neighbors that they will be 
welcomed into the community of nations if they are willing to make 
peace. That was the spirit of the Camp David accords.
  More recently, Israel has reached major agreements with Jordan and 
the Palestinians. Each of these historic agreements was reached with 
the assistance of U.S. facilitators and the promise of our development 
assistance. Without the promise of foreign assistance, it is possible 
that none of these 

[[Page S 14076]]
important agreements would have been reached.
  The bill before the Senate today wisely builds upon the peace process 
by earmarking funds for our Camp David partners. Also the bill includes 
a new legislative provision, the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 
1995, which will enable the administration to continue to play an 
active role in the Middle East peace process.
  For these and other reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1868, the 
foreign operations, export financing, and related agencies bill for 
fiscal year 1996.
  I am pleased to join the committee in supporting the passage of this 
bill by the full Senate.
  Mr. President, the foreign operations appropriations bill provides 
$12.3 billion in budget authority and $5.9 billion in new outlays to 
operate the programs of the Department of State, export and military 
assistance, bilateral and multilateral economic assistance, and related 
agencies for fiscal year 1996.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the Senate bill totals $12.3 billion in 
BA and $13.8 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1996.
  The bill is at the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation for budget 
authority and $127.2 million in outlays below the subcommittee's 
section 602(b) allocation. It is $2.4 billion in BA and $0.5 billion in 
outlays below the President's budget request. It is $442.5 million in 
BA and $13.4 million in outlays above the House-passed bill.
  I want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
full Appropriations Committee, as well as my friends on the 
subcommittee, for deleting a provision in the bill that included a 
directive with respect to the budget scoring of the bill.
  This action prevents this bill from being subject to two points of 
order under the Congressional Budget Act, and I am certain it will 
expedite consideration of this important bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record, and I 
urge the adoption of the bill.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                     FOREIGN OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE                    
[Spending totals--Senate-reported bill (fiscal year 1996, in millions of
                                dollars]                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Budget           
                                                     authority   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed.......................................         68     7,950
  H.R. 1868, as reported to the Senate.............     12,300     5,841
  Scorekeeping adjustment..........................  .........  ........
                                                    --------------------
  Subtotal nondefense discretionary................     12,368    13,791
                                                    ====================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed.......................................  .........  ........
  H.R. 1868, as reported to the Senate.............     12,300     5,841
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget..........................................          0         0
                                                    --------------------
    Subtotal mandatory.............................     12,300     5,841
                                                    ====================
    Adjusted bill total............................     24,668    19,632
                                                    ====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary............................  .........  ........
  Nondefense discretionary.........................     12,368    13,918
  Violent crime reduction trust fund...............  .........  ........
  Mandatory........................................         44        44
                                                    --------------------
    Total allocation...............................     12,412    13,962
                                                    ====================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate Subcommittee                     
 602(b) allocation:                                                     
    Defense discretionary..........................  .........  ........
    Nondefense discretionary.......................  .........      -127
    Violent crime reduction trust fund.............  .........  ........
  Mandatory........................................     12,256     5,797
                                                    --------------------
      Total allocation.............................     12,256     5,670
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has wisely earmarked $350 million for the 
Office of Population at the U.S. Agency for Development because I 
understand the extreme importance of family planning program 
availability and population assistance.
  Investment in population assistant programs today will save us from 
much more costly investments in the future when unchecked population 
growth results in environmental deterioration, scarcity of resources, 
and pronounced economic hardship. Overpopulation is one of the most 
serious problems our world faces today.
  Reducing spending in these areas will have the immediate effect of 
negatively impacting, in a serious way, the health and well-being of 
women and children.
  However, I oppose the attempt to prevent these U.S. funds deemed for 
population planning assistance from contributing to the United Nations 
Fund for Population Activities [UNFPA]. I would like to emphasize a few 
particulars about this international organization.
  UNFPA is the primary multilateral organization providing global 
family planning and population assistance programs. UNFPA directly 
manages one-third of the world's population assistance to developing 
countries; its work has saved countless numbers of lives since its 
inception.
  Programs managed by UNFPA improve the quality and safety of 
contraceptives available to women which contributes to reducing the 
incidence of abortion. UNFPA does not support abortion or abortion-
related activities.
  UNFPA helps improve women's reproductive health and provides both 
maternal and child heath care--basic health care services which are 
largely unavailable throughout the developing world.
  I am dismayed by opponents of UNFPA who wrongly submit that this 
organization is involved in providing abortion services in China or 
otherwise. This is simply not the case. Let me state again, UNFPA is 
not involved in abortion services anywhere.
  UNFPA has proven its expertise in this area since its founding in 
1969, increasing availability of contraceptives in the developing 
world, reducing population growths, and saving lives. I believe that 
U.S. contributions to the U.N. Fund for Population Activities is 
appropriate and wise, and I oppose this attempt to prevent funding to 
be used for this purpose.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this foreign operations appropriations bill, 
totaling $12.3 billion, is 16.5 percent below the President's request 
of $15.2 billion. In most respects, it represents a substantial change 
from previous foreign operations bills. Bilateral economic assistance 
is cut 22 percent below the President's request. U.S. contributions to 
multilateral development banks are cut by 43 percent from the fiscal 
year 1996 request. While harsh, these cuts are in keeping with the 
other deep and painful cuts being made in most other appropriations 
bills that fund vital domestic programs.
  In one important respect, however, this foreign aid appropriations 
bill has not changed to reflect either the current difficult budget 
realities or the changing world situation. Assistance to Israel and 
Egypt, and particularly to Israel, remains constant. In fiscal year 
1995, Israel received over one-third of the total foreign aid 
appropriation of $14.4 billion. Israel's $5.0 billion in foreign aid 
from the United States included $1.2 billion in economic support 
funds--a direct cash infusion to the Israeli Government's coffers--$1.8 
billion in foreign military financing grants; $80 million in refugee 
settlement grants; $2.0 billion in loan guarantees; $10 million in 
cooperative development grants--for Israel's foreign aid programs to 
other countries; and $3.5 million in regional cooperative assistance 
funds. This total does not include other funds and programs, primarily 
contained within the Department of Defense appropriations bill, that 
also benefit Israel's military, security, and military research and 
development programs.
   Fiscal year 1996, the request for Israel includes $1.2 billion in 
economic support funds, $1.8 billion in military assistance, $80 
million for refugee assistance, $10 million for cooperative development 
grants, $3.5 million for regional cooperative assistance, and up to 
$200 million in excess defense equipment. Because of the Camp David 
Accords that established peace between Israel and Egypt in 1978, Egypt 
also benefits from United States largess to Israel. The Camp David 
Accords were followed by a foreign aid funding equation that also 
rewards Egypt, but to a lesser degree. In fiscal year 1996, Egypt will 
receive $1.3 billion in foreign military financing grants, $815 million 
in 

[[Page S 14077]]
economic support funds, and an earmark for a telecommunications 
project.
  While peace between Israel and Egypt was and remains important, and 
while the United States-Israel relationship remains close, I must 
question the wisdom in continuing to reward these two countries at the 
same historically high levels when the cost is counted in sharply 
decreased United States assistance and influence in other areas of the 
world that are also important to the United States. Israel and Egypt 
made peace in 1978, 17 years ago. How long does the United States 
intend to reward this accomplishment with financial support? Financial 
rewards on the same scale have not been offered to Jordan, which most 
recently agreed to make peace with Israel.

  There has been a lot of rhetoric on this floor about ``sharing the 
burden of deficit reduction.'' Domestic programs, including 
historically untouchable programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans 
benefits, are all being forced to swallow the bitter tonic and budget 
cuts necessary to meet draconian budget goals. Other foreign interests 
of the United States are being cut quite dramatically in order to 
support the sacrosanct aid to Israel and Egypt and also address other 
vital foreign interests, such as reducing the former Soviet nuclear 
stockpile. Other longtime allies, including Turkey and Greece, both 
important NATO members, have seen significant changes in their foreign 
assistance. Why not Israel?
  Israel has received a grand total of more than $67 billion in foreign 
and military assistance from the United States since its founding in 
1949. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of 
cumulative United States assistance since World War II. Mr. President, 
I do not raise these points because I am a foe of Israel. I do not wish 
to be thought of as anti-Israel. I hold no malice toward the people of 
Israel. But at a time in which all spending is under tremendous 
pressure, at a time in which other deeply revered and historically 
important government priorities are being crushed to squeeze out 
savings for deficit reduction, it simply does not seem fair to shield 
foreign aid to Israel and Egypt from the same budgetary forces. Surely, 
we can continue to safeguard the physical and economic security of 
Israel while subjecting United States assistance to the same budgetary 
scrutiny that all other assistance and domestic programs undergo.
  Mr. President, I have always favored putting my support behind 
domestic priorities, such as education, roads, police, and other 
programs that support American competitiveness. All of these domestic 
priorities are under the budgetary axe. For the most part, U.S. 
overseas interests supported in this bill are also being reduced. But 
not the single largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid. This is not 
reasonable, and it is not equitable. For these reasons, I shall not 
vote in favor of this bill.


                           amendment no. 2760

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to put some perspective on the 
amendment that has just been offered by Senator Dole with respect to 
Haiti. First, I say without equivocation that I believe that the 
President's policy with respect to Haiti has been a tremendous success. 
I for one am proud of the decision that the President made to restore 
democracy to Haiti. I thought it was the right thing to do then, and it 
certainly has proved to be the case thus far.
  Let's review for a moment what has happened since that dramatic 
moment last September when the President ordered the deployment of 
United States Forces to Haiti:
  The multinational force was peacefully deployed, without loss of 
life, and facilitated the departure of the military coup leaders;
  Conditions were created that permitted President Aristide to return 
to Haiti on October 15 to resume office;
  The multinational force was replaced by a much smaller U.N. force 
with the number of U.S. troops significantly reduced;
  The Government of Haiti conducted elections and run-offs to fill more 
than 2,000 parliamentary and municipal posts--the most complex 
elections in Haiti's history;
  The Armed Forces have been effectively dissolved and the interim 
police force is being replaced with a professionally trained permanent 
force under civilian control;
  The human rights situation, while by no means perfect, is light years 
better than 1 year ago when more than 3,000 Haitian were being killed 
annually.
  The Haitian economy which suffered significant decline during the 
military coup has begun to turn around and show positive growth.
  That is quite a remarkable set of accomplishments in a very short 
period of time. On October 15, President Aristide will truly have 
something to celebrate at the 1-year anniversary of his restoration to 
office.
  We have all read press reports of the confusion and disorganization 
that surrounded last month's elections in Haiti. I would be the first 
to say that I would have preferred an electoral process that was 
picture perfect, and strictly by the book. That didn't happen. It 
didn't happen in large measure because the situation in Haiti isn't 
perfect--it is a desperately poor country in which at least 50 percent 
of the population cannot read or write.
  It is a country that has been plagued by political violence for much 
of its tragic history. It is a country with a history of predominantly 
dictatorial rule.
  I do not seek to make excuses for the events which transpired in 
Haiti in June, but I do think some analysis of the circumstances 
surrounding the elections will help to put the process in some 
perspective.
  First and foremost, until 11 months ago the prospects of any election 
being held in Haiti were virtually zero. Only after President Clinton's 
courageous decision last October to return President Aristide to office 
did the possibility of elections become a real option.
  The newly returned Aristide administration had enormous hurdles to 
overcome, just to deal with the day-to-day running of the government. 
It returned to Port-au-Prince to find government offices stripped 
bare--no typewriters, no paper, no pens, no desks, in some instances 
even toilets were gone. On top of that, the international community 
insisted that elections for more than 2000 parliamentary and municipal 
offices be held as quickly as possible. No small task in a country 
where one can count on one hand, perhaps on one finger, the number of 
Democratic elections that have occurred. Election preparations had to 
take place virtually from scratch. Voter registration had to be 
undertaken on a massive scale nationwide. An election commission had to 
be formed and thousands of citizens recruited to participate in getting 
the election organized.
  It seems to me that on June 25, the Haitian people made it pretty 
clear that, despite all the warts associated with the days leading up 
to the election, they had enough faith in the process to turn out and 
vote in large numbers. So did the vast majority of Haiti's political 
parties--left, right, and center--who chose to have their candidates 
appear on the ballot. When election day dawned--the people of Haiti 
came out to participate. They came from miles away. They stood in line, 
sometimes for hours in the hot sun. They exercised their constitutional 
right to cast their ballots and to choose the individuals who would 
represent them in their national and local governmental structures. 
That to me says a great deal about the validity of the process.
  Yes, there were misplaced voter registration cards--yet election 
officials were able to register nearly 90 percent of all eligible 
voters. Yes, a very small percentage of political candidates were 
excluded from running for ill-defined reasons, yet more than 10,000 
individuals ended up running for 2,200 public offices. Yes, there were 
some polling places which did not open on time, or in some cases at 
all, yet in many others the polling stations opened, the ballots were 
available and people made their choices.
  Haitian authorities have already acknowledged that mistakes were 
made. They had special elections in August and run off elections in 
September. Improvements were made to the electoral process. Changes 
were made in the electoral council.
  I for one am glad that the people of Haiti had the opportunity to 
participate in elections recently, imperfect as they were. I suspect 
that were we to ask them they would overwhelming share that view. 
Today, the people of 

[[Page S 14078]]
Haiti are one step closer to having the kind of government to which 
they aspire. Tomorrow, as they learn from their mistakes and through 
their own hard work they will be closer still.
  Instead of attempting to score partisan political points, as some 
would seek to do, I believe that we all should stand behind our current 
policy, try to make it work, so that the people of Haiti can have a 
brighter future after having suffered for so long in the shadows of 
oppression.
  I ask unanimous consent that the attached articles be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           The Human Rights Record of the Government of Haiti

       The human rights observers of the joint OAS/UN 
     International Civilian Mission have been in Haiti since 
     February 1993 with two interruptions brought about by 
     evacuations for security reasons.
       Our mandate:
       to monitor and report on the human rights situation; to 
     promote and to protect human rights; and to contribute to the 
     reinforcement of institutions.
       The International Civilian Mission has therefore been able 
     to monitor in the field, the evolution of the human rights 
     situation under the de facto regimes of the period of the 
     coup d'etat and under the constitutional government.
       The human rights situation under the military who dominated 
     all the institutions was characterized by widespread and 
     systematic human rights abuses--extrajudicial executions, 
     torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading 
     treatment, forcible disappearances, illegal arrests and 
     detentions; and restrictions on the freedoms of expression 
     and assembly. These abuses were carried out by the security 
     agents of the state--the police and the army and those to 
     whom they gave impunity, the attaches (armed civilian thugs) 
     and later on the members of the paramilitary group, FRAPH.
       The return of President Aristide in October 1994 has 
     brought about and also facilitated a number of structural 
     changes which have had a positive impact on the human rights 
     situation.
       First, the return to constitutional government has brought 
     about the re-assertion of civilian authority and ended the 
     subordination of key institutions to the military;
       Second, the elimination of the army an the consequent 
     neutralizing of the attaches and the para-military groups 
     have dismantled the repressive network responsible for 
     widespread human right abuses during the coup d'etat period; 
     and
       Third, institutional reforms, in particular the training 
     and deployment of the new civilian professional Haitian 
     National Police, improvements to the administration of 
     justice and to prisons in the framework of judicial and penal 
     reforms.
       These structural changes and institutional reforms carried 
     out with the assistance of the international community have 
     been accompanied by the clear determination of the government 
     to improve the quality and the performance of judicial 
     officials and to supervise the conduct of the new security 
     agents (code of conduct, inspectorate for the Haitian 
     National Police, applications of sanctions in cases of 
     misconduct), whose activities impinge directly on the respect 
     or lack thereof for human rights. The outcome of all these 
     elements has been considerable improvement in the human 
     rights situations. Widespread and systematic abuses are no 
     longer the rule. The freedoms of expression and of assembly 
     are now exercised by different sectors of Haitian society, 
     including by those critical of the policies of the President 
     and his government. Time limits on legal procedures are more 
     frequently respected as well as legal and constitutional 
     guaranties. The treatment of prisoners and to a lesser extent 
     the conditions of detention have improved with the 
     establishment of a new cadre of trained correction officers. 
     President Aristide's constant calls for reconciliation have 
     without doubt played an important role in limiting incidents 
     of vengeance and contributed to a more relaxed atmosphere and 
     a feeling of security in the country. It should also be 
     emphasized that Haitians have voted three times over the past 
     four months in a secure and largely non-violent climate.
       A great deal of ground has been covered over the past 
     eleven months. A clear sign of these improvements is the 
     dramatic decrease in the number of complaints brought to the 
     attention of the International Civilian Mission. However, a 
     lot more remains to be done, and there are concerns. We are 
     concerned by acts of summary ``Justice'' carried by the 
     population, though there has been a sharp decrease of late. 
     Also of concern is the series of some 20 cases of killings by 
     unidentified individuals, most of them ``Commando style'', 
     recorded since the beginning of the year, where robbery did 
     not appear to be the motive and the victims were targeted. 
     The reasons for these killings remain unknown. The Mission 
     has not been able to identify any set of elements which would 
     link these crimes together or to agents of the state. Some 
     reports of ill-treatment of detainees and abuses of power by 
     agents of the state have been brought to the attention of the 
     International Civilian Mission. Procedural irregularities 
     with regard to arrest and detention continue to endanger the 
     respect for human rights and due process. The International 
     Civilian Mission has repeatedly urged the government to 
     develop its criminal investigation capacity to bring an end 
     to impunity which has been traditional in Haiti.
       The challenge of the coming months will be to build on the 
     steps already taken. Improving human rights means not only 
     reducing human rights violations but also creating and 
     strengthening structures and mechanisms to prevent their 
     recurrence in the long term. The government must pursue the 
     reforms of the institutions which have a direct bearing on 
     the protections of human rights, (justice, prisons and 
     police). Strengthening the mechanisms of accountability will 
     send a clear message that the state will not tolerate human 
     rights violations. The already considerable improvement in 
     the human rights situation must be continued. The government 
     has already shown it has the political will to act in this 
     domain.
                                                                    ____


Amnesty International USA Statement on Human Rights in Haiti Since the 
                     Return of Constitutional Rule

       Amnesty International has been following human rights 
     issues in Haiti for a number of years. We have documented the 
     extensive violations in the city and in the countryside, 
     under Papa Doc, Baby Doc, and those that followed the fall of 
     Baby Doc in 1986. Amnesty documented human rights violations 
     in the first administration of President Jean Bertrand 
     Aristide. But we also documented the first genuine attempts 
     at dismantling repressive structures, with the dismantling of 
     the system of the chefs de section and the disbanding of the 
     notorious tontons macoutes, who had been renamed by Baby Doc. 
     We watched with horror as the coup that overthrew President 
     Aristide heralded a new wave of terror unparalleled in its 
     extent and in its ferocity in Haitian modern history. Only a 
     few notable exceptions failed to notice the horror that 
     unfolded in Haiti.
       Amnesty International welcomed the changes in the human 
     rights panorama after constitutional government was restored 
     by the UN Multilateral Force. Significant among these changes 
     was the precipitous drop in documented extrajudicial 
     executions, incidents of torture and ill-treatment, and the 
     use of rape as a political terror tool. This is not due to a 
     lack of information available because the population is too 
     afraid to report violations. On the contrary, with the return 
     of constitutional rule in Haiti, the UN/OAS International 
     Civilian Observer Mission returned to Haiti to document 
     abuses, and international and other non-governmental human 
     rights organizations have had more access than under the de 
     facto government. Furthermore, there has been more access to 
     members of the press. Thus the drop in numbers is not due to 
     a reluctant public cowed into submission.
       There have been a number of killings over the past few 
     months of people across the political spectrum. So far, apart 
     from the Mireille Durocher Bertin case in which in any case, 
     arrests have been made but the motivation still remains 
     unclear, Amnesty International has not received any specific 
     allegations that government officials were involved either 
     directly or indirectly. Indeed, criminal investigations are 
     believed to be under way into most if not all of the 
     killings, and in some arrests have been made. There have been 
     one or two reports that so-called ``brigades de vigilance'' 
     were responsible for some killings in rural areas which 
     Amnesty International is investigating. However, there is no 
     central structure for such brigades and they vary widely in 
     their composition and functions. Amnesty International has so 
     far not received any evidence indicating that they are 
     centrally coordinated or that the authorities are using them 
     for such purposes.
       Problems do remain in Haiti, although we can be 
     unequivocally clear that Amnesty International has found no 
     evidence of any kind of systematic targeting of government 
     opponents by the current Haitian government. Amnesty's 
     overriding concern at the moment is the question of impunity. 
     This impunity, the escaping from punishment, is benefiting 
     those who once terrorized the population during the years of 
     de facto rule, the very opponents of the current government.
       So far there have only been a few attempts to bring 
     perpetrators of past abuses to justice. This is due partly to 
     the slowness of reforms to the judiciary. It is very hard to 
     find out exactly what cases have been brought to trial and to 
     get details of the procedures/outcome as they do not get much 
     publicity, either inside or outside Haiti. There was a trial 
     in absentia of the ex-police chief of Cayes, former 
     lieutenant Emery Piram, and was sentenced to sixty years' 
     imprisonment for the death under torture of Jean-Claude 
     Museau in 1992. This is one of the few cases the government 
     said it wanted to bring to trial. In addition to this trial, 
     the exparamilitary member Gerard Gustave (alias ``Zimbabwe'') 
     has been sentenced to life at hard labour for his part in the 
     assassination of Antoine Izmery in September 1993. Other 
     investigations and trials are underway, although this still 
     only represents a few of the cases of HRVs known to have 
     taken place under the de facto government. 

[[Page S 14079]]
     We are currently investigating the trial proceedings to ensure they 
     conform to international standards.
       While it would not be true to say that nothing is happening 
     on this front, it is clearly inadequate and slow and the 
     government has not so far shown much determination to 
     confront the issue. However, the international community must 
     also do its part to help rebuild civil institutions. A 
     significant contribution will be to disburse the already 
     promised assistance to the Truth Commission. In any case, 
     from what we can gather, as well as the six or so cases the 
     government itself said it was investigating, many victims and 
     victims' relatives have presented complaints to the 
     authorities so it is not for lack of cases that little 
     progress has been made. It is imperative that impunity in 
     Haiti be broken; time and again we have seen how those who 
     terrorized once can terrorize again.
       Amnesty International certainly welcomes what steps have 
     been taken so far to bring perpetrators of past and current 
     abuses to justice and urge the government, as a matter of 
     urgency, to further strengthen the judiciary to ensure that 
     as many cases as possible can be pursued and that all such 
     trials adhere to international standards for a fair trial. We 
     believe it would be very useful if more was made public 
     concerning the progress of investigations and trials.
       Insofar as prison conditions are concerned, these are said 
     to be improving gradually and a national overseer of prisons 
     has been appointed. We understand that nutrition has modestly 
     improved and the International Committee of the Red Cross has 
     had access.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Washington Times; Sept. 18, 1995]

                         Haiti, One Year Later

       Remember Haiti? One year ago, our attention was focused on 
     that small island country, as 20,000 American troops waited 
     for the signal to invade. Self-styled American ambassador at 
     large Jimmy Carter was busy negotiating with Gen. Raoul 
     Cedras, hoping to persuade him to exit peacefully rather than 
     face the U.S. forces with his ill-equipped army of thugs. On 
     that day also, Gen. Colin Powell was in the news, having 
     accompanied Mr. Carter to lend some muscle to the mission. 
     And back in Georgetown was President Jean-Bartrand Aristide, 
     urging the U.S. government on to deal with his enemies.
       Haiti may have been as tiny a nation as we could have found 
     to invade, but the thought of sending American soldiers into 
     harm's way in a place known for its brutal, corrupt regimes 
     and abject poverty, nonetheless made many here at home highly 
     skeptical about the whole enterprise. Nor did it inspire 
     confidence that the Clinton administration had shown itself 
     particularly inept at handling foreign affairs and previously 
     endured the humiliation of having to withdraw a transport 
     ship with U.N. troops, including 200 Americans, from Port-au-
     Prince when faced with an unruly mob. It would not be too 
     much to say that the operation was attended by the lowest 
     possible level of expectation here at home.
       One year later, the good news is that the dire misgivings, 
     expressed among others by this page, have not come true. The 
     only deaths experienced by U.S. soldiers there have been due 
     to suicide. Significant armed resistance to the Americans did 
     not materialize, and the military strongmen finally agreed to 
     depart the scene back in October (with much of their ill-
     gotten gains). That meant the crippling sanctions could be 
     lifted and President Aristide returned. The flood of boat 
     people, which spurred the U.S. action in the first place, was 
     stopped. By March 31, the bulk of the U.S. troops could be 
     sent home, and the mission officially over to the United 
     Nations. The remaining Americans are scheduled to leave after 
     the presidential elections early next year.
       So far, so good. Nevertheless, a huge question remains 
     about Haiti's long-term future. Certainly the return of Mr. 
     Aristide has not meant much improvement materially for most 
     Haitians. And the elections held in June were not much of a 
     cause for celebration. The international community had more 
     than half a year to prepare for them, yet due to incompetence 
     and the intransigence of the Haitian election committee, 
     dominated by Aristide supporters, the event which so many 
     Haitians had longed for turned into a dreadful mess. There 
     was murder and violence, and some 100,000 Haitians were 
     unable to vote; make-up elections had to be held in August. 
     Just this weekend, we had yet another act in this drama as 
     run-off elections were held between candidates in a tie for 
     their seats. The voting was boycotted by opposition 
     politicians who claim fraud perpetrated by Lavalas and its 
     sister parties. Nor is it clear whether Mr. Aristide will in 
     fact step down at the end of his five-year term; quite a 
     ``movement'' has gotten under way to ``persuade'' him to stay 
     on.
       Still, there may be some important lessons to be learned 
     here for the United States. One, which is now being applied 
     in the former Yugoslavia, is that American leadership can 
     work, and that it helps tremendously when it is backed by the 
     willingness to use overwhelming force. The Bosnian Serb army 
     this weekend started to withdraw its heavy weapons from 
     around Sarajevo. For three murderous years, the Serbs 
     stubbornly refused to do just that, until the NATO bombing 
     campaign changed their minds. What was also learned in Haiti 
     (as in Somalia and Bosnia) is that such operations cannot be 
     trusted to the United Nations because that means essentially 
     no one is in charge and no one is responsible for the 
     outcome. The conclusion here should not be that the United 
     States must become international policeman and nanny; it is 
     still debatable whether U.S. interests are at stake in Haiti. 
     What is clear, however, is that where the stakes are deemed 
     high enough, American initiative and muscle can be as 
     effective as ever.

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 21, 1995]

                       Mr. Aristide's First Year

       A year after American troops landed in Haiti to secure the 
     return of its exiled President, the country is clearly in 
     better shape. Despite the fears of his detractors, Jean-
     Bertrand Aristide has not incited his followers against their 
     former oppressors, but urged reconciliation. Most Haitians no 
     longer live in fear of political violence. Mr. Aristide has 
     reached out to business leaders. He has made a credible 
     beginning, but there is still much to do.
       Mr. Aristide wisely declared he will not run for another 
     presidential term, resisting the temptation to take advantage 
     of his popularity to carry on the Haitian tradition of 
     government-by-personality cult. Now he needs to use the time 
     left in his term to broaden his governing skills. Mr. 
     Aristide is not much of an administrator.
       Mr. Aristide's senior officials operate with little 
     direction, and the country is still chaotically governed. The 
     simple necessities for doing business--such as electricity--
     are still in short supply. While there has been some domestic 
     investment, virtually no money has come into the country from 
     foreign investors, and international lending institutions are 
     leery of providing aid with few government structures in 
     place. Inflation, however, has fallen below 25 percent from 
     52 percent last year, and gross domestic product has risen by 
     3 percent, compared to a 10 percent decline last fiscal year.
       The recent highly flawed parliamentary elections--which 
     resulted in overwhelming victories for Mr. Aristide's Lavalas 
     Party--have left opposition parties feeling disgruntled and 
     cheated. Although there was little evidence of outright 
     fraud, the electoral commission was unacceptably 
     disorganized. The electoral commission's inept chairman was 
     dismissed, but reform of the commission itself has been 
     stalled.
       The United Nations force of 6,000--including 2,400 American 
     troops--is due to leave at the end of February. The new 
     police force has made a good start. Recruiting has been 
     selective, and officers have won confidence in neighborhoods 
     where police were regarded as the enemy. Reform of the 
     justice system is proceeding well, with judges and 
     prosecutors receiving training from international experts. 
     But with no civil service tradition, much of the government 
     bureaucracy is still dysfunctional.
       Given Haiti's violent history, simply calming the country's 
     polarized political climate is an impressive achievement. But 
     Mr. Aristide now needs to break his isolation, cooperating 
     with his senior ministers to come up with a coherent plan for 
     getting the country back on its feet.
       For now most Haitians are simply grateful that they can 
     sleep free from fear. But that gratitude will wear thin if 
     Mr. Aristide does not figure out how to take the next steps, 
     which include everything from creating jobs to collecting the 
     garbage.

                          ____________________