[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S915-S919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1558. A bill to provide for reimbursement of States, political 
subdivisions, and persons that donated services, material, funds, or 
other things to allow the continued operation, during a period of time 
when appropriations were not available for the purpose, of all or any 
part of a public educational or recreational facility, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S916]]



                    government shutdown legislation

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this bill would require Federal 
agencies to reimburse States, localities, and individuals who donated 
funds and services to maintain operations at Federal recreational and 
tourist facilities during the recent Government shutdowns. Without 
these generous donations, attractions such as Grand Canyon National 
Park, Mount Rushmore, Carlsbad Caverns, the National Gallery of Art, 
Liberty Bell, and Independence Hall could not have continued operations 
during the lengthy Government closures last year. Thanks to the 
generosity of private citizens, States, and local governments we were 
able to ensure that innocent people were not turned away at the gates 
and that further economic loss was avoided.
  Grand Canyon visitors and local businesses particularly benefited 
from State and private donations during the most recent Government 
shutdown. As you know, Grand Canyon National Park officially closed for 
the first time in its 76-year history on November 16, 1995, during the 
first Government shutdown last year.
  The economic impact of the park's closure has been estimated at a 
loss of about $1 million per day in tourism revenue to the park and 
surrounding areas. By entering into an agreement with the Department of 
the Interior, the State of Arizona and private individuals donated 
almost $400,000 to prevent another park closure during the most recent 
Government shutdown which began on December 15, 1995, and lasted for 
more than 3 weeks.
  It is only right that we reimburse those who so generously donated 
their funds and services in order to shoulder the Federal Government's 
responsibility. I trust that my colleagues agree and that we can pass 
this bill expeditiously.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Heflin):
  S. 1559. A bill to make technical corrections to title 11, United 
States Code, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            the bankruptcy technical corrections act of 1996

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 1996. This bill will correct 
technical errors in the bankruptcy code resulting from the 1994 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 as well as pre-existing technical errors. 
I am introducing the bill with support of Senator Heflin, my good 
friend from Alabama and the ranking minority on the Courts 
subcommittee.
  Mr. President, with one exception, this bill makes purely technical 
changes in the Code. It is my hope that the bill will pass this body 
quickly and by unanimous consent.
  The sole substantive change contained in this bill relates to the 
special procedures set up for single asset real estate ventures. These 
procedures speed up the bankruptcy process in certain unique business 
situations. The 1994 bankruptcy bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly 
without a cap for the value of single asset cases, and the bill I am 
introducing today does no more than restore that provision.
  Again, I wish to thank Senator Heflin for expert assistance and help 
with this bill, and I urge the swift passage of the bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. D'Amato, and Mrs. 
        Feinstein):
  S. 1560. A bill to require Colombia to meet antinarcotics performance 
standards for continued assistance and to require a report on the 
counternarcotics efforts of Colombia; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


                 certification of colombia legislation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in recent weeks we have seen a variety 
of events in Colombia that raise serious doubts about the extent to 
which the Government of Colombia is taking the steps necessary to 
ensure full cooperation with the United States on the issue of drugs. 
We are now approaching the annual period for certification. Under U.S. 
law, the President is required to certify annually whether major drug 
trafficking and producing countries are cooperating fully with the 
United States to end drug production, trafficking, and related drug 
activities.
  Last year, we saw the Government of Colombia--facing the possibility 
of congressional sanctions--take more vigorous action to arrest several 
key figures in the Cali cocaine empire. Until that point the Government 
of Colombia had done little to arrest or prosecute these individuals. 
This was true even though their whereabouts was commonly known and they 
were frequently strutting around the streets of Colombia's major 
cities. I, among others of my colleagues, was encouraged by the steps 
taken to finally put these thugs behind bars. The courageous actions of 
Colombia's prosecutor general and the leading counterdrug police 
official--both brave and incorruptible individuals under daily threats 
of death--were welcome signs that despite massive corruption, Colombia 
was prepared to take effective action.

  But I did not believe then nor do I believe now that these arrests 
are enough. I indicated to the Government of Colombia on several 
occasions when senior officials visited me, that it was follow through 
that meant everything. I have written the Colombian ambassador and have 
indicated verbally to various cabinet members on state visits to the 
United States my concern that arrests were only a beginning.
  I also asked these various individuals for assurances that the major 
drug lords were under proper control. That they were not able to 
continue to direct their drug empires while living at state expense. 
That they would face serious punishment. That they would lose their 
stolen fortunes built on selling poison in this country. That they 
would give up information leading to efforts to dismantle their drug 
empires. And that adequate steps would be taken to deal with the 
corruption of Colombia's political system. A corruption that gave these 
kingpins freedom to violate Colombian, United States, and international 
law with impunity.
  I was assured that all these things were being done. But in the last 
several weeks, what do we see? Just a few weeks ago, one of the major 
Cali drug lords simply walked out of prison. It was hours before anyone 
even knew he was gone and steps were taken to find him. It is clear 
that his escape was arranged by his prison guards in his employment. It 
is also clear that he was never under adequate supervision. He remains 
at large trying to negotiate even better terms for his return to 
custody. If this is true for Santacruz Londono, it is also true of the 
other drug kingpins. If they can carry on these types of activities in 
jail under the very eyes--and often with the cooperation of their 
jailers--then what does this say about guarantees that they are not 
continuing to direct their business empire while in custody?
  I must say I have been very disappointed by these developments. But 
these are not all. In the last several days we have seen a former 
cabinet minister and close friend accuse the President of Colombia of 
knowingly collaborating with drug lords. These accusations come on top 
of similar reports from the former financial manager of the President's 
election campaign and from some of the Cartel leaders themselves. Tape 
recorded conversations indicating connections between senior government 
officials and drug lords are now part of the public record. These come 
in an environment in which our own sources indicate that there is 
extensive corruption of Colombia's legislative process stemming from 
these same drug lords. Just recently, the Colombian Congress only 
narrowly defeated a provision that would have given virtual amnesty to 
the drug lords and a guarantee that they could keep their illegal 
fortunes. In addition, massive shipments of cocaine in cargo jets and 
in commercial traffic continue to flood northward, while money 
laundering and financial manipulation are commonplace.

  All of these various developments come at a time when the President 
of the United States, as he is required to do by law, is considering 
whether or not to certify Colombia as fully cooperating with the United 
States in suppressing the drug trade. I am seriously concerned that the 
present state of developments in Colombia raises the most serious 
doubts about that certification. The fate of Colombia's president, 
whether he resigns or not under a cloud, is a purely Colombian matter. 
I leave that issue in the hands of the good citizens of Colombia. But 
the issue of certification is purely an 

[[Page S917]]
American matter. It is a policy concern for the President and for this 
body.
  Given the history I have just related, I must voice my serious 
concerns about whether Colombia meets even minimal standards for fully 
cooperating with the United States as is defined in the law. Moreover, 
as evidence accumulates about the degree of official corruption in 
Colombia at the highest levels, we must also consider a further 
requirement of the law that enjoins the President to suspend United 
States assistance. That is section 487 of the Foreign Assistance Act. 
This provision requires the United States to suspend assistance to 
institutions or governments when there is sufficient reason to believe 
that the assistance is going to known or suspected drug traffickers or 
their confederates.
  Mr. President, given current developments in Colombia. Given growing 
doubts about the integrity of the prison system. Given doubts about the 
integrity of the very political authorities who must receive and 
administer United States assistance and who are charged with enforcing 
Colombia's counterdrug policies. I believe it is time to reexamine our 
certification of Colombia.
  Last year, even though there were serious doubts about Colombia's 
cooperation, the President of the United States gave Colombia a 
national interest waiver. With the arrest of major cartel figures, it 
seemed as if we and Colombia were making progress in restoring 
confidence in Colombia's seriousness in dealing effectively with the 
drug cartels. Recent events, however, put all of that progress in 
doubt. They raise serious questions as to whether any of the arrests, 
as welcome as they are, have any real meaning. In a climate of high-
level corruption, in an environment in which the cartel leaders can 
come and go as they please, I must admit to a degree of disappointment 
after the assurances that I received to the contrary.
  In this regard, I am introducing a bill to limit United States 
assistance to Colombia and to require a thorough review of our 
relationship. This bill would require the President of the United 
States to review full decertification of Colombia and to consider what 
economic steps might be taken to force Columbia to take the steps that 
have so often promised but that have fallen short so many times. This 
is not a welcome step, but the drugs flowing to this country because of 
the activities of the Colombia drug lords must be stopped. We and the 
Colombians must recognize that promises and half measures are not 
sufficient.
 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend my 
colleague from Iowa for introducing this bill that will help to curb 
the international flow of drugs, particularly into the United States.
  Narcotics have become a scourge in our country and it is about time 
that we start to take action to eradicate it at all levels. Since 
illegal drugs found on our streets are most often produced in other 
countries, foreign nations must also take action to prevent the 
production, transportation and distribution of illegal drugs. So far, 
there has been very little action to make foreign countries accountable 
for the drugs trafficked in the United States. This bill, which focuses 
on Colombia, will do just that.
  According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, cocaine production, 
transportation and distribution has been managed primarily by the 
Colombian drug cartel, making cocaine available everywhere in the 
United States. The Cali cartel controls about 80 percent of the world's 
cocaine trafficking.
  The Colombian Government has not done enough to put an end to the 
drug problem. Last year, United States officials expressed 
disappointment with the cooperation level of the Colombian Government 
in the counternarcotics effort. However, the administration sought to 
waive the certification for Colombia and permit United States aid to 
continue for development in Colombia. In an effort to justify the 
financial assistance, this bill would require the President to certify 
to Congress that Colombia has begun to take the appropriate measures to 
limit the power of the drug traffickers and squash the flow of illegal 
drugs. Such methods include: the eradication of drug crops, 
interdiction of drug shipments, and the strengthening of the Colombian 
law enforcement and judicial authorities.
  It is only fair that American taxpayers, who pay for the foreign aid 
to Colombia, receive some assurance that the Colombian Government will 
attempt to reduce the production and distribution of drugs. With the 
recent disclosure of the ties between the Cali cartel and officials of 
the Colombia Government, the timing of this bill could not be any 
better.
  Various insiders of the Cali mafia have recounted the influence 
exerted by the Cali mafia on high level Colombian officials, all the 
way to the President of Colombia. A former campaign manager for 
President Ernesto Samper Pizano is currently jailed for soliciting 
contributions from drug traffickers in order to finance the Colombian 
presidential campaign. Fernando Botero Zea, who also served as 
Colombia's former defense minister, claims that Colombian President 
Samper knew about the money from the drug traffickers. It is suggested 
that his presidential campaign accepted $5.9 million from the Cali 
cartel.
  Colombia should be accountable for its failure to actively 
participate in the counternarcotics effort. This bill places pressure 
on the Colombian Government government to take steps to control the 
drug problem in Colombia. Any steps taken will have a direct effect on 
the flow of narcotics into the United States. But a failure to 
participate in the international counternarcotics effort should result 
in the loss of financial assistance provided by the United States.
  In light of recent developments in Colombia, I am pleased that my 
colleague is offering this bill and am proud to co-sponsor this 
important measure.
                                 ______


                             By Mr. HELMS:

  S. 1562. A bill to require the President to give notice of the 
intention of the United States to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic-
Missile Treaty, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


   the strategic anti-missile revitalization and security act of 1996

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there has never been a greater champion of 
ballistic missile defense than that great American, Ronald Wilson 
Reagan, and today happens to be President Reagan's 85th birthday. I 
decided this morning to introduce the Strategic Anti-missile 
Revitalization and Security Act of 1996--for short we call it the 
``STARS Act''--legislation proposing to begin the timely and complete 
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and to clear the way for implementing 
President Reagan's vision of a national strategic missile defense 
system to protect the American people from ballistic missile attack.
  Today's greatest emerging threat to America's national security lies 
in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We all know that. 
According to the CIA, at this moment more than 30 countries possess 
ballistic missiles, and more than 25 others either have, or are in the 
process of acquiring, nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
  Many of these nations--for example, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and 
North Korea--are clearly hostile to the United States. It is indeed 
probable that in the not-too-distant future a hostile tyrant will 
possess ballistic missiles capable of reaching major population centers 
in the United States.
  Obviously, Mr. President, with such an ominous threat emerging, one 
would assume that the United States would be actively developing 
defensive technology to protect the American people against this 
danger; and one would assume that the Clinton administration surely is 
working, in cooperation with a bipartisan majority in Congress, to make 
certain that the United States is never, never exposed to the danger of 
a hostile nuclear attack by a terrorist regime.
  Well, such assumptions are wrong. The Clinton administration in fact 
has aggressively blocked every effort by Congress to implement a 
national missile defense system to protect the American people from 
this very real threat.
  Why? Because, the administration argues weakly, developing such 
defenses would violate an antiquated arms control agreement--a relic of 
the cold war known as the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. President, the ABM Treaty is not only out-of-date and 
unnecessary--it 

[[Page S918]]
has become a threat to America's national security. Like latter-day 
Luddites, the opponents of ballistic missile defense are now using the 
ABM Treaty as a tool to obstruct any and all progress toward the 
deployment of missile defense technology.
  During debate over the defense authorization bill, for example, the 
opponents of ballistic missile defense stood on the Senate floor and 
used the ABM Treaty in a last-ditch effort to prevent Congress from 
passing legislation to deploy a national system to protect U.S. 
citizens against weapons of mass destruction. When they lost, President 
Clinton then used the ABM Treaty as an excuse to veto the defense 
authorization bill, thus preventing approval of funding for national 
missile defense.
  Mr. President, this treaty has become nothing more than an excuse for 
inaction. But the time for excuses is over. The United States needs a 
national missile defense. And if the ABM Treaty is preventing us from 
building and deploying essential defenses to protect the American 
people from even the most limited ballistic missile attack, then the 
time has come for the United States to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. President, my legislation will do just that. The STARS Act does 
three things:
  First, it directs the President to notify Russia of United States 
intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty 1 month after enactment of the 
act, as legally permitted by the ABM Treaty.
  Second, it prohibits the use of Federal funds to enforce the ABM 
Treaty beginning 7 months after the bill's enactment.
  Finaly, it requires the President to certify to Congress that the 
United States has abrogated the ABM Treaty on the date of U.S. 
withdrawal.
  Mr. President, through its blind allegiance to this obsolete treaty, 
the Clinton administration appears to be ready to leave the American 
people strategically naked as hostile nations rush forward to their 
relentless pursuit of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. 
Indeed, in their zeal to stop Congress from deploying national missile 
defenses, this administration seems willing to say or do anything to 
argue that the ballistic missile threat does not exist.
  I must say I was stunned when I noted the politicization of the most 
recent National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] to support the 
administration's position in this regard. The 1996 National 
Intelligence Estimate declared that no country other than the 
``declared nuclear powers'' would threaten the ``continental United 
States'' with a ballistic missile for 15 years. Note carefully that 
they said the ``continental United States''. First, this is simply not 
so. The 1995 estimate concluded, for example, that North Korea may be 
able to threaten the United States in 5 years because it is an 
indisputable fact that North Korea is developing a series of missiles 
with ranges in excess of 3000 kilometers.

  Second, I am astonished that this administration has somehow managed 
to write two of the 50 States of the Union completely out of the Union. 
I cannot understand why this administration draws a distinction in the 
1996 NIE between threats to the United States and threats to the 
continental United States. The last time I checked, nearly 2 million 
U.S. citizens live in Alaska and Hawaii. Are these people less 
deserving of protection than people living in Arkansas, or Michigan for 
that matter? I think not.
  Third, it boggles the mind that this administration can make 
decisions about the ballistic missile threat to this country, while 
explicitly ignoring the arsenals of declared nuclear powers. Communist 
China not only fields two dozen submarine launched ballistic missiles, 
several hundred heavy bomber warheads, and roughly 24 long- and medium-
range ballistic missiles, but has several modernization initiatives 
underway. China is developing for deployment by the end of the 
millennium four intermediate-range and long-range ballistic missile 
systems, and we have unambiguous evidence that China is pursuing MIRV-
technology.
  Nor can we afford to dismiss Russia's massive nuclear capabilities. 
Russia still has 12,000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, as it slips 
and slides back down the slippery-slope of political reform. When 
President Clinton declared in his State of the Union address that 
today, for the first time no Russian nuclear missiles are pointed at 
the United States, he just happened to omit the fact that it requires 
only about 8 minutes of reprogramming to turn those Russian missiles 
right back at us.
  We must not ignore in such cavalier fashion the trends to reinstate 
and restore communism in Russia. It is growing increasingly possible 
that Russia's massive nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of 
authoritarian leaders with uncertain intentions before the end of this 
century. We of course hope this will not happen, but we must prepare 
for the possibility.
  Even those who unwisely discount the possibility of direct conflict 
with potentially hostile regimes in Moscow and Beijing, must not 
discount the possibility of an accidental launch, nor the cooperation 
and collaboration between countries engaged in the development of 
ballistic missiles. We know, for example, that China has sold extensive 
missile technology to Iran, Syria, and North Korea; we know that Iran 
is working with North Korea and Syria on various missiles. We know that 
14 countries around the globe have the capability to field some type of 
Soviet-made missile, and we know that Russia recently was detected 
shipping ballistic missile parts to Iraq.
  These are all real threats that the administration would ignore at 
the peril of the American people, because the fact is, the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile 
technology is rampant, the threat of ballistic missile attack on the 
United States is a present and growing danger, and nothing is being 
done to protect the American people from it. The administration has an 
almost messianic devotion to the ABM Treaty which I find bizarre. There 
is, you see, far more concern about protecting a treaty not worth the 
paper it is written on, than with protecting American citizens against 
horrible nuclear attacks.
  So, Mr. President, the STARS Act, which I am introducing today, will 
remove the ABM Treaty as an obstacle, and instead pave the way for the 
deployment of defenses when necessary to protect American citizens 
against weapons of terror. And the sooner, the better. We cannot afford 
to wait until the administration wakes up and opens its eyes. By then, 
it may be too late. It takes years to move from the enactment of 
legislation in Congress to the deployment of a defensive system.
  If Congress passes legislation funding such a system this year, it 
may take as long as eight years before the system is operational.
  It may, in fact take longer. Think back. Did any Senator predict 8 
years ago the advanced stages of North Korea's nuclear program? Did 
anyone here know, before the fact, how close Iraq was to obtaining a 
nuclear weapon just prior to the start of the Gulf War? Is any Senator 
prepared to stake the security of the American people on blind faith? 
Thee are questions that we must confront.
  I am not. We must begin consideration of the STARS Act. Removing the 
ABM Treaty is critical to any strategy for protecting U.S. citizens 
against chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic 
missiles. In the coming months, I anticipate the introduction, under 
the auspices of the distinguished majority leader, of a comprehensive 
bill identifying the critical aspects of a ballistic missile defense. 
In support of this effort, and in connection with the STARS Act, the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will of which I am chairman, will 
hold hearings as soon as practicable to undertake a comprehensive 
review of the ABM Treaty. Providing for the defense of America against 
these weapons must be among our highest priorities during this session 
of Congress.
  Mr. President, Ronald Reagan said it best back in 1993, in one of his 
last public speeches--he had learned of the Clinton administration's 
decision to gut the Strategic Defense Initiative: ``I may not be a 
Rhodes Scholar'' he told the graduating cadets at The Citadel, ``but I 
do know one thing: if we can protect America with a defensive shield 
from incoming missiles, we should by all means do so. . . . (And) if 
the new Administration thinks we are no longer at risk, they need to 
open their eyes and take a good hard look at the world.''

[[Page S919]]

  Amen, Mr. President, and, again to you, sir, out there in California, 
happy birthday. It was a joy to hear your voice today on the telephone. 
God bless you--and as you always used to say--God bless America.
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1562

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Strategic Anti-Missile 
     Revitalization and Security Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Constitution vests in the Government of the United 
     States responsibility to provide for the common defense and 
     promote the general welfare of the American people.
       (2) Due to limitations imposed by the Anti-Ballistic 
     Missile Treaty, the United States is prohibited from 
     deploying a national missile defense capable of defending 
     America against even the most limited of ballistic missile 
     attack.
       (3) The concept of mutual assured destruction which 
     underlies the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is 
     technologically and geostrategically outdated and cannot 
     serve as a basis for stability in a multipolar world 
     characterized by rampant proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction and ballistic missile technology.
       (4) The possibility of ballistic missile attack upon the 
     United States by a rogue country constitutes a clear, 
     present, and growing threat to the supreme interests of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO GIVE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL.

       No later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall give notice to the Russian 
     Federation of the intention of the United States to withdraw 
     from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, as permitted under 
     Article XV of that Treaty.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITIONS.

       Beginning 210 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, appropriated funds shall not be obligated or expended 
     for the purposes of proscribing, enforcing, or implementing 
     any provision of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

     SEC. 5. ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.

       On the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
     notification of the President to the Russian Federation under 
     section 3, the President shall certify to Congress that the 
     Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is no longer interpreted to 
     apply to the development, deployment, or operation of any 
     missile defense system or air defense system of the United 
     States, including any component of such a system or upgrade 
     of such a system or component.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITION.

       As used in this Act, the term ``Anti-Ballistic Missile 
     Treaty'' means the Treaty Between the United States of 
     America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the 
     Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, signed at 
     Moscow on May 26, 1972, with related protocol, signed at 
     Moscow on July 3, 1974.

                          ____________________