[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14706-S14707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENTS VOTES

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to explain 
several of my votes concerning H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations 
appropriation bill. I voted in favor of final passage of the bill 
because it would meet U.S. foreign relations and national security 
goals, while cutting spending in those areas that do not directly 
support the U.S. national security strategy.
  Many of the amendments offered to the bill concerned the question of 
responsibility the United States has in economically or militarily 
supporting other countries. I ran for this body on a platform fiscal 
conservatism and directing our foreign assistance programs towards 
those areas in which the United States has a direct political, 
economic, or national security interest. Although many arguments were 
raised as to what effect U.S. aid would 

[[Page S 14707]]
or would not have in the recipient country, my votes on the amendments 
turned more on the question of whether the national security of the 
United States was directly improved by the provision or withholding of 
this assistance.
  These principles led me to oppose the D'Amato amendment to cut 
Economic Support Fund assistance to Turkey, but support the Dole 
amendment on the transhipment of United States humanitarian aid. I 
believe the United States national security interests are best served 
by a strong and stable Turkish government, which has fully committed 
itself to the principles of open markets, democratic government, and 
the preservation of individual liberties.
  Turkey, in my opinion, is making progress on all these fronts, and 
relations with its neighbors are similarly changing, both with United 
States assistance and through other venues. Because of the potential 
for our relations with Turkey to quickly shift, I believe it is 
critical any conditions the Congress places upon assistance to Turkey 
provide the Executive with the tools necessary to adjust to those new 
circumstances. The D'Amato amendment cut almost half of the Economic 
Support Fund aid to Turkey without any method for the Executive to 
resume that aid if such leverage proves necessary or fruitful. For that 
reason I was unable to support the D'Amato amendment.
  The Dole amendment, however, provided such tools to the Executive, 
and I was therefore able to support this measure. Although the language 
of the amendment was universal in its application, the Majority Leader 
made clear his motivation for this measure was Turkey's refusal to 
allow the transhipment of United States humanitarian aid to Armenia. 
Because of the potential for a rapid shift in our national security 
objectives and relations with Turkey, this amendment provides the 
Executive the authority to waive its provisions if it is in the United 
States national security interests to do so. Given the strategic, 
political and economic importance of Turkey to the United States, I 
believe this is a vital provision. This language is even more expansive 
than the original Humanitarian Relief Corridor Act waiver language and 
I applaud its inclusion. Although the amendment was adopted by voice 
vote, if it had come to the floor for a roll call vote, I would have 
voted in favor of its adoption. I also wish to make it clear that if 
the progress I referred to earlier in the democratization and 
liberalization of Turkey does not continue and solidify, I may 
determine that requested levels of United States assistance are no 
longer serving our national interests.
  I also wish to explain my opposition to the Brown amendment allowing 
the transfer of previously purchased military equipment to Pakistan. 
This amendment was presented as an attempt to divest the United States 
of military equipment purchased by Pakistan, but withheld due to the 
implementation of the Pressler Amendment. I do not wish to argue the 
relative merits of the Pressler amendment itself, for that was not the 
issue. The issue was whether the United States should go back on its 
legislatively defined position that aid to Pakistan could only be 
provided if Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. The 
Pressler Amendment had been on the books for almost 5 years before it 
was finally implemented in 1990, and Pakistan knew full well what would 
happen if the President found it impossible to certify that Pakistan 
did not possess a nuclear explosive device. Pakistan continued those 
policies that led to this Presidential determination, and they must be 
willing to accept the consequences.
  This is not to imply our interests in South Asia are static. All 
parties must abandon the notion that United States relations with 
Pakistan and India are part of some regional zero-sum game. Measures 
the United States undertakes to improve relations with one country 
should not be interpreted as happening at the expense of the other 
country. But I believe allowing the introduction of significant 
military hardware at this critical juncture in South Asian relations 
would be contrary to our national interests and regional stability. 
Obviously, however, the affirmative vote on the Brown amendment 
indicates the Senate is moving in another direction. I therefore 
believe it is now time for the United States to move past this issue in 
our relations with India and Pakistan, and extend our relations with 
both countries, not at the expense of one or the other, but in tandem.
  As for my support for the Helms amendment regarding funding for the 
UN Population Fund [UNFPA], it is not because I am opposed to foreign 
assistance. Indeed, I believe it is vitally important we remain engaged 
in the international arena, and foreign assistance can be a powerful 
tool for the United States to further its political, economic, and 
national security goals. However, the history of our foreign assistance 
programs shows a repeated record of funding for controversial projects 
that do little to advance those goals. Given the demands to balance the 
budget and cut federal spending, I believe this program is extraneous 
to our foreign policy objectives.
  The UNFPA fully supports Chinese population control programs that 
include forced abortions and involuntary sterilization. These practices 
are contrary to the values of a large segment of my State's citizens, 
and I believe the citizens of the United States as well. That 
consideration, in fact, is why the Congress has previously mandated 
such United assistance to the UNFPA be separated from the Chinese 
programs. But I believe such separations are irrelevant given the 
inherent fungibility of money. The UNFPA simply shifts other donor 
countries contributions to China and use the United States 
contributions as a replacement in non-Chinese projects. The Helms 
amendment stops this elaborate shell game unless China ceases such 
practices or the UNFPA withdraws from this program, and brings such 
expenditures in line with the clear wishes of the American people. I 
therefore voted to adopt the Helms amendment.
  Finally, Mr. President, I wish to explain my vote regarding the Smith 
amendment prohibiting Most Favored Nation trading status with Vietnam, 
or the provision of trade financing incentives unless the President 
certifies they have been fully cooperative on the issues of United 
States POW/MIA's and human rights. The normalization of relations with 
Vietnam is a major development in United States foreign policy, and I 
have long been disappointed the Congress was not more fully brought 
into this process by the Administration. There are still substantial 
questions regarding the fate of United servicemen lost in South East 
Asia during the Vietnam War. I therefore voted for this amendment in 
the hope it would provide the leverage needed to obtain this crucial 
cooperation and information.
  However, given the amendment's rejection by a vote of 39 to 59, it is 
clear the Senate has decided to move forward in relations with Vietnam, 
and I am fully prepared to become involved in that process. The 
Administration has promised these initiatives towards Vietnam will more 
assuredly provide the United States the answers it needs regarding POWs 
and MIA's in South East Asia. I will monitor that progress closely over 
the next year, and make an independent evaluation as to whether these 
measures have indeed helped resolve these questions.
  Mr. President, it is difficult to analyze this myriad of issues in 
the pure vacuum of policy analysis. Different groups can have vastly 
different positions on issues, and each can defend those positions with 
a plethora of hard evidence and supporting statistics. However, by 
applying a standard of United national security interests to such 
decisions, I believe we can ensure that our international initiatives 
best meet our national strategies and goals, and further the 
establishment of democratic societies, free market economies and 
individual liberty.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________